BEE-spoke-data/napierone-pdf-raw · Datasets at Hugging Face

filename stringlengths 3 8	text stringlengths 5 18.6M	lang stringclasses 16 values
3483-pdf	\| Measure \| 13/14-Q4 \| 14/15-Q1 \| 14/15-Q2 \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|-------------\|-------------\| \| Magistrates' Court - Conviction Rate \| 84.4% \| 84.3% \| 83.8% \| \| Magistrates' Court - Percentage of GPs at 1st hearing \| 68.0% \| 70.7% \| 70.5% \| \| Magistrates' Court - Prosecutions dropped at 3rd or subsequent hearing \| 34.3% \| 35.7% \| 35.3% \| \| Crown Court - Conviction Rate \| 79.8% \| 80.1% \| 79.4% \| \| Crown Court - Timely Compliance with Judges' Order and Court Directions \| 81.2% \| 82.8% \| 81.2% \| \| Violence against Women - Conviction Rate \| 74.4% \| 74.2% \| 73.7% \| \| Hate Crime - Conviction Rate \| 84.7% \| 84.6% \| 83.9% \| \| Sickness Absence - Average Working Days Lost (days per person) \| 9.4 \| 9.6 \| 9.7 \| \| Employee Engagement Index* \| 53.0% \| 53.0% \| 53.0% \|	en
4868-pdf	\| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| Transaction Reference \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\|------------\|-------------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 573184 \| 79,215.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 PACS (IT) \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| ACCENTURE \| 568875 \| 70,159.59 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/06/2012 LAUNDRY DDH \| EXT CONTR LAUNDRY \| AIREDALE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 23137 \| 26,199.54 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 572632 \| 34,874.32 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 579780 \| 48,155.01 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| ARDENTIA LTD \| 571381 \| 44,049.77 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY \| 23273 \| 33,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| BUILDING AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS LTD \| 569855 \| 31,642.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 568911 \| 81,840.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 577160 \| 79,200.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 23064 \| 50,129.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 23445 \| 50,129.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 MYHT NURSE MANAGEMENT \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| CARE QUALITY COMMISION \| 23060 \| 100,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 577638 \| 3,568,684.10 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 575715 \| 44,050.13 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 575724 \| 33,535.67 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT \| 23070 \| 25,037.89 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 RETINAL SCREENING DIABETES \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| DIGITAL HEALTHCARE LTD \| 578949 \| 30,727.82 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| DTZ DEBENHAM TIE LEUNG \| 574169 \| 59,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| DTZ DEBENHAM TIE LEUNG \| 580234 \| 24,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 573023 \| 68,507.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 573024 \| 69,663.19 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 573025 \| 62,989.02 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 575149 \| 32,096.79 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 VOLUNTARY SERV PGH & PGI \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| GATEWAY COMPUTING LIMITED \| 573349 \| 31,480.35 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 \| 574562 \| 27,120.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| HEALTHCARE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS \| 568675 \| 38,467.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 569630 \| 58,844.70 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 569630 \| 4,068.84 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 MRI SERVICE \| INDEPENDENT SECTOR \| INHEALTH LTD \| 577153 \| 48,719.94 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/06/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| KPMG LLP \| 577599 \| 21,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE \| SENIOR LECTURER \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23012 \| 80,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 NEPHROLOGY PGH \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23034 \| 27,586.50 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 CLINICAL PHYSICS \| CLINICAL SCIENTIST BAND 8 \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23036 \| 49,250.25 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 CLINICAL PHYSICS \| MTO BAND 6 \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23036 \| 21,679.25 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/06/2012 THERAPIES SLA \| HEALTHCARE SRV REC PCTS \| LOCALA COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS C.I.C \| 577159 \| 45,423.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 GENERAL OFFICE PGH \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C \| 577745 \| 30,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 22988 \| 115,401.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 22990 \| 41,767.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/06/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 23388 \| 79,913.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/06/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 23390 \| 2,843,071.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 568647 \| 58,462.25 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 568647 \| 16,014.95 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 571203 \| 15,592.89 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 571203 \| 56,225.32 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 571784 \| 16,410.05 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 571784 \| 57,243.85 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 573386 \| 14,958.06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 573386 \| 62,861.39 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 575208 \| 14,483.43 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 575208 \| 67,119.10 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE BAND 1 \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 576871 \| 14,793.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 576871 \| 57,037.56 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 578711 \| -35,011.20 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22896 \| 23,944.26 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22897 \| 78,251.78 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22898 \| 23,710.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22900 \| 169,919.55 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22901 \| 24,350.35 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22915 \| 137,744.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22941 \| 52,679.90 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22942 \| 111,041.36 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 22981 \| 61,302.81 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23030 \| 71,783.47 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23031 \| 160,046.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23145 \| 132,423.14 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23146 \| 90,367.37 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23226 \| 201,981.17 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23227 \| 96,914.46 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|---------\|-------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 572600 \| 178,219.08 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 577268 \| 33,884.69 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 580779 \| 41,465.16 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 SLEEP SERVICE \| GENERAL MATERIALS \| PHILIPS RESPIRONICS \| 568823 \| 40,214.40 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| IT ADDITIONS \| PREMIER TELESOLUTIONS \| 572865 \| 27,715.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS \| RADIOMETER LTD \| 565039 \| 28,110.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 575733 \| 57,212.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 575735 \| 78,220.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 578196 \| 73,332.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY \| 554983 \| 35,860.27 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY \| 577292 \| -35,860.27 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY \| 577748 \| -35,860.27 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY \| 577749 \| 35,860.27 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| SOUTHERN ELECTRIC \| 570853 \| 64,494.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SYNTHES LTD \| 557809 \| 45,406.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SYNTHES LTD \| 575411 \| -45,406.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| SYNTHES LTD \| 575416 \| 76,971.02 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 15/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| TOTAL GAS & POWER \| 573408 \| 44,864.56 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL \| 575120 \| 58,048.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL \| 577171 \| 101,094.20 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 578943 \| 549.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 578943 \| 35,581.28 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| EDENRED \| 20860 \| 58,056.86 \|	en
4162-pdf	## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Adult 16+ (V2) National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Instructions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...2-3 Diary examples……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4-15 Practice Pages……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16-22 Examples and advice on food descriptions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23-29 Pictures for food portion size guidance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...30-33 Breakfast cereals Rice Spaghetti Chips Broccoli or cauliflower Stew or curry Battered fish Quiche/Pie Cheese Sponge cake Drink volume guidance………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………34-35 Pictures for spoon size……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...36 "The 4-day diary"…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37-68 General questions about your diet during the recording period..………………………………………………………………………………69-74 If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS Team at NatCen on freephone 0800 652 4572 between 8.30am-5.30pm. PLEASE READ THROUGH THESE PAGES BEFORE STARTING YOUR DIARY We would like you to keep this diary of everything you eat and drink over 4 days. Please include all food consumed at home and outside the home e.g. work, college or restaurants. It is very important that you do not change what you normally eat and drink just because you are keeping this record. Please keep to your usual food habits. Day and Date Please write down the day and date at the top of the page each time you start a new day of recording. Time Slots Please note the time of each eating occasion into the space provided. For easy use each day is divided into sections, from the first thing in the morning to late evening and through the night. Where and with whom? For each eating occasion, please tell us what room or part of the house you were in when you ate, e.g. kitchen, living room, if you ate at your work canteen, a restaurant, fast food chain or your car, write that location down. We would also like to know who you share your meals with, e.g. whether you ate alone or with others. If you ate with others please describe their relationship to you e.g. partner, children, colleagues, or friends. We would also like to know when you ate at a table and when you were watching television whilst eating. For those occasions where you were not at a table or watching TV please write 'Not at table' or 'No TV' rather than leaving it blank. What do you eat? Please describe the food you eat in as much detail as possible. Be as specific as you can. Pages 23-29 will help with the sort of detail we need, like cooking methods (fried, grilled, baked etc) and any additions (fats, sugar/sweeteners, sauces, pepper etc). ##  Homemade Dishes If you have eaten any homemade dishes e.g. chicken casserole, please record the name of the recipe, ingredients with amounts (including water or other fluids) for the whole recipe, the number of people the recipe serves, and the cooking method. Write this down in the recipe section at the end of the record day. Record how much of the whole recipe you have eaten in the portion size column (see examples on pages 4 - 15). ##  Take-Aways And Eating Out If you have eaten take-aways or made up dishes not prepared at home such as at a restaurant or a friend's house, please record as much detail about the ingredients as you can e.g. vegetable curry containing chickpeas, aubergine, onion and tomato. Brand name Please note the brand name (if known). Most packed foods will list a brand name, e.g. Bird's Eye, Hovis, or supermarket own brands. ##  Labels/Wrappers Labels are an important source of information for us. It helps us a great deal if you enclose, in the plastic bag provided, labels from all ready meals, labels from foods of lesser known brands and also from any supplements you take. Portion sizes Examples for how to describe the quantity or portion size you had of a particular food or drink are shown on pages 23-29. For foods, quantity can be described using:  household measures, e.g. one teaspoon (tsp) of sugar, two thick slices of bread, 4 tablespoons (tbsp) of peas, ½ cup of gravy. Be careful when describing amounts in spoons that you are referring to the correct spoon size. Compare the spoons you use with the life size pictures on page 36 of this diary.  weights from labels, e.g. 4oz steak, 420g tin of baked beans, 125g pot of yoghurt  number of items, e.g. 4 fish fingers, 2 pieces of chicken nuggets, 1 regular size jam filled doughnut  picture examples for specific foods on pages 30-33 (for adults only). For drinks, quantity can be described using:  the size of glass, cup etc (e.g. large glass) or the volume (e.g. 300ml). Examples of typical drinks containers are on pages 34-35. If you are able, please measure your usual drinking vessel and record the volume on page 34  volumes from labels (e.g. 330ml can of fizzy drink). We would like to know the amount that was actually eaten which means taking leftovers into account. You can do this in two ways: 1. Record what was served and make notes of what was not eaten e.g. 3 tbsp of peas, only 2 tbsp eaten; 1 large sausage roll, ate only ½ 2. Only record the amount actually eaten i.e. 2 tbsp of peas, ½ a large sausage roll Was it a typical day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a typical day or whether there were any reasons why you ate and drank more or less than usual. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. Supplements At the end of each recording day there is a section for providing information about any supplements you took. Brand name, full name of supplement, strength and the amount taken should be recorded. When to fill in the diary Please record your eating as you go, not from memory at the end of the day. Use written notes on a pad if you forget to take your diary with you. Each diary day covers a 24hr period, so please include any food or drinks that you may have had during the night. Remember to include foods and drinks between meals (snacks) including water. Overleaf you can see 2 example days that have been filled in by different people. These examples show you how we would like you to record your food and drink, for example a ready meal and a homemade dish. Your instruction booklet contains further examples such as how to describe food eaten in a restaurant. It only takes a few minutes for each eating occasion! For your convenience a separate booklet with instructions and examples is provided. T T Th h ha a an n nk k k y y yo o ou u u f f fo o or r r y y yo o ou u ur r r t t ti i im m me e e – – - w w we e e r r re e ea a al l ll l ly y y a a ap p pp p pr r re e ec c ci i ia a at t te e e i i it t t! ! ! \| Day: \| Thurs \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------\| \| Time \| \| \| Where? \| \| \| Food/Drink description & preparation \| \| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| With Whom? \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| At table? \| \| \| \| \| \| How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 \| \| \| 6am to 9am \| \| \| 6.30 \| \| \| am \| \| \| Filter coffee, decaffeinated \| \| \| milk (fresh, semi-skimmed) \| \| \| Sugar white \| \| \| Kitchen \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| \| \| 7.30 \| \| \| am \| \| \| \| \| \| Kitchen \| \| \| Partner \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| At table \| \| \| \| \| \| Filter coffee with milk and sugar \| \| \| \| \| \| Cornflakes \| \| \| \| \| \| Milk (fresh, semi-skimmed) \| \| \| \| \| \| Toast, granary medium sliced \| \| \| \| \| \| Light spread \| \| \| \| \| \| Marmalade \| \| \| \| \| \| 9am to 12 noon \| \| \| 10.15 \| \| \| am \| \| \| Instant coffee, not decaffeinated \| \| \| Milk (fresh, whole) \| \| \| Sugar brown \| \| \| \| \| \| Office desk \| \| \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| \| \| 11 am \| Digestive biscuit - chocolate coated on one side \| \| \| \| \| Office desk \| \| \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| \| quantity eaten Douwe Egberts Silverspoon Mug A little 1 level tsp As above Tesco's own Hovis Flora Hartleys As above 1b drowned 1 slice med spread 1 heaped tsp Unknown brand Mug A little 1 level tsp McVities 2 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 12.30 pm Tea room at work Colleagues No TV At table Ham salad sandwich from home Bread, wholemeal, thick sliced Light spread Low fat Mayonnaise Smoked ham thinly sliced Lettuce, iceberg Cucumber with skin Unsweetened orange juice from canteen Apple with skin from home, Braeburn 2pm to 5pm 3 pm Meeting room at work With supervisor No TV Not at table Tea, decaffeinated Milk (fresh, whole) Jaffa cake - mini variety quantity eaten Tesco's own Flora Hellmans Tesco's own Tropicana 2 slices thin spread on 1 slice 2 teaspoons 2 slices 1 leaf 4 thin slices 250ml carton medium size, core left Mug Some 6 Twinings Tesco's own McVities Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm 6.30 pm Pub Partner TV on At table Gin Tonic water diet Lager 3.8% alcohol Salted peanuts 8 pm Dining room Family No TV At table Spaghetti, wholemeal Bolognese sauce (see recipe) Courgettes (fried in butter) Tinned peaches in juice (juice drained) Single cream UHT Orange squash No Added Sugar 8pm to 10pm Grapes, green, seedless Chocolates, chocolate creams Potato crisps, Prawn Cocktail 9 pm Sitting room Alone TV on Not at table 10pm to 6am 10.30 pm Camomile tea (no milk or sugar) Bed room Partner No TV Not at table quantity eaten Gordon's Schweppes Draught, Carlsberg KP Single measure 1/2 small glass 1 pint 1 handful Tesco's own 3b 6 tablespoons 4 tablespoons 3 halves 1 tablespoon Prince's Sainsbury's own cream Sainsbury's own 200ml glass, 1 part squash, 3 parts tap water Bendicks Walkers 15 2 25g bag (from multipack) Twinings 1 mug  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today?  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes NAME OF DISH: Bolognese sauce SERVES: 4 Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Co-op low fat beef mince 500g mixed herbs 1 dessertspoon garlic 3 cloves Lea & Perrins worcester sauce dash onion 1 medium sweet red pepper 1 medium Napoli chopped tomatoes 400g tin Tesco tomato puree 1 tablespoon Tesco olive oil 1 tablespoon Brief description of cooking method Fry onion & garlic in oil, add mince and fry till brown. Add pepper, tomatoes, puree, Worcester sauce & herbs. Simmer for 30 mins \| Day: \| Friday \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\| \| Time \| \| \| Where? \| \| \| Food/Drink description & preparation \| \| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| With Whom? \| \| \| At table? \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 \| \| \| 6am to 9am \| \| \| 8.00 \| Cappuccino, no sugar \| \| am \| \| \| Café take away - \| \| \| eating on my way \| \| \| to work \| \| \| Alone \| Blueberry muffin, regular not low fat \| \| Tap water \| \| \| 8.45 \| \| \| am \| \| \| Office desk \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| 9am to 12 noon \| \| \| 10 am Office desk \| \| \| Banana \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| Black tea \| \| \| Semi-skimmed milk, no sugar \| \| quantity eaten Starbucks Medium size Starbucks One 300 ml glass One, medium size Typhoo Asda Large Mug A lot Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? At table? TV on? 12 noon to 2pm 1 pm Work tea room With colleague No TV At table Crayfish sandwich multiseed bread, wholemeal, medium cut, crayfish in lemon mayonnaise, no other spread rocket leaves Apple & Raspberry fruit drink 2pm to 5pm 4.30 pm Coffee, instant Semi-skimmed milk Fairy Cake, homemade, see recipe Friend's House Lounge With Friend Not at table TV on quantity eaten M&S pre-packed Sandwich 2 slices Medium filling 6 to 8 1 bottle, 275ml J2O Kenco Medium mug A lot 1 cake Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? Time slot At table? TV on? 5pm to 8pm 7.30 pm Chicken in creamy mushroom and white wine sauce for 2, oven Kitchen/Diner With boyfriend At table No TV White rice, boiled Wine 13% alcohol 8pm to 10pm 9.15 Squash, apple & blackcurrant, no added sugar, pm Sitting Room With boyfriend Not at table TV on Crisps 10pm to 6am 11.30 Water tap 1 medium glass pm Bedroom Alone Not at table TV on quantity eaten ½ pack Sainsbury's, 370g (wrapper collected) 2C Easy cook, Italian, Sainsbury's Sauvignon Blanc, New Zealand 1 small glass, 125ml Sainsbury's 1 average glass, 200ml 5 Pringles, sour cream and chives Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today?  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Holland & Barrett Evening Primrose Oil - 1000mg 1 capsule Holland & Barrett Super EPA fish oil - 1000mg 1 capsule ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes NAME OF DISH: Fairy Cakes SERVES: makes 20 cakes Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Tate & Lyle caster sugar 175g Silver Spoon icing sugar 140g Anchor butter, unsalted 175g Yellow food colouring 3 drops eggs 3 water 2 tablespoons Homepride self-raising flour 175g Baking powder 1 teaspoon Mix together and bake for 15 min. Mix icing sugar with water and add colouring. Approx. 1 teaspoon of icing on each cake ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am Practice Page 9am to 12 noon Practice Page quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm Practice Page 2pm to 5pm Practice Page quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \|  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons \| Ingredients \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Bacon \| \| \| \| Back, middle, streaky; smoked or un-smoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or \| \| \| \| fried in oil/fat (type used) or grilled rashers \| \| \| \| Number of rashers \| \| \| \| Baked beans \| Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar \| Spoons, weight of tin \| \| Beefburger \| \| \| \| (hamburger) \| \| \| \| Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of \| \| \| \| oil/fat), microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, \| \| \| \| with or without salad e.g. lettuce, tomato \| \| \| \| Large or small, ounces or \| \| \| \| in grams if info on \| \| \| \| package \| \| \| \| Beer \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. stout, bitter, lager; draught, canned, bottled; % \| \| \| \| alcohol or low-alcohol or home-made \| \| \| \| Number of pints or half \| \| \| \| pints, size of can or bottle \| \| \| \| Biscuits \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or \| \| \| \| half coated), shortbread, home-made \| \| \| \| Number, size (standard \| \| \| \| or mini variety) \| \| \| \| Bread \| \| \| \| (see also sandwiches) \| \| \| \| Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or \| \| \| \| small loaf; sliced or unsliced loaf \| \| \| \| Number of slices; thick, \| \| \| \| medium or thin slices \| \| \| \| Bread rolls \| Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft \| Size, number of rolls \| \| Breakfast cereal (see \| \| \| \| also porridge) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; \| \| \| \| Muesli - with added fruit, no added sugar/salt variety \| \| \| \| Spoons or picture 1 \| \| \| \| Buns and pastries \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type \| \| \| \| of pastry; homemade or bought \| \| \| \| Size, number \| \| \| \| Butter, margarine & fat \| \| \| \| spreads \| \| \| \| Give full product name \| \| \| \| Thick/average/thin \| \| \| \| spread; spoons \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Cake \| \| \| \| What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; \| \| \| \| type of filling e.g. buttercream, jam \| \| \| \| Individual or size of slice, \| \| \| \| packet weight, picture 10 \| \| \| \| Cereal bars \| \| \| \| What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified \| \| \| \| with vitamins/minerals \| \| \| \| Weight/size of bar; from \| \| \| \| multipack \| \| \| \| Cheese \| Type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat \| \| \| Picture 9, or number of \| \| \| \| slices, number of spoons \| \| \| \| Chips \| \| \| \| Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); \| \| \| \| thick/straight/crinkle/fine cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking \| \| \| \| Picture 4, number of \| \| \| \| spoons, number of chips \| \| \| \| Chocolate(s) \| What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling; \| Weight/size of bar \| \| Coffee \| \| \| \| With milk (see section on milk); half milk/half water; all milk; \| \| \| \| ground/filter, instant; decaffeinated. If café/takeaway, was it \| \| \| \| cappuccino, latte etc \| \| \| \| Cups or mugs, size of \| \| \| \| takeaway e.g. small. \| \| \| \| medium \| \| \| \| Cook-in sauces \| \| \| \| What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or \| \| \| \| cheese based; does meat or veg come in sauce; jar or can \| \| \| \| Spoons, size of can or jar \| \| \| \| Cream \| \| \| \| Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, \| \| \| \| UHT/Longlife; imitation cream e.g. Elmlea \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Crisps \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; low-fat or \| \| \| \| low-salt; premium variety e.g. Kettle chips, Walker's Sensations \| \| \| \| Packet weight, standard \| \| \| \| or from multipack \| \| \| \| Custard \| \| \| \| Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, \| \| \| \| instant, ready to serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Egg \| \| \| \| Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); \| \| \| \| type of oil/fat, milk added \| \| \| \| Number of eggs, large, \| \| \| \| medium or small \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Fish (including canned) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cod, tuna; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached \| \| \| \| (water or milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in \| \| \| \| oil, brine or tomato sauce \| \| \| \| Size of can or spoons \| \| \| \| (for canned fish) or \| \| \| \| picture 7 for battered fish \| \| \| \| Fish cakes & fish fingers \| \| \| \| Type of fish; plain or battered or in breadcrumbs; fried, grilled, \| \| \| \| baked or microwaved; economy \| \| \| \| Size, number, \| \| \| \| packet weight \| \| \| \| Fruit - fresh \| What sort; eaten with or without skin \| Small, medium or large \| \| Fruit - stewed/canned \| \| \| \| What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice \| \| \| \| or syrup eaten \| \| \| \| Spoons, weight of can \| \| \| \| Fruit - juice (pure) \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) or \| \| \| \| carton size \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; \| \| \| \| pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; freshly squeezed; added \| \| \| \| vitamins/minerals, omega 3 \| \| \| \| Ice cream \| Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium \| Spoons/ scoops \| \| Jam, honey \| What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought/brand or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, \| \| \| \| or thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Marmalade \| Type; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought/brand or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, \| \| \| \| or thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Meat (see also bacon, \| \| \| \| burgers & sausages) \| \| \| \| What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat \| \| \| \| removed or eaten; skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or \| \| \| \| without gravy \| \| \| \| Large/small/medium, \| \| \| \| spoons, or picture 6 for \| \| \| \| stew portion \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Milk \| \| \| \| What sort; whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed or 1% fat; fresh, \| \| \| \| sterilized, UHT, dried; soya milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' \| \| \| \| milk, rice milk, oat milk; flavoured; fortified with added vitamins \| \| \| \| and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Pints, glass (size or \| \| \| \| volume) or cup. \| \| \| \| On cereal: \| \| \| \| damp/normal/ \| \| \| \| drowned \| \| \| \| . In tea/coffee: \| \| \| \| a \| \| \| \| little/some/a lot \| \| \| \| Nuts \| What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted \| Packet weight, handful \| \| Pie (sweet or savoury) \| What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry \| \| \| Individual or slice, or \| \| \| \| picture 8 \| \| \| \| Pizza \| \| \| \| Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; \| \| \| \| stuffed crust \| \| \| \| Individual, slice, fraction \| \| \| \| of large pizza e.g. ¼ \| \| \| \| Porridge \| \| \| \| Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk \| \| \| \| and/or water; added sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream \| \| \| \| Bowls, spoons \| \| \| \| Potatoes \| \| \| \| (see also chips) \| \| \| \| Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed \| \| \| \| (with butter/spread and with or without milk); fried/chips (type of \| \| \| \| oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter \| \| \| \| Mash - spoons, number \| \| \| \| of half or whole potatoes, \| \| \| \| small or large potatoes \| \| \| \| Pudding \| \| \| \| What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant \| \| \| \| desserts; milk puddings \| \| \| \| Spoons, picture 10 for \| \| \| \| slice of sponge \| \| \| \| Rice \| \| \| \| What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or \| \| \| \| brown; boiled or fried (type of oil/fat) \| \| \| \| Spoons or picture 2 \| \| \| \| Salad \| Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) \| \| \| Amount of each \| \| \| \| component \| \| \| ## \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Sandwiches and rolls \| \| \| \| Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of \| \| \| \| filling; including salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, \| \| \| \| where from? \| \| \| \| Number of rolls or slices \| \| \| \| of bread; amount of \| \| \| \| butter/margarine (on both \| \| \| \| slices?); amount of filling \| \| \| \| Sauce - cold (including \| \| \| \| mayonnaise) \| \| \| \| Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, \| \| \| \| mayonnaise; low fat; \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Sauce - hot (see also \| \| \| \| cook-in sauces) \| \| \| \| What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; for gravy - made with \| \| \| \| granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices \| \| \| \| Sausages \| What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat \| Large or small, number \| \| Sausage rolls \| Type of pastry \| \| \| Size - jumbo, standard, \| \| \| \| mini \| \| \| \| Scone \| Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour; homemade \| Small, medium or large \| \| Savoury snacks - in \| \| \| \| packet \| \| \| \| What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels \| \| \| \| Size (standard or mini \| \| \| \| variety), packet weight \| \| \| \| Smoothies \| \| \| \| If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. \| \| \| \| fruit, milk/yoghurt, fruit juice \| \| \| \| Glass or bottle (size or \| \| \| \| volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - squash/ \| \| \| \| concentrate/cordial \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified \| \| \| \| with added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - \| \| \| \| carbonated/fizzy \| \| \| \| Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free \| \| \| \| Glass, can or bottle (size \| \| \| \| or volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - ready to \| \| \| \| drink \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; real fruit juice? If \| \| \| \| so, how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass, carton or bottle \| \| \| \| (size or volume) \| \| \| ## \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Soup \| \| \| \| What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending \| \| \| \| machine. If home-made, give recipe \| \| \| \| Spoons, bowl or mug \| \| \| \| Spaghetti, other pasta \| \| \| \| What sort; fresh/chilled or dried; white, wholemeal; canned in \| \| \| \| sauce; type of filling if ravioli, cannelloni etc \| \| \| \| Spoons (or how much \| \| \| \| dry pasta) or picture 3 \| \| \| \| Spirits \| What sort: e.g. whisky, gin, vodka, rum \| Measures as in pub \| \| Sugar \| \| \| \| Added to cereals, tea, coffee, fruit, etc; what sort; e.g. white, brown, \| \| \| \| demerara \| \| \| \| Heaped or level \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| Sweets \| What sort: e.g. toffees, boiled sweets, diabetic, sugar-free \| Number, packet weight \| \| Tea \| With/without milk (see section on milk); decaffeinated, herb \| Mugs or cups \| \| Vegetables (not \| \| \| \| including potatoes) \| \| \| \| What sort; how cooked/raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce \| \| \| \| Spoons, number of \| \| \| \| florets or sprouts, weight \| \| \| \| from tins or packet \| \| \| \| Wine, sherry, port \| White, red; sweet, dry; % alcohol or low-alcohol \| Glass (size or volume) \| \| Pot size or spoons \| \| \| \| Yoghurt (inc drinking \| \| \| \| yoghurt), fromage frais \| \| \| \| What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, \| \| \| \| very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; \| \| \| \| fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic \| \| \| \| Home-made dishes \| \| \| \| Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if \| \| \| \| you can in the section provided) and how many persons it serves \| \| \| \| Spoons - heaped or \| \| \| \| level, number, size, or \| \| \| \| proportion of recipe e.g. \| \| \| \| ½ of recipe \| \| \| \| Ready-made meals \| \| \| \| Full description of product; does it contain any accompaniments \| \| \| \| e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven \| \| \| \| cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label \| \| \| \| and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag \| \| \| \| Packet weight (if didn't \| \| \| \| eat whole packet \| \| \| \| describe portion \| \| \| \| consumed) \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| \|---------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Take-away food or food \| \| eaten out \| \| Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you \| \| can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonald's \| \| Spoons, portion size e.g. \| \| small/medium/large \| bowl, 6.3 inches (16cm). information is required about them. Remember that the pictures are much smaller than life size. Use the pictures to help you indicate the size of the portion you have eaten. The tables on pages 23-29 also give examples of foods that you might eat and how much Write on the food record the picture number and size A, B or C nearest to your own helping. The actual size of the dinner plate is 10 inches (25cm), the side plate, 7 inches (18cm), and the ## Typical Quantities Of Drinks In Various Containers Measured In Millilitres (Ml) \| Small \| Average \| Large \| Vending \| \|------------\|------------\|----------\|------------\| \| glass \| glass \| glass \| cup \| \| Soft \| 150 \| 200 \| 300 \| \| drinks \| \| \| \| \| Wine \| 125 \| 175 \| 250 \| \| Hot drinks \| 170 \| 190 \| 260 \| Glasses come in different shapes and sizes. On the next page is a life size glass showing approximate volumes. You can use this picture as a guide for estimating how much volume of drink the glass you are drinking from holds. ## Day 1 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? Portion size or With Whom? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am 9am to 12 noon quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \|  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: Serves: \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## Day 2 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? Portion size or With Whom? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am 9am to 12 noon quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \|  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \|-------------------------------------\| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: Serves: \| Ingredients \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method ## Day 3 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \|  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## Day 4 Please remember to complete the general questions on pages 69-74! Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \|  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \|-------------------------------------\| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| NAME OF DISH: Serves: Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## General Questions About Your Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did You Follow A Special Diet During The Recording Period? (Please Tick And Provide More Information If Necessary) a) To lose weight b) To gain weight c) For medical reasons e.g. to lower cholesterol. Details: d) Other e.g. vegetarian. Details: e) No special diet ## Milk 2. Which Type Of Milk Did You Use Most Often During The Recording Period? \| Whole, fresh, \| \| Semi-skimmed fresh, \| \| \|-------------------\|-------------\|-------------------------\|-------------\| \| pasteurised \| pasteurised \| pasteurised \| pasteurised \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Dried \| \| \| \| \| Type \| \| \| \| \| Soya \| \| \| \| \| Type \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| Type \| \| \| \| \| Did not \| \| \| \| \| use \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea and coffee 3. How much milk did you usually have in coffee/ tea? Coffee A lot Some A little None/did not drink Tea A lot Some A little None/did not drink 4. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with sugar? \| \| \| Coffee \| Yes \| How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \|-----\|-----\|----------------------------------\|---------\|-------------------------------------\|-----\|----------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Yes \| How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \| \| 5. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with artificial sweetener? \| \| \| \| Coffee \| Yes \| \| How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\|--------\|---------------------------------------------\|--------\|------------------\|------------------------------------------------\|-------\|----------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Yes \| \| How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6. Did you drink decaffeinated coffee/ tea during the recording period? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Coffee \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Breakfast cereals 7. How much milk did you usually have on breakfast cereal? Drowned Average Damp None/did not eat 8. How did you usually make your porridge? \| \| With all water \| \| With all milk \| \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \|-----\|-------------------\|-----\|------------------\|-----\|-------------------------\|-----------------\| 9. Did you usually sweeten or salt your porridge? With sugar With honey With salt Neither/did not eat 10. How did you usually make your instant oat cereal? \| \| With all water \| \| With all milk \| \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \|-----\|-------------------\|-----\|------------------\|-----\|-------------------------\|-----------------\| 11. Did you usually sweeten or salt your instant oat cereal? With sugar With honey With salt Neither/did not eat Name: None Fats for spreading and cooking 12. Which type of butter, margarine or other fat spread did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name and fat content e.g. Flora Omega 3 plus, low fat spread, 38% fat, polyunsaturated 13. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers etc? Thick Medium Thin N/A Name: None 14. Which type of cooking fat/oil did your household use most often over the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Sainsbury's sunflower oil Bread 15. Which type of bread did you eat most often during the recording period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other Type Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 16. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? Large Small 17. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? Thick Medium Thin Unsliced N/A ## Meat 18. If You Ate Meat During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Visible Fat? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat meat 19. If you ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat poultry ## Fruit And Vegetables 20. If You Ate Apples During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 21. If you ate pears during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 22. If you ate new potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 23. If you ate baked/jacket potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat ## Salt 24. Do You Add Salt To Your Food At The Table? \| \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \|-----\|------------\|-----\|--------------\|-----\|----------\|-----\| 25. Do you add salt substitute to your food at the table? e.g. LoSalt \| \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \|-----\|------------\|-----\|--------------\|-----\|----------\|-----\| Water 26. Which type of water did you drink most often during the recording period? \| \| Tap \| \| \|-------\|---------\|-----\| \| brand \| \| \| \| \| Did not \| \| \| drink \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Cordial/Squash/Diluting Juice 27. Which Type Of Squash/Cordial Did You Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie 28. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: 29. How much do you usually dilute your squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: If you are able to, please use a measuring jug to measure your usual drinking vessels e.g. mug, glass, cup etc. and provide the volumes below ## Thank You For Completing This Diary. Acknowledgements Thanks for permission to use pictures from: Nelson, M., Atkinson, M. & Meyer, J. (1997). A Photographic Atlas of Food Portion Sizes. London, MAFF Publications. ## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary ## Children Aged 4 To 15 Years (V2) How To Fill In Your Diary It is very important that you do not change what you normally eat or drink just because you are keeping a diary. Try to write down what you are eating or drinking as soon as you can and not leave it until the end of the day. Record food and drink eaten at home and away from home, such as at school or at a friend's house. Whenever you have something to eat or drink write down: When: Each day is divided into time slots from first thing in the morning until late at night until the following morning. Find the appropriate time slot and record the exact time when you eat or drink something in the "time" column. Where: This could be Home Bedroom Away Street, Car/Bus, Café/ Restaurant (specify McDonald's, Pizza Hut etc.) School Canteen, Classroom, Playground With Whom: This could be Alone With family With friends At table: Were you sitting at a table whilst eating or drinking? If yes, record At table. If no, record Not at table. Watching TV: Were you watching TV whilst you were eating or drinking? If yes, record TV on. If no, record No TV. ## What: Describe your food and drink giving as much detail as you can. Include any extras like sugar and milk in your tea or cereal, butter or other spreads on your bread and sauces such as ketchup and mayonnaise. Do not forget to include drinking water. If you know how the food was cooked (e.g. roast, baked, boiled, fried), please record this. If you're unsure about how the food was cooked, please ask the person who prepared the food if possible. On pages 20 - 25 you will find help with the sort of detail that is useful. If you have eaten any homemade dishes e.g. a stew or sponge cake, please make sure the ingredients and cooking method are recorded in the space provided. You may need to ask the person who prepared the dish to help you with this. If another person at home is also keeping a diary and has recorded the recipes for the same dishes as you in their diary (the ADULT diary), you do NOT need to record these recipes again, just write in your diary "see adult diary". If you have eaten any take-aways or any made up dishes not prepared at home such as at a friend's house or in a restaurant, please record as much detail as you can about what was in the dish e.g. vegetable curry containing chickpeas, aubergine, onion and tomato. ## Brand: Please make a note of the brand name (e.g. Heinz, Walkers, Hovis) if you know it. Most packaged foods will list a brand name. ## Amount Eaten: You can specify packet (e.g. Crisps, Yogurt), or number of individual items (e.g. biscuits), or slices (e.g. cake, pizza, ham), or teaspoons (e.g. sugar), or dessertspoons (e.g. peas). Be careful when describing amounts in spoons. Compare the spoon you are using with the life size spoons on page 27 of this diary so you use the correct name. You can also write S (small), M (medium) or L (large) portion. For drinks you can write glass (tell us the size of the glass or volume using page 26 as a guide), cup or mug. You can also write the weight or volume from the labels on the packaging. On page 25, we have included a space for you to measure your usual drinking cup (you can do this by filling your cup with water to the level you normally have and then emptying the water into a measuring jug). On pages 20 - 25 you will find help with describing how much you had to eat or drink. We would like to know the amount that you actually ate, so you need to think about how much you leftover. You can do this in 2 ways: 1. Record how much you were served and then how much you ate e.g. 3 dessertspoons of peas, only 2 dessertspoons eaten; 1 large sausage roll, ate only half 2. Only record how much you actually ate i.e. 2 dessertspoons of peas; half a large sausage roll ## Food Labels/Wrappers: Please keep the labels or packaging from snacks, sweets, bought sandwiches and ready meals and put them in the plastic bag provided. ## Was It A Typical Day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a usual day or whether there were any reasons why you ate and drank more or less than usual, e.g. I did eat less because I was sick; I drank a lot because I did sports. Please tick the correct box for your intake. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. ## Supplements At the end of each recording day you need to tell us about any supplements you took. If you didn't take any just tick NO. If yes, then please tell us the name of the supplement (e.g. vitamin C), brand (e.g. Boots), strength (it will tell you on the label - e.g. 50 mg) and how many you took (e.g. 1 tablet). If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS team on freephone 0800 652 4572 between 8.30am and 5.30pm. On pages 4-13 of the diary we have filled in two whole days to show you what to do. Day EXAMPLE Day: Thursday Date: March 31st Time What Brand Name Amount eaten Where? With whom? TV on? Table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 20-25 6am to 9am 7.30am Kitchen Family No TV At table Orange juice, unsweetened, UHT Tea Milk, fresh semi skimmed Sugar white Weetabix Milk as above Sugar as above Toast wholemeal, large loaf Butter unsalted Strawberry Jam 9am to 12 noon 11am School playground With friends Coca cola diet Potato crisps, Salt and Vinegar 12noon School corridor Alone Water from water cooler Mars Bar 12 noon to 2pm 12.45pm School canteen With friends At table Sandwich, from home White bread, large loaf Spread Ham unsmoked Cheddar cheese Branston Pickle Apple with skin from home Ribena Light, Ready to Drink, Blackcurrant, from canteen Kitkat from home 1.50pm School corridor Alone Chewing gum Tesco Tesco Tesco Silverspoon Hovis Anchor Co-op Large glass Mug A little 2 level teaspoons 2 Drowned 2 heaped teaspoons 2 thin slices thick spread on both 1 teaspoon on one slice Coca Cola Walkers 330ml can 25g packet from a multipack small plastic cup 1 kingsize Kingsmill Flora Light Tescos 2 med slices thin spread on both slices 1 slice 2 medium slices 1 teaspoon 1 (left core) 220ml carton 2 fingers Orbit Sugar Free 1 piece \| \| Day \| \| \|------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------\|-----\| \| \| EXAMPLE \| \| \| Day: \| \| \| \| Thursday \| \| \| \| Date: \| \| \| \| March 31 \| \| \| \| st \| \| \| \| Time \| \| \| \| What \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| \| \| \| Amount eaten \| \| \| \| Where? \| \| \| \| With whom? \| \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| 2pm to 5pm \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 3.45pm \| Bus \| \| \| Alone \| Wine gums \| \| \| 4.30pm \| \| \| \| Tea (as above) \| \| \| \| Chocolate Hob Nobs \| \| \| \| Home, sitting room, \| \| \| \| With family \| \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| 5pm to 8pm \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6.30pm \| Friend's kitchen \| \| \| With friends \| \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| At table \| \| \| \| Chicken in tomato sauce made by friend's mum \| \| \| \| Tomato fresh \| \| \| \| Sweetcorn tinned \| \| \| \| Peach yoghurt low fat \| \| \| \| Lemon squash No Added Sugar \| \| \| \| 8pm to 10pm \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 8pm \| Satsuma \| \| \| Cream Crackers (no spread) \| \| \| \| Home, sitting room \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| \| TV on, Not at table \| \| \| \| 9.30pm \| \| \| \| Kitchen \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| \| No TV, At table \| \| \| \| Thick cut, frozen chips fried in vegetable oil \| \| \| \| Brown sauce \| \| \| \| 10pm to 6am \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 10.30pm \| Hot chocolate drink made with water \| \| \| 2am \| Water tap \| \| \| Bedroom \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| Bedroom (in bed) \| \| \| \| Alone \| \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| Maynards \| 140g packet \| \|----------------\|------------------------------\| \| Mcvitites \| \| \| mug \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| See recipe \| \| \| Mullerlight \| \| \| Sainsbury's \| \| \| 3 tablespoons \| \| \| 3 slices \| \| \| 1 dessertspoon \| \| \| 200g pot \| \| \| medium glass \| \| \| Jacob's \| \| \| 1 \| \| \| 4 \| \| \| McCains \| \| \| HP \| \| \| small portion \| \| \| 1 dessertspoon \| \| \| Cadbury's \| Mug (made with 4 tsp powder) \| \| ½ small glass \| \|  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Ate dinner at a friend's house If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \| \| \| No \| \|---------\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-------\| If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? Yes No If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| Name (in full) including strength \| \|------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| Bassetts \| Soft and chewy vitamins A (800µg), C (60mg), D (5µg) and E (10mg) \| 1 pastille \| \| Haliborange \| \| \| \| DHA Omega-3 blackcurrant chewy caps (each capsule contains \| \| \| \| 200mg fish oil providing 130mg omega-3) \| \| \| \| 2 capsules \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| NAME OF DISH: \| Chicken in tomato Sauce \| \| Serves: \| \|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\|-------------\|------------\| \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| Pieces of chicken \| 3 pieces \| Olive oil \| 2 tbsp \| \| Sauce made with: \| \| \| \| \| Tinned tomatoes \| 1 tin \| \| \| \| Green pepper \| 1 medium \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| Chicken pieces fried in olive oil, then mixed in with tomato and vegetable sauce. \| \| \| \| Day EXAMPLE Time What Brand Name Where? With whom? TV on? Table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 20-25 6am to 9am Special K Bliss Strawberry and Chocolate Whole milk Banana Smoothie, made with semi-skimmed milk 7.45am Dining Room Family No TV At table 9am to 12 noon 11.30 am School playground School friends Orange Juice, UHT, unsweetened Mars Bar 12 noon to 2pm 1pm School canteen School Friends At table Roast Chicken Roast Potatoes Boiled Carrots Boiled Peas Gravy Plain sponge pudding with jam Warm chocolate custard \| Day: \| \| \|-----------------------\|-------\| \| Friday \| \| \| \| \| \| Date: \| \| \| April 1st \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Amount eaten \| \| \| Kelloggs \| \| \| Tesco's \| \| \| \| \| \| Homemade see recipe \| \| \| 6 dessertspoons \| \| \| Drowned \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 medium glass (whole \| \| \| recipe) \| \| \| Libby's \| \| \| Mars \| \| \| \| \| \| 200ml carton \| \| \| 2 fun size \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 3 slices \| \| \| 2 potatoes \| \| \| 1 tablespoon \| \| \| 1 tablespoon \| \| \| 2 tablespoons \| \| \| \| \| \| Small portion \| \| \| 2 dessertspoons \| \| \| \| \| Day EXAMPLE What Brand Name Time Where? With whom? TV on? Table? 2pm to 5pm 3.30pm 4.30pm Bottle of water Grapes, green, seedless Ready salted Crisps Car Family Living room Sister TV on Not at table 5pm to 8pm 7pm Dining room Family No TV At table Cheese and tomato pizza, thin base Green beans, boiled Broccoli, boiled Chocolate Mousse, low fat Orange High Juice Squash - standard 8pm to 10pm Semi-skimmed milk Tesco's Small glass 9pm Bedroom Alone TV on Not at table (in bed) 10pm to 6am \| Day: \| \| \|--------------------------------\|------\| \| Friday \| \| \| \| \| \| Date: \| \| \| April 1st \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Amount eaten \| \| \| ½ bottle - 500mls \| \| \| 10 grapes \| \| \| \| \| \| About 15 crisps \| \| \| Evian \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Pringles \| \| \| \| \| \| ½ pizza (500g) uncooked \| \| \| \| \| \| 2 tbsp \| \| \| 2 florets \| \| \| 55g pot \| \| \| 250ml (1/3 squash & 2/3 water) \| \| \| Pizza Express (cook at \| \| \| home) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Cadburys \| \| \| Robinson's \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Felt unwell If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Felt unwell If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \| \| \| No \| \|---------\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-------\| If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| \|----------------------------\|-----\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. \| NAME OF DISH: \| Banana Smoothie \| Serves: \| 1 \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------\| \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| Banana \| 1 small \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tesco semi-skimmed milk \| 150ml \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Gales honey - from Tesco \| 1 tsp \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tesco natural unsweetened yogurt \| 1 tbsp \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Mix all together with blender \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 13 \| \| \| ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Day: Date: \| Time \| \|------------\| \| Brand Name \| \| Where? \| \| With whom? \| \| TV on? \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| 2pm to 5pm \| \| \| Practice Page 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page Amount eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \| \| \| No \| \|---------\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-------\| If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| \|----------------------------\|-----\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|----------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Amount \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------\| \| Bacon \| \| \| \| Back, middle, streaky; smoked or unsmoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or fried in oil/fat (type \| \| \| \| used) or grilled rashers \| \| \| \| Number of rashers \| \| \| \| Baked beans \| Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar \| Spoons, tin size e.g. 244g \| \| Beefburger \| \| \| \| (hamburger) \| \| \| \| Large or small, ounces or in \| \| \| \| grams if info on package \| \| \| \| Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of oil/fat), \| \| \| \| microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, with or without salad e.g. \| \| \| \| lettuce, tomato \| \| \| \| Biscuits \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or half coated), \| \| \| \| shortbread, home-made \| \| \| \| Number, size (standard or mini \| \| \| \| variety) \| \| \| \| Bread \| \| \| \| (see also sandwiches) \| \| \| \| Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or small loaf; sliced or \| \| \| \| unsliced loaf \| \| \| \| Number of slices; thick, \| \| \| \| medium or thin slices \| \| \| \| Bread rolls \| Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft \| Size, number of rolls \| \| Breakfast cereal (see \| \| \| \| also porridge) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; Muesli - with added \| \| \| \| fruit, no added sugar/salt variety \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Buns and pastries \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type of pastry; \| \| \| \| homemade or bought \| \| \| \| Size, number \| \| \| \| Butter, margarine & \| \| \| \| fat spreads \| \| \| \| Give full product name \| \| \| \| Thick, average, thin spread on \| \| \| \| bread/crackers; spoons \| \| \| \| Cake \| \| \| \| What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; type of filling e.g. \| \| \| \| buttercream, jam \| \| \| \| Individual or size of slice, \| \| \| \| packet weight \| \| \| \| Cereal bars \| \| \| \| What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified with \| \| \| \| vitamins/minerals \| \| \| \| Weight/size of bar; from \| \| \| \| multipack \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Amount \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------\| \| Cheese \| Name and type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat \| Slices, spoons \| \| Chips \| \| \| \| Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); thick/straight/crinkle/fine \| \| \| \| cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking \| \| \| \| Spoons, portion size, number \| \| \| \| of chips \| \| \| \| Chocolate(s) \| What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling; give brand name \| Number, weight/size of bar \| \| Coffee \| \| \| \| With milk (see section on milk); half milk/half water; all milk; ground/filter, instant; \| \| \| \| decaffeinated. If café/takeaway, was it cappuccino, latte etc \| \| \| \| Cups or mugs, size of takeaway \| \| \| \| e.g. small, medium \| \| \| \| Cook-in sauces \| \| \| \| What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or cheese based; does meat \| \| \| \| or veg come in sauce; jar or can \| \| \| \| Spoons, size of can or jar \| \| \| \| Cream \| \| \| \| Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, UHT/Longlife; \| \| \| \| imitation cream e.g. Elmlea \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Crisps \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; flavour; low-fat or low-salt; \| \| \| \| premium variety e.g. Kettle chips; baked variety \| \| \| \| Packet weight, standard or \| \| \| \| from multipack \| \| \| \| Custard \| \| \| \| Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, instant, ready to \| \| \| \| serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Egg \| \| \| \| Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); type of oil/fat, milk \| \| \| \| added \| \| \| \| Number of eggs, large, medium \| \| \| \| or small \| \| \| \| Fish (including \| \| \| \| canned) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cod, tuna, haddock; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached (water or \| \| \| \| milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in oil, brine or tomato sauce \| \| \| \| Size of can (e.g. 80g or spoons \| \| \| \| for canned fish) or size of \| \| \| \| fillet \| \| \| \| Fish cakes/fish \| \| \| \| fingers \| \| \| \| Type of fish; fried, grilled, baked or microwaved; economy; battered or coated in \| \| \| \| breadcrumbs \| \| \| \| Size, number \| \| \| \| Fruit - fresh \| What sort; with or without skin \| Small, medium or large \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Amount \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------\| \| Fruit - \| \| \| \| stewed/canned \| \| \| \| What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice or syrup eaten \| Spoons \| \| \| Fruit - juice (pure) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; \| \| \| \| freshly squeezed \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) or \| \| \| \| carton size \| \| \| \| Hot chocolate, cocoa \| \| \| \| malted drinks etc \| \| \| \| Type; standard/low calorie/lite; instant; all water / half milk half water / all milk (see \| \| \| \| section on milk); any sugar added \| \| \| \| Cup or mug plus how much \| \| \| \| powder e.g. teaspoons, weight \| \| \| \| on packet \| \| \| \| Ice cream \| Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium \| Spoons/ scoops \| \| Jam, honey \| What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, or \| \| \| \| thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Marmalade \| What sort; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, or \| \| \| \| thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Meat (see also bacon, \| \| \| \| burgers & sausages) \| \| \| \| What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat removed or eaten; \| \| \| \| skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or without gravy \| \| \| \| Large/small/medium, spoons, \| \| \| \| slices \| \| \| \| Milk \| \| \| \| What sort; whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed or 1% fat; fresh, sterilized, UHT, dried; soya \| \| \| \| milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' milk, rice milk, oat milk; flavoured; fortified with \| \| \| \| added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Pints, glass (size or volume) or \| \| \| \| cup. On cereal: damp/average/ \| \| \| \| drowned. In tea/coffee: a \| \| \| \| little/some/a lot \| \| \| \| Milkshake \| \| \| \| Fresh or long life/UHT; dairy or non-dairy alternative e.g. soya; if powder, made up with \| \| \| \| whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed milk; flavour; fortified with vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) cups or \| \| \| \| volume on bottle/carton \| \| \| \| Nuts \| What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted \| Packet weight, handful \| \| What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry \| Individual or slice \| \| \| Pie (sweet or \| \| \| \| savoury) \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Amount \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------\| \| Pizza \| Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; stuffed crust \| \| \| Individual, slice, fraction of \| \| \| \| large pizza e.g. ¼ \| \| \| \| Porridge \| \| \| \| Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk and/or water; added \| \| \| \| sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream \| \| \| \| Spoons or bowl size (small, \| \| \| \| medium, large) \| \| \| \| Potatoes (see also \| \| \| \| chips) \| \| \| \| Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed/creamed (with \| \| \| \| butter, milk etc); fried/chips (type of oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter \| \| \| \| Spoons for mash, number of \| \| \| \| half or whole potatoes \| \| \| \| Pudding \| What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant desserts; milk puddings \| Spoons, slices \| \| Rice \| \| \| \| What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or brown; boiled or fried \| \| \| \| (type of oil/fat) \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Salad \| Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) \| \| \| Amount of each component; \| \| \| \| slices, leaves; spoons \| \| \| \| Sandwiches and rolls \| Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of filling; including \| \| \| salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, where from? \| \| \| \| Number of rolls or slices of \| \| \| \| bread; amount of \| \| \| \| butter/margarine (on both \| \| \| \| slices?); amount of filling \| \| \| \| Sauce - hot (see also \| \| \| \| cook-in sauces) \| \| \| \| What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; give brand or recipe; for gravy - made with \| \| \| \| granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, mayonnaise; low fat \| Spoons \| \| \| Sauce - cold \| \| \| \| (including \| \| \| \| mayonnaise) \| \| \| \| Sausages \| What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat; economy \| Large or small, number \| \| Sausage rolls \| Type of pastry \| \| \| Number, size e.g. jumbo, \| \| \| \| standard, mini \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Amount \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------\| \| Scone \| Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour \| Number, size \| \| Savoury snacks - in \| \| \| \| packet \| \| \| \| What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels \| \| \| \| Size (standard or mini \| \| \| \| variety), packet weight \| \| \| \| Smoothies \| \| \| \| If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. fruit, milk/yoghurt, \| \| \| \| fruit juice \| \| \| \| Glass or bottle (size or volume) \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified with added \| \| \| \| vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - \| \| \| \| concentrated/squash \| \| \| \| /cordial \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - \| \| \| \| carbonated/fizzy \| \| \| \| Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free \| \| \| \| Glass, can or bottle (size or \| \| \| \| volume, e.g. 330ml) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - ready \| \| \| \| to drink \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; does it contain real fruit juice, if so, \| \| \| \| how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass, carton or bottle (size or \| \| \| \| volume, e.g. 200ml) \| \| \| \| Soup \| \| \| \| What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending machine. If home- \| \| \| \| made, give recipe \| \| \| \| Spoons, bowl or mug \| \| \| \| Spoons (or how much dry \| \| \| \| pasta) \| \| \| \| Spaghetti, other \| \| \| \| pasta \| \| \| \| What sort; fresh or dried; white, wholemeal; boiled, canned in sauce; type of filling if \| \| \| \| ravioli, cannelloni etc \| \| \| \| Sugar \| Added to cereals, tea, coffee, fruit, etc; what sort; e.g. white, brown, demerara \| Heaped or level teaspoons \| \| Sweets \| What sort: e.g. toffees, boiled sweets, diabetic, sugar-free \| Number, packet weight \| \| Tea \| with/without milk (see section on milk); decaffeinated, herb \| Mugs or cups \| ## Food/Drink Description & Preparation Amount Vegetables (not including potatoes) What sort; how cooked or raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce Spoons, number of florets or sprouts, weight from tins or packet Pot size (e.g. 150g) or tablespoons Yoghurt (inc drinking yoghurt), fromage frais What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic Home-made dishes Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if you can in the section provided) Spoons or proportion of the recipe e.g. ½ the recipe Ready-made meals Packet weight, portion size Please give brand name and full description of product; did it contain any accompaniments e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag Take-away food or food eaten out Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonalds Spoons, portion size e.g. small/medium/large Typical quantities of drinks in various containers measured in millilitres (ml) \| Cup \| Mug \| Small \| \|-------------\|--------\|----------\| \| Glass \| \| \| \| Average \| \| \| \| Glass \| \| \| \| Large \| \| \| \| Glass \| \| \| \| Vending \| \| \| \| Cup \| \| \| \| Soft Drinks \| 150 \| 200 \| \| Hot Drinks \| 170 \| 190 \| Here is a life size glass showing what typical quantities look like. You can use this picture as a guide for estimating how much volume of drink the glass holds you are drinking from. Day 1 Time What Brand Name Where? With whom? TV on? Table? 2pm to 5pm Amount eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| Name (in full) including strength \| \|----------------------------\|-----\|-------------------------------------\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: Serves: \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| What Brand Name Where? Amount eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| Name (in full) including strength \| \|----------------------------\|-----\|-------------------------------------\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: Serves: \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| What Brand Name Where? With whom? Amount eaten  Was the amount of food that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| Name (in full) including strength \| \|----------------------------\|-----\|-------------------------------------\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. \| NAME OF DISH: \| \| Serves: \| \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------\| \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Remember To Complete The General Questions On Pages 49-54! \| Was the amount of \| food \| that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|--------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| Usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If your intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount you had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did you take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements you took below \| Brand \| \| Name (in full) including strength \| \|----------------------------\|-----\|-------------------------------------\| \| Number of pills, capsules, \| \| \| \| teaspoons \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: Serves: \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brief description of cooking method \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## General Questions About Your Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did You Follow A Special Diet During The Recording Period? (Please Tick) \| \| To lose weight \| \| Other e.g. vegetarian (please give more details below) \| \|-----\|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| To gain weight \| \| No special diet \| \| \| For medical reasons e.g. diabetes (please give more details below) \| \| \| ## Further Details: Milk 2. Which Type Of Milk Did You Use Most Often During The Recording Period? Whole, fresh, Semi-skimmed fresh, Skimmed (fat free) 1% fat milk, fresh pasteurised pasteurised fresh, pasteurised pasteurised Dried Name Soya Name Other Name Did not use ## Water 3. Which Type Of Water Did You Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? Tap Filtered Bottled brand Did not drink Tea and coffee 4. How much milk did you usually have in coffee/ tea? Coffee A lot Some A little None/did not drink Tea A lot Some A little None/did not drink 5. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with sugar? \| \| \| Coffee \| Yes \| How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \|-----\|-----\|----------------------------------\|---------\|-------------------------------------\|-----\|----------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Yes \| How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \| \| 6. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with artificial sweetener? \| \| \| \| Coffee \| Yes \| \| How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\|--------\|---------------------------------------------\|--------\|------------------\|------------------------------------------------\|-------\|----------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Yes \| \| How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? \| \| No/did not drink \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 7. Did you drink decaffeinated coffee/ tea during the recording period? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Coffee \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tea \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 50 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Breakfast cereals \| \| \|------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| 8. How much milk did you usually have on breakfast cereal? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 9. How did you usually make your porridge? \| \| With all water \| \| With all milk \| \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \|------------------------------------------------\|-------------------\|------------\|------------------\|-----------\|-------------------------\|---------------------\| \| 10. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Did you usually sweeten or salt your porridge? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| With sugar \| With honey \| \| With salt \| \| Neither/did not eat \| 11. How did you usually make your instant oat cereal? e.g. Ready Brek \| \| With all water \| \| With all milk \| \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------\|------------\|------------------\|-----------\|-------------------------\|---------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 12. Did you usually sweeten or salt your instant oat cereal? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| With sugar \| With honey \| \| With salt \| \| Neither/did not eat \| Fats for spreading and cooking Name: None 13. Which butter, margarine or fat spread did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name and fat content e.g. Flora Omega 3 plus, low fat spread, 38% fat, polyunsaturated 14. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers etc? \| \| Thick \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------\| \| \| \| \| None \| \| \| Name: \| \| \| None \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 15. Which cooking fat/oil did your household use most often over \| \| \| the recording period? Please record the full product name. \| \| e.g. Sainsbury's sunflower oil ## Bread 16. Which Type Of Bread Did You Eat Most Often During The Recording Period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other Type Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 17. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? \| \| Large \| \| Small \| \| \|-----\|----------\|-----\|----------\|-----\| 18. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? Thick Medium Thin Unsliced N/A ## Meat 19. If You Ate Red Meat During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Visible Fat? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat meat 20. If you ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat poultry Fruit and vegetables 21. If you ate apples during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 22. If you ate pears during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 23. If you ate new potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 24. If you ate baked/jacket potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat Salt 25. Do you add salt to your food at the table? \| \| Always \| \| Sometimes \| \| Never \| \| \|-----\|------------\|-----\|--------------\|-----\|----------\|-----\| 26. Do you add salt substitute to your food at the table? e.g. LoSalt Always Sometimes Never Cordial/squash/diluting juice 27. Which type of squash/cordial did you drink most often during the recording period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie Did not drink 28. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: Single concentrate Double concentrate 29. How much do you usually dilute your squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: Other soft drinks 30. For other soft drinks such as ready-to-drink juices and carbonated drinks, which type did you have most often during the recording period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie Did not drink ## If You Are Able To, Please Use A Measuring Jug To Measure Your Usual Drinking Vessels E.G. Mug, Glass, Cup, Beaker, Bottle Etc. And Provide The Volumes Below ## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Children Aged 1.5 To 3 Years (V2) National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Children Aged 1.5 To 3 Years Pages Instructions……………………………………………………………………………... 2-3 Diary examples………………………………………………………………………. .. 4-15 Practice pages…………………………………………………………………………16-22 Examples and advice on food descriptions……………………………………..23-28 Pictures for spoon size………………………………………………………………30-31 "The 4-day diary" …………………………………………………………………... 32-63 General questions about the eating frequency outside the home…………….. 64 General questions about your toddler's food over the recording period... 65-71 If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS team on freephone 0800 652 4572 between 8.30am-5.30pm. We would like you to record in this diary everything your toddler eats and drinks, at meal times and in between, day and night for 4 days. Please include all food consumed at home and outside the home. Time spent in the care of other If your toddler spends time in the care of others during the recording period then we would very much appreciate if those carers (e.g. crèche staff, childminder, friend) would provide details of the food and drink consumed. For this purpose you have been given a pack to pass on to carers explaining about the study and asking for their support in gathering the required information. ## Please Provide The Following Information For Each Day Of Recording: Day and Date Please write down the day and date at the top each time you start a new day of recording. Time Slots Please note the time of each eating occasion into the space provided. For easy use each day is divided into sections, from first thing in the morning to late evening and through the night. Where and with whom? Please tell us what room or part of the house your toddler was in when eating, e.g. kitchen, living room. If s/he ate outside the home please write that location down. We would also like to know who your toddler ate with, e.g. whether s/he ate alone or with others. If they ate with others please describe their relationship to the child e.g. parents, siblings, or friends. We would also like to know when they ate at a table and when they were watching television whilst eating. For those occasions where they were not at a table or watching TV please write 'Not at table' or 'No TV' rather than leaving it blank. What does your toddler eat? Please describe the food your toddler ate in as much detail as possible. Include all meals and all snacks. Be as specific as you can. Pages 23 - 28 will help with the sort of detail we need, like cooking methods (fried, grilled, baked etc) and any additions (fats, sugar/sweeteners, sauces, pepper etc).  Recipes/Homemade dishes If your toddler has eaten any homemade dishes e.g. chicken casserole, please record the name of the recipe, ingredients with amounts (including water or other fluids) for the whole recipe, the number of people the recipe is for, and the cooking method. Write this down in the recipe section for each food record day. Record how much of the whole recipe your toddler ate in the portion size column (see examples on pages 9 and 15).  Take-aways and eating out If your toddler has eaten take-aways or made up dishes not prepared at home such as at a restaurant or a friend's house, please record as much detail about the ingredients as you can e.g. spaghetti with mince, onion and tomato sauce. Brand name Please note the brand name (if known). Most packed foods will list a brand name, e.g. Bird's eye, Hovis, or Supermarket own brands. Labels/Wrappers Labels are an important source of information. It helps us a great deal if you enclose, in the plastic bag provided, labels from all ready meals, from foods of lesser known brands and also from any supplements your toddler takes. Portion sizes Examples for how to describe the quantity or portion size your toddler had of a particular food or drink are shown on pages 23 - 28. For foods, quantity can be described using:  household measure e.g. one level teaspoon (tsp) of sugar, two thick slices of bread, 1 dessertspoon (dsp) of peas, ½ cup of gravy. Be careful when describing amounts in spoons that you are referring to the correct spoon size. Compare the spoons you use with the life size photos on pages 30 - 31 of this diary.  weights from labels - use the weight marked on canned or packet foods, e.g. quarter of a 420g tin of baked beans, one 125g pot of yoghurt  number of items, e.g. 2 fish fingers, 2 pieces of chicken nuggets, 1 regular size jam filled doughnut  fruit, indicate whether the piece of fruit is small, medium or large For drinks, quantity can be described using:  the size of glass, cup etc (e.g. large) or the volume (e.g. 300ml). Please provide a measurement of your toddler's usual drinking 'cup' on page 31.  volumes from labels (e.g. 330ml can of fizzy drink). We would like to know the amount that your toddler actually ate which means taking leftovers into account. You can do this in two ways: 1. Record what was served and note what was not eaten e.g. 3 dsp of peas, only 2 dsp eaten; 1 weetabix, ate only ½ 2. Only record the amount actually eaten i.e. 2 dsp of peas; ½ weetabix Was it a typical day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a typical day or whether there were any reasons why your toddler consumed more or less than usual. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. Supplements At the end of each recording day there is a section for providing information about any supplements your toddler took. Brand name, full name of supplement, strength and the amount taken should be recorded. When to fill in the diary Please record your toddler's eating as you go, not from memory at the end of the day. Use written notes on a pad if you forget to take the diary with you. Each diary day covers a 24hr period, so please include any food or drinks that your toddler may have had during the night. Remember to include foods and drinks between meals (snacks) including water. Overleaf you can see 2 days that have already been filled in. These examples show you how we would like you to record your toddler's food and drink, for example a meal from a jar and a homemade dish. ## It Only Takes A Few Minutes For Each Eating Occasion! T T Th h ha a an n nk k k y y yo o ou u u f f fo o or r r y y yo o ou u ur r r t t ti i im m me e e – – - w w we e e r r re e ea a al l ll l ly y y a a ap p pp p pr r re e ec c ci i ia a at t te e e i i it t t! ! ! \| Day 1: \| Thurs \| \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------\|--------------\| \| 2007 \| \| \| \| Time \| \| \| \| Where? \| \| \| \| Food/Drink description & preparation \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| \| With whom? \| \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 \| \| \| \| 6am to 9am \| \| \| \| Follow on Milk \| SMA Progress \| 240ml bottle \| \| (as pack \| \| \| \| instructions) \| \| \| \| 8am \| \| \| \| Living Room \| \| \| \| Family \| \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| 9am to 12 noon \| \| \| \| 10am \| Weetabix \| \| \| Full fat milk \| \| \| \| Kitchen \| \| \| \| Mother \| \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| At table \| \| \| \| white sugar \| \| \| \| bread \| \| \| \| 11.30 \| \| \| \| am \| \| \| \| Living Room \| \| \| \| Family \| \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| margarine \| \| \| \| pure apple juice \| \| \| quantity eaten Weetabix 1 biscuit Sainsbury's drowned (about 1 dsp milk leftover) 2 tsp Tate and Lyle 1 slice Granary from bakers, medium cut medium spread Flora light spread Sainsbury's 200ml carton (drank ½ of it) Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name With whom? TV on? Table? 12 noon to 2pm 1pm Kitchen Family No TV At table Chunky Vegetable Risotto Peeled apple Strawberry and Raspberry Yoghurt 2pm to 5pm 4pm Lounge Grandfather No TV Not at table Very weak black tea (in plastic trainer cup with lid) Semi-skimmed milk Fairy cake (see recipe) Portion size or quantity eaten Heinz Mum's Own Petit Filous 230g- only ate 2/3 of jar 3 slices 4 heaped tsp PG tips Sainsbury's ¾ cup mixed with ¼ cup (1/2 leftover) ¾ of one cake eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? TV on? Table? 5pm to 8pm Broccoli, Pear and Peas Puree 6.15 pm Kitchen Family No TV At table Vegetables with Noodles and Chicken (12months) Water 8pm to 10pm 10.20 pm Follow on Milk SMA Progress 240ml bottle (as usual); 1/2 leftover) Bedroom Father No TV Not at table 10pm to 6am quantity eaten Ella's Kitchen 3 tsp HIPP 250g jar Tap about 100ml (small glass)  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Bassets Soft and chewy multivitamins (label in zip bag) 1 pastille Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes NAME OF DISH: Fairy Cakes SERVES: makes 20 cakes Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Tate & Lyle caster sugar 175g Silver Spoon icing sugar 140g Anchor butter, unsalted 175g Yellow food colouring 3 drops Market eggs 3 water 2 tablespoons Homepride self-raising flour 175g Baking powder 1 teaspoon Brief description of cooking method Mix together and bake for 15 min. Mix icing sugar with water and add colouring. Approx. 1 teaspoon of icing on each cake \| Day: \| Friday \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\| \| Time \| \| \| Where? \| \| \| Food/Drink description & preparation \| \| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| With whom? \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| \| \| How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 \| \| \| 6am to 9am \| \| \| 6.30 \| Biscuit for Babies + Toddlers \| \| am \| \| \| Bedroom \| \| \| Mother \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| 7.00 \| \| \| am \| \| \| Kitchen \| \| \| Family \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| At table \| \| \| \| \| \| Rice Krispies \| \| \| Whole milk \| \| \| Frutapura, Plum and Apple \| \| \| Pure apple and blackcurrant juice \| \| \| diluted with tap water \| \| \| 9am to 12 noon \| \| \| 9.30 \| Banana \| \| am \| \| \| Great stuff mini raisins \| Asda \| \| Playroom \| \| \| Childminder and 3 \| \| \| other children \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| At table \| \| quantity eaten Cow and Gate 1 Kelloggs Asda Cow and Gate Heinz 7 dsp damp 1x 100g pot 60ml juice 240ml (drank most of it by lunch - about ¼ leftover) Medium size, ½ eaten 14g pack \| Time \| Where? \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------\| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| With whom? \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| \| \| 12 noon to 2pm \| \| \| 12.00 \| \| \| pm \| \| \| Prepared packed lunch: \| \| \| White bread, thick cut \| \| \| Butter unsalted \| \| \| Dining room \| \| \| Childminder and 3 \| \| \| other children \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| At table \| Cheese triangle \| \| Ham, honey roast \| \| \| Cheese curls \| \| \| green seedless grapes \| \| \| Fromage frais with layer of peach puree \| \| \| Semi-skimmed milk \| \| \| Fruit shoot apple, no added sugar \| \| \| 2pm to 5pm \| \| \| 3.15 \| Apple, peeled \| \| pm \| \| \| Playroom \| \| \| Childminder and 3 \| \| \| other children \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| At table \| Milky way \| \| Water \| \| quantity eaten Kingsmill Lurpak Dairylea Asda Quakers 2 slices Thinly spread on one slice only Ate 1/2 ½ slice 8 pieces Yoplait 8 grapes 60g (ate half) Sainsburys 160ml (drank all) Robinsons 200ml Granny smith Medium size, ¼ eaten 1 fun size tap about 100ml (numerous sips) \| Time \| Where? \| Food/Drink description & preparation \| \|---------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| Brand Name \| Portion size or \| \| \| With whom? \| quantity eaten \| \| \| TV on? \| \| \| \| Table? \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 5pm to 8pm \| \| \| \| 6.00 \| Homemade sausage casserole (see recipe) \| 1 tbsp \| \| pm \| \| \| \| Penne pasta, boiled \| Sainsbury's \| \| \| Dining room \| \| \| \| Family \| \| \| \| No TV \| \| \| \| At table \| \| \| \| 2 tbsp \| \| \| \| (about half a tbsp \| \| \| \| pasta leftover) \| \| \| \| 8pm to 10pm \| \| \| \| 8.15 \| \| \| \| pm \| \| \| \| Whole milk \| Asda \| 250ml bottle (about \| \| 25 ml left over) \| \| \| \| Living room \| \| \| \| Mother \| \| \| \| TV on \| \| \| \| Not at table \| \| \| \| 10pm to 6am \| \| \|  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Abidec Multivitamin syrup with omega 3 5ml (1 teasp) ## Please Record Over The Page Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes NAME OF DISH: Sausage casserole SERVES: 4 Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Butchers Choice pork sausages 4 sausages Cornflour 2 tsp Onion 1 medium size Mixed herbs About ½ tsp Mushrooms, Champignons 1/4 of 500g pack Sainsbury's vegetable oil 1.5 tbsp Napoli chopped tomatoes 1 x 400g tin Sainsbury's mixed salad beans 1 x 125g tin Oxo gravy 1 cube in ½ pint of water Heinz tomato ketchup 1 tbsp Brown onions and sausages in vegetable oil. Add mushrooms, tomatoes, beans and gravy and simmer. Thicken with cornflour and add herbs. ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or quantity eaten How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 6am to 9am Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm Practice Page 2pm to 5pm Practice Page Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|----------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Spoon Size Does Matter!!!! When Describing Amounts Check The Spoons You Use With The Life Size Pictures On Page 30 Of This Diary \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Bacon \| \| \| \| Back, middle, streaky; smoked or un-smoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or \| \| \| \| fried in oil/fat (type used) or grilled rashers \| \| \| \| Number of rashers \| \| \| \| Baked beans \| Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar \| Spoons, weight of tin \| \| Beefburger \| \| \| \| (hamburger) \| \| \| \| Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of \| \| \| \| oil/fat), microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, \| \| \| \| with or without salad e.g. lettuce, tomato \| \| \| \| Large or small, ounces or \| \| \| \| in grams if info on \| \| \| \| package \| \| \| \| Biscuits \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or \| \| \| \| half coated), shortbread, home-made \| \| \| \| Number, size (standard \| \| \| \| or mini variety) \| \| \| \| Bread \| \| \| \| (see also sandwiches) \| \| \| \| Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or \| \| \| \| small loaf; sliced or unsliced loaf \| \| \| \| Number of slices; thick, \| \| \| \| medium or thin slices \| \| \| \| Bread rolls \| Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft \| Size, number of rolls \| \| Breakfast cereal (see \| \| \| \| also porridge) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; \| \| \| \| Muesli - with added fruit, no added sugar/salt variety \| \| \| \| Spoons or size of bowl \| \| \| \| Buns and pastries \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type \| \| \| \| of pastry; homemade or bought \| \| \| \| Size, number \| \| \| \| Butter, margarine & fat \| \| \| \| spreads \| \| \| \| Give full product name \| \| \| \| Thick/average/thin \| \| \| \| spread; spoons \| \| \| \| Cake \| \| \| \| What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; \| \| \| \| type of filling e.g. buttercream, jam \| \| \| \| Individual or size of slice, \| \| \| \| packet weight \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Cereal bars \| \| \| \| What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified \| \| \| \| with vitamins/minerals \| \| \| \| Weight/size of bar; from \| \| \| \| multipack \| \| \| \| Cheese \| Type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat \| \| \| Number of slices, \| \| \| \| number of spoons \| \| \| \| Chips \| \| \| \| Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); \| \| \| \| thick/straight/crinkle/fine cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking \| \| \| \| Spoons or number of \| \| \| \| chips \| \| \| \| Chocolate(s) \| What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling \| Weight/size of bar \| \| Cook-in sauces \| \| \| \| What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or \| \| \| \| cheese based; does meat or veg come in sauce; jar or can \| \| \| \| Spoons, size of can or jar \| \| \| \| Cream \| \| \| \| Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, \| \| \| \| UHT/Longlife; imitation cream e.g. Elmlea \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Crisps \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; low-fat or \| \| \| \| low-salt; premium variety e.g. Kettle chips, Walker's Sensations \| \| \| \| Packet weight \| \| \| \| Custard \| \| \| \| Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, \| \| \| \| instant, ready to serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Egg \| \| \| \| Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); \| \| \| \| type of oil/fat, milk added \| \| \| \| Number of eggs, large, \| \| \| \| medium or small \| \| \| \| Fish (including canned) \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. cod, tuna; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached \| \| \| \| (water or milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in \| \| \| \| oil, brine or tomato sauce \| \| \| \| Size of can or spoons \| \| \| \| (for canned fish) or size \| \| \| \| of fillet \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Fish cakes & fish fingers \| \| \| \| Type of fish; plain or battered or in breadcrumbs; fried, grilled, \| \| \| \| baked or microwaved; economy \| \| \| \| Size, number, \| \| \| \| packet weight \| \| \| \| Fruit - fresh \| What sort; eaten with or without skin \| Small, medium or large \| \| Fruit - stewed/canned \| \| \| \| What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice \| \| \| \| or syrup eaten \| \| \| \| Spoons, weight of can \| \| \| \| Fruit - juice (pure) \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) or \| \| \| \| carton size \| \| \| \| What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; \| \| \| \| pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; freshly squeezed; added \| \| \| \| vitamins/minerals, omega 3 \| \| \| \| Ice cream \| Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium \| Spoons/ scoops \| \| Jam, honey \| What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought/brand or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, \| \| \| \| or thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Marmalade \| Type; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought/brand or homemade \| \| \| Spoons, heaped or level, \| \| \| \| or thin or thick spread \| \| \| \| Meat (see also bacon, \| \| \| \| burgers & sausages) \| \| \| \| Large/small/medium, \| \| \| \| spoons, slices \| \| \| \| What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat \| \| \| \| removed or eaten; skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or \| \| \| \| without gravy \| \| \| \| Milkshake \| \| \| \| Fresh or long life/UHT; dairy or non-dairy alternative e.g. soya; if \| \| \| \| powder, made up with whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed milk; \| \| \| \| flavour; fortified with vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) \| \| \| \| cups or volume on \| \| \| \| bottle/carton \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Milk \| \| \| \| Type (whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed, 1% fat); fresh, sterilized, \| \| \| \| UHT, dried; soya milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' milk, rice \| \| \| \| milk; flavoured; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; \| \| \| \| formula milks for toddlers \| \| \| \| Pints, glass (size or \| \| \| \| volume) or cup. On \| \| \| \| cereal: \| \| \| \| damp/average/ \| \| \| \| drowned or fluid \| \| \| \| ounces/ml. \| \| \| \| In tea/coffee: \| \| \| \| a little/some/a lot \| \| \| \| Formula: \| \| \| \| proportion of \| \| \| \| formula to water \| \| \| \| Nuts \| What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted \| Packet weight, handful \| \| Pie (sweet or savoury) \| What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry \| Individual or slice \| \| Pizza \| \| \| \| Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; \| \| \| \| stuffed crust \| \| \| \| Individual, slice, fraction \| \| \| \| of large pizza e.g. ¼ \| \| \| \| Porridge \| \| \| \| Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk \| \| \| \| and/or water; added sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream \| \| \| \| Bowls, spoons \| \| \| \| Potatoes \| \| \| \| (see also chips) \| \| \| \| Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed \| \| \| \| (with butter/spread and with or without milk); fried/chips (type of \| \| \| \| oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter \| \| \| \| Mash - spoons, number \| \| \| \| of half or whole potatoes, \| \| \| \| small or large potatoes \| \| \| \| Pudding \| \| \| \| What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant \| \| \| \| desserts; milk puddings \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Rice \| \| \| \| What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or \| \| \| \| brown; boiled or fried (type of oil/fat) \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Salad \| Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) \| \| \| Amount of each \| \| \| \| component \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| Description & Preparation \| Portion size or quantity \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| Sandwiches and rolls \| \| \| \| Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of \| \| \| \| filling; including salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, \| \| \| \| where from? \| \| \| \| Number of rolls or slices \| \| \| \| of bread; amount of \| \| \| \| butter/margarine (on both \| \| \| \| slices?); amount of filling \| \| \| \| Sauce - cold (including \| \| \| \| mayonnaise) \| \| \| \| Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, \| \| \| \| mayonnaise; low fat; \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Spoons \| \| \| \| Sauce - hot (see also \| \| \| \| cook-in sauces) \| \| \| \| What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; for gravy - made with \| \| \| \| granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices \| \| \| \| Sausages \| What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat \| Large or small, number \| \| Sausage rolls \| Type of pastry \| \| \| Size - jumbo, standard, \| \| \| \| mini \| \| \| \| Scone \| Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour; homemade \| Small, medium or large \| \| Savoury snacks - in \| \| \| \| packet \| \| \| \| What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels \| \| \| \| Size (standard or mini \| \| \| \| variety), packet weight \| \| \| \| Smoothies \| \| \| \| If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. \| \| \| \| fruit, milk/yoghurt, fruit juice \| \| \| \| Glass or bottle (size or \| \| \| \| volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - squash/ \| \| \| \| concentrate/cordial \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified \| \| \| \| with added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass (size or volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - \| \| \| \| carbonated/fizzy \| \| \| \| Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free \| \| \| \| Glass, can or bottle (size \| \| \| \| or volume) \| \| \| \| Soft drinks - ready to \| \| \| \| drink \| \| \| \| Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; real fruit juice? If \| \| \| \| so, how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals \| \| \| \| Glass, carton or bottle \| \| \| \| (size or volume) \| \| \| \| Food/Drink \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Soup \| \| What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending \| \| machine. If home-made, give recipe \| \| Spoons, bowl or mug \| \| Spaghetti, other pasta \| \| What sort; fresh/chilled or dried; white, wholemeal; canned in \| \| sauce; type of filling if ravioli, cannelloni etc \| \| Spoons (or how much \| \| dry pasta) \| \| Toddler foods \| \| Food in jars: description and ingredients (e.g. vegetable risotto, fruit \| \| puree); Dry Foods: description (e.g. baby rice, cauliflower cheese); \| \| made up with milk and/or water \| \| Size of jar or packet, \| \| spoons for powdered foods \| \| (volume of water/milk \| \| used to mix with cereal or \| \| powder) \| \| Vegetables (not \| \| including potatoes) \| \| What sort; how cooked/raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce \| \| Spoons, number of \| \| florets or sprouts, weight \| \| from tins or packet \| \| Pot size or spoons \| \| Yoghurt (inc drinking \| \| yoghurt), fromage frais \| \| What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, \| \| very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; \| \| fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic \| \| Home-made dishes \| \| Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if \| \| you can in the section provided) and how many persons it serves \| \| Spoons - heaped or \| \| level, number, size, \| \| amount of recipe \| \| consumed e.g. ¼ \| \| Ready-made meals \| \| Full description of product; does it contain any accompaniments \| \| e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven \| \| cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label \| \| and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag \| \| Packet weight (if didn't \| \| eat whole packet \| \| describe portion \| \| consumed) \| \| Take-away food or food \| \| eaten out \| \| Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you \| \| can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonalds \| \| Spoons, portion size e.g. \| \| small/medium/large \| ## Day 1 How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten At table?  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Brief Description Of Cooking Method Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Ingredients How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table?  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? \| Yes \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| If no, please \| \| go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers \| \| \|  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes \| Ingredients \| \|-------------------------------------------------------\| \| Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! \| \| \| Ingredients How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table?  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Amount Ingredients ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes \| Ingredients \| Amount \| Ingredients \| Amount \| \|----------------\|-----------\|----------------\|-----------\| Please remember to complete the general questions on pages 64-71! Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of food that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? \| Usual \| \| \| \| \|--------------------------------------------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| Less \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| More \| \| \| \| \| than usual \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| If the intake was not usual, please explain why: \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|  Was the amount your toddler had to drink today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler finish all the food and drink that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and add them to the diary.  Did your toddler take any vitamins, minerals or other food supplements today? If yes, please describe the supplements s/he took below Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Amount Ingredients Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Please Complete The Questions Over The Page General Questions About The Frequency Of Eating Outside The Home Is your toddler regularly cared for outside the home e.g. child minder, nursery, relative? If YES 1(a) How many meals would she/he have in 'out-of-home care' per week? Please specify 1(b) Are these out-of-home meals prepared by yourself? Please specify 2 What type of soft drinks (e.g. squash, ready to drink, carbonated) does she/he usually have in 'out-of-home care'? STANDARD NO ADDED SUGAR/DIET/LOW CAL EITHER (see below) If either, please specify e.g. has No Added Sugar at nursery but standard at the childminder's If your nursery provides a copy of the nursery menu for the recording period we would appreciate if you could give this copy to the interviewer. This will help us later with the analysis of your toddler's diet. ## General Questions About Your Toddler'S Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did your toddler follow a special diet during the recording period e.g. vegetarian, milk-free, other? 2. What type of milk does your toddler usually drink? Tick only one \| Infant formula \| 1% fat milk \| \|-------------------------------------------------\|-------------------\| \| Soya formula \| Follow-on formula \| \| Whole milk (cow's milk) \| Soya milk \| \| Semi skimmed milk (cow's milk) \| Goat's milk \| \| Skimmed milk (cow's milk) \| Other \| \| Please specify the brand/type if not cow's milk \| \| ## Breakfast Cereals 3. How much milk does your toddler usually have on breakfast cereal? \| Drowned \| Average \| Damp \| None/did not eat \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------\|---------------------\|---------------------\| \| 4. How do you usually make porridge for your toddler? \| \| \| \| \| With all water \| With all milk \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \| 5. Did you usually sweeten or salt the porridge? \| \| \| \| \| With sugar \| With honey \| With salt \| Neither/did not eat \| \| 6. How did you usually make instant oat cereal for your toddler? \| \| \| \| \| With all water \| With all milk \| With milk and water \| Did not eat \| \| 7. Did you usually sweeten or salt the instant oat cereal? \| \| \| \| \| With sugar \| With honey \| With salt \| Neither/did not eat \| ## Fats For Spreading And Cooking most often for your toddler during the recording period? 9. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers for your toddler? often during the recording period? Please record the ## Bread 11. Which type of bread did your toddler eat most often during the recording period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other Type Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 12. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? Large Small 13. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? \| Thick \| Medium \| Thin \| Unsliced \| \|----------\|-----------\|---------\|-------------\| ## Meat 14. If your toddler ate meat during the recording period, did s/he eat the visible fat? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat meat \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|---------------------\| 15. If your toddler ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat poultry \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|------------------------\| ## Fruit And Vegetables 16. If your toddler ate apples during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|----------------\| 17. If your toddler ate pears during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|----------------\| 18. If your toddler ate new potatoes during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|----------------\| 19. If your toddler ate baked (jacket) potatoes during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| Did not eat \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\|----------------\| ## Salt 20. Do you add salt to your toddler's food at the table? \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\| 21. Do you add salt substitute to your toddler's food at the table? e.g. LoSalt \| Always \| Sometimes \| Never \| \|-----------\|--------------\|----------\| ## Cordial/Squash/Diluting Juice 22. Which Type Of Squash/Cordial Did Your Toddler Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? \| \| Standard \| \| No added sugar /diet/low calorie \| \| Did not drink \| \| \|-----\|--------------\|-----\|--------------------------------------\|-----\|------------------\|-----\| 23. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: Single Concentrate Double Concentrate 24. How much do you usually dilute your toddler's squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: __________________________________________________ Other soft drinks 25. For other soft drinks such as ready-to-drink juices and carbonated drinks, which type did your toddler have most often during the recording period? \| \| Standard \| \| No added sugar /diet/low calorie \| \| Did not drink \| \| \|-----\|--------------\|-----\|--------------------------------------\|-----\|------------------\|-----\| Water 26. Which type of water did your toddler drink most often during the recording period? \| \| \|-------\| \| brand \| \| \| ## Tea 27. How Much Milk Does Your Toddler Usually Have In Tea? A lot Some A little None/did not drink 28. Do you usually sweeten your toddler's tea with sugar? \| Yes \| Number of teaspoons \| None/did not drink \| \|--------\|--------------------------\|------------------------\| ## Drinks In General 29. Does your toddler finish all their cup/bottle each time you make it up? Yes No If No, please tell us how much of it they usually drink e.g. half, three-quarters: _____________________________ If you are able to, please use a measuring jug to measure your toddler's usual drinking vessels e.g. mug, glass, cup, bottle, beaker etc. and provide the volumes below ## Thank You For Completing This Diary.	en
3450-pdf	## Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire: Final 2018 Data Publication Date: 10 October 2019 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical Breakdown: None The Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) collects data on removals, production and trade of wood and wood products. Statistics are collected annually and the collection is co-ordinated by a number of international organisations: Eurostat, UNECE, FAO and ITTO. 1. In the JQ1 and JQ1 OB tables, "removals" data is as delivered to processors and others. 2. The product codes tables are provided as guidance by international organisations, the exact list of commodity codes used by Forest Research for specific JQ categories can differ. List of Tables JQ1 OB: Removals over bark JQ1: Removals and production JQ2: Trade JQ3: Trade in secondary processed wood and paper products Glulam and X-lam ECE-EU: Trade in roundwood and sawnwood by species EU1: Trade with countries outside the EU EU2: Removals by type of ownership Conversion factors Product codes for the JQ2 and EU1 tables Product codes for the JQ3 table UK data that is submitted to international organisations via the JFSQ is published twice a year, in May (provisional data) and September/ October (final data) at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-bytopic/international-returns/joint-forest-sector-questionnaire/ Next update: 14 May 2020: provisional results for 2019 September/ October 2019: final results for 2019 Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/ Removals Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS OVERBARK 1 ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 12,246 12,635 1.1 WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL 1000 m3 2,360 2,790 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1,760 2,090 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 600 700 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3 9,886 9,846 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3 9,754 9,712 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 133 133 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 1.2.1 SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS 1000 m3 7,533 7,360 1.2.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 7,456 7,282 1.2.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 78 78 1.2.2 PULPWOOD (ROUND & SPLIT) 1000 m3 1,788 1,940 1.2.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1,788 1,939 1.2.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 1 1.2.3 OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 566 546 1.2.3.C Coniferous 1000 m3 511 491 1.2.3.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 55 55 Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark) 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3ub 10,921 11,267 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 1000 m3ub 2,096 2,478 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1,571 1,866 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 525 613 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 8,825 8,788 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 8,709 8,672 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 116 117 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3ub 0 0 1.2.1 SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS 1000 m3ub 6,725 6,570 1.2.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 6,657 6,502 1.2.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 68 68 1.2.2 PULPWOOD, ROUND AND SPLIT 1000 m3ub 1,596 1,732 1.2.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1,596 1,731 1.2.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 0 1 1.2.3 OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 504 487 1.2.3.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 456 439 1.2.3.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 48 48 PRODUCTION 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 1000 mt 5 5 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 1000 m3 3,260 3,336 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 1000 m3 2,445 2,502 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) 1000 m3 815 834 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD 1000 mt 3,700 3,750 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 287 279 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 1000 mt 287 279 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 0 0 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 1000 m3 3,763 3,715 6.C Coniferous 1000 m3 3,721 3,674 6.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 42 41 6.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 7 VENEER SHEETS 1000 m3 0 0 7.C Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 7.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 1000 m3 3,176 3,079 8.1 PLYWOOD 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD 1000 m3 2,501 2,355 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 1000 m3 .. .. 8.3 FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 675 724 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 1000 m3 0 0 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 1000 m3 675 724 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 0 0 9 WOOD PULP 1000 mt .. .. 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt .. .. 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 0 0 Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 2,725 2,713 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 7 7 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 2,718 2,706 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 7,772 7,547 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 3,858 3,894 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 918 962 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt .. .. 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 734 738 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 1,935 1,904 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt .. .. 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 270 291 Note: .. denotes data not available. \| 1000 UK £ (Sterling) \| \| \|------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\| \| I M P O R T \| E X P O R T \| \| Product \| \| \| 2018 \| 2017 \| \| code \| Product \| \| quantity \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 \| ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) \| \| 1.1 \| WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) \| \| 1.1.C \| Coniferous \| \| 1.1.NC \| Non-Coniferous \| \| 1.2 \| INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD \| \| 1.2.C \| Coniferous \| \| 1.2.NC \| Non-Coniferous \| \| 1.2.NC.T \| of which: Tropical \| \| 2 \| WOOD CHARCOAL \| \| 3 \| WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES \| \| 3.1 \| WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES \| \| 3.2 \| WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) \| \| 4 \| RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD \| \| 5 \| WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES \| \| 5.1 \| WOOD PELLETS \| \| 5.2 \| OTHER AGGLOMERATES \| \| 6 \| SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) \| \| 6.C \| Coniferous \| \| 6.NC \| Non-Coniferous \| \| 6.NC.T \| of which: Tropical \| \| 7 \| VENEER SHEETS \| \| 7.C \| Coniferous \| \| 7.NC \| Non-Coniferous \| \| 7.NC.T \| of which: Tropical \| \| 8 \| WOOD-BASED PANELS \| \| 8.1 \| PLYWOOD \| \| 8.1.C \| Coniferous \| \| 8.1.NC \| Non-Coniferous \| \| 8.1.NC.T \| of which: Tropical \| \| 8.2 \| PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD \| \| 8.2.1 \| of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) \| \| 8.3 \| FIBREBOARD \| \| 8.3.1 \| HARDBOARD \| \| 8.3.2 \| MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) \| \| 8.3.3 \| OTHER FIBREBOARD \| \| 9 \| WOOD PULP \| \| 9.1 \| MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP \| \| 9.2 \| CHEMICAL WOOD PULP \| \| 9.2.1 \| SULPHATE PULP \| \| 9.2.1.1 \| of which: BLEACHED \| \| 9.2.2 \| SULPHITE PULP \| 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 48 35,231 40 28,076 0 3 1 172 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 19 43,183 20 42,200 2 3,236 3 2,499 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 18 42,059 17 39,924 0 425 0 373 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,124 3 2,276 2 2,810 2 2,126 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 107 14,067 120 21,224 4,733 648,701 4,540 570,363 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 5,610 3,417,680 5,525 3,414,864 788 997,126 771 1,021,786 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 2,858 1,738,696 2,887 1,663,953 304 466,454 367 460,729 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt 538 211,161 494 188,287 162 123,065 203 127,065 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt 310 160,655 357 171,632 8 41,057 8 38,829 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt 898 637,321 916 628,039 56 213,974 62 206,567 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt 1,111 729,559 1,120 675,995 78 88,358 94 88,269 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 389 305,391 391 314,431 11 36,018 33 50,647 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 2,226 1,307,336 2,212 1,373,295 352 415,508 355 424,131 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt 1,099 407,369 1,045 466,249 192 79,015 101 68,247 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt 814 642,902 852 653,386 104 207,662 173 215,914 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt 237 217,006 237 218,605 38 112,082 55 122,608 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt 77 40,060 79 35,055 19 16,749 27 17,361 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 137 66,257 36 63,185 122 79,145 16 86,279 ## Secondary Processed Wood And Paper Products: Trade 1000 UK £ (Sterling) Product Product I M P O R T V A L U E E X P O R T V A L U E code 2017 2018 2017 2018 13 Secondary wood products 13.1 Further processed sawnwood 177,946 149,932 22,352 29,123 13.1.C Coniferous 47,272 58,236 13,426 18,277 13.1.NC Non-coniferous 130,674 91,696 8,925 10,846 13.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 8,308 7,686 179 457 13.2 Wooden wrapping and packing material 167,689 171,436 47,411 50,226 13.3 Wood products for domestic/decorative use 149,414 136,967 31,110 30,594 13.4 Builder's joinery and carpentry of wood 734,751 684,471 53,114 66,374 13.5 Wooden furniture 3,459,001 3,148,113 443,133 481,251 13.6 Prefabricated buildings of wood 43,628 58,934 7,618 7,687 13.7 Other manufactured wood products 252,425 238,756 43,884 38,407 14 Secondary paper products 14.1 Composite paper and paperboard 40,855 42,456 13,870 11,864 14.2 Special coated paper 313,876 339,112 282,945 283,409 14.3 Household and sanitary paper, ready for use 32,750 31,371 12,315 13,561 14.4 Packaging cartons, boxes, etc. 759,940 740,724 300,065 325,859 14.5 Other articles of paper or paperboard 758,889 763,600 597,366 570,368 14.5.1 of which: printing & writing paper, ready for use 23,343 28,730 3,661 3,046 14.5.2 of which: articles, moulded or pressed from pulp 25,493 24,452 11,137 13,413 14.5.3 of which: filter paper & paperboard, ready for use 21,610 24,811 108,118 98,930 Flow Extra-EU Import Product Year Total Export Total Import Extra-EU Export Production 1000 mt 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 2017 Glulam .. 2 1,682 42 34,664 0 104 3 3,717 2018 .. 2 1,663 20 21,462 0 99 3 4,033 2017 X-lam .. 1 4,716 6 10,919 0 669 1 3,253 2018 .. 1 2,573 62 81,042 0 410 23 41,352 ## Definitions: Glulam: Builders' carpentry also includes glue-laminated timber (glulam), which is a structural timber product obtained by gluing together a number of wood laminations having their grain essentially parallel. Laminations of curved members are arranged so that the plane of each lamination is at 90 degrees to the plane of the applied load; thus, laminations of a straight gluman beam are laid flat. [from HS 4418, Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels, assembled flooring panels, shingles and shakes] X-lam: Panels consisting of laths of roughly sawn wood, assembled with glue in order to facilitate transport or later working. [from HS4421, Other articles of wood] .. denotes data not available. \| 1000 UK £ (Sterling) \| \| \|-------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------------------------\| \| I M P O R T \| E X P O R T \| \| \| \| \| 2017 \| 2018 \| \| ProductClassification \| \| \| Classification \| \| \| Unit of \| \| \| Code \| HS2007 \| \| Quantity Quantity \| \| \| Value \| Quantity \| \| 1.2.C \| 4403.11/21/22/23/24/25/26 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 383 \| 541 \| \| ex4403.11 \| Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 304 \| 459 \| \| 4403.23/24 \| 4403 23 10 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 278 \| 381 \| \| ex4403 11 00 4403 23 90 \| 4403 24 00 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 26 \| 77 \| \| ex4403.11 \| Pine (Pinus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 78 \| 62 \| \| 4403.21/22 \| 4403 21 10 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 15 \| 0 \| \| ex4403 11 00 \| 4403 21 90 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 64 \| 62 \| \| ex4403.11 \| Other / Non-specified \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 1 \| 20 \| \| 4403.25/26 \| 4403 25 10 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 0 \| 1 \| \| ex4403 11 00 \| 4403 25 90 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 1 \| 20 \| \| 1.2.NC 4403.12/41/49/91/93/94 \| 4403.95/96/97/98/99 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 45 \| 80 \| \| ex4403.12 \| 4403.91 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 4 \| 13 \| \| ex4403.12 \| 4403.93/94 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 1 \| 1 \| \| ex4403.12 \| of which: Birch (Betula spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 21 \| 33 \| \| 4403.95/96 \| 4403 95 10 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 0 \| 0 \| \| ex4403 12 00 \| 4403 95 90 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 21 \| 33 \| \| ex4403.12 \| 4403.97 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 0 \| 1 \| \| ex4403.12 \| 4403.98 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 2 \| 5 \| \| 6.C \| 4406.11/91 4407.11/12/19 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 7,088 \| 6,626 1,304,319 1,421,390 \| \| ex4406.11/91 4407.12 \| of which: Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 3,751 \| 3,538 \| \| ex4406.11/91 4407.11 \| of which: Pine (Pinus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 2,050 \| 2,032 \| \| 6.NC \| 4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/95/96/97/99 \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 575 \| 587 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.91 \| of which: Oak (Quercus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 153 \| 166 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.92 \| of which: Beech (Fagus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 13 \| 16 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.93 \| of which: Maple (Acer spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 0 \| 5 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.94 \| of which: Cherry (Prunus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 0 \| 1 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.95 \| of which: Ash (Fraxinus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 1 \| 15 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.97 \| of which: Poplar/Aspen (Populus spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 19 \| 44 \| \| ex4406.12/92 4407.96 \| of which: Birch (Betula spp.) \| \| 1000 m \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 50 \| 53 \| Note: "ex" codes indicate that only part of that trade classication code is used 1000 UK £ (Sterling) I M P O R T E X P O R T Product Unit of 2017 2017 2018 2018 code Product quantity Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3ub 13 2,406 26 6,567 11 2,469 13 3,015 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 1000 m3ub 10 929 5 1,036 0 140 0 128 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 6 433 1 328 0 133 0 121 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 4 497 3 708 0 7 0 7 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 3 1,477 22 5,531 11 2,329 13 2,888 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1 176 18 3,589 1 176 4 735 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 2 1,301 3 1,942 10 2,153 10 2,153 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3ub 2 1,291 3 1,889 8 2,196 7 1,782 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 1000 mt 83 26,152 87 29,250 0 439 1 390 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 1000 m3 1 496 4 741 80 4,109 30 5,060 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 1000 m3 1 496 1 638 80 4,107 30 5,056 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) 1000 m3 0 0 3 103 0 1 0 5 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD 1000 mt 0 41 4 70 0 6 0 2 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 5,700 824,025 6,597 933,040 0 44 0 372 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 1000 mt 5,697 822,746 6,591 931,235 0 21 0 10 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 3 1,279 6 1,805 0 24 0 362 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 1000 m3 659 278,648 673 258,793 13 9,196 11 10,546 6.C Coniferous 1000 m3 424 102,891 466 106,886 3 685 3 934 6.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 235 175,757 207 151,907 10 8,511 8 9,612 6.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 83 56,789 67 46,493 0 164 0 288 7 VENEER SHEETS 1000 m3 3 6,915 3 6,377 1 2,927 1 2,155 7.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1 1,361 0 1,360 0 391 0 424 7.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 3 5,555 2 5,017 0 2,536 0 1,731 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 286 0 4 0 402 0 35 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 1000 m3 1,318 413,621 1,402 463,067 39 11,723 37 13,703 8.1 PLYWOOD 1000 m3 1,254 385,189 1,297 427,707 7 3,491 5 3,337 8.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 410 104,953 437 123,712 1 252 0 137 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 844 280,236 859 303,995 6 3,239 5 3,201 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 179 67,695 220 87,268 2 823 1 647 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD 1000 m3 7 1,776 12 3,227 27 6,155 30 8,894 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 1000 m3 1 114 6 1,386 20 3,348 7 3,363 8.3 FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 57 26,655 93 32,132 6 2,077 2 1,471 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 1000 m3 12 9,480 5 4,524 0 59 0 80 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 1000 m3 26 10,299 55 19,153 4 1,373 1 799 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 19 6,877 33 8,456 2 645 0 593 9 WOOD PULP 1000 mt 372 180,994 310 175,968 0 162 1 730 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 1 566 3 1,854 0 153 0 550 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 328 149,070 276 152,344 0 7 0 13 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 1000 mt 328 147,982 276 151,414 0 2 0 9 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 1000 mt 325 146,610 275 150,729 0 0 0 7 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,088 1 930 0 5 0 4 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 43 31,358 30 21,770 0 3 1 167 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 14 38,070 13 31,870 1 479 0 87 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 13 37,055 10 30,145 0 289 0 49 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,015 2 1,726 0 190 0 38 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 2 1,710 19 5,226 3,980 530,704 3,830 470,475 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 1,246 757,820 1,047 700,073 231 369,763 264 376,819 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 694 348,963 572 321,003 162 244,066 180 228,385 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt 366 140,408 303 129,375 70 48,736 69 42,532 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt 21 13,087 29 18,856 3 12,559 3 10,242 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt 261 163,283 199 141,300 38 125,598 33 114,450 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt 47 32,186 41 31,472 51 57,172 75 61,161 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 181 157,676 155 153,261 2 3,546 2 2,995 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 356 232,358 310 211,206 59 85,579 70 96,573 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt 113 56,786 117 64,158 2 2,601 2 2,369 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt 207 139,706 164 116,901 33 41,504 42 46,623 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt 35 34,682 26 28,364 19 38,449 19 43,563 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt 1 1,184 2 1,782 5 3,026 7 4,018 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 14 18,823 10 14,602 9 36,573 12 48,865 Removals by type of ownership Produc Unit 2017 2018 t code Ownership Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark) 1 ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 10,921 11,267 1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 10,280 10,537 1.NC Non-coniferous 1000 m3 641 729 State forests 1000 m3 4,847 4,517 Coniferous 1000 m3 4,775 4,442 Non-coniferous 1000 m3 72 76 Other publicly owned forests 1000 m3 .. .. Coniferous 1000 m3 .. .. Non-coniferous 1000 m3 .. .. Private forest 1000 m3 6,074 6,749 Coniferous 1000 m3 5,505 6,096 Non-coniferous 1000 m3 569 654 Note: Ownership categories correspond to those of the Forest Resources Assessment. State forests: Forests owned by national, state and regional governments, or government-owned corporations; Crown forests. Other publicly owned forests: Forests belonging to cities, municipalities, villages and communes. Private forests: Forests owned by individuals, co-operatives, enterprises and industries and other private institutions. The unit should be solid cubic metres, under bark. ## The Following Factors Have Been Used To Convert Between Cubic Metres (M3) And Metric Tonnes: Product m3 / tonne Fuelwood, including wood for charcoal 1.38 Wood chips, sawdust, etc 1.48 Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - softwood 1.43 Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - hardwood 1.25 Sawnwood - softwood 1.82 Sawnwood - hardwood 1.43 Veneer sheets 1.33 Plywood, particleboard 1.54 Hardboard 1.053 MDF (medium density fibreboard) 1.667 Insulating board - density 0.35-0.5 g/cm3 1.667 Insulating board - other 4 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product Code HS2017 HS2012 SITC Rev.4 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 4401.11/12 44.03 4401.10 44.03 245.01 247 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 4401.11/12 4401.10 245.01 1.1.C Coniferous 4401.11 ex4401.10 ex245.01 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 4401.12 ex4401.10 ex245.01 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 44.03 44.03 247 1.2.C Coniferous 4403.11/21/22/23/24/25/26 ex4403.10 4403.20 ex247.3 247.4 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 4403.12/41/49/91/93/94/95/96/97/98/99 ex4403.10 4403.41/49/91/92/99 ex247.3 247.5 247.9 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical ex4403.12 4403.41/49 ex4403.10 4403.41/49 ex4403.99 ex247.3 247.5 ex247.9 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 4402.90 4402.90 ex245.02 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 4401.21/22 4401.40 4401.21/22 ex4401.39 246.1 ex246.2 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 4401.21/22 4401.21/22 246.1 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) ex4401.40 ex4401.39 ex246.2 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD ex4401.40 ex4401.39 ex246.2 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 4401.31/39 4401.31 ex4401.39 ex246.2 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 4401.31 4401.31 ex246.2 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 4401.39 ex4401.39 ex246.2 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 44.06 44.07 44.06 44.07 248.1 248.2 248.4 6.C Coniferous 4406.11/91 4407.11/12/19 ex4406.10/90 4407.10 ex248.11 ex248.19 248.2 6.NC Non-Coniferous ex248.11 ex248.19 248.4 4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/9 5/96/97/99 ex4406.10/90 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/95/ 99 6.NC.T of which: Tropical ex4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29 ex4406.10/90 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29 ex4407.99 ex248.11 ex248.19 ex248.4 7 VENEER SHEETS 44.08 44.08 634.1 7.C Coniferous 4408.10 4408.10 634.11 7.NC Non-Coniferous 4408.31/39/90 4408.31/39/90 634.12 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 4408.31/39 4408.31/39 ex4408.90 ex634.12 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 44.10 44.11 4412.31/33/34/39/94/99 44.10 44.11 4412.31/32/39/94/99 634.22/23/31/33/39 634.5 8.1 PLYWOOD 4412.31/33/34/39/94/99 4412.31/32/39/94/99 634.31/33/39 8.1.C Coniferous 4412.39 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.39 ex4412.94 ex.4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 4412.31/33/34 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.31/32 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 4412.31 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.31 ex4412.32 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) and SIMILAR BOARD 44.10 44.10 634.22/23 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 4410.12 4410.12 ex634.22 8.3 FIBREBOARD 44.11 44.11 634.5 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 4411.92 4411.92 ex634.54 ex634.55 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 4411.12/13 ex4411.14 4411.12/13 ex4411.14 ex634.54 ex634.55 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD ex4411.14 4411.93/94 ex4411.14 4411.93/94 ex634.54 ex634.55 9 WOOD PULP 47.01/02/03/04/05 47.01/02/03/04/05 251.2 251.3 251.4 251.5 251.6 251.91 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 47.01 47.05 47.01 47.05 251.2 251.91 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 47.03 47.04 47.03 47.04 251.4 251.5 251.6 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 47.03 47.03 251.4 251.5 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 4703.21/29 4703.21/29 251.5 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 47.04 47.04 251.6 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 47.02 47.02 251.3 10 OTHER PULP 47.06 47.06 251.92 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 4706.10/30/91/92/93 4706.10/30/91/92/93 ex251.92 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 4706.20 4706.20 ex251.92 11 RECOVERED PAPER 47.07 47.07 251.1 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 48.01 48.02 48.03 48.04 48.05 48.06 48.08 48.09 48.10 4811.51/59 48.12 48.13 48.01 48.02 48.03 48.04 48.05 48.06 48.08 48.09 48.10 4811.51/59 48.12 48.13 641.1 641.2 641.3 641.4 641.5 641.62/63/64/69/71/72/74/75/76/77/93 642.41 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 48.01 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58/61/62/69 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 641.1 641.21/22/26/29 641.3 48.01 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58/61/62/69 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 48.01 48.01 641.1 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 4802.61/62/69 4802.61/62/69 641.29 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58 641.21/22/26 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 641.3 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 48.03 48.03 641.63 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 641.41/42/46 ex641.47 641.48/51/52 ex641.53 641.54/59/62/64/69/71/72/74/75/76/77 4804.11/19/21/29/31/39/42/49/51/52/59 4805.11/12/19/24/25/30/91/92/93 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/32/39/92/99 4811.51/59 4804.11/19/21/29/31/39/42/49/51/52/59 4805.11/12/19/24/25/30/91/92/93 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/32/39/92/99 4811.51/59 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 4804.11/19 4805.11/12/19/24/25/91 4804.11/19 4805.11/12/19/24/25/91 641.41/51/54 ex641.59 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 4804.42/49/51/52/59 4805.92 4810.32/39/92 4811.51/59 4804.42/49/51/52/59 4805.92 4810.32/39/92 4811.51/59 ex641.47 641.48 ex641.59 641.75/76 ex641.77 641.71/72 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 4804.21/29/31/39 4805.30 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/99 4804.21/29/31/39 4805.30 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/99 641.42/46/52 ex641.53 641.62/64/69/74 ex641.77 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 4805.93 4805.93 ex641.59 641.24 ex641.47 641.56 ex641.53 641.55/93 642.41 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. 4802.40 4804.41 4805.40/50 4806.30 48.12 48.13 4802.40 4804.41 4805.40/50 4806.30 48.12 48.13 The term " ex" means that there is not a complete correlation between the two codes and that only a part of the HS2012/HS2017 or SITC Rev.4 code is applicable. For instance " ex4401.40" under product 3.2 means that only a part of HS2017 code 4401.40 refers to wood residues coming from wood processing (the other part coded under 4401.40 is recovered post-consumer wood). In SITC Rev.4, if only 4 digits are shown, then all sub-headings at lower degrees of aggregation are included (for example, 634.1 includes 634.11 and 634.12). ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq3 (Supp. 1) Secondary Processed Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 \| \| \| \|------------------------------------\|----------------------------\| \| C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s \| \| \| Product \| Product \| \| Code \| \| \| HS2017 \| HS2012 \| \| \| \| \| 13 \| \| \| SECONDARY WOOD PRODUCTS \| \| \| 13.1 \| \| \| FURTHER PROCESSED SAWNWOOD \| 4409.10/22/29 \| \| 13.1.C \| \| \| Coniferous \| 4409.10 \| \| 13.1.NC \| \| \| Non-coniferous \| 4409.22/29 \| \| 13.1.NC.T \| \| \| of which: Tropical \| 4409.22 \| \| 13.2 \| \| \| WOODEN WRAPPING AND PACKAGING \| \| \| MATERIAL \| \| \| 44.15/16 \| 44.15/16 \| \| 13.3 \| \| \| WOOD PRODUCTS FOR \| \| \| DOMESTIC/DECORATIVE USE \| \| \| 44.14 4419.90 44.20 \| 44.14 \| \| 13.4 \| \| \| BUILDER'S JOINERY AND CARPENTRY OF \| \| \| WOOD \| \| \| 4418.10/20/40/50/60/74/75/ \| \| \| 79/99 \| \| \| 635.31/32/33 \| ex635.34 \| \| ex635.39 \| \| \| 4418.10/20/40/50/60 \| \| \| ex4418.71 ex4418.72 \| \| \| ex4418.79 ex4418.90 \| \| \| 13.5 \| \| \| WOODEN FURNITURE \| \| \| 821.16 \| ex821.19 \| \| 821.51/53/55/59 \| ex821.8 \| \| 9401.61/69 \| ex9401.90 \| \| 9403.30/40/50/60 \| \| \| ex9403.90 \| \| \| 9401.61/69 \| ex9401.90 \| \| 9403.30/40/50/60 \| \| \| ex9403.90 \| \| \| 13.6 \| \| \| PREFABRICATED BUILDINGS OF WOOD \| 9406.10 \| \| 13.7 \| \| \| OTHER MANUFACTURED WOOD PRODUCTS \| 44.04/05/13/17 4421.10/99 \| \| 44.04/05/13/17 4421.10 \| \| \| ex4421.90 \| \| \| 634.21/91/93 635.91 \| \| \| ex635.99 \| \| \| 14 \| \| ## Secondary Paper Products 14.1 COMPOSITE PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 48.07 48.07 641.92 14.2 SPECIAL COATED PAPER AND PULP PRODUCTS 4811.10/41/49/60/90 4811.10/41/49/60/90 641.73/78/79 14.3 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPER, READY FOR USE 48.18 48.18 642.43/94 14.4 PACKAGING CARTONS, BOXES ETC. 48.19 48.19 642.1 14.5 OTHER ARTICLES OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, READY FOR USE 48.14/16/17/20/21/22/23 48.14/16/17/20/21/22/23 641.94 642.2 642.3 642.42/45/91/93/99 892.81 14.5.1 of which: PRINTING AND WRITING PAPER, READY FOR USE ex4823.90 ex4823.90 ex642.99 14.5.2 of which: ARTICLES, MOULDED OR PRESSED FROM PULP 4823.70 4823.70 ex642.99 14.5.3 of which: FILTER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, READY FOR USE 4823.20 4823.20 642.45 The term " ex" means that there is not a complete correlation betw een the tw o codes and that only a part of the HS2012/HS2017 or SITC Rev.4 code is applicable. For instance " ex811.00" under " Prefabricated buildings of w ood" means that only a part of SITC code 811.00 refers to buildings prefabricated from w ood, as that code does not distinguish betw een the materials buildings w ere prefabricated In SITC Rev.4, if only 4 digits are show n, then all subheadings at low er degrees of aggregation are included (for example, 892.2 includes 892.21 and 892.29).	en
1691-pdf	## Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 6: Social Release date: 24 September 2020 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical breakdown: Country Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ ## Contents \| Introduction 3 \| \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| Key findings 4 \| \| \| 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys 5 \| \| \| 6.1.1 England 7 \| \| \| 6.1.2 Wales \| \| \| 6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors \| \| \| 6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group \| 16 \| \| 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys \| \| \| 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey \| 18 \| \| 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors \| 19 \| ## Introduction This chapter contains statistics on: - the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys; and - the number and profile of visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodlands from onsite surveys and administrative sources. The statistics in this chapter need to be viewed in the context of broader changes in the UK population, with an increasing and ageing population. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increase in visits to the outdoors. Initial studies are providing some information on these changes, but these have not been incorporated into this release yet. For further information, see: - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-surveyfor-england (see monthly interim indicators); - https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020 - https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-duringcoronavirus-lockdown and - http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlightsimportance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/. Geographical coverage for social statistics varies. Estimates are presented at country level and, where possible, UK or GB totals are included. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter. Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Social section of the Sources chapter. The frequency with which the estimates in this chapter are updated varies depending on the data sources used. Whilst some of the information presented is now several years old, it represents the latest available data and has been included to provide a more rounded picture of the social use of forests in the UK. Further information on the advantages and disadvantages of household surveys and of on-site surveys is provided in the Social section of the Sources chapter. A copy of all social tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/statistics/data-downloads/. ## Key Findings The main findings are: - There were an estimated 368 million visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19. - Around one half (49%) of visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19 were within 2 miles. - "Health and exercise" and "fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather" were important reasons for visits to woodlands in England and Wales. - Walking was the most common activity on visits to woodland in England. - Around 465 thousand people visited Forest Service sites where a charge is made in Northern Ireland in 2019-20. ## 6.1 Visits To Woodland - Household Surveys The information shown below in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys. - Scottish Recreation Survey (2009 to 2012) - Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2011, 2014) - Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England, 2009-10 onwards) - Scotland's People and Nature Survey (2013, 2017/18) It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. The figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. Further information on the differences between surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter. In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys. Results from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2018- 19 estimate a total of 368 million visits to woodlands in England (Table 6.1). This is a statistically significant decrease from the 2017-18 figure of 437 million visits. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey 2014 estimated a total of 68 million visits to woodlands by Welsh residents. This is a statistically significant decrease from the estimated total of 86 million in 2011, but similar to the 2008 estimate (64 million). Scotland's People and Nature Survey 2017/18 reports an estimated total of 117 million visits to woodlands in Scotland. This is a statistically significant increase from the 2013 estimate of 90 million visits. ## million visits Year England Wales Scotland 2009 317 .. 57 2010 326 .. 63 2011 358 86 65 2012 357 .. 62 2013 378 .. 90 2014 417 68 .. 2015 446 .. .. 2016 439 .. .. 2017 437 .. 117 2018 368 .. .. Sources: England 2009 on: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS; Wales 2011, 2014: Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey carried out by TNS; Scotland 2009 - 2012: Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), carried out by TNS; Scotland 2013, 2017: Scotland's People and Nature Survey (SPANs), carried out by TNS. Notes: 1. MENE covered trips taken in England, including those from holiday bases, by respondents living in England. Results relate to 12 month periods from March to February. 2. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey totals shown are for trips with woodland as the main destination. 3. The Scottish Recreation Survey ran from July 2003 until December 2012. It was replaced by Scotland's People and Nature Survey that ran from March 2013 to February 2014 and from May 2017 to April 2018. Both surveys covered visits to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in Scotland by people living in Scotland. The total shown is for all trips that included a visit to woodland. 4. In each survey, visits to overseas destinations are excluded. 5. .. Denotes data not available. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.1 England Household surveys in England In March 2009 fieldwork commenced on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, which includes collecting information on visits to the outdoors in England. Further information on the survey, including copies of annual reports and online data viewers to access more detailed results, is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-ofengagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results. Tables 6.2a to 6.2e shows the main characteristics of visits to woodlands over the most recent 5 years. In 2018-19, walking was the main mode of transport for almost one half (47%) of visits to woodland. per cent of respondents Main mode of transport 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 On foot 60 60 54 53 47 Car / van 36 36 42 44 45 Bicycle 2 2 2 1 1 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Around one half (49%) of visits to woodland were within 2 miles. per cent of respondents Distance travelled (one way) 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Less than 1 mile 39 32 28 29 25 1 to 2 miles 25 31 28 27 24 3 to 5 miles 19 20 21 23 26 6 to 10 miles 9 8 11 11 10 Over 10 miles 9 10 12 10 16 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Health or exercise was the most popular reason for visiting woodlands in England in 2018-19 (70%). per cent of respondents Motivation for visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 For health or exercise 53 60 55 56 70 To exercise your dog 66 65 60 53 53 39 41 39 41 46 For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather To relax and unwind 35 42 37 37 40 To enjoy scenery 32 38 34 36 34 To be somewhere you like 23 26 25 26 29 For peace and quiet 22 27 33 26 29 To enjoy wildlife 27 30 28 28 28 To spend time with family 17 14 15 16 28 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. 2. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. 3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Walking (with or without a dog) was the most popular activity on visits to woodland in England in 2018-19. per cent of respondents Activities during visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Walking without a dog 22 23 31 56 56 Walking with a dog 68 66 59 36 36 Playing with children 6 6 8 10 15 Eating or Drinking Out 5 6 8 10 15 Cycling/ mountain biking 4 3 6 4 6 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. 2. Excludes other activities, each reported by fewer than 5% of respondents in 2018-19. 3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## Most visits to woodlands in England (62%) lasted up to 2 hours in 2018-19. 2018-19 per cent of respondents Duration of visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Up to 1 hour 51 50 43 45 39 1+ to 2 hours 28 29 29 26 23 2+ to 3 hours 8 9 11 12 18 Over 3 hours 5 4 9 7 11 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.2 Wales Household surveys in Wales The National Survey for Wales began in March 2016 and replaced a number of separate surveys of households in Wales, including the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (WORS). The survey is completed by around 12,000 people each year and covers a wide range of topics. Further information on the survey, including copies of reports and data, is available at https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales. Table 6.3 shows the reasons provided for their visit to the outdoors by respondents who stated that the main destination of the visit was woodland. "Health and exercise" and "fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather" were the most important reasons reported for visits to woodlands in Wales. per cent of respondents Reason for visit 2016-17 2018-19 For health or exercise 47 55 For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather 50 47 For pleasure / enjoyment 42 42 To spend time with family 39 41 To relax and unwind 34 41 To enjoy scenery and wildlife 38 39 To exercise the dog 38 30 For peace and quiet 22 29 To spend time with friends 16 22 Source: National Survey for Wales (Welsh Government). Notes: 1. Visits where the main destination was woodland. 2. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. 3. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. ## 6.1.3 Public Opinion Of Forestry Survey - Woodland Visitors The Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is carried out every two years and obtains people's attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland. Copies of reports and detailed data tables are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-bytopic/public-opinion-of-forestry/. The results shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 and Figure 6.1 have been taken from the UK and country reports on the latest surveys in 2019 and from surveys in earlier years. The reports also include other recreation-related results, such as whether the woodlands visited were in towns or the countryside and any reasons given by survey respondents for not visiting woodlands. In the UK 2019 survey, over three fifths (63%) of respondents said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.4). per cent of respondents Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 2003 66 62 64 77 67 2005 65 69 50 67 65 2007 76 79 75 62 77 2009 77 .. 57 .. 77 2010 .. .. .. 72 .. 2011 68 68 75 .. 67 2013 65 64 76 .. 66 2014 .. .. .. 75 .. 2015 55 64 78 .. 56 2017 62 72 84 .. 61 2019 63 77 .. 78 63 Source: UK/GB, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys Base: UK/GB = 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007), 2,000 respondents (2009 to 2019); Scotland and Wales = 1,000 respondents each; Northern Ireland = 120 respondents (2003), 1,000 respondents (all other years). Notes: 1. Those stating that they had visited woodland in the last few years. 2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±4.7% (for surveys with around 1,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) and at least 7 percentage points (for surveys each with around 1,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference. 3. .. Denotes data not available (survey not run that year or question not asked). These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Survey respondents were asked how frequently they had visited during the previous summer and winter. Figure 6.1, which presents aggregated UK results for the 2015 to 2019 surveys, shows that respondents visited much more often during the summer, with 44% of respondents visiting at least once a month in the summer compared to around one quarter (27%) in the winter. Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 2015 to 2019. Base: Average visit frequencies from last three UK surveys: 2,000 respondents per survey. Notes: 1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any individual year and no more than ±1.1% for the 3 surveys combined. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.4 Public Opinion Of Forestry Survey - Woodland Visitors By Age Group In the UK 2019 Public Opinion of Forestry survey, 71% of respondents aged 35 to 54 said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.5). This compares with around three fifths (61%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 and 56% of those aged 55 or over. per cent of respondents Year Aged 16 to 34 Aged 35 to 54 Aged 55 and over Total 1999 73 74 55 67 2001 75 77 63 72 2003 71 72 60 67 2005 66 74 56 65 2007 79 82 69 77 2009 78 84 69 77 2011 65 74 63 67 2013 62 75 60 66 2015 54 62 53 56 2017 60 68 55 61 2019 61 71 56 63 Source: UK and GB Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 1999 to 2019. Base: 2,000 respondents (1999, 2001, 2009 to 2019); 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007). Notes: 1. Those stating they had visited woodland in the last few years. 2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±2.3% (for surveys with around 4,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.2 Visits To Woodland - On-Site Surveys The previous section provided information on visits to all woodlands (regardless of ownership), based on data from household surveys. This section provides information on visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodland only, based on data from on-site surveys and administrative sources. The information provided in this section covers: - Visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland (Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands) from the All Forests Scotland surveys run from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13. An updated estimate of total visits in 2016 is also provided. - Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made. ## 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey All Forests surveying in Scotland has been undertaken on two occasions. The first All Forests Survey in Scotland was carried out across a three-year period from June 2004 to June 2007, and estimated that around 8.2 million visits are made annually to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. An estimated 150-200 thousand visits to events in forests and around 300 thousand visits during the hours of darkness (when fieldwork was not undertaken) were also made, giving an overall total of around 8.7 million visits per year. The second All Forests Survey was carried out from November 2012 to October 2013, and estimated an annual total of 9.1 million visits (including visits to events and in the hours of darkness) to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. This represents a 5% increase on the estimated overall total of 8.7 million visits from the 2004-2007 survey. The estimated number of visits has been updated using data from 224 automatic counters at 165 sites. For sites without counters, estimates have been produced using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers. This gives an overall estimate of 10.2 million visits to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland in 2016, a 12% increase from 2012-13. Further information is available on the Forestry and Land Scotland website at https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/tourism-andrecreation/research-resources-guidance. ## 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service Day Visitors Information on visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland is provided by the Forest Service and relates only to sites where an admission charge is made. In Northern Ireland in 2019-20, 465 thousand people visited those Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made (Table 6.6). This represented a 13% decrease from the previous year, and is reflective of new partnership agreements with local councils for the management of recreation facilities in Forest Service forests coming into effect. thousands Year Visitors to Forest Service sites 2010-11 468 2011-12 430 2012-13 340 2013-14 364 2014-15 397 2015-16 432 2016-17 584 2017-18 509 2018-19 532 2019-20 465 Source: Forest Service Notes: 1. Number of people visiting sites where an admission charge was made, excluding campers. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.	en
3636-pdf	## Conference Room A The National Archives Kew 10:.15-10.30 Arrival 10.30-11.15 Update to the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations Malcolm Todd, TNA 11.15-12.00 Complaints process John Williams, TNA. Steve Wood, ICO 12.00-12.30 Free Discussion 12.30-13.15 Lunch 13.15-13.45 Poachers and Gamekeepers - TNA reflections on being regulated by ICO Stuart Abraham, TNA 13.45-14.15	en
2849-pdf	FOOD we can TRUST Food Standards Agency Strategic Plan 2015-20 ## Contents \| INTRODUCTION \| 4 \| \|--------------------\|-----\| \| STRATEGIC OUTCOMES \| \| \| 8 \| \| \| THE STRATEGIC PLAN \| 10 \| ## Key Activities 20 Working Towards Food We Can Trust 22 FOOD IS SAFE 24 FOOD IS WHAT IT SAYS IT IS 26 GATHERING AND USING SCIENCE, 28 EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION EMPOWERING CONSUMERS 30 ALIGNING INCENTIVES 32 BEING THE BEST ORGANISATION WE CAN BE 34 ## Introduction In 2014 the Board approved the strategy for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for 2015-2020. 1 The strategy focuses on why we exist - our purpose and mission, and our big objectives. In developing the strategy we reviewed a large amount of evidence and engaged with consumers, colleagues within the FSA, and a very wide range of stakeholders (academic and scientific, consumer organisations, industry representatives, local authorities, and other government departments (OGDs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ), to identify the key themes that the FSA would use to inform its planning for the period 2015-2020. A number of critical themes emerged that inform our strategic plan. The most important relates to our unique role within government as set out in our founding legislation: The main objective of the FSA in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. Focusing on this purpose, set for us by Parliament, and having considered the likely environmental factors that face the UK over the next strategy and beyond, the Board agreed to refresh and reinvigorate the FSA pledge: We will put consumers first in everything we do. We came to the conclusion that given challenges to food safety, authenticity, and food security we needed to consider "the interests of consumers" in the round, and after significant work with consumers and others we agreed a definition of consumer interests that will underpin our strategic plan. Food is safe and what it says it is, and we have access to an affordable healthy diet, and can make informed choices about what we eat, now and in the future. We identified that the FSA would concentrate its own efforts and resources on "food is safe and what it says it is" because those are the areas in which we are well placed to make the biggest contribution to consumer interests. We also said that we would explore whether we could use our science and evidence based approach and our credibility and independence to support consumers to consider the inter-relationship between their immediate and medium/ longer term interests in relation to food in the context of innovation in the food system. We know there are growing challenges around safety, affordability, security and sustainability. We also know that some of the current and future innovations possible in food production will conflict with some people's values. As a society we will need to be clear on the extent to which harnessing innovation will be necessary and acceptable in meeting those challenges. We believe the role of the FSA, where there are innovations which could deliver net consumer benefit across the range of consumers' interests, is to help frame the public debate and to advocate for adoption of those technologies. In consultation with consumers we identified three consumer rights to underpin our work: • The right to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk. • The right to make choices knowing the facts. • The right to the best food future possible. Consumers sometimes tell us that they feel powerless in their relationship with food. We want consumers to be and feel powerful - able to contribute effectively to shaping a food system that protects their interests and respects their rights. We have roles in protecting, informing and empowering consumers as part of helping them secure these rights. Section 7(2) of the Food Standards Act states that the Agency has the function of "ensuring that members of the public are kept adequately informed about and advised in respect of matters which the Agency considers significantly affect their capacity to make informed decisions about food". We also recognise that consumers have responsibilities as well as rights and we want to create an environment in which consumers are encouraged to be active players in creating the best food future possible. Safe and what it says it is We acknowledged that affordability, choice, food security and sustainability are issues where others have much greater ability to make a difference than we do. We do not want to spread ourselves too thinly, and by trying to do too much, achieve less for consumers. But we do want to contribute to the work that others do in these areas where we can to support the best outcomes for consumers. We also acknowledge that when we take decisions or try to make a difference in our key areas of focus, we potentially affect other key aspects of consumers' interests in relation to food. So we commit to think more carefully about all our own activities and assess each of them through the lenses of their impact on affordability, choice, nutritional quality, food security and sustainability. Within our key areas of focus ("safe and what it says it is") we need to be clear about our role and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities of others. It is the responsibility of people producing and supplying food to ensure it is safe and what it says it is … and the Food Standards Agency has a key leadership role in making sure they step up to that responsibility. As well as rights, consumers also have responsibilities - contributions that only they can make to improving the food system and its impacts on them and their families. It is a responsibility of consumers to manage the risks relating to food that they can. They have a right to be informed and supported in taking on these responsibilities and we are committed to doing everything we can to help them do so. ## Strategic Outcomes We will identify a series of indicators for each of the strategic outcomes, and we will monitor and report on these as part of our regular business and performance management cycle. The strategic outcomes, against which we will measure our impact, are aligned to the definition of consumer interests in relation to food, as set out in the strategy: The FSA has a joint responsibility with others - including industry, consumers, and other areas of government - to improve these food related outcomes for consumers. The outcomes are co-produced and result from many factors; the FSA alone cannot achieve them. Only by everyone working together and playing their part will we be able to deliver food we can all trust. We will ensure we play our part and set ourselves targets for those factors which we can take responsibility for delivering. • Food is safe. • Food is what it says it is. • Consumers can make informed choices about what to eat. • Consumers have access to an affordable healthy diet, now and in the future. ## The Strategic Plan The strategic plan identifies the major themes that will inform how we will set about building the organisation and its capabilities to achieve the purpose and objectives that are set out in the strategy. The FSA Strategy 2015-20, identifies why we exist, what our purpose and mission is, and how that relates to the changing environment in which we operate. In formulating our strategy, the Board recognised that the food system is going to come under increasing pressure over the next ten to twenty years, and that we cannot be sure at what pace changes will happen. So they agreed an approach to the plan for 2015-2020 that focuses on dealing with the challenges of today while seeking to build our readiness for the threats and opportunities of the future. We will use science, evidence and information both to tackle the challenges of today, and to identify and contribute to addressing emerging risks for the future. In our discussions with stakeholders they have reiterated the importance of us continuing to develop and apply a robust evidence base in our work to protect consumers' interests. Sound evidence, openly published and well communicated is one of the foundations of trust. Our continued commitment to developing the evidence base provides a critical underpinning that enables consumers to access and understand the science behind decisions, and encourages industry to comply with our requests and advice because they know that they are rational in their basis. We will gather and use evidence to identify and understand the biggest risks and challenges to consumers' interests, so that we can make sure we focus our efforts on areas where we can make or cause others to make the biggest impacts. We will develop our strategy and plan for science, evidence and information working closely with stakeholders. We will use legislative and non-legislative tools highly effectively to protect consumer interests and deliver consumer benefits - influencing business behaviour in the interests of consumers In all our discussions about our strategy everyone we have spoken to - from the food industry as well as consumers and academics - has reiterated the need for a strong regulator, independent of the food industry and its advocates. People are aware of the resource pressures on local and central government and the need to find sustainably resourced ways of working that protect consumers for the long term in this context. In ensuring that businesses step up to their responsibilities and consumers are supported and informed to meet theirs, the FSA has access to two main sets of tools. There are traditional regulatory tools such as making legislation and regulations and enforcing them; and there are communication based tools, such as providing greater transparency on business standards, which can incentivise rapid and more comprehensive improvement, and reward responsible businesses as well as better informing and empowering consumers. We will follow the principles in the Regulatory Strategy,2 which were agreed by the Board in January 2015. These include: • We will put consumers first in everything we do. • We will seek to align incentives and disincentives for food businesses with the interests of consumers. • Our focus will be on the outcomes we are seeking to achieve, keeping an open mind about the means by which those outcomes are achieved. • Our future regulatory approach should be truly risk-based and assessed in terms of impacts. • We will use our powers to deliver our strategic objectives - which go beyond our regulatory responsibility in respect of verifying compliance with food law. • Government intervention (including legislation) is warranted where its benefits to the public are proportionate to the costs/ disbenefits of its application. • The costs to businesses of regulation should be no more than they need to be. • It is not the FSA's or local authorities' role to achieve compliance - that is clearly defined in law as the responsibility of business. Consumers deserve the protection of food law enforcement that delivers for them by matching resources to risk, and using and improving the effectiveness of the full range of enforcement tools. Our new Food Crime Unit will focus on tracking down and putting out of business those operators who are wilfully breaking the law and placing consumers at risk. In targeting enforcement resources we will give greater recognition to businesses who do the right thing for consumers and we will continue to concentrate on finding cost effective ways to support businesses to do so, building on the success of our "Safer Food, Better Business" pack for small businesses, for example. We will use a "campaigning approach" to deliver benefits for consumers - by which we mean that we will focus clearly on what changes are in the interest of consumers and why; we will seek to persuade consumers and businesses to make those changes that will benefit consumers in the long run; we will align our resources to achieve them; and we will build coalitions with other organisations, parts of government, and opinion formers to deliver benefits to consumers. ## We Will Be Genuinely Open And Engaging, Finding Ways To Empower Consumers Both In Our Policy Making And Delivery, And In Their Relationship With The Food Industry At our foundation the FSA was in the vanguard of initiatives to improve openness and transparency and we have a heritage on which we can build, and need to build given changes in the expectations of society, and the environment we operate in. We believe that consumers are able to engage with complex issues relating to their interests in relation to food if they are given the right support and opportunities to do so, and we will seek to give them those opportunities, share the insights that emerge, and encourage others to engage with consumers openly and make information accessible to them about the food system and how it works. We will find and trial new ways of engaging with consumers and other stakeholders The right to make decisions knowing the facts requires much greater transparency in the food system. The information collected by industry about the food that people buy, and where and how it is produced, goes far beyond that which appears on labels and menus. The success of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme shows it is possible to take a range of information, in this case about premises, plans and hygiene practices, and distil them into a simple index that is understood by consumers and allows them to make better informed decisions. We will drive an agenda of transparency in the food system, setting clear expectations about the information that industry and regulator should publish, and working with consumers to understand and articulate the issues that matter to them so that we and other interested parties can develop new tools and applications that help support consumers to take greater responsibility for the food decisions they make and their impacts. We will find and trial new ways of engaging with consumers and other stakeholders at the very earliest stage so they help us form the questions and challenges that we want policy to address; new ways of engaging people throughout the policy making process not just during formal consultation; and ways of testing potential solutions with stakeholders - policy prototyping to help us refine policy solutions and optimise their delivery. We will create an environment in which our people are highly capable, effectively supported, and consistently choose to make outstanding contributions to protecting, informing and empowering consumers Consumers and other stakeholders, including the food industry, have told us they want an FSA which is strong, appropriately resourced, and credible. As well as requiring us to work on sustainable models of funding, prioritisation, and the acquisition and application of evidence, this critically depends on our ability to attract and effectively deploy the best people. As our approach becomes one which is about delivering impact from our expertise and influencing others we become more and more dependent on the quality, skills, motivation and alignment of our people. We believe that we are at our best when: • We are trustworthy and professional. • We are well managed and work with integrity. • We are consumer focused and creative campaigners. • We are flexible and resilient and hard working. • We work really well together across the whole organisation and with others. • We understand business and how to get them to do things. • We focus on outcomes and the processes that support them. • We are innovative. Our people plan will focus on making sure we have the: • Right people with • The right skills, knowledge and behaviours, and • The right engagement • Supported by the right ways of working. Over the course of the strategic plan period a measure of this will be how we move our people's engagement and alignment with the FSA up to amongst the best in the civil service, achieving the high performing benchmark in the Civil Service People Survey. We will consider the best ways of working for the future, enabling people to contribute from the locations and in the ways that suit them best and work across and beyond the organisation's boundaries collaboratively. ## We Will Develop An Organisation That Leverages Great Impact From Small Resources Our strategy emphasises the importance of viewing the food system as a whole and empowering consumers by giving them information about that system and how well it is protecting their interests. This means that we need to think not only of how we monitor and report on our own performance and how we are doing in terms of delivering the outcomes we can control, but also to identify ways of reporting on the performance of the system as a whole, shining a spotlight on issues where consumers' interests need to be safeguarded and identifying where there are failures or concerning trends. We will seek to identify indicators which demonstrate where there are performance problems or vulnerabilities in the system as a whole, in terms of its capability to deliver against the broad definition of consumers' interests. This will help us know where to focus our energy and influence to support change, and help consumers and others be empowered to demand change themselves. Given the constraints on resource that face all parts of government, and the importance of us maximising the benefits to consumers that we cause to be delivered and minimising the costs, we will also place an even greater emphasis on the efficiency and effectiveness of our own work - including the policy processes that underpin our role as a Government department, our operational delivery activities, and the corporate resources that enable and support our work. We will develop a reporting framework and set of KPIs at a strategic level that enable our Board and stakeholders to understand how we are performing, and at an operational level which ensures that we are able to continuously improve the value for money of what we do. Since our inception we have been a UK-wide body with representation in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, from April 2015 Scotland will have a new food body and we will ensure we manage a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continue to work closely with Scotland to maintain consumer protection. We recognise the benefits for consumers from the FSA sharing skills and expertise across Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and believe that while each will have their own issues to deal with, in the context of a highly globalised food system, there is real benefit in us continuing to operate as a single entity. We will demonstrate this in the way we work. In consultation with the relevant stakeholders we will also produce specific plans covering the work of the FSA in Northern Ireland and Wales and consider the production of a plan for England. ## Activities Key Key activities for the FSA in the strategic plan period The activities on the following pages describe some of the things we intend to do year by year to deliver progress towards our strategic outcomes and protect consumers' interests in relation to food. Between 2015 and 2020 we will take as many opportunities as we can to move in the direction outlined in our strategy. There are many specific actions we intend to take - some individually very small, some large and complex. Strategic coherence and maximum progress will be achieved by constantly focusing on the impact of everything we do, rather than by identifying a handful of large "initiatives" to focus on and imagining that the rest of our activities can carry on unaffected or be "deprioritised" and stopped - our work on allergies, chemicals, and incident management remains as important as ever, for example. There will be some particularly significant programmes of work, however, which we believe will be critical in underpinning the successful implementation of the strategy. They overlap and have multiple impacts - for example the work on surveillance and horizon scanning identified under science and evidence is important to safe food and to our efforts to ensure that food is what it says it is. Major projects and programmes will sit within the FSA's portfolio and provide monthly progress reports to the Portfolio Board. The Portfolio Board will ensure that the inter-dependencies within the portfolio are effectively managed. The following represent the significant priority pieces of work in which we currently anticipate investing time, effort and resources over the next two to three years to move forward the delivery of the strategy. The food system is complex, with many different actors operating in it. No one can predict the future, and we cannot know with confidence what actions we will need to prioritise in the future. It is inevitable that over time the list will need to change. Therefore, as part of our business planning cycle, the Executive Team will review our work programme every quarter and the Board will review the priorities annually to make sure that our activities remain the most appropriate to deliver the greatest possible benefits for consumers and progress towards our strategic outcomes. Given this, the plan is more developed for the first two years, and later years will be fleshed out in future planning cycles. FOOD we can TRUST ## Safe Food Is Consumers have the right to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk. Campylobacter is the most common cause of human bacterial food poisoning in the UK. Each year it is estimated to be responsible for around 280,000 cases of food poisoning and at its worst, campylobacter can kill. We continue to analyse the impact of campylobacter, but the most recent FSA estimates suggest that the total impact on the UK economy could be about £900m per year. Up to 80% of cases can be attributed to raw poultry meat. More information on our current Campylobacter Programme can be found at http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/campaigns/campylobacter/actnow More information on our current Listeria Risk Management Programme can be found at http://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/listeria Listeria monocytogenes, which causes listeriosis, is the one of most lethal of all food pathogens. It has a high fatality rate among vulnerable groups (i.e. people with reduced immunity, pregnant women, unborn and newborn babies, people aged over 60 years and patients with specific underlying medical conditions), and causes the most deaths per population in vulnerable groups. • Campylobacter campaign - ensure business delivers less than 10% of whole birds at end of production line with more than 1000 cfu/g. • Develop and agree Listeria reduction plan. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Begin work on relative measurements of risk and impact to enable us to compare and engage with consumers in comparing different forms of consumer detriment in relation to food. • Campylobacter campaign - review progress and agree next steps. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Implement Listeria reduction plan. • Continue implementation of Listeria reduction plan. • Conclude work on relative measurements of risk and impact and identify and take forward applications. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards ## Food Is What It Says It Is Consumers have the right to make informed decisions about their food and this is only possible when it is correctly and accurately identified, and appropriately labelled. The work we did in developing our strategy reinforced our awareness of the risks to consumers associated with authenticity and with food fraud and crime, in which consumers are deliberately misled. We will continue to work with local authority, industry and other colleagues to identify areas of risk and agree actions to reduce them on behalf of consumers. • Consolidate the newly established Food Crime Unit - establish effective measures for intelligence gathering, management and analysis, case building, collaboration with other agencies, and reporting mechanisms. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Review our major cross-government Incident Management exercise, improving our capability to respond to a major incident. • Food Crime Unit - assess the need and produce the Business Case for Phase 2 of the Elliott review proposals to enable ministers to decide on next steps to protect consumers. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Review our surveillance and sampling deployment in the light of identified risks and incidents. ## Gathering And Using Science, Evidence And Information We will continue to develop, apply and openly communicate a robust evidence base in our work to protect consumers' interests, as a critical underpinning to all we do. We will build our science capabilities to ensure our use of science is: • Focused on the biggest risks and challenges to consumers' current and future interests, and how we can make the biggest impacts. • Forward looking and innovative. • Connected across programmes, disciplines and data to gain added value and new insights. • Outward-looking to harness the power of working with and through others. • Supported to develop our own skills, capabilities and engagement across the FSA and with the wider science community. • Science, Evidence and Information Strategy delivery plan agreed by Board. • Build and apply horizon scanning and emerging risks analytical capability. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Convene a conference on the food system from the perspective of the strategy's definition of "consumer interests" to engage with others and build partnerships and identify where there are concerns and "transparency gaps". • Continue to build and apply horizon scanning and emerging risks analytical capability. • Define and agree our approach to targeted, effective surveillance. • Define and bring on stream the main programmes of work on data and on new technologies, to be delivered through strategic science partnerships. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Conclude systematic review of anti-microbial resistance risks in the food chain and identify, agree, and begin to implement any actions required to address any risks identified. • Complete initial programme of work on behaviour change models to identify those that provide the most useful frameworks to help design interventions and identify measures to evaluate them. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards • Use our assessment of behaviour change models, and robust evidence on consumer attitudes and practices, to frame, pilot and evaluate our approaches to effective interventions, including flexible or segmented approaches for different groups of people. ## Consumers Empowering The FSA strategy identifies that consumers have rights and responsibilities with regard to the food that they eat. We want to support them to ensure that their rights are respected and that they are able to take up their responsibilities and make informed decisions about the food that they eat, thus influencing the food system as well as their own well-being and that of their families and communities. We are committed to both being open and engaging ourselves and also to encouraging industry to be transparent about the issues of importance to consumers, so that consumers can have power and influence based on a knowledge of what is happening in the food system. • Establish new fora for effective consumer engagement - including an on-line panel that enables us to build a dialogue with a diverse group of consumers. • Make better use of the information we and others hold on consumers and their views on food issues, so that we can target our information and advice more effectively, helping to deliver behaviour change where appropriate. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Identify where information on consumers' interests in food issues can be actively used to influence others to deliver consumer benefits. • Press for Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) mandatory display in England. • Transparency campaign - in light of consumer research from Year 1, identify what food businesses ought to put into the public domain in order to empower consumers, and begin campaign to make it happen. • Implement first stages of citizen science approach. • Identify opportunities to work with others (e.g. NGOs, OGDs) to build new collaborations with schools, catering colleges and other educational settings to develop the skills and confidence of younger consumers to take decisions about the food they eat and influence other decision makers. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Develop and then implement plans for how we will excel in public dialogue, participatory decision-making and effective consumer protection through: • being open to the views of consumers and others when framing questions; • engaging early and effectively in the process of identifying and assessing options for action; and • bringing together the appropriate range of tools and approaches to campaign for action and advocate on behalf of consumers. • Review and evaluate the effectiveness of our consumer communications, building our understanding of how consumers get access to information on food and the food system. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards ## Incentives Aligning Aligning Incentives For Businesses To Ensure Consumer Interests Are Protected - Implementing The Regulatory Strategy. We will support the current delivery model where this is under stress, ensuring a focus on risk-based priorities. We will also seek ways to reduce the administrative and reporting burdens that we place on our delivery partners, while improving for the longer term the information and intelligence we gather, making sure that our regulatory functions do not repeat what is already being done effectively by others. Our future regulatory role, including how delivery is funded in future, will be influenced by the new EU Regulation on Official Food and Feed Controls, so our work in Europe to re-negotiate this Regulation and then implement it will be important to underpin our future approach. • Identify and implement improvements to the framework agreement, Codes of Practice and reporting mechanisms. • Develop a suite of proportionate and deterrent sanctions, including work on sentencing guidelines, and developing and using more tools around reputational sanctions. • Develop a framework to enable us to more rigorously assess 'confidence in management' in food businesses. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Identify where there is more flexibility in food law, and determine how we could apply that for the benefit of consumers. • Begin a broad based debate with local authorities, consumers, industry, and other key stakeholders about complementary or alternative delivery models including their sustainable funding - for meat and other food businesses. • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. • Develop food safety and authenticity criteria for public sector food and catering provision. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. • Review how we work with partner agencies across the world on global food challenges. • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards • Work up and agree implementation plans for any changes to delivery and funding models identified in Year 2. ## Being The Best Organisation We Can Be Given the scale of the challenges we have identified to the food system and the small amount of regulatory resource available to us to play our part in tackling those challenges, it is critical that as an organisation we excel at leveraging impact from small resources. While being alert to value for money and cost effectiveness in everything we do, we will focus on two areas in particular - our people; and our IT and information management systems and capabilities. • People engagement - implement action plan based on 2014 feedback and deliver further 3 point improvement. • Design, working with people across the FSA, a Ways of Working programme to move towards civil service best practice by Year 3. • Implement an organisation wide strategic learning and development plan including a management development programme for front line managers. Year 1 - 2015/16 • IT infrastructure - continue to put in place a new IT infrastructure to improve efficiency, resilience, flexible working capability etc. • Improve our Information Management, including mapping our business requirements for information, developing common data standards and baselining our information management model. • Develop and deliver people engagement action plan based on 2015 feedback and achieve civil service best practice benchmark. • Continue work on Ways of Working, learning and development and management development. • Develop social media skills and presence across the whole FSA team. Year 2 - 2016/17 • IT infrastructure in place to improve efficiency, resilience and flexible working capability. • Extend the use of business intelligence tools. • Continue our Information Management improvement by developing open data sharing across government. • Conclude Ways of Working project. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards For further information and advice about food, or to download this publication, visit the Food Standards Agency's website: food.gov.uk ## Connect With Us \| \| Like us on Facebook \| \| food.gov.uk/facebook \| \|---------------------\|-----------------------\|---------------------\|------------------------\| \| \| Join our conversation \| @foodgov \| food.gov.uk/twitter \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Watch us on YouTube \| \| food.gov.uk/youtube \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Get our news by RSS \| \| food.gov.uk/rss \| \| \| \| Get our news by email \| \| food.gov.uk/email \| © Crown Copyright 2015 The content of this publication is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information in this publication (not including the Food Standards Agency logos and photographs that are the copyright of a third party) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence at: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ Any enquiries regarding the use and re-use of this information resource should be emailed to: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk	en
0770-pdf	## Bat And Bird Activity Survey Report High Peak, Derbyshire. SK23 0QU June 2017 ## Notice To Readers This report has been prepared by Charnia Ecology with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.ieem.org.uk). No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Charnia Ecology. Client Details: Mr. and Mrs. S. Dawson Application area: Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire Postcode/ OS Grid Ref: SK23 0QU./ SK077811 Issue No: Final Issue 1 Date Issued: June 2017 Author: Mark Weston BSc, GradCIEEM, AMRSB ## Surveyor Capability The Principle Ecologist is a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS10722 - Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and an associate member of the Royal Society of Biology (AMRSB). The ecologist has a First Class Honours degree in Conservation Biology, and Vice Chancellors award for academic excellence. He has undertaken protected species surveys for over seven years, and is actively involved in scoping, presence/absence surveys and Natural England EPS licence applications with regard to planning and the law. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of written reports are undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). ## Non-Technical Summary  Report Rationale 1. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, This report has been prepared at the request of the clients Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 0QU [NGR: SK078811). 2. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). ##  Proposed Works 3. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered. ##  Site Description 4. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le- Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation. ##  Building Inspection 5. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats. 6. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the building inspection. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having LOW TO MODERATE potential for roosting bats. Subsequently two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently assigned to the structure. ##  Activity Surveys 7. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) were recorded in-situ within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species. 8. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present. This bat was seen circumnavigating around this region, landing once on the wall before vacating off site in a NW direction.  Foraging and commuting habitat 9. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctules were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area/ ZoI itself. ##  Impact Assessment 10. Based on activity surveys no impact to any high conservation status bat roosts is considered. In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is speculated although not considered as being absolute. 11. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.  Survey constraints 12. No survey constraints were encountered and assessment was considered as being robust overall, and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.  Further survey 13. NO further survey recommendations are considered for protected bat and bird species (including Barn Owl).  Mitigation recommendations 14. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England. 15. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time. It is therefore recommended that a number of site-safeguard measures are implemented, which should be made a condition of the Planning consent. 16. Key consideration should be given to timing of works; soft demolition under supervision and roost compensation to minimize any inadvertent impact on protected bat and bird species (See Section 5). 17. IMPORTANT: In the unlikely event that individual bats are encountered during works (or suspicion arise about the possible presence of bats), then ALL work must cease immediately and a licensed bat ecologist should be consulted if not already present onsite. Thereafter, the named ecologist should reassess the structure, and determine whether works can continue without licence from Natural England. 18. Mitigation should also consider European Swallow and individual passerine nesting birds. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no further recommendations are made with regard to this species. ## Contents 1. Introduction o Site description o Proposed works o Aims of survey ## 2. Survey Methodology o Summary of survey methods o Pre-survey data search o Surveyor information o Field surveys o Habitat survey o Roost survey o Activity surveys ## 3. Results o Pre-survey data search o Designated sites o Protected species o Field surveys o Habitat description o Roost survey o Activity survey ## 4. Impact Assessment o Constraints on survey information o Constraints on equipment used o Potential impacts of development o Designated sites o Roosts o Foraging and commuting habitat o Legislation and Policy guidance ## 5. Recommendations o Further survey o Mitigation measures o Mitigation licence o Preliminary mitigation outline recommendations ## 6. References 7. Appendices 8. Conditions And Disclaimers 1. INTRODUCTION 1. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, This report has been prepared at the request of the clients Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at "Pinfold Farm" Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 0QU [NGR: SK078811). 2. The objective of this report is to provide the client with information on the known and potential bat roosts and birds nesting within the building, and to outline recommendations on how to proceed with the works in a legal and ecologically sensitive manner should bats and birds be resent. 3. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).  Site description 4. The surveyed building comprises of an attached one-storey cinderblock and two-storey disused stone barn located close to Pinfold Farm. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of "Pinfold Farm" itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of "J Dawson's Sheds". ##  Proposed Works 5. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered. ##  Aims Of Survey 6. The main objectives of this report activity surveys is to provide initial advice at the pre-acquisition stage with regards to any potential ecological impacts through development regarding protected bat and bird species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and/or the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (2); including species listed in the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). 7. The scope of this appraisal has been determined in line with the proportional approach to ecological survey, assessment and subsequent recommendations for avoidance and mitigation of impacts, which is encouraged in the emerging 'BS 42020: Biodiversity - Code of practice for planning and development'. 8. This report has been prepared with due consideration for various best practice guidance and methodologies including those of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM (2012)1, the emerging BS 42020 and BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) 2016. ## Bats  Probability of bats and their roost sites being present at the proposed redevelopment site i.e. buildings and trees  To assess the roost status should bats be present.  To assess commuting and foraging habitat that may be subject to impact from proposed development.  To provide an overall impact assessment. 9. All species of bat are listed in Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and as such receive protection under Section 9 of this Act. This means a criminal offence will be committed if you:  Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;  Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time);  Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost. 10. A bat roost is interpreted as 'any structure or place, which any wild bat uses for shelter or protection' (i.e. buildings, trees, bridges, tunnels etc.). Bats tend to show a high fidelity to roosts; subsequently, legal opinion regards a roost to be protected whether or not the bats are present at the time. There are many types of roost used by temperate bats during their annual cycle: Any structures found having evidence of bats will be further evaluated to assess which of the following roost categories may be present onsite (if any): ## Roost status Description Maternity / Nursery Roost Used by breeding bats, where pups are born and raised to independence (Anecdotal evidence may support this prospect despite sub-optimal survey period). Hibernation Site Where bats may be found during the winter. (This is assessed within the context of this report). Daytime Summer Roost Used by males and/or non-breeding females (Seasonal limitations prevent robust analysis of this). Night Roost Where bats rest between feeding bouts during the night but are rarely present during the day. Feeding Roost Where bats temporarily utilize feeding perches and stations to eat an item of prey. Transitional (or Swarming) Site Where bats may be present during the spring or autumn (This cannot be assessed within the context of this report). 11. The survey protocol also considers all common wild birds that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). This protection extends to bird nests during the breeding season, which makes it an offence to damage or destroy nests or eggs. ## Birds - Establish if birds are using the site. - Locate nest sites, if present. - Assess what types of activities were shown within the redevelopment site. - Assess suitable food resources and habitat requirements. - Provide an impact assessment, if nests are found. 12. Certain rare breeding birds such as Barn Owl Tyto alba, are listed on Schedule One of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). Under this legislation they are afforded the same protection as common wild birds and are also protected against disturbance whilst building a nest or on or near a nest containing eggs and unfledged young. Survey protocol considers the following: Barn Owl (Tyto alba) - Establish presence onsite. - Establish potential nest sites (PNS). - Locate any active roost sites (ARS). - Locate any temporary roost sites (TRS) - Assess potential feeding and dispersal habitats (PFH) - Provide an impact assessment, should barn owl(s) be present ## - Valued ecological receptors (VERs) 13. Assessment also considers potential effects on Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and Zones of Influence (ZoI) during pre and post development, both onsite and off- site. The term Zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts of a proposed development. 14. Should a likely significance of negative impacts to bats and/or birds be identified during the survey period, then further surveys, mitigation and enhancement measures may be necessary to prevent, offset or reduce the degree of impact that may occur should development commence. Should bats be present onsite, then a European Protected Species (EPS) development license issued by Natural England (NE) may be required prior to any works taking place. ##  Mitigation 15. The purpose of this report will only provide a preliminary outline of a bat mitigation strategy. A detailed method statement will need to be determined through consultation with an appropriately qualified and experienced bat ecologist thereafter, to fully support the aforementioned licence application. 16. Mitigation should be proportionate, justifiable and avoid or minimize any harm to species found during works, whilst ensuring the Favourable Conservation Status of local bat populations is maintained. Mitigation should be proportionate to:  Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats  Size, nature and complexity of the development site  Likelihood of bats being present or affected  Species and numbers of individuals concerned  Type of roost and/or habitat affected. ## 2. Survey Methodology 17. In accordance with BCT 3 rd edition (2016) guidelines, the following survey protocol is considered appropriate to provide a full ecological evaluation of the site in order to determine the following criteria:  What impact the redevelopment is likely to have on any protected species found at the site.  The need for any Natural England development licence application to be made in respect of activities concerning protected species.  Recommendations for any mitigation measures that would be required.  Pre-survey data search 18. Pre-survey data search provided historical records of any protected bat and bird species found within a 2km radius of the application area. Additional ecological data has been sourced to understand any constraints that the proposed planning application may have on species and habitat in the wider landscape. The National (UK) and local (Derbyshire) Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also scrutinized for protected habitats and species relevant to the application area. 19. A number of electronic sources sites were also consulted including; www.magic.gov.uk; www.naturalengland.org.uk; Google Earth and www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk. ##  Field Survey 20. A walkover survey, including visual inspection of building and any trees, was undertaken to determine the availability of required resources for the protected species in the immediate area. The building was inspected both externally and internally for:  Presence or absence of bats onsite (i.e. hibernating bats)  Evidence and/or potential of bat roosts onsite (i.e. summer roosts)  Whether additional surveys are required 21. Phase 2 bat and bird activity surveys were conducted during an optimal time of the year (Temp: >8, when bats are in summer maternity or bachelor roosts. The survey inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of binoculars, torch, endoscope and ladders where necessary. There were no access or survey constraints during the survey period(s). ##  Surveyor Information 22. Ecological assessment on-site was overseen by Mark Weston, a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS00836 - Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Assistant ecologist(s):  Louise Cox BSc (Hons)  Jade Leese BSc, MSc ##  Habitat Survey 23. The survey assessed habitat onsite in context to the wider landscape with regard to any important bat roosts, commuting/foraging areas that may be affected by the proposed development. ##  Roost Survey 24. All potential roost structures (i.e. buildings) onsite or within the Zone of Influence of the proposed development were assessed, based on standard methodologies set out by Natural England, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). External inspection considered suitable ingression points where species such as bats and birds could gain entry into any structures to roost and/or nest.  Condition of roof i.e. missing or raised roof tiles;  Condition of windows and doors i.e. broken panes;  Potential ingression points around ridges and apex of the buildings;  Any anecdotal evidence of bats I.e. droppings, grease marks, feeding remains;  Any evidence of birds i.e. nest material, droppings. 25. The external inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of torch, endoscope and ladders to ascertain the following:  Any potential internal roost features i.e. non-illuminated areas, joints, crevices, beams and cavities.  To locate potential roost/nest sites;  To listen for any bats and birds;  To examine floors, walls and structural elements for anecdotal evidence i.e. droppings, urine stains, corpses and feeding remains. ## Building Rating 26. In the absence of any evidence, trees and structures were assigned a rating of suitability from negligible to high potential for supporting bats. The rating is based on the number and type of features suitable for use by bats (such as rot holes, cavities and raised bark), location of the structure in the surrounding landscape and surveyor's experience (e.g. a structure with a high level of regular disturbance with few opportunities for access by bats, that is in a highly urbanized area with few or no mature trees, parkland, woodland or wetland would generally equate to having negligible potential. Conversely, a pre 20th century or early 20th century building with many features suitable for use by bats close to good foraging habitat would have high potential). ##  Activity Surveys 27. Under new BCT guidelines (2016), the number of prescribed activity surveys are based on initial overall building rating and suitability to support roosting bats: 28. Activity surveys combined an overall assessment of any in-situ roost onsite, and any other Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) considered to be within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the development, whilst considering any important commuting and foraging routes used by bats. 29. All activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with the guidelines published by the BCT 3rd edition 2016 to ascertain the following:  Determine the presence/absence of species, i.e. the species present in a given area  Determine the intensity of bat activity both spatially and temporally  Determine the type of activity i.e. foraging (by feeding buzzes);commuting (by high directional pass rates); mating (by mating social calls)  Find roosts by tracking back bat flight paths or observing commuting range 30. Evidence will be used to determine whether a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required to ensure legal compliance during development. This will also include identifying which mitigation measures [if any] would be most appropriate. ## Dusk Emergence Bat Survey 31. The object of this survey is to detect active bats leaving possible roost sites identified in the external and internal surveys. This was achieved by:  Being at the site 1 hour before sunset.  Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.  Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any emerging bats and egress points.  Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas.  Carrying out survey up to 1.5 - 2 hours after sunset to holistically consider interspecific differences between different bat species ## Dawn Re-Entry Bat Survey  Being at the site 2 hours before sunrise.  Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.  Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any swarming behaviour around potential re-entry points.  Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas. 32. Bat ultrasound data was gathered using a number of heterodyne units (Batbox Duet and SSF Bat2) and real-time recording devices (EcoObs Batcorder). Real time recordings were subsequently analyzed using BatSound v4.03 and statistical algorithm analysis was carried out using EcoObs BcAdmi, BatIdent and BcAnalyze software to provide an unbiased discrimination of species onsite. ## Weather Conditions And Timing 33. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions weather (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / <1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over space and time. ## 3 Results  Designated Sites 34. There are no international or national statutory designations within 2km of the application site, although a number of non- statutory designations and woodland inventories were recorded within the search radius.  Protected species 35. National Biodiversity Network and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) records show that 12 of the 17 resident UK bat species occur in the county, although none are recorded within a 2km radius, However the landscape is highly suitable for bats and considered as being under-recorded rather than absent. Pre-survey data finds seven British bat species are currently given UK BAP (2007) Priority Species Status. UKBAP Common name Species County  BROWN LONG-EARED BAT Plecotus auritus   BARBASTELLE BAT Barbastella barbastellus   BECHSTEIN'S BAT Myotis bechsteinii   NOCTULE Nyctalus noctula   GREATER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus ferrumequinum   LESSER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus hipposideros   SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pygmaeus  36. A further four/five bat species that are not currently given UK BAP consideration are also recorded within the county.  NATTERER'S BAT Myotis Nattereri   DAUBENTON'S BAT Myotis daubentonii   WHISKERED/ BRANDT BAT Myotis mystacinus/brandtii   COMMON PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pipistrellus  ## 37. Derbyshire Ecological Data Records Show No Red And Amber Lists Of Birds Of Conservation Concern (BoCC) present within 2km of the application area or Schedule 1 listed birds including Barn owl. ##  Habitat Description 38. The application area falls within the Peak District National Park Management Plan which consists of a highly diverse area of land that ranges from ancient semi-natural and replanted woodland, moorland, lowland meadows, wet heath moor & boglands, stream valleys and washlands. Over a third of the national park has SSSI designation and 95% of these designated sites are now in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition, compared with 28% of sites in 2003. 39. As part of the wider landscape, the site is located north of the small hamlet Bagshaw to the east of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of "Pinfold Farm" itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of "J Dawson's Sheds". 40. There is good connectivity to the surrounding landscape, which is composed of agricultural land, connected by hedgerows with several valuable resources, such as woodland blocks, Ancient woodland (Birchenlow Plantation 850m to N) and lowland meadows (in a 2km radius of the proposed application area for local bat and bird populations). ##  Roost Survey 41. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation. The overall dimensions of the building is ca. 23.05m x 6.5m. 42. The roof section was found to be formed entirely of corrugated asbestos sheet roofing, which is not considered as being conducive for the thermoregulation requirements of crevice-dwelling bat species, being highly labile to thermal fluctuations on a daily basis. 43. Conversely, the building was noted as having numerous gaps and crevices present around external stone work and roof verges, with a number of ventilation brick-slits present on the south elevation. 44. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded on the external inspection. 45. The building can be accessed internally by the doorways on both east and western elevations (the latter leading into the cinderblock section). The cinderblock section is in current use for stabling livestock. 46. The area was seen to be well illuminated with a flat corrugated sheet roof exposed on the underside. The original section of the stone farm building is largely open to roof height, with an open first floor roof void present above a tack room on the southern elevation. 47. The open section was found to be voluminous with timber truss work exposed at height, providing high potential as a feeding station or sheltered swarming areas for pre-emergent void dwelling bat species (i.e. brown long-eared bat). Once again, the internal roof void was seen to be highly illuminated by natural daylight ingress through window / skylight areas along the east and western elevations, with evidence of missing sections of corrugated roofing. 48. The underside of the corrugated roof was found to be exposed with no intermediary layers present, limiting potential and overall suitability for any roost permanency in this area. The farm building was also found to be utilized by domestic 'farm' cats thus reducing potential further due to increase potential of predation. 49. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded during the internal inspection. Minor historic evidence of individual nesting passering birds and European Swallow were recorded. ##  Overall Building Rating 50. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having LOW TO MODERATE potential for roosting bats overall. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats. ##  Activity Surveys 51. Based on current legislation and guidelines, two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently carried out around the structure. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / <1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over time and space. SUNSET: 21:39hrs TEMP START 14°C CLOUD COVER START 20% START TIME 21:20hrs TEMP FINISH 12 °C CLOUD COVER FINISH 20% FINISH TIME 23:15hrs WIND SPEED <1 PRECIPITATION NIL SUNRISE: 04:53hrs TEMP START 10°C CLOUD COVER START 30% START TIME 02:15hrs TEMP FINISH 11.5°C CLOUD COVER FINISH 20% FINISH TIME 04:10hrs WIND SPEED <1 PRECIPITATION NIL ##  Roosts 52. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in-situ within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species. 53. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present (Fig. 11). This bat made circumnavigated around this area, landing once on the wall before then vacating off site in a NW direction. 54. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctule were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area itself. Given the number of impressive mature trees present around the area, it is considered a tree roost is highly likely, although not within the ZoI. 55. No evidence of Schedule 1 listed birds were recorded during the survey periods. ## 4 Impact Assessment  Constraints On Survey Information 56. No survey constraints were encountered during the survey periods, and overall assessment was considered as being robust and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.  Designated sites 57. The scheme retains the existing size and physical form of the existing building (s) footprint with no additional land up-take considered. There are no Statutory or Non-Statutory designated sites considered being immediately within the zone of influence of the proposed development, and no impact to conservation sites or the wider landscape is predicted. ##  Roosts 58. Whilst the report is confident that no bat roosts of high conservation status are currently present onsite, there was evidence of single common pipistrelle showing a degree of affinity to the cinderblock section shortly before dawn, although not confirmed as roosting. Pipistrelle bats show lower fidelity to their roosts than other synanthropic species and are known to roost-switch (Dietz et al. 2009). In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is considered possible but not absolute. Synanthropic species such as Pipistrelle bats for example are crevice roosters, and are known to move between roost sites (such as maternity roosts). These bats may find it easier to locate suitable new roosts as their requirements are not as specific as other species ). ## Mitigation Assessment Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats Redevelopment / partial removal with roofing works considered - In the absence of mitigation short-term LOW IMPACT to individual, transient crevice dwelling bat species is predicted but not considered certain. Size, nature and complexity of the development site A single phased small-scale development of low complexity LOW Likelihood of bats being present or affected Type of roost and/or habitat affected. NEGLIGBIBLE TO LOW IMPACT considered for transient common pipistrelle "Day roost" although no permanent roost recorded permanently onsite. No impact is to major foraging and commuting habitat for bats is predicted under the proposed scheme, although consideration should be given to any post development lighting that may have deleterious effects on the adjacent habitats through light pollution 59. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.  Foraging and commuting habitat 60. It is considered that the scale of the proposed redevelopment would have negligible impact on foraging and commuting habitat for bats overall, with no alteration to existing landscape / habitat proposed. Conversely, the air space above the site was found to be used as a main flight route for common noctule thus consideration should be given to any post development lighting and deleterious effects caused through sky glow and light spill onto adjacent habitats (see recommendations). ## 5 Recommendations  Further Survey 61. Assessment onsite was undertaken during an optimal survey period and considered to be robust and representative of protected species currently onsite. NO further survey effort regarding bats is considered. 62. NO further survey recommendations are considered for protected bird species (including Barn Owl).  Mitigation licenses 63. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time, it is recommended that the following site-safeguard measures are made a condition of the Planning consent. ## Site Safe-Guard Recommendations  Timing Of Works 64. Best practice guidelines recommend that any works which encroach into the roof section area should ideally be carried out during autumn/winter (late Sept to Oct) to early spring (Jan to March) to avoid the likelihood of individual roosting bats. In this instance, starting such works late September end would allow any individual bats to naturally disperse under their own volition, should they be present, whilst there are still sufficient resources in the surrounding landscape for bats to utilize prior to the onset of winter. 65. Before ANY work commences, ALL building contractors would be made aware of the possible presence of ## Bats Within The Building Subject To Redevelopment, Their Legal Protection And Of Working Practices To Avoid Harming Bats. Soft Demolition Under Supervision 66. It is proposed that a soft demolition approach of the cinderblock building section and inspection of any cavities before any re-pointing is carried out under supervision by a suitably qualified Ecologist until he/she considers the building to be free of any bats. 67. Thereafter , should individual roosting bats be encountered (or suspicion arise of their whereabouts), then ALL works must cease immediately. The acting ecologist should then reassess the structure and determine whether a mitigation licence from Natural England will be required before any further works can commence thereafter.  Receptor box 68. In the unlikely event that bats are encountered during works, a receptor bat box (Schwegler 2FN) should be suitably installed onsite, being well outside the zone of influence of the proposed development and prior to any works commencing. Depending on the circumstances, the use of standard capture and exclusion methods may be necessary for safe-guarding. This should be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist only. ##  Roost Compensation 69. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, development proposals should seek, where possible, to enhance opportunities available to local bat populations. To compensate for any inadvertent loss of roosting features for crevice-dwelling bats, it is recommended that two (2no.) Schwegler 1FQ external bat boxes are fitted at height onto opposing SW and NE elevations. 70. Further information of increasing biodiversity prospects for roosting bats can be found on the Bat Conservation Trust website: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/new_build.html. ##  Foraging And Commuting Habitat 71. Should the application consider any additional post development lighting onsite, then the use of low energy LED lighting to minimize light spill around the building should be incorporated where possible. Alternatively, Low-pressure sodium lamps (SOX) are recommended, which should be fitted with hoods to direct the light below the horizontal plane to minimize light-spill. Any security lighting should be less than 200 lumens (150 watts) and placed on a timer setting and faced down to reduce sky glow. Height of any columns around the development should not exceed eight metres. ## Birds 72. Consideration should be given to nesting birds which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Works should ideally be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). Where this is not possible, then a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by an ecologist prior to works. 73. Should any active bird nests be found, then these should be left undisturbed until offspring have fully fledged. It may be necessary to enforce an exclusion work zone of 5m to reduce disturbance and minimize potential displacement of nesting birds. 74. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and NO further recommendations are considered. 75. It is recommended that a minimum of five pre-formed "cup-shaped nests" are integrated within the design of the development where possible for European Swallow. These should be placed internally at height (preferably on beams), being at least 1m apart. Provision can also be made in open-fronted logsheds, car ports or porches. 76. If this is not possible then installation of external eaves/ridge overhang boxes with an open bottom and ledges for swallows to nest on should be implemented as an alternative. Further guidance from a suitably qualified ecologist should be sought in this event. 77. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, it is also recommended that a minimum of four bird nesting boxes (suitable for different species) should also be incorporated into the final scheme, being fitted to either mature trees or to external elevation of buildings where possible 78. Bird nesting boxes should be positioned at ca. 2-4m above ground level where possible. 79. Further information regarding nest boxes can be found on the RSPB website: http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/nestboxes/smallbirds/siting.aspx  Landscaping 80. Should any landscaping be considered at a later date, then it is recommended that only native tree and shrub species are planted. In particular, no plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be planted during any landscaping around the conversions. - For further details of Schedule 9 plants visit the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifepets/non- native. ## References - Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London. - Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37). London: HMSO. - Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. & Nill, D. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London: A. C. Black. - HMSO (1995): Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, Volume 2:Action Plans, London. - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation . The Stationery Office, Norwich. - RSPB (2002) The Population Status of Birds in the UK 2002-2007 - Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology, Zool. Soc. Lond. Symposium abstracts. - The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 . SI 2010/490. SI 2007/1843, London: HMSO. - UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007). UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on 20th October 2010]. ## Appendices Appendix 3 - Policy Guidelines PAS 2010 The published 'PAS 2010' 'Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity' which is the government's new policy aimed at all authorities and developers involved in the planning process in the UK to halt biodiversity decline by 2010 and deliver net biodiversity gains as part of the green infrastructure provisions. ## National Planning Policy Framework, Section 11: The recently published framework in 2012, replaces the previous Planning Policy Statement 9. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining green belt protections and preventing urban sprawl, retains the protection of designated sites and preserves wildlife, aims to improve the quality of the natural environment, and halt declines in species and habitats, protects and enhances biodiversity and promotes wildlife corridors. ## Article 10 Of The Ec Habitats Directive: The published Article requires government to develop features such as 'stepping stones' on the landscape, such as clusters of ponds, tracts of rough grassland or scrubland and vegetated railway line embankments. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the European Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal to possess or control any live or dead specimens, to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter, protection or breeding, and to intentionally disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. ## Conservation Of Habitats And Species Regulations (2010) Natural Environment And Rural Communities Act (2006) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, in respect of England and Wales. It is an offence to possess, sell or offer, or transport for sale any European species of bat or any part derived from such a species. These Regulations also remove the 'incidental result defence'. In other words, it is no longer a defence to show that the killing, capture or disturbance of a species covered by the Regulations or the destruction or damage of their breeding sites or resting places was the incidental and unavoidable result of a lawful activity. Natural England can grant European Protected Species (EPS) licences in respect of development to permit activities that would otherwise be unlawful. Bird legislation Most resident nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects birds, nests, eggs and nestling's. Some rarer species, such as barn owls, are afforded extra protection. Table A. Policy guidelines. Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), public bodies, including Local and Regional Planning Authorities, have a duty to 'have regard' to the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications. In compliance with Section 41 of the Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England. This is known as The England Biodiversity List, all of which make up the UK BAP Priority Species. Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species that should be afforded priority to maintain, restore and enhance species and habitats.	en
1064-pdf	## તૈયાર થઈ અને યથાસ્થાને ગોઠવો સૂચનાઓ શરૂ કરતા પહેલાં, ખાતરી કરો કે તમે... અમારી સૂચનાઓનો વિડિઓ જૂઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample આ સંપૂર્ણ સૂચનાઓ વાંચો તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ કેવી રીતે કરવી તે જૂઓ જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample ## તમારી કિટમાં શું છે? ઢાંકણ ઘણુ બધુ પાણી પીઓ તૈયારી સમયે જલયોજિત (હાઈડ્રેટેડ) થવાનું કરી શકો તે તમારા માટે શ્રેષ્ઠ કહેવાય - તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટની ઓછામાં ઓછી 30 મિનિટો પહેલાં 2 ગ્લાસીસ પાણી પીઓ. ## એલ્કોહોલ લૂછણિયુ (વાઈપ) સંગ્રહ કરવા માટેનું ટબ પ્લાસ્ટર્સ X 2 CLEANSING WIPE શનિવારે, તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ કરશો નહિ, અથવા પોસ્ટ કરશો (નહિ), - તે પોસ્ટમાં લાંબો વખત પડી રહેશે. કોઈ પણ બીજો દિવસ સારો રહે. પૂર્વચૂકવણીવાળુ સાફ કરવાનું લૂછણિયુ લાન્સિટ (ચીરવા માટે મેડિકલનું પરબીડિયુ અણીવાળુ સાધન) x3 સ્વચ્છ પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ કાર્ડબોર્ડ બોકસ ## રવાના કરવાના ફોર્મ ઉપર ટયૂબનું લેબલ 1. તૈયાર રહો 1. શરૂ કરતાં પહેલાં તપાસ કરો કે કિટ તમને સંબોધિત ## કરવામાં આવેલ છે. તમે શરૂ કરો તે પહેલાં ગરમ પાણીનો બોલ કે વાટકો અને સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ લો રવાના કરવા માટેનું ફોર્મ 2. કોઈ એક નીચા (લો) ટેબલ ઉપર તમારી કિટ રાખો. 3. કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ અને ગરમ પાણીનો બોલ લો. 4. 20 સેકન્ડો માટે તમારા હાથો સાબુ સાથે ધૂઓ અને કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટોવેલથી સૂકા કરો. V2.5p - છેલ્લી સમીક્ષા નવેમ્બર 2020 માં કરેલ બીજી ભાષાઓમાં પ્રશ્નો અથવા સૂચનાઓ માટે, અહીં જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample પૂરતો સમય બાજુએ રાખો તૈયાર થવા આશરે 30 મિનિટસનો તમારો સમય માટે આપો, યથાસ્થાને ગોઠવો કે મૂકો અને તમારો નમૂનો એકત્રિત કરો - ખાસકરીને જો આ તમાર ું પહેલીવખત હોય. થોડીક હળવી કસરત કરો જમ્પિંગ જેકસ કરો, અથવા તમારા હાથ ઝુલાવી (સ્વિંગ) અને એક મિનિટ માટે મુષ્ટિ (ફિસ્ટ) સજ્જડ કરો (જો તેમ કરવાનું તમારા માટે સલામત હોય તો) - આથી તમાર ું લોહી ફરવામાં મદદરૂપ બને છે. 2. 324-ul 3 316491 3. 4164 434 41 1. તમારા આખા હાથને ગરમ પાણીના બોલમાં 1. ટયૂબમાંથી ઢાંકણને દૂર કરો. 2. કાર ્ડબોર ્ડ બોકસના ઉપરના ભાગમાંના સ્લોટ કે (આશરે નહાવાના ઉષ્ણતામાને હોય) 2 મિનિટો માટે મૂકો. ત્યારબાદ કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂથી તમારા હાથ સૂકા કરો. નિયત કરેલ જગ્યાનો ઉપયોગ કરી ટયૂબને ઉભી- સીધી રાખો. 2. સમગ્ર પ્રક્રિયા માટે ઊભા રહો (પણ જો તમને મૂર્છા 3. પ્લાસ્ટર તૈયાર કરો કે જેથી તે તમારી આંગળી ઉપર ફટ દઈને (પોપ અપ) આવવા તૈયાર રહે. જેવુ લાગે તો, બેસી જાઓ - અને જો તમે કોઈ એક સાથે રહેતા હો તો, તેઓની મદદ માટે વિનંતી કરો). લાહીને વહેવા દેવા માટે તમરા હાથ અવશ્ય તમારી કોણી કરતાં નીચા રાખો. નીચે દબાવો x ## 3. ટ્યૂબને મિશ્ર કરો 2. ટયૂબ કે નળીને ભરો 1. કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ સાથે લોહીના પહેલા ટીંપાને લૂછી ## 1. લાન્સિટનો (ચીરવા માટે મેડિકલનું અણીવાળુ સાધન) ઉપયોગ કરો નાખો. 1. એલ્કોહોલના લૂછણિયા સાથે તમારી આંગળી સાફ કરો 2. દર 3 થી 4 સેકંડે તમારા હાથને નીચેની ગતિમાં જોરથી ટયૂબમાં 600 લાઈન કે લીટી સુધી ભરો. જો તમે ફકત 400 લીટી સુધી ભરશો તો, તે ઓકે બરાબર રહેશે. કેપને ટયૂબ ઉપર રાખો. જયાં સુધી તે ક્લિક થાય ત્યાં સુધી તેને દબાવો. 1. હળવેથી ટયૂબને ઊ ંધી કે ઉપરના ભાગને ફેરવો. ટયૂબમાં - અમે ભલામણ કરીએ છીએ કે તમારા ઉપયોગમાં નહિ લેવામાં આવતા હાથની ત્રીજી આંગળીનો ઉપયોગ કરો. 2. લાન્સિટના નીચેના ભાગમાં રક્ષણાત્મક ટિપ કે અણીને મસાજ કરો. તમારા હાથની હથળેથી શરૂઆત કરી તમારી આંગળી સુધી નીચે આવો. પણ જયાં છેદ કે વિંધવામાં આવ્યુ હોય ત્યાં દાબશો નહિ અથવા તે તમારા નમૂનાને કદાચ બગાડી શકે. દૂર કરવાઃ ટિપને વળ ચડાવો કે ટવિસ્ટ (એક સંપૂર્ણ વળાંક કે ટર્ન) અને ત્યારબાદ તેને આખી બહાર ખેંચો. 600 લાઈન કે લીટી સુધી ભરો. જો તમે ફકત 400 લીટી સુધી ભરશો તો, તે ઓકે બરાબર રહેશે. કેપને ટયૂબ ઉપર રાખો. જયાં સુધી તે ક્લિક થાય ત્યાં સુધી તેને દબાવો. 1. ઓછામાં ઓછી 10 વખત ટયૂબને ઊ ંધીચતી કરશો. 3. જો લોહી વહેતુ બંધ થાય તો, લોહીના પ્રવાહને ઉદીપ્ટ 3. કોઈ એક કઠણ સપાટી ઉપર તમારા હાથનો ઉપરનો ખાતરી કરશો કે લોહી ટયૂબની બાજુએ સ્પર્શ કરે છે. ભાગ (ટેબલના ઉપરના ભાગ માફક) મૂકો. 2. જયારે મિશ્ર કરવામાં આવે ત્યારે જો લોહીનું ધનીકરણ ## 4. તમારી આંગળીની ટોચના બહારના કેન્દ્ર ઉપર લાન્સિટને નીચે દબાવો (સોલિડિફાઈ) થાય તો ચિંતિત બનશો નહિ. આવુ બનવાની ધારણા રાખવામાં આવે છે. 5. જયાં સુધી તમે ક્લિક અવાજ સાંભળો ત્યાં સુધી કરવા (સ્ટિમ્યૂલેટ) છેદ કરવામાં આવેલ આંગળીને લૂછવા દબાણનો ઉપયોગ કરો. જો આ કાર્ય ન કરે તો, અને તે 2 મિનિટો કરતા વધારે સમય થયો છે તો, તમારા હાથને ફરીથી ગરમ- હુંફવાળા કરી અને બીજી આંગળીને છેદ કરવા નવા લાન્સિટનો ઉપયોગ કરો. 3. લોહી વહેવાનું બંધ કરવા માટે આંગળી ઉપર દબાણ જાંબૂડિયા (પર્પલ) બટન ઉપર જોરથી દબાવો. તમે દરેક લાન્સિટનો ફકત એકજ વાર ઉપયોગ કરી શકો. લાવો, સ્વચ્છ કરતા લૂછણિયાથી સાફ કરી, અને પ્લાસ્ટર લગાવો. 4. ઢોળાયેલ કે વેરાયેલ લોહીને તાત્કાલિક સાફ કરી અને આજુબાજુના વિસ્તારને જંતુમુકત કરશો. ## લેબલ અને પોસ્ટ 1 4 1. પરત કરેલ ફોર્મમાંથી તમારા ટયૂબ લેબલને ઉખાડી અને અને સ્ટિકી બેકીંગ ઉપર ફ્લેપને ફોલ્ડ-કરો કે વાળો. મધ્યમાંથી બહાર સુધી દબાવી સારી રીતે સીલ કરો. 4. પૂર્વચૂકવણીવાળા પરબીડિયામાં બોકસને મૂકો. 5. NHS લોગો સાથે અગ્રતાવાળા પોસ્ટબોકસમાં 3 તમારી ટયૂબની આજુબાજુમાં વીંટો કે લગાવો. ખાતરી કરો કે છાપેલ કોડ જોઈ શકાય તેમ હોય છે. ## 3. તમારા પરત કરવાના ફોર્મ ઉપર સમય અને તારીખ 2. નમૂનો ટ્રેનસ્પોર્ટ કરવા માટે 95 kPa લેબલવાળી સ્વચ્છ ભરો. જે બોકસમાંથી તમારી કિટ આવેલ હોય તેમાં ફોર્મ અને સ્વચ્છ પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ (ટયૂબના સમાવેશ સાથે) મૂકી અને બંધ કરો. તમારો નમૂનો મૂકો. તમારા સૌથી નજીકના અગ્રતાવાળા બોકસ માટે www.royalmail.com/servicesnear-you. માહિતી મેળવો. જો તમને સુરક્ષિતરીતે અગ્રતાવાળા બોકસ સુધી જઈ ન શકો તો, તમારા સ્થાનિક પોસ્ટબોકસનો ઉપયોગ કરશો. પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ મેળવો. લાન્સિટ અને ટયૂબ સ્લોટ મારફતે મૂકો - કે જે યલો - પીળા સ્ટિકર વચ્ચે મળશે. આવી બેગનો ઉપરનો ભાગ સપાટ હોવાથી, સ્ટિકરને દૂર કરી ## 6. તમામ ઉપકરણોનો સલામત રીતે નિકાલ કરો. ચિહ્નો \| સૂર્યપ્રકાશથી દૂર રહો \| ઉપયોગ માટે સૂચનાઓની સલાહ લો \| \|------------------\|-----------------------\| \| વરસાદથી દૂર રહો \| યૂરપિઅન અનુસરણ (કોનફોર્મિટિ) \| \| ફરીથી ઉપયોગ ન કરવો \| ઉત્પાદક \| \| ઉષ્ણતામાન મર્યાદા 25ºC \| બેચ કોડ \| ઈન વિટ્રો ડાયગ્નોસ્ટિક તબીબી સાધન તારીખ સુધીના ઉપયોગ માટે ટયૂબો તપાસો • આ એક ઈન વિટ્રો ડાયગ્નોસ્ટિક તબીબી સાધન છે. • તમારી કિટમાં પૂરા પાડવામાં આવેલ સાધનનો ફકત ઉપયોગ કરો. • આ કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ ઓર્ડર કરનાર વ્યક્તિ દ્વારા અવશ્ય હાથ ધરવામાં આવવી જોઈએ અને લેબલ થવું જોઈએ. • ચેપના ચિહ્નો માટે ધ્યાન આપવુ જોઈએ. જો તમારા ધાની જગ્યા લાલ, ગરમ, અથવા સોજો થાય તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • આ કિટ 18 અને તેનાથી ઉપરની વયના લોકો માટે છે. • જો લોહી બંધ ન થાય તો જોરથી દબાણ આપી તમારા હાથ ઊચા કરો. જો આ કામ ન કરે તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • જો તમને મૂર્છા લાગે તો, સૂઈ જાઓ અને તમારા પગો ઊચા કરો. જો તમને અસ્વસ્થતા લાગવાનું ચાલુ રહે તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • જો તમે એન્ટિકોએગ્યુલેશન (પ્રતિસ્કંદક) દવા લેતા હો તો વધારે લોહી નીકળવાનો જોખ - ભય રહે છે. • કિટને બાળકો, પ્રાણીઓ, સૂર્યના પ્રકાશ, આગ અને ધૂમાડાથી દુર રાખો. • જો બહારનું ઉષ્ણતામાન 25ºC થી ઉપર હોય તો તમારા નમૂનાને પોસ્ટ કરશો નહિ. • તે ખૂબજ અસંભવિત છે, પણ ગૂંચવણો થવાનો થોડોક જોખમ- ભય હોય છે - કે જેમાં ડાઘનો, હેમેટોમા (લોહીનો સંગ્રહ), જ્ઞાનતંતુને નુકસાન, અને નેક્રોસિસનો (ત્વચાના કોષોનું અકાળ મૃત્યુ) સમાવેશ થાય છે. ## પૂરતુ લોહી મળી શકે તેમ નથી? મદદ- સહાય માટે જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-bloodsample. જો તમને નમૂનાના ભાગ- અંશનો નિકાલ કરવાની જરૂર રહે તો, સામાન્ય નમૂના માટે જેમ કરો તે પ્રમાણે પેક કરવા સૂચનાઓનો ઉપયોગ કરી (કે જેમાં પરબીડિયાનો સમાવેશ થાય છે). ત્યારબાદ ઘરગથ્થુ કચરામાં તે બધાનો નિકાલ કરો.	fi
3520-pdf	## \| \| \| Tax \| \| Profit \| \| Rate \| \|------------------------------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------\|-----------\|--------\|--------------------\| \| Corporation tax \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| On policyholders' share of profits \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 20.00% \| \| \| 2017 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 20.00% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tax on policyholders' profit \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| nil \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (A8) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| nil \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| On shareholders' profits \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 21,016.20 \| \| 105,081 \| 20.00% \| \| \| \| 2017 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 60,957.70 \| \| 320,830 \| 19.00% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tax on shareholders' profits \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 82,063.90 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (A8) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 425,911 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Tax before DTR \| \| 82,063.90 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| DTR relief \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (B) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (1,112) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (3,556.10) \| \| \| \| \| Income Tax set off \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Corporation tax liability \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 77,395.80 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
2234-pdf	## 1 April - 30 June 2011 Meetings With External Organisations1 Permanent Secretary Department of Health, Una O'Brien Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Biomedicine Forum Regular Dinner meeting May 2011 Russell Reynolds To discuss current appointments May 2011 Stanton Marris Catch-up May 2011 Russell Reynolds To discuss current appointments May 2011 Stanton Marris To discuss current appointments NHS Chief Executive, David Nicholson Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Richmond Group comprising Rethink Mental Illness, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support, Alzheimer's Society, Age UK, Diabetes UK, British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation May 2011 Russell Reynolds Update Discussion June 2011 Mayor of London's Office Discussion on London Health June 2011 Russell Reynolds Update Discussion Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies DBE Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Academy of Medical Royal Colleges April 2011 MIND Discussion of Mental Health Issues May 2011 Wellcome Trust Update Research Capability Programme May 2011 British Medical Council Update on Clinical Excellence Awards May 2011 ASH and The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies June 2011 Southampton University General Update June 2011 Wellcome Trust General Update June 2011 Diabetes UK Discussion on rates of Diabetes June 2011 Faculty of Public Health Discussion on Pet Travel June 2011 Royal College of Physicians Discussion on Pet Travel June 2011 Royal College of General Practitioners 1 Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non- ## Discussion on NHS Services for Patient Users Introductory Meeting Discussion on the Tobacco Plan Discussion on Pet Travel	en
2252-pdf	## Direct Payments City Of York Council Internal Audit Report 2017/18 Business Unit: Adult Social Care Responsible Officer: Assistant Director Adults and Social Care Service Manager: Head of Safeguarding & Mental Health Head of Adult Social Care Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services \| Date Issued: 6 April \| \|------------------------\| \| Status: Final \| \| Reference: 11480/007 \| \| \| ## Summary And Overall Conclusions Introduction Direct Payments are local health and social care payments for people who have been assessed as needing help from social services and who would prefer to arrange and pay for their own care and support rather than to receive services directly from the local authority. The aim of Direct Payments is to allow the service user greater choice and control through the flexibility of being able to purchase their own care package. The Care Act (2014) mandated Direct Payments for the first time in certain circumstances, effective from April 2015. Sections 31 to 33 of the Act set out the duties of local authorities in respect of these payments. Over £5 million in Direct Payments were made during 2016-17. As of 15 June 2017, the council has 264 Direct Payment customers. Of these 264 customers, 90 have self-managed accounts with 82 receiving payments via prepaid cards and eight receiving payments into a designated bank account. Following the move to a Personal Budget Model in October 2016, the remaining 174 customers have a managed account with a support provider on the council's approved provider list. Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system ensure that:  Self-managed, prepaid card accounts;  Designated personal bank accounts; and  Accounts managed by third party support providers are monitored and reconciled appropriately and support plans are reviewed to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the customer. The previous audit carried out in 2015-16 received a Limited Assurance opinion. This audit followed up the actions that were agreed to ensure that the issues and control weaknesses had been satisfactorily addressed. Key Findings It was found that Direct Payment accounts are not consistently monitored according to council policy. While reconciliations for managed and selfmanaged prepaid card accounts had been performed, they were not always timely. Reconciliations were largely accurate but some minor errors were observed with contingency items being omitted. The accounts of customers receiving their Direct Payment into a designated bank account are not subject to appropriate levels of monitoring. Just one of the nine accounts reviewed had been reconciled in line with policy and for four accounts there was no evidence available on Mosaic that any reconciliation had been performed. Some additional weaknesses in the carrying out of monitoring processes were also observed. Newly commissioned Direct Payments are monitored more consistently than was the case at the time of the previous audit but still only half of the accounts tested had been monitored at the intervals required by the Direct Payments policy. Furthermore, account surpluses and deficits are routinely identified but are not always acted upon. Finally, it was found that customer support plans are not routinely reviewed on an annual basis as is required by council policy with some reviews having been delayed for between four and 13 months. Overall Conclusions The arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance. ## 1 Timeliness Of Reconciliations For Prepaid Card Accounts Issue/Control Weakness Risk The accounts of customers with prepaid cards are not monitored in accordance with council policy. Customers may misuse their Direct Payment or fail to pay their assessed contribution. Budget provision may be affected by the accrual of account surpluses or failure to recover funds. Of the ten managed accounts tested, three had not been reconciled by October 2017 and thus were delayed at the time of audit testing. A further ten self-managed accounts were tested and none of these reconciliations had been completed within 12 months of the period up to which the previous reconciliation had been performed. While reconciliations for five accounts were not significantly delayed, for the remaining five reconciliations delays were significant (more than three months for one recently completed reconciliation) or were overdue at the time of audit testing with no evidence on Mosaic that they had been performed. The scheduling of account reconciliation will be managed by the Income Services Manager. Cases will be allocated to officers one month in advance of the review date. The working practice within Income Services has been to reconcile all accounts, including managed accounts. However, it is the responsibility of the support provider to undertake the reconciliation and delays in resolving managed account reconciliations has had the effect of delaying the commencement of self-managed account reconciliations. Income Services will no longer reconcile managed accounts. ## 2 Designated Bank Account Reconciliations Issue/Control Weakness Risk The accounts of customers who receive Direct Payments into a designated bank account are not reconciled in accordance with council policy. Based on the data provided there were nine Direct Payment customers who received the payments into a designated bank account at the time of audit testing. For five of these accounts there were no reconciliations available on Mosaic (although one account was opened in April 2017 and so the first reconciliation was not due at the time of audit testing). A further two accounts had been reconciled most recently in 2014 and 2015. Therefore, just one account had been reconciled in accordance with the council's Direct Payments policy. The Direct Payments policy will be presented to the Direct Payments Group for review and clarification will be sought regarding roles and responsibilities. Customers may misuse their Direct Payment or fail to pay their assessed contribution. Budget provision may be affected by the accrual of account surpluses or failure to recover funds. 2 Responsible Officer Head of Service - Adult Safeguarding, DoLS, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities May 2018 ## 3 Allowance For Agreed Contingencies Issue/Control Weakness Risk \| Agreed contingency items are not routinely accounted for in reconciliations. \| \|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| be able to meet employer obligations. \| Of the 20 Direct Payment accounts tested, six did not employ a personal assistant and so a DP2 reconciliation report had not been submitted. In a further two cases, customers employed a personal assistant but had not submitted a DP2. No reconciliations were on file for one customer. This left a population of 11 accounts for which a DP2 form had been submitted and the full range of contingency costs could be reviewed. Of these 11 accounts, employers' liability insurance had not been factored into the reconciliation on four occasions despite being recorded on the DP2 form (employee holidays provided were also not factored into one of these reconciliations). More generally, support costs and other contingencies were found not to have been included on the DP2s submitted. This issue was observed in the 2015/16 audit but it is the responsibility of the customer, nominated person or support provider to provide this information. DP2s will be checked and returned to the customer, nominated person or support provider if information appears to be missing or where the DP2 and Audit Reconciliation worksheet do not match. An additional seven days will be allowed for the return of this information. ## 4 Account Monitoring Issue/Control Weakness Risk Newly commissioned Direct Payment accounts are not monitored with the frequency required by council policy. Financial loss to the council as the Direct Payment is used to pay for items which are not included in the customer's support plan. The customer fails to manage their finances correctly and thus has insufficient funds to meet their care needs. Only one of the 10 accounts initially tested had been monitored at two, four and sixth months after the Direct Payment was commissioned as per the Direct Payments policy. However, all accounts had at least been monitored once within six months from commissioning and nine accounts had been monitored twice within this period. Although not fully compliant with the policy, this represents a marked improvement from the previous audit whereby no new accounts were monitored before six months after commissioning. During the audit Income Services advised that the Direct Payment Monitoring workstep (the workflow item within the system which schedules account monitoring tasks) had not been configured until May 2017. Re-testing performed showed an increase in the performance of account monitoring from June 2017 onwards but still half of new or amended accounts had not been monitored at the frequency required by the Direct Payments policy. Action undertaken at 1.1 should go some way to improving this issue and a system will be put in place to check, on a weekly basis, that all new Direct Payments are correctly scheduled for monitoring every two months for the first six months. Approval has been obtained from the Assistant Director - Adults and Social Care and the Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services to remove the requirement for intensive monitoring during the first six months where a customer has previously had a successful Direct Payment in place. ## 5 Surplus Reclaims Issue/Control Weakness Risk Failure of Care Management to notify Income Services on a timely basis as to whether or not account surpluses can be reclaimed. If a surplus of over £50 after contingencies remains in a Direct Payment account following reconciliation, Income Services is required to notify Care Management as per the Escalation Policy. Care Management are expected to advise Income Services as to whether or not the surplus funds can be reclaimed (and, if not, reasons must be provided) within 28 working days. Responses to surplus notifications had been received from Care Management in seven instances of the ten identified surpluses tested. Six of these responses had been received within the 28 working day timescale while a response to one notification took 66 working days. A further two notifications had not received a response at the time of audit testing and five months have elapsed for both. In one case, Care Management was not required to send notification to Income Services as the Direct Payment had in fact ended. Therefore, three of nine surplus notifications did not receive a timely response from Care Management and, as such, surpluses have remained in the account for an extended period of time. The Direct Payments policy will be presented to the Direct Payments Group for review and clarification will be sought regarding roles and responsibilities. Direct Payment accounts accrue excessive surpluses, affecting the provision of the Direct Payments budget. ## 6 Communication Around Failure To Pay Customer Contribution \| Issue/Control Weakness \| Risk \| \|-----------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Failure to ensure that all customers pay their assessed contribution. \| The care needs of the customer may not be able to be met if \| \| insufficient funds are in the account. \| \| The Direct Payment Escalation Policy requires that Income Services makes telephone contact with the customer or appointed person and then formal contact via letter where assessed contributions are not being paid. In eight of nine accounts identified as failing to pay the contribution, there was evidence to support the fact that this had been identified and challenged. However, this was not always directly to the customer (for example, a nominated person) as per the Escalation Policy and notifications to Care Management were not always provided or were not timely (after failure to pay the contribution had been confirmed following the most recent reconciliation). The accounts of seven of the customers had not been brought up to date at the time of audit testing. Identification of non-payment will have been as long ago as November 2016 for two of these accounts. The most recent reconciliations for the five other accounts were performed in February, May and June 2017 so have not been brought up to date for between three and seven months. The Escalation Policy requires that Income Services contact the customer to discuss failure to pay their contribution. If the contribution is not paid the case is then escalated to Care Management. However, Care Management has been unwilling to accept escalated cases unless Income Services has written to the customer. This has caused significant delay in the escalation process and in the resolution of account finances. The collection of contributions by invoice has been approved by Directorate Management Teams and is to be phased over the 2018/19 financial year to be fully implemented by 31 March 2019. All customer contributions from newly commissioned DPs will be collected by invoice from the start. ## 7 Annual Support Plan Review Issue/Control Weakness Risk \| Support plans are not routinely reviewed every 12 months. \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------\| \| is no longer appropriate or proportionate. \| For three of the 10 Direct Payment accounts tested it was observed that a review of the customer's support plan had not been undertaken on an annual basis and had in fact been significantly delayed by between four and as much as 13 months. Review of case notes and other correspondence on the customers' Mosaic files revealed that scheduling issues had been encountered by the Social Care Manager (e.g. due to customer illness) and that this had contributed to the delay in review. A further three reviews were technically delayed but each by less than one month and so these were considered acceptable. Overall, it appears that annual reviews are not always timely but that this can be complicated by difficulties experienced with scheduling meetings with customers. Nonetheless, some of the delays identified were unreasonable despite the difficulties encountered. It will be ensured that the importance of the annual support plan review is reflected in any review of the Direct Payment policy undertaken by the Direct Payments Group. Head of Service - Adult Safeguarding, DoLS, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities May 2018 ## Audit Opinions And Priorities For Actions Audit Opinions Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit. Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below. Opinion Assessment of internal control \| High Assurance \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| Substantial \| \| Assurance \| \| Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in \| \| operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. \| \| \| \| Reasonable \| \| Assurance \| \| Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control \| \| environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. \| \| Limited Assurance \| \| Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major \| \| improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. \| \| No Assurance \| \| Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of \| \| key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. \| \| \| ## Priorities For Actions Priority 1 A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. Priority 2 A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. Priority 3 The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.	en
1682-pdf	## Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 1: Woodland Area And Planting Release date: 24 September 2020 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical breakdown: Country Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ ## Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 Key findings ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Woodland Area ............................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Area of Woodland: 2020 ............................................................ 6 1.1.2 Area of woodland: changes over time .......................................... 8 1.1.3 Woodland area by ownership ..................................................... 11 1.2 Certified woodland area .................................................................. 13 1.3 Land use ....................................................................................... 16 1.4 National Forest Inventory ............................................................... 18 1.4.1 Woodland area by age: conifers ................................................. 18 1.4.2 Woodland area by age: broadleaves ........................................... 20 1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary .............................................. 22 1.4.4 Woodland area by species: conifers ............................................ 23 1.4.5 Woodland area by species: broadleaves ...................................... 25 1.4.6 Woodland area by species: summary .......................................... 28 1.4.7 Growing stock by species: conifers ............................................. 30 1.4.8 Growing stock by species: broadleaves ....................................... 32 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland .................................................................. 35 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking ..................................... 37 New planting .................................................................................... 37 Restocking ....................................................................................... 37 1.6.1 New planting ........................................................................... 39 1.6.2 Restocking .............................................................................. 44 1.7 Felling .......................................................................................... 48 Felling ............................................................................................. 48 Woodland loss .................................................................................. 49 1.7.1 Felling licences ......................................................................... 50 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices ................................................... 51 ## Introduction This chapter contains statistics on: - UK woodland area; - certified woodland area; - areas of new planting and restocking; and - felling. Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. International comparisons are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter. Figures on woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2020 and on new planting and restocking for the period 2019-20 were previously published in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 edition", released on 14 June 2020. Some figures for new planting in 2019-20 and for Statutory Plant Health Notices in Scotland have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Woodland Areas and Planting: Felling section of the Sources chapter. A copy of all woodland area and planting tables, along with longer time series (where available) can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/statistics/data-downloads/. ## Key Findings The main findings are: - The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland. - Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares (26%) is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Northern Ireland Forest Service. - The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2020 is 1.39 million hectares, including all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 43% of the UK woodland area is certified. - 13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20, with conifers accounting for 57% of this area. ## 1.1 Woodland Area Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20%, or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Sources chapter. Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts. Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Further information is available in the section on New Planting. Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development. Most public sector woodland is managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as "private sector" in this release. The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures. ## 1.1.1 Area Of Woodland: 2020 The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares (Table 1.1). Of this total, 1.5 million hectares (46%) is in Scotland, 1.3 million hectares (41%) is in England, 0.3 million hectares (10%) is in Wales and 0.1 million hectares (4%) is in Northern Ireland. Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from around one quarter (26%) in England to around three quarters (74%) in Scotland. thousand hectares Forest type and ownership1,2 England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers FE/FLS/NRW/FS 151 98 426 55 730 Private sector 190 54 653 8 905 Total 340 152 1,079 64 1,635 Broadleaves FE/FLS/NRW/FS 64 19 41 7 131 Private sector 907 138 347 48 1,440 Total 971 158 388 55 1,571 Total FE/FLS/NRW/FS 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector 1,097 192 1,000 56 2,345 Total 1,311 309 1,467 118 3,206 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 4. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 5. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. ## 1.1.2 Area Of Woodland: Changes Over Time The 3.2 million hectares of woodland in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.1) represents 13% of the total land area. This comprises 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland (Table 1.2). per cent of land area1 Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 10862 ~15 .. .. .. .. c13502 ~10 .. ~4 .. .. 17thC2,3 ~8 .. ~4 ~1.5 .. 19053 5.2 4.2 4.5 1.1 4.7 1924 5.1 5.0 5.6 1.0 5.0 19473 5.8 6.2 6.6 1.7 5.9 1965 6.8 9.7 8.4 3.1 7.4 1980 7.3 11.6 11.8 4.9 9.0 1995-99 8.4 13.8 16.4 6.0 11.3 19984 9.5 14.4 16.7 6.0 12.0 20205,6 10.1 14.9 18.8 8.6 13.2 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. Percentage of the total surface area excluding inland water. The total surface areas, excluding inland water, are taken from the UK Standard Area Measurements (published by the Office for National Statistics). 2. Estimates for England and Scotland before 1905 come from a variety of sources, including the Domesday Survey of England, Scottish Woodland History (TC Smout ed, 1997) and Roy maps c1750. 3. For Northern Ireland, 17th century figure is estimate for all Ireland, 1905 figure is estimate for Province of Ulster 1908, 1947 figure assumes no change from 1939-40 Census. 4. 1998 figures shown for England, Wales and Scotland have been revised from those originally published to produce estimates that are consistent with subsequent data from the National Forest Inventory. 5. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 6. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 7. .. Denotes data not available. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. UK has risen by around 290 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 10% over the period. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. 2. Figures for 1998 to 2009 for England, Wales and Scotland were revised from those initially published, to produce results that are consistent with the National Forest Inventory and enable comparisons over time. ## 1.1.3 Woodland Area By Ownership Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland owned or managed 27% of the total woodland area in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.3). This proportion ranged from 16% of the woodland area in England to 53% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Ownership England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FE/FLS/NRW/ FS woodland1 2016 215 117 470 62 864 2017 214 117 469 62 863 2018 214 117 470 62 863 2019 215 117 468 62 862 2020 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector woodland2 2016 1,091 190 965 50 2,295 2017 1,092 191 968 50 2,301 2018 1,093 192 976 50 2,311 2019 1,094 192 988 51 2,326 2020 1,097 192 1,000 56 2,345 Total woodland 2016 1,305 307 1,435 112 3,159 2017 1,306 308 1,438 112 3,164 2018 1,307 309 1,446 113 3,175 2019 1,309 309 1,456 113 3,187 2020 1,311 309 1,467 118 3,206 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales. 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland. 3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 4. Northern Ireland figures are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 5. Areas as at 31 March. ## 1.2 Certified Woodland Area Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests. Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably. Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal. Statistics on certified timber are provided in Chapter 2. 1.39 million hectares of woodland in the UK were certified in March 2020 (Table 1.4). This represented 43% of the total UK woodland area, 25% in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 55% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Ownership England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland1 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector woodland2 109 29 392 3 533 Total woodland area certified 323 146 859 66 1,394 Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland. 3. All certified woodland in 2020 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes. 4. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. 5. All Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales WGWE/Forest Service woodland is certified. The Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Welsh Government Woodland Estate /Forest Service areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on certificates. Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads webpage. Figure 1.2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001, with figures for earlier years revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. This shows an increase in certified woodland area of around 330 thousand hectares (31%) since December 2001, with most of this increasing occurring in the early 2000s. The 1.39 million hectares of certified woodland in the UK at March 2020 represents a 0.4% decrease on the previous year. Notes: 1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes. 2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. 3. Figures for earlier years were revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. ## 1.3 Land Use Not all land that is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland is woodland; other land uses include agricultural land, mountain areas and moorland. The woodland areas and land areas shown for Natural Resources Wales relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures. Woodland accounted for 79% of all Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service land in the UK at 31 March 2020 (Table 1.5). This proportion was highest in Wales (95%) and lowest in Scotland (74%). thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Woodland 2016 215 117 470 62 864 2017 214 117 469 62 863 2018 214 117 470 62 863 2019 215 117 468 62 862 2020 215 117 467 62 861 Other land2 2016 38 7 170 13 228 2017 39 7 169 13 227 2018 39 6 169 13 227 2019 39 6 166 13 224 2020 39 6 166 13 224 Total land area 2016 253 124 640 75 1,092 2017 253 124 638 75 1,090 2018 253 123 639 75 1,090 2019 253 123 634 75 1,085 2020 253 123 634 75 1,085 Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. "Other land" includes agricultural land and areas of moorland and mountain. 3. Areas as at 31 March. ## 1.4 National Forest Inventory This section contains interim results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI). The statistics are based on field survey data combined with information from the NFI woodland map, which is a spatial representation of woodland areas in Great Britain. Figures presented in this chapter are interim estimates at 31 March 2012, published in the NFI "50-year forecast of softwood timber availability" and "50- year forecast of hardwood timber availability" reports, released in April 2014. Both reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/national-forest-inventory/. The figures presented in Tables 1.6 to 1.9 (and Figures 1.3, 1.4a and 1.4b) relate to stocked areas. These differ from the woodland areas presented in earlier tables, as stocked areas exclude felled areas and (for private sector land) areas of integral open space. The figures on growing stock presented in Tables 1.10 and 1.11 form the basis for the softwood and hardwood availability forecasts (see Tables 2.4a and 2.4b). Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. ## 1.4.1 Woodland Area By Age: Conifers Table 1.6 presents the area of conifers, broken down by age class, ownership and country. 61% of the coniferous woodland area in Great Britain was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.6). A further 9% of stands were aged over 60 years. thousand hectares Age class (years) England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 0-20 33 24 76 134 21-40 38 25 145 208 41-60 39 25 111 176 61-80 12 7 25 44 81-100 4 1 6 11 100+ 1 0 3 4 All age classes 128 82 367 576 Private sector2 0-20 17 8 126 151 21-40 54 22 231 306 41-60 83 15 116 214 61-80 19 1 18 38 81-100 3 2 6 11 100+ 3 1 9 12 All age classes 179 47 505 732 Total 0-20 51 32 202 285 21-40 92 46 376 514 41-60 123 39 227 389 61-80 31 8 43 82 81-100 7 2 12 22 100+ 3 1 12 16 All age classes 307 129 872 1,308 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.2 Woodland Area By Age: Broadleaves Table 1.7 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by age class, ownership and country. Around one half (53%) of the broadleaved area was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.7). More than one quarter (28%) of stands were aged over 60 years. thousand hectares Age class (years) England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 0-20 8 7 11 25 21-40 6 2 5 13 41-60 13 2 4 19 61-80 13 2 4 19 81-100 4 1 2 7 100+ 10 3 5 18 All age classes 54 16 32 102 Private sector2 0-20 217 30 84 332 21-40 227 33 84 344 41-60 145 22 58 225 61-80 117 15 22 154 81-100 92 11 9 112 100+ 51 10 7 67 All age classes 849 121 265 1,235 Total 0-20 225 37 95 357 21-40 232 36 90 357 41-60 157 24 63 244 61-80 130 17 26 173 81-100 97 12 11 119 100+ 61 12 12 85 All age classes 902 137 297 1,337 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary Figure 1.3 presents the age profile of woodland in Great Britain for conifers and for broadleaves. It shows that broadleaves are more evenly distributed across the age classes than conifers. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.4 Woodland Area By Species: Conifers Table 1.8 presents the area of conifers, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. Sitka spruce accounts for around one half (51%) of the conifer area in Great Britain (Table 1.8), followed by Scots pine (17%) and larches (10%). Sitka spruce is less dominant in England, accounting for just one quarter (26%) of the conifer area there. thousand hectares Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Sitka spruce 49 50 225 323 Scots pine 17 2 45 64 Corsican pine 27 2 2 30 Norway spruce 7 5 11 23 Larches 10 12 26 48 Douglas fir 10 5 5 20 Lodgepole pine 4 3 49 56 Other conifers 5 3 3 11 All conifers 128 82 367 576 Private sector2 Sitka spruce 32 27 282 341 Scots pine 45 1 109 154 Corsican pine 14 0 1 15 Norway spruce 21 3 15 38 Larches 30 8 39 78 Douglas fir 15 3 7 25 Lodgepole pine 3 1 39 44 Other conifers 19 2 8 29 All conifers 179 47 505 732 Total Sitka spruce 80 77 507 665 Scots pine 61 3 154 218 Corsican pine 40 2 3 46 Norway spruce 27 8 25 61 Larches 40 20 66 126 Douglas fir 25 9 12 46 Lodgepole pine 8 4 88 100 Other conifers 24 5 11 40 All conifers 307 129 872 1,308 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.5 Woodland Area By Species: Broadleaves Table 1.9 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The most commonly occurring broadleaved species in Great Britain are birch (accounting for 18% of broadleaf woodland), oak (16%) and ash (12%) (Table 1.9). Birch is more dominant in Scotland, accounting for 43% of the broadleaf area there. thousand hectares Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Oak 16 3 3 21 Beech 13 2 1 15 Sycamore 1 0 0 2 Ash 3 1 0 4 Birch 6 2 11 19 Sweet chestnut 1 0 0 1 Hazel 0 0 0 1 Hawthorn 0 0 0 0 Alder 1 0 1 1 Willow 0 0 0 0 Other broadleaves 14 9 15 38 All broadleaves 54 16 32 102 Private sector2 Oak 151 23 23 198 Beech 59 5 15 78 Sycamore 74 9 21 105 Ash 120 18 15 153 Birch 90 11 116 217 Sweet chestnut 28 0 0 28 Hazel 64 14 8 86 Hawthorn 57 8 8 73 Alder 30 10 16 56 Willow 41 11 13 65 Other broadleaves 133 12 29 174 All broadleaves 849 121 265 1,235 Total Oak 167 26 26 219 Beech 72 6 15 94 Sycamore 75 9 22 106 Ash 123 19 16 157 Birch 96 12 128 236 Sweet chestnut 28 0 0 29 Hazel 65 14 8 87 Hawthorn 57 8 8 73 Alder 31 10 17 58 Willow 41 11 13 65 Other broadleaves 146 21 44 212 All broadleaves 902 137 297 1,337 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.6 Woodland Area By Species: Summary Figures 1.4a and 1.4b show that, whilst the conifer area is dominated by a small number of species (Sitka spruce and Scots pine together account for around two thirds of the conifer area), broadleaves are more varied. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.7 Growing Stock By Species: Conifers Growing stock is the volume of timber in living trees. It is also often referred to as the standing volume. Table 1.10 presents the volume of coniferous growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The total volume of coniferous growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 355 million m3 overbark standing (Table 1.10). Sitka spruce accounted for around one half (51%) of the conifer growing stock, followed by Scots pine (15%) and larches (10%). This largely reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.8). million m3 overbark standing Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Sitka spruce 8.9 11.1 52.1 72.0 Scots pine 4.0 0.5 8.8 13.3 Corsican pine 5.5 0.6 0.4 6.4 Norway spruce 1.7 1.5 3.5 6.7 Larches 1.7 2.7 4.8 9.2 Douglas fir 2.7 1.3 1.4 5.4 Lodgepole pine 0.8 0.6 8.2 9.6 Other conifers 1.5 1.1 1.0 3.6 All conifers 26.8 19.4 80.2 126.4 Private sector2 Sitka spruce 11.4 9.5 88.0 108.9 Scots pine 14.7 0.3 24.5 39.4 Corsican pine 4.7 0.2 0.3 5.3 Norway spruce 7.1 1.3 5.9 14.4 Larches 10.7 3.3 12.3 26.3 Douglas fir 6.4 1.6 3.5 11.5 Lodgepole pine 1.0 0.3 7.4 8.7 Other conifers 7.6 1.1 3.0 11.7 All conifers 63.7 17.9 146.7 228.4 Total Sitka spruce 20.3 20.6 140.0 180.9 Scots pine 18.6 0.8 33.3 52.7 Corsican pine 10.2 0.8 0.7 11.7 Norway spruce 8.8 2.8 9.4 21.1 Larches 12.4 6.0 17.1 35.6 Douglas fir 9.1 2.9 4.9 16.9 Lodgepole pine 1.8 0.9 15.5 18.3 Other conifers 9.1 2.2 4.1 15.4 All conifers 90.5 37.4 226.9 354.7 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.8 Growing Stock By Species: Broadleaves Table 1.11 presents the volume of broadleaved growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The total volume of broadleaved growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 245 million m3 overbark standing (Table 1.11). Oak (28%), ash (16%) and beech (12%) accounted for the majority of the broadleaved volume. To some extent, this reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.9). million m3 overbark standing Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Oak 3.3 0.5 0.6 4.4 Beech 2.8 0.4 0.1 3.4 Sycamore 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Ash 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 Birch 0.5 0.1 1.7 2.3 Sweet chestnut 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hazel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hawthorn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alder 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Willow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other broadleaves 1.3 0.8 1.2 3.3 All broadleaves 8.7 1.9 3.9 14.5 Private sector2 Oak 51.7 7.7 5.6 65.0 Beech 19.8 1.6 5.2 26.6 Sycamore 16.2 2.4 4.8 23.4 Ash 30.1 6.9 2.8 39.8 Birch 11.3 1.2 8.5 20.9 Sweet chestnut 7.7 0.2 0.0 7.9 Hazel 5.0 0.9 0.4 6.4 Hawthorn 2.8 0.4 0.3 3.4 Alder 6.8 2.1 1.9 10.8 Willow 4.9 0.8 0.9 6.5 Other broadleaves 16.0 1.1 2.6 19.6 All broadleaves 172.3 25.4 32.9 230.6 Total Oak 55.0 8.1 6.3 69.4 Beech 22.6 2.0 5.3 29.9 Sycamore 16.4 2.4 4.9 23.6 Ash 30.5 7.0 2.8 40.3 Birch 11.8 1.3 10.1 23.2 Sweet chestnut 7.8 0.2 0.0 8.0 Hazel 5.1 0.9 0.5 6.5 Hawthorn 2.8 0.4 0.3 3.4 Alder 6.9 2.2 1.9 11.0 Willow 4.9 0.8 0.9 6.5 Other broadleaves 17.2 1.8 3.8 22.9 All broadleaves 181.0 27.3 36.8 245.1 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.5 Area Of Farm Woodland Agricultural Censuses run by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and the devolved administrations collect annual information on the land-use of farms. Table 1.12 below shows the area of woodland on farms. The area of farm woodland in the UK has increased from 0.8 million hectares in 2010 to 1.0 million hectares in 2019 (Table 1.12). Slightly over one half (51%) of all farm woodland was in Scotland in 2019, with a further 37% in England, 11% in Wales and the remaining 2% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 2010 295 69 400 10 774 2011 305 44 426 11 786 2012 308 63 445 11 827 2013 325 63 467 10 865 2014 331 76 479 11 897 2015 348 78 524 11 961 2016 370 89 502 16 978 2017 369 93 560 16 1,037 2018 372 97 532 16 1,016 2019 379 109 529 16 1,033 Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive. Notes: 1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. 2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive. Notes: 1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. 2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. ## 1.6 New Planting And Publicly Funded Restocking New Planting New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area. There are a number of factors that can affect the level of new planting in the UK. These include: - choices by landowners reflecting their own motivation and needs; - the costs and availability of land for conversion to woodland; - the availability of grants for new planting, the level of grant payments available and the awareness of grants among potential recipients; - the tax benefits available from owning woodland; - expected future markets for wood products such as timber and woodfuel; - income from payments for ecosystem services, particularly carbon storage; - national and local initiatives, for example on biodiversity, green infrastructure and water management. ## Restocking Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting. As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, usually of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking). Figures for timber harvesting (wood production) are available in the UK-Grown Timber chapter. Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on the species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions. This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is: - restocking of Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and - grant aided restocking of private sector woodland. Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland. Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics. ## 1.6.1 New Planting 13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.13a). Conifers accounted for 57% of the new planting area in 2019- 20. thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers 2015-16 0.00 0.03 1.90 0.00 1.93 2016-17 0.10 0.17 3.22 0.08 3.56 2017-18 0.24 0.10 4.68 0.11 5.13 2018-19 0.42 0.32 7.27 0.10 8.12 2019-20 0.24 0.04 7.43 0.06 7.77 Broadleaves 2015-16 0.82 0.08 2.73 0.05 3.68 2016-17 1.05 0.24 1.54 0.13 2.96 2017-18 1.26 0.10 2.46 0.10 3.92 2018-19 1.00 0.35 3.94 0.14 5.42 2019-20 2.10 0.04 3.61 0.14 5.90 Total 2015-16 0.82 0.11 4.63 0.05 5.61 2016-17 1.15 0.41 4.76 0.21 6.52 2017-18 1.50 0.20 7.14 0.21 9.05 2018-19 1.42 0.67 11.21 0.24 13.54 2019-20 2.34 0.08 11.05 0.20 13.66 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. In 2019-20 most new planting (97%) took place on private sector land (Table 1.13b). thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FC/FLS/NRW/FS 2015-16 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 2016-17 0.02 0.00 1.06 0.00 1.08 2017-18 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 2018-19 0.03 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.06 2019-20 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.05 0.42 Private sector 2015-16 0.82 0.10 3.93 0.05 4.90 2016-17 1.13 0.41 3.70 0.21 5.45 2017-18 1.50 0.20 6.27 0.21 8.18 2018-19 1.39 0.67 10.19 0.24 12.48 2019-20 2.24 0.08 10.78 0.15 13.24 Total 2015-16 0.82 0.11 4.63 0.05 5.61 2016-17 1.15 0.41 4.76 0.21 6.52 2017-18 1.50 0.20 7.14 0.21 9.05 2018-19 1.42 0.67 11.21 0.24 13.54 2019-20 2.34 0.08 11.05 0.20 13.66 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2018-19. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Figure 1.6 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to regulations and the incentives available to land owners. In recent years, areas of new planting in the UK have dropped to lows of under 6 thousand hectares in 2009-10 and in 2015-16 and have risen to highs of around 13 thousand hectares in 2011-12, 2013-14, 2018-19 and 2019-20. These fluctuations are likely to have been influenced by changes in grant schemes across the UK. At 13.7 thousand hectares in 2019-20, the current level of new planting is similar to the level reported in 2018-19. This current level does represent an increase of 0.8% from the previous year. This is the smallest increase recorded since levels rose sharply after the 2015-16 planting season. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). ## 1.6.2 Restocking A total of 14.8 thousand hectares of publicly funded restocking were reported in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.14a). thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers 2015-16 2.17 1.19 5.99 0.74 10.09 2016-17 2.03 1.16 9.09 1.15 13.42 2017-18 1.58 0.97 8.14 0.85 11.53 2018-19 1.26 1.04 9.12 0.72 12.14 2019-20 2.11 0.92 8.19 0.69 11.91 Broadleaves 2015-16 1.14 0.58 1.83 0.07 3.62 2016-17 0.97 0.54 1.99 0.17 3.66 2017-18 0.47 0.70 1.52 0.08 2.77 2018-19 0.39 0.66 2.07 0.11 3.23 2019-20 0.63 0.58 1.69 0.03 2.92 Total 2015-16 3.31 1.76 7.82 0.81 13.71 2016-17 3.00 1.70 11.07 1.31 17.09 2017-18 2.04 1.67 9.66 0.94 14.30 2018-19 1.65 1.70 11.19 0.83 15.37 2019-20 2.74 1.50 9.88 0.71 14.83 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid. 2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FC/FLS/NRW/FS 2015-16 2.30 1.47 6.55 0.75 11.06 2016-17 2.39 1.44 6.67 1.25 11.74 2017-18 2.04 1.55 5.78 0.86 10.23 2018-19 1.57 1.22 7.15 0.79 10.72 2019-20 2.48 1.48 5.35 0.62 9.93 Private sector 2015-16 1.02 0.30 1.27 0.06 2.65 2016-17 0.61 0.26 4.41 0.06 5.34 2017-18 0.00 0.12 3.87 0.08 4.07 2018-19 0.08 0.48 4.05 0.04 4.65 2019-20 0.26 0.02 4.52 0.09 4.89 Total 2015-16 3.31 1.76 7.82 0.81 13.71 2016-17 3.00 1.70 11.07 1.31 17.09 2017-18 2.04 1.67 9.66 0.94 14.30 2018-19 1.65 1.70 11.19 0.83 15.37 2019-20 2.74 1.50 9.88 0.71 14.83 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid. 2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Figure 1.7 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see UK-Grown Timber chapter). The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates. Results from the Forestry Commission's Nursery Survey (an annual survey of forest nurseries in Great Britain) indicate that, following a dip in the 2009/10 planting year, sales of Sitka spruce plants to Scotland have been relatively stable in recent years. The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2019-20 represents a 4% decrease from the previous year and remains below the level reported for 2016-17. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year. 2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009- 10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. 3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration. 5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented. ## 1.7 Felling Felling Approval for the felling (cutting down) of trees in the UK is granted through felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland. Felling licences may be conditional (where felling approval is granted subject to replanting) or unconditional (where tree felling is approved without the requirement to replant). Unconditional licences are routinely issued for silvicultural thinning operations and in these cases no woodland loss takes place. However, an unconditional felling licence without the requirement to replant may be issued if there are overriding environmental considerations, for example to enable the restoration of important habitats. The removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development (including for windfarms). In this case, a felling licence is not required. The removal of trees might also be required through a Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN). A SPHN may require the felling and destruction of infected trees or containment of infested material on site, and is issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. Similar actions are also required within the public woodland estate managed by these organisations. There is no legal requirement for woodland to be restocked after felling under a SPHN. Since 2010/2011, SPHNs have mainly been issued to attempt to slow down the spread of Phytophthora ramorum, first found in the UK in 2002 on viburnum, and in 2009 on Japanese larch, a significant sporulating host resulting in a dramatic upsurge in the disease. Statutory felling of infected P. ramorum infected larch does not apply within the designated P. ramorum management zone in south west Scotland where the high levels of infection and proportion of larch in the area make this unfeasible. However, felling licences are still required, and movement licences are required to stop spread out of this area. In Wales' P. ramorum Core Disease Zone SPHNs are still served to contain material on site, but felling still requires a felling licence. Further information on felling and Statutory Plant Health Notices is provided in the Sources chapter. ## Woodland Loss Information on unconditional felling licences that do not relate to thinning may be seen as an indication of the level of woodland loss on land that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service. However, the data relates only to felling licences issued, so does not provide information on whether the felling actually took place (or the timing of the felling). In addition, felling licences do not cover woodland loss that is authorised under planning regulations. The National Forest Inventory report "Preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015" (August 2016) has reported: - 3.3 thousand hectares of observed permanent woodland loss between 2006 and 2015; - a further 0.7 thousand hectares of ground under development and 0.2 thousand hectares of newly established habitats; - 69% of the clearfelled area observed in 2006 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 33.9 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas; - 63% of the area observed as clearfelled between 2006 and 2009 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 28.6 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas. These are interim estimates that are likely to underestimate the final position; updated estimates will be available when results from the NFI second cycle field survey are released. Further information is available in the report at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. ## 1.7.1 Felling Licences Table 1.15 shows the area covered by unconditional felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and Natural Resources Wales in the last 10 years. The figures do not include unconditional felling licences issued to permit thinning of woodlands. The table covers woodland in England, Scotland and Wales that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland or Natural Resources Wales only; it does not cover felling that is exempt from felling licence approval (such as authorisations for felling under planning regulations, felling required under a Statutory Plant Health Notice or felling that is approved on condition that the area is restocked). A total of 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in England, 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in Scotland and 0.1 thousand hectares in Wales was covered by unconditional felling licences (with no requirement to restock) in the year to March 2020. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland GB 2010-11 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 2011-12 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 2012-13 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.9 2013-14 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 2014-15 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 2015-16 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 2016-17 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2017-18 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2018-19 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.8 2019-20 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.6 Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales Notes: 1. Felling licences issued in the period. Excludes areas exempt from felling licence approval and licences issued for thinning. 2. From April 2019 Felling Permissions, issued under the Forestry and Land Management Act (Scotland )2018, have replaced Felling Licences in Scotland These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices Table 1.16a shows the number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served in the UK between 2010-11 and 2018-19. For Scotland, the figures now show the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued, rather than number of sites. All woodland, including sites owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland are covered. As Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued in the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, the figures presented here do not cover all felling of infected larch. A total of 635 sites were served with Statutory Plant Health Notices between April 2018 and March 2019. \| Year \| England \| Wales \| Scotland \| \|----------\|------------\|----------\|-------------\| \| Northern \| \| \| \| \| Ireland \| \| \| \| \| UK \| \| \| \| \| 2010-11 \| 114 \| 46 \| 1 \| \| 2011-12 \| 131 \| 90 \| 15 \| \| 2012-13 \| 168 \| 89 \| 44 \| \| 2013-14 \| 244 \| 272 \| 55 \| \| 2014-15 \| 140 \| 71 \| 17 \| \| 2015-16 \| 73 \| 57 \| 32 \| \| 2016-17 \| 75 \| 53 \| 65 \| \| 2017-18 \| 43 \| 153 \| 70 \| \| 2018-19 \| 136 \| 215 \| 284 \| Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Note: 1. The number of sites where infection of larch by Phytophthora ramorum has been confirmed, or where there is sufficient suspicion of infection and a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served on the landowner. For Scotland, figures relate to the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued. 2. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Areas requiring felling under Statutory Plant Health Notices totalled 3.9 thousand hectares in 2018-19 (Table 1.16b). Around one half (49%) of the area to be felled in 2018-19 was in Wales, 36% was in Scotland and 15% in England. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland2 Northern Ireland UK 2010-11 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.3 2.3 2011-12 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.1 2012-13 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 2.5 2013-14 0.8 4.6 0.3 0.5 6.1 2014-15 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 2015-16 0.1 1.5 0.9 0.0 2.6 2016-17 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 2017-18 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.7 2018-19 0.6 1.9 1.4 0.0 3.9 Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Note: 1. The area that is required to be felled within the Statutory Plant Health Notice. 2. Felling areas in Scotland relate to larch only. 3. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.	en
2746-pdf	From : 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Procurement Museum of Science and Industry 12/05/2016 113363 503 5114 96 1,969.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Banks Sadler 12/05/2016 2385 370 7671 39 1,000.00 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog McCorquodale 2005 (uk) Ltd 12/05/2016 M3453 986 3399 55 656.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 57.15 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 120.48 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 1.41 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 118.12 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 470.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 65.45 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 32.00 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 518.45 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.03 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.02 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 150.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.02 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 322.05 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 0.66 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 179.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 306.28 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 195.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 150.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 17.89 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 59.43 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 15.54 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 23.56 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 19.90 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 32.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 330.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 487.20 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 112.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111293326 809 7077 06 2,130.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 182.44 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 182.44 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 24.63 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 3,983.04 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 130.80 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 22.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 8.33 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 500.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 85.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 3,710.53 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 7.53 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 3.35 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 168.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 383.47 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 46.63 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 14.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 125.89 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 10.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 52.49 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 46.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 111.47 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 111.47 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 25.13 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 37.37 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 5.00 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 13.25 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 48.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 14.89 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 1.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 22.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 366.90 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 433.95 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 8.67 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 46.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 155.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 89.10 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 66.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 15.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 65.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 24.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 15.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 18.60 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 462.40 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 27.10 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 3.10 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 3,613.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 17.77 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 242.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 225.98 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 167.75 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 404.95 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 1.65 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 12.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 90.83 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 74.25 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 74.25 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 6.78 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 98.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 169.50 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 36.80 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 29.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 99.97 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 191.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 74.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 7.81 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 1,874.62 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 66.04 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 282.05 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 43.93 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 73.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 100.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 93.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 17.59 DCMS Advertising 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 248.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 264.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 493.74 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 71.26 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 11.71 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 225.03 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 36.15 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 10.04 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 23.12 DCMS Other Taxes / Import Duties Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 77.85 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 18.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 155.82 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 107.35 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 407.85 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 359.84 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 25.73 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 19.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 112.57 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 251.65 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 1,246.18 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 117.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 214.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 492.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 68.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 135.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 372.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 376.65 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 -57.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 16.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 24.34 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 28.05 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 52.73 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 74.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 188.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 46.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 467.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 736.59 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 530.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 388.10 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 395.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 355.30 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 25.49 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 67.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 332.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 283.46 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 79.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 60.48 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 270.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 87.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 6.23 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 15.50 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 6.48 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 9.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 458.03 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 35.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 15.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 5.92 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 138.21 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 165.75 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 14.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 25.65 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 290.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Engagement Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 431.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 37.85 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 2,216.40 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 60.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 24.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Management Dacorum Borough Council 12/05/2016 90220949-JUN16 209 0426 90 2,340.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Wassells Arboricultural Services 12/05/2016 1490-2016 923 8355 13 840.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre PMI Analytical Ltd 18/05/2016 001544 989 0741 67 4,850.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre PMI Analytical Ltd 18/05/2016 001544 989 0741 67 125.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 76.73 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 264.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 37.20 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 37.20 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -34.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 44.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 86.19 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 39.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 77.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 205.63 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 87.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -87.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 50.39 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 43.98 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 52.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 346.44 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 62.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 75.76 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 59.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -18.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 70.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 23.44 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 66.92 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 141.57 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 53.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 13.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 1,039.90 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 28.04 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 5.04 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 16.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 16.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 36.53 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 218.32 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum L&A Digital Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 28.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Content Design Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 193.80 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 37.10 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Core Research Labs Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.08 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Core Research Labs Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 1,920.40 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 106.58 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 30.88 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 112.91 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 114.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 110.77 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 450.88 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 48.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 109.37 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 358.67 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 111.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 358.67 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 34.34 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 6.15 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 17.23 DCMS Postage & Couriers 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Procurement Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 24.98 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 2,556.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 368.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 1,936.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 70.31 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 13.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 24.96 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 9.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 150.96 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 682.29 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 19.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 13.84 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 350.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 109.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 12.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 420.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 1.67 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 34.80 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 1.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 35.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 765.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 284.50 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Central Project Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 16.65 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 28.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 99.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 14.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 208.59 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 13.11 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 32.48 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 32.47 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 46.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 40.44 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 21.47 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 40.09 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 2,500.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 1,532.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Content Development - Science Comms Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 374.36 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 112.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 29.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 11.38 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 3.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 112.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 3.47 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 63.75 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 671.38 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 321.57 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 16.95 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 7.54 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 24.98 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 11.07 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 36.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 254.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 38.99 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Development - Online Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 28.34 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 16.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 8.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 33.99 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 11.98 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 41.56 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.43 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 9.61 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 35.83 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 391.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 33.40 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.94 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 239.70 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 1,761.60 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 158.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 220.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.99 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 104.15 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 174.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 265.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 36.67 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 95.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 80.00 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Marketing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 183.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Photographic Unit (Image Resources) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 19.17 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 11.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 5.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 13.55 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 125.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 405.42 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 186.15 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 51.04 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 9.80 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 153.82 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 31.65 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 26.03 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 7.80 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 4.32 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 5.38 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 64.74 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 62.94 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 238.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 866.10 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.36 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 36.72 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 17.07 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 460.98 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 115.09 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 7.15 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 30.49 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 28.94 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.02 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 9.12 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 2.14 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 3,050.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 14.55 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 94.04 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 18.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 323.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 4,110.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 558.12 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 41.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 2,240.03 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 3.58 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 158.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 2,098.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 1,320.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 275.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 435.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 120.13 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 103.60 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 100.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 105.17 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 4,110.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 995.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 102.38 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 500.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 302.34 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 434.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 74.40 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 953.75 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 30.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 28.75 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 69.50 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 43.70 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 689.90 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 -7.00 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 708.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 595.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 18.59 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 32.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.24 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.95 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 480.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 44.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 500.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 540.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 76.05 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 65.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 182.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 646.23 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 500.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 93.55 DCMS Other Taxes / Import Duties Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.00 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 480.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 20.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 1,100.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 24.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 673.20 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 1,301.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 36.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 1,727.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611249 39.90 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611249 803.50 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 23.56 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 24.80 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 35.30 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 162.26 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 21.34 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 14.66 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 135.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 153.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 57.32 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 20.37 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 113.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 50.71 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 67.27 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 38.18 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 13.99 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 62.12 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 10.65 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 30.90 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 19.56 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 498.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 767.63 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 675.34 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 111.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 103.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 801.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 1.34 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 20.09 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 21.38 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 84.38 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 19.98 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 -15.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 0.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 47.97 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 3.39 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 4.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Management Wandsworth Borough Council 12/05/2016 11055561 JUN16 8,272.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 9.95 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 50.59 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 16.67 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 2.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 162.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 39.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 6.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 130.41 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 127.83 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 57.04 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 87.46 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 21.88 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 168.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 138.56 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 5.92 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 4.36 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 46.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 46.75 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 72.40 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 74.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 2,135.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 2,135.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 65.53 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 1.39 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 9.38 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 688.45 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 421.55 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 750.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 31.74 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 140.61 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 -3.48 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 28.48 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 179.50 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 45.53 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 81.59 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 19.65 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 16.66 DCMS Special Event Costs From : 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 19.95 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 51.92 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 34.42 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 29.84 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 13.55 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 73.92 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 36.52 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 2.19 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 136.55 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 6.46 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 2,144.95 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 91.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 10.39 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 55.17 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 16.40 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 213.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 28.94 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 34.86 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 11.57 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 96.36 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 374.17 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 536.45 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 340.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 14.60 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 -11.57 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 1.30 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 6.26 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 8.41 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 1,956.95 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 38.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 97.39 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 147.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 557.96 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 557.96 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 148.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 128.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 128.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 2.04 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 4.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 10.40 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 8.44 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 11.20 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 63.70 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 196.45 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 16.90 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 17.58 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 923.12 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 665.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 13.20 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 90.00 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 90.00 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 7.99 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 466.86 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Management Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelse 12/05/2016 629799352-JUN16 238 6993 10 76,516.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning Versapak International Ltd 12/05/2016 SOV240199 299 4942 86 580.75 DCMS Office Stationery Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46 546 1680 37 4,480.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 40.18 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 5.38 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 12.90 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 15.83 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 39.96 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 16.67 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 380.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 610.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 380.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 579.60 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 286.81 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 89.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 24.00 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 67.23 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 99.55 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 487.83 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 35.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 26.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 368.97 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 7.43 DCMS Subsistence 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 37.89 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 427.65 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 12.40 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 95.71 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 34.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 1,305.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 88.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 318.50 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 131.46 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 447.73 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 56.24 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 736.59 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 742.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 9.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 4.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 35.33 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 29.90 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 29.69 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 15.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 20.79 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 9.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 15.73 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 87.17 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 43.21 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 35.33 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 14.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 41.39 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 39.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 221.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 27.07 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 6.57 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 821.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 90.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 406.59 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 406.59 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 141.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 112.50 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 78.14 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Membership Uni-mail 26/05/2016 U/510/6889 768 3188 86 5,269.20 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 43.80 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 55.92 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,456.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,426.74 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 49.83 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 81.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 91.98 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 25.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 15.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 321.47 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,673.11 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 188.57 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 57.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 896.92 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 756.58 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 44.91 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 42.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 696.67 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 38.86 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 109.77 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 48.82 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 115.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 97.32 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 105.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 63.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 32.73 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 69.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 550.55 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 227.05 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 69.25 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01913994 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01913994 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 9,948.21 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 7,009.88 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 18,693.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 9,948.21 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 216.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 38.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 72.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 73.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 136.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 74.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 38.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Fisher Scientific UK 12/05/2016 4151695971 844 2904 24 1,444.24 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Membership Ethical Direct Ltd t/a Office Coffee Co 12/05/2016 SI-10360 116 9000 43 1,950.52 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 525.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 1,029.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 399.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Geoworld EU 04/05/2016 B6100052 02540280308 685.42 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Geoworld EU 04/05/2016 B6100052 02540280308 102.67 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 35.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 48.33 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 59.13 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 35.25 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 56.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 160.82 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 74.99 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 66.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 232.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 19.28 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 35.45 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 30.54 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 64.80 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 735.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 360.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 257.09 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 337.85 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 71.23 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 100.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 42.70 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 656.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 255.20 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 71.13 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 14.86 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 18.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 298.05 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 15.20 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 1,757.40 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 475.10 DCMS Exceptional Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 180.03 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.01 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 199.98 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 179.44 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.04 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 148.70 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 1,550.65 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 467.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 25.07 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 17.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 32.90 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 28.47 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 32.90 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Key Travel 12/05/2016 50354286 362 3348 61 848.67 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office BBSRC 12/05/2016 BBSR13277 3,817.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 1,839.20 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog J. A. Preece 12/05/2016 2016/0009 1,250.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 4,130.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 210.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 280.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 90.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 6.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 444.60 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 444.60 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 677.70 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 405.90 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 90.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 634.92 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 624.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 1,050.66 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 823.68 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Britannic Technologies 12/05/2016 0000178156 529 1677 22 650.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414394RI 188 4140 46 5,210.20 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414395RI 188 4140 46 1,030.05 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414396RI 188 4140 46 1,501.92 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414397RI 188 4140 46 2,908.85 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414398RI 188 4140 46 3,219.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414399RI 188 4140 46 1,835.56 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414400RI 188 4140 46 4,355.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414401RI 188 4140 46 1,255.68 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning Scan Coin Ltd 12/05/2016 IN156650CT 519 5946 08 1,308.22 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414402RI 188 4140 46 691.06 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414403RI 188 4140 46 880.87 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414404RI 188 4140 46 1,337.26 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414405RI 188 4140 46 3,484.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414406RI 188 4140 46 1,323.26 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414407RI 188 4140 46 3,196.56 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414408RI 188 4140 46 1,853.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414409RI 188 4140 46 742.29 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414410RI 188 4140 46 4,890.72 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414411RI 188 4140 46 873.34 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414412RI 188 4140 46 891.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414413RI 188 4140 46 609.83 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414414RI 188 4140 46 1,865.38 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Special Funds - Ops Key Travel 12/05/2016 50335849 362 3348 61 1,021.11 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Key Travel 12/05/2016 50335849 362 3348 61 1,021.11 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188529 892 2071 22 1,363.82 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188529 892 2071 22 7.15 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Membership bottomline Technologies Ltd 12/05/2016 INV472107 724 5482 31 1,500.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Taylor Pearce Limited 12/05/2016 17/012 437 1083 44 6,560.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Donald Insall Associates Ltd 12/05/2016 25152 240 3358 92 1,542.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5373521 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5373520 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374363 232 3479 75 679.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 12/05/2016 456195 429 7961 03 939.00 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Teacrate Rentals Ltd 12/05/2016 421493 503 5476 62 849.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204645 696 8691 51 4,293.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204646 696 8691 51 4,293.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 86.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 13.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 10.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 63.90 DCMS Subsistence 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 66.20 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 16.50 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 2.46 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 4.21 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 13.32 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 20.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 322.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024847 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division WCMC 12/05/2016 0002447 995 9354 46 1,247.50 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum LS Collections Pracownia Stolarska Marek Majkowski 04/05/2016 01/2016 6792671232 12,257.63 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362420 362 3348 61 590.02 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections Petr Banar 04/05/2016 19/04/16 3,587.00 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362943 362 3348 61 1,351.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362088 362 3348 61 626.07 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Oculus Building Consultancy Ltd 12/05/2016 4013 713 4893 28 550.00 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 12/05/2016 6456 974 8884 42 700.41 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) E Christian & Co Limited 12/05/2016 059226 956.25 DCMS Storage Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 27445671 232 3479 75 1,957.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 12/05/2016 53526 118 9313 10 6,458.11 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 12/05/2016 53526 118 9313 10 1,074.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12036014 754 5322 32 746.88 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12036014 754 5322 32 206.66 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 529809 813 0527 65 840.00 DCMS Storage Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 529809 813 0527 65 117.00 DCMS Storage Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114002 1,285.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114003 795.00 DCMS Estates Systems Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114004 993.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Aridlands 04/05/2016 19/4/16 POLASZEK ACCOM 808.37 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 12/05/2016 1187 885 8551 64 550.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Open Text 12/05/2016 SUK08156010 771 5920 16 2,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Visitor Events Benugo 12/05/2016 I8081010006572 765 3217 26 1,190.14 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Computers In Personnel Ltd 26/05/2016 41601 363 4997 13 63,193.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402282750 635 8235 28 584.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375106 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188773 892 2071 22 1,363.82 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188773 892 2071 22 7.15 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 389.10 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 138.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 11.60 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 9.98 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006433877 773 6958 71 815.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Dacorum Borough Council 12/05/2016 723057 1373595 209 0426 90 672.00 DCMS Cleaning & Waste Disp (non Cont) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Onecall 26/05/2016 4322609 169 6803 22 506.92 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Publishing What on Earth Publishing Ltd. 12/05/2016 WH5113 994 8769 28 279.00 DCMS Royalties Natural History Museum Publishing What on Earth Publishing Ltd. 12/05/2016 WH5113 994 8769 28 259.50 DCMS Royalties Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation BDK Industrial Products Ltd 12/05/2016 0000212204 627.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation BDK Industrial Products Ltd 12/05/2016 0000212204 9.95 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024647 377 3451 31 6,125.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 713.50 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 385.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 400.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415305RI 188 4140 46 606.85 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415305RI 188 4140 46 60.69 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Directorate Brunswick Group LLP 12/05/2016 609043 743 8063 28 15,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Directorate JCA Group Ltd 26/05/2016 1479 8,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Visitor Events Say Fromage Limited 12/05/2016 1250 105 7974 01 600.00 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50365960 362 3348 61 763.94 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 631.14 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 411.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 549.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 233.41 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204647 696 8691 51 773.10 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204649 696 8691 51 949.90 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 360.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 185.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 3,930.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374869 232 3479 75 730.62 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) SVM Consulting Engineers 26/05/2016 L5175 596 2541 11 1,200.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375110 232 3479 75 725.93 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Adrian Cox Associates Ltd 12/05/2016 3217 602 5096 70 2,125.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Vodafone Limited 12/05/2016 79863993 569 9532 77 2,870.18 DCMS Telecoms Direct Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Metro Imaging 12/05/2016 SIN571055 342 1081 02 2,202.40 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Metro Imaging 12/05/2016 SIN571055 342 1081 02 27.85 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Casson Mann 12/05/2016 2121 446 0116 79 19,527.43 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50367253 362 3348 61 588.95 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Key Travel 12/05/2016 50366900 362 3348 61 589.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Development Prospecting for Gold Ltd 12/05/2016 5477 819 3029 30 600.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team LM Information Delivery 12/05/2016 1512464 112 6270 53 1,031.73 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Wex Photographic Ltd 12/05/2016 51353771 231 9471 12 555.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Finance Zurich Municipal 12/05/2016 19/04/16 INSURANCE POLICY 79.86 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Finance Zurich Municipal 12/05/2016 19/04/16 INSURANCE POLICY 840.67 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006420425 773 6958 71 990.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024915 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 1,040.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 585.44 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 477.55 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Nissen Richards studio Ltd 12/05/2016 007 985 2194 84 4,570.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development The Clore Leadership Programme 12/05/2016 2001 2,000.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Baker Mallett 12/05/2016 T/6902 238 4185 51 1,020.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops My Civil Service Pension 12/05/2016 6685 128 7543 93 5,475.00 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops My Civil Service Pension 12/05/2016 6685 128 7543 93 12.00 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Baker Mallett 26/05/2016 T/6903 238 4185 51 1,650.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 319.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 159.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 159.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 172.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024506 377 3451 31 2,160.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024506 377 3451 31 2,700.00 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Wilson James Ltd 12/05/2016 90031256 546 1539 38 611.37 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Cover it Up Ltd 12/05/2016 41558 751 7479 07 2,050.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Cover it Up Ltd 12/05/2016 41544 751 7479 07 1,460.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 12/05/2016 21208 644 8760 08 1,297.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 526.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 39.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 814.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50367892 362 3348 61 1,012.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071938 927 4051 29 99,735.13 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071946 927 4051 29 7,527.49 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071945 927 4051 29 4,318.02 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Thames Water Utilities Ltd 12/05/2016 62050-34453 APRIL 2016 537 4569 15 8,982.44 DCMS Water/Sewage Natural History Museum Content Development - Broadcast Square Box Systems Ltd 03/05/2016 3562 739 5208 14 2,755.25 DCMS IT Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375870 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain EDF Energy Cust Field Services 12/05/2016 600004963 523 0412 02 760.00 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375878 232 3479 75 615.36 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368393 362 3348 61 1,242.85 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00413442RI 188 4140 46 1,325.44 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 545.16 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 61.02 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 50.22 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 58.14 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374362 232 3479 75 20,627.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 555.92 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 1,040.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Membership Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 52.47 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 143.10 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 610.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 959.70 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 448.43 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402283634 635 8235 28 1,548.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Constantine Ltd 12/05/2016 1160407 2,100.00 DCMS Freight Transport Natural History Museum Estates Management The Management Recruitment Group 12/05/2016 13339 762 7158 14 6,066.67 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369280 362 3348 61 1,325.22 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369363 362 3348 61 710.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375605 232 3479 75 726.17 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369533 362 3348 61 667.61 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374115 232 3479 75 637.73 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Content Development - Online Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375876 232 3479 75 851.60 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) SVM Consulting Engineers 26/05/2016 L5176 596 2541 11 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Finance PricewaterhouseCoopers 26/05/2016 1354522683 3,000.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12812 846 9261 90 1,685.10 DCMS Work In Progress The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 12/05/2016 21229 644 8760 08 635.25 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.48 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.49 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.48 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Intelligent Counting Ltd 12/05/2016 4259 17,846.31 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Refix Maintenance Limited 12/05/2016 00023538 3,993.60 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416177RI 188 4140 46 176,252.00 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 188986 892 2071 22 1,336.18 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 188986 892 2071 22 6.99 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) British Fossils 12/05/2016 SIN023364 423 8505 60 3,227.48 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43254 501 7702 81 553.80 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153069 531 9887 12 3,318.97 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43283 501 7702 81 520.80 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12819 846 9261 90 2,312.70 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Rated Solutions Limited 12/05/2016 1213 178 5599 41 1,600.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Creswell Heritage Trust 12/05/2016 001847 509 4898 05 600.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6010 319 3971 35 8,487.20 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6009 319 3971 35 4,178.65 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6008 319 3971 35 24,540.25 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Collections Preservation Equipment Ltd 12/05/2016 0000348540 491 0421 69 1,036.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Preservation Equipment Ltd 12/05/2016 0000348540 491 0421 69 84.00 DCMS Freight Transport Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 12/05/2016 6501 974 8884 42 690.95 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50369847 362 3348 61 759.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50370102 362 3348 61 802.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Technology Solutions SoftwareONE UK Ltd 12/05/2016 GB-PSI-155451 942 5301 43 258.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development SoftwareONE UK Ltd 12/05/2016 GB-PSI-155451 942 5301 43 258.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Key Travel 26/05/2016 50370360 362 3348 61 944.84 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Focus Consultants 2010 LLP 12/05/2016 16A/175 996 7534 48 900.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416374RI 188 4140 46 583.33 DCMS Cabling Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416374RI 188 4140 46 58.33 DCMS Cabling Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5372760 232 3479 75 637.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374843 232 3479 75 795.68 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 204.83 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 157.50 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 7.30 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 11.98 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 466.25 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 1,212.50 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 568.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374873 232 3479 75 943.12 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN024951 377 3451 31 6,210.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415484RI 188 4140 46 8,142.30 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415485RI 188 4140 46 1,408.28 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects TMP (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 100001089969 872 9045 02 584.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Pete Smith Inspections Ltd 12/05/2016 3131NHM 916 3994 90 539.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering TMP (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 100001089482 872 9045 02 584.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Niall McLaughlin Architects 26/05/2016 016/018 719 2974 02 1,975.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Niall McLaughlin Architects 26/05/2016 016/017 719 2974 02 65,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 12/05/2016 00051697 647 6600 22 635.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tyrrell Katz Ltd 12/05/2016 76269 835 5314 31 727.18 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Insect Lore Europe 12/05/2016 N188779 650 6107 63 994.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 12/05/2016 00051979 647 6600 22 3,681.14 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 12/05/2016 0000206026 299 2526 13 1,566.88 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tyrrell Katz Ltd 12/05/2016 76370 835 5314 31 732.12 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 12/05/2016 39489 28.98.51.18 586.77 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Lagoon Group 12/05/2016 169104 493 4100 57 1,481.98 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Ravensden PLC 12/05/2016 OP/I101124 486 5098 02 2,988.87 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Insect Lore Europe 12/05/2016 N198454 650 6107 63 604.20 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 12/05/2016 4159759I 205 5053 05 1,028.44 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 12/05/2016 89521243 220 9036 43 516.25 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 12/05/2016 89701489 220 9036 43 1,327.34 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57860769 205 5053 05 3,445.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57894582 205 5053 05 411.38 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57894582 205 5053 05 333.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Orca Book Services 12/05/2016 IE3045784 787 4454 78 874.78 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57892830 205 5053 05 636.21 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 12/05/2016 4200607I 205 5053 05 502.23 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 530079 813 0527 65 1,580.00 DCMS Decant / Moving / Recant costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 530079 813 0527 65 158.00 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) D Frampton 26/05/2016 1819 570.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 4,871.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 612.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 828.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 14,152.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Development Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371094 362 3348 61 691.95 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371926 362 3348 61 643.15 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Pavel Prudek 18/05/2016 29/04/16 MOUNT COLEOPTERA 1,824.42 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Centre for Strategy & Communication Ltd 12/05/2016 PI001697 681 1653 34 1,100.00 DCMS Training The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 12/05/2016 200699 711 8625 45 6,219.24 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 12/05/2016 200699 711 8625 45 184.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 26/05/2016 200713 711 8625 45 876.31 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 26/05/2016 200713 711 8625 45 172.49 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12847 846 9261 90 1,187.50 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 26/05/2016 L1 205057 696 8691 51 600.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Development Richmond Associates 12/05/2016 2642 653 4303 55 2,666.67 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN025061 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum of London Archaeology 12/05/2016 SIN014709 123 3647 34 530.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Key Travel 26/05/2016 50372577 362 3348 61 782.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections New Alchemy 26/05/2016 4165 575.00 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5372494 232 3479 75 765.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Content Development - Broadcast Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5374351 232 3479 75 958.05 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Linkedin Ireland 12/05/2016 780722028A 9740425P 1,750.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cortina 18/05/2016 23A 8062 78 870 B01 1,101.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.02 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.02 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.03 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 12/05/2016 39065A 28.98.51.18 767.52 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153102 531 9887 12 2,185.21 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 12/05/2016 37900 625 5142 57 3,989.07 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 12/05/2016 37987 625 5142 57 5,080.90 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Gardners Books Ltd 26/05/2016 0251760V 628.04 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brainstorm Ltd 12/05/2016 150550 657 4917 93 2,483.28 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153277 531 9887 12 4,816.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brainstorm Ltd 12/05/2016 150595 657 4917 93 1,192.08 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops CGI IT UK Ltd 26/05/2016 GB2460022211 232 6151 94 3,626.83 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN025085 377 3451 31 7,765.59 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402283868 635 8235 28 1,070.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum L&A Dept Management Benugo 12/05/2016 I8081010006679 765 3217 26 4,554.12 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006476894 773 6958 71 815.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 26/05/2016 6550 974 8884 42 681.48 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Key Travel 26/05/2016 50374167 362 3348 61 1,272.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Ithaka Harbors Inc 18/05/2016 SO080099 2,047.36 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Ithaka Harbors Inc 18/05/2016 SO080099 1,160.17 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376390 232 3479 75 730.62 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Focus Consultants 2010 LLP 26/05/2016 16A/192 996 7534 48 1,500.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 12/05/2016 038150 100 1371 91 1,098.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402284544 635 8235 28 848.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402284544 635 8235 28 121.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376615 232 3479 75 788.43 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376611 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373360 362 3348 61 969.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Learning Engagement Scientific Laboratory Supplies Ltd 26/05/2016 SI115483001 572 6920 21 1,798.80 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375610 232 3479 75 724.32 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376387 232 3479 75 590.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376388 232 3479 75 708.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006451717 773 6958 71 1,650.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006459892 773 6958 71 1,650.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 105.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 148.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 148.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 97.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 14.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Atkins Ltd 12/05/2016 15053092 209 8612 53 10,947.11 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 26/05/2016 38059 625 5142 57 1,370.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) The NHM Trading Company LTD LS Consultancy Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371900 171 5690 00 550.45 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 12/05/2016 1188 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 26/05/2016 1189 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Neat PR 26/05/2016 1473 110 0129 96 2,430.91 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Neat PR 26/05/2016 1473 110 0129 96 40.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keenpac 26/05/2016 OP/I139367 286 0142 66 781.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) PCS Cleaning 12/05/2016 150822 404 6707 66 5,934.58 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Media Relations Rhubarb Food Design Ltd 12/05/2016 15909 676 3425 14 586.40 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9558 340 1674 74 708.33 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Plaster Creative Communications 26/05/2016 5897 729 6927 81 2,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9391 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415483RI 188 4140 46 566.80 DCMS Freight Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9382 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9334 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 27451326 232 3479 75 822.50 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 26/05/2016 27456686 232 3479 75 809.34 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12039163 754 5322 32 732.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12039163 754 5322 32 210.92 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Esprit Group 12/05/2016 88897-88910 608 0609 56 10,437.00 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12046690 754 5322 32 711.94 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12046690 754 5322 32 179.98 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Junior Geo Ltd 12/05/2016 214375 572.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rory Dobner Ltd 12/05/2016 1816 117 6279 05 848.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 12/05/2016 NHM0177 1,270.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 12/05/2016 NHM0177 48.92 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2135 842 6797 88 1,269.60 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43307 501 7702 81 2,599.70 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2139 842 6797 88 911.10 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rockshop Wholesale 12/05/2016 55238 183 6395 33 3,421.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317427 4,167.18 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cornflower Limited 12/05/2016 43229 678 7954 52 1,442.68 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2140 842 6797 88 869.70 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cotswold Fayre Ltd 12/05/2016 247483 653 4530 44 510.75 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Capital Souvenirs Ltd 12/05/2016 1561 974 8896 35 850.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keycraft 12/05/2016 195166 140 1547 10 4,544.64 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 12/05/2016 0000206155 299 2526 13 1,503.84 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tobar Group Trading Ltd 12/05/2016 3333495 672.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Paul Lamond Games 12/05/2016 INV81910 645 4857 07 754.44 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317667 3,428.40 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317727 3,538.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43306 501 7702 81 548.16 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Temple Island Collection 12/05/2016 12-0420-25359 838 4490 95 752.40 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 26/05/2016 SI317981 1,827.90 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46A 546 1680 37 3,200.00 DCMS Site Preparation / Demolition Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46A 546 1680 37 1,280.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 188.25 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 144.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 136.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 144.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 375.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 157.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 74.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,342.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,542.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,147.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 771.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 952.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 771.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12852 846 9261 90 1,121.80 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416959RI 188 4140 46 3,034.56 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416960RI 188 4140 46 2,347.62 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416961RI 188 4140 46 3,978.35 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416962RI 188 4140 46 763.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416963RI 188 4140 46 2,888.50 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416964RI 188 4140 46 654.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416965RI 188 4140 46 2,521.82 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416966RI 188 4140 46 1,788.04 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416967RI 188 4140 46 2,168.66 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416968RI 188 4140 46 592.06 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 189218 892 2071 22 1,336.18 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 189218 892 2071 22 6.99 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events London Hair & Beauty Ltd 26/05/2016 2818 115 5766 11 595.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development DV Talent Ltd 12/05/2016 14939 810 5501 76 1,095.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50375652 362 3348 61 2,030.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Nick J. Hawkins 26/05/2016 1605/01 750.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Weldmet Ltd 26/05/2016 172749 318 4879 24 525.08 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Atec Security Ltd 26/05/2016 45192 431 3211 10 30,975.00 DCMS Estates Systems Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 12/05/2016 SA 111663833 553 7696 03 20,053.85 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 251430940/0066 553 7696 03 32,631.03 DCMS Electricity 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 26/05/2016 41430504/0068 553 7696 03 4,336.52 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 26/05/2016 701431584/0070 553 7696 03 6,667.92 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 201616442/0024 553 7696 03 33,787.19 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 91431762/0066 553 7696 03 7,014.34 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 981457605/0059 553 7696 03 29,599.42 DCMS Electricity The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) NoaPoa Asia Pte Ltd 18/05/2016 2016.0409 780.73 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cavallini Papers & Co Inc 18/05/2016 221223 673.92 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01925306 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01925306 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Membership Custom Card Services Int Ltd 26/05/2016 DD/574692 834 6263 23 1,501.28 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Marketing Open Dawe London Ltd 12/05/2016 275 138 8960 65 4,380.00 DCMS Advertising 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204417 696 8691 51 1,121.12 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204416 696 8691 51 2,451.40 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204415 696 8691 51 2,242.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204414 696 8691 51 3,203.06 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204413 696 8691 51 1,501.46 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204419 696 8691 51 8,671.16 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Carl Zeiss Limited 26/05/2016 5140335587 232 5089 78 67,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371199 362 3348 61 903.64 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Softcat Ltd 26/05/2016 INV01366932 491 8485 03 50,865.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 750.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 650.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 70.66 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 129.91 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Publishing Frances Lincoln Ltd 26/05/2016 18732 237 5657 37 1,647.15 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Frances Lincoln Ltd 26/05/2016 18732 237 5657 37 1,745.15 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Jerram Falkus 26/05/2016 JC14224 446 9008 37 125,749.50 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 395.54 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 201.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 262.92 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division KE Software (UK) Ltd/Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803923 757 8581 72 4,996.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Titan Containers A/S 26/05/2016 1616485 941 1109 61 780.00 DCMS Building & Engineering PPM Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Black Cat Displays Ltd 26/05/2016 983 912 0648 51 801.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Step Ahead Employment Ltd 12/05/2016 00118628 181 8430 04 535.13 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Step Ahead Employment Ltd 26/05/2016 00118913 181 8430 04 535.13 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375603 232 3479 75 920.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375880 232 3479 75 509.88 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375602 232 3479 75 575.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376617 232 3479 75 509.88 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376385 232 3479 75 920.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Kate Whittington 26/05/2016 NHMAO01 620.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Adams Environmental Ltd 26/05/2016 22446 437 3387 34 2,120.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Business & Commercial Trading Atlantic Productions Ltd. 26/05/2016 CS5623 625 7763 15 10,313.78 DCMS Trading Activities-3rd P Sales The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 26/05/2016 20160205 644 8760 08 2,156.00 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD NHM Consultancy Key Travel 26/05/2016 50375659 171 5690 00 635.34 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375883 232 3479 75 594.86 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Book Service Ltd 26/05/2016 K17644IV 102 8389 80 554.27 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37469169 102 8389 80 1,946.63 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37469169 102 8389 80 137.35 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37520563 102 8389 80 474.36 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37520563 102 8389 80 94.35 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Gardners Books Ltd 26/05/2016 0252022V 1,106.81 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Book Service Ltd 26/05/2016 K06732IV 102 8389 80 1,337.72 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 3761987X 102 8389 80 3,625.12 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 3761987X 102 8389 80 111.06 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust 26/05/2016 H0131249 1,937.26 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Titan Containers A/S 26/05/2016 1616345 941 1109 61 540.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Still HR 26/05/2016 743 925 3265 27 895.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Audience Development Management The Museums & Heritage Show Ltd 26/05/2016 1124 234 4707 16 1,520.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 159.49 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 69.55 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 556.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Displayways Ltd 26/05/2016 INV20706 735 6701 27 990.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Pete Smith Inspections Ltd 26/05/2016 3115NHM 916 3994 90 1,554.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Euronova Ltd 26/05/2016 2349 729 1829 09 980.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 49.44 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 25.04 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 791.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 2,528.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378322 362 3348 61 685.72 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Adams Environmental Ltd 26/05/2016 22456 437 3387 34 1,300.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Comcen 26/05/2016 INV177646 540 9977 10 4,454.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00417123RI 188 4140 46 2,714.41 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378346 362 3348 61 668.94 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Development Richmond Associates 26/05/2016 2643 653 4303 55 1,223.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 244.72 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 90.27 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 61.18 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 158.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 75.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 285.78 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ensemble Systems Inc 26/05/2016 26034145-A 979 4283 58 1,859.38 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 326.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 377.50 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 254.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 496.16 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 780.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 287.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00412853RI 188 4140 46 44,281.89 DCMS Furniture The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9397 340 1674 74 300.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9397 340 1674 74 408.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Environment Agency 26/05/2016 2005880 2,550.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Charles Kendall Packing 26/05/2016 17000929 563 2027 64 753.60 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Cultural Consultancy Earnest (London) Limited 26/05/2016 102049 981 8039 90 5,250.00 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects High Voltage Partial Discharge Ltd HVPD 12/05/2016 3437 904 3283 45 1,690.48 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 JX0209IW 102 8389 80 2,034.24 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287312 635 8235 28 7,844.60 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402286506 635 8235 28 628.50 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 629.72 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 65.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 119.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Chelsea Glass Ltd 26/05/2016 65595 494 2810 30 975.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31569 823 8446 18 122,154.90 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31569 823 8446 18 182.89 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Royal Entomological Society 26/05/2016 116 240 0276 12 1,000.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Bobby and Co Design 26/05/2016 0566 882 1780 05 2,016.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803922 610 5069 78 70,048.00 DCMS IT Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Heritage Books 26/05/2016 127892 219 4621 65 612.41 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376621 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376622 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Deluxebase Ltd 26/05/2016 00052345 647 6600 22 751.43 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 629.10 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 157.98 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 69.90 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 358.80 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 120.93 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division University of Southampton 26/05/2016 44176287 568 6304 14 9,554.50 DCMS Studentship Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100440491 524 1612 80 19,833.02 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100441806 524 1612 80 2,160.19 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100441806 524 1612 80 742.29 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316285 809 7077 06 1,944.80 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31609 823 8446 18 2,295.48 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Media Relations Gorkana Group Ltd 26/05/2016 GB_46139 757 1580 12 1,543.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 JX2050IW 102 8389 80 1,980.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474330 259 6397 06 921.39 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 K06135IW 102 8389 80 1,735.77 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Lindsay Sekulowicz 26/05/2016 120 300.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Lindsay Sekulowicz 26/05/2016 120 3,100.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31564 823 8446 18 2,114.16 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31565 823 8446 18 1,585.53 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31571 823 8446 18 4,519.38 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Directorate Compass Partnership 26/05/2016 1945 784 2224 26 5,850.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Marlin Training Ltd 26/05/2016 1980 1,745.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Loyal Retainers Ltd 26/05/2016 072 209 6628 90 180.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Loyal Retainers Ltd 26/05/2016 072 209 6628 90 1,950.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Picture Library (Image Resources) Capture Limited 26/05/2016 23332 491 6754 12 10,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316268 809 7077 06 2,315.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 19,811.85 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 4,435.49 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 5,322.59 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Vital Energi 26/05/2016 SI-16921 764 5182 15 67,626.76 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Vital Energi 26/05/2016 SI-16981 764 5182 15 1,008.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Rosamund Kidman Cox 26/05/2016 0319 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17268 407 4846 44 1,637.59 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,901.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 862.40 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 916.50 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 292.50 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 351.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,291.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,511.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,964.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 7,020.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,964.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,253.85 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Content Design Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375452 232 3479 75 653.94 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 290.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,570.32 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,635.23 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,885.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 880.06 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,860.98 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377067 232 3479 75 708.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377070 232 3479 75 739.53 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377076 232 3479 75 389.48 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377076 232 3479 75 153.01 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377291 232 3479 75 721.13 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2025 979 0817 67 3,059.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Cyborg Arts Ltd 26/05/2016 CYB16-24 1,500.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Cyborg Arts Ltd 26/05/2016 CYB16-24 422.10 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316262 809 7077 06 2,505.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316262 809 7077 06 415.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Toyota Material Handling UK Limited 26/05/2016 105089273 669 2842 89 514.30 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Historic England 26/05/2016 0000095048 5,800.09 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377287 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031702 546 1539 38 148,936.35 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031702 546 1539 38 21,584.24 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Lux Lucis Ltd 26/05/2016 587-0590 2,475.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111296639 809 7077 06 3,420.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 78.92 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 20.20 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 165.55 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 70.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 22.88 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 20.68 DCMS Hospitality The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Bruno D'Amicis 18/05/2016 12.16 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803911 610 5069 78 3,741.44 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803911 610 5069 78 424.45 DCMS IT Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377295 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474299 259 6397 06 3,702.84 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474299 259 6397 06 279.85 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102501382 259 6397 06 120.31 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102501382 259 6397 06 792.49 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102507011 259 6397 06 1,896.55 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Lewis Blackwell 26/05/2016 09/05/16 WPY16 1 1,375.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Verizon 26/05/2016 W010576642 823 8170 33 1,235.37 DCMS Telecoms Direct Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Xact Consultancy and Training Limited 24/05/2016 16-1253 855 4570 04 1,807.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378362 362 3348 61 2,092.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2100 979 0817 67 2,226.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Directorate Brunswick Group LLP 26/05/2016 609076 743 8063 28 15,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038381 100 1371 91 11,468.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038382 100 1371 91 2,313.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038383 100 1371 91 770.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17227 407 4846 44 329.89 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17227 407 4846 44 519.66 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Visitor Events Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031626 546 1539 38 987.42 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031619 546 1539 38 1,629.68 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Bookings & Sales Langdale Attraction Solutions Ltd 26/05/2016 326 224 0607 47 968.75 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Bookings & Sales Langdale Attraction Solutions Ltd 26/05/2016 326 224 0607 47 90.00 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53573 118 9313 10 5,569.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53573 118 9313 10 649.42 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53556 118 9313 10 4,846.24 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53556 118 9313 10 602.56 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Esprit Group 26/05/2016 89202-89215 608 0609 56 11,113.50 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 5,522.63 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 49.20 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 1,576.29 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 5,252.03 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 49.20 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 2,506.95 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cybertill Ltd 26/05/2016 14376 786 6539 66 1,664.99 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) E Christian & Co Limited 26/05/2016 059278 774.00 DCMS Storage Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12055468 754 5322 32 932.63 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12055468 754 5322 32 49.19 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 26/05/2016 1190 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316282 809 7077 06 5,585.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2099 979 0817 67 2,545.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127564 183 5130 19 3,182.25 DCMS Cost of Goods Sold The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127564 183 5130 19 1,474.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127745 183 5130 19 905.50 DCMS Cost of Goods Sold The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127745 183 5130 19 474.85 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Southern Electric 26/05/2016 SA111663833 553 7696 03 20,053.85 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Childcare Vouchers Ltd 24/05/2016 IN126342222 649 5035 20 220.70 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum NHM Governance & Admin Childcare Vouchers Ltd 24/05/2016 IN126342222 649 5035 20 11,035.00 DCMS Child Care Vouchers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Marbel Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN47386 903 3393 52 761.52 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Little Tees Ltd 26/05/2016 1110 150 5654 24 1,383.90 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 26/05/2016 0000206241 299 2526 13 532.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 26/05/2016 39638 28.98.51.18 1,101.54 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Towermint Limited 26/05/2016 36787 548 0743 32 1,120.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DKL Marketing Ltd 26/05/2016 0000130198 599.76 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Fleet Retail Packaging Ltd 26/05/2016 46108 846 7527 88 2,625.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Fleet Retail Packaging Ltd 26/05/2016 46108 846 7527 88 105.30 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Peterkin (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 IN207047 586.32 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) British Fossils 26/05/2016 SIN023601 423 8505 60 855.32 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) 2B DMC UK LTD 26/05/2016 16-UK-014 206 8753 95 1,000.00 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX946 618 1841 40 914.63 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 319.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 172.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 147.60 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX949 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX950 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Harrington Gardens House Ltd 26/05/2016 KH123/16 241 9103 89 1,302.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Harrington Gardens House Ltd 26/05/2016 KH124/16 241 9103 89 1,302.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90028378 546 1539 38 671.40 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Wilson James Ltd 26/05/2016 90028212 546 1539 38 680.15 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 396.72 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 584.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 134.40 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 26/05/2016 4243458I 205 5053 05 1,618.38 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89949294 220 9036 43 559.97 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89755805 220 9036 43 1,786.87 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58081607 205 5053 05 536.63 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58081607 205 5053 05 2,356.72 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58130578 205 5053 05 224.75 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58130578 205 5053 05 639.38 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01936549 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01936549 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90028216 546 1539 38 1,138.82 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89841132 220 9036 43 627.45 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Adare SEC Ltd 26/05/2016 IN0105668 616 6856 14 3,070.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Cranfield Management Development Ltd 26/05/2016 1053933 168 4854 63 800.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum Storage Design 26/05/2016 MSD-NHM OFFSITE/01 2,430.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum Storage Design 26/05/2016 MSD-NHM OFFSITE/02 3,442.50 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Ruskins Group Consultancy Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-4162 151 8913 05 900.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX951 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 26/05/2016 6599 974 8884 42 548.97 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006497507 773 6958 71 638.73 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Colley Associates Ltd 26/05/2016 2015/015/NHM/STORAGE/02 177 0029 16 1,968.75 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402286520 635 8235 28 584.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 141.76 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 442.24 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 101.99 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Development Graduate Jobs Network t/as Unicorn Jobs 26/05/2016 GJN 1258 918 9625 79 6,600.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316276 809 7077 06 5,872.50 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316273 809 7077 06 2,307.40 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Expedition Engineering Ltd 26/05/2016 3103 927 4879 72 580.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25473 700.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25443 712.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25423 706.50 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25376 690.48 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Larch Consulting Ltd 26/05/2016 5676 660 8915 15 10,800.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287330 635 8235 28 7,844.60 DCMS IT Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 26/05/2016 NHM0178 32.54 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 26/05/2016 NHM0178 1,080.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Countryside Art Ltd 26/05/2016 50425 129 6609 46 862.50 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cornflower Limited 26/05/2016 43245 678 7954 52 1,150.65 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 26/05/2016 00051980 647 6600 22 621.60 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Kingfisher Leisurewear Ltd 26/05/2016 0000121808 655 5300 44 894.45 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Kingfisher Leisurewear Ltd 26/05/2016 0000121892 655 5300 44 673.20 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keycraft 26/05/2016 195334 140 1547 10 5,426.64 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Great Gizmos Ltd 26/05/2016 230974 697 4395 69 1,739.88 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rockshop Wholesale 26/05/2016 55581 183 6395 33 3,229.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Ravensden PLC 26/05/2016 OP/I101275 486 5098 02 867.60 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 1,361.45 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 1,786.00 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 758.50 DCMS Furniture The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Ravensden PLC 26/05/2016 OP/I101629 486 5098 02 612.20 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Finance Farrer &Co 26/05/2016 10133567 232 3892 67 1,526.84 DCMS Legal Fees The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Creativity International Ltd 26/05/2016 0000276292 807 6599 90 834.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 26/05/2016 L1 204420 696 8691 51 2,400.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031629 546 1539 38 3,606.08 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038379 100 1371 91 657.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5373260 232 3479 75 941.73 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bertoy 26/05/2016 161090 0464 747 982 1,937.52 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Finance HM Revenue & Customs 31/05/2016 NIRU 010764H C18199861 888 8481 41 1,765.48 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum NHM Governance & Admin HM Revenue & Customs 31/05/2016 NIRU 010764H C18199861 888 8481 41 0.00 DCMS VAT Clearing Control A/c	en
2615-pdf	## Forestry.Gov.Uk/Statistics Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry surveys 2013 to 2017. Average visit frequencies from last 3 surveys. A summary of statistics about woodland and forestry in the UK ## Forestry Facts & Figures 2017 Forest Cover: International Comparisons 2015 Annual Changes In Forest Area: International Comparisons \| UK \| 18 \| 0.6 \| 11 \| 0.3 \| 17 \| 0.5 \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------\|--------\|--------\|--------\|-------\|-------\| \| Europe \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| United Kingdom \| 3 \| 24 \| 13 \| \| \| \| \| EU-28 \| 681 \| 0.5 \| 450 \| 0.3 \| 369 \| 0.2 \| \| Finland \| 22 \| 30 \| 73 \| \| \| \| \| Total Europe \| 803 \| 0.1 \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 127 \| 0.1 \| 382 \| 0 \| \| \| \| \| Africa \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -3 537 \| -0.5 \| -3 209 \| -0.5 \| -2 836 \| -0.4 \| \| \| France \| 17 \| 55 \| 31 \| \| \| \| \| Asia \| -221 \| 0.0 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2 349 \| 0.4 \| 791 \| 0.1 \| \| \| \| \| Germany \| 11 \| 35 \| 33 \| \| \| \| \| Italy \| 9 \| 29 \| 32 \| \| \| \| \| North & Central \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| America \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -394 \| -0.1 \| 172 \| 0 \| 75 \| 0 \| \| \| Spain \| 18 \| 50 \| 37 \| \| \| \| \| Oceania \| 82 \| 0.0 \| -564 \| -0.3 \| 304 \| 0.2 \| \| Sweden \| 28 \| 41 \| 68 \| \| \| \| \| South America \| -4,000 \| -0.4 \| \| \| \| \| \| -3 868 \| -0.4 \| -2 024 \| -0.2 \| \| \| \| \| Other EU \| 52 \| 159 \| 32 \| \| \| \| \| World \| -7 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 267 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -0.2 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -3 993 \| -0.1 \| -3 308 \| -0.1 \| \| \| \| \| Total EU-28 \| 161 \| 424 \| 38 \| \| \| \| \| Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Russian Federation \| 815 \| 1,638 \| 50 \| \| \| \| \| Total Europe \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 015 \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 214 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 46 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Africa \| 624 \| 2,987 \| 21 \| \| \| \| \| Asia \| 593 \| 3,118 \| 19 \| \| \| \| \| North & Central \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| America \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 751 \| 2,134 \| 35 \| \| \| \| \| \| Oceania \| 174 \| 850 \| 20 \| \| \| \| \| South America \| 842 \| 1,747 \| 48 \| \| \| \| \| World \| 3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 999 \| 13 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 049 \| 31 \| \| \| \| \| \| Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. ## Softwood Deliveries (Thousands Of Green Tonnes) Hardwood Deliveries (Thousands Of Green Tonnes) \| 2012 \| 6 073 \| 461 \| 1 269 \| 338 \| 1 000 \| 154 \| \|--------\|---------\|-------\|---------\|-------\|---------\|-------\| \| 9 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 831 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2012 \| 75 \| 0 \| 2 \| 400 \| 57 \| \| \| 534 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2013 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6 407 \| 465 \| 1 263 \| 332 \| 1 250 \| 191 \| 640 \| \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 547 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2013 \| 74 \| 0 \| 0 \| 400 \| 58 \| \| \| 532 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2014 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6 725 \| 465 \| 1 283 \| 317 \| 1 500 \| 176 \| 437 \| \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 903 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2014 \| 77 \| 0 \| 0 \| 400 \| 60 \| \| \| 537 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2015 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6 166 \| 435 \| 1 334 \| 288 \| 1 600 \| 164 \| 276 \| \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 263 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2015 \| 73 \| 0 \| 0 \| 400 \| 91 \| \| \| 564 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6 511 \| 423 \| 1 248 \| 278 \| 1 550 \| 178 \| 231 \| \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 419 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016 \| 75 \| 0 \| 0 \| 400 \| 122 \| \| \| 597 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of softwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes shavings and poles. Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of hardwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel and other uses. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports. Total woodland Total woodland FC/NRW/FS Private sector area certified FC/NRW/FS England 214 122 337 Wales 117 28 145 England 151 63 214 Scotland 470 371 841 Wales 98 19 117 Northern Ireland 62 3 65 Scotland 429 40 470 UK 863 525 1 388 Northern Ireland 56 7 62 UK 733 130 863 All certified woodland in 2017 is under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some woodland is also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Scheme. Private sector England 189 903 1 092 Wales 53 137 190 Scotland 632 338 970 Private sector Northern Ireland 11 39 50 500 UK 885 1 418 2 303 400 All woodland 300 England 340 967 1 306 Wales 151 156 307 200 Scotland 1 061 378 1 440 thousands of hectares 100 Northern Ireland 66 46 112 0 UK 1 618 1 547 3 166 Areas as of 31 March, 2017. ## © Crown Copyright Generalists The Forestry Commission will consider all requests to make the content of publications available in alternative formats. Please send any such requests to the Diversity Team at diversity@forestry.gsi.gov.uk or call 0300 067 5046. Statistician: Sheila Ward. Enquiries relating to this publication should be addressed to: statistics@forestry.gsi.gov.uk ## Fcfs217/Fc-Gb(Jw)/Barr-4K/Sep17 - One green tonne is equivalent to approximately 0.98 m3 underbark softwood or 0.88 m3 underbark hardwood, and to approximately 1.22 m3 overbark standing softwood or 1.11 m3 overbark standing hardwood. - Figures in the tables are individually rounded, so the constituent items may not sum to the total given. = Conifers = Broadleaves - FC/NRW/FS = Forestry Commission/Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service. Private sector = all other woodland, including some other publicly-owned woodland. Notes on Forestry Facts & Figures: This booklet includes data provided by Natural Resources Wales (www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk) and by the Northern Ireland Forest Service (www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry) The UK Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. For more information visit: www.statistics.gov.uk Forestry Facts & Figures is an annual summary of Forestry Statistics compiled by the Forestry Commission. The full 2017 publication, including full details of the sources used and downloadable spreadsheets of data, can be found online at: www.forestry.gov.uk/statistics ## Wood Removals: International Comparisons 2015 Wood Products: International Comparisons 2015 (million m3) (million m3) \| UK \| 9 \| 2 \| 11 \| \|------\|-----\|-----\|------\| \| EU-28 \| 350 \| 99 \| 450 \| \|---------\|-------\|------\|-------\| \| Total Europe \| 578 \| 148 \| 726 \| \|----------------\|-------\|-------\|-------\| \| \| \| \| Africa \| 72 \| 666 \| 738 \| \|-----------------\|-----\|-----\|----------\|------\|-------\|-------\| \| UK \| 3 \| 10 \| 3 \| 6 \| 4 \| 9 \| \| Asia \| 400 \| 729 \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 129 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| EU-28 \| 105 \| 89 \| 61 \| 59 \| 92 \| 81 \| \| Total Europe \| 151 \| 107 \| 82 \| 76 \| 104 \| 92 \| \| North & Central \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| America \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 516 \| 136 \| 652 \| \| \| \| \| \| Africa \| 10 \| 19 \| 3 \| 5 \| 4 \| 8 \| \| Oceania \| 63 \| 11 \| 74 \| \| \| \| \| Asia \| 126 \| 171 \| 246 \| 240 \| 191 \| 196 \| \| South America \| 215 \| 178 \| 393 \| \| \| \| \| World \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 845 \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 866 \| 3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 711 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| North & Central \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| America \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 127 \| 119 \| 48 \| 56 \| 89 \| 86 \| \| Source: FAO. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. \| Oceania \| 9 \| 8 \| 4 \| 4 \| 4 \| 4 \| \|---------------\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-----\|-----\| \| South America \| 31 \| 25 \| 18 \| 14 \| 16 \| 17 \| \| World \| 454 \| 449 \| 401 \| 395 \| 407 \| 403 \| \|---------\|-------\|-------\|-------\|-------\|-------\|-------\| Source: FAO. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. ## Import And Export Volumes Sawmilling Panels Pulp & paper Total \| 2011 \| \|--------\| \| 39 \| \| 2012 \| \|--------\| \| 41 \| \| 2013 \| \|--------\| \| 40 \| Business Survey (Office for National Statistics). Import and export values (£ million) Gross value added in forestry and primary wood processing (£ million) \| 2011 \| 416 \| 435 \| 197 \| 888 \| \|--------\|----------\|--------\|-------\|-------\| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 936 \| \| \| \| \| \| wood \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| wood \| paper \| paper \| \| \| \| panels \| & other) \| panels \| \| \| \| 2012 \| 307 \| 586 \| 226 \| 776 \| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 895 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2012 \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 084 \| 261 \| 791 \| 4 266 \| 89 \| \| 2013 \| 504 \| 518 \| 267 \| 578 \| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 867 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2013 \| 1 180 \| 499 \| 882 \| 4 165 \| \| 2014 \| 540 \| 356 \| 436 \| 596 \| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 928 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2014 \| 1 420 \| 627 \| 936 \| 4 196 \| \| 2015 \| 626 \| 429 \| 323 \| 738 \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 116 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2015 \| 1 311 \| 868 \| 957 \| 4 375 \| \| 2016 \| \|--------\| \| 1 307 \| Year FC/NRW Private Private (to /FS sector Total FC/NRW /FS sector Total 31/3) Total 2013 0.0 2.6 0.1 0.8 1.7 5.3 0.0 0.2 1.9 8.9 10.8 2012 4 836 5 282 10 118 55 479 534 2014 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.8 2.0 6.3 0.0 0.3 2.2 10.7 12.9 2013 5 084 5 881 10 965 78 454 532 2015 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 5.1 0.0 0.2 2.6 7.7 10.3 2014 4 900 6 628 11 528 71 466 537 2016 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.7 0.0 0.1 1.9 3.7 5.6 2015 4 691 5 968 10 659 73 490 564 2017 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 3.2 1.5 0.1 0.2 3.5 3.0 6.5 2016 5 011 5 716 10 727 68 529 597 Restocking (thousands of hectares) \| Year \| England \| Wales \| Scotland \| N Ireland \| UK \| \|--------\|-----------\|---------\|------------\|-------------\|------\| Sawnwood Year (to (000 m3) (000 m3) (000 tonnes) 31/3) Total 2013 2.2 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.1 0.9 1.1 0.1 9.7 3.4 13.1 2012 3 409 3 003 4 480 2013 3 581 3 032 4 561 2014 2.6 1.9 1.4 0.8 6.5 1.4 1.0 0.1 11.6 4.2 15.8 2015 2.0 4.4 1.3 0.6 6.6 1.9 0.9 0.1 10.8 7.0 17.8 2014 3 764 3 068 4 397 2016 2.2 1.1 1.2 0.6 6.0 1.8 0.7 0.1 10.1 3.6 13.7 2015 3 494 3 080 3 970 2017 2.0 1.0 1.1 0.5 9.1 2.0 1.1 0.2 13.4 3.7 17.1 2016 3 671 3 033 3 675 wood products (e.g. fuelwood and round fencing), roundwood and intermediate products (e.g. sawmill products, pulp and recovered paper). ## Distribution Of Woodland In The Uk Woodland cover in the UK is now around 3 million hectares, equivalent to 13% of the total land area. The public forest estate makes up almost 30% of total forest area. This map shows the distribution of woodland over 2 hectares in the UK. The information on woodland area presented here uses data from the GB National Forest Inventory, adjusted for new planting, and data supplied by Forest Service in Northern Ireland. Find out more about the National Forest Inventory at: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory ## Uk Imports And Exports wrme = wood raw material equivalent	en
1726-pdf	Childrens Social Care Staff Survey - Privacy Notice We keep the privacy notice for staff surveys under regular review and we have used it to provide the privacy notice specific to the Childrens Social Care Staff survey in April 2020. When we use your personal data, City of York Council (CYC) complies with data protection legislation, and is the registered 'Controller'. Our data protection notification is registered with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) - reference Z5809563. Why will information be collected? The Business Intelligence Hub is commissioned to conduct surveys and collect data, at times including personal information, on behalf of various council services. Many consultations and surveys are completely anonymous and do not ask for personal information. In some cases we will ask for personal data which will be used to help the council improve services. We will explain why we are collecting personal data and will only use it with your explicit and informed consent. Participation is voluntary and you can choose not to answer some of the survey questions. You can withdraw your consent at any time, by contacting: business.intelligence@york.gov.uk or 01904 551550. What information will be collected? Each survey will have different requirements when collecting data and may include personal information, thoughts and opinions. In most cases you will be able to opt-out of sharing your personal data. What will we do with the information? The information we collect will be included in presentations, reports and performance framework. Any data for publication or use outside of the authorised officers will be anonymised and will not identify any individuals. We will not use the data for any other purpose than stated and will not disclose to a third party i.e. other companies or individuals, unless we are required to do so by law for the prevention of crime and detection of fraud, etc. We complete around 50 surveys on behalf of council teams and departments every year. We do not compare or bring together any personalised information returned across these various surveys. Each survey is dealt with independent of other survey taking place. Online data will be collected using SurveyMonkey. To find out how they use your information, please click here. Where will the information be kept We will keep the information you give us and your personal data in the council's secure network drive and make sure it can only be accessed by authorised staff. Where you complete a paper copy of a survey we will transfer the information you have given onto the council's secure network drive and then securely destroy the paper copy once the transfer is complete. How long will we keep the information? We will keep the information you give us and your personal data for up to three years and then will securely destroy it. Where required or appropriate to, at the end of the retention period, we will pass onto the City Archives any relevant information Further Processing If we wish to use your personal data for a new purpose, not covered by this Privacy Notice, we will provide you with a new notice explaining the purpose prior to commencing the processing and the processing conditions. Where and whenever necessary, we will seek your consent prior to the new processing. Your rights To find out about your rights under data protection law, you can go to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ You can also find information about your rights at https://www.york.gov.uk/privacy If you have any questions about this privacy notice, want to exercise your rights, or if you have a complaint about how your information has been used, please contact us at foi@york.gov.uk or on 01904 554145 or write to: Data Protection Officer City of York Council West Offices Station Rise York YO1 6GA	en
1625-pdf	## Case Study: The Parliamentary Archives January 2014 Abstract This case study covers the Parliamentary Archives and their experience of procuring via the G-Cloud framework and running public cloud storage as part of their digital preservation infrastructure. For extra resilience/an exit strategy they have selected two cloud service providers with different underlying storage infrastructures. The archive is not storing sensitive material in the cloud and is using local storage systems for that material. It has a locally installed preservation system (Preservica Enterprise Edition) which is integrated with cloud and local storage. As such it is an example of an archive using a hybrid set of storage solutions part-public cloud and part-locally installed for digital preservation. ## Organisational Context The Parliamentary Archives manages, preserves, and provides historic access to the archives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and to other records relating to Parliament. They also provide a records management service for both Houses. Its remit is to preserve and make available its collections to the public, and they operate a full archive service and public search room. Digital is part of this equation, and they have an established digital repository and digital preservation policy and strategy. The Parliamentary Archives is a shared service of both Houses of Parliament and is not subject to the Public Records Act. In 2012 Parliament developed a new ICT policy, specifying Cloud First. In future, when procuring new or existing services, Parliament will consider and fully evaluate potential cloud solutions first - before they consider any other option. The Parliamentary Archives became early implementers of the new policy when reviewing their digital preservation storage requirements. They were the first department in Parliament to procure via the G-Cloud framework. The parliamentary procurement office managed this process for them. ## Digital Preservation Significance Digital material is of major significance in their collections and they have support and buy-in for their work in digital preservation from management boards of both Houses. There is a lot of digitisation by Parliament as well as born digital material. The digitisation programmes include original archives and historic editions of publications such as Hansard and other parliamentary printed material. The significance, range and volume of digital material for preservation can only increase. ## Current Approaches They have established Record Disposal Practices which define retention policies of Parliamentary records. The records management team is based within the Archives, so they can coordinate well and they have a joined up approach to selection policy and archiving. They have a locally installed preservation system, Preservica Enterprise Edition, which is integrated with cloud and local storage (see below). ## How They Would Want This To Change Over The Next 3 Years They are now entering the last phase of the digital preservation project, which is delivering enhancements to SDB and will end on 31 March 2014. Following that, digital preservation will move fully on to a "business as usual" footing. Up to now they have been concentrating on ingest, so over the next three years they will be developing a process for preservation planning and will be thinking more about how to promote the use of the material and broaden the range of information systems from which they can ingest. ## Range Of Content Types And Volumes Of Digital Material They currently have about 50 Tb of priority material to ingest. Over the next three years the quantity will only increase, and they will have more complex formats to handle. Digital material currently includes Hansard, web archives, EDRMS records, and Standing Committee papers. Formats are mostly standard office types, as well as PDF, JPEG, TIFF, Audio Visual (AV) and CAD material, plus web archive files, and XML structured data exported from internal systems. The amount of potential AV material is huge, depending on future decisions about selection. There is also a separate analogue AV archive that could be digitised. ## Cloud Storage For Digital Preservation The experience of procuring and managing cloud storage for preservation has been informative. They identified their requirements and reviewed cloud storage options in light of them. The main issues were maintaining their ability to fulfil legal obligations such as Freedom of Information, sovereignty, managing data integrity, information security, and getting the data back in the event of business failure or a decision to change provider, etc. There was some initial concerns about data security in the cloud but they took the decision only to use the cloud for storing open data, which is already in the public domain. Remaining material is stored locally. They may review this decision in future with a view to using relevant cloud service providers which are accredited for storing higher impact level material. There were also concerns over dependencies on a single service provider. For example, in the event of business failure, so for risk management purposes they have chosen to use two cloud providers in parallel with different underlying technologies. One is using Amazon S3, and the other is based on EMC Atmos. They found the process of procurement through G-Cloud itself to be very straightforward. What was more complex first time around was agreeing the contract as the standard terms and conditions available at the time did not have the safeguards they desired on getting the data back in a timely fashion on exit. The G-Cloud framework has since been updated and the procurement for the second cloud service was quicker. They have also realised that while there are a lot of suppliers on G-Cloud, many are re-sellers of the same underlying cloud service e.g. Amazon S3, so there is not as much choice of underlying infrastructure as first appears. They started to use the system operationally with the first cloud provider in August 2013. The second provider is due to come on stream in 2014. ## Technical Infrastructure Main Software Systems Used For Electronic Content Management, Preservation And Access Services For most preservation functions they are using Preservica EE out of the box, but have needed some configuration and enhancements for ingest from specific local systems. Preservica EE integrates with CALM, their archive cataloguing system. As noted above local archival storage is supplemented with that from two cloud service providers. Their Cloud storage is predominantly a deep archive and is not used by end users as they access separate copies. There is a bespoke online delivery system to provide public access to repository content, which integrates with the archive catalogue, Portcullis. They are taking in material from a variety of in house systems but like most public sector bodies Parliament tends to standardise on Microsoft for most office functions so these predominate. ## Business Case And Funding Main Issues In Their Business Case For Cloud Storage For Digital Preservation The wider business case for preservation was already in place before the Cloud First policy was instituted, but had to be revised to reflect the different cost model of less upfront capital investment, but more ongoing revenue expenditure. This wasn't a difficult case to make as Cloud First was a strategic decision Parliament had already adopted. Their initial budget profile needed reworking however in light of experience of use. They needed to predict volumes and usage and found it is important to get good figures here, as typically you pay most for your highest volume direction (in or out). They are mostly ingesting as the Cloud storage is not directly accessed by end users. They have a digital asset register so they can predict what will be coming in, storage demands, and future costs, but a lot depends on how quickly you can ingest. ## Key Lessons They Have Learnt 1. Look carefully at the contractual arrangements for your exit strategy. Note however within framework agreements, you are quite limited in what changes you can make to the terms and conditions as these have already been defined in the pre-selection phase. 2. Spend a lot of time getting your requirements right before you start. 3. Suppliers may cite excellent durability figures, but their claims are not always scientifically based. It can be difficult to define your durability requirements in a way that allows you to assess suppliers against them. 4. The quality of your information about likely usage is fundamental for budgeting for your use of cloud service providers. Try to establish accurate figures for your future storage and activity levels. A digital asset register can help here in assessing future ingest requirements and likely costs if you are primarily using cloud for deep storage. 5. The ongoing revenue commitment for the cloud on the basis of what you use, as opposed to a big upfront capital investment for local IT infrastructure, has pros and cons. It is important for management to understand and endorse the different cost model. 6. Despite early concerns, their experience of the cloud has been very positive. Other archives can take confidence from their success in working through practical approaches to using cloud for digital preservation and to addressing the most common issues raised. ## Future Plans 1. They will be implementing the second cloud storage provider. 2. They are only storing impact level 0 public data in the cloud at the moment, but might consider storing closed data in the cloud when appropriate supplier certification is in place. ## Further Information Parliamentary Archives http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/ Digital Preservation in Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentaryarchives/digitalpreservation/	en
2444-pdf	Elitist Britain 2019 The educational backgrounds of Britain's leading people ## About The Sutton Trust The Sutton Trust champions social mobility from birth to the workplace so that all young people have the chance to succeed in life. It does this through evidence-led programmes, agendasetting research and policy influence. © Sutton Trust & Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Please cite the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission when using material from this research. ## About The Social Mobility Commission The Social Mobility Commission is an advisory non-departmental public body established under the Life Chances Act 2010 as modified by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. It has a duty to assess progress in improving social mobility in the UK and to promote social mobility in England. ## Elitist Britain 2019 Forewords 2 ## Contents Key Findings 4 In numbers: Independent Schools 6 In numbers: Oxbridge 7 Policy Recommendations 8 Introduction 10 Sectors - Politics 17 - Business 27 - Media 37 - Whitehall & Public Bodies 45 - Public Servants 53 - Local Government 61 - Influential Women 69 - Creative Industries 75 - Sport 81 - Conclusions 89 Appendix A 96 Appendix B 98 References 100 Acknowledgements 105 ## Forewords Sir Peter Lampl Founder Of The Sutton Trust And Chairman Of The Education Endowment Foundation Over the last two decades, the Sutton Trust has pioneered research into the educational backgrounds of those at the top of British society. In that time we have covered fields from the legal profession to medicine, from the media to Nobel Prize winners. Across a wide variety of professions we see a similar picture - those educated at independent schools and Oxbridge are over-represented among Britain's elite. This report is published at a critical juncture for this country. We find ourselves an increasingly divided society. Divided by politics, by class, by geography. Social mobility, the potential for those to achieve success regardless of their background, remains worryingly low. The British education system is partly responsible for this divide, but it also has the potential to rectify it. Giving young people from all backgrounds access to the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in life is key to bridging the gap. For this to happen, the country's most "Giving young people from all backgrounds access to the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in life is key to bridging the social mobility gap." successful educational institutions need to open their doors to those beyond a privileged few. Top state schools need to ensure that they are as open to disadvantaged young people as the well-off; those with the means to obtain tutoring for the 11-plus, or to purchase a home in the catchment area of a high-performing school. Our independent sector, which has long been a source of educational and professional success, also should enable access for a wider section of society. Independent schools offer their pupils an array of advantages, from smaller class sizes, to top notch sporting facilities and opportunities for extracurricular development. Opening up independent day schools on the basis of merit, not money, via the Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, has long been an objective of mine. At university level, Oxford and Cambridge have both recently announced ambitious schemes to widen access. It is essential that these great universities deliver on that promise. Elitist Britain 2019 lays bare the lack of opportunities for so many young people across Britain. Amid an atmosphere of political tumult in Westminster, it must not be forgotten that addressing Britain's stubborn social mobility problem remains one of the most important challenges that lies ahead. Dame Martina Milburn Chair, Social Mobility Commission ## The Social Mobility Commission is delighted to be working with the Sutton Trust to look at the "power gap" which separates those who dominate the top of many professions and businesses and those who are left behind. Both organisations know that education lies at the heart of the social divide and people who have the best educational opportunities often get the best, well-paid jobs. Elitist Britain shows little has changed at the top in recent years. Decision makers in government, business and the judiciary are still dominated by the seven per cent of the population who are educated privately and the one per cent who go to Oxford or Cambridge University. But should this small elite have such a big say in running the country? Our analysis does suggest small shifts to address this imbalance. A record number of MPs (52 per cent) went to comprehensive schools and fewer army officers were educated at independent schools than five years ago. "Politicians, employers and educators all need to work together to ensure that Britain's elite becomes much more diverse in gender, ethnicity and social background." Yet still more than a third of the current Cabinet went to private school and over 57 per cent attended Oxbridge. Even newer industries, such as tech firms and PR firms have a high proportion of privately educated CEOs. Geographical differences are also worrying with many of the most prestigious jobs in businesses, journalism, law and politics, based in London, despite unaffordable rents and prohibitive house prices. Ideally more organisations should move their headquarters out of the capital to the regions. Not everyone needs or wants to make it to the top but those who wish to should get the chance to do so. Many sectors including the law, media and the civil service are now taking steps to address the issue through better apprenticeships, paid internships and blind recruitment - but it is a slow process. The Social Mobility Commission will shortly publish practical guidance for employers to help them widen access and improve progression opportunities. Politicians, employers, educators and policy makers all need to work together to ensure that Britain's elite becomes much more diverse, in gender, ethnicity and social background. It is time to close the power gap and ensure that those who hold the reins of power can relate to and represent ordinary people. ## Key Findings → →The United Kingdom in 2019 is an increasingly divided nation. The vote to leave the European Union both reflected and accentuated deep social divisions across the country. The nature of Britain's 'elite' is higher in the national consciousness than ever, with trust between significant sections of the population and those at the highest levels of politics, business and the media, under strain. The latest indications are that social mobility across the UK is low and not improving. This deprives large parts of the population, both socio-economically and geographically, of opportunity. This study, conducted for the first time by both the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission, offers a snapshot of who gets to succeed in Britain in 2019. → →This report looks at the educational backgrounds of Britain's elite across a broad range of sectors. The Sutton Trust's Leading People (2016), and the Social Mobility Commission's Elitist Britain (2014) painted a picture of a country whose power structures are dominated by a narrow section of the population: the 7% who attend independent schools, and the roughly 1% who graduate from just two universities, Oxford and Cambridge. Looking at the five years since 2014, Elitist Britain 2019 shows isolated pockets of positive change, but a picture characterised by persistent inequality. → →The broad trajectory of private school over- representation appears to be downwards, but change is happening slowly. Two fifths of the elite examined here (39%) attended independent schools, more than five times as many as the population at large (7%). The prospects of those educated at private schools remain significantly brighter than their peers. The proportion of the elites having attended grammar school (20%) is more clearly on the decline, though this is in the main likely to be a symptom of generational change, reflecting the ending of the selective system in most of England during the 1960s and 70s, and the rise of the comprehensively educated generation. Also a function of generational change is the level of university attendance rising across many sectors, as the increased number of graduates in the population filters upwards. → →Politics In politics, the 2017 General Election returned a parliament with the highest number of comprehensively educated MPs on record, at 52%. Nonetheless, 29% of MPs still come from a private school background, four times higher than the electorate they represent. The House of Lords is even less representative, with 57% of its members having been educated privately. This figure is actually 8 percentage points higher than 2014, potentially owing to the profile of new Lords appointed by David Cameron and Theresa May in the interim. The cabinet, at the time of analysis in spring 2019, was composed of 39% independently educated members. This is in stark contrast with the shadow cabinet, with just 9% - the lowest level of the privately educated in Britain's elite outside professional football. Increasing numbers of MPs have university degrees (up 5 percentage points), with the numbers graduating from Oxbridge (24%) consistent over time. → →Business Business saw some of the highest rates of internationally educated members of the elite, with 43% of FTSE 350 CEOs, and over half (51%) of the Sunday Times Rich List top 100 schooled abroad. Looking at those educated in the UK alone however, there were large numbers who were independently educated - 57% of the Rich List and 48% of FTSE 350 CEOs. Tech firm CEOs and entrepreneurs, a source of business innovation, also had large numbers of privately schooled members, but at 44%, entrepreneurs had the highest rate of non-university graduates outside sport and the creative industries. → →Media The media, alongside politics and the civil service, form a triumvirate of sectors at the top of the socially exclusive list, with all three largely centred in London. Newspaper columnists, who play a significant role in shaping the national conversation, draw from a particularly small pool, with 44% attending independent school and 33% coming through the independent school to Oxbridge 'pipeline' alone. Looking at a variety of roles in the news media, including influential editors and broadcasters, we see a similar picture, with 43% having been privately educated and 36% graduating from Oxbridge. Trends in the sector, including budget cuts, the closure of many local media organisations, the increasing casualisation of work and high numbers of unpaid internships, contribute to the ongoing under-representation of those from less well-off backgrounds across the media. → → Whitehall & Public Bodies In Whitehall and public bodies, which are responsible for enacting government policy and overseeing a wide range of sectors across British society, there is a consistent picture of overrepresentation of those from elite educational backgrounds. Civil service permanent secretaries (59%), Foreign Office diplomats (52%), and Public Body Chairs (45%) have among the highest rates of independently educated in their ranks. Despite efforts to overhaul entry into the Civil Service, its highest levels remain highly exclusive, with 56% having graduated from Oxford or Cambridge, and 39% having attended both a private school and Oxbridge. While the numbers of the comprehensively educated in these roles is on the rise, this is largely at the expense of declining grammar school numbers, reflecting historic reforms in the state education system. → →Public Servants L o o k i n g a t a w i d e r g r o u p o f p u b l i c s e r v a n t s , a c r o s s l a w , d e f e n c e a n d t h e a c a d e m i c w o r l d s h o w e d s o m e o f t h e h i g h e s t r a t e s o f e l i t i s m . S e n i o r J u d g e s w e r e t h e m o s t r a r e f i e d g r o u p , w i t h t w o t h i r d s a t t e n d i n g p r i v a t e s c h o o l s a n d 7 1 % g r a d u a t i n g f r o m O x b r i d g e . I n f a c t o v e r h a l f ( 5 2 % ) o f s e n i o r j u d g e s t o o k t h e s a m e p a t h w a y f r o m i n d e p e n d e n t s c h o o l t o O x b r i d g e a n d t h e n i n t o t h e j u d i c i a r y . W h i l e t h e s e f i g u r e s a r e s l i g h t l y l o w e r t h a n i n 2 0 1 4 , t h e y a r e f a r r e m o v e d f r o m e v e n m a n y f e l l o w m e m b e r s o f t h e e l i t e . T h e a r m e d f o r c e s a l s o h a d h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s o f p r i v a t e l y e d u c a t e d i n t h e i r h i g h e s t r a n k s ( 4 9 % ) , a l t h o u g h t h i s i s d o w n b y 1 3 p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s o n 2 0 1 4 . U n i v e r s i t y V i c e C h a n c e l l o r s i n c o n t r a s t h a d r e l a t i v e l y l o w l e v e l s o f p r i v a t e s c h o o l a n d O x b r i d g e e d u c a t e d m e m b e r s a m o n g t h e i r n u m b e r . → →Local Government T h e p i c t u r e o f p o l i t i c s a t l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t l e v e l i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l . L o c a l g o v e r n m e n t l e a d e r s h a v e a l o w e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h o s e e d u c a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y ( 2 0 % ) c o m p a r e d t o M P s ( 2 9 % ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t C E O s a r e a m o n g t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o h a v e b e e n p r i v a t e l y e d u c a t e d , a t 9 % , a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e i n W h i t e h a l l , w h o s i t a t t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e s p e c t r u m . O x b r i d g e a t t e n d a n c e a m o n g b o t h g r o u p s ( 5 % ) i s a l s o o n e o f t h e l o w e s t o u t s i d e s p o r t . G i v e n t h e s p r e a d o f t h e s e r o l e s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , i t i s p e r h a p s u n s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t a s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t b a c k g r o u n d t h a n t h e r e s t o f t h e p o l i t i c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t c e n t r e d i n L o n d o n . → →Influential Women Women are under-represented across the top professions, making up just 5% of FTSE 350 CEOs, 16% of local government leaders, 24% of senior judges, 26% of permanent secretaries and 35% of top diplomats. For women who do make it to the top, their journeys do not always look the same as those of their male peers. In a variety of sectors, women at the top are less likely to have attended Oxbridge than their male counterparts, including the judiciary (where they are 25 percentage points less likely), the House of Lords (21 percentage points), and those working as newspaper columnists or diplomats (both 17 percentage points less). Nonetheless, women in top roles, including influential female leaders in Britain (43% of whom attended private school), are much more likely to have attended an independent school than women in the population overall. → →Creative Industries Creative industries saw some of the lowest proportions of Oxbridge graduates, with just 2% of top selling pop music artists attending the two universities, and over 70% not attending university at all. Among the wealthiest members of the TV, film and music industries, university attendance was somewhat higher, at 42%, with about a quarter attending Russell Group institutions. They also had substantial numbers of independent school attendees, at 38%, though the number attending comprehensives has risen by 18 percentage points since 2014. Popular music appears more diverse than those at the top of the acting profession (30% independently educated compared to 44%). → →Sport There were big differences across sports, and between men's and women's teams. While 5% of men's football international players attended independent schools, 37% of rugby internationals and 43% of the England cricket team had done so. Rugby showed big differences across the nations: 25% of England internationals attended comprehensives, compared to 81% of Six Nations champions Wales. Women's teams showed similar patterns to their male counterparts in terms of school background, but around 80% of women's internationals across football, cricket and rugby had attended university, compared to small numbers of men. This reflects generally lower levels of financial compensation and career opportunities in the women's game. ## In Numbers Independent School Attendance The 10 Professions With The Highest The 10 Professions With The Lowest Independent School Attendance Independent School Attendance Indicates change since 2014 Indicates change since 2014 ## Oxbridge Attendance The 10 professions with the The 10 professions with the highest Oxbridge attendance lowest Oxbridge attendance Indicates change since 2014 Indicates change since 2014 Whole UK population: less than 1% ## Policy Recommendations Across Society 1 Social diversity should be a key mission across the whole of British society to ensure we make use of the talents of people from all backgrounds. Enacting the 'socio-economic duty' clause of the Equality Act 2010 should form the centrepiece of this. Access to opportunities should not be dependent on the social class you grew up in, and socio-economic background should be considered similarly to ethnicity and gender. Enacting Section 1 of the Equality Act, obligating public bodies to give due regard to how they can reduce the impact of socio-economic disadvantage, would send a signal that opportunities should be for everyone. ## In The Workplace 2 Data on the socio-economic background of employees should be collected and monitored by employers in the same way as gender or ethnicity. In order to combat inequalities in the workplace, employers and government need to have better data to identify where the barriers lie. There should be a particular focus on how class background interacts with level of seniority in an organisation. Employers should follow Cabinet Office advice on the best measurements to use, including parental qualifications, occupation, type of school attended, and eligibility for free school meals. 3 Financial barriers to entry to leading industries and professions must be tackled, including unpaid internships of significant length. The culture of expectation of unpaid work from recent graduates and entry level employees must be confronted. This only serves to restrict the talent pool available to employers to those from backgrounds who can afford to subsidise their unpaid or precarious work. Employers should comply with National Minimum Wage Regulations where the intern is effectively a worker. But given the confusion among employers and interns around the law on this, there should be specific legislation which clarifies and tightens the rules around internships. 4 Recruitment practices should be open and transparent. Internships and entry level jobs should be openly advertised to help young people from under-represented groups get a foot on the ladder. Many internships are never advertised, and instead offered through informal networks. This locks out talented young people without connections and limits opportunity. Employers should also look at new routes into their profession, such as apprenticeships, which could open opportunities to a wider group. 5 Employers should adopt contextual recruitment practices that place attainment and successes achieved in the context of disadvantage, including underperforming schools and less advantaged neighbourhoods. There are a growing number of such contextual tools available to employers, from organisations including Rare, PiC and upReach. When considering which qualifications are required, employers should only require those which are actually and demonstrably necessary to perform the job. 6 Class pay gaps, and differences in retention and promotion rates should also be addressed. Better access to jobs is only the beginning; progression within an organisation is also key to real social mobility. Employers should collect and analyse data looking at barriers to progression, and send a message to staff that fostering an inclusive culture is paramount. Employers should also consider providing mentoring or sponsorship schemes for those from under-represented groups and formalise promotion processes to reduce the risk of senior staff bypassing the system and safeguarding progression based on merit. 7 Leading social mobility employers should take a sector leadership role and share best practice. Employers in a variety of sectors have taken a lead on widening access to their organisation and have demonstrated innovative approaches to improving social mobility. For this culture to spread more widely, such organisations should take a role in sharing and promoting best practice within their sector. Senior leadership buy-in is also crucial to effective culture change. ## In Education 8 Universities should revolutionise their practice in relation to disadvantage, by contextualising admissions and reforming their approach to outreach and partnership, both with schools and with other universities. Highly selective universities in particular, where low and moderate-income students are substantially under-represented, should make greater use of contextual admissions, including reduced grade offers, to recognise the differing circumstances faced by applicants. In terms of outreach, universities should ensure their work is effective, evidence-based and conducted in partnership with communities and schools facing significant disadvantage. 9 School admissions processes need to tackle social segregation in schools. High quality teaching is the most important factor for the attainment of disadvantaged young people, providing them with the basis for success later in life. A more even spread of students from different social backgrounds across the system could help to tackle inequalities in access to quality teaching. High performing comprehensives, grammar schools and independent schools should all consider their admissions policies carefully and do more to increase the numbers of pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds. For example, introduction of the Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, which would address financial barriers to independent day school entry, should be considered. 10 High quality careers advice needs to be available to young people from all backgrounds. Good careers advice can be transformative for young people, but despite recent progress made on realising the Gatsby Benchmarks by the Careers and Enterprise Company in England, provision across the country remains inconsistent. All pupils should receive a guaranteed level of careers advice from professional impartial advisers. For those facing disadvantage - or who are at risk of not reaching their potential - there should be further support available. There should be an emphasis on what works in career advice for disadvantaged pupils in particular. ## Introduction The United Kingdom in 2019 finds itself an increasingly divided nation, divided economically, divided politically, and divided geographically. There is a deepening sense of different parts of society living entirely separate, parallel lives, with a frequently profound misunderstanding of each other's worries and concerns. As Britain prepares to leave the European Union after a landmark referendum result in 2016, public trust in those considered to be the country's 'elite' is under strain. This disconnect between those at the top of society and those below is not new, but many see the current breakdown in trust as unprecedented in living memory. Britain has a history of division based on social status and class that strongly persists today. It is this stratification that lies at the root of many of the divides we now see so prominently. Social mobility, the opportunity for people to succeed in life regardless of their background, is both low and showing little sign of improvement. Considerable portions of the population see little opportunity to succeed, either on their own terms or on those valued by society as a whole, and their lives increasingly feel separate to those who have reached the heights of British society. This lack of opportunity also has a geographical, as well as social component, with large swathes of the country feeling left behind by an increasingly London-centric economy. More than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, the implications for wider society are still being felt, and the disconnect between those in charge of Britain's institutions and the wider population is only growing. The Sutton Trust has been working to study and bridge this disconnect for over two decades, highlighting the lack of opportunities faced by young people from low income backgrounds and working on practical projects to spread opportunity and widen access to the knowledge and skills needed to flourish. In 2012, the Social Mobility Commission was established by government in recognition of the dire inequalities in opportunity faced by young people. While opportunities are influenced by a complex web of policy issues, including tax, welfare, housing, transport, the labour market and wider levels of inequality, at the heart of both organisations is the recognition that education lies at the core of the social divide, but also has the power to challenge it. It is more than a decade since the Sutton Trust first started looking at the educational backgrounds of those at the top of British society. Since then, research from the Sutton Trust's Leading People 1 and the Social Mobility Commission's Elitist Britain 2 has revealed the extent to which those from a narrow group - alumni of private fee-paying schools and the country's two most prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge - dominate a range of the country's top professions, from members of parliament to journalists, judges to diplomats. Here, for the first time, the two organisations have worked together to look at the backgrounds of those in the 'elite' professions across British society. As there is no single way to define this group, in this report we have looked across a wide range of different professions, including individuals with the most political power and influence, those with the most wealth and the highest earnings, people working at the top of the country's key institutions and the individuals playing leading roles in our cultural life. We have also been able to look at how the educational backgrounds of this group have changed over time, looking back at the landscape five years ago to build a picture of how the make-up of the country's top professions has, or hasn't, shifted over this period. While success should not be defined only in terms of wealth and power, who rises to the top of fields from politics and business, to media, culture and sport matters, for two main reasons. Firstly, it indicates whether opportunities to reach the most soughtafter positions in society are equitably distributed - and whether those powerful positions draw on the talents of all sections of the population. But it also matters because those who occupy these roles make decisions and take actions on a daily basis that affect everyone in the country. As people are naturally shaped by their background and life experiences, for a healthy society it is vital that these roles reflect all geographical areas and social backgrounds - not least as it is frequently the decisions made by those in the highest positions that can have the deepest impact on opening up opportunities for others. Our report comes at a crucial time in the country's history. Amid increasing division and political polarisation, there is a feeling that those at the top of society are disconnected from the lives of ordinary citizens, and that they don't understand their concerns, worries or frustrations. Tackling this disconnect, and building opportunities for people of all backgrounds to succeed in life is one of the most profound challenges that lies ahead for this country. Background Recent years, particularly since the establishment of the Equality Act in 2010, have seen a welcome push to improve several dimensions of diversity, including gender and ethnicity, in Britain's top jobs. However, despite increasing recognition of Britain's social mobility problem, socio-economic diversity has not been accorded the same level of importance. While the Equality Act did contain a clause called the 'socio-economic duty' , which emphasised the importance of equal treatment for those from different socio-economic backgrounds, it was never enacted in legislation. Facilitating social mobility, so that those in sought-after professions reflect a variety of social backgrounds, should be seen as an equally important part of ongoing efforts to open up opportunities in every part of British society. Everyone with potential who puts in hard work should have the opportunity to reach the top of their profession, regardless of the background they have come from. Society also stands to gain significantly from access to the top jobs being decided on merit, rather than limiting opportunities only to those with financial advantages or networks. Low levels of social mobility mean that much talent is wasted because of artificial barriers to success, and addressing that waste is likely to have significant economic and social benefits. 3 Broadening the talent pool beyond a narrow group of those from well-off homes can provide significant benefits for employers too. Indeed, companies with greater diversity outperform those that are less diverse, ## 4 and are also the most innovative. 5 When barriers are removed for talent, everyone in society stands to benefit. Individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds face significant obstacles throughout their life. Children from poorer backgrounds fall behind their better off counterparts in development before they even start at school. This gap widens throughout young people's time in the education system, 6 and continues to influence 7 whether they attend university, which institutions they attend, and their entry into the workforce. Further still, we know that these disadvantages can be compounded in the form of 'double disadvantage' when those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are from particular ethnic minority backgrounds or geographic areas, are women, or have a disability. 8 Entry to the professions traditionally regarded as 'elite' , positions with significant prestige, and usually high financial remuneration, is known to be particularly heavily stratified by socio-economic background. Figure 1 is from the recently released book The Class Ceiling 9 and shows the class background of the workforce of several elite professions. Across these roles, individuals from professional or managerial backgrounds are consistently over-represented, including 74% of those working in medicine, 64% of journalists and the same percentage of those working in law coming from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Medicine Journalism Law Life Sciences Management Consultancy Academia Advertising Science Finance CEOs Film & TV Architecture Top Jobs Overall Performing Arts ## It Accountancy Corporate Senior Management Public Sector Senior Management Engineering Chiefs of Fire, Ambulance and Police - Working Class Origins Elitist Britain 2019 looks at more than 6,000 individuals at the very top of the country's elite professions. Collecting data on family income and social class background is challenging, especially on such a large scale. Many people are understandably unwilling to share detailed information on their circumstances while growing up. To ensure we were looking at a characteristic which could be collected in a practical, consistent and unintrusive way, this report uses educational background as an indicator of social background. School The type of school someone attends is both a proxy for socio-economic background and is also in and of itself an important part of someone's background, which can have a substantial impact on where they end up in life. From the quality of teachers that students have access to, to the range of extracurricular activities they can take part in, schools play a pivotal role. Schools also have an important part to play in providing advice and support on the next steps in life, especially for young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are less likely to have access to this help at home. Students at private schools, especially those with the highest fees, have access to high quality teaching and facilities, and much greater levels of resource than schools in the state educational sector; an issue which has been explored in detail recently by Francis Green and David Kynaston in the book Engines of Privilege. Just 7% of children attend such schools, 10 and fees are such that the majority of those attending without financial support will be from highly affluent backgrounds. Historically, substantial numbers of pupils gained government funded places at Direct Grant schools (schools where some places were allocated based on academic merit and others paid fees), or at fully independent schools through the Assisted Places Scheme. However, since the abolition of the latter in the late 1990's only very small numbers of those admitted to private schools receive means tested bursaries. According to the Independent Schools Council, just 1 per cent of private school pupils currently have all their fees paid for, and just 4% have more than half their fees covered. Even for those receiving some financial aid, most will have needed to pay fees at levels well out of reach for most low and middle income families. The Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, piloted at The Belvedere School between 2000 and 2007, went further, with a third of places fully subsidised and another third partly subsidised. This resulted in a free school meal eligibility rate of 33% among those admitted, and a better social mix overall. While the quality of schools can of course vary substantially within sectors, young people in independent schools outperform their peers academically even when other factors such as prior attainment are taken into account. 11 They are also much more likely to attend top universities, with Sutton Trust research having found that independent school pupils applying to higher education in England are seven times more likely to gain a place at Oxford or Cambridge compared to those from non-selective state schools, and twice as likely to gain a place in the Russell Group. 12 13 Many schools provide intensive advice and coaching to pupils in the university application process, and students enjoy far greater levels of support than their comprehensively educated counterparts. Fostering 'essential life skills' such as confidence and motivation, through small class sizes and significant financial resources dedicated to extra-curricular activities such as debating, drama and sport also plays a role. Private schools also concentrate students from 14 similar backgrounds together, helping them to form networks which can aid them in seeking out elite jobs in later life. Indeed, alumni of just nine leading public schools in Britain are 94 times more likely to reach elite positions than those from other schools, and much of that advantage still persists even when they have not attended top universities, suggesting that the 'old boys networks' formed in top private schools play an important role in access to the elite. It is important to keep in mind throughout this report that many children educated in the state sector themselves come from highly advantaged backgrounds. This is particularly the case for grammar schools. Just 2.5% of the students attending England's grammar schools are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), compared to 14% in the state secondary school system as a whole. 15 However, exclusion is not just limited to 16 this group, with research also showing that a wider group of families with low to moderate incomes are also significantly under-represented in grammar schools. Comprehensive school attendance on its own is not necessarily a marker of disadvantage. There are high levels of social segregation even within the comprehensive school system, with many of the best performing schools in the country located in wealthy areas, serving advantaged populations. Previous Sutton Trust research has found that the proportion of FSM eligible students at the very best comprehensive schools is about half of the average across England, Scotland and Wales. 17 While private school attendance, and to a lesser extent grammar school attendance, can on average be seen as an indicator of likely socio-economic privilege, this privilege also extends into parts of the comprehensive sector too. The Social Mobility Commission have recently commissioned a piece of work on this subject, looking at the extent to which the social balance within a school has an impact on educational outcomes. Nonetheless, the reality is that the vast majority of disadvantaged young people are educated in the state sector, and in comprehensive schools in particular - and the vast majority of those educated in private schools are from affluent backgrounds. 18 University While entrance to university is, in theory, on the basis of merit and talent, the reality is often different, due to inequalities earlier on in the system. Educational advantage at school level is largely replicated in higher education, with students from private schools considerably more likely to enter a top university than their state educated counterparts. In the UK, a small number of schools dominate access to Oxford and Cambridge (often referred to collectively as Oxbridge), with just 8 top schools and colleges in the UK sending as many pupils to Oxbridge as 2,900 others put together. Despite gradual increases in the numbers of state school pupils admitted to Oxbridge, it remains around 60%, yet 93% of pupils attend such schools. Similarly, while fewer than 5% of pupils attend grammar schools, they make up 15% of acceptances to the Russell Group, a group of highly selective research-intensive universities. They also make up 21% of acceptances to Oxbridge. The university someone attends goes on to influence their opportunities in the job market, with graduates of higher ranked universities more likely both to be invited to interview and to be offered a higher entry rate salary, 19 and competitive employers targeting the most selective universities when looking for students for their graduate programmes. 20 Given that the most prestigious universities tend to attract applicants with the highest exam results, one might expect that this combination of talent and the education provided by such institutions would unsurprisingly result in success in the working world. Nonetheless, the sheer scale of progression into the elites of British society from universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, who together educate only a small proportion of graduates, is evidence of how narrowly concentrated that opportunity is. This is partially as a result of Oxbridge providing their graduates with two things that go beyond the degree itself: firstly, education can frequently be viewed as a 'positional good' , marking one's rank in comparison with others, and Oxbridge provides this mark of prestige, valued highly by employers, who have often attended themselves. Secondly, it provides graduates with networks and cultural capital that allow them to build connections with successful people of similar backgrounds. University attendance is not an unambiguous indicator of socio-economic privilege, but it has served as an important mediator between family background and the chances of success in life. Less than 1% of the population attend Oxford and Cambridge, and while these universities are world-renowned and highly selective, it is surely not desirable that such a concentration of the nation's elite comes from just two universities, with so many other excellent higher education institutions across the country. Defining the 'elite' This report illustrates how access to some of the most prestigious, influential and well-paid roles in the country is limited to those born with advantages from the very beginning of their life. The roles in this report were chosen primarily for two reasons: - Roles with the highest prestige, and wealth, which are among the most coveted in society. Making such sought-after positions accessible to those from all backgrounds is an essential component of a society which cares about fairness and equity. - Roles with substantial power and influence over people's lives, which make the decisions that affect all of us day to day. There is a danger to society if many of those in such positions of power and influence are from a very similar background and a limited set of life experiences, which do not reflect the lives of the country as a whole. Given the subjective nature of the elite as a concept, it is inevitable that this list is not exhaustive. While more expansive than any previous study conducted, the report does not cover sectors such as banking and finance individually, or influential groups such as think tanks. It also focuses on Westminster politics rather than members of the devolved assemblies. Work by the Sutton Trust has also demonstrated that professions such as medicine show high levels of independent school over-representation, 21 along with Britain's historic list of Nobel Prize winners. 22 We also fully recognise the value of socially purposeful jobs, such as teaching, and that power and wealth are far from the only markers of success. Nevertheless, we hope that it is broad enough to shed light on the state of meritocracy in Britain, and to provide a snapshot of who gets to reach the top positions in society. Patterns of participation School As education policies have altered over time, and correspondingly the proportion of students educated at different types of school has changed, it is difficult to track the exact proportion of the population overall who attended a private, grammar or comprehensive school at a given point. This means that the patterns of educational backgrounds will look different depending on the age profile of the group analysed. Many of the individuals in this report will have been educated when grammar schools were more common, but others will have been to school when attending a grammar school was relatively rare. Attendance at grammar schools was at its peak in the 1960s, when around 25% of all pupils in state secondary schools attended one. That figure fell to 10% by the mid-70s, before falling to 5% by the end of the same decade, a proportion which has remained relatively steady since then. 23 At the same time, comprehensive schools have become much more common, gradually rising to now educate the vast majority of the state secondary school population. Attendance at independent schools has not changed substantially since the 1960s, fluctuating at somewhere between 6-8% over the last few decades. 24 Currently 7% of students in the UK attend private schools, 5% attend state grammars, and 88% attend comprehensives. However, these figures differ substantially between nations. In England, 8% of students attend independent schools, 7% in Scotland, 4% in Wales and less than 1% in Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland do not have grammar schools; England does, but only in some areas, making up 4% of pupils across the nation. In Northern Ireland, a much larger proportion of students (43%), attend grammar schools, which is likely to explain their much lower rate of independent school attendance. In contrast to the educational backgrounds of the population as a whole, looking at the backgrounds of all the professionals we have examined in this report, we see a significantly different picture. Figure 2 compares their backgrounds to the current UK school population. 39% of the professional elites examined here attended independent school, compared to just 7% of current students across the UK. Given private school attendance has remained relatively stable over time, it is clear that privately educated individuals are substantially over-represented in Britain's elites. A fifth of the elites in this report attended grammars, compared to 5% of the current population. Given the likely age profile of those in senior positions, many will have attended school as grammar school numbers were falling from their high of 25% in the 1960s. This is reflected in the declining levels of grammar attendance shown here compared to the first Elitist Britain report in 2014. University University attendance has also altered substantially over time. Participation in higher education has risen from just 3.4% in 1950, to 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990 and 33% in 2000. 26 In 2017, 42% of the working age population had attended higher education in some form, with 19% holding an undergraduate degree or a higher qualification. Just 6% of the working age population have an undergraduate degree from the Russell Group. 27 Equivalent figures are not available 28 for Oxbridge, but figures show that just 1% of 18-year olds in 2017-18 attended one of the two universities. Taking an overall look at the group of elites we have examined in this report; they are unsurprisingly much more likely to have attended university, and to have attended an elite educational institution, than the population overall. As shown in figure 3, while just 19% of the working age population are educated to the level of bachelor's degree or above, 84% of the elites we have examined are. While many of these All figures are for the UK's working age population, apart from figures for Oxbridge, which are calculated for current 18 year olds. elite roles will require a university degree, others will not. The largest gaps between the elites and the population overall are found in attendance of the most prestigious institutions. Just under a quarter (24%) of elites attended Oxbridge, compared to only 1% of 18-year olds. While only 6% of the population attended the Russell Group for an undergraduate degree, almost half of our elites have done so. ## The Educational Pathways Of Britain'S Elite In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational backgrounds of a key profession in more detail; examining the pathways that individuals have taken, from the type of school they attended and then on to where they went to university. Looking at these pathways allows us to explore in more detail the routes taken by Britain's elites, for example who has taken the path from an independent school and then on to a top university like Oxford or Cambridge. The figure below displays pathways taken by those who reached the positions in our elite group as a whole, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of the group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. Despite the fact that almost nine in every ten students currently attend comprehensives, independent and comprehensive schools represent about equal numbers (around two fifths each) of this elite group. The most common pathway into the elite is attending independent school followed by Oxford or Cambridge, making up 17% of the whole group, and forming a strong 'pipeline' into the highest status jobs. Those who attended independent school and any Russell Group university comprise over one in four of the elite as a whole (27%). Those who went to a comprehensive followed by a non-Russell Group university (12%) form a significant proportion, though of course this represents a much larger group in the population as a whole. In the current English school population, more than three times as many school leavers go on to a non-Russell Group university than a Russell Group institution. The comprehensive to Oxbridge pathway represents just 6% of the whole elite group. The next part of this report takes a detailed look, sector by sector, at Britain's elite. ## 1. Politics attended independent schools attended Oxbridge ## Introduction Where politicians were educated, and how representative their educational experiences are compared to the population overall is an important question in a representative democracy. Politicians are the population's voice in Westminster; both in government and in opposition, and they are the pool from which the government is chosen. If politicians' backgrounds, and therefore their experiences, look very different to the people they seek to represent, it may mean that the concerns and priorities of all parts of society are not adequately reflected in parliament. Politicians are also ultimately responsible for education policy, including the state school system, and for policies which affect the entire university system and technical training routes, including apprenticeships. It is therefore important that many of those responsible for these areas have experience of the state education system, of universities outside of the most selective institutions, and of technical routes into the world of work. 19 23 Members of Parliament Select Committee Chairs House of Lords Discussion 20 24 The Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet Case study - Gloria De Piero, Labour MP 21 25 Junior Ministers and Shadow Junior Ministers The Educational Pathways of MPs 22 26 18 \| Elitist Britain ## Politics \| Members Of Parliament School attendance University attendance Independent school -4% since 2014 Comprehensive school Attended international schools MP candidates are selected through a variety of processes, depending on the party. Historically the proportion of MPs who were privately educated has been gradually reducing over time, although it has remained far higher than the population at large. 29 The proportion who attended university has risen substantially, as politics has become increasingly professionalised. Indeed, many MPs work in largely graduate level jobs in politics and public affairs before they stand for office, with 25% of MPs having previously worked in politics, and 8% in public affairs before they became a member of parliament. Before the 1990s, it was relatively common for MPs to enter parliament from working class occupations. Doing so now is a rarity. 30 School There have been two elections since the publication of Elitist Britain in 2014, but privately educated MPs still make up almost a third of the House of Commons. In that time, there has been a fall in the percentage of MPs who attended a grammar school (by 8 percentage points). A similar fall in grammar school attendance has been seen throughout several sectors examined in this report, likely to reflect generational change, as those educated after the grammar school system was largely abolished in the UK enter the top of their field. Just over half of MPs attended a comprehensive school, a 12 percentage point increase since 2014. The proportion of MPs who attended a private school differs substantially by political party. In the Conservative party, just under half (45%) of MPs attended an independent school, compared to 15% in the Labour party. Conservative and Labour MPs were equally likely to have attended a grammar school (17% in both parties). Looking outside of the two main parties, just 6% of SNP MPs attended a private school, and the clear majority (85%) attended a state secondary school. University Most MPs attended university (88%), with many having attended a highly selective institution. Just under a quarter attended Oxbridge, with very little change over the last five years. A further quarter attended another university in the Russell Group, which has also not changed since 2014. Currently, only 12% of MPs did not go onto higher education, a figure that has fallen by 6 percentage points in the last five years. This rise in university educated MPs has been largely due to an increase in MPs who attended universities outside of the Russell Group. Looking by party, Conservative MPs were more likely to have attended Oxbridge than Labour (31% vs 20%). ## Politics \| House Of Lords School attendance University attendance Independent school +8% since 2014 Grammar school Comprehensive school There are several routes to gaining a seat in parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords. The House of Lords Appointments Committee recommends individuals for appointment as non-political party life peers. It also vets the nominations of anyone recommended by UK political parties, with members then approved by the prime minister. Several former prime ministers have been criticised for filling the Lords with their personal contacts, including Tony Blair 31 and David Cameron. 32 There are also 26 Bishops from the Church of England, and 92 hereditary peers. Hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords in 1999; the 92 who remain are elected to their seat by other members of the House. Most hereditary peerages can only be inherited by men. School The educational backgrounds of Lords are substantially different to those of MPs in the Commons, with a much larger proportion of peers having been privately educated; a figure which is actually on the rise. A sizeable majority attended an independent school: 57%, a proportion which has increased by 8 percentage points since 2014. A high proportion of peers from every party or group in the Lords attended independent school, with 61% of Labour and 60% of Conservative peers having been privately educated. The proportions of Liberal Democrats (54%), Crossbenchers (55%) and Bishops (54%) who were privately educated were slightly lower, but still much higher than the general public. Fewer than a fifth (17%) of Lords and Baronesses attended a comprehensive school, although this is up 5 percentage points from 2014. 22% of those sitting in the Lords attended a grammar school, an 11 percentage point decrease over the last five years. Labour peers were slightly less likely to have attended a grammar, with only 16% having done so, compared to 24% of Conservative and 26% of Lib Dem peers. University Baronesses and Lords were considerably more likely than MPs to have attended Oxbridge, with 38% having done so. Indeed, a large proportion of the House of Lords attended either Oxbridge or another Russell Group university (60%), a figure that has barely shifted since 2014. Labour peers (22%) were less likely to have attended Oxbridge than peers from the Conservative party (39%). As with the House of Commons, the proportion of non-graduates in the Lords is declining, now standing at 14%, a 4 percentage point decrease over the last five years. ## Politics \| The Cabinet & Shadow Cabinet The Cabinet \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 57% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -3% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 39% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| +3% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 17% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -1% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 43% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| -2% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| ## The Shadow Cabinet \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 15% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -19% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 9% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| -13% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 15% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| +4% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 76% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +14% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Attended international schools The cabinet is the collective decision-making body of the government, which is made up of the Prime Minister, along with her most senior government ministers. Likewise, the shadow cabinet is selected by the Leader of the Opposition and plays an important role in scrutinising the work of government. Ministers and shadow ministers are mostly drawn from MPs, although they can also be Baronesses or Lords, though much less common. School The cabinet is currently much more likely to have attended a private school than parliament overall, with 39% of cabinet ministers having attended an independent school, compared to 29% of MPs. This in large part reflects the high proportion of Conservative MPs who attended private school (45%). Just under a fifth (17%) of the cabinet attended a grammar school, a similar 87% attended a Russell Group University \| +10% since 2014 100% attended University \| +14% since 2014 41% attended a Russell Group University \| -22% since 2014 82% attended University \| -14% since 2014 figure to MPs overall. However, just 43% went to a comprehensive, lower than the 52% of MPs who did so. Over the last five years, there has been a considerable amount of change within the government. In that time, the government has changed from a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to a Conservative majority and then minority administration, including a change of prime minister. Despite these changes, and a high level of ministerial turnover, the educational profile of ministers has changed very little. The biggest change has been in the proportion privately educated, which has increased slightly by 3 percentage points. The educational backgrounds of the shadow cabinet stand in stark contrast however. Shadow cabinet ministers are over four times less likely to have attended an independent school than their counterparts in government, with just 9% having done so. This figure is similar to the proportion of the general population that has attended a private school and is far lower than the proportion of MPs in parliament who did so, including in the Labour party. This figure has fallen substantially since 2014 (by 13 percentage points), during which time the Labour leadership passed from Ed Miliband to Jeremy Corbyn. The proportion of those privately educated in the shadow cabinet is the lowest of any of the groups in the report outside footballers. University The cabinet are also more likely to have attended Oxbridge than MPs overall, with 57% of cabinet ministers having attended one of the two institutions, which has changed very little since 2014. This is much higher than the proportion of MPs overall (24%). More cabinet ministers have now been to a Russell Group university, rising from 77% in 2014, to 87% now. All of the current cabinet attended university, compared to 86% in 2014. ## Politics \| Junior Ministers & Shadow Junior Ministers Junior ministers are government ministers who are not full cabinet members and include Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State. They have an important role in the direction of government departments, with shadow junior ministers also playing an important role in scrutiny of government. School The schools attended by junior ministers are even more unrepresentative overall than cabinet ministers. Over half (52%) of junior ministers attended a private school. Under a third (28%) went to a comprehensive. A small proportion (18%) of shadow junior ministers attended private school. However, this is still over twice the proportion in the population overall, and much higher than the shadow cabinet. Two thirds of shadow junior ministers attended a comprehensive school. Members of the shadow cabinet are also much less likely to have attended Oxbridge than the cabinet, with only 15% having done so. Similarly, this figure has also fallen in the last five years, down by 19 percentage points in that time. This figure is now slightly lower than the proportion in the Labour Party overall (20%). Looking more broadly at the Russell Group, only 41% of the shadow cabinet attended one of the universities in the group, less than half the proportion of the cabinet who did so. The proportion of the shadow cabinet who attended a Russell Group university has fallen by 22 percentage points since 2014, largely driven by the reduction in Oxbridge attendance. A sizeable proportion of the shadow cabinet did attend university (82%), but this too has fallen since 2014. It is 14 percentage points lower than five years ago, going against the general trends across this report. In fact, it is the only group with a substantial decrease outside the creative industries. University While junior ministers are more likely to have attended private school than the cabinet, they are less likely to have attended a top university. Just over a third (36%) of junior ministers went to Oxbridge, a figure which has fallen by 9 percentage points since 2014. They are also less likely to have attended a Russell Group university, with 61% having done so, a figure which has also fallen from 72% in the last five years. As with the cabinet, most (91%) junior ministers attended university, a slight fall since 2014. Looking at shadow junior ministers, just 10% went to Oxbridge, less than a third of their governmental counterparts. 44% of shadow junior ministers attended one of the universities in the Russell Group, similarly much lower. ## Politics \| Select Committees Select Committee Chairs \| School attendance \| \|---------------------\| \| 33% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -4% \| \| since 2014 \| \| 33% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| Attended international schools One of the most important ways in which MPs can hold the government to account is through select committees; cross-party groups of MPs, Lords or both who investigate a specific area or issue. This section focuses only on select committees within the House of Commons. The importance of select committees has increased in recent years, with experienced and well-known politicians, including former ministers, taking the decision to stand for election as select committee chairs. A combination of factors, including the requirement that the government must reply to reports written by a select committee within 60 days, several high-profile MPs becoming select committee chairs and increased media coverage means that these committees now often play an influential role in public debate. Most select committee chairs are elected by the 33 House of Commons, but only members of specific parties can stand to become the chair of each select committee. General membership of select committees in the Commons must reflect the composition of the Commons overall, and once this composition has been decided, select committee members are decided by elections held within each party. School Members of select committees are largely reflective of the Commons as a whole, with a quarter having 58% attended a Russell Group University \| -3% since 2014 93% attended University \| +9% since 2014 attended independent schools, compared with 29% of MPs overall, and has decreased by 6 percentage points since 2014. A third (33%) of select committee chairs attended an independent school, but this figure has reduced substantially since 2014, when well over half (57%) of select committee chairs had done so. The proportion of select committee members who attended a grammar school (14%) has also decreased since 2014, falling by 11 percentage points. The fall in members who attended private or grammar schools has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the proportion who went to a comprehensive, which now stands at 58%. A similar pattern is seen for chairs, with the proportion who attended a comprehensive rising by 32 percentage points to now make up just over half (55%) of all chairs. University One third of select committee chairs, and a fifth of select committee members attended Oxbridge, similar to 2014. Half of select committee members attended the Russell Group, a 6 percentage point increase since 2014. The proportion of select committee chairs who attended the Russell Group is only slightly higher at 58%. ## Politics \| Discussion The educational backgrounds of politicians in the UK look very different to those of the population that they represent. This is particularly true for the Conservative party, and therefore for the ministers and junior ministers within the current government, who are highly unrepresentative of the population as a whole in terms of educational background. However, across all parties, MPs are more likely to have attended an independent school than the general public. Fundamental to this issue is how people go on to become MPs, with potential access issues at every stage of the pipeline, from exposure to politics at school, to gaining work experience in politics, through to the monetary costs involved in becoming a candidate. ## "Without Money And Connections, It Can Be Extremely Difficult To Gain A Job In Politics." Students at comprehensive schools may be less likely to have opportunities to learn about and engage with politics. While Citizenship has been a part of the national curriculum since 2002, including classes to improve political literacy and to teach students about democracy and government, concerns have been raised that the subject is not being taught well enough in schools. 34 In contrast, many top independent schools have extensive opportunities to learn about politics. For example, last year, student societies at Eton welcomed politicians including former prime minister John Major and the former home secretary Alan Johnson to speak to students. 35 This is extremely far removed from the experiences of students in comprehensive schools, although many individual schools, and initiatives such as Speakers for Schools, are working to address this. Another potential barrier for would-be parliamentarians is gaining experience in politics. Jobs in the area, such as working in an MP's office, can be vital for a potential candidate to gain experience and form contacts within a political party. However, previous Sutton Trust research has shown that unpaid work in Westminster is common, with almost one third (31%) of staffers having previously worked for an MP unpaid. Many of these positions are also not openly advertised. Without money and connections, it can be extremely difficult to gain a job in politics. 36 Then when it comes to running as an MP itself, the high cost of becoming a candidate can be a barrier for many. A survey of over 500 candidates who stood in 2015 found that the average personal cost of running was £11,118, including lost earnings, travel and the cost of attending events. This cost was even higher for those fighting in marginal seats. 37 Crucially, we need more data on socio-economic diversity in parliament. Parties should monitor the socio-economic diversity of their candidates, and collect information on people who work for them, such as the staffers working for MPs in Westminster. Initiatives such as the Speaker's Parliamentary Placement Scheme offer promise in terms of opening up access to parliament, but they need to widen their applicant pool and be run on a much larger scale in order to make real change in politics. It is also deeply concerning that parliament's unelected chamber, the House of Lords, looks so different to the population as a whole, and very different even to parliament itself. Given that these roles are given out by appointment, much greater scrutiny is needed for this process, to ensure that the Lords better resembles the population it is intended to represent, as well as having the expertise it needs, and to open up the highest levels of politics to a broader range of people. There are many other organisations with a substantial impact on British politics which we have not been able to examine here. This includes think tanks, lobby groups and other organisations and groupings within political parties. These groups write reports which often form the basis of parties' policies, and have a large impact both on politicians themselves, and on the wider public. Although outside the scope of this work, it is important that these organisations also consider their socio-economic composition carefully. ## Case Study Gloria De Piero Labour Mp I was brought up in a two up two down terrace in Bradford. My mum and dad had a number of routine jobs but they stopped working due to dad's ill health when I was about nine and we relied on benefits. Most of my childhood memories are of being poor and cold, but my dad would buy second-hand books and he was always going to the library. Our house was full of books. We had more books than most of the middle-class homes I visit today. My school, which has now closed down, didn't really push me, but I didn't really push myself either. I didn't know anyone that had been to university other than my teachers or my doctor. The only people that mentioned this strange place called 'university' were my parents. It was their life's work to get me there. I struggled to get a job working for the Labour Party or the trade union movement after university so I tried for political journalism instead. I met someone through the Labour Party who had worked on the biggest political programmes when I was looking to get in. He suggested I write to the editors of the programmes I worked on and ask to see them. I managed to get a job and eventually became a political reporter for GMTV. I think politics can be a closed shop. If you come from a political family that can be a way in. It opens doors because friends and acquaintances can be pestered into providing work experience or job opportunities. Just as importantly, if you've grown up in a political family you already have a good understanding of how politics works. Historically, trade unions helped hundreds of people who start out representing colleagues in the workplace to organise and agitate. That is still the case, but perhaps less so than in the past. That leaves a lot of people out. In fact, most people wouldn't have a clue how to become an MP. It's our job to change that. My worry with politics is that, for some, it has become a profession in its own right, like law or the media, which strikes me as worrying. The politicians who really make a difference become MPs or ministers because they want to change the world. It's not a way to acquire status or win kudos. I don't want to be too gloomy. There are a fair number of MPs from working class backgrounds - but you don't see nearly enough of them on TV and too many never get handed top jobs by their leaders. I think the fact that most political programmes are hosted by people from a certain background deters some people from going on. It's a debating game rather than something for our constituents to hear about the everyday issues that matter to them. Someone once told me that the way to get ahead was to ask and be cheeky. I thought he was joking, but it must have had some effect as when TV research jobs were advertised, I applied and got the job. Getting that foot in the door was invaluable. I'll never forget the editor who gave me my break despite the fact I didn't go to Oxbridge. Now I'm a small employer, I do my very best to give bright people from ordinary backgrounds a break. ## The Educational Pathways Of Mps In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by the UK's MPs, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. ## 2. Business Attended Independent School Attended Oxbridge On average 31% attended independent schools On average 17% attended Oxbridge FTSE 350 chairs \| 34% FTSE 350 chairs \| 27% FTSE 350 CEOs \| 15% Sunday Times Rich List \| 14% Section at a Glance Business ## Introduction This section looks at business in Britain, with a focus on the people running the most financially successful private companies and the individuals with the largest amounts of private wealth. Private businesses have a large impact on the British economy, and society as a whole. The decisions they make about where to place their operations, and the strategies their companies adopt, have the potential to impact the millions of people they employ, as well as those in their supply chains and surrounding businesses across the country. Roles at the top of such companies, including chief executives, are highly coveted, both for their financial compensation, and for their prestige and influence within society. While many top companies have started to look seriously at many aspects of diversity, such as gender or ethnic background, much less work has been done on socio-economic diversity within business. It is important that in the world of business, talent has the opportunity to flourish regardless of family background, both from a sense of fairness, but also so the British economy can make the most of the talent available to it. Work from the Sutton Trust has indicated that low levels of social mobility mean that talent is wasted because of artificial barriers to success, meaning that the best talents are not matched to the best jobs. It argues that a modest increase in the UK's social mobility to the average level across western Europe could be associated with a £39bn boost to the UK economy (in 2016 prices).38 Individuals with large amounts of private wealth can also have a substantial wider impact on civil society through engagement with, and donations to, political parties, charities and other organisations. In the 2018 Sunday Times Rich List, the majority of donations from the wealthiest individuals in the UK went to one party, the Conservatives, with small numbers donating to other political parties.39 Companies themselves also group together to form influential industry organisations and trade associations. British business, and those who occupy the top positions within it, play a key role in British public life. In this section, we look across business in the UK, from top entrepreneurs to the FTSE 350, including those that run some of the country's largest companies and the individuals who have gained the largest wealth from business. We have also, for the first time, looked at less well-studied industries with a big impact on the country, including technology firms, which with the growth of high-tech industry and automation are playing an increasingly important role in the UK's economy. Also included for the first time are PR companies, which play a key role in determining how society views and thinks about business. 29 Sunday Times Rich List Entrepreneurs 30 FTSE 350 companies 30 PR consultancy CEOs 31 28 \| Elitist Britain 32 Tech Firm CEOs Discussion 33 Case study - Charlie Mullins, Entrepreneur 35 The Educational Pathways of FTSE 350 CEOs 36 ## Business \| Sunday Times Rich List School attendance University attendance Attended international schools The Sunday Times Rich List is a list of the wealthiest people or families in the UK, by net worth. The list includes non-British citizens, such as those who work or live predominately in the UK, or with strong links, such as those who have donated to British political parties or charities. The list has been published each year by the Sunday Times since 1989, with editors estimating each person's wealth based on publicly available information including the value of companies, land or property owned. This report looks at the top hundred entries on the list, including joint entries. School and university background 28% of the Sunday Times Rich List attended an independent school in Britain, a substantial fall since 2014, when the figure was just under half (44%). However, much of the difference owes to a substantial increase (25 percentage points) in the number of those educated abroad. Looking at those educated in Britain only, the picture is substantially different, with 57% educated privately, one of the highest in this report, and significantly higher than the proportion of the population as a whole, at 7%. The proportion of comprehensively educated remains stable and low at 12%. The proportion of the Rich List who attended Oxbridge is similar to the figure in 2014 (14% in 2019 compared to 12%), and while towards the lower end of the spectrum amongst Britain's elite, is influenced by the 36% of members who attended university internationally. A sizeable proportion (28%) of the Rich List did not attend university, a figure which is also stable over the last five years. ## Business \| Entrepreneurs \| School attendance \| \|---------------------\| \| 9% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| 34% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| For the first time, this edition of Elitist Britain also includes entrepreneurs, individuals who have set up a new business, usually at some amount of individual risk, who have then gone on to have a substantial amount of both wealth and influence when their company has become successful. The next section looks at the most influential entrepreneurs in Britain, who have set up some of the country's most famous companies. School and university Just over a third (34%) of the entrepreneurs examined here attended a private school. Just 12% were ## Business \| Ftse 350 Companies The Financial Times Stock Exchange 350 is a weighted stock market index, which includes the 350 highest value companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. Here we look at the chief executives (CEOs) and chairs of FTSE 350 companies. CEOs of companies in this group often come from a financial background, frequently working as a chief financial officer (CFO) before taking on the post of CEO. Chairs have usually previously been a CEO themselves, sometimes of the same company, then staying on to offer support and advice to their successor. School and university Just under a third of FTSE 350 CEOs (27%) attended an independent school, a slight increase (by 5 percentage points) since 2014. A large proportion were educated outside of the UK (43%), consistent with 2014, so schooled internationally, the lowest in this section. On the other hand, 39% attended comprehensives, the highest in this section. A large proportion (44%) did not attend university, the highest proportion outside sport and the creative industries. Just 9% attended Oxbridge, one of the lowest proportions of any of the sectors in this report, and just under a third (29%) attended a university in the Russell Group. when just those schooled domestically are taken into account, the independent figure rises to 48%. FTSE 350 chairs were more likely to have attended a private school, at 34% (50% of those educated in the UK), and more likely to have attended a grammar school, with 22% having done so. Chairs were however less likely to have been educated outside of the UK. Almost all CEOs (95%) and chairs (91%) attended university. 15% of FTSE 350 CEOs attended Oxbridge, similar to 2014. A larger proportion of chairs attended one of these two universities, with over a quarter (27%) doing so. Over a third (36%) of CEOs attended a university outside of the UK, slightly lower than the proportion who went to school abroad. A smaller proportion of FTSE 350 chairs attended university outside of the UK (21%). ## Ftse 350 Ceos School attendance University attendance Attended international schools ## Business \| Pr Consultancy Ceos University attendance Attended international schools This section also looked at the CEOs of the top Public Relations (PR) firms in the UK, the first time that the either the Sutton Trust or the Social Mobility Commission have looked at this sector. This sector was specifically chosen because PR consultancies help companies, organisations and individuals to build a positive reputation with the public, and are therefore highly influential in the national debate. They do this in a variety of different ways, working with both traditional media such as newspapers and television, and also increasingly through social media. They help to build positive stories about their clients and manage bad news in a way that causes the least amount of reputational damage to their client. PR consultancies work for a wide range of different clients, including political parties and large businesses. School and university A third of top PR consultancy CEOs attended a private school, similar to the other categories in this section. Just under a quarter (24%) were educated outside of the UK, and just under a third (30%) were educated at a comprehensive school. Just 7% of PR consultancy CEOs attended Oxbridge, a substantially lower proportion than found for FTSE 350 company CEOs. Just over a quarter (26%) were educated internationally, a third attended a university in the Russell Group, and just 9% did not attend university. About a third attended non-Russell Group universities, higher than other categories in this section. ## Business \| Tech Firm Ceos School attendance University attendance Tech firms are companies at the forefront of modern technology, with the potential to transform the way we live and work. They are often among the fastest growing companies and offer a contrast to some more traditional sectors with well-established firms. The next section looks for the first time at the educational backgrounds of the CEOs of the fastest growing technology companies in the UK, which includes companies focused on innovation and research, operating in sectors including software, the internet, telecoms and biotech. Roles at the top of tech firms are usually well paid and have increasing influence on wider society. Technology companies are often by their very nature disruptive, and so have significant influence in changing the way their industries work. School and university Despite the different nature of these companies, the proportion of tech firm CEOs who attended private school is broadly similar to the percentage of FTSE 350 CEOs who did so, at just over a quarter (27%). A very small proportion (just 3%) attended a grammar school. Again, a substantial proportion (41%) were educated internationally, similar to the FTSE 350. Looking at those educated in the UK only, independent school attendance was 45% and comprehensive 50%. The clear majority (89%) of tech firm CEOs went to university. 12% attended Oxbridge, again broadly similar to the FTSE 350. A third were educated internationally, and a further third attended a Russell Group institution (including those who attended Oxbridge). ## Business \| Discussion Throughout several areas of British business, from the FTSE 350 to the fastest growing technology companies, individuals from private schools are consistently overrepresented. While there has been a drive to increase diversity in businesses, including efforts to make both boards and CEOs more representative of the population at large, these efforts have focused primarily on gender and ethnicity, with less attention placed on socioeconomic background, in large part due to the fact that it is not a 'protected characteristic' in legislation. For example, while there are government backed reviews which aim to increase the proportion both of women 40 and of individuals from ethnic minorities 41 on company boards, there is no such initiative to look at the issue of socio-economic diversity in the board room. ## "Many Young People Do not have the opportunity at school to build the skills involved in setting up a business." There are potential access issues at every point of the pipeline for individuals working to rise to the top of any business. However many forward-looking companies have now started to look at how to increase diversity in their graduate intakes. This has included reviewing entry requirements and interview processes, broadening their recruitment pool to a wider range of universities, and recruiting apprentices to create a direct entry point for young people who have not been to university. This work has been promising, but more needs to be done by a wider group of companies to really move the dial on access. Collaboration and sector leadership is key in this, with several promising examples including Access Accountancy, and PRIME in the legal sector, involving firms working together to increase access to their profession. While some companies have started to look at the entry point into their sector, fewer have looked at how to ensure that individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds are able to progress through their businesses. A body of research increasingly shows how gaps in salary, promotion and staff retention based on social background open up, even for those from less well-off backgrounds who manage to get into such jobs. For example, one company which has started to look at progression is KPMG, who, working together with the Bridge Group, has identified several ways in which barriers to progression can be tackled, including looking at how projects of work are allocated and ensuring that processes within the company are not informally bypassed. 42 Similar work is needed in more companies to examine and tackle barriers to access and progression. Work is also ongoing at an industry specific level, including some promising work being carried out in public relations. The industry's trade body, the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) released a report last year on diversity in the sector including socio-economic background. The body called for several measures to be taken by PR firms to improve diversity, including monitoring the diversity of staff, offering quality and paid apprenticeships, and putting in place fair and transparent recruitment processes. The PRCA, together with others, have launched the campaign 'PR Internships for All' , calling on the UK's leading PR agencies to commit to increasing access to internships in the sector, including paying their interns the Living Wage, and taking on interns from universities outside of the Russell Group. 43 They have also put together a list of PR agencies who pay their interns at least the National Minimum Wage. 44 Looking at the people who form their own businesses, which includes many of those included in the Sunday Times Rich List, there are also several potential barriers for budding entrepreneurs on their way to the top, with significant personal financial risk involved in setting up a new company. Indeed, those who are self-employed are more likely to own their homes outright, something which can allow them to take the financial risk involved in setting up a company. 45 Inequality in ownership of these sorts of financial assets is also likely to continue to increase, as rising levels of inherited wealth are likely to deliver the biggest benefits for those who are already financially well-off. 46 ## If Innovation And Entrepreneurship Are Limited To just those from specific social backgrounds, it can serve to limit the type and scope of the problems those innovations seek to solve. A government review on boosting entrepreneurship in deprived communities found that in the 10% most deprived areas in the country, people were almost 50% less likely to be self-employed. 47 Work by the charity Nesta has also identified the lack of diversity in innovation, identifying early exposure to invention and innovation for children, and creating the 'freedom to fail' for adults as key requirements. 48 Commentators have warned that the 49 route to entrepreneurship is becoming more difficult, such as former Dragons' Den panellist Hilary Devey, who commented that the playing field is "no longer level" because a large proportion of businesses need an initial cash injection. "To get Pall-Ex [her freight exporting company] off the ground, I ended up selling my house and car. But how many young, aspiring entrepreneurs today even have their own house or car to sell? Launching a new business shouldn't be a privilege to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth" . There are also concerns that many young people do not have the opportunity at school to build the skills involved in setting up a business. The Sutton Trust has previously highlighted the work of one charity working in this area, Envision, which runs programmes for disadvantaged young people including 'Community-Apprenticeships' , loosely based on the reality TV show 'The Apprentice' . During the programme, young people are given the help of business mentors to develop and implement their own ideas to tackle social problems in their communities. 50 The programme is currently being evaluated by the Sutton Trust's sister charity, the Education Endowment Foundation. This and similar programmes have the potential to open up the skills needed for entrepreneurship to a greater diversity of young people. ## Case Study Charlie Mullins Entrepreneur I was born in Camden, before moving to an estate in Elephant and Castle, South London, at the age of eleven. I lived with my mother, father and three brothers. We were a working class family, my mother working as a barmaid and my father a factory worker. I had a very basic education. I had many days off school, as well as missing a year of education when we moved home. I used to skip school and help the local plumber. He had a nice house and money, which inspired me. I thought that by getting into the plumbing trade I could help myself out of a low socio-economic situation. I left school at fifteen with no qualifications, and began an apprenticeship. The local plumber advised me that if I took up an apprenticeship, I would never be out of work. The contractual nature of apprenticeships means that you are committed to the work, and this gives you a chance to get your foot in the door. I would not be where I am now if I had not listened to him. After my apprenticeship, I was self-employed, and started Pimlico Plumbers with a van and tools. I do not feel that my lack of education hindered my progression, as I think that you get a true education when you go into the world of work. However, I would say that the lack of advice at school regarding apprenticeships would have been problematic if I had not met my local plumber. Back then, you were not expected to do well out of an apprenticeship. I think that where you grow up does impact your career prospects. When you live in a rougher area, it is easy to fall onto the wrong path. When you are around other people with no aspirations it is easy to get sucked in. However, I also think that this can inspire and drive someone to succeed. It is important that you can break away and make something of yourself. I do not think my profession is particularly elitist, as success in my area is based on skill. The skills you learn in the plumbing trade can take you anywhere in the world. Although there is still a shortage, the perception of traders is changing, and many go on to run their own businesses now. People used to look down on entrepreneurs, but now it seems to be more fashionable. Entrepreneurs from backgrounds such as mine often speak at events, serving as examples to others. My one piece of advice would be to take up an apprenticeship and commit yourself to it. Apprenticeships are key to improving social mobility within professions, and I believe in a few years apprenticeship qualifications will be equivalent to degrees. ## The Educational Pathways Of Ftse 350 Ceos In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by FTSE 350 CEOs educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. While a large proportion of CEOs in this group were educated internationally, this graph focuses on those who went to schools and universities in the UK. The independent school to Oxbridge pathway accounts for more than one in five of the group (21%), with a third of the group in total having attended both private school and a Russell Group university. Comprehensive school to Oxbridge accounted for just 3% of the CEOs. ## 3. Media Section At A Glance Introduction The media are a key element of any democracy, informing the public and holding elected representatives and other powerful institutions to account. In this role the media have significant influence in shaping a country's political, social and cultural agenda. Digital, broadcast and print editors decide not only what to cover and how to cover it, but equally importantly what not to cover. In turn newspaper columnists analyse and interpret political decisions, not only with the opinion pieces they write, but also through their television, podcast and radio appearances. Who fills these extremely important positions matters. While most news journalists will aspire to leave their opinions outside their place of work, it is somewhat inevitable that they will bring their experiences with them. Journalists need to know about a story to cover it, but if journalists and others working in the media all come from a similar background and have similar experiences, there is a danger that even with the best efforts to reach out, there are likely to be important stories, nuances or angles that they simply miss. Commentators have previously spoken about this dangerous disconnect between the media and the population in the last five years, particularly in relation to the UK's vote to leave the European Union in 2016, a result which was not expected by much of the UK establishment, including many journalists. Journalists have also been criticised in the aftermath of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, with veteran broadcaster Jon Snow commenting: "Why didn't any of us see the Grenfell action blog? Why didn't we know? Why didn't we have contact? Why didn't we enable the residents of Grenfell Tower - and indeed the other hundreds of towers like it around Britain - to find pathways to talk to us and for us to expose their story? I felt on the wrong side of the terrible divide that exists in present day society. We can accuse the political classes for their failures, and we do. But we are guilty of them ourselves. We are too far removed from those who lived their lives in Grenfell Tower."51 Not only can this disconnect lead to journalists missing important stories, it can also mean they cover some issues out of proportion to their importance to society overall. For example, while less than 1% of the population attend Oxbridge, the two universities are covered extensively in the media,52 often to the exclusion of other education matters, including issues affecting other universities, and particularly the vocational and technical education sector. Newspaper columnists 40 43 BBC Executives 44 40 Discussion Case study - Cait FitzSimons, Editor, 5 News The Educational Pathways of Newspaper Columnists ## Media \| News Media 100 The media 100 gives a broad overview of those working in the UK's news media, including newspaper and magazine editors, editors of major digital news outlets and TV and radio news presenters and editors. To identify this group, we used research by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 53 to select the news outlets across broadcast, digital and print media with the biggest reach across the UK. We looked for the individuals in the most senior editorial positions at these outlets. For broadcast outlets with multiple news programmes, we used personal judgement and figures on reach to select the news programmes and stations with the biggest influence. To reflect the growing importance of digital and social news, we have updated this list from 2014 to include digital editors, and have also increased the number of editors from regional titles. 54 While we feel this was important to ensure this list is reflective of the current media landscape, these changes should be kept in mind when making comparisons with 2014's data. School and university background The news media 100 group had among the highest proportions of independent school and Oxbridge alumni among their number. Those with the most influential positions in news media are considerably more likely to have attended a private school than the population at large, at 43%. One fifth of the group went to a grammar school, and just over a third (34%) attended a comprehensive. The proportion of those at the top of the news media who went to a comprehensive school is substantially different to the 2014 list, up from just 16%. The proportion who went to independent schools (down 11 percentage points) and grammar schools (down 6 percentage points) is also lower. The overwhelming majority (92%) of our news media 100 attended university, a small increase on the figure in 2014 (90%). Just over a third (36%) attended Oxbridge, 9 percentage points lower than the 2014 list. Just over 70% attended the Russell Group overall, slightly lower than 2014. ## Media \| Newspaper Columnists School attendance University attendance Newspaper columnists have a unique position to shape the political agenda, as they are able to share their views on the political issues of the day on widely read and shared platforms. The next section looks at newspaper columnists writing on politics, policy, news and current affairs for the most influential papers and outlets in the UK. School and university backgrounds Newspaper columnists were even more exclusive in their educational backgrounds than the news media group. 44% of newspaper columnists attended an independent school, with a quarter attending a grammar school, and less than a fifth (19%) going to a comprehensive school. Although the group of newspaper columnists covered here is slightly different to those included in 2014 (in this report we focused on those commenting on politics and ## Media \| Bbc Executives The next section takes an in depth look at the top staff at the largest broadcaster in the country, the BBC. As a public broadcaster, paid for by a household TV license fee, it is often held under a greater amount of scrutiny than other similar organisations. The corporation also has the largest viewing share of any broadcaster in the UK. 55 From news coverage, to sports, to children's television, the BBC has a significant impact on all parts of British society. School and university backgrounds Compared to the other categories in this section, the school educational background of BBC executives closely related areas, whereas the 2014 list also included those writing columns on food, sports and television), the proportion who attended independent school is the same as the list examined in 2014. Almost three quarters (72%) of columnists went to a Russell Group institution for their undergraduate degree, and a large proportion (44%) attended one of just two universities, Oxford or Cambridge. These figures have changed very little since 2014, although the proportion who attended university internationally has also roughly doubled (from 6% to 12%). The independent school to Oxbridge pipeline accounts for a third (33%) of all columnists. Grammar school to Oxbridge (13%) and comprehensive to Russell Group (9%) are other common pathways. Comprehensively educated columnists who graduated from a non-Russell Group university account for less than 2% of the total. was less socially exclusive, with 29% having attended independent school. However, this figure is still substantially higher than the population, and has changed little since 2014, when the figure was 26%. 56 A fifth of BBC executives attended a grammar school. The proportion of BBC executives who went to a comprehensive school has risen in the last five years, from just 37% in 2014 to 45% now. Almost a third (31%) of BBC executives attended Oxbridge, a figure that has barely shifted since 2014. Most (70%) attended a Russell Group university, which has actually increased since 2014, by 8 percentage points. ## School Attendance University Attendance Attended international schools ## Media \| Discussion The educational backgrounds of people in the top jobs in UK media, with a focus here on those working in news, politics and current affairs, look very different to the general population, with newspaper columnists the least like the audiences they write for. This isn't a new problem. Previous Sutton Trust research going back as far as 1986 has shown that the educational backgrounds of the country's media has, for a long time, looked very different to those of the population as a whole, and painted a picture of a media elite growing more socially exclusive over time. 57 Importantly, the impact of this gap is likely to 58 increase with the ongoing decline of local media; which is both an important first rung on the ladder for many aspiring journalists and a vital source of news stories from diverse communities across the country. Indeed, local news is often first to pick up important stories which otherwise would not be noticed by national papers. But local news is currently facing a funding crisis, with jobs and whole newsrooms being lost. Looking in greater detail at the journalist pipeline, The National Council for the Training of Journalists, the leading training organisation for journalists in the UK, has carried out research on increasing diversity in journalism. 59 That work raised several potential barriers to access, including the increasing need for postgraduate qualifications to enter journalism (grants for which are very rare) and the expectation of unpaid work placements in the industry, an issue the Sutton Trust has also previously highlighted. 60 As economic conditions have tightened in the industry, in recent years many papers have also moved away from having permanent staff writing opinion columns, towards commissioning comment pieces from freelancers. Working as a freelance journalist can be precarious and may act as a barrier for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who lack the financial and social safety nets sometimes required by such unpredictable work. A number of initiatives are attempting to increase access to the industry. One such project is The Student View, a charity which aims to increase the number of schools with student newspapers to give young people a first flavour of journalism. The charity works in schools with groups in which at least 50% of students are eligible for the pupil premium. 61 To tackle the issue of unpaid internships in journalism, the organisation Press Pad connects interns to people who can host them in London. 62 The Spectator has also introduced a fully paid 'no CV' internship scheme, limiting the importance of previous experience to try to increase opportunities in the media for people from a more diverse range of backgrounds. 63 However, while all these initiatives are welcome, they are relatively low level given the scale of the access issue in the media as a whole, and do nothing to deal with declining opportunities outside of London as local papers have closed. 64 Across the media, much more needs to be done to increase access and break down barriers for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In the last few years, the BBC has been taking active steps to improve socio-economic diversity. It was the first broadcaster to monitor and publish the socio-economic background of their employees, including the type of school they attended and the educational backgrounds of staff's parents. According to the BBC's own statistics, 16% of their UK public service staff (not including for example the World Service) attended a private school. While still higher than the population, this figure is much lower than the senior executive group examined here. This figure also differs across the organisation, with a high of 24% of their news staff having attended a private school. They also release figures for their senior leadership, although the group they look at is a much wider group than those included in our figures here. Of senior leaders overall 22% attended private school, and 36% of senior leaders specifically in news did so. 65 ## "Working As A Freelance Journalist Can Be Precarious, A Potential Barrier For Those From Lower Socioeconomic Backgrounds" They also recently launched an apprenticeship programme, with input from the Sutton Trust, to help open pathways into the BBC for young people from a more diverse backgrounds. 66 While the BBC is making progress, having also been named in the top 50 employers by the Social Mobility Index, 67 in recognition of the action they have taken, there is still a substantial amount of work to be done, especially in opening up the most influential roles at the very top of the organisation. Attention to diversity and equality issues is often particularly focused on the BBC, as the main public service broadcaster, but socio-economic diversity is an issue across all major broadcasters. Channel 4 recently carried out detailed research on this issue, which found that its staff are substantially unrepresentative of the general population, with 67% of Channel 4 staff having parents with professional or managerial jobs. 68 The work also looked at some of the reasons behind a lack of progression of staff from lower socio-economic backgrounds within Channel 4 to the top positions in the organisation. Following this work, the broadcaster has now put in place a variety of initiatives to try to improve socio-economic diversity in the organisation, including running an apprenticeship scheme, setting up new bases in Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, 69 and preventing employees from bringing in family members for work experience. However, as with the BBC, much more needs to be done to open up opportunities, especially at the very top. The other major UK broadcasters, ITV and Sky, have done much less to look at this issue. ITV recently carried out a survey looking at the socioeconomic background of its senior leadership team, but have not yet carried this out on among their wider staff. They have also recently signed up to the Social Mobility Pledge. 70 Sky has plans to start monitoring the socio-economic background of its staff in the near future. 71 Such monitoring however, is only the beginning of a process of diversification, and not an end in itself. ## Case Study Cait Fitzsimons Editor, 5 News I was born and grew up in Sunderland, where I attended the local Catholic comprehensive school. My father was one of 14 children, the son of an Irish immigrant. He left school when he was 14 and joined the merchant navy, and when I was growing up he worked as a milkman. My mum was an assistant at the local department store. I was the first person in my family to gain a degree, studying Fine Art at Coventry University. I'm an accidental journalist. In 1997, I moved to London to do a postgraduate course, but needed some money to get by. One of my cousins was an administrator at ITN and knew Channel 4 News needed some freelance runners. I was so lucky to get the opportunity; without it I wouldn't have dreamed of working as a journalist. From there, I went on to work at 5 News, which was set-up as a multi-skilled newsroom. As I was quick to pick-up technical skills, I had the time and space to get the hard bit, journalism. 5 News was a great place to start my working life, friendly and energetic. But to me, it felt quite alien, with lots of people from the south-east of England who were confident and vocal. There were even people who were related to famous reporters and politicians. I've always joked that I was middle class until I worked at ITN, then it felt more like being working class. Throughout my career, across a number of different newsrooms, I've had moments where I've been aware that my northern accent was seen as a negative. I experienced the odd joking comment about my pronunciation of certain words. There was also the occasional assumption that anyone from the north was automatically working class or with limited education. I've never felt that my background held me back but it's only in recent years that I've come to see it as an asset. As an editor, I'm willing to consider stories that more traditional newsrooms might overlook. I'm happy to be challenged and to admit I'm wrong. Newsrooms must adapt to survive, and I think increasing diversity will mean we find new ways for the industry to thrive. I try to make my newsroom a place where not only the me of 20 years ago, but also people who have different life experiences will feel supported and encouraged. The best example of this is being pitched a story I never would have spotted or considered and being surprised by what it delivers. I know I have a responsibility to make the newsroom a place where people feel confident in voicing their ideas, even if they have never had the chance before. I don't think I'd become a journalist if I was starting out now. Newsrooms are smaller and entry level jobs have become much more demanding, candidates often have both a relevant degree and post-graduate qualification. There's still the occasional opportunity to spot and develop someone with potential who might not have followed the usual educational route, but it's something I need to do more. There have been some positive changes in the media recently, like more apprenticeships, but things are not changing quickly enough. I think the challenges of spotting talent and training new journalists are becoming even harder with every local paper or regional radio newsroom which cuts or closes. News organisations should look more closely at how universities recruit students, but we also need to reach out to schools and colleges ourselves to give young people a better insight into what we do and open up new routes into media. ## The Educational Pathways Of Newspaper Columnists In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by newspaper columnists educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The independent school to Oxbridge pipeline accounts for a third of all newspaper columnists, one of the highest in the report. Including other Russell Group institutions brings the figure to close to half. Just 2% of columnists went from a comprehensive to a non-Russell Group university. This is lower even than the number who were privately schooled and did not have a degree. Grammar school to Oxbridge is the second most common pathway among columnists, comprising 13% of the group. Non-Russell Group universities as a whole make up a particularly low proportion of newspaper columnists compared to other professions. ## Introduction Section 1 focused on parliament and government, the decision-making bodies which agree the policies affecting all of us day to day. This section looks at the senior civil servants in Whitehall who advise government and run the departments tasked with implementing their policies, also looking at a wider group of public bodies set up and funded by government. These are 'arm's length' bodies, often previously called 'quangos' , with responsibilities for regulating and overseeing their fields, often holding government to account. The policies that civil servants have responsibility for devising and implementing affect people across the country, from all types of communities and backgrounds. However, as both politicians and civil servants come from very similar backgrounds, they have been criticised for 'group think' .72 This increases the likelihood of seeing challenges from the same perspective and, for example, missing problems with policies which do not come to light until they are rolled out within local communities. In order to make them as effective as they can be, our public bodies require a greater diversity of voices contributing to decision making from the outset. 47 50 Permanent Secretaries Discussion Diplomats The Educational Pathways of Diplomats 48 52 CEOs and Chairs of Public Bodies 48 ## Whitehall \| Permanent Secretaries \| School attendance \| \|---------------------\| \| 56% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| -1% \| \| since 2014 \| \| 59% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| +4% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 14% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -15% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Comprehensive school +11% since 2014 Attended international schools 73 A permanent secretary is the most senior civil servant within any government department, with responsibility for running it day to day. Permanent secretaries also act as senior advisors to their department's Secretary of State and are accountable to parliament for how their department spends public funds. They are normally in place for several years, and most are appointed following a long career within the civil service. School and university background A large majority of permanent secretaries (59%) come from private school backgrounds, the second highest proportion in this report, behind senior 82% attended a Russell Group University \| -4% since 2014 100% attended University \| +3% since 2014 judges. This number, if anything, has seen a small increase over the last five years. Fewer than a third (28%) attended a comprehensive school. As the proportion who attended grammar schools has decreased, the comprehensive figure has gone up, rising by 11 percentage points since 2014. The top of the civil service is also dominated by alumni of Russell Group universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge. Over half (56%) attended one of the two institutions, again one of the highest across all of the professions in this report. The overwhelming majority (82%) attended either Oxbridge or another Russell Group university. ## Whitehall \| Diplomats \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 51% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| +1% \| \| since 2014 \| \| 52% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| no change since 2014 \| \| 17% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -14% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 29% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +18% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| British diplomats, including Ambassadors and High Commissioners, are an important part of the UK Civil Service. They act as the country's most senior official representatives abroad, influencing foreign policy, helping to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements, providing information and insight about their host country to the UK and in turn providing information and insight about the UK to their host country. They are also the first port of call in helping British people overseas. Many diplomats have commented the role is a 'lifestyle not a job' , due to the need to work all over the world, move frequently, and work outside of typical working hours, including evenings and weekends. Individuals have usually been in the Civil Service for a long time before becoming a top diplomat, with many entering through the Foreign Office Fast Stream, a highly competitive graduate scheme. This section looks at the country's top diplomats, Heads of UK Missions abroad. ## Whitehall \| Ceos And Chairs Of Public Bodies A public body is an umbrella term for a group of organisations which deliver public services but are not government departments. They tend to operate at arm's length from ministers, making the roles that run and oversee them vital positions for the direction and day to day running of the organisations. Chairs of such organisations are prestigious positions, often taken up by former politicians, longstanding public servants, or other high profile persons from business or civil society. These are often post-career appointments, meaning they can look quite different from those who run the organisations day to day. Appointments are governed 84% attended a Russell Group University \| no change since 2014 98% attended University \| +9% since 2014 School and university background Over half (52%) of top British diplomats attended a private school, a figure which has not changed in the last five years. In common with the generational change seen in many sectors in this report, what has reduced substantially in that time is the proportion who went to a grammar school, down by 14 percentage points since 2014. In 2014, the proportion of British Ambassadors and High Commissioners who went to a comprehensive school was very low, at just 11%. While the 2019 figures show it at 29%, it is still low in comparison with other sectors. A very large proportion of British diplomats attended Oxbridge (51%). Almost all attended university, and of those who did, all attended a university in the UK. The vast majority (84%) attended a Russell Group institution. by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Many public bodies play a crucial role in monitoring the quality of public services, including health and education bodies such as Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and Ofqual. Decisions made by these bodies have substantial influence on their sector. Others include research funding councils, museums and conservation organisations; all organisations which have impact on a range of issues from which diseases we focus research funding on, to how we interpret our past and what we do to protect the natural world around us. School and university background Both the chairs and CEOs of public bodies are much more likely to be privately educated than average. 45% of chairs and 30% of CEOs attended a private school, with very little change in these figures since 2014. Just 18% of public body chairs attended a comprehensive school, although this has risen from only 11% in 2014. A larger proportion of chief executives attended a comprehensive school, which has risen by 10 percentage points since 2014. The proportion of both chairs and CEOs who attended a grammar school since 2014 has fallen, by 13 percentage points to 28% ## Public Body Ceos \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 25% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| no change since 2014 \| \| 30% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| -4% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 27% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -12% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 31% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +10% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Attended international schools ## Public Body Chairs \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 40% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| \| \| -4% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 45% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| +1% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 28% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -13% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 18% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +8% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Attended international schools for chairs, and by 12 percentage points to 27% for CEOs. It should be noted that school data could only be found for 60% of the chairs group, so results should be taken in that context. A large proportion of public body chairs attended Oxbridge (40%), again higher than the proportion of CEOs (25%), although the figure has come down slightly over the last five years, falling by 4 percentage points. Only a very small number of either chairs or CEOs did not attend university, and most went to one of the Russell Group, 58% of CEOs and 69% of chairs (down 5 percentage points). 58% attended a Russell Group University \| +1% since 2014 98% attended University \| +6% since 2014 69% attended a Russell Group University \| -5% since 2014 94% attended University \| no change since 2014 ## Whitehall \| Discussion Over the last few years, the civil service has taken several steps to diversify the intake of their Graduate Scheme. The Fast Stream is designed to 'equip candidates to become future leaders of the Civil Service' . It is hoped that by increasing the socio-economic diversity of their intake, in the future more senior roles within the civil service, such as permanent secretaries, will be more representative of the general population. In 2016, the civil service carried out, with the Bridge Group, a full independent assessment of access to the Fast Stream by socio-economic background, the first of its kind commissioned by any employer. The report found that the profile of the Fast Stream's intake is 'less diverse than the student population at the University of Oxford' . When looking at the reasons behind the lack of diversity in the scheme, they found that candidates from highly selective universities (who have the least diverse student bodies) are the most likely to apply, and that there is a perception among many students from lower socio-economic backgrounds that the Fast Stream is 'not for them' . Students said that they did not understand enough ## "There Is A Perception among many students from lower socio-economic backgrounds that the Fast Stream is 'not for them' ." about the selection process, and perceived the civil service to be 'white, male and Oxbridge' . 74 In the run up to and following that report, the civil service made several changes to their Fast Stream recruitment processes. University names and UCAS points have been removed from the application process and an assessment centre has been opened outside of London in Newcastle. Additionally, the civil service have increased the amount of outreach work they do on campuses to encourage applications to the Fast Stream; updated how the socio-economic background of candidates is recorded and shorted the application window in a bid to improve candidate engagement. They have also created a 'Fast Pass' for anyone who has completed the civil service Summer Diversity Internship (open to students underrepresented in the Fast Stream, including those from lower socio-economic backgrounds), allowing 75 former interns to skip stages of the application process, improving their success rate. A cross government Social Mobility Network, to tackle issues across the civil service, has also been set up. Following these changes, there have been 76 increases both in the number of applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds to the Fast Stream, and in the number accepted onto the programme. In 2015, applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds made up 8% of applications, a proportion which has since doubled to 16% of applicants in 2018. However, these applicants are still much less likely to be accepted onto the scheme than others, with those from managerial and professional backgrounds twice as likely to get in as those from routine and manual backgrounds. In the diplomatic service specifically, similar efforts are being made to tackle this issue. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) launched 'Foreground' , a social mobility network for staff, in 2016. The network carries out a range of work, including reaching out to people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, supporting staff members facing barriers related to their background, and engaging with policy to reduce existing barriers for people entering the FCO. Foreground also represent the FCO on a cross-government network which aims to improve diversity of background across the civil service. 77 However, of concern going forward is the collapse in modern foreign languages study in recent times, particularly in more disadvantaged schools, which impacts on opportunities to learn about different countries and cultures. 78 The civil service needs to do more to understand why applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to be accepted onto the programme. Additionally, while the changes made to the Fast Stream are positive, any changes will take a long time to feed through the system at higher grades, which is far from guaranteed, given the barriers to career progression faced by those from less welloff backgrounds. 79 Such barriers, and the process behind top appointments, should be examined in detail and measures taken to address these issues. There has been much less scrutiny of the backgrounds of those working for public bodies. However, it is clearly an important issue for government. According to the Cabinet Office; 'Public bodies play an important role in public life, making decisions and delivering the essential services that benefit the communities they serve. To be truly effective, public bodies need to draw from a mix of people with different skills, experiences and backgrounds to serve on their boards.' Findings here clearly show that the educational backgrounds of public body chairs are, however, not very diverse. The same is also true for their chief executives, albeit to a lesser degree. As well as central Whitehall departments, these organisations should also be held to the same high standards, given the importance of their work and their receipt of public funding. While diversity is a criterion in the governance code regulating public appointments, 81 more needs to be done to deliver on this aspiration, including reporting on the socio-economic background of those taking up such roles across sectors. ## The Educational Pathways Of Diplomats In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by diplomats educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. ## 5. Public Servants Introduction Looking beyond Whitehall, local government and public bodies, there are many other prestigious, highly paid and influential positions in public life. The next section begins to paint a picture of some of those, looking at a wider group of public servants working in key positions at the top of justice, defence and academia. As the roles covered in this section cover a range of different professions, more detail on each individual sector is included within the body of this chapter. 55 58 Senior judges Armed Forces 56 59 Vice Chancellors 57 60 Discussion Case study - Mouhssin Ismail, Former lawyer The Educational Pathways of Senior Judges ## Public Servants \| Senior Judges Senior judges, namely the Lord Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judges, Lord and Lady Justices of Appeal and High Court Judges, sit on the highest courts in the country. These courts fulfil a number of different roles, including importantly being the courts where cases are appealed from lower down in the system and decisions are made which affect the whole population. Senior judges have previously spoken about the importance of diversity on the benches of these courts, including the current President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, who commented that the public should be able to look at the judges and say "they are our judges" , as opposed to seeing them as "beings from another planet" . 82 School and university background Senior judges are the most socially exclusive groups of all the professions examined here, with the highest numbers of both independent school and Oxbridge alumni. Almost two thirds (65%) of senior judges attended private schools. While this has reduced by 6 percentage points compared to 2014, it is still around ten times higher than the proportion of the population who attend independent schools. Judges who were privately educated dominate the most senior positions in Britain's court system. The proportion who attended grammar schools is 20%. While this has fallen slightly, going down by 3 percentage points since 2014, this is a much smaller reduction than has been seen in some other sectors during the same period. While the educational background of judges is still very different from the whole population, the proportion who attended comprehensive schools is on the increase, having more than tripled from 4% in 2014 to 13%, albeit from an extremely low bar. Alumni of Oxford and Cambridge also heavily dominate the judiciary. Just under three quarters (71%) of senior judges went to one of the two institutions, with little change since 2014. In fact, the independent school to Oxbridge pipeline alone accounts for more than half of all senior judges (52%). All the senior judges included in this report went to university, and even those who did not attend Oxbridge still, in the main, attended a university in the Russell Group, with only 9% attending a non-Russell Group institution. ## Public Servants \| Armed Forces School attendance University attendance 49% attended an Independent school -13% since 2014 15% attended a Grammar school -14% since 2014 Comprehensive school The armed forces are comprised of several different parts of the country's defences, including the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. This section looks at officers at the very top of the armed forces in Britain, looking at those at the rank of two stars (Major General) and above. These roles are held by those with senior appointments in military headquarters, including the Ministry of Defence, and are officers who have generally been in the armed forces for a long time before taking up their positions. While politicians hold ultimate responsibility for whether we go to war, and how that war is conducted, decisions made by senior military personnel day to day also have major impacts on frontline troops. The profile of senior personnel is particularly relevant, given that lower levels of the army disproportionately recruit from disadvantaged communities, 83 and the army has previously been accused of specifically targeting young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds for recruitment to such frontline positions. 84 School and university background The armed forces have among the highest proportions of privately educated personnel looked at in this report, with almost half of senior officers educated at independent schools (49%). Just over a third attended a comprehensive school, and 15% a grammar. While these figures show that the top of the armed forces looks very different from the population overall, there has been substantial change over the last five years - some of the most striking in this report. The proportion of senior officers who were educated at a comprehensive school has increased from just 7% in 2014 to 35% in 2019's data. This has been accompanied by falls in the proportions who were educated at both private and at grammar schools. In 2014, just under a third (30%) of senior officers were educated at a grammar school, but this figure has halved over the last five years. Similarly, the proportion of senior officers educated at a private school was previously 62%, but has now reduced by 13 percentage points to 49%. Private school attendance is higher among more senior ranks, with two thirds of four-star generals having attended. While the 2019 group had a slightly higher proportion of two star officers than 2014, this does not account for the significant increase in the proportion educated at comprehensive schools. Most senior officers in the armed forces had attended university (87%). Half of senior officers went to a Russell Group university, and 16% attended Oxford or Cambridge. While this proportion is lower than in many other top professions, it still shows a high level of representation of the two universities amongst senior officers relative to their size. ## Public Servants \| Vice Chancellors School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Vice Chancellors are the chief executives of British Universities, responsible for leadership over both the academic and administrative aspects of the institution. Individuals in these positions have had a significant amount of media attention recently, given the high salaries awarded to some VCs. 85 Vice Chancellors are the main figurehead of a university, and act as a representative for the university externally. They have responsibility for thousands of students and staff, as well as millions of pounds in research grants. Universities are also often major employers in their area and support the jobs of many others in the local community. Vice Chancellors have significant influence over 86 the culture of their institution, including efforts around diversity, inclusion and widening participation, and making sure these values are championed throughout the university. Such issues are of particular importance given how unrepresentative the student bodies of many top universities are when compared to young people overall. School Compared to many of the other sectors examined in this report, a relatively low proportion of VCs were educated privately, with 16% having attended an independent school. This proportion has also reduced in the last few years, falling by 4 percentage points since 2014. However, only about a third (34%) of academics attended comprehensive schools. A large proportion of VCs attended grammar schools, with a third (33%) having done so. The picture has improved in the five years since 2014, with the proportion of VCs educated at comprehensive schools rising by 13 percentage points from 21% in 2014, mostly offsetting a drop in the proportion attending grammars. Almost a fifth (17%) of University Vice Chancellors were educated outside of the UK, reflecting the international nature of academia. Looking at just those educated in the UK, 20% attended independent schools, 40% grammar and 41% comprehensive. University As would be expected, most Vice Chancellors completed an undergraduate degree, with only one VC having not obtained an undergraduate degree. 88% of VCs attended a university in the UK, with 14% having studied for a degree abroad, similar proportions to those found in 2014. Just over half of VCs (51%) attended a Russell Group university, the same proportion as in 2014. However, in that time, the proportion of VCs who attended Oxford and Cambridge has increased. In 2014, just 13% had done so, a figure which has since increased by 6 percentage points, now standing at 19%. ## Public Servants \| Discussion Across the judiciary, the armed forces and the higher education sector, graduates of Oxbridge and alumni of independent schools are over-represented. The top of the country's judiciary in particular is heavily dominated by private school and Oxbridge alumni. One of the reasons for this is likely to be the age of those holding such positions, reflecting patterns of entry into the profession from several decades ago, and the absence of term limits means that the pace of change is slow. Nonetheless, there remain many barriers for individuals aspiring to these roles. Most judges are barristers before they take up the position. However, a large proportion of barristers have been privately educated and have often attended prestigious universities. Looking at top barristers, those named in the Chambers UK list of the top 100 QCs in the country, in 2015 almost 71% had attended private school and almost 80% went to Oxbridge. 87 Data obtained by the Bar Standards Authority has also shown barristers are substantially more likely to have attended private school than the population at large. 88 Research looking at graduates of the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), which barristers need to complete as part of their training, has shown that graduates whose parents have not been to university are roughly 33% less likely to obtain 'pupillage' (essentially training contracts) than graduates of the course who have a parent educated to degree level. The Bar Standards Board has previously identified several possible barriers to access, including an expectation from some pupillage training organisations that applicants must have previously completed an unpaid "mini-pupillage" before they can apply, and the potential cost barriers for applicants to attend interviews. 90 Previous research carried out by the Sutton Trust found that internships in the legal sector have some of the lowest levels of open advertisement, and a high level of the use of personal contacts to secure placements. 91 Indeed the Legal Services Board have raised issues with both the cost of training and of unpaid and unadvertised pupillages as a barrier to the profession (although such unpaid placements have now been banned by the Bar Standards Board, so should no longer be taking place). 92 While the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary do publish statistics each year on the backgrounds of court judges, these figures do not include any measures of their socio-economic background. 93 Turning to the army, while top positions are less dominated by Oxbridge alumni than other sectors, individuals who attended private schools are highly over-represented at the top of the military. We know very little about socio-economic diversity in routes to top officer positions in the army, and while the Ministry of Defence do publish data on gender, ethnicity, age, religion and sexual orientation in the armed forces, 94 they do not currently publish information on socio-economic background. Particularly concerning however, are the vast discrepancies in education between the higher and lower ranks of the military, with the Sutton Trust's Leading People report pointing out that just 17% of army recruits were reported to have achieved above a C in GCSE English, compared to 45% of school leavers. 95 The army has also recently been criticised for the large amounts of taxpayer money being spent on sending officers' children to elite private schools, an issue that looks particularly stark given the over-representation of the privately educated at the top of the country's military. 96 The process of change in the army is likely to take a long time, as the army recruits junior soldiers and officers, and then develops those individuals internally. Therefore, if intakes diversify now, it will take a long time to feed into senior levels. The army should also look at potential barriers for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to rise to the top of the military, including routes from soldier level to officer level, to ensure they have an equal opportunity to do so. It should also be noted that army officers do not require a degree, and the army pays for individuals to earn a degree while they serve, which may also help to open up opportunities for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. 97 While the government has recently increased the number of cadet units in schools in more deprived areas, which aim to develop skills, including leadership, likely to be sought after at higher levels within the army, 98 the Combined Cadet Force remains dominated by independent schools. Concerns have also been raised as to the cadet model as a recruiting tool in schools. 99 While much more representative of the educational backgrounds of the population than top judges or army officers, Vice Chancellors are also unrepresentative. While there is a large amount of focus in the media on who goes to study at university, much less scrutiny is given to who goes on to study for PhDs and then can take up an academic position. Working in academia increasingly requires working on precarious short-term contracts and moving frequently, both across the UK and internationally, all of which may act as barriers for academics from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Working-class academics have also spoken out publicly about feelings of alienation and a perception of having outsider status within universities. 100 ## Case Study Mouhssin Ismail Former Lawyer I was educated in a state comprehensive school in Ilford, East London. My interest in becoming a lawyer was cultivated by my English teacher and during my time as a lawyer in a City firm, I received fantastic support and training. However, I began to realise there are few lawyers who worked for high profile city firms that came from a similar background to mine. It also became apparent there was a difference in the quality of my 'education' , which at times led me to question whether I actually 'fitted in.' In particular, my affluent peers had an appreciation of the arts, fine dining and theatre which I had not been exposed to as a young person. When I compared my own home life to my more privileged peers, I noticed there were very little discussions about politics, philosophy or the arts. School was seen as the sole place where learning took place. This leads to young people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds being left behind academically (defined in its broadest terms), socially and culturally because they do not possess the 'powerful knowledge' which is taught in more privileged circles. It is against this background that I made the difficult decision to leave the legal profession and return to the area I grew up in to support and prepare students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access high profile career paths. There are great initiatives that attempt to demystify law, but the legal profession continues to be extremely difficult to enter and there is much to be done if the perception of law being an elitist profession is to be eradicated. We need to start by raising the bar of what we expect a primary, secondary and sixth form student to achieve within the state sector. Professionals should constantly be asking themselves whether their most academic students are able to compete with their peers in high performing independent or grammar schools and whether their curriculum is rigorous enough. We should provide young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with the same quality of education that students from a selective independent or grammar school receive. This has to begin with getting the basics right at primary school in maths and English as well as establishing the type of work ethic that parents from middle class backgrounds instil in their children from a very young age. We also need to teach our students knowledge that is valued and is necessary to access and progress within these professions. There is also a role for law firms, who I am pleased to say have taken it upon themselves to introduce initiatives that seek to 'uplift' young people from disadvantaged areas in the hope of encouraging more credible applications from students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The key is not to lower the bar for less privileged students but to be clear about what they need to succeed and then develop a curriculum that provides these students with the knowledge and skills required. ## The Educational Pathways Of Senior Judges In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by senior judges, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The majority of senior judges (52%) attended both an independent school and one of Oxford or Cambridge, by some margin the highest in the report. Grammar school to Oxbridge was the next most common pathway (16%). 7% of senior judges came from comprehensives via Oxbridge, with another 6% through other Russell Group universities. A very small proportion came from non-Russell Group institutions, mostly those who had previously been privately educated. ## 6. Local Government attended Oxbridge Section at a Glance ## Introduction Many important aspects of policy decision making and implementation, on a diverse variety of issues from social care to policing, are taken within local government. However local government has faced substantial financial pressures in recent years, with many councils merging and cutting permanent staff. Nonetheless, council leaders and CEOs, Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Police Officers all play a significant role in how essential services are provided locally within communities. 63 67 Local Government Leaders Case study - Tina Redshaw, British Ambassador to Cambodia Local government CEOs The Educational Pathways of Council Leaders 64 68 Police Chiefs and PCCs 65 Discussion 66 ## Local Government \| Local Government Leaders School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Council leaders provide political leadership and set the strategic direction of the local council. They chair council meetings, distribute executive portfolios and work together with the council's staff to deliver their vision for the area. They need to be selected by their local parties, first to be elected as councillors, and then by their fellow councillors to become council leader. The next section looks at local council leaders in England, to allow comparisons with data from 2014. Councils have responsibility for the delivery of a wide variety of services, including social care, many schools, housing, libraries, planning and waste collection. The decisions made by local councils are important to the lives of people across the country, and as is the case with nationally elected politicians, it is important that they are reflective of the communities they serve. School and university backgrounds While national politics is among the most socially exclusive of sectors, local government is very different, with the proportions attending elite institutions among the lowest of any of the areas included in this report. However, despite this, council leaders are still almost three times as likely to have attended an independent school than the population as a whole (20%). Going against the trend in many other sectors, this figure has recently increased, up from 15% in 2014. Only half of local council leaders attended a comprehensive school, a figure which has risen slightly (6 percentage points) since 2014. Grammar school attendance, while high at 28%, has been squeezed, having fallen by 11 percentage points since 2014. In contrast to many of the other sectors examined in the report, over a third (36%) of local council leaders did not attend university. However, as with many other elected positions, a larger proportion now attended university than did in 2014, when the figure was 50%. None of the local council leaders we found information for attended university outside of the UK. Only a small proportion (5%) attended Oxbridge, down by 3 percentage points since 2014. ## Local Government \| Local Government Ceos \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 5% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| -3% \| \| since 2014 \| \| 9% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| +1% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 28% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -18% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 62% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +19% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Local council chief executives manage the resources of the council to fulfil the goals set out by the council's leader. They also play a crucial role in providing leadership for council staff and, as with many of the other roles examined in this report, have the potential to play an important role in how diversity initiatives are implemented across the council as a whole. As with national civil servants, local council CEOs play an important role in advising local council leaders and running the day to day operations of the council. Since the last report, many councils have removed their CEO roles when restructuring their senior leadership team and instead replaced them with several roles with responsibility over only a specific part of the council's work. For example, Bristol City Council, a few years after the introduction of a directly elected mayor, replaced its CEO with three directors, each of whom report directly to the mayor. 101 However, the majority of councils retain a CEO or equivalent position. To allow comparisons to 2014, this is still the role examined here. 35% attended a Russell Group University \| -5% since 2014 86% attended University \| +4% since 2014 School and university backgrounds Only 9% of local council CEOs attended an independent school, broadly similar to the percentage who have done so in the country's population overall, and one of the lowest rates in this report. This makes council CEOs half as likely to have been to a private school than the electorally appointed council leaders. There has been a substantial drop in the proportion who attended a grammar school, falling from just under half (47%) to under a third (28%) since 2014. Correspondingly, the proportion who attended a comprehensive school has increased by a similar amount (19 percentage points) in the same period. A sizable proportion (86%) of local council CEOs attended university. However, similarly to local council leaders, only a small percentage went to Oxbridge (5%), a figure which has also fallen since 2014. Just over a third of council CEOs attended one of the Russell Group universities, which has fallen slightly (by 5 percentage points). ## Local Government \| Police Chiefs And Pccs School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Chief Officers are the top police officers in their force. The phrase refers to the chief constable in most areas, but also covers other roles such as the Commissioner, and Deputy and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police in London. They are responsible for leading police operations in their area. This section looks at chief constables and similar roles in England, Wales and Scotland. The work of chief constables is overseen by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), introduced by the coalition government in 2010 and first elected in 2012. PCCs have responsibility over how the police force is run in their area, including how the police budget is spent. 102 PCCs are selected by political parties, who put forward candidates to run for the position. Turnout in elections to select PCCs has been low, with an average of just 27% of the electorate voting for the positions in 2016. 103 The role of PCC exists in England in Wales but does not exist in the rest of the UK. Both chief constables and PCCs play important roles in shaping policing in their area, making who fills these positions an important issue for how policing is delivered and the force's relationship with their local community. Forces have been criticised extensively for not looking like the communities that they serve, especially regarding the representation of those from ethnic minority backgrounds; 104 who are more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds and live in areas where crime is more prevalent. 105 Research by the National Centre for Social Research identified that efforts to increase diversity across the police force, to ensure they look more like the communities they serve, have not made progress due to a lack of buy-in from senior officers. Chief constables and Commissioners can play pivotal roles in this effort. 106 School and university backgrounds Just over half (54%) of Chief Officers and PCCs attended comprehensive schools, a figure which has gone up substantially since 2014, increasing by 17 percentage points. Most of this rise has been due to a decrease in the proportion of those at the top of the police who went to grammar schools, which while still relatively high at 21%, has had a large decrease from 42% in 2014. Almost a quarter (24%) of Chief Officers and PCCs attended a private school, a proportion much higher than in the population overall. This figure has also increased slightly since 2014. Looking at the two groups separately, elected PCCs were found to be more likely to be privately educated than Chief Officers. Of PCCs, 29% were privately educated, 29% attended grammar schools, and only 40% attended comprehensives. In contrast, 19% of Chief Officers attended private schools, only 14% went to a grammar, and a much larger proportion (67%) attended a comprehensive school. Most Chief Officers and PCCs have been to university (83%), which has increased substantially since 2014 when only 62% had done so. Just under half have been to a Russell Group university and 13% went to Oxbridge. Attendance at Russell Group institutions has increased substantially, by 11 percentage points, since 2014. The proportion of Chief Officers and PCCs who attended Oxbridge has more than doubled, standing at just 6% in 2014. In contrast to their school backgrounds, Chief Officers were around twice as likely as PCCs to have attended Oxbridge or another Russell Group institution. ## Local Government \| Discussion Top roles in local government, particularly local government CEOs, are some of the most educationally representative of the sectors examined in this report. However, local government leaders, PCCs and Constables still look different to the populations they represent and serve. The positions in this section may better reflect the population overall because of their locations. Previous research has shown that people from lower socio-economic groups are less likely to move away ## "We Risk Local Government Becoming The Exclusive Preserve Of A Privileged Few Who Have The Luxury Of Time And Money To Spare" for university, and those who do are more likely to return to their home region after graduation. 107 Roles like those looked at in this section, which are spread across the country, with their work focused on the local communities in which they are based, are perhaps unsurprisingly more diverse than sectors largely based in London and other metropolitan areas. Issues remain however. There are several potential barriers for individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds looking to stand as representatives in local councils. Councillors do not receive a salary, but instead receive a 'member's allowance' , which should cover the time and expenses they have incurred doing council business, and anyone who holds additional responsibilities (for example, the Leader of the Council, portfolio holders, scrutiny chairs and opposition leaders) will also receive a responsibility allowance for these duties. However, concerns have been raised that the amount local councillors are given as an allowance may be a barrier for access. 108 Other potential financial barriers include councillors not being given enough money to cover care for dependents, and councillors having no right to renumeration during parental leave. These issues are likely to effect women especially, but particularly those women without financial resources to cover the cost themselves. 109 In 2014, councillors lost access to the Local Government Pension scheme, a move which the Local Government Association warned would "risk local government becoming the exclusive preserve of a privileged few who have the luxury of time and money to spare" . 110 Finally, although employers are legally required to allow councillors time off work to fulfil their duties (albeit unpaid), some councils have been criticised for holding meetings during working hours, a barrier for anyone who needs to hold down a job alongside their role as a councillor. 111 In this report, we have not been able to look at the wider group of councillors from which leaders are chosen. There are roughly 20,000 councillors in England and it is not clear whether council leaders are more or less representative than councillors as a whole. So questions remain as to where the barriers lie, and whether the major issues are in becoming a council leader or whether they instead lie in becoming a councillor in the first place. Further work to look at the backgrounds of councillors more generally would be of help in answering that question, along with extending the analysis across the rest of the UK. Generally, roles in local government are put under much less scrutiny than positions in national government. Local and PCC elections have low levels of turn-out and voter engagement. However, without data and attention, it is unlikely these positions will become more representative. If local political parties were to start to monitor the socio-economic background of their council and PCC candidates, they would be much better placed to identify issues and put in place initiatives to improve diversity. ## Case Study Tina Redshaw British Ambassador To Cambodia I grew up in Denton, a village in East Sussex. My dad was a salesman for a local carpet company, later moving up to become a manager there. My mum was a seamstress before becoming a housewife for most of my childhood. Neither of my parents had been to university themselves. I attended a local comprehensive school, before going to York University to study Language and Linguistics. My entry into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was not through the traditional route, which is applying to the graduate scheme straight or soon after leaving university. At the time, I just didn't consider the FCO as a place to work, I hadn't seen it as a possibility. Looking back, I don't think I would have been selected, I wasn't ready at the time, nor had I considered a civil service career. After university, I went to Nanjing, China on a British Council Scholarship. On return, I worked in the field of British Chinese relations, which included going back to China to work as Country Director for the organisation Voluntary Service Overseas. From there, I was promoted to become the Regional Director for Southeast Asia, and when in that role I saw that the FCO were advertising to recruit mid-career professionals with language skills and oversees experience. I applied and after a long recruitment process was offered a job. I think that the FCO is in the main open to people from all backgrounds, and throughout my career I have worked with a variety of people from different sorts of backgrounds. But at the very top there is still, in my view, amongst a small but vocal minority something of a sense of the 'old boy's network' , although this is improving as more women get into the top jobs. At leadership events within the FCO, a small group of men appear to think it's ok to take up all of the speaking space. You would hope they would be a bit more diplomatic at times! Ensuring the FCO is representative of the population in terms of gender and ethnicity is discussed frequently, and changes are being made, but I've rarely heard people discuss someone's educational background. I'm aware of fairly large numbers of Oxbridge graduates across the organisation but far less sighted about who might have attended private schools. I think that my background has helped in my professional life to keep me grounded. It has certainly helped me to relate to people from all backgrounds, both overseas and in UK. This is important for a job that is all about relationship building. When I joined the Foreign Office, it was the first time the organisation had ever recruited people mid-career, and the cohort who joined the FCO with me was very mixed. I think that having the opportunity to move into an organisation like the FCO part the way through your career is definitely important for ensuring diversity. Now, there aren't the same opportunities for mid-career professions to enter the FCO in the way that I did, and competition for places on their graduate scheme is as hot now as it always has been. ## The Educational Pathways Of Council Leaders In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by local government leaders, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The pathways of local government leaders look substantially different to other categories in the report. The biggest group is formed of those who ended their education after comprehensive school (23%). One in five (19%) attended a comprehensive followed by a non-Russell Group university, similar to politicians in Westminster, with both sets of politicians showing much higher numbers from this group than other elite professions. Just 2% came from independent schools and Oxbridge, the most common route among the elite as a whole. Grammar school alumni attending other Russell Group universities, or attending no university at all (both 11%) were also common pathways into local government leadership. ## Section At A Glance Introduction Across several of the sections examined in this report, women are substantially underrepresented. Women make up only 5% of FTSE 350 CEOs, 8% of tech firm CEOS, 16% of local government leaders, 24% of senior judges, 26% of permanent secretaries and 35% of top diplomats; the gender composition of most 'elite' professions in the UK does not match the population overall. Many individual women, despite a large amount of talent and hard work, are not able to reach the top of their professions at the same rate as their equally qualified male counterparts. This can have serious consequences for women more generally, as issues that affect women specifically can often be overlooked by decision makers at the top of the sectors examined here, including politicians, business leaders and those working in the media. Importantly, the limits that women experience due to their gender do not act in isolation but can also intersect with the challenges and obstacles which come from other parts of their identity, including socio-economic background. Indeed, women from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to move up the social ladder, while men are more likely to remain at the top. 112 And if women do get to the top, those from less advantaged backgrounds face a double pay gap, both for their gender, and for their socio-economic background. In the top professions, the gender pay gap is around £10,000 year, and the socio-economic pay gap is £6,400. However, the pay gap in these professions between the most privileged men and the least privileged women is a huge £18,900, over £2,000 more than the two gaps added together. 113 Previous research has also shown that men experience a direct advantage from being privately educated, in the form of increased earnings, above and beyond that explained by their higher educational attainment alone when compared to their comprehensively educated counterparts. The same is not however true for women, who if privately educated do not receive the same additional non-qualification related earnings boost.114 Clearly, gender and socio-economic background together play an important role in someone's ability to reach the top. It is important that the effort to improve social mobility is as inclusive as possible. Given that gender and socio-economic background serve as a double disadvantage, it is vital we look at ways to tackle both issues in combination. This section looks at the educational background of women in the top professions in two ways. First, by looking specifically at the women in many of the other top professions featured elsewhere in this report. Secondly, by looking at a group of the UK's most influential female leaders. Women in the top professions 71 Influential female leaders 72 Discussion 73 The Educational Pathways of Influential Women 74 ## Women \| Women In The Top Professions Many of the professions we have looked at in this report have very low levels of female representation. In many cases, including tech firms, FTSE 350 CEOs and popular musicians, there are so few women that we cannot robustly look at breakdowns by gender and educational background. For the professions where such breakdowns are possible, the picture in terms of schooling is not straightforward. In several professions, men at the top of the sector are more likely to be privately educated than their female counterparts. Male senior judges are 19 percentage points more likely to have attended a private school than their female counterparts, male newspaper columnists 10 percentage points and male MPs 8 percentage points more likely. Conversely, in other professions women are more likely to be privately educated. Female diplomats are 7 percentage points more likely to be privately educated than their male counterparts, and in the House of Lords, Baronesses are 6 percentage points ## Independent Schools Oxbridge more likely to have been to private school than Lords. However, it should be noted that where women are more likely to have attended an independent school, the gaps are not as large as those seen in some of the professions where men are more likely. Given this mixed picture, it is difficult to discern whether such patterns are meaningful, or statistical noise. The picture at university level is clearer. Across a variety of the professions examined in this report, women are less likely to have attended Oxbridge than their male counterparts. Female judges are 25 percentage points less likely to have attended Oxbridge than male judges, Baronesses 21 percentage points less likely than Lords, female newspaper columnists and diplomats 17 percentage points less and female MPs 6 percentage points less likely to have attended Oxbridge. Similarly, although local government leaders have a very low rate of Oxbridge attendance, women in these roles are still half as likely (3% vs 6%) to have attended Oxbridge than men in the same positions. ## Women \| Influential Female Leaders School attendance University attendance The 2014 edition of Elitist Britain looked at the educational background of women included in the BBC's Woman's Hour 2013 woman's power list, which included leading women from a wide range of sectors. There is unfortunately no equivalent list of influential women now available, as the Women's Hour list changes in scope and purpose from year to year. Instead, this section looks at a similar list put together by Harper's Bazaar, featuring the UK's 150 most influential female leaders across a range of sectors, very similar to those looked at in 2014. This list also has some crossover with women in other sections of this report. School and university background Almost half of the group of influential women examined in this report attended an independent school (43%), with little change since 2014. This is close to the average for all professions across this report, but over six times the population at large. Although it should be kept in mind that differences in this section may be due to changes in methodology since 2014, the proportion of influential women who attended grammar school has, as with many of the other groups looked at in this report, decreased in that time from 20% to 10%. However, the reduction in grammar school attendance has not, as was the case in many other sections of this report, been accompanied by an increase in women educated at comprehensive schools. The proportion who went to a comprehensive is just 23%. The majority of influential women included in this report went to university (87%). The 2019 list has more members educated abroad than the 2014 list however, 21% in 2019, compared to 10% in the previous list. Almost a quarter (23%) of the influential women in this section went to Oxbridge, a figure that has increased slightly since 2014, despite the increased proportion having studied internationally. The proportion who went to a Russell Group university has however decreased, from 60% in 2014 to 41% now. Among those educated domestically, 17% of influential women took the independent school to Oxbridge pathway, less than many other sectors, with substantial proportions of those from independent schools attending non-Russell Group universities, or no university at all. 11% came from a comprehensive and non-Russell Group background. ## Women \| Discussion Women are under-represented across the top professions examined in this report. While barriers that women face in the workplace have been examined in detail in a large body of literature, much less work has been done on the interaction between gender and socio-economic background. For the women who do make it to the top, their journeys do not always look like the men who have done the same. The starkest difference in many sectors is fewer women having attended Oxbridge compared to their male counterparts. Although Oxford and Cambridge both started admitting women as full members in the 1920s, women made up only 10% of students at Cambridge and 15% at Oxford in the mid- 1950s. This rose only gradually and still stood at just 19% ## "Barriers Include The High Costs Of Childcare And The Interaction Of Both Sexist As Well As Classist Attitudes Around Professional Success And Leadership." at Oxford and 13% at Cambridge in the 1970s, around 40% at both in the 1990s, and eventually reached parity in the early 2000s. 115 This lack of access to the prestige and connections gained by those attending Oxbridge will have no doubt influenced some of the disparities seen here, and this change just may not yet have fed through to the top of these professions. There are other factors which may differ between senior men and women. For example, women may be newer entrants to these roles, as gender diversity has improved, and therefore be younger on average than their male counterparts; or alternatively some may take longer to reach these roles due to career breaks, and therefore be older. Importantly, evidence from the US suggests that the impact of socio-economic background and gender is not limited to the elite professions, but occurs at all levels; finding that women are at a higher risk of being downwardly mobile than men across the income spectrum, and that women find it harder to escape from the bottom income group if they are born to parents in that group. While only 35% of men born to parents in this bracket remain there themselves, 47% of women do. 116 Clearly, more work is needed to look in detail at 117 the ways in which socio-economic background and gender can interact to hold a woman back on her way to the top. Potential issues include the high costs of childcare and the interaction of both sexist as well as classist attitudes and expectations around professional success and leadership. Tackling these issues may help to break down barriers for women's progression in the professions. Childcare specifically is a challenge, not just because women tend to shoulder most of the childcare in families, but it is a particular issue for single parents (who are more likely to be women) with only one income to cover these costs while either working or in training. Looking in more detail at training at all levels, apprenticeships are an important vehicle for social mobility, but women face some specific challenges in accessing them. Research carried out by the Young Women's Trust found that apprentices with children are more likely to report financial difficulties, and that many report experiencing maternity discrimination during their apprenticeships. 118 At all levels, women face potential barriers where challenges due to their gender and economic background converge. Many of the industry specific challenges facing individuals discussed in other chapters are in many cases likely to be magnified for women. For example, in the politics section we discussed the high personal cost of standing as an MP, including lost earnings and the cost of travel to attend events. However, for many women this cost is likely to be higher, due to the need to pay for childcare. Women are more likely to be in low paid work with inflexible hours, additional issues that make it harder to stand as a candidate because of the interaction of their gender and socio-economic background. Additionally, work by the Fawcett Society, a gender equality charity, has found that female MPs are more likely to have had multiple roles typically associated with the professional path to become an MP than men, perhaps to help them to form the networks needed to stand, which they are less likely to have than men. 119 As discussed earlier in this report, access to these roles often requires unpaid work in an MPs' office to secure. If women rely on this professional route into politics more often, and there are financial barriers to access this route, it's likely to have a larger impact on women from lower socio-economic backgrounds. ## The Educational Pathways Of Influential Women In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by influential women educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The group of influential female leaders were largely typical of the elite group overall. 17% had found success through the independent school to Oxbridge pathway, 30% including other Russell Group institutions. 7% attended a comprehensive followed by Oxbridge. One major feature is the number of those privately educated who did not attend university (13%). More comprehensively educated women in the influential group had come through non- Russell Group universities (11% of the total) than through the Russell Group. ## 8. Creative Industries Introduction The next section looks at the creative industries, including the popstars with the highest selling and most downloaded and streamed albums, and the richest stars across TV, film and music. These roles are not just well remunerated, but also highly desirable; many young people dream of becoming a popstar or an actor. As with all the professions covered in this report, such dreams of achieving artistic success should not be dependent on the family background you are born into. The creative arts also play an important role in shaping the society we all live in. Art can play a vital role in providing a platform for exploring ideas and experiences from across society. Representation and diversity in the arts is thus crucial in terms of the impact and connection that the visual representation of diversity can have on under-represented audiences, particularly those of a young age. But also what stories are told, and whose experiences are reflected, be it through television, cinema, music or digital streaming, has substantial impact on the cultural and social life of a country. Outside of art itself, many top stars also use their fame to raise awareness of social issues, such as the work that Emma Watson has done on gender equality,120 Idris Elba on youth crime121 or Michael Sheen on access to the arts.122 However, access across the creative industries is not equal for all. Just 13% of those working in publishing, 12% of those in film, TV and radio, and 18% in music, performing and visual arts come from working class origins.123 77 Popstars TV, film and music 78 Discussion 79 The Educational Pathways in TV, Film and Music 80 ## Creative Industries \| Popstars This section looks at solo artists and band members who have had a UK top 40 album over the last four years. Popularity here is determined by album sales, downloads and streams, and we have looked only at artists who are either from the UK or are primarily based here. School and university background The proportion of popular musicians examined here who attended a private school is relatively small compared to many of the other sections examined in this report, at 20%. However, this is still almost three times the proportion of the general population who attended a fee-paying school. A relatively large proportion attended a comprehensive school (74%). Very few of the artists examined here went to a grammar school, which is likely in large part to reflect the relatively young ages of most big name acts in popular music. Most of the artists included here are in their 20s or 30s, so will have all attended school after grammar schools were abolished in most parts of the UK. These figures have all remained steady since the previous edition of Elitist Britain. Most popular musicians in our list did not attend university; just under a third attended (29%). This figure has dropped in the last five years, falling by 9 percentage points. Many musicians become famous at a relatively young age or spend a great amount of time in their early adulthood pursuing their career, which may explain why such a large proportion did not attend university. Given the small numbers of these musicians going to university, the proportion who attended the Russell Group (17%) and Oxbridge (2%) are also relatively low. In contrast to many other sectors, the most common educational pathway was comprehensive attendance followed by no university (65%). ## Creative Industries \| Tv, Film And Music \| School attendance \| \|----------------------\| \| 6% \| \| \| \| attended \| \| Oxbridge \| \| \| \| \| -5% \| \| since 2014 \| \| 38% \| \| \| \| attended an \| \| Independent school \| \| -6% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 18% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Grammar school \| \| \| \| -10% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| \| 43% \| \| \| \| attended a \| \| Comprehensive school \| \| +18% \| \| \| \| since 2014 \| Next, we look at the richest individuals in TV, film and music, as determined by the Sunday Times Rich List. Many of those included here will have been in their industry for a long time, so this reflects more established stars in these fields, and is less likely to change substantially over time. However, there are a mix of ages included here, with some crossover with currently popular artists in our top album artists section. School and university background A large proportion of the country's richest musicians, film and television stars were privately educated (38%), although this figure has gone down by 6 percentage points since the last edition of Elitist Britain. There has also been a fall in the proportion who attended grammar school, which at just under a fifth has fallen by 10 percentage points. As the proportion attending independent and grammar schools has reduced, 24% attended a Russell Group University \| -7% since 2014 correspondingly the proportion who attended a comprehensive had gone up, now at just under half (43%), but still very different to the population at large. The richest musicians were less likely to have attended an independent school than those who made their riches through TV and film (30% compared to 44%) and more likely to have attended a comprehensive (46% compared to 40%). A large proportion of the richest people in music, TV and film did not attend university (58%), a figure which has actually increased by 10 percentage points since the 2014 report, in contrast to most other roles analysed in this report. Only a small proportion (6%) attended Oxbridge, a figure which has almost halved in the same time period. Those who made their riches through TV and film were much more likely to have attended Oxbridge (9%) than those who did so through music (3%). ## Creative Industries \| Discussion While we have only taken a small snapshot of the creative arts in this report, research by others has shown the impact of socio-economic background across these industries. Previous work by the Sutton Trust found that 67% of British Oscar winners and 42% of British BAFTA winners attended an independent school, 124 125 and research has found that individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds have been found to be over-represented across the arts, including in film, TV, radio, music, performance, visual arts and publishing. Previous research by the Sutton Trust has found that unpaid internships are particularly common in the arts (including placements in theatre, TV, film, fashion and music) compared to other sectors, and it is common for interns in this sector to complete several internships, with 32% of interns having completed three or more. Working class young people were also found to be less likely to carry out internships in this sector, when compared to people from more affluent backgrounds. 126 This culture of unpaid work acts as a substantial barrier to those without the resources to subsidise their career. "Working class actors report being typecast into certain parts and are not able to sustain the long periods of unemployment or free work required." Looking at acting specifically, there are many potential access issues throughout an aspiring actor's journey to the top. At secondary school level, concerns have been raised about the recent decline in the study of creative arts at GCSE and A-Level. Many have linked this trend to the narrowing of the curriculum at school, alongside school funding pressures. There have been impacts both on facilities within schools and opportunities such as theatre trips, where costs are a factor, especially if students live far away from a major cultural centre. After school, the major routes into the profession for top actors are usually either to attend Oxbridge or a top drama school. 127 We have spoken elsewhere in this report about access issues specific to Oxbridge, and concerns have also been raised about the application process for top drama schools such as RADA and LAMDA. Many of these charge application fees of around £50 each to apply (though some offer fee waivers to those from disadvantaged backgrounds), and there is no centralised application process as there are for undergraduate courses at university. Additionally, less scrutiny is put on who gains a place at these institutions. While there is extensive data available for the background of university students through UCAS, the same is not true for students at top drama schools. 128 Once an aspiring actor enters the profession, barriers for individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds persist. Working class actors report being typecast into certain parts and are not able to sustain the long periods of unemployment or free work required on the way to the top. 129 Furthermore, many actors from lower socio-economic backgrounds who aren't based in London struggle to afford the high cost of attending auditions which are mostly held in the capital, even if the filming itself is happening elsewhere in the UK. 130 While popular music was not as socially exclusive as film and TV; popular musicians, especially those who have made the most money from their work, are still disproportionately from advantaged groups. Concerns have been raised about music learning in school, with recent research showing many of the most disadvantaged areas of the country have little in the way of music provision at A level. 131 The Director of the Royal College of Music, Prof Colin Lawson, has described "a crisis in music education. The inequality in provision is now deep within the school system … The conservatoire sector cannot recruit from the greatest pool of talent and, ultimately, the music profession will lose out." Despite isolated successes such as the BRIT school, a state school in Croydon which is one of only a small number of free to attend specialist performing arts schools in the country, barriers in many schools remain. For example, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to continue learning to play an instrument after they have started, because of cost barriers. 132 Looking at access to popular music is however complex, as pop stars can come through multiple routes, and often do not have any formal training. Several of the bands featured in the top album list here were formed through reality shows such as the X Factor. These shows provide such aspiring young musicians with mentoring and access to industry insiders, which can help to break down access gaps, but by its nature, such opportunities are only available to a handful of winners. Technological changes have made music production more accessible, through digital tools that be used at home rather than requiring expensive studio recording time, though cost barriers remain. Furthermore, with reduced budgets across the music industry, the finances of an early career musician have potentially become more precarious, giving an advantage to those who can fund themselves to take the risks required for success. This unpredictability of income across the creative arts is one of the main barriers to more equitable pathways to success. ## The Educational Pathways In Tv, Film And Music In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by the wealthiest in TV, film and music, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The educational pathways of the wealthiest actors and musicians in Britain are unusual compared to many other professions in the elite. Almost a third (31%) attended a comprehensive school and did not attend university. A further 19% were privately educated and did not attend university. Non-graduates in fact make up more than half of the group as a whole. Small numbers attended independent schools and Oxbridge (6%), along with comprehensive school followed by a Russell Group university (6%). Section at a Glance ## 9. Sport Attended Independent School On average 24% attended independent schools ## Introduction The relationship between sport, education and social class in Britain is a complex, and sometimes fraught one. It also differs substantially across sports. Pathways to elite level participation in some sports include school or university level participation, whereas in others it is largely independent of educational structures. Men's football, for example, has long been a game where professional players leave education as soon as possible during their school years, and the pathways to professionalisation are largely through the club and league structures. However, many other sports, particularly those with a history of amateur participation, include school or university competition as a step on the ladder to success. Access to facilities is a crucial element of this, with many sports which require expensive equipment or special facilities resulting in a more socially exclusive participant base, including rowing, sailing and equestrian sports. Independent schools frequently have the funding to invest heavily in such facilities, and often boast high quality indoor and outdoor facilities in cricket, rugby, hockey and football. In fact, across a variety of school sports, it has been found that 53% of national school competitions were won by state schools and 46% by independent schools, despite 86% of competing schools coming from the state sector.133 As well as the health benefits of regular sport, participation in such activities is frequently hailed as beneficial for the development of teamwork, leadership and other essential life skills.134 However, participation in sporting activity is associated with higher socio-economic status. In fact, the gap in sporting participation between high and low socio-economic groups actually grew in the ten years prior to 2016.135 Education - and specifically the type of school you attend - plays a significant role in this gap, and this is reflected at the highest levels of sport. The Sutton Trust has regularly highlighted the levels of privately educated athletes among Team GB's Olympians,136 and the 2014 edition of Elitist Britain looked at the school backgrounds of top players in men's Football, Rugby Union and Cricket, highlighted as the top three team sports for participation across the country.137 Here, those sports are compared again, with women's national teams included for the first time. \| 83 \| \|-------------\| \| Rugby (Men) \| Olympic Medallists (Rio 2016) 84 86 Football (Women) Discussion 84 87 Rugby (Women) 85 88 Case study - Maggie Alphonsi MBE, Former England Rugby player and current sports broadcaster ## Sport \| Men'S Sport Football Cricket School Attendance Across the English, Scottish and Welsh national football teams, the vast majority of players had attended a comprehensive school: 89%, with just 5% attending independent schools. In England, just 4% of internationals attended independent schools, down substantially from 13% in 2014, though of course a small change in individuals can make big differences. There were minor differences between the three nations, primarily with England having a slightly lower comprehensive rate (82%), largely due to attendance at grammar schools (11%). In Scotland and Wales, comprehensive rates were 94%. As a result of the established routes into the men's ## Sport \| Rugby (Men) School Attendance Attended international schools professional game - where talented youngsters are fast-tracked through club academy programmes - unsurprisingly, no players had attended university. Cricket had the highest levels of privately educated internationals in the three team sports looked at, with 43% of the English cricket team attending a feepaying school. This was actually up substantially from 33% in 2014, though predominantly at the expense of those who had attended schools abroad. 43% went to comprehensives, similar to 2014. University attendance was much lower than rugby, at 9%. In contrast, 37% of British rugby union internationals had attended fee-paying schools, similar to 2014, while 47% went to comprehensives. This however obscures substantial differences across the three nations. England and Scotland had 44% and 49% respectively of players attending independent schools. England also has a substantial proportion of grammar school attendees (19%), with just 25% attending state comprehensives. In contrast, 81% of ## Sport \| Football (Women) The educational dynamics of women's sport are often extremely different to men's. Differences in school backgrounds reflect the geographical and cultural background of the communities the sports draw from, but university attendance in particular reflects the nature of the sport itself, the requirements to compete, and the prospects of long term paid employment in the sport. The smaller sizes of the professional ranks and lower levels of financial remuneration mean that it makes sense for women's players to attain Welsh internationals had attended comprehensives, and 16% independent schools. Scotland lay in between with 37% attending state secondaries. Despite the professionalisation of rugby since the mid-nineties, substantial numbers of players still attend university, with many facilitating the development of players. 38% of rugby internationals attended university, with a quarter of those attending Russell Group institutions. good educational qualifications where possible. The proportion of women football internationals having attended comprehensives is actually slightly higher than men, at 94%. It is also the norm to have attended university, with universities providing facilities and developing grounds for players to grow. In fact, 80% of women's football internationals attended a higher education institution, though only a small number attended a Russell Group university. ## Sport \| Rugby (Women) Female rugby union internationals also showed substantially different educational patterns than men, with 82% attending comprehensive schools, 35 percentage points more than their male counterparts, and just 13% attending independent ## Sport \| Cricket (Women) Female cricketers had the lowest rate of comprehensive attendance, at just half (50%), with 35% attending fee-paying schools and 15% grammars. Again, university attendance was very high at 82%, with 18% attending Russell Group institutions. schools. University attendance was similar with female footballers, at 79%, and twice as high as the men's internationals. A substantial proportion attended Russell Group universities (29%). ## Sport \| Olympic Medallists (Rio 2016) School Attendance The Sutton Trust has been looking at the educational backgrounds of Team GB Olympic medallists since the London 2012 games. In 2012, 35% of British medallists had attended an independent school. By 2016 however, this had reduced to 31%. The proportion attending a comprehensive school rose from 54% to 59% in the 4 years between the London and Rio games. The Olympic Games include a vast array of sporting disciplines, many of which have different cultures, facility requirements and social patterns of participation. There are some Olympic sports that remain dominated by the privately educated. For instance over half (52%) of medal winning rowers attended fee-paying schools in 2016, along with 50% of the winning women's hockey team. ## Sport \| Discussion There are substantial differences in the education backgrounds of top athletes across the three team sports. Footballers have the lowest rates of privately educated participants across the entire study of Britain's elite, and in fact is the only profession where the privately educated are under-represented among the groups studied. Rugby union and cricket remain sports with high proportions of independently educated participants, although this is less so the case for female when compared to male players. The reasons for such differences across sports are complex, reflecting historical patterns of social class associations, along with school cultures and access to high quality facilities. The differences between men's and women's teams are instructive about the differing opportunities for financial reward in many of the nation's most popular sports, and the differing cultures within these sports. For example, the England team at the 2019 Women's Football World Cup is the first fully professional team the country has ever had, and the Scottish team still features many part-time players. 138 ## "An Old Etonian Has Won A Medal In 'Sitting Down' Sports At Every Olympic Games Since 1992." School backgrounds were found here to be largely comparable between male and female footballers, reflecting similar social groups playing the game at grassroots level. However, high university attendance amongst women's internationals is likely due to the lower levels of professionalisation and financial compensation in women's sport. Universities can both act as a base to further a woman's playing career (with many attending sports focused universities such as Loughborough) but also to open up career options outside of playing the game professionally. While the rewards for success in men's football are much greater, they are encouraged and incentivised in large numbers to leave education at an early age, and for the many who won't make the grade, they are left with few qualifications. Complexities are also seen in Olympic sport. Team GB have been frequently lauded for their success at 'sitting down sports' , 139 including rowing, cycling, sailing and equestrianism. These all involve specialised and frequently expensive equipment and facilities, and are sports historically associated with higher social classes. The role of independent schools in many such sports is reflected in the fact that an Old Etonian has won a medal in these sports at every Olympic Games since 1992. Funding has been increasingly targeted at such sports, on the basis that they offer the best chance of medals, and this approach has achieved substantial international success. But questions have been raised about whether focusing on boosting Britain's comparative advantage in terms of medals has come at the expense of funding more widely played and accessible sports such as basketball. 140 An extensive report conducted for Ofsted in 2014 showed the education and social class influences on participation in a wide variety of sports. It showed that rates of free school meal eligibility among international athletes were almost a third lower than in the wider population. 141 This link is reflected at all levels, with socio-economic background and education levels shown to be significantly associated with regular sporting activity. 142 The benefits of sporting participation mean that this association is of substantial concern, particularly in light of the questionable sports participation and public health legacy of the London 2012 games. 143 The impact of local authority funding cuts on sporting facilities, including the selling off of publicly accessible playing fields, has also been identified as limiting access to sport. 144 Efforts to combat these trends are ongoing, however. In 2018 Sport England launched a fund aimed at 'Tackling Inactivity and Economic Disadvantage' , with a number of pilot schemes funded as part of an evidence-based approach to expansion, a commitment reiterated by their incoming CEO earlier this year. 145 Britain is a country obsessed by sport, and events such as the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham in 2022 can bring disparate elements of society together in a common experience. Sport is of great value, both individually and to society as a whole, but more needs to be done to ensure it is genuinely accessible to all. ## Case Study Maggie Alphonsi Mbe Former England Rugby Player And Current Sports Broadcaster I was born in Lewisham in South London, and then moved to Edmonton in North London, which is where I spent most of my childhood. I grew up on a council estate with my mum, who was a single parent, and went to school at my local comprehensive. I first started playing rugby after a conversation with one of my teachers, who arrived at school with a black eye after a game. At the time, I was having a lot of problems at school, I had too much energy, and I wasn't focused on studying. My teacher, who played rugby for Wales, suggested I tried putting my energy into the sport instead. Without that conversation and without that teacher, my life would have been very different. As a girl who was black from a football-mad council estate, there just weren't very many people like me at the top of rugby, or at the top of any of the sports that I saw. But when I started playing rugby, and found that I was good at it, I discovered that my background didn't matter. The sport completely changed my life. Following my retirement from professional rugby, I moved into the world of media, and now work as a sports broadcaster and keynote speaker. It has been challenging to try to change people's perceptions around rugby union, as it's often thought of as a male sport, and not as a game that women play. When I first started in my current role, I felt I had to convince people that I was capable of talking about the sport. I feel very proud of my progression, but I am very aware that my success has been achieved in spite of the system, not because of it. I am pleased that, through my actions, I have opened up the door for other women and people from similar backgrounds to mine to be able to follow in my footsteps. Throughout my career, I have always tried to be a good role model for others. I think that my background gives me a different perspective, which appeals to those who have come from a similar background who would not initially have been interested in rugby. While things have become easier than when I first started out, I think it's still a challenge for someone like me to get to where I have today. ## Conclusions When Prime Minister Theresa May first entered Number 10, she promised to end several of the 'burning injustices' in British society, including the fact that "if you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately." 146 However, those who were privately educated remain over-represented in almost all of the professions examined in this report - a stark demonstration of the work that needs to be done to reverse decades of inequality. University also still plays a substantial role in someone's access to the elite, with those in top jobs more likely to have attended a Russell Group university, with Oxbridge in particular supplying large numbers of those in top positions. Opportunities to reach the most sought-after and well-paid positions in Britain are characterised by vast inequalities, with the educational backgrounds of Britain's 'elites' very different to the population as a whole. Given this disparity, socio-economic diversity should be a key mission across the whole of British society. While there has been a welcome drive to increase the numbers of women and individuals from ethnic minorities in top roles (although with limited success), the same focus has not been given to other issues of disadvantage, including someone's social and economic background. But doing so is vital, both for equality of opportunity, and because of the power and influence that these roles hold. The Equality Act 2010, in the 'socio-economic duty' , provides a powerful tool to demonstrate a nationwide commitment to such a mission, but, in most of the UK, remains unenacted in legislation. While many other disadvantaged groups have legal protections under the Equality Act, socio-economic background is not currently a protected characteristic. Section 1 includes a duty on government and public bodies to have due regard for reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. While this is different to making socioeconomic background a protected characteristic per se, multiple governments have refused to enact this duty in law, despite calls from civil society organisations. 147 Last year, the socio-economic duty was enacted in Scotland, in the form of the Fairer Scotland Duty, 148 but it has not been put in place in the rest of the UK. This should be rectified, as a powerful symbol of a renewed commitment to social mobility. The workplace One major issue that enacting the 'socio-economic duty' would help to address is the collection and monitoring of data. This report has used education as a means to examine socio-economic background. However, to fully understand the barriers to socioeconomic diversity in Britain's elites, we need more comprehensive data, and this data needs to be collected at every part of the pipeline, so that we can identify how and where access and progression issues arise. Only organisations themselves, with full access to their workforce, can make this happen, by collecting data on socio-economic diversity in the same way they are currently doing for ethnicity and gender. Enacting the socio-economic duty would provide a clear mandate for emphasising the importance of socio-economic background, alongside age, sex, race, religion and disability. Compelling public bodies to collect and publish socio-economic data would both catalyse real change within government bodies, whilst also pushing other organisations to take action on this issue. Nonetheless, even without a change in legislation, employers have the opportunity to lead the way and develop themselves as champions of social mobility in this regard. Measuring socio-economic background is more complex than some other characteristics, which may help to explain why this issue has had less traction than other dimensions of diversity. However, the government has now published comprehensive guidance on how best to measure socio-economic diversity in the workforce, including collecting data on parental occupation, type of schooling, free school meal eligibility and parental experience of higher education. 149 Many large organisations, including the Civil Service and the BBC, have already started to collect this data. Now that a consensus on how to measure socio-economic diversity is emerging, it's time for other organisations to follow their lead. While we need a much greater understanding of access issues in the professions, there are changes we already know have the potential to open up opportunity, including ensuring that financial barriers to entering the professions are tackled. This includes ending unpaid internships, which remain an expectation for recent graduates across many of the professions we have examined here, and are often concentrated in London and the South East, making them inaccessible to many. In most cases, these unpaid placements, which effectively treat the intern as a worker, are illegal under current minimum wage law. However, research by the Sutton Trust has found there is a substantial amount of confusion on the law as it stands. We know that young people don't understand their rights to be paid, and that employers are either unknowingly or deliberately taking advantage of this legal grey area to avoid paying their interns. The Sutton Trust has thus advocated for the law around unpaid internships to be tightened, by banning all unpaid internships over four weeks in length. Internships are also too often not advertised, and instead given out through informal networks, which shuts out young people without connections. All internships should be openly advertised to ensure they are accessible to all. 150 Companies and organisations should also take steps to ensure that their recruitment practices are fair and transparent. One such step is to put in place 'contextual recruitment' , in which organisations take into account the circumstances in which a candidate's academic achievements at school and university have been achieved, for example by looking at a student's A level grades in the context of the school they attended, or a lack of financial resources at home. Several contextual recruitment tools are now available, provided by organisations including Rare Recruitment, PiC and upReach, using different indicators and weightings of social background. 151 Organisations should also make sure their graduate recruitment is targeted at a wide range of universities, not focused solely on the Russell Group, to encourage applications from talented young people in other parts of the education sector, given the inequalities in access that exist. Professions should also consider the benefits of offering high quality apprenticeship routes for young people which do not require traditional university attendance and provide the chance to 'earn while you learn' . Once in a professional role, organisations also need to look honestly at where there are barriers to progression for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Too often traits and characteristics which are not linked to performance (for example, the concept of 'polish' , dressing in the 'right' way, and having an air of 'gravitas') are taken as signs of someone being worthy of progression or promotion, rather than looking at competencies necessary for their role. Frank conversations are needed which include staff at all levels of seniority about how any organisation or sector recognises 'talent' or 'merit' . It is also important that organisations formalise processes around hiring, promotion and progression wherever possible. This reduces the risk of senior staff bypassing the system to boost the careers of people that they have affinity with; which can often be formed based on social and cultural similarities rather than on merit. 152 ## Education The other vital element underlying the patterns seen in this report is education. The most prestigious universities open doors to many graduate employment opportunities, but access to them is heavily shaped by socio-economic background. As with employers, universities should also contextualise the previous attainment of students to reflect the circumstances in which those grades were achieved. While it is promising that some Russell Group universities have started to consider candidates' background in the application process, and a small number have made significant grade reductions, much greater change is needed. Universities should consider carefully what grades are necessary to complete their course, rather than setting their offers at the highest point they can based on competition for places. Students admitted contextually should also be given support to help them to thrive once they arrive on campus. 153 Looking to the school system, we know that high quality teaching is the single most important factor for the attainment of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, previous Sutton Trust research has found that more experienced teachers are less likely to work in more disadvantaged schools, 154 and schools with higher proportions of students on free school meals have lower proportions of specialist science 155 and maths teachers. 156 Schools with high proportions of disadvantaged young people are also less likely to offer extra-curricular activities, which can help to build essential life skills like confidence and motivation. 157 Provision of careers advice is also often of lower quality in schools in deprived areas, and needs to be improved, so that all students have access to high quality information and advice on the options open to them. Current research suggests 158 careers education is best when it is individualised and starts early, beginning in primary school, and continuing throughout a student's time in education. Tackling social segregation in schooling has the potential to open up opportunities for disadvantaged young people. Specific focus should be paid to broadening access to high performing comprehensive and grammar schools, both of which are highly socially selective. These schools should ensure that they prioritise the admission of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in their admissions processes. More socio-economically balanced intakes are vital to a healthy state school system, in contrast with the current situation where the socio-economic background of the school intake remains one of the biggest predictors of 'school success' . With more mixed intakes across all schools, this could even out performance, and help to improve standards at schools overall. Ultimately it is also vital that the state school system is resourced properly to provide an education of the highest standard for the largest share of young people. Recent years have seen substantial levels of cuts to teaching staff and facilities at schools across the country. 159 This endangers schools' ability to give their pupils the best start in life, particularly when competing with the levels of resource available to those attending private schools, with access to high quality extracurricular activities. Independent schools themselves however are also in need of reform. Given the advantages they confer to their pupils, opening independent schools up to pupils from a wider range of backgrounds is crucial. While this could be done in part by increasing the number of full, means-tested bursaries on offer in independent schools, the Sutton Trust believes its Open Access scheme, 160 whereby all places at independent day schools are awarded on merit, would constitute a step change in the opportunities open to promising pupils from less well-off backgrounds. The trends highlighted in this report are the product of a complex interplay of factors, including what happens in education, but also what happens at home. In this report we have highlighted some of the barriers that could be tackled and have begun to suggest some of the policy remedies that we believe will begin to open up opportunity more widely. Action will certainly be needed on a number of fronts and over many years. But that should not be a recipe for inaction. Schools, universities, employers and the government all have a role to play in ensuring socioeconomic background is not a barrier to success. It is vital to a healthy society that opportunities are not restricted to a lucky few, and those at the top of society are not drawn from groups radically different to the rest of society as a whole. This report has painted a picture of country where social class continues to play a strong role in success, across a wide variety of professions and fields. Recognising Britain's social mobility problem is a start, but fixing it will be key to the future of the country. ## Case Study Chris Rumfitt Pr Firm Ceo I grew up in Council house in a large family on an estate in Jersey. My parents each had children from previous marriages, and at times there were nine of us sharing a four-bedroom house. In my bedroom we sometimes squeezed three beds. My dad was a postman, and my mum worked part-time on the check-out in the local supermarket. I never conceived of us as 'poor' at the time; but on reflection I guess we were. I remember times when we could not afford fresh milk, and used to use powdered milk until my Dad next got paid. I always did well at school and my parents did a brilliant job in encouraging that. I went to my local primary and then local comprehensive schools. Then at 14 I transferred to my local 14-18 grammar school. For the first time, I was in an environment when going to university became the expectation and I followed that path. But still then, I wasn't pushed as far as I might have been. I got 3 A's in my A-levels but nobody at all ever suggested I apply to Oxbridge. I went to Hull and had a great time, but in hindsight why did my school not suggest I apply higher in my university choices given my grades? I guess kids from my school didn't go to Oxbridge. I do not feel my profession is consciously elitist, but in practice, yes. A huge proportion of people went to private schools for instance. Sadly, things have got worse since I started out. I think the first reason for this is tuition fees. Whilst I get the rational case for fees, I just cannot believe my parents would have encouraged me in the same way if they had thought I was going to run into tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They could never have conceived of such a sum. An ever bigger reason, though, is housing costs. When I moved to London in 1998 you could get a shared flat in zone 3 for about £300 a month. Today, it is probably four times that sum. How would I have moved to London and made my way with rents at today's levels? I believe the third reason is unpaid internships. The preponderance of such internships as the entry level into many sectors, and the fact so many are secured by who their parents know rather than merit. I pay all my interns London Living Wage, but I am conscious that is not the entirety of the solution. It is access to them in the first place. My advice to working class kids would be to always remember that if you are at the same level as others from more privileged backgrounds, it probably means you are better than them, because you have had to work harder to get there. Use the knowledge that you are better than them to give you the confidence to succeed more than them. ## Case Study Valerie Edmond Actor I was brought up in the early 1970's in a single end tenement in Springburn - a notoriously deprived yet industrially important part of Glasgow. It was a treat to see coal burning in the open fire, we couldn't afford a TV and we shared a toilet on the stair landing with neighbours- but there were books from Springburn Library and my mum making time to read them with me along with a radio, playing out music and debate. My mum left Whitehill Secondary School at 14, even though she was gifted academically, and only went back to education almost 20 years later to complete her Highers to get into nursing. Although we couldn't afford a TV I felt informed as a young girl and secure and cherished really. This changed when the council rehoused us in council housing in Balornock/Barmulloch. I attended the local state secondary school, with poor academic results as well as drugs and knife activity commonplace. The pervading culture in the school was negative, and I was bullied because of my enthusiasm for learning and well-spoken manner which was deemed 'posh' and 'snobby' . This culminated in a physical attack one day which was deeply scarring and traumatic and will stay with me for the rest of my life. After that, I felt I needed to make a choice, would I succumb to the attitudes of those around me, or would I escape. Reading and books offered me that escape. An English teacher made a big difference, who allowed me to spend my lunchtimes in an out of use drama studio. I would walk around reading lines from Macbeth and poetry out loud. The messages in these texts gave me the strength to take on the adversity I faced. One of my primary school teachers, who had studied at a drama school, encouraged me to apply and helped me prepare for an audition at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. There was a charge to audition, but it was a much smaller fee then than it is now or I wouldn't have been able to gamble it. I was offered a place. Because of my background, I qualified for a full grant from the Scottish government to attend, although this didn't cover rent, so I had to stay living with my mum, taking the bus back to our council flat while most of my fellow students had flats in the west end of Glasgow. Most had also been on 'gap years' and had 'gone travelling' around India, when I wondered what Indian food tasted like. I did have some problems fitting in initially but going to drama school was like finding dry land after being at sea, I loved it, and I excelled, winning the Best Student of The Year Award in my final year. I found the theatre acting community in Scotland much easier to fit into, it was political and progressive but to get the big parts in television and film, I had to audition in London. Even though many of the series I was in were filmed in Scotland, casting was in London, and I would have to take the bus to make it affordable. I would need to go there and back in the same day to avoid the cost of staying overnight and my mum gave me food vouchers she was given at work, so I could eat during the day. I think my background has had a real impact on my work. I've had to fight more for opportunity and sometimes in an already unfair profession, that feels extra hard- but I feel fortunate to understand that acting is a simple reflection of the human condition which is a struggle that none of us escape. And I feel that I 'see' the truth of a character more clearly perhaps because of my own struggles. But there is always also, a deep down feeling of shame, of not being quite good enough and a sort of 'who do you think you are!' voice echoing around in your head when what you are doing is simply serving the truth. It is a great privilege to be given the chance to do that. I hope things are changing, but awareness is key. I remember the careers officer visiting my school, when I said told her I'd like to be an actress, she replied to get out the room and come back in when I had something realistic to say because 'what gives you the right to say you want to be an actress.' I turned to leave, tears of shame pricking my eyes. But as I reached the door I turned back, sat back down and said 'what gives you the right to say I can't' . I do wonder how many people from my background today would carry on walking and how many more couldn't even bring themselves to dare to say it at all. ## Appendix \| 96 \| Appendix A \| \|---\|------------------\| \| 98 \| Appendix B \| \| 100 \| References \| \| 105 \| Acknowledgements \| Chapter MPs 29% (-4%) 17% (-8%) 52% (+12%) 2% (no Lords 57% (+8%) 22% (-11%) 17% (+5%) 4% (-2%) 792 663 84% Cabinet 39% (+3%) 17% (-1%) 43% (-2%) 0% (-1%) 23 23 100% Junior Ministers 52% (-4%) 18% (+1%) 28% (+2%) 1% (-1%) 96 93 97% Shadow Cabinet 9% (-13%) 15% (+4%) 76% (+14%) 0% (-4%) 35 34 97% Politics Shadow Junior Ministers 18% 15% 66% 1% 93 85 91% Select committee chairs 33% (-24%) 10% (-10%) 55% (+32%) 3% (+3%) 40 40 100% Select committee 25% (-6%) 14% (-11%) 58% (+18%) 2% (no members FTSE 350 CEOs 27% (+5%) 14% (-3%) 16% (+1%) 43% (-4%) 306 183 60%* FTSE 350 Chairs 34% 22% 12% 31% 349 226 65%* Sunday Times Rich List 28% (-16%) 10% (-7%) 12% (-1%) 51% (+25%) 127 94 74% Entrepeneurs 34% 15% 39% 12% 100 85 85% Business PR consultancy CEOs 34% 13% 30% 24% 150 104 69%* Tech firm CEOs 26% 3% 29% 41% 100 68 68%* News Media 100 43% (-11%) 20% (-6%) 34% (+18%) 3% (-1%) 100 79 79% Newspaper columnists 44% (+1%) 24% (-3%) 19% (-5%) 13% (+7%) 199 160 80% Media BBC executives 29% (+3%) 20% (-5%) 45% (+8%) 6% (-7%) 102 80 78% Permanent secretaries 59% (+4%) 14% (-15%) 28% (+11%) 0% (no Public body chairs 45% (+1%) 28% (-13%) 18% (+8%) 8% (+4%) 152 126 83% Public body CEOs 30% (-4%) 27% (-12%) 31% (+10%) 11% (+6%) 166 99 60%* ## Public Bodies Whitehall And Diplomats 52% (no 17% (-14%) 29% (+18%) 1% (-4%) 145 82 57%* change) Senior Judges 65% (-6%) 20% (-3%) 13% (+9%) 2% (-1%) 140 121 86% Vice Chancellors 16% (-4%) 33% (-11%) 34% (+13%) 17% (+2%) 125 92 74% ## Public Servants Armed Forces 49% (-13%) 15% (-14%) 35% (+28%) 0% (-1%) 98 71 72% Local government 20% (+5%) 28% (-11%) 50% (+6%) 2% (-1%) 348 197 57%* leaders ## Local Gov Local government CEOs 9% (+1%) 28% (-18%) 62% (+19%) 1% (-1%) 320 192 60%* Police Chiefs and PCCs 24% (+2%) 21% (-20%) 54% (+17%) 1% (+1%) 94 71 76% Women Influential women 43% (+1%) 10% (-10%) 23% (-1%) 24% (+11%) 149 115 77% TV, film and music 38% (-6%) 18% (-10%) 43% (+18%) 1% (-2%) 90 82 91% ## Creative Popstars 20% (-2%) 5% (+1%) 74% (+2%) 1% (no ## Industries \| Football (men) \| 5% \| 5% \| 89% \| 2% \| 76 \| 63 \| 83% \| \|------------------\|------\|-------\|-------\|-------\|------\|--------\|-------\| \| Football (women) \| 2% \| 0% \| 94% \| 4% \| 64 \| 47 \| 73% \| \| Rugby (men) \| 37% \| (+1%) \| 8% \| (+6%) \| 47% \| (-12%) \| 8% \| \| Rugby (women) \| 13% \| 1% \| 82% \| \| \| \| \| \| 3% \| 88 \| 67 \| 76% \| \| \| \| \| ## Sport Cricket (men) 43% (+10%) 3% (-3%) 43% (-3%) 11% (-4%) 35 35 100% Cricket (women) 35% 15% 50% 0% 27 20 74% Olympic medallists 31% (-4%) 8% (no change) \| 650 \| 632 \| 97% \| \|---------\|-------\|-------\| \| change) \| \| \| \| 319 \| 308 \| 97% \| \| change) \| \| \| \| 40 \| 29 \| 73% \| \| change) \| \| \| \| 98 \| 80 \| 82% \| \| change) \| \| \| \| 59% \| (+5%) \| 2% \| \| change) \| \| \| Chapter \| MPs \| 88% \| (+5%) \| 54% \| (no \| 24% \| (no \| \|-------------------------\|-------\|---------\|-------\|--------\|-------\|--------\| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Lords \| 86% \| (+4%) \| 60% \| (-1%) \| 38% \| (+1%) \| \| Cabinet \| 100% \| (+14%) \| 87% \| (+10%) \| 57% \| (-3%) \| \| Junior Ministers \| 91% \| (-4%) \| 61% \| (-11%) \| 36% \| (-9%) \| \| Politics \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Shadow Cabinet \| 82% \| (-14%) \| 41% \| (-22%) \| 15% \| (-19%) \| \| Shadow Junior Ministers \| 90% \| 44% \| 10% \| 46% \| 0% \| 10% \| \| Select committee chairs \| 93% \| (+9%) \| 58% \| (-3%) \| 33% \| (-4%) \| \| Select committee \| 86% \| (+8%) \| 50% \| (+6%) \| 20% \| (+3%) \| \| members \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| FTSE 350 CEOs \| 95% \| (+2%) \| 36% \| (-7%) \| 15% \| (-3%) \| \| FTSE 350 Chairs \| 91% \| 50% \| 27% \| 20% \| 21% \| 9% \| \| Sunday Times Rich List \| 72% \| (+1%) \| 26% \| (-2%) \| 14% \| (+2%) \| \| Entrepeneurs \| 56% \| 29% \| 9% \| 19% \| 8% \| 44% \| \| Business \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| PR consultancy CEOs \| 91% \| 33% \| 7% \| 32% \| 26% \| 9% \| \| Tech firm CEOs \| 89% \| 35% \| 12% \| 21% \| 34% \| 11% \| \| News Media 100 \| 92% \| (+2%) \| 71% \| (-3%) \| 36% \| (-9%) \| \| Newspaper columnists \| 89% \| (+3%) \| 72% \| (+4%) \| 44% \| (-3%) \| ## Media BBC executives 93% (+1%) 70% (+8%) 31% (-2%) 18% 6% 7% (-1%) 102 90 88% Permanent secretaries 100% (+3%) 82% (-4%) 56% (-1%) 18% (+7%) 0% (no Public body chairs 94% (no 69% (-5%) 40% (-4%) 22% (+5%) 4% (no change) Public body CEOs 98% (+6%) 58% (+1%) 25% (no ## Bodies Diplomats 98% (+9%) 84% (no 51% (+1%) 14% (+9%) 0% (no ## Whitehall And Public change) Senior Judges 100% (+1%) 91% (-4%) 71% (-4%) 9% (+4%) 1% (+1%) 0% (-1%) 140 140 100% Vice Chancellors 99% (no 51% (-2%) 19% (+6%) 34% (-2%) 14% (+4%) 1% (no change) ## Public Servants Armed Forces 87% (+5%) 50% (no 16% (+2%) 36% (+5%) 1% (no change) Local government 64% (+14%) 30% (+1%) 5% (-3%) 34% (+12%) 0% (no leaders ## Local \| \| \| \| \| \| Local government CEOs \| 86% \| (+4%) \| \|-----\|-------\|----\|-------\|-----\|-------------------------\|-------\|---------\| \| 35% \| (-5%) \| 5% \| (-3%) \| 51% \| (+9%) \| 1% \| (no \| ## Gov Police Chiefs and PCCs 83% (+21%) 44% (+11%) 13% (+7%) 39% (+11%) 0% (no Women Influential women 87% (-1%) 41% (-19%) 23% (+2%) 25% (+7%) 21% (+11%) 13% (+1%) 149 142 95% TV, film and music 42% (-10%) 24% (-7%) 6% (-5%) 18% (-3%) 0% (no Creative industries Popstars 29% (-9%) 17% (-10%) 2% (+2%) 12% (+1%) 0% (no Football (women) 80% 7% 0% 63% 9% 20% 64 54 84% Rugby (men) 38% 9% 1% 27% 2% 62% 111 98 88% Rugby (women) 79% 29% 1% 51% 0% 21% 88 77 88% Sport Cricket (men) 9% 0% 0% 9% 0% 91% 35 35 100% Cricket (women) 82% 18% 0% 64% 0% 18% 27 22 81% \| 33% \| 1% \| 12% \| (-6%) \| 650 \| 642 \| 99% \| \|---------\|---------\|-------\|---------\|-------\|-------\|-------\| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (-14%) \| 23 \| 23 \| 100% \| \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 9% \| (+4%) \| 96 \| 95 \| 99% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 18% \| (+14%) \| 35 \| 34 \| 97% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 36% \| (+2%) \| 28% \| (-1%) \| 127 \| 99 \| 78% \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 0% \| (-3%) \| 40 \| 34 \| 85% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 6% \| (no \| 152 \| 140 \| 92% \| \| \| \| change) \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 31% \| (+3%) \| 8% \| (+3%) \| 2% \| (-6%) \| 166 \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2% \| (-9%) \| 145 \| 104 \| 72% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 125 \| 118 \| 94% \| \| \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 13% \| (-5%) \| 98 \| 70 \| 71% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 36% \| (-14%) \| 348 \| 217 \| 62%* \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 14% \| (-4%) \| 320 \| 243 \| 76% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 18% \| (-21%) \| 94 \| 80 \| 85% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 58% \| (+10%) \| 90 \| 84 \| 93% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 71% \| (+9%) \| 98 \| 84 \| 86% \| \| \| \| change) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Below 70% target ## Appendix B \| Methodology School attendance Schools have been classified into one of three main categories, private (also referred to in this report as independent or fee-paying schools), grammar schools and comprehensives. Private schools are classified here as those which are both independent from government, and in which most pupils are fee-paying. Although Direct Grant grammar schools had some spaces paid for by local authorities, they remained outside of government control, and most pupils paid fees, so have therefore been categorised as private schools. These schools represent a small and declining proportion of those in the working age population. All state funded schools have been classified as either grammar or comprehensive, depending on their admissions policies. Grammar schools are schools in which potential pupils sit an entry exam (the 11 plus) which aims to determine whether a student has high academic ability, with admissions decided on the basis of results in this exam. Comprehensive school is used here to cover all state schools which either required no exam for entry, or which did not require a high mark on the 11 plus to attend. This includes secondary moderns and the small number of technical schools which existed under the tripartite system. It also includes non-selective state schools in Scotland, generally not referred to as comprehensives. We have separately categorised those who attended school outside of the UK as having attended an international school. These schools were not separately determined as being state or private, due to the difficulty involved in categorising schools based in different educational systems, where the educational context is often very different to that in the UK. Additionally, a very small number of individuals (less than five in total) were home schooled and have been classified as such. School type was determined for the period in which the individual attended that school. For example, if a school was a grammar during the period in which an individual attended it, but has since become a comprehensive school, it has been categorised as a grammar. If a school became a comprehensive school part of the way through someone's attendance, but they were part of a grammar intake, their school's category was grammar. When looking at type of school attended, we have included the school someone attended for most of their secondary education (for example, if they attended a private school for a year, and then moved to a state comprehensive school, we have categorised their schooling as comprehensive). These figures do not therefore show everyone who has ever We defined Russell Group attendance as whether someone attended a university which is currently in the Russell Group, rather than whether the attended an independent school, which is likely to be higher than the figures included here. However, we felt that the school someone spent the majority of their secondary education in was a fairer reflection of their experience within the school system. We have used secondary school attendance, rather than primary or college, for a variety of reasons: because this information is more easily accessible, because attendance up to at least age 15 has been universal since World War 2, and because this period is the run up to when someone takes their GCSE exams, a formative time, and an important decision point in their education. University attendance University type was determined by the institutions at which an individual gained their bachelor's degree. University types included whether they attended a Russell Group university* and whether they attended Oxford or Cambridge University. We defined Russell Group attendance as whether someone attended a university which is currently in the Russell Group, rather than whether the university was in the group at the time the individual attended. We classified someone as having attended university if they were awarded a bachelors' degree, including if that was from an institution which was a polytechnic at the time, but has since become a university. If someone clearly attended university, but the institution is unknown, we have classified them as having attended, but have not included them in breakdowns by university type. We have also separately categorised anyone who attended university outside of the UK has having attended an international university. How did we find out information about people's educational backgrounds? We conducted desk-based research using a range of different sources including: • LinkedIn • Who's Who • Local newspaper reports • Facebook • Bloomberg • Wikipedia Where we were unable to find data publicly online, we contacted individuals through email and LinkedIn. As many of those who provided information from direct communication did so on the understanding that their personal details would not ## Appendix B \| Methodology be published, we are unable to publish disaggregated information about people's social backgrounds. We aimed to find information for at least 70% of the schools and universities attended by the individuals in each section. This was achieved in the vast majority of sections in this report, but we were unable to find information (as it was not available publicly, individuals chose not to provide us with it, or we could not find contact details for that individual), for a small number of sections. For university attendance, information was found for fewer than 70% of individuals in the local government leaders section (62%). For schools, there was less than 70% coverage in FTSE 350 CEOs (60%), FTSE 350 chairs (65%), PR consultancy CEOs (69%), tech firm CEOs (68%), public body CEOs (60%), diplomats (57%), local government leaders (57%) and local government CEOs (60%). All other sections had 70% coverage or above. \| Politics \| Group \| \|-------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| MPs \| All members of Parliament \| \| Lords \| All members of the House of Lords \| \| Cabinet \| UK Government Cabinet Ministers \| \| Junior Ministers \| UK Government Junior Ministers \| \| Shadow Cabinet and \| \| \| Shadow Ministers \| \| \| UK Government Shadow Cabinet \| \| \| Ministers and Shadow Junior Ministers \| \| \| Select Committees \| All Commons Select Committee Members \| \| Select Committee Chairs \| All Commons Select Committee Chairs \| \| Business \| Group \| \| \| \| \| FTSE 350 CEOs and Chairs \| Chief Executives and chairs of companies \| \| listed on the FTSE 350 \| \| \| The Sunday Times Rich List \| The top of the list of the wealthiest \| \| people in the UK as of 2018, according to \| \| \| the Sunday Times \| \| \| Entrepreneurs \| Richtopia's Top 100 most influential \| \| British Entrepreneurs 2017 \| \| \| PR Consultancy CEOs \| CEOs of the Top 150 UK PR consultancies \| \| as of 2018, according to PR Week \| \| \| Technology Firm CEOs \| CEOs of the top 100 fastest-growing \| \| private technology companies in Britain \| \| \| as of 2018, according to the Sunday \| \| \| Times \| \| \| Media \| Group \| \| \| \| \| BBC Executives \| Senior BBC Executives listed on the BBC \| \| website for transparency purposes \| \| \| News Media 100 \| List created by the Sutton Trust, using \| \| research by the Reuter's Institute at the \| \| \| University of Oxford. \| \| \| Newspaper Columnists \| List of UK national newspaper columnists \| \| writing on news, politics, policy and \| \| \| current affairs (not including columnists \| \| \| who write only on lifestyle, food etc). \| \| \| \| \| \| Group \| Whitehall and Public \| \| Bodies \| \| \| Permanent Secretaries \| All Permanent Secretaries of UK \| \| Government departments \| \| \| Diplomats \| Heads of UK Missions Abroad (including \| \| Embassies and High Commissions) \| \| \| Public Body CEOs and \| \| \| Chairs \| \| \| Chief Executives and Chairs of Non- \| \| \| Ministerial Departments, Executive \| \| \| Non-Departmental Public Bodies and \| \| \| Executive Agencies \| \| How did we decide who to include in each section? For many of the categories included here, there was a clear group of individuals to include, for example, all MPs or all permanent secretaries. For others, who to include in a list of the 'top' of a profession was more difficult. Wherever possible, we have used established lists created by others, ideally based on an objective measure (for example, someone's level of wealth, or album sales). Where no established list was available, we have created our own, using objective measures wherever possible to draw together a list of individuals to include. A summary table including a brief description of each group is included below. A full explanation of the methodology used for each profession, including links to sources, can be found in the annex to this report, available online. All lists were created or derived between December 2018 and March 2019. \| Public servants \| Group \| \|-----------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| Senior Judges \| Lord Chief Justice, Supreme Court \| \| Judges, Lord and Lady Justices of \| \| \| Appeal and High Court Judges \| \| \| Vice-Chancellors \| Vice Chancellors of UK Universities \| \| Armed Forces \| All Generals of two star rank (NATO code \| \| of OF-7) or above \| \| ## Local Government Group \| Local Government Leaders \| Political leaders of Local Authorities in \| \|------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\| \| England \| \| \| Local Government CEOs \| Chief Executives of Local Authorities in \| \| England \| \| \| Constables and PCCs \| Chief Constables and Police and Crime \| \| Commissioners for every Constabulary \| \| \| in the UK and senior Metropolitan Police \| \| \| Officers \| \| ## Women Group \| Influential Women \| \|---------------------\| \| 2017 \| ## Creative Industries Group \| Popular music \| UK artists (either born in or currently \| \|------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------\| \| based in the UK) who had one of the top \| \| \| 40 selling albums of 2018, 2017, 2016 or \| \| \| 2015. \| \| \| TV, Film and Music \| Music: Sunday Times Rich List 'top 40 \| \| music millionaires' \| \| \| TV and Film: Sunday Times Rich List 'top \| \| \| 50 in film and television' \| \| \| Sport \| Group \| \| \| \| \| Great British Olympic \| \| \| Medallists Rio Games 2016 \| \| \| Britain's 130 medallists at the 2016 \| \| \| Olympics games in Rio \| \| \| Rugby Union (men's and \| \| \| women's teams) \| \| \| Women's: Rugby World Cup 2017 teams \| \| \| (Note: Scotland were not in the World \| \| \| Cup so their six nations team from the \| \| \| same year was instead used) \| \| \| Men's: Rugby autumn internationals 2018 \| \| \| Football (men's and women's \| \| \| teams) \| \| \| Men's 2018 football World Cup squad/ \| \| \| qualifiers squad \| \| \| Women's 2017 Euro squads \| \| \| Cricket (men's and women's \| \| \| teams) \| \| \| England squad players who have taken \| \| \| part in an international match over the \| \| \| last year \| \| ## Appendix \| References 1. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 2. Social Mobility Commission (2014) Elitist Britain? Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/elitist-britain 3. Oxera (2017) Social Mobility and Economic Success. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ research-paper/social-mobility-2017-summit-research/ 4. Prince, S. et al. (2015) Why diversity matters. McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey. com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/ Organization/Our%20Insights/Why%20diversity%20 matters/Why%20diversity%20matters.ashx 5. Lorenzo, R. & Reeves, M. (2018) How and Where Diversity Drives Financial Performance. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/01/howand-where-diversity-drives-financial-performance 6. Hutchinson, J. et al. (2018) Education in England - Annual report 2018. Education Policy Institute. Available at: https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ EPI-Annual-Report-2018-Executive-Summary.pdf 7. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018. pdf; Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission (2014) Elitist Britain? 8. Social Mobility Commission (2019) State of the Nation 2018-19: Social Mobility in Great Britain. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/798404/ SMC_State_of_the_Nation_Report_2018-19.pdf 9. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. Reproduced with permission from the authors. 10. Independent Schools Council (2019) Annual Census. Available at: https://www. isc.co.uk/research/annual-census/ 11. Ndaji, F. et al. (2016) A comparison of academic achievement in independent and state schools. Available at: https://www.isc.co.uk/media/3140/16_02_26-cemdurham-university-academic-value-added-research.pdf 12. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. 13. Cullinane, C. (2017) Life Lessons. Sutton Trust. 14. Reeves, A. et al. (2017) The decline and persistence of the Old Boy: Private schools and elite recruitment 1897 to 2016. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/0003122417735742?journalCode=asra 15. These figures are for grammar schools in England 16. Cullinane, C. (2016) Gaps in Grammar. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/12/Gaps-in-Grammar_For-website.pdf 17. Van den Brande, J. et al. (2019) Selective Comprehensives: Great Britain. Access to top performing schools for disadvantaged pupils in Scotland, Wales and England. Available at: https:// www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ SelectiveComprehensives-GreatBritain.pdf 18. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. 19. Drydakis, N. (2016) The Effect of University Attended on Graduates' Labour Market Prospects: A Field Study of Great Britain. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9826.pdf 20. Upp Foundation and the Bridge Group (2017) Social Mobility and University Careers Services. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5c18e090b40b9d6b43b093d8/t/5cd18164f63f5700 0157b2aa/1557234030200/07+Research+2017+UPP.pdf 21. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. 22. Sutton Trust (2003) Nobel Prizes: The Changing Pattern of Awards. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ research-paper/nobel-prizes-changing-pattern-awards/ 23. House of Commons Library (2017) Grammar school statistics. Available at: https://researchbriefings. parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01398 24. House of Commons Library (2012) Education: Historical statistics. Available at: https://researchbriefings. parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04252 25. These figures were calculated using the most up to date figures provided by education statistic offices across the four nations of the UK. As each nation collects data slightly differently, the closest available group in each nation for students in the year group equivalent to Year 11 in England (age 15-16) was used. Figures for England were obtained online at gov.uk. Figures for Wales are obtained online at statswales.gov.wales. All figures for Scotland, other than private school attendance, were obtained from gov. scot, with private school figures provided by the Scottish government via email. All figures for Northern Ireland were provided via email from the Department of Education in NI. 26. Bolton, B. (2012) Historical Statistics - Parliament. uk Available at: https://researchbriefings.files. parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf 27. Clegg, R. (2017) Graduates in the UK labour market: 2017. Available at: https://www.ons.gov. uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017 28. Figure calculated from the number of UK undergraduates studying at Oxford and Cambridge in 2017-2018 (available at - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47296931) and the number of 18-year olds in the UK in the middle of 2017 (available at - https://www.ons.gov. uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jn5q/lms) 29. Montacute, R. & Carr, T. (2017) Parliamentary Privilege - The educational background of MPs. Sutton Trust. Available at - https://www. suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ Parliamentary-privilege-2017 _FINAL_V2.pdf 30. Tilley, J. & Geoffrey, E. (2017) The New Politics of Class - the political exclusion of the British working class. Oxford University Press. 31. The Telegraph (2004) Tony's cronies pack into Lords. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ uknews/1460743/Tonys-cronies-pack-into-Lords.html ## Appendix \| References 32. Independent (2015) Packing the House of Lords with Tory peers to pass tax credit cuts would cost £2.6m. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ politics/packing-the-house-of-lords-with-tory-peers-topass-tax-credit-cuts-would-cost-26m-a6709486.html 33. Select Committees - Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/ parliamentary-monitor-2018/select-committees and Selecting the select committees - what happens next? - Institute for Government. Available at: https://www. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/selecting-selectcommittees-%E2%80%93-what-happens-next 34. Ofsted (2013) Citizenship consolidated? A survey of citizenship in schools. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/citizenshipconsolidated-a-survey-of-citizenship-in-schools 35. Eton College (2018) Summer Half 2018 Societies' Report. Available at: https://www. etoncollege.com/Societiesreport.aspx 36. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 37. Sky News (2018) 'Huge' cost of becoming an MP 'pricing people out of politics' Available at: https:// news.sky.com/story/huge-cost-of-becoming-anmp-pricing-people-out-of-politics-11489543 38. Jenkins, H. et al. (2017) Social mobility and economic success - how social mobility boosts the economy. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/Oxera-report_WEB_FINAL.pdf 39. Rich List 2019: The UK's biggest political donors. (2019) The Sunday Times. Available at: https:// www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunday-times-richlist-uk-biggest-political-donors-rr3nmzc7d 40. FTSE women leaders: Hampton-Alexander review. (2016) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ ftse-women-leaders-hampton-alexander-review 41. Ethnic diversity of UK boards: the Parker review (2016) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ ethnic-diversity-of-uk-boards-the-parker-review 42. The Bridge Group. Case study: KPMG. Available at: https://www.thebridgegroup.org.uk/case-study-3 43. Public Relations and Communications Association (2018) Diversity and Inclusion Guidelines. 44. Public Relations and Communications Association - Campaigns - Better Internships. Available at: https:// www.prca.org.uk/campaigns/better-internships/prand-communications-employers-pay-their-interns 45. Dellot, B. & Reed, H. (2015) Boosting the living standards of the self-employed. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 46. Hood, A. & Joyce, R. (2017) Rising inheritances will deliver biggest benefit for those already well off. Institute for Fiscal Studies. 47. Boosting enterprise in more deprived communities (2016) Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ boosting-enterprise-in-more-deprived-communities 48. Ollard, J. & Gabriel, M. (2018) Blog - Shifting the dial on diversity in innovation: five key ideas from Breaking the Mould. Nesta. Available at: https:// www.nesta.org.uk/blog/shifting-dial-diversityinnovation-five-key-ideas-breaking-mould/ 49. Douglas, L. (2017) Rags to riches? Why the privileged are more likely to become entrepreneurs. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/smallbusiness-network/2017/feb/20/rags-riches-privilegedentrepreneurs-business-resilience-michelle-mone 50. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Life Lessons - Improving essential life skills for young people. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf 51. Jon Snow speech in full: 'I know nothing - but I've experienced a lot' Available at: https:// inews.co.uk/news/uk/jon-snow-speech-fulli-know-nothing-ive-experienced-lot/ 52. New Statesman (2018) The obsession with Oxbridge elitism gives other British universities a free pass. Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/obsessionoxbridge-elitism-gives-other-british-universities-free-pass 53. Reuters Institute for the study of journalism. Digital News Report - United Kingdom. Available at: http://www. digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/united-kingdom-2018/ 54. Unfortunately the response rate for regional editors was lower than for other parts of the media 100, which should be noted when looking at these results 55. Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (2017) The viewing report - our annual exploration of the UK's viewing habits. Available at: https://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Barb-Viewing-Report-2017.pdf 56. It should however be noted that the number of BBC Executives in the BBC's release has reduced since 2014, likely following moves by the BBC to reduce its senior management team, so the new list may not be fully comparable to 2014- https://www.bbc.co.uk/ mediacentre/speeches/2017/tony-hall-ara-2016-17 57. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 58. The Guardian (2019) Read all about it? How local papers' decline is staring communities of news. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2019/may/07/read-all-about-it-how-localpapers-decline-is-starving-communities-of-news 59. Spilsbury, M. (2018) Journalists at work - their views on training, recruitment and conditions. National Council for the Training of Journalists Available at: http://www.nctj. com/downloadlibrary/JaW%20Report%202018%20web.pdf 60. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 61. The Student View - https://www.thestudentview. org/how-we-can-help-your-school/ 62. PressPad - https://presspad.co.uk/ 63. Fraser Nelson - Apply now: The Spectator's political mischief internship (no CVs please). Available at: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/apply-now-thespectators-political-mischief-internship-no-cvs-please/ ## Appendix \| References 64. BBC News (2018) The death of the local newspaper? Available at - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43106436 65. BBC (2018) Diversity, Annual Report and Accounts 2017- 2018. Available at: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/ pdf/bbc-equality-information-report-2017-18.pdf 66. Sutton Trust - BBC launch new apprenticeship opportunities. Available at: https://www. suttontrust.com/newsarchive/new-bbclaunch-apprenticeship-opportunities/ 67. For more information on the Social Mobility Index (run by the Social Mobility Foundation), see: http://www.socialmobility.org.uk/index/ 68. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press and the Guardian (2018) Channel 4 is Britain's poshest broadcaster, diversity study finds. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/aug/22/ channel-4-britain-poshest-broadcaster-diversitystudy-finds-staff-working-class-background 69. Channel 4 announces composition of new National HQ and Creative Hubs - https://www.channel4.com/ press/news/channel-4-announces-compositionnew-national-hq-and-creative-hubs 70. For more information on the Social Mobility Pledge, see: https://www.socialmobilitypledge.org/ 71. Ofcom (2018) Diversity and equal opportunities in television - In-focus report on the main five broadcaster. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0019/121681/diversity-in-TV-2018-in-focus.pdf 72. Cabinet Office (2014) The Blunders of Our Governments - review by Sir David Normington GCB. Available at: https://quarterly.blog.gov.uk/2014/07/15/the-blunders-ofour-governments-review-by-sir-david-normington-gcb/ 73. How permanent secretaries reach the top - Institute for Government. Available at: https:// www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ how-permanent-secretaries-reach-top 74. Cabinet Office (2016) Socio-economic diversity in the Fast Stream: the Bridge report. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/socio-economicdiversity-in-the-fast-stream-the-bridge-report 75. Cabinet Office (2018) Building the future civil service for everyone. Available at: https:// quarterly.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/09/buildingthe-future-civil-service-for-everyone/ 76. Civil Service HR (2018) Civil Service Fast Stream: Annual Report 2017 and 2018 http://data.parliament. uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0003/ Civil_Service_fast_stream_annual_report.pdf 77. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2018) Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Diversity and Equality Report 2017-18. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/753934/Diversity_and_Equality_Report_2017-18.pdf 78. 'Language Learning: German and French Drop by Half in UK Schools' , BBC. Available at: https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47334374 79. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 80. Cabinet Office - HM Government Public Appointments. Available at: https:// publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/faq/ 81. Cabinet Office (2016) Governance Code on Public Appointments. Available at: https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/578498/governance_ code_on_public_appointments_16_12_2016.pdf 82. The Guardian (2019) White and male UK judiciary 'from another planet' , says Lady Hale. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/01/ladyhale-supreme-court-president-judges-diversity 83. David Gee (2007) Informed choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Available at: https://www1.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000733.pdf 84. The Guardian (2017) British army is targeting working-class young people, report shows. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/09/british-army-istargeting-working-class-young-people-report-shows 85. Office for Students (2019) Office for Students publishes first annual analysis of senior staff pay. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blogand-events/press-and-media/office-for-studentspublishes-first-annual-analysis-of-senior-staff-pay/ 86. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissionsto top universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018. pdf; Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Fairer Fees - Reforming student finance to increase fairness and widen access. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Fairer-Fees-Final.pdf 87. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 88. Bar Standards Board (2019) Diversity at the Bar 2018. Available at: https://www.barstandardsboard.org. uk/media/1975681/diversity_at_the_bar_2018.pdf 89. Bar Standards Board (2017) Exploring differential attainment at BPTC and Pupillage. Available at: https:// www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1910429/ differential_attainment_at_bptc_and_pupillage_analysis.pdf 90. Bar Standards Board news - BSB reviews pupillage recruitment practice at the Bar. Available at: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/mediacentre/press-releases-and-news/bsb-reviewspupillage-recruitment-practice-at-the-bar/ 91. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 92. Legal Services Board (2010) Barriers to the legal profession. Available at: https://research. legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/ media/2010-Diversity-literature-review.pdf 93. Judicial Diversity Statistics (2018) Available at: https:// www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ judicial-diversity-statistics-2018-1.pdf 94. UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics (2018) Available at - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/712124/Biannual_Diversity_Statistics_Apr18.pdf 95. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf ## Appendix \| References 96. The I, Robert Verkaik (2018) Taxpayers spend £250m sending army officers' children to elite public schools including Eton and Harrow. Available at: https://inews.co.uk/news/education/etonharrow-army-officers-children-taxpayer/ 97. Education - Army.mod.uk, Available at: https://apply. army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/qualifications 98. Schools Week (2015) Cadet units in state schools to increase five-fold with £50 million budget boost. Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ cadet-units-in-state-schools-to-increasefive-fold-with-50-million-budget-boost/ 99. Schools Week (2017) Is pushing the cadets really in pupils' best interests? Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ is-pushing-the-cadets-really-in-pupils-best-interests/ 100. The Guardian, Melanie Reynolds (2018) Working-class lecturers should come out of the closet. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/ sep/10/university-working-class-divide-academics 101. BBC News (2017) Bristol Council scraps £160k chief executive role. Available at: https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41490862 102. Gov.uk - Police and crime commissioners. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/police-and-crime-commissioners 103. The Electoral Commission. (2016) The May 2016 Police and Crime Commissioner elections. Available at: http:// www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0019/215074/2016-PCC-elections-report.pdf 104. BBC News (2019) Stephen Lawrence: How has his murder changed policing? Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47161480 105. The Guardian (2016) Most UK police forces have disproportionate number of white officers. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2016/jan/01/most-uk-police-forces-havedisproportionate-number-of-white-officers 106. National Police Chiefs' Council. (2018) Police leaders to be held to account over workforce diversity in new strategy. Available at: https://news.npcc.police. uk/releases/police-leaders-to-be-held-to-accountover-workforce-diversity-in-new-strategy 107. Upp Foundation and the Bridge Group (2017) Social Mobility and University Careers Services. Available at: https://thebridgegroup.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/01/BG-Employability-Report-FINAL.pdf and Donnelly, M. & Gamsu, S. (2018) Home and away - Social, ethnic and spatial inequalities in student mobility. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/Home_and_away_FINAL.pdf 108. London Councillors (2018) Remuneration of Councillors in London Boroughs. Available at: https:// www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/33152 109. Fawcett Society (2017) Does local government work for women? Available at: https://www.fawcettsociety. org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=0de4f7f0- d1a0-4e63-94c7-5e69081caa5f 110. BBC News (2014) Scrapping councillor pensions 'a kick in the teeth' Available at: https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26542442 111. Fawcett Society (2017) Does local government work for women? 112. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2014) Women and social mobility: six key facts. Available at: https://www. brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/04/03/ women-and-social-mobility-six-key-facts/ 113. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 114. Sullivan, A. et al. (2016) Social origins, elite education and elite destinations. UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/sites/ioe/files/clssocial-origins-elite-education-and-elite-destinations.pdf 115. House of Commons Library (2019) Oxbridge 'Elitism' . Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament. uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00616 116. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2013) Gender gaps in relative mobility. Available at: https://www.brookings. edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2013/11/12/ gender-gaps-in-relative-mobility/ 117. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2013) Gender gaps in relative mobility. Available at: https://www.brookings. edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2013/11/12/ gender-gaps-in-relative-mobility/ 118. Young Women's Trust (2018) The real cost of an apprenticeship: are young women paying the price? Available at: https://www.youngwomenstrust.org/ assets/0001/0282/2018_YWT_Report_The_Cost_v04.pdf 119. Fawcett Society (2018) Strategies for success - women's experiences of selection and election in UK parliament. Available at: https://www.fawcettsociety. org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=b8a66d72- 32a4-4d9d-91e7-33ad1ef4a785 120. Emma Watson's speech to the UN (2014) Gender equality is your issue too. Available at: http://www. unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emmawatson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too 121. Idris Elba: Goodwill Ambassador. Available at: https:// www.princes-trust.org.uk/about-the-trust/celebrityambassadors/goodwill-ambassadors/idris-elba 122. I act so I can afford to help charities, says Michael Sheen as he visits project helping disadvantaged young Londoners (2019). Evening Standard. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/ celebrity-news/i-act-so-i-can-afford-to-helpcharities-says-michael-sheen-a4079261.html 123. Brook, O. et al. (2018) Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries. Panic! It's an arts emergency. Available at: http://createlondon.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Tasteand-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf 124. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 125. Brook, O. et al. (2018) Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries. Panic! It's an arts emergency. Available at: http://createlondon.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Tasteand-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf 126. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 127. Friedman, S. et al. (2016) 'Like skydiving without a parachute,': how class origin shapes occupational trajectories in British acting. Available at: http://eprints. lse.ac.uk/66754/1/Friedman_Like%20skydiving_2016.pdf ## Appendix \| References 128. Acting up - Labour's inquiry into access and diversity in the performing arts. (2017) Available at: https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/campaigncountdown/ pages/1157/attachments/original/1502725031/ Acting-Up-Report.pdf?1502725031 129. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 130. Acting up - Labour's inquiry into access and diversity in the performing arts. (2017) Available at: https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/campaigncountdown/ pages/1157/attachments/original/1502725031/ Acting-Up-Report.pdf?1502725031 131. Alberge, A. (2019) Postcode lottery denies poor A-level students a musical career. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/ may/26/poscode-lottery-denies-a-level-studentsmusical-career?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 132. Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music - The Statistics. Available at: https://gb.abrsm. org/en/making-music/4-the-statistics/ 133. TOP Foundation (2014) National Governing Bodies of Sport Survey: Competitive School Sport. 134. Government and top sports bodies to help children play more sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/news/government-and-top-sportsbodies-to-help-children-play-more-sport 135. House of Commons Library (2017) Sport Participation in England. 136. https://www.totalsportek.com/list/ popular-sports-united-kingdom/ 137. Sutton Trust (2012, 2016) Educational Backgrounds of Olympic Medallists. 138. The Times (2019) Women's World Cup 2019: Professional England football team face part-time Scotland. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ pro-england-face-part-time-scots-x088sfx8z 139. Why are Team GB so good at standing out while sitting down? The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/aug/05/teamgb-sitting-down-sports-rio-2016-london-2012 140. Team GB funding cuts are killing British basketball. The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/ sport/us-sport/national-basketball-association/team-gbfunding-cuts-are-killing-british-basketball-a6886486.html 141. TOP Foundation (2014) 142. Farrell et al. (2013) The Socio-economic Gradient in Physical Inactivity in England. CMPO. Available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/ cmpo/migrated/documents/wp311.pdf 143. House of Commons Library (2016) London Olympics 2012: A Sporting Legacy?. Available at: http://researchbriefings. files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04868/SN04868.pdf 144. Olympic Legacy Failure. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/05/olympiclegacy-failure-sports-centres-council-cuts 145. Tackling Inactivity and Economic Disadvantage. Sport England. Available at: https://www.sportengland.org/ our-work/health-and-inactivity/tackling-inactivityand-economic-disadvantage/ Sport England's fitness campaigns to target disadvantaged groups. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/sport/2019/mar/04/sport-englands-fitnesscampaigns-to-target-disadvantaged-groups 146. Statement from the new Prime Minister Theresa May (2016) Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may 147. Socio-economic duty. The Equality Trust. Available at: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/socio-economic-duty 148. Fairer Scotland Duty: interim guidance for public bodies. (2018) Housing and Social Justice Directorate. Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/fairer-scotlandduty-interim-guidance-public-bodies/ 149. Civil Service (2018) Measuring Socio-economic Background in your Workforce: recommended measures for use by employers. Available at: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/768371/Measuring_ Socio-economic_Background_in_your_Workforce__ recommended_measures_for_use_by_employers.pdf 150. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 151. Rare Contextual Recruitment System https://www. contextualrecruitment.co.uk/, PiC Contextual Recruitment https://pic.is/ and upReach Contextualised Grade Tool https://upreach.org.uk/ manchester-contextualised-grade-tool-launch/ 152. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Blog - 10 ways to break the class ceiling. Available at: https:// policypress.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/10- ways-to-break-the-class-ceiling/ 153. Crawford, C. et al. (2017) Admissions in context - the use of contextual information by leading universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www. suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ Admissions-in-Context-Final_V2.pdf 154. Sutton Trust (2016) Best in class: the summit report. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/BESTINCLASSREPORTFINAL.doc-1.pdf 155. Kirby, P. & Cullinane, C. (2017) Science Shortfall. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Science-shortfall_FINAL.pdf 156. Allen, R. & Sims, S. (2018) How do shortages of maths teachers affect the within-school allocation of maths teachers to pupils? Available at: https:// www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/ files/Within-school%20allocations%20of%20 maths%20teachers%20to%20pupils_v_FINAL.pdf 157. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Life Lessons - Improving essential life skills for young people. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf 158. Hughes, D. et al. (2016) Careers education: International literature review. Available at: https:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/ files/Publications/Careers_review.pdf 159. 'School funding and pupil premium 2019' , Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/researchpaper/school-funding-and-pupil-premium-2019/. 160. Broughton, N. et al. (2014) Open Access - an independent evaluation. Social Market Foundation and Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/open-access-report.pdf ## Acknowledgements Elitist Britain 2019 was produced by a team led by the Sutton Trust's Dr Rebecca Montacute. Data collection was conducted by staff at the Social Mobility Commission and the Sutton Trust, for whose work we are extremely grateful, in particular the Trust's Angel Fletcher. We would like to thank all the staff of the Sutton Trust and the secretariat of the Social Mobility Commission, along with the Commissioners themselves, for their input and insight when commenting on, checking, copy editing, and proofreading the report. We would also like to thank all the external reviewers who read and commented on sections of the text relevant to their field. These included: Neil John Griffiths (Arts Emergency), Rosie Campbell (King's College London), Richard Sambrook (Cardiff University), Andrew Bazeley (Fawcett Society), Kuba Stawiski, Jenny Baskerville and Jatin Patel (KPMG), Deirdre Cole (London Marathon Charitable Trust), Benjamin Douglass, and Richard Fishlock (Sporting Assets). ## The Social Mobility Commission Board Comprises: • Saeed Atcha, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Xplode Magazine • Sam Friedman, Associate Professor in Sociology at London School of Economics • Dame Martina Milburn (Chair) • Alastair da Costa, Chair of Capital City College Group • Farrah Storr, Editor-in-chief, Elle • Harvey Matthewson, Aviation Activity Officer at Aerobility and Volunteer • Sammy Wright, Vice Principal of Southmoor Academy, Sunderland • Jess Oghenegweke: Broadcast and Digital Coordinator at The Roundhouse • Sandra Wallace, Joint Managing Director Europe at DLA Piper • Jody Walker, Senior Vice President at TJX Europe (TK Maxx and Home Sense in the UK) • Steven Cooper, Chief Executive Officer C.Hoare & Co • Liz Williams, Group Director of Digital Society at BT • Pippa Dunn, Founder of Broody, helping entrepreneurs and start ups	en
0676-pdf	## What Is Diabetes? Type 1 Diabetes - This is where the amount of glucose (sugar) in the blood is too high because the body cannot use it properly. - This is because the pancreas does not make any. Insulin - Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas. It helps us get energy from food and drink. - It allows glucose to enter the bodies cells where it is used for energy. - Glucose comes from digesting carbohydrate. It is also made by the liver. - People with Type 1 diabetes do not make insulin, so the glucose stays in their blood. ## Types Of Diabetes - There are two main types of diabetes, Type 1 and Type 2 - 90 per cent of all people with diabetes have Type 2. - But the vast majority (97 per cent) of children and young people with diabetes have Type 1. - This presentation will focus on Type 1 diabetes. ## Signs Or Symptoms Of Type 1 Diabetes - Toilet. - Thirsty. - Tired. - Thinner. Treating Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes Needs regular insulin, four or five times a day. This may be managed by a healthy balanced diet and taking more exercise, but it may need tablets, or insulin and tablets. ## Young People And Diabetes - People who have Type 1 usually get it when they are children or young adults. There is nothing you can do to prevent it, and it is not caused by anything anyone has done. - It does not mean they are any different, and it does not stop them doing anything anyone else can do. - But they do need to do certain things to manage their Type 1 diabetes properly. ## What Do Young People With Diabetes Have To Do - Check blood glucose level regularly and note result. - Take insulin, either by using an 'injector pen' or an insulin pump. - Eat a healthy balanced diet and get regular physical activity. - Visit their doctor or nurse regularly. ## Testing Blood Glucose - Children and young people with Type 1 diabetes will need to check their blood glucose levels several times a day, including at school. - Monitoring blood glucose levels is important as it checks blood glucose is at the right level. - It is important to keep blood glucose levels as close to target as possible to make sure the child or young person stays well in the short and long term. ## Taking Insulin - Insulin cannot be taken by mouth because it is a protein, and would be destroyed by the stomach acids. - It needs to be taken by an injection or insulin pump. - Injections are generally taken at each meal, plus in the evening and/or morning too. - An insulin pump is attached 24 hours a day and insulin is given for meals and snacks. ## Eating A Healthy Diet - Young people with diabetes should eat a diet that is low in fat, salt and sugar, with at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day - just like everyone else. - No food is forbidden. - Might need to eat at certain times throughout the day. ## Physical Activity - Young people with diabetes can do any type of sport. - They may need to have a snack before, during and after activity and change their insulin dose or where they inject their insulin. ## Problems (Hypoglycaemia) When blood glucose drops too low, this is called a hypo. This can be caused by: - Missed meal. - Not enough carbohydrate. - Unplanned exercise. - Too much insulin. - Sometimes no obvious cause. ## Signs Of A Hypo - Hunger. - Shakiness. - Mood change. - Clumsiness. - Pale. - Sweating. ## How To Help - Get them to stop activity and sit down. - Get them to check their blood glucose levels if they can. - If it is low, get them to eat/drink something sugary, like lucozade, dextrose sweets or jelly beans. - After 10–15 minutes, check blood glucose levels again. - If it is still low, have some more sugar - After 20–30 minutes, check blood glucose levels again to make sure it is ok. - Some children and young people need a snack after having a hypo, like fruit or biscuits. - Once their blood glucose levels are back to normal, they can resume activity. Problems (hyperglycaemia) This is when blood glucose level is too high, caused by: - Missed insulin. - Too much carbohydrate/sugary food. - Stress or illness. - Sometime no obvious cause. - Signs and symptoms include thirst, needing to pass urine frequently, tiredness, feeling sick. How to help - Check blood sugar level. - Drink plenty of water. - Take extra insulin. - Rest. ## Long Term Health - It is important to look after diabetes to make sure you stay healthy in the future. - Diabetes can make some health problems more likely when you're older. - Looking after it well makes that much less likely. ## Type 2 Diabetes Type 2 Diabetes - About 90 percent of people with diabetes have Type 2. - Usually develops in later life, but worryingly, there are an increasing number of young people with Type 2. - Symptoms are the same but develop gradually. - There is an increased risk of developing Type 2 if it is in your family, you are from BAME or you are overweight. - Type 2 diabetes is treated by keeping physically active, following a healthy balanced diet and keeping to a healthy weight. - But medication, including insulin, may be needed, too. - If your parents or grandparents have diabetes, it's likely to be Type 2 diabetes. ## Summary - It is important for people to look after diabetes to make sure they stay well, both in the short and long term. - Treatment helps to keep glucose levels as close to those of people without diabetes as possible. - Having diabetes does not stop people from doing anything their friends do and does not mean you can't be successful! What do these people have in common? THEY ALL HAVE DIABETES AND IT HASN'T STOPPED THEM BEING SUCCESSFUL! ## And Finally… 1 Remember, people with diabetes are just like you, except for one small thing - they cannot produce their own insulin. 2 People with diabetes can do everything you can do, they just might need to prepare a bit more. 3 If you are worried about any aspect of your own health, talk to your doctor. 4 We all need to eat healthy and get plenty of physical exercise. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING GO TO WWW.DIABETES.ORG.UK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND SUPPORT	en
0328-pdf	# 162Nd Board Meeting 23 July 2019, 09:00 - 15:00 One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN Non-executive members: Declan Collier (Chair), Stephen Glaister, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Graham Mather, Justin McCracken Executive members: John Larkinson (Chief Executive), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety). In attendance: Daniel Brown (Director Strategy and Policy & Railway Markets and Economics), Russell Grossman (Director of Communications), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate Operations), Juliet Lazarus (General Counsel), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary) Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text. Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1. The Deputy chair welcomed everyone to the meeting as the Chair had been slightly delayed on public transport. There were no apologies. 2. The Board noted that the order of reports1 would be changed to accommodate presenting colleagues who were also delayed. Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. No new relevant interests were declared. Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING 4. The Board noted a correction to the minutes. The Chair would sign an amended version. On the action points it was noted that the ECML performance report had been put into the public domain on Monday 22nd July. ## Item 7 Chief Executive'S Report 5. John Larkinson reported on recent Parliamentary engagement including invitations to talk to the Lib Dem peers and the APPG Chair. These meetings were a welcome chance to correct misunderstandings, share evidence and demonstrate expert knowledge. The Chair of the TSC had attended the launch of the Chief Inspector's Annual Report. The board discussed the importance of maintaining and strengthening parliamentary networks as part of our accountability framework. 6. John also reported on meetings with HMT and DfT. He had been challenged at both to justify the perceived additional costs to passengers driven by safety standards on rail. While he had addressed the immediate challenge, it was clear that this perception would continue to need rebuttal. The board discussed how this perception might have arisen and discussed ways to counter it. Ian Prosser said that ORR's practice was that its notices recommended the lowest cost, most effective way to minimise the risk so far as reasonably practicable, without specifying a particular solution. The board noted that there remained a live debate about the personal responsibility of an individual for their own safety and the cost of preventing people putting themselves at risk, but the legal requirement was for a safer railway. There was a clear legal precedent that children should be protected from entering dangerous environments (like depots). 7. The board discussed the different levels of risk which the public accepted between road and rail users - most road deaths did not occur on the Strategic Road Network - and whether the ambition for zero industry caused fatalities was setting the industry up to fail. They also commented on the importance of including technical standards and safety considerations when commissioning rolling stock and infrastructure. John Larkinson clarified ORR had not received costings in relation to the Hitachi fleet alterations and he did not recognise the £25m figure mentioned by the DfT in relation to this. He would raise with the Directors General the importance of factual accuracy in relation to safety standards and costs, particularly, given the likely arrival of new ministers with a new Prime Minister [Action]. 8. John Larkinson also reported on a programme of meetings with each of the Regional MDs of NR at which he had made clear ORR's expectations around financial efficiency. He would bring a report on how ORR would be monitoring the Regions to the September board. [Forward Programme]. 9. John updated the board on ongoing work with TfW and Keolis/Amey on the Welsh CVL. Although this was well appreciated by stakeholders, there were significant challenges to be overcome before the handover could occur, particularly around the financial risk to freight companies. 10. NR continued to cascade its reorganisation and this would take some months to complete. ## Item 4 Health And Safety 11. The board had been notified of the tragic incident at Port Talbot and noted this with regret. 12. Ian Prosser updated the board on three areas: enforcement, LUL, Balham 13. Enforcement: Ian Prosser described for the board the history of his interaction with NR on track worker safety, including with its SHE committee (6 November 2018) and its board (May 2019) which had preceded the improvement notices issued in July this year on track worker safety. He noted that there had been 15 RAIB investigations into track worker incidents over the past 7 years. Paragraphs 14 to 16 to be redacted as relating to policy development. 17. The board noted that PR13 had included funds to develop technology and plan for new, more efficient systems which did not rely on red-zone working. It was not clear what these funds had delivered in spite of support from ORR for NR's development work. The board considered NR's slow progress and asked the executive to consider whether escalation should have been quicker. In this context, the board asked for a regular update to give them better oversight of issues which might lead to safety enforcement and over what period they had been considered. This would also enable board-to-board communication of issues of concern but must not impinge on the independence of inspectors [Action]. 18. The chair summarised that ORR's notices had been evidence based, citing the rising level of risk to track workers and the number of near misses. The issue had been raised directly by the Chief Inspector with the NR board in May. ORR expected NR to protect workers and reduce the risk and the ORR board would support work to make sure that this was done in a timely way. The board wanted to see NR work actively to address an issue which had seen an ongoing significant level of risk when it could have been lower. ## Prosecutions 19. Ian Prosser reported on other enforcement including the successful prosecution of GTR following the death of a passenger leaning out of a droplight window. GTR had not had a risk assessment around its rolling stock and received a £1m fine. He also mentioned the long delay in a CPS decision around prosecutions on Sandilands, which the board agreed put additional stress on parties and the families of those involved. 20. The board discussed the picture of poor adherence to process and ontrack discipline suggested by issues in the quarterly report including SPADs, the Balham near miss, red zone working etc. They also discussed the level of reliance on human intervention, the question of whether earlier enforcement would drive improved behaviours and the growing evidence that fatigue was an increasing problem. 21. IP updated the board on concerns with LUL's internal assurance. He was attending a meeting there on 8 August to discuss the safety management system and overall the executive understanding and management of risk was more mature than on the mainline railway. He noted the complete absence of red zone working and that LUL's last track worker fatality was more than 25 years ago. The role unions could play in educating members about safety was noted. ## Item 5 Board Information Pack 22. Graham Richards updated the board on: costs agreed and paid by Eurostar on their abortive judicial review and Highways England's new safety campaign aimed at drivers - particularly safety on smart motorways. 23. The board asked for more analysis on the NR scorecard comparison charts. Having more data by region would allow more complex and nuanced discussion in CP6 but the executive were still exploring what this data could tell us so this report would continue to evolve. 24. The Chair reported on a meeting of the Wales Route Supervisory Board which had been well run, had good attendance and where the members were engaged in devolved issues and planning for the December 2019 timetable. This could not be taken as typical of meetings as there was no consistency of membership or administration across the routes. 25. The board discussed ORR's relationship with the RSBs which currently included SROs meeting. The board suggested that RSB chairs could meet annually with the ORR board or ORR NEDs could attend regional meetings. Graham agreed to consider how this could be incorporated into the new arrangements [Action] ## Timetable Changes: 26. The board noted an anecdotal report of an issue on GWR fleet resilience. This would be picked up with Catherine Williams later in the meeting. The board also noted that LNE was showing a red risk which was not reflected in the December timetable register. This was because it was not seen as relevant to December 2019. Item 6 QUARTERLY BUSINESS REVIEW 27. Freya Guinness reported on a current 10% underspend, mostly as a result of vacancies (16% underspent on pay) and work in hand by directors to consider how best to address this. In addition, the late signing of the lease on Cabot Square meant that there would be a windfall sum available which might also be increased by the ending of a provision on dilapidations on Kemble Street (total up to £600,000). Investments for the future such as a staff conference, integrated HR and finance system, consumer agenda consultancy, managing market sensitive information were some of the ideas under discussion. The senior leadership group would discuss ideas and Exco would set priorities later this week. 28. She also reported that ORR had met 10/10 service standards in the first quarter, though there were also some delays on business plan deliverables. 29. The board agreed that a staff conference toward the end of the financial year would be timely and looked forward to hearing the executive's plans on the rest. ## Item 8 Other Executive Reports 30. Juliet Lazarus reported on progress with the employment tribunal and updated the board on the outcome of an action at the Competition Appeals Tribunal against NR. NR had changed their safety assurance requirements to have a single assurance provider and the previous supplier had challenged the anti-competitive nature of the stipulation. Importantly, the Tribunal had accepted that there could be a legitimate case for special treatment around safety assurance, but they had found that case was not sufficiently made in this situation. Damages had yet to be awarded against NR. Ian Prosser had given evidence in support of NR and noted that NR would have to update its SMS and that there would be a revenue impact on RSSB. 31. Graham Richards reported on successful completion of recruitment to all eight new posts in the current business plan (four Route lead, two asset management and two information and analysis posts). 32. Graham updated the board on the work in hand to review delay attribution (agreed as part of PR18), including a major meeting with the industry to sort out technical details. The aim was to drive better behaviours in the TOCs and NR. 33. Graham notified the board of an approach by Heathrow airport for some assurance work. They are considering whether to contribute funding to an NR scheme on western access to the airport, but were unclear how they could get assurance on efficient cost now that DfT has a direct role. This is a role that ORR does in Scotland and the board agreed that this was in line with ORR's role in providing support to parties wishing to invest in the sector, but noted that such advice would be commercially valuable and would draw resources from business as usual. On this understanding the board suggested the work could be provided on a 'paid for' basis and asked to be told how such charges would be set. [Action] 34. Dan Brown reported on activity this month on the Williams Review noting that ORR's public position had received a very positive reception and reflected a major step change in passenger rights. The directorate would draw down on consultancy resource to take the next steps forward. 35. He also updated the board on current open access applications, of which Grand Central was working toward the December 2019 timetable. 36. On Brexit, Dan reported that DfT were again ramping up preparations for the UK to leave the EU in October. 37. Russell Grossman updated the board on the rescheduled publications and plans to promote our work over the summer. The CIAR launch was now a major annual event and had gone very well. Other publications had been positively received. 38. Freya Guinness reported to the board on the three key risks to London Accommodation reported in June. The leaks had apparently been fixed, key wayleaves were now signed (one had been done overnight) and facilities management providers were confident that a service could be in place for the move. Moves were now likely to be in the first half of October but there was an option to stay in OKS until January if it became necessary to delay the move. The OKS landlord had agreed not to require dilapidations so this provision could now be released. Item 9 NR - LICENCE BREACH Catherine Williams and Davie Reed joined the meeting for this item 39. In April, the board had considered NR's response to the Final Order issued in respect of the breach of its licence to run an efficient and effective timetable process, and asked for further evidence that the PMO process had become properly embedded. Catherine Williams reported that it was possible to see the cultural change happening in the relationships around the PMO and the executive were content that the final order had been complied with. 40. The board welcomed the report and agreed that the Final Order had been complied with. 41. On Timetabling risk (as reported in the board information pack and see para 27 above) the board asked Catherine about the potential fleet resilience risk on GWR's introduction of IEPs in the December 2019 timetable. T-12 for December would occur before the next board meeting. 42. Catherine reported that the PMOs latest report to the Secretary of State did not suggest that the operation of IEPs would be a problem and also that fitment of filters was not highlighted as a risk. She would check and follow this up [Action]. John Larkinson was attending the First Group executive meeting on 24/7 and would also raise this2. [Action] Item 10 CONSUMERS David Kimball Marcus Clements and Stephanie Tobyn attended for this item 43. David Kimball presented the report. New guidance on assisted travel policies would require measures to improve reliability, better staff training, shorter notice periods and redress for failure to provide service. Consultation responses (some of which had been challenging) had helped refine the guidance in draft. 44. The guidance was challenging for operators but did not go as far as some passengers and passenger groups wanted. 45. The board discussed the aspiration for a 2 hour notice period for all travellers. This was recognised as a significant challenge for operators, particularly for example on long distance routes where trains might already have set out before a request was submitted. The balance needed to be struck in order to set a period that was challenging but also reasonably achievable. The board also noted the other practical challenges for operators around the number of available wheelchair spaces, getting passengers with reduced mobility onto crowded trains, the fit of mobility scooters into rolling stock and so on. There were particular challenges around unscheduled rail replacement bus services. The board noted that TOCs would have the opportunity when talking to someone requesting assisted travel to suggest alternative, less crowded services. 46. Operators needed to set out what they would commit to and what could be delivered in their policy. The clarity around what was actually being offered would bring helpful transparency to the different approaches of operators. There had been no evidence offered by operators around additional costs. There would be additional costs imposed by this requirement and this should be acknowledged. 47. The board reiterated its aim to drive significant improvements through this work, and noted the compromises which had been struck and the remaining risks to successful implementation. Communication with operators around this would need to be sensitively handled. 48. The board noted that this was continuing to build on the passenger experience research conducted last year and would also push operators closer to compliance with the Equalities Act. ## 49. Board Approved The Publication Of The Guidance. Item 11 Highways Panel 50. Stephen Glaister reported that the process had yielded a strong panel of applicants with ambition. Several had strong technical knowledge and active links in the industry. 51. The board endorsed the outcome of the recruitment process. The Board asked for ideas on how it could have some engagement with the panel - and with the other expert panels on which ORR relied. [Action] Item 12 RIS2 QUARTERLY UPDATE ## This Item To Be Redacted Until Publication Of Ris2 As Policy Development 52. Graham Richards reported on a meeting of the DfT BICC which he had attended with David Hunt when the committee considered the RIS2 advice. He had been reassured that DfT decision makers were receiving ORR's advice clearly and without modification. He had reiterated the advice that identified cost savings should be held by HE to mitigate risks. DfT would now work with HMT to agree the level of investment. 53. The Board noted external feedback on the relatively low additional efficiency ORR had identified (0.5%) over HE's original proposal of 8%. Graham responded by acknowledging that this is feedback he had also received but pointed out that efficiency was only one part of our advice and in total we had identified £660m of potential cost reduction (about 2.5% of expenditure). He also reported that the IPA had recently scrutinised our work and he understood that they had not proposed any further reductions. He also restated that we had recommended that these reductions should be recycled within HE in the context of major risks to the portfolio (quantified as P50). 54. There were two outstanding issues for government in terms of RIS2 funding: HMT needed to agree treatment of VAT (worth £800m) and the alternative to PFI/PPP for major project finance had not yet been announced. The Roads programme was not protected from the main spending review as Rail funding was. 55. The board also noted that while priorities for the RIS would be set by government, resultant removal of projects from the programme would be governed by the change control process and would therefore be transparent through ORRs reporting. This would also be important in bringing clarity on where risks had crystallised. Item 14 HS1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Steve Dennis and Debbie Daniels attended for this item 56. The board discussed the report, particularly the likely level of renewals where discussions continued about exactly what would be included and the possible funding of advance works for CP3. The report would be published by 31 July. 57. The board noted the level of unregulated income reported and asked for further detail on turnover [Action]. 58. The board noted that while HS1 had been well maintained the natural ageing of the asset and the future demands on the network require a shift from maintenance to renewals and agreed that this should be brought out more prominently in the report. 59. Graham reported that the AEFA report showed underperformance on efficient enhancement delivery since the Hendy realignment and the removal of ORR from the assurance processes. ITEM 13 ORR COMMUNICATIONS Charlie Haddon, Simon Belgard, Jo Randell joined the meeting for this item. ## 60. Russell Grossman Summarised The Stakeholder Survey Results. Paragraphs 61-64 Have Been Redacted As Policy Development 65. Overall the board agreed that ORR should continue to be more confident in sharing our evidence and analysis, including broadening the evidence base around whole industry. Continual assertion and demonstration of independence was important and clarity around our roles and those of our regulatees would eventually build better understanding of the real contribution ORR made in applying independent assurance to a public good. 66. The board discussed the evidence that personal contact led to improved stakeholder perceptions of the organisation. It agreed that more effort should be made to build even better relationships with key stakeholders, particularly in Parliament and government, drawing on NEDs as appropriate. Recent experience was that new ministers and advisors needed targeted briefing to understand the complex roles ORR filled, and the wider evidence base that it had access to which could enable us to become even more relevant as an expert and authoritative body. 67. The board asked for a further conversation in the autumn about where to focus communications efforts after the result of Williams is known. [forward programme] Item 16 WILLIAMS REVIEW 68. ORR's advice to the William's Review setting out short, medium and long term improvements on issues regarding passenger accessibility and redress had been well received and our position as a source of expert and technical advice established through the publication of that advice alongside Keith Williams' speech. 69. Dan Brown updated the board on the latest thinking of the Williams review team. The board discussed issues around the creation of a new rail body, particularly in terms of how such a body would be held to account for its delivery to customers. 70. Dan reported on the wide range of ideas still being explored by the team and by the department. He noted that some of the ideas reported last month had been discarded. The challenges for reform of the industry were formidable and the ORR team had been working hard to help identify them as well as explore solutions. Much would depend on the views of the (potentially new) Secretary of State. 71. It was encouraging that ORR was involved in these important conversations and the board endorsed the approach of supporting the department to think through all the implications of its ideas. Early understanding of the challenges of implementation would be critical in designing a deliverable framework. 72. Dan undertook to keep the board informed of developments across the summer break. [Action] Item 17 FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES AND PANELS ## Audit And Risk Committee 73. Bob Holland reported on a good meeting, noting that the latest internal audit report on an IT project gave far better assurance than previous IT project reports. There had been a comprehensive progress report on the accommodation project. The quarterly risk report had been circulated with the board papers: the system was working well and the discussion on risk management had been positive. 74. He mentioned that ARC had asked Exco to think about how Strategic objectives could be measured and consider discussing with the board at the strategy day in November [Forward programme]. The chair agreed that reporting on achievement of strategic objectives was important. Consumer Panel - 75. Anne Heal reported on a visit to HE to hear from customer service leadership team about how they were taking a more strategic approach to customers, and noted an increased focus on customer satisfaction. ## Any Other Business 76. The Chair reported on meetings with Lilian Greenwood, the CIAR launch, and a Felixstowe port visit (Freightliner) including cab rides. He had attended the Wales Route Stakeholder Board and with John met Andrew Jones rail minister. 77. Over 60 applications had been received for board positions. 11 had been long listed for interview and interviews would be held after the September board. 78. The board noted the forward programme and risk report circulated below the line.	en
4642-pdf	\| \| \| Variable \| Description \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------\| \| ID \| \| Application Reference Number \| \| \| DateReceived \| \| Date application received \| \| \| ReceivedQ \| \| Quarter application received - to select applications received in any quarter or the full year, \| \| \| this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications received in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, Q3, \| \| \| \| \| Q4" for all applications received in the financial year \| \| \| \| \| DateValid \| \| Date application made valid \| \| \| Authority \| \| District Council Authority or Department \| \| \| LPA19CD \| Local Planning authority code \| \| \| \| LPA19NM \| Local Planning authority name \| \| \| \| Constituency \| \| Parliamentary Constituency of application \| \| \| AppType \| \| Application Type e.g. Full, Reserved Matters \| \| \| Classification \| \| Application Classification i.e. Regional, Major, Local \| \| \| StatsCategory \| \| Statistical Category e.g. Residential, Industrial, Commercial \| \| \| Urban_Rural \| \| Marker to show if an application is urban or rural (NISRA definition) - defined as urban if \| \| \| application within SDLs >= 5,000 population, rural settlements if within SDLs < 5,000 and \| \| \| \| \| rural countryside if outside SDLs \| \| \| \| \| HousingType \| \| Housing type of application e.g. new single dwelling, housing development - including rural \| \| \| settlements and countryside breakdowns \| \| \| \| \| RenewableType \| \| Type of Renewable Energy e.g. Single Wind Turbine, Wind Farm, Solar Panels \| \| \| Proposal \| \| Description of the Application's proposal \| \| \| SiteAddress \| \| Site address of the application \| \| \| Easting \| \| Easting Co-ordinate of application \| \| \| Northing \| \| Northing Co-ordinate of application \| \| \| Status@31Mar \| \| Status of application at end of reporting period i.e. Decided/Withdrawn/Pending \| \| \| Decision_Withdrawal \| \| Description of the Authority's decision (including withdrawn) \| \| \| DecisionIssuedDate \| \| Date application decided \| \| \| DecidedQ \| \| Quarter application decided - to select applications decided in any quarter or the full year, \| \| \| this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications decided in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, Q3, \| \| \| \| \| Q4" for all applications decided in the financial year \| \| \| \| \| DateWithdrawn \| \| Date application withdrawn \| \| \| WithdrawnQ \| \| Quarter application withdrawn - to select applications decided in any quarter or the full \| \| \| year, this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications decided in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, \| \| \| \| \| Q3, Q4" for all applications decided in the financial year \| \| \| \| \| processingtime_wks \| \| Time in weeks to process a decision or withdrawal \| \| \| Live@31Mar \| \| \| \| \| Marker to show if an application is live at the end of the reporting period - this variable can \| \| \| \| \| be filtered i.e. select "1" for live applications at the end of the financial year \| \| \| \| \| timeinsystem \| \| The time live applications have been in the system at end of the reporting period \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
1229-pdf	Highlights Guide This document contains details of how to navigate through the newly released files. We have included bookmarks in each of the PDF files of key stories and reports highlighted by Dr David Clarke. This will make it easier to navigate through the files. For information on the history of government UFO investigations and where these files fit in please read Dr David Clarke"s background guide to the files. Navigating the files using the bookmarks To view the bookmarks, click on the "Bookmarks" tab on the upper left hand side of the PDF window, the bookmarks tab will expand - as shown below. 1. Click on "Bookmarks" tab The "Bookmarks" tab will then expand and a list of relevant bookmarks will be displayed - as shown below. ## 2. Bookmark Tab Will Expand. Clicking On A Bookmark Will Take You To The Pages Of The File Related To That Particular Story. To See The Details Of Each Bookmark - Hover Over The Red Or Blue Icon That Appears On The Top Left Hand Corner Of The Relevant Page Of The Pdf Document - As Shown Below. 3. Hover or click on bookmark icons to see detail ## Below is information on the key stories and reports of UFO activity contained in these files. It includes a list of the bookmarks contained in each file, with a short summary of each bookmark. Please note that not all files contain bookmarks. Key stories and events featured in the files (red text): Rendlesham Forest incident, December 1980 The file DEFE 24/1948 covers the Rendlesham incident, Britain"s best-known UFO incident. It involves several sightings of lights in the forest, outside the perimeter fence of RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, by United States Air Force personnel in December 1980. They claimed a UFO had landed in the forest, leaving traces including markings on the ground and radiation. The events were detailed in a famous memo to the MoD by Lt Col Charles Halt (USAF deputy base commander), who was present during one of the sightings. Halt"s memo opens this file (p6), which consists largely of correspondence between the MoD and members of the public from 1983-1995. Note: This file has previously been released to individuals requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act. Details of this are given on p4 of the file. Further material can be found in DEFE 24/1970 (UFOs: Parliamentary correspondence 1985-1995). This file includes background material covering a range of Parliamentary Questions and private inquiries to the Ministry of Defence from MPs, often forwarding letters from constituents, on UFO matters. The file contains the Ministry of Defence"s final position statement on the Rendlesham incident in a briefing for the House of Lords Defence Debate (p10-11), along with a letter from the late Lord Hill-Norton, a former Chief of Defence Staff, to the Rt Hon Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for Defence, where he described the incident as, "a potential "banana-skin" looming for the MoD" (p366-367). UFOs reported over Belgium - 1989-1990 A story which appears in a number of the files concerns a wave of sightings that occurred in Belgium during 1989-90. The files reveal how in March 1990 the Belgian Air Force scrambled F-16 fighters to intercept UFOs reported by police officers and others. An official statement from the Belgian Air Force sent to the MoD in November 1993 is at DEFE 24/1970 p86-87. A letter from Malcolm Rifkind to Lord Hill-Norton explains the MoD was not informed of the incident at the time and concluded there was no threat to the UK DEFE 24/1970 p58-59. In addition see (not an exhaustive list): DEFE 24/1970 p66, p70-71, p75-76 and p86-87 DEFE 24/1960 (p320-324) - a four-page account of the UFOs detected by NATO radars and F-16 fighters over Belgium in 1990, which remain unexplained. The account, from General Wilfried de Brouwer, Chief of Operations, Belgian Air Staff confirms that F-16 pilots obtained "lock-ons" with their radars but were unable to explain the phenomena. DEFE 24/1962 (p177-179) DEFE 24/1965 (p272) Cosford incident, 31 March 1993 The file DEFE 24/2086 covers sightings of bright lights seen across central England in the early hours by police officers and military witnesses (including a police patrol at RAF Cosford, near Wolverhampton). The file includes more than 30 sightings during a sixhour period. The MoD"s UFO desk asked the RAF to replay radar tapes but this found nothing unusual had been detected. However, the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (ACAS), Sir Anthony Bagnall, was briefed that there was evidence a UFO had evaded UK defences. It soon emerged that the majority of sightings were caused by the Russian rocket that launched the Cosmos 2238 satellite, re-entering the earth"s atmosphere. UFO sightings in London, 1993-94 Dozens of sightings of a brightly illuminated oval object were reported over London, caused by what was actually a Virgin airship advertising the launch of the Ford Mondeo. Some accounts include sketches and several people refused to believe the UFO was the airship (see DEFE 24/1963, 1959, 1960 - more details of pages are given in the regional highlights for London, below). Aircraft encounters A number of reports of UFOs sighted by pilots and air crews, along with near-misses between UFOs and airliners, are included in these files.  DEFE 24/1961 (p381) - a "lit object" passed close to an aircraft approaching Manchester in January 1995  DEFE 24/1960 (p294) - a "black lozenge-shaped UFO" passed close to an aircraft over Berkshire in August 1994  DEFE 24/1963 (p198) - a UFO Solar balloon was blamed for an incident at Gatwick in July 1991  DEFE 24/1970 (p86-87), DEFE 24/1960 (p320-324) - UFOs seen by Belgian Air Force F-16 fighter pilots in March 1990  DEFE 24/1960 (p424-425) - An air crew flying from Moscow to Tokyo in March 1994 reported seeing a huge object was seen entering the Earth"s atmosphere over the Arctic that created a shockwave 200 miles long. The crew reported that the UFO came in over the [North] pole at an estimated speed of 10-15,000mph. They initially believed it must have been a Space Shuttle, but subsequently found it was already down. ## Ufos On Radar  DEFE 24/1970 (p125) - Ministry of Defence statement from 1993: "I am not aware of instances where radar operators have detected an object, judged it to be solid, and not been able to identify it…" continuing, "..we have never detected a structured aircraft in UK airspace, that has remained unidentified". ## Crop Circles Parliamentary Questions In 1989 And 1990 Regarding Crop Circles Are Found At:  DEFE 24/1970 (p175-178, p229-231, p275-278) ## Attempted Alien Abductions  DEFE 24/1961 (p191-207) - Staffordshire Police report May 1995 on two youths who claimed they saw a UFO land in a field at Chasetown. A face appeared and a voice said: "We want you, come with us." ## Ufo Attack On Cemetery  DEFE 24/1976 (p180) - Cheshire police report from July 1996. A young man returning home near Widnes ran after seeing a UFO over a cemetery. He reported that beams of light were projected onto the ground, a wailing noise was heard and smoke rose from the ground. Investigations at the scene found a hole burned in a railway sleeper still smouldering when police arrived. ## Glastonbury Festival Ufo  DEFE 24/1960 (p295-305) - two female festival-goers reported a UFO over the jazz field in June 1994. ## Scotland Ufo Sightings  DEFE 24/1959-1961 (a number of Scottish sightings are included in these files) - Bonnybridge, near Stirling, was featured in the national press during 1994-1995 as Britain"s hotspot for UFO sightings. A local councillor wrote to John Major asking for an inquiry and tried to twin the town with Roswell. Reports of UFO activities according to regions (blue text): Note: These regional bookmarks are a rough guide only and may not include all of the reports related to the region featured in this release. Berkshire DEFE 24/1960 (p294) Birmingham DEFE 24/1970 (p287) DEFE 24/1976 (p240-241) Buckinghamshire DEFE 24/1961 (p14) Cambridgeshire DEFE 24/1964 (P152-164) Cheshire DEFE 24/1976 (p180) Cornwall DEFE 24/1959 (p114, p213) DEFE 24/1975 (p25) Derbyshire DEFE 24/1960 (p46) Devon DEFE 24/1965 (p83-86, p330, p333-334) Essex DEFE 24/1960 (p85-86) DEFE 24/1974 (p62) Hampshire DEFE 24/1963 (p8-11) Jersey DEFE 24/1964 (p138-142) Lincolnshire DEFE 24/1959 (p23-25) DEFE 24/1975 (p237) London DEFE 24/1970 (p192-203) DEFE 24/1959 (p101-110, p282-283) DEFE 24/1962 (p67-69) DEFE 24/1963 (p49-54, p112-117) DEFE 24/1964 (p9-11, p12-13, p308-310) DEFE 24/1965 (p8-9, p91-92, p94, p216-247, p262-265) Manchester DEFE 24/1961 (p381) DEFE 24/1975 (p172) Middlesex DEFE 24/1976 (p109-110) Northern Ireland DEFE 24/1974 (p5) Northamptonshire DEFE 24/1964 (p240-242) DEFE 24/1959 (p220) Norwich DEFE 24/1960 (p101) Portsmouth DEFE 24/1960 (p186-187) Reading DEFE 24/1960 (p137) Scotland Please note DEFE 24/1960 contains numerous reports from Scotland (see Key Files notes above) including: DEFE 24/1960 (p10, p21, 149, p162, p362, p447) DEFE 24/1961 (p241, p343, p312) DEFE 24/1975 (p227) DEFE 24/1976 (p113-115) DEFE 24/1962 (p274-275) DEFE 24/1963 (p249-250) Somerset DEFE 24/1960 (p295-305) DEFE 24/1964 (p188) Southampton DEFE 24/1960 (p265-267) Staffordshire DEFE 24/1961 (p191-207) DEFE 24/1970 (p299-300, p301-303) Suffolk DEFE 24/1974 (p104-106) Sussex DEFE 24/1976 (p51) Teesside DEFE 24/1963 (p255-257) Wales DEFE 24/1975 (p174-176) West Midlands DEFE 24/1961 (p332) Wiltshire DEFE 24/1959 (p54-55) DEFE 24/1961 (p319-321) DEFE 24/1975 (p83-84, p172) DEFE 24/1976 (p200) Worcestershire DEFE 24/1959 (p249) DEFE 24/1975 (p12) Yorkshire DEFE 24/1959 (p288, p368) DEFE 24/1961 (p88-89, p216) DEFE 24/1965 (p20)	en
0378-pdf	Disclosure ref: 35 Sent: 26th June 2019 ## Freedom Of Information Act 2000 Request Freedom Of Information Requests In Regards To Hate Crimes Request Foi Request 1 1. The total number of race hate crimes which were received between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld? 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought? 1. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months. 1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crime cases which were received between April 2018- 2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld? 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought? SW1H 9AJ United Kingdom 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months. FOI Request 3 1. The total number of race hates crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. FOI Request 4 1. The total number of race hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim's choice, broken down by months. 6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months. 1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018- 2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim's choice, broken down by months. 6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months. 1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019 and where the primary, or secondary, location tag was 'mosque' (or any other religious institution tag that describes a building used by the Muslim communities for, but not limited to, worship). Please provide this information broken down by months. a. Examples of locations tag include, but may not be limited to: Mosque, Madrasa, Islamic Schools, Islamic Prayer rooms. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the name of the city/town/village where each attack occurred. Grouping data under one category for each month is fine. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: ## a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity Response Section 12(1) of the FOI Act provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit is specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. The nature of the information requested in your seven requests has an overarching theme and common thread relating to detailed information for hate crime. A manual review of each case held would have to be undertaken to answer your detailed questions within your requests .As a guide, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) completed total number of 14,151 cases files of hate crime prosecutions for 2017 to 2018 financial year. For this reason we have aggregated the requests as they relate to the same information as set out in section five of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. Please refer to the link below: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/5/made We believe that the cost of responding to all seven of these requests would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, the CPS is not obliged to comply with any of your requests in accordance with section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please be advised that this cost limit will apply to any new requests that can be considered under the same theme as those seven mentioned above. The cost limit will apply to similar requests received in 60 consecutive working days from 26 June 2019. The cost limit will therefore apply until 19 September 2019 Requests received that are considered not to fall under the same theme as the current seven requests will be dealt with as normal. Under section 16 of the FOI Act there is a duty to provide advice and assistance; you may find it helpful and worthwhile to refer to our CPS published data on hate crimes for 2017 to 2018 financial year via link below: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/hate-crime-reports - page 21 020 3357 0899 IMU@cps.gov.uk	en
1745-pdf	We will send you a return towards the end of each tax month (a tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the 5th of the next). We will fill in the return with the information that we hold about your business and the subcontractors that have been verified or you have paid recently. You must check information on the return, add any new subcontractors not already shown, enter details of all payments with details of deductions and consider and sign the declarations. You must send the return to reach us by the 19th of the month, otherwise you will incur a penalty. ## Cis300 Page 1 Contractor's monthly return Month ending 05 06 2006 This return is for payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above. Your name and address details held on our file. If you prefer, you can fill in your monthly return online. To do this, please go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis for further information. 123PA123456780606 You are required by law to fill in and sign a return and send it back in time to reach us by the 19th of the month shown above. You will be charged a penalty if we do not receive your return by the 19th of the above month. REPRINT-REFERENCE--X 999 If the address we have shown is not correct, phone the CIS Helpline immediately on 0845 366 7899. Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR) 12345 54321 You only need to fill in boxes 1 or 2 if your name or contact telephone number changes. Accounts Office reference 123PA12345678 RECIPIENT NAME LINE 1 ------------X RECIPIENT NAME LINE 2 ------------X ADDRESS LINE 1 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 2 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 3 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 4 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 5 -------------------X POSTCODE CIS Helpline 0845 366 7899 Help We are happy to help if you have any questions about your return. You can • use the guidance notes included in your Contractor Pack - further copies are available from the CIS Orderline on 0845 366 7899, or • go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis, or • phone the CIS Helpline on 0845 366 7899 – if you need further information about filling in this return – if you realise you have made a mistake after you have sent in your return – if you need a replacement return. How to fill in this return - Only write inside the boxes. Use black ink and capital letters. - If you make a mistake, please cross it out and write the correct information underneath. - Leave blank any boxes that do not apply to you - please do not strike through anything irrelevant. - Do not fold the return. Send it back to us unfolded in the envelope provided. Photocopies are not acceptable. Your monthly return CONTACT DETAILS Supplying the following information will help speed things up if we need to talk to you about your return. We will pre-print this information for you in the future. This means you will only need to fill in boxes 1 and 2 if the details change. This return is for payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above. If you prefer, you can fill in your monthly return online. To do this, please go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis for further information. 2 1 Contact name (if not shown or needs to change) Contact phone number/mobile number (if not shown or needs to change) If you have not paid any subcontractors during the month, you must still make a nil return. You are required by law to fill in and sign a return and send it back in time to reach us by the 19th of the month shown above. You will be charged a penalty if we do not receive your return by the 19th of the above month. If the address we have shown is not correct, phone the CIS Helpline immediately on 0845 366 7899. If you tell us by phone, Internet or by EDI, you do not have to send us your return. ## Nil Return 3 If you have not made any payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above, you must make a nil declaration. Do this online at www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis, by phoning the CIS Helpline on 0845 366 7899, or go to 'DECLARATION AND CERTIFICATE' at the top of page 4 and start to fill in the return from there. Help We are happy to help if you have any questions about your return. You can • use the guidance notes included in your Contractor Pack - further copies are available from the CIS Orderline on 0845 366 7899, or • go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis, or • phone the CIS Helpline on 0845 366 7899 – if you need further information about filling in this return – if you realise you have made a mistake after you have sent in your return – if you need a replacement return. If you post your return send it to: HMRC CIS, Comben House, Farriers Way, BOOTLE, L69 9ZX. - Only write inside the boxes. Use black ink and capital letters. - If you make a mistake, please cross it out and write the correct information underneath. - Leave blank any boxes that do not apply to you - please do not strike through anything irrelevant. - Do not fold the return. Send it back to us unfolded in the envelope provided. Photocopies are not acceptable. ## Cis300 Page 2 Will Contain Details Of Subcontractors You Have Previously Paid Or Verified. If You Haven'T Paid A Subcontractor Leave The Box Blank. Cis300 Page 3 Fill In When You Want To Tell Us Of Payments Made To Subcontractors Who Do Not Appear On Page 2 Or Cis300(Cs) - Continuation Sheet 123PA123456780606 PAYMENTS TO SUBCONTRACTORS Please do not change any of the details we have printed. If any of the details are wrong, please phone the CIS Helpline. Use black ink to fill in the white boxes below. Only fill in the details for those subcontractors you have paid. If you haven't paid the subcontractor, please leave the boxes blank. Name of subcontractors you have previously paid or verified. Enter the subcontractor's name or business name given during verification in 4.1 and the reference number given by the subcontractor in 4.2. Reference number as confirmed by HMRC. Number supplied at verification as confirmed by HMRC. on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Enter the verification number given by HMRC but only for subcontractors we could not match to our records. Enter the total amount paid to the subcontractor in the month in 4.4. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. You only need to fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax. Enter the total cost of materials paid in the month in 4.5 and the total amount deducted in the month in 4.6. If the subcontractor is an individual and gave their National Insurance number at verification enter it. If the subcontractor is a company and gave you their CRN at verification enter the number. We will send continuation sheets with your return if we hold details for five or more subcontractors you have verified or paid previously. If we have sent you any continuation sheets, please look at them before filling in page 3. ## Cis300 Page 4 Declaration And Certificate As the contractor you may be liable for any deductions you should have made but have not declared on a monthly return to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). If you have not paid any subcontractors for the month shown on this return, go to box 5. If you have paid subcontractors for the month shown on this return, go to box 6. 5 Nil return I confirm that no payments have been made to subcontractors in the construction industry in this period. Put 'X' in the box below. If you make a mistake cross out the wrong information and write the correct information underneath. Page 2 only includes details for 4 subcontractors, if we hold details for more we will send you continuation sheets CIS300(CS). Please look at them before filling in page 3. If you do not plan to pay subcontractors for a while place an 'X' in the box and we can stop sending you returns for the next six months. IMPORTANT - You must tell us as soon as you start paying subcontractors again as it is your responsibility to ensure a monthly return is submitted when one is due. Now go straight to box 8. If you want to tell us that you have not paid any contractors in the month using the return form, place an 'X' in the box. If you tell us by phone, Internet or EDI, you do not have to send us your return. 6 Employment status The employment status of each individual included on this return, and any continuation sheets, has been considered and payments have not been made under contracts of employment. Put 'X' in the box below. 7 Verified subcontractors You must consider the employment status for each individual you have included on the return and place a 'X' in the box to confirm that payments have not been made under contracts of employment. Every subcontractor included on this return, and any continuation sheets, has either been verified with HM Revenue & Customs, or has been included in previous CIS returns in this, or the previous two tax years. Put 'X' in the box below. ## What To Do Next • If you fill in any continuation sheets you must send them back at the same time as your main monthly return otherwise your monthly return is incomplete. • Please do not fold or staple any sheets together - keep them flat and use the envelope provided. • Please send your completed return, including any continuation sheets, to: HM Revenue & Customs, Construction Industry Scheme, Comben House, Farriers Way, BOOTLE, L69 9ZX. If you have verified every subcontractor included on this return or have included them on a previous return in this tax year or the two previous tax years you must place an 'X' in the box. • If a payment is due, send it to your HMRC Accounts Office and not with this return. See your P30BC - Payslip Booklet for notes on how to pay. CIS300(Man) Only use when you have lost your original pre-populated CIS300. Phone 0845 366 7899 to get a manual return. CIS300(CS) Pre-populated continuation sheet - sent with your CIS300 Contractor's monthly return if we hold details for more than four subcontractors. C1 01 Contractor's monthly return ## Payments To Subcontractors Continued References And Month Ending CIS Helpline 0845 366 7899 We need these details so we can be sure we have received your return for the correct month. What is your Accounts Office reference number? Take this from the front of your Payslip Booklet What is the month ending for this return? (The tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the P What is your Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR)? This is the 10-digit number at the top of your Tax Return Your monthly return Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. You need to tell us the correct month so that we can update your records. The month should reflect when payments were made. When filling in a CIS300(Man) you need to tell us your Accounts Office reference number and your UTR. Month to which the return relates. Use these references when contacting us. Call this number if you - need further information about filling in a return - have made a mistake after you have sent a return - need a replacement return. You can register to fill in your monthly return online at www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis Please turn over 123PA123456780606 ## Payments To Subcontractors Continued If you made payment to any subcontractors we have not listed on your monthly return, or on a continuation sheet, please fill in the white boxes below. Only fill in details for those subcontractors you have paid. If you have more than two, you need to fill in blank continuation sheets, CIS300 (CS) (Man), and send to us with your monthly return. Supplies of these forms were enclosed with your Contractor Pack. You can get further supplies from the CIS Orderline on 0845 366 7899. Enter the total amount paid to the subcontractor in the month. Enter the total cost of materials for the month. Enter the total amount deducted in the month. If you have paid more than two subcontractors we have not listed, please fill in blank continuation sheets CIS300 (CS) (Man) and send to us with your monthly return. You can get supplies from your Contractor Pack or, if you have run out, from the CIS Orderline on 0845 366 7899. If you need to tell us of payments made to other subcontractors please use the CIS300(CS)(Man) continuation sheet. Please turn over 8 If you do not anticipate paying subcontractors in the next six months, put 'X' in the box below. This means we will not send you a monthly return unnecessarily. But, you must let us know when you start to pay subcontractors again by phoning the CIS Helpline or writing to your HMRC office. 9 Please sign below to confirm the declaration made at either box 5 or boxes 6 and 7. We may penalise or prosecute you if you make false statements. The information I have given on this return is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Unsigned returns will not be accepted and will be sent back to you. If we receive your return later than the 19th of the month you will incur a penalty. 11 Please send your return to this address by the 19th of the month otherwise you will incur a penalty. You should get your return back to us by this date regardless of whether you are in discussion with us about any issues concerning the return. ## Cis300(Cs)(Man) Blank Continuation Sheet Contractor's monthly return PAGE 4 Blank continuation sheet Contractor's monthly return Blank continuation sheet ## References And Month Ending We need these details so we can identify you on our records. You can copy all this information from the front page of your Contractor's monthly return. Please fill in these boxes for each continuation sheet you use. What is your Accounts Office reference number? P What is the month ending for this return? (The tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the 5th of the next.) 0 5 M M 2 0 Y Y What is your Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR)? ## Payments To Subcontractors For each continuation sheet you use enter the Accounts Office reference shown on the CIS300 or from the front of your Payslip booklet along with your UTR. Don't forget to enter the month that is shown on the CIS300 as well.	en
3994-pdf	## Memorandum Of Understanding # Between The Health And Safety Executive (Hse) And The Office Of Rail And Road (Orr) Signed by Richard Judge, Chief Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive on 19 January 2017 Signed by Joanna Whittington, Chief Executive on behalf of the Office of Rail and Road on 15 December 2016 ## C O N T E N T S Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Health And Safety Executive And The Office Of Rail And Road \| Topic: \| Page/Annex \| \|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------\| \| PART I \| 4 \| \| Framework of understanding \| 4 \| \| Introduction \| 4 \| \| Purpose of this MoU \| 5 \| \| Liaison Arrangements \| 5 \| \| Central Contact Points \| 5 \| \| Resolving disagreements \| 6 \| \| Liaison \| 6 \| \| MoU Review Arrangements \| 6 \| \| PART II \| 7 \| \| Arrangements for the provision of mutual advice and support in policy development \| 7 \| \| and enforcement activity \| \| \| Principles \| 7 \| \| Nature of support between HSE and ORR \| 7 \| \| Arrangements for the provision of specialist support \| 8 \| \| Procedure for requesting specialist resource \| 8 \| \| Policy development \| 8 \| \| Research \| 9 \| \| Exemptions and other policy processes \| 9 \| \| Statutory notifications and complaints \| 9 \| \| The reporting of railway-related occupational road fatalities \| 9 \| \| Sharing statistical information. \| 9 \| \| Financial arrangements \| 9 \| \| Civil contingencies \| 10 \| \| Out of hours response \| 10 \| \| Clarification of investigation arrangements \| 10 \| \| Enforcement \| 10 \| \| Liaison with emergency services \| 11 \| \| Access to HSE's internal advice and guidance on health and safety legislation and \| 11 \| \| enforcement \| \| \| Training and Development \| 11 \| \| Appendix A \| 12 \| \| Enforcement responsibilities: relationship between ORR and HSE \| 12 \| \| General approach to the allocation of enforcement responsibilities \| 12 \| \| What is the extent of ORR's enforcement authority? Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) \| 14 \| \| Regulation 3(3) - duties of designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers \| 14 \| \| Regulation 3(6) - effect of EARR on provisions in EA 98 \| 15 \| \| Regulation 3 - effect of allocations for particular activities \| 15 \| \| Stations occupied by a railway undertaking \| 15 \| \| Training activities \| 16 \| \| Light Maintenance \| 16 \| \| Entities in charge of maintenance \| 16 \| \| Factories \| 17 \| \| Signalling, electrical and operational control centres \| 17 \| \| Non-railway premises \| 17 \| \| Museums and heritage centres not part of a 'heritage' railway \| 17 \| \| Railway systems in military establishments \| 17 \| \| Devonport Royal Dockyard \| 18 \| \| Railways at airports \| 18 \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Channel Tunnel UK concession area \| 19 \| \| Carriage of dangerous goods \| 19 \| \| Radiation emergencies \| 19 \| \| British Transport Police (and security of railways) \| 19 \| \| Regulation 4 exceptions \| 20 \| \| Cableway installations \| 20 \| \| Fairground equipment \| 20 \| \| Guided buses \| 20 \| \| Railway-related occupational road safety \| 21 \| \| Provision of bus substitution services \| 21 \| \| Miniature railways \| 21 \| \| Harbours \| 21 \| \| The operation of pier railways and tramways \| 22 \| \| Railway systems within industrial sites \| 22 \| \| Mines \| 22 \| \| Quarries \| 22 \| \| Railway systems within inter-modal depots \| 23 \| \| Level crossings \| 23 \| \| Construction Work Regulation 5 \| 24 \| \| ORR's enforcement role \| 25 \| \| HSE's enforcement role \| 25 \| \| Situations where both EAs are required to reach an agreement on allocation of \| 26 \| \| responsibility based on the circumstances of the case \| \| \| Major infrastructure projects (new-build railways) \| 26 \| \| Bridges spanning the railway \| 27 \| \| Bridges spanning the railway where there is no construction activity \| 27 \| \| Work with asbestos \| 28 \| \| Gas Safety \| 28 \| \| HSE's liaison with ORR on RAIB's recommendations \| 28 \| \| Annex 1: Road Vehicle Incursions - new Agreement on Enforcement Authority \| 29 \| \| Annex 2: ORR's new strategic road network monitoring role \| 30 \| \| 31-34 \| Annex 3: Agency Agreement between HSE and ORR on Enforcement Functions in \| \| relation to the Design of Railways, Tramways and Other Systems of Guided \| \| \| Transport \| \| \| Annex 4: cross-referenced A-Z listing of railway-related enforcement topic areas \| 35 \| \| \| \| ## Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Health And Safety Executive And The Office Of Rail And Road Part I Framework Of Understanding Introduction 1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is made between the Chief Executives of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). Its purpose is to ensure effective coordination and cooperation between these organisations in relation to the regulation of health and safety, including policy matters and the enforcement of health and safety law, on all Britain's railways, tramways and other guided transport systems. This version includes a new Annex 3 dealing with the enforcement functions relating to the Design of Railways, Tramways and Other Systems of Guided Transport. It replaces the previous MoUs, including the most recent 2015 version. 2. HSE and ORR recognise each other's status as independent health and safety regulators. In accordance with the better regulation principles, we are committed to work closely together to achieve our health and safety objectives, and to ensure coordinated and consistent jointworking where appropriate. 3. HSE considers, in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), that this MoU facilitates the performance of its functions under part 1 of HSWA. ORR considers, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 (RA 2005), that this MoU contributes to the provision of appropriate arrangements for fulfilling its duties in relation to the railway safety purposes. 4. HSE and ORR undertake to cooperate to enable each other to carry out their responsibilities and functions, and to maintain effective working arrangements for that purpose. This MoU describes the arrangements HSE and ORR will put in place to assist this. 5. HSE and ORR undertake to:  secure through their regulatory activity, including enforcement, consistent standards of protection for people at work and members of the public affected by work activities;  share knowledge and avoid duplication of effort to maximise efficiency in government and minimise burdens on business;  cooperate to ensure that the allocation of responsibilities set out in the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (EARR) works effectively and provides clarification for duty holders as necessary;  ensure that the development of general health and safety policy takes account of issues relevant to the railways and that mutual research interests are considered; and  provide mutual expertise and assistance to enable the two organisations to fulfil their functions. ## Purpose Of This Mou 6. The RA 2005 transfers responsibility for railway-related health and safety matters from HSE to ORR by giving ORR responsibility for the application of HSWA Part 1 in respect of 'railway safety purposes'. This means that ORR has policy responsibility for any health and safety risks that either exclusively or primarily concern the construction or operation of railways, tramways or other guided transport systems. RA 2005 (Schedule 3, paragraph 10) requires ORR and HSE to enter into arrangements to secure 'cooperation and the exchange of information, in connection with the carrying out of safety functions'. 7. The Railways Act 2005 (Amendment) Regulations 2006 remove 'guided bus systems' and 'trolley vehicle systems' from the definition of 'railway safety purposes', so these systems remain with HSE. These Regulations also make it clear that 'transport system' does not include fairground equipment as defined in section 53 of HSWA. 8. EARR allocates enforcement functions to ORR and defines who the enforcing authority (EA) is for particular activities and in relation to certain premises. Appendix A (page 12) of this MoU describes how this will work in practice. ## Liaison Arrangements 9. The following liaison arrangements will be adopted: ORR HSE Frequency Purpose Chief Executive Chief Executive Annual To review the success of the MoU in ensuring an effective partnership between ORR and HSE. ORR operational Workplace Road and/or policy Transport Team twice a year (or more as necessary) (JET) representative(s) (to be determined) To discuss current and emerging or important legal and enforcement issues. ## Central Contact Points 10. Each organisation will have a named single central contact point responsible for monitoring the practical implementation and effective working of the MoU and to assist good working relationships between the organisations. The contact should be made aware of major issues relating to how the MoU works, and will participate in the preparation of briefing for the annual liaison meetings. 11. The role of the central contact points will be to: a. act as a gatekeeper to help colleagues make contact with the right people in ORR and HSE. This includes maintaining up to date contact details for HSE's Heads of Specialist Groups, HSE Construction Division, ORR Area Field Teams and ORR National Expertise Teams; b. monitor how well the MoU is working and provide briefing on this for the senior-level liaison meetings; c. monitor the level of demand for support made throughout each year, making regular contact with their opposite number if necessary to compare and confirm levels of demand by each organisation; d. assist in resolving any disputes between ORR and HSE; and e. champion the interests of the other party so that knowledge of the MoU, and the mutual needs of both ORR and HSE, is maintained. ## Resolving Disagreements 12. Any disagreements will normally be resolved at working-level. If this is not possible, the central contact points will seek to settle the issue and ensure a mutually satisfactory resolution. Senior management of both parties at appropriate levels will be involved as necessary. ## Liaison 13. In practice, most contacts between ORR and HSE will arise in the context of day-to-day operations, often at regional principal inspector-level. It is the responsibility of individuals in both organisations to identify topics requiring liaison between the two organisations, and ensure that they are dealt with efficiently and effectively. 14. A separate MoU exists between ORR and Local Authorities. A separate MoU also exists between ORR and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). ## Mou Review Arrangements 15. This MoU will be reviewed and updated using the following principles: a) reviewed approximately every five years or sooner if a substantive need arises; b) the arrangements for the provision of mutual advice and support described in Part II (see page 7) and the collaborative work set out in all the annexes of this document can be reviewed and amended through the agreement of both parties at working-level from time-to-time, as appropriate and needed. This includes scrutiny of actual resources used against predicted usage. c) key findings and any proposals for changing the MoU will first be considered as part of routine ORR/HSE liaison arrangements; and d) the detailed working arrangements set out in Appendix A may be clarified or amended from time-to-time outside the formal procedures for reviewing this MoU, but must secure the agreement of both parties in writing. ## Part Ii Arrangements For The Provision Of Mutual Advice And Support In Policy Development And Enforcement Activity 16. In the railway context, ORR is responsible for enforcing non-railway-specific health and safety legislation relating to risks, such as noise and manual handling. HSE has enforcement responsibility in respect of certain railway activity, as described in EARR, such as within industrial sites. Therefore, both HSE and ORR have an interest in the development of each other's policy and regulations, and technical knowledge relating to those areas, and will require advice, information and support from each other. 17. Both HSE and ORR will give advice to one another on their own areas of expertise as part of the normal working relationships between two government departments. However, both will need to communicate proactively with and seek more substantive support from each other from time-to-time, in particular where expertise in support of enforcement activity and/or policy development is needed. ## Principles 18. As enforcing authorities of health and safety law, HSE and ORR: a) recognise the importance of their close working relationships, formal consultation and mutual support in health and safety policy development, enforcement and research; b) agree to provide annual outline estimates of the specialist resources each will seek from the other based on regulatory priority areas, in good time, and in accordance with each other's planning cycle, recognising the need for flexibility in order to respond to the demands of reactive work; and c) will make adequate arrangements for the reimbursement of significant costs for the provision of mutual advice and support to each other on an, as near as possible, monthly basis and will monitor the demands each makes of the other, and maintain appropriate records centrally. ## Nature Of Support Between Hse And Orr 19. HSE will provide support to ORR's health and safety functions which extends, but is not necessarily limited to: a) 'railways' - which includes tramways and other guided transport systems throughout the rest of this MoU, where applicable - health and safety policy development; b) the provision of specialist support and advice - see paragraph 21 - to assist formal enforcement action and in connection with the railway; and c) the investigation and monitoring of occupational fatalities, injuries, industrial diseases, ill-health or harm and dangerous occurrences in connection with the railway1. 20. ORR will provide policy input from a railway perspective to support HSE's work-related health and safety functions, as it relates to ORR's health and safety work on Britain's railways which will include, but is not limited to: a) occupational health and safety policy development as they relate to the railway; b) the provision of specialist advice and opinion in support of enforcement action in connection with the railway; and c) the investigation of occupational fatalities, injuries and industrial dangerous occurrences in connection with the railway. ## ARrangements For The Provision Of Specialist Support 21. HSE will provide specialist ergonomist and psychologist support to ORR on risks from occupational health risks (such as occupational hygiene, noise and vibration, ergonomics and stress), ionising radiation, construction and civil, mechanical and electrical engineering, pesticides and other health and safety hazards, such as on manual handling and hand-arm vibration issues; and appropriate support from HSE Scotland on Scottish legal matters. ORR will provide specialist support to HSE on risks from railway activity remaining within HSE's remit, for example, railways within industrial sites, cableways and fairground equipment. 22. ORR and HSE agree in principle to provide reciprocal specialist support in response to major incidents as needed and recognise the potential need to provide support in response to major incidents on an ad-hoc basis. ## Procedure For Requesting Specialist Resource 23. To gain access to HSE's Specialist Group resource, ORR's Principal Inspectors, or more appropriate ORR personnel, should inform the ORR's central contact point before contacting the appropriate head of specialist group resource provider in HSE. 24. In agreeing with ORR about the nature of the specialist support required, HSE's head of specialist group or specialist unit will consider the level of hazard and risk associated with the issues, in the same way as for a request from within HSE and take appropriate account of its operational and strategic priorities. Details of the level of resource supplied to each job will be confirmed on its conclusion and recorded by ORR's and HSE's central contact points. 25. To gain access to support from HSE's operational teams, ORR's Principal Inspectors should contact the relevant HSE Head of Operations. Details of the level of resource supplied for each job will be confirmed on its conclusion and recorded by the ORR's and HSE's central contact points. 26. To gain access to support from ORR's operational teams, HSE's team managers must contact the relevant ORR Principal Inspector, or more appropriate ORR personnel, and inform the HSE central contact point. Details of the level of resource supplied for each job will be confirmed on its conclusion of and recorded by HSE's and ORR's central contact points. ## Policy Development 27. HSE and ORR agree to involve proactively one another as appropriate in relevant policy development. This may cover, for example:  policy issues where the two organisations have a common interest in legislation and a consistent approach is necessary, such as dealing with international regulation;  cross-departmental policy initiatives, such as better regulation, where mutual legal and policy issues may exist and coordination of response would be desirable;  determining strategies and targets to improve generic health and safety standards, and developing programmes or other coordinated cross-industry initiatives to help achieve them;  developing statistical or other information systems on health and safety, and the sharing of such information; and  responding to formal consultation exercises on health and safety matters; each will normally include the other as statutory consultees. Where changes to legislation are involved, informal consultation should precede the publication of a consultation document (CD) to allow both regulators to raise and discuss any implications for regulatory activity before publication of the CD. ## Research 28. HSE and ORR will also consult one another, as appropriate, when proposals for health and safety research to be funded by either organisation may have relevance to the other. ## Exemptions And Other Policy Processes 29. Applications from the railway industry for exemption from general (i.e. not railway-specific) health and safety legislation will be dealt with by HSE, who will consult ORR where practicable and inform ORR of the outcome of its deliberations. 30. Similarly, where employers make use of other HSE policy processes, such as appeals against a doctor's decision under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, HSE may inform ORR of the appeal and its outcome. ## Statutory Notifications And Complaints 31. Legislation makes arrangements for certain persons to notify enforcing authorities of certain events or concerns, such as accidents and dangerous occurrences. It is likely that from time to time notifications about health and safety will be sent to the wrong EA. 32. When HSE or ORR receive an incorrectly directed notification, they will arrange for it to be supplied promptly in an agreed format and delivery medium to the appropriate organisation through their nominated central policy-level contact point. Periodic provision will be made to review whether the sign-posting provided to industry for notify reportable incidents is operating effectively. ## The Reporting Of Railway-Related Occupational Road Fatalities 33. HSE will ensure that all railway-related occupational road fatalities are reported to ORR in an agreed format and delivery medium. ## Sharing Statistical Information 34. HSE has to report annually on incidences of ill-health, injuries and numbers of working days lost across all industries. To help monitor cross-industry progress it will need to obtain statistical information from ORR. 35. HSE's Corporate Medical Unit appoint, monitor and support the work of HSE-Appointed Doctors, who undertake statutory medical surveillance of employees whose work with specified hazards requires that they be supervised under certain health and safety legislation. For statutory enforcement purposes, HSE will provide ORR's Information and Analysis team with the case details of railway employees whose blood lead-levels exceed those that require them to be suspended from working with lead under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. Any sharing of personal data and sensitive personal data for such purposes shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, so far as it is applicable. 36. In order to maintain consistent recording of health and safety statistics for Great Britain, ORR will provide end of year statistics (provisional and final) for HSE's annual report as required. ## Financial Arrangements 37. HSE and ORR recognise that the cost of providing significant levels of support from technical and other specialists must be measured, recorded and reimbursed. HSE and ORR will recover the full costs of reciprocal services in accordance with HM Treasury guidelines in Managing Public Money. Invoices will be raised on a twice yearly basis with a reconciliation towards the end of each financial year. Any exceptional resource requirements, over and above Business As Usual (BAU) at historic levels, will need to be agreed in advance and more regular invoicing arrangements put in place. 38. In Scotland, ORR or HSE will, when requesting the other party to provide expert witness opinion in criminal and civil health and safety cases, underwrite the expert witness costs of the other party as appropriate and on a case-by-case basis. ## Civil Contingencies 39. HSE is a category two responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which requires it to provide support during emergency planning and in response to any major civil contingency event. 40. As Network Rail, Transport for London and all train and railway infrastructure operating companies are also included on the list of category two responders, they are able to provide the necessary advice when planning for or responding to emergencies involving railway transport. 41. ORR will provide HSE with any additional advice on matters within its field of expertise as necessary to enable HSE to fulfil its duties under this legislation. ## Out Of Hours Response 42. ORR's and HSE's Out-of-Hours Duty Officers will hold each other's contact details, and will maintain appropriate guidance liaison arrangements as appropriate. ## Clarification Of Investigation Arrangements 43. The respective enforcement responsibilities are set out in EARR. In cases where both HSE and ORR have enforcement responsibilities at the same site, such as at harbours or intermodal depots, ORR will be responsible for any incident connected with the operation of the railway, while HSE will be responsible for all other at-work activities. ORR and HSE will apply their own specific criteria and priorities to inform decisions about whether to investigate or not; neither organisation can mandate the other's investigation decisions, but there is an overall expectation of mutual co-operation and liaison. 44. Where an incident occurs at the interface between activities enforced by HSE and ORR, discussions at local principal inspector-level should be used to allocate enforcement lead roles and responsibilities, and to decide what action, if any, will be taken. For example where a failure occurs during loading or unloading operations at a multi-modal container depot, the technical or organisational issues around the failure of the lifting equipment or process would be for HSE, but railway-related issues, such as a load striking a shunter, would be for ORR. 45. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) has the prime responsibility for investigating serious incidents involving train movements, and there is a separate ORR/RAIB MoU which describes this. RAIB's role is limited to establishing the technical causes of an incident and making recommendations overseen by ORR, as Britain's national railway safety authority, including those directed at other parties. ORR retains the responsibility for investigating accidents with a view to establishing any legal breaches of health and safety and railwayspecific law and taking appropriate enforcement action against railway employers. ## Enforcement 46. HSE and ORR have the same powers under HSWA, for their respective areas of enforcement, which includes powers to issue improvement and prohibition notices, formal cautions and to bring legal proceedings. HSE and ORR are guided by their own respective published enforcement policy statements, of which both set out expectations and performance standards. 47. Where either HSE or ORR inspectors observe matters of evident concern in areas of the site being visited for which they are not the EA, these should be brought to the attention of the applicable EA in the following way:  where a risk of serious personal injury appears to be involved, notify the EA immediately by telephone so that the EA can consider issuing a prohibition notice. The EA should inform the other authority of the action decided; or  in other less serious and immediate cases, notify the EA in writing. 48. Both HSE and ORR will provide each other with supporting information and expertise, if necessary, to support any notice subsequently issued by the EA. 49. If these matters are within the responsibility of another EA, the receiving authority will forward the notification as appropriate and advise the original inspector. The initiative for any further action to rectify any inadequacy then rests with the appropriate EA. 50. Where HSE and ORR have a shared interest, they should keep each other informed about issues of interest to both parties, such as identified weaknesses in a company's health and safety management system. ## Liaison With Emergency Services 51. HSE is the EA for the premises occupied by the emergency services, and their activities. However, ORR will liaise closely with the emergency services when they are carrying out their operational duties on the railway, mostly during operational responses to incidents. Any causes for concern, which relate to the emergency services' practices or procedures, will be referred to HSE. 52. ORR will provide support on railway-related issues for any interventions carried out by HSE. ## Access To Hse'S Internal Advice And Guidance On Health And Safety Legislation And Enforcement 53. HSE will provide ORR's inspectors with access to its internal advice on interpretation of health and safety legislation. This will be by advice from, among others, HSE Sectors and policy teams. HSE will bring to ORR's attention any significant changes in its key operational procedures, such as the Enforcement Management Model. ## Training And Development 54. As there are many common inspector competence requirements, the participation of ORR inspectors in joint training sessions with HSE inspectors is desirable where this is appropriate and relevant, including the involvement of new ORR inspectors on the Regulator's Training Programme (RTP). HSE will work with ORR managers to exchange learning and development strategies and plans. HSE and ORR will identify and make available opportunities to share or cooperate in training activities wherever this is desirable and practical. HSE and ORR will identify and make available opportunities to share or cooperate in training activities wherever this is desirable and practical. HSE and ORR will meet reasonable costs for participation in such events either through transfer of funds or through an agreed contribution in kind. Cooperation in staff development may include arrangements for the exchange of inspectors. ## Enforcement Responsibilities: Relationship Between Orr And Hse General Approach To The Allocation Of Enforcement Responsibilities A1. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport systems) Regulations 2006 (EARR) (as amended) made ORR the health and safety enforcing authority (EA) for the operation of railways, tramways and other systems of guided transport in place of HSE2. A2. Irrespective of the allocation of EA responsibilities, ORR has regulatory (i.e. overall policy) responsibility for all 'railway safety purposes', as defined by the Railways Act 2005 (RA 2005)3, in connection with the construction or operation of railways, tramways, or transport systems using any other mode of guided transport. The definition of 'railway safety purposes' specifically excludes fairground equipment (as defined by s.53 HSWA), guided bus systems and trolley vehicles. HSE regulates (i.e. develops overall policy) on all generic health and safety matters, such as working at heights or exposure to dangerous chemicals. A3. The allocation of enforcement responsibilities in EARR enshrines some broad principles, namely:  ORR would deliver the enforcement responsibilities formerly delivered within HSE by HMRI, unless there are overriding reasons otherwise;  wherever possible, there should be a single EA for railway industry duty holders and stakeholders, particularly avoiding circumstances where HSE and ORR both enforce at the same location; and  the EA should be determined by the principal nature of the activity which is being carried out and is causing the risk; and should take account of the relevant expertise available to both HSE and ORR. In other words, the EA is established on the basis of the operation that creates the risk and not on where the effects of the risk may be felt. ORR will be the EA where a risk is part of a railway operation, even where an incident then causes effects outside the railway. For example, an incident with a train results in damage to non-railway premises. Equally, operations enforced by HSE will remain within HSE's enforcement remit, even if the risks affect the railway. For example where masonry from an HSE-enforced construction site could fall on to the railway line. ## A4. Earr Makes Orr The Ea For The 'Operation Of A Railway'4 Which Includes:  railway infrastructure integrity and its use;  railway vehicle or rolling stock safe design, maintenance and use; ##  train preparation;  train movements and carriage of goods; and  the operation of stations or light maintenance depots. A5. In all other cases enforcement falls to HSE, except where allocated to local authorities (LAs) under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 (EA 98), or alternative EAs under other regulations made under section 15(3)(c) of HSWA. From 1 April 2014 the Office of Nuclear Regulation has an enforcement role for Britain's nuclear sites and ORR is developing a separate MoU with ONR. A6. Where either HSE or ORR is described as the EA, this means in respect of all health and safety legislation. For ease of reference, this document also refers to the enforcement responsibilities of LAs, although they are not a party to this MoU. A7. EARR uses the term 'operation of a railway' as a description of the activities for which ORR is the EA. 'Operation of a railway' includes the use of railway infrastructure. It also includes activities carried out within railway premises, including the common parts of stations, and may include activities being carried out elsewhere, such as premises used for the operation and monitoring of railway communications, even when that centre is not within operational railway premises. This term is defined widely and is not limited solely by the specified activities in regulation 2 of EARR - see paragraph A11. ORR is also the EA for section 6 of HSWA as it relates to articles and substances exclusively or primarily for railway usage - see paragraphs A15-A16. A8. ORR's enforcement role is limited by EARR regulation 4, which lists exceptions to the activities for which ORR is the EA. In most cases, HSE is the EA for these excepted activities, other than where LAs are the EA under EA 98. There are some premises where both ORR and HSE have enforcement responsibilities - see paragraph A69-70, for example. In these interface areas, HSE's and ORR's responsibilities are set out in EARR. A95. The following paragraphs describe how EARR allocates the EA and provides guidance and clarification on areas where there is a potential for ambiguity. There is no provision under EARR for enforcement allocations to be transferred between HSE and ORR by mutual agreement (i.e. the local transfer agreements allowed for under EA 98 are not possible for activities covered by EARR). In instances where, having read the relevant paragraphs in the MoU, an ambiguity about the EA still remains, then HSE and ORR inspectors should use their collective knowledge to work together transparently and quickly to reach a common understanding of which organisation has enforcement responsibility under EARR. The starting point for inspectors will be the definition within EARR for the 'operation of a railway' and the non-exhaustive list of examples, as well as considering whether one of the exceptions in EARR applies. If HSE and ORR inspectors cannot reach a common understanding, then ORR inspectors should swiftly seek additional advice from ORR's RSD Policy Team, who may in turn recommend seeking advice from the ORR Legal Team. For HSE Inspectors, advice should be sought from HSE's Transport Sector team. The frequency and type of situations where inspectors seek additional advice will be captured, and may in time inform future clarifications or guidance. In seeking to resolve ambiguity, HSE and ORR inspectors should also note the Out of Hours response arrangements noted elsewhere in this MoU. Additionally, both ORR and HSE are signatories to the Work Related Death Protocols for England and Wales, and Scotland. Inspectors should apply the multi-agency liaison arrangements set out in these protocols in instances where there are fatalities, noting the protocols can also be the basis for arrangements in any serious, non-fatal, multi-agency investigations. ## What Is The Extent Of Orr'S Enforcement Authority? Regulations 3(1) And 3(2) A10. Regulation 3(1) of EARR makes ORR the EA for all relevant statutory provisions under HSWA to the extent that they relate to the operation of a railway, tramway or other guided transport system. This is the case even if, by virtue of EA 98, those activities take place at premises where HSE or an LA is the EA, and includes activities at premises occupied by the Crown6. A11. Under EARR, ORR is the EA for any railway which either has a gauge of at least 350mm, or crosses a carriageway, (whether or not at the same level), and for any tramways7. The term 'operation of a railway' is defined in regulation 2 of EARR by reference to a non-exclusive list of activities. It is not limited to particular premises and, therefore, may extend beyond the physical boundary of a railway. This means that some activities at railway access points, such as railway employees unloading goods from lorries on the public highway for use on the railway, would be within the meaning of 'operation of a railway'. A12. ORR's enforcement remit is subject to the exceptions in EARR regulations 4 and 5 - see paragraphs A53–A93. A13. The enforcement of the mainline railway, metro and light railway systems, minor railways, tramways, and guided transport systems, such as monorails and people movers, is allocated to ORR by EARR regulation 3(2). Guided bus systems are not included8. ## Regulation 3(3) - Duties Of Designers, Manufacturers, Importers And Suppliers A14. Under the RA 2005, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, ORR's regulatory (i.e. overall policy) responsibility for 'railway safety purposes' includes developing policy with a view to securing the proper construction of transport systems and the proper construction of locomotives, rolling stock or other vehicles used, or to be used, on such systems. A15. Complementary to this function, regulation 3(3) of EARR makes ORR the EA for section 6 of HSWA in respect of articles and substances for use in transport systems. This is limited to articles that are designed or constructed, either exclusively or primarily, for use on a transport system, or have been specifically adapted or modified for use on such a system. Similar considerations apply to the manufacture, import or supply of substances. A16. An example would be a road/railway vehicle designed as a piece of construction plant, but then adapted for use on the railway infrastructure. ORR would be responsible for following up any issues about the railway running part (e.g. how the brakes work when switching from one mode to the other on the railway), while HSE would have the lead in pursuing section 6 enquiries for a brake failure which could equally well have occurred on the road. So, HSE will continue to have enforcement responsibility for some failures of equipment not exclusively used on the railway, even if the failure occurs while the equipment is used on the railway. A17. ORR inspectors deal with manufacturers and suppliers, including visiting their premises as appropriate to enforce railway-related design and supply issues only, but not other occupational health and safety legislation, which are enforced by either HSE or LAs as appropriate. In discharging its duty under s.6 of HSWA, ORR may take enforcement action at premises outside of the operation of a railway where elements of railway design and supply activities take place in those premises. ORR's inspectors can use the established mechanism – see Part II paragraph 47 - to raise matters of evident concern about any workplace health, safety and welfare issues with other relevant EAs identified by site visits. A18. Similarly, EARR regulation 3(4) makes ORR the EA for section 6(3) of HSWA with regard to the erection or installation of articles for use in the operation of a railway. ## Regulation 3 (6) - Effect Of Earr On Provisions In Ea 98 A19. Regulation 3(6) of EARR ensures that the allocation to ORR in regulation 3 has effect, regardless of anything to the contrary in various provisions of EA 98. For example, under EA 98, the LA is the EA for office-based activities9. However, under EARR, ORR is the EA for railway offices within the same premises, such as signalling control centres or centres used for the operation of communications systems or for monitoring the 'operation of the railway'10. Likewise, regulations 3(3) and 3(4) of EARR take precedence over regulation 4(4)(a) of the EA 98 in respect of matters relating to the 'operation of a railway'. A20. ORR enforces relevant statutory provisions in respect of county councils, LAs and the Crown and their premises to the extent that they come under the activities in regulation 3(2)11, i.e. the operation of a railway, tramway or other guided transport system. ## Regulation 3 - Effect Of Allocations For Particular Activities Stations Occupied By A Railway Undertaking And Non-Railway Premises A21. ORR is the EA for stations12, including the common parts, station car parks, railway offices, ticket offices, left luggage and lost property facilities, but excluding those parts of stations occupied by a separate business engaged in office, retail, catering or other consumer services13. The relevant LA is the EA for these separate businesses. The exceptions to this are: dry-cleaning establishments, which could be found at large stations; radio and TV repairs (highly unlikely to be found on station premises); and walk-in health centres, for which HSE is the EA. ORR is the EA for some activities of non-railway duty holders at stations, e.g. movement of goods across a station concourse for loading/unloading of a train. This activity is covered by the term 'operation of a railway'. A22. Separately, occupied parts of operational premises in which non-railway related activities are carried out are not part of operational railways premises. For example, LAs remain the EA for newsagents, even where they are located within a railway station14. LAs are also the EA for any railway-related office or catering activities not carried out on operational premises. For example, in office buildings occupied by railway companies but separate from a station15. ## Training Activities A23. ORR is the EA for any training that forms part of the operation of a railway, or if it takes place within operational railway premises, including signal cabins and control centres16. For example, personal track safety training or possession management training. A24. Where training takes place in operational railway premises, including signal cabins and control centres, ORR will be the EA. Where training takes place elsewhere, ORR will be the EA for the training, but HSE or the LA will be the EA for the premises. ## Light Maintenance A25. 'Light maintenance depots' are premises normally used for light maintenance services, whether or not they are also used for other purposes. 'Light maintenance services' are defined in regulation 2 as refuelling, cleaning and planned maintenance normally carried out at intervals of up to twelve months. 'Maintenance' includes the detection and rectification of faults. ORR is the EA for light maintenance depots even where the depot is not connected to the network, or owned or operated by a railway undertaking. A26. ORR is the EA for the parking, sheltering, maintenance and repair of any rail, tram or other guided transport vehicle including its inspection, cleaning, fuelling and preparation for use17. ## Entities In Charge Of Maintenance A27. An entity in charge of maintenance (ECM) is any person or organisation that is responsible for the safe maintenance of a railway vehicle and is registered as an ECM in the national vehicle register18. This can include people or organisations such as a train operator, an owner or a maintenance organisation. A28. Regulation 4(4A) of EARR makes ORR the EA in relation to maintenance work by an ECM on a vehicle to be put in service on the mainline railway. This applies where ever that maintenance work is carried out, including  harbours;  factories;  mines;  GB nuclear sites;  quarries;  warehouse premises; and  establishments to which the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 apply. ## Factories A29. Activities in factories except activities of ECMs, are enforced by HSE, irrespective of whether or not the site is occupied by a railway undertaking or connected to the network19. This includes those premises that build or renovate railway vehicles or rolling stock, or manufacture or repair components for use on the railway. Note that under EARR there are some exceptions (by virtue of Regulation 2 of EARR) as to what might be otherwise considered a factory and in these cases ORR is the EA as explained below. A30. ORR is the EA for light maintenance depots and for any renovation, refurbishment, repair or reconstruction work to locomotives or railway vehicles carried out at heritage railway premises, if the premises form part of the heritage railway and are used exclusively or primarily by the heritage railway. ## Signalling, Electrical And Operational Control Centres A31. ORR is the EA for the activities of signalling, electrical and operational control centres operated from within administrative buildings, or from other premises, whether adjacent to or remote from the railway20. ## Non-Railway Premises A32. EARR identifies certain premises on the railway as 'operational premises'. These include the permanent way, stations, light maintenance depots and land next to the permanent way that is used, occupied or held for railways purposes. However, separately occupied parts of operational premises, in which non-railway related activities are carried out, are not operational premises. For example, as covered in A21, LAs remain the EA for newsagents, even where they are located within a railway station. A33. LAs are also the EA for any railway-related office or catering activities not carried out on operational premises. For example, in office buildings occupied by railway companies but which are separate from a station21. ## Museums And Heritage Centres Not Part Of A 'Heritage' Railway A34. Where a railway is operated at a museum or heritage attraction, ORR is the EA for the operation of the railway. This will include museums where running vehicles are exhibited and which may be moved on a railway system around and/or out of the museum site. Any surrounding and associated activities would also fall to ORR, in so far as they form a part of the operation of the railway. A35. When a railway at a museum is operated on a seasonal basis, ORR is the EA even when the railway is dormant. However, where a museum houses static exhibits which are not operated then ORR will not be the EA. As an example, if a museum decided to steam a locomotive to demonstrate the operation of the boiler but it did not move, ORR would not be the EA. ORR would, however, be EA for the steaming of a locomotive or operation of the boiler in preparation for the operation of a railway vehicle22. ## Railway Systems In Military Establishments A36. To provide consistency of approach, under EARR, ORR is the EA for all railways in military establishments, with the exception of Britain's nuclear sites which includes certain naval dockyards23 which as of 1 April 2014 are regulated by ONR. However, ORR is the EA on a GB nuclear site in relation to the activities of an ECM24. ORR is the EA for any activity covered by the term 'operation of a railway', e.g. maintenance and safe operation, train preparation and train movements, the interface with the mainline railway network, and the safe design and use of vehicles and rolling stock. A37. ORR is also the EA in respect of the condition and distribution of the wagon loading, to the extent that this could affect the safe running of the train and the importation of risk onto the mainline railway25. HSE is the EA for the activities of loading and unloading of goods on or from trains at premises owned or operated by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for Defence26. These activities are specifically excluded from the term 'operation of a railway'. A38. Military establishments include sites under the direct control of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or run by private companies on their behalf. ## Devonport Royal Dockyard A39. Devonport Royal Dockyard is a unique and complex establishment that can be used to show how the above principles will apply in practice. The naval base dockyard is a nest of separate sites each of which has to be considered individually in terms of their allocated EA. At its core, it is a dockyard owned by Babcock Marine (Devonport) Ltd. The dockyard is operated by Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DRDL) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Babcock Marine (Devonport) Limited. Part of the dockyard is a GB nuclear site and the surrounding area is the larger naval dockyard owned by MOD, but contains facilities run on their behalf by DRDL. A railway connected to the national infrastructure runs across the whole site. A40. Under regulation 4(3) of EARR:  ORR is the EA for the operation of the railway throughout the remainder of the site owned by or operated on behalf of MOD; and  HSE is the EA for all other activities, except those within the nuclear licensed site where ONR is the EA and ORR is the EA in relation to the activities of an ECM. ## Railways At Airports A41. Under regulation 3 of EA 98, HSE is the EA for the common parts of airports, which are either not within a building or where only passengers (and not the general public) are admitted. LAs are the EA for the common parts within airport terminals to which any member of the public can access. A42. ORR is the EA for any railway or system of guided transport (including people movers) at an airport. The one exception to this is Birmingham Air-Link, a cableway installation, which is enforced by HSE, as are all cableways. A43. The Civil Aviation Authority has specific responsibilities for 'air-side' aircraft and passenger safety that are not affected by this MoU. ## Channel Tunnel Uk Concession Area27 A44. The demarcated site known as 'the UK Concession Area' includes the terminal and three tunnels up to the mid-point of the tunnel between Britain and France. ORR and HSE have no jurisdiction for the 'UK-control zone' in France. The UK Concession Area operates under specific arrangements authorised by the Intergovernmental Commission for the Channel Tunnel (IGC), established under the Treaty of Canterbury 1986. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (CTSA) provides advice and assistance to the IGC on all matters concerning safety. A45. ORR is the EA for activities relating to the operation of a railway in the UK Concession Area within the meaning of Regulation 2 of EARR. HSE is the EA for activities which do not relate to the operation of a railway in the UK Concession Area, except for those instances where Local Authorities are the EA (eg. station retail premises). A46. Regulation 2 of EARR defines the term 'operation of a railway' by reference to a nonexhaustive list of activities. In addition, regulations 4 and 5 of EARR set out exclusions to ORR's EA responsibilities. A47. Safety inspections in relation to the UK Concession Area are carried out by inspectors using their national powers. ORR and HSE will keep each other informed where they carry out an inspection, or use their enforcement powers, in the UK Concession Area (including where either is requested by the CTSA carry out an inspection). ## Carriage Of Dangerous Goods A48. The carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail is regulated by The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 as amended (CDG 2009). CDG 2009 implements the EU Dangerous Goods Directive and apply the international regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail and road (known as RID and ADR respectively). HSE is the EA under CDG 2009 except in relation to railways for which ORR is the EA in accordance with the provisions of EARR. The other exception is that ONR is the EA for Class 7 Radioactive Materials. ## Radiation Emergencies A49. The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR) establish a framework for the protection of the public through emergency preparedness for radiation accidents with the potential to affect members of the public and ensure the provision of information to the public. REPPIR places duties on operators of premises which hold, or contain facilities to hold radioactive substances over certain thresholds, and to carriers who transport such substances by railway. HSE is the EA except where the goods are being handled as part of the operation of a railway, in which case ORR will enforce requirements related to duties on railway carriers. A50. Certain radioactive sources and packages containing radioactive substances are exempted from REPPIR, but under current practice in this sector, the types of transport packages and quantities of radioactive substances generally carried by railway are unlikely to fall within the scope of REPPIR. ## British Transport Police (And Security Of Railways) A51. HSE is the EA for the British Transport Police when they are carrying out their duties on the operational railway, as they are a police service and not part of the operation of a railway. This includes their occupation of police stations on railway premises, as this activity is not considered to come under the definition of 'operation of a railway.' Enforcement in respect of a police authority is reserved to HSE under EA 98. As many of the risks BTP officers are exposed to arise from the operation of the railway, ORR inspectors will work closely with HSE to provide the necessary expertise. ## Railway Security Services A52. Private security companies that operate on Britain's railways are considered to be part of the 'operation of a railway' and ORR is the EA. ## Regulation 4 Exceptions Cableway Installations A53. HSE is the EA for cableway installations, defined in full in regulation 2 of the Cableway Installation Regulations 2004, made under the Cableways Directive (European Directive 2000/9/EC)28. Cableways include cable-drawn cliff railways. However, where cable-drawn the installation is also a part of tramway, such as at Great Orme, or a rack railway, then ORR is the EA. ORR and HSE should co-operate and share expertise as necessary in the case of systems using both railway and cable technologies. ## Fairground Equipment A54. HSE is the EA for the operation of any system that is defined as fairground equipment under section 53 of HSWA29. This will include rides in parks where other health and safety matters are enforced by LAs. If a railway or system of guided transport at a fairground falls outside the definition of 'fairground equipment', then enforcement will fall to ORR. If a railway or system of guided transport is similar to a fairground ride, but is nonetheless designed to carry passengers from one part of the park to another, or even if the journey is designed to see exhibits and begins and eventually ends at the same location, then this also takes it outside the definition of fairground equipment (because it was designed as a transport system rather than for entertainment purposes) and it too will be enforced by ORR. ## Guided Buses A55. HSE is the EA for guided bus systems30 that use vehicles that can operate both on road, under the guidance of a driver, or by means of external guidance such as tracks, buried cables etc. A56. Overall, these vehicles look and operate like buses rather than trains, and are also subject to relevant road traffic legislation. DfT take the policy lead and the EAs are either the police, VOSA, Traffic Commissioners or Highways Agency. HSE is the EA for any residual health and safety issues outside of more specific road safety legislation enforced by other EAs. ## Railway-Related Occupational Road Safety A57. ORR's approach to railway-related occupational road safety issues reflects HSE's existing approach: the police take the lead in investigating road traffic incidents; ORR's enforcement action will be confined to where the police identify evidence of serious health and safety management failures which may have led to or been a significant contributory factor to the incident. ## Provision Of Bus Substitution Services A58. A bus substitution service is a bus service provided as an alternative to a railway or tramway service. ORR is the EA for a bus substitution service while it is on railway operational premises, but not otherwise. ORR's enforcement role is confined to ensuring railway operators select a suitable bus company and manage safely the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers from buses within railway operational premises. However, there are more specific road traffic safety law enforced by other EAs, such as the traffic police, which relate directly to the road safety aspects of operating substitute bus services on the public highway. ## Miniature Railways A59. Most miniature railways, which operate within a site such as an amusement park or fairground, are enforced by HSE or LAs. ORR is the EA for miniature railways with a track gauge of 350mm or wider; and those miniature railways that cross a public highway31. ## Harbours A60. ORR is the EA for the operation of any railway where the railway operates exclusively within a harbour and carries members of the public32 or where it also operates outside the harbour and is transporting goods or passengers to and from the harbour33.This includes any activity within the definition of 'operation of a railway'. A61. HSE is the EA for any railway within a harbour that is not connected to the mainline network and/or carries no members of the public or for any railway carried out at a harbour within any of the premises listed in regulation 4(3)(c) to (h)34. This includes railways where there is movement of materials to and from factories and associated storage facilities, such as tank farms on the harbour site. HSE will be the EA for all activities within the harbour, including the loading and unloading of trains35. A62. The exception is where an ECM's activities take place inside these harbours, in which case ORR is the EA in relation to the ECM's activities. ## A63. Railways transferring goods or passengers to and from harbours and onto the mainline railway network, can therefore be contrasted with railways associated exclusively with industrial processes. This split of responsibility is considered appropriate because such harbours, unlike other industrial sites, are an integral part of the national transport network, and involve significant railway movements, often using level crossings over the public highway. ## The Operation Of Pier Railways And Tramways A64. ORR is EA for pier railways and tramways, i.e. railways and tramways on a pier that are used by the public as a means of transport. However, HSE remains the enforcing authority where the pier railway is defined as a miniature railway - see A59. ## Railway Systems Within Industrial Sites A65. Under EARR regulations 4(3)(c) to 4(3)(h), railway operations carried out at certain listed sites are exceptions to the operation of a transport system, except if it relates to the activities of an ECM. This means that ORR is not the EA for railway operations within:  an establishment to which the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 applies;  a factory36 (including a power station37);  a mine or quarry;  a GB nuclear site; or  warehouse premises. However, ORR is the EA in relation to the activities of an ECM at all of these premises. A66. At these sites the transport of materials tends to be primarily for processing locally, and railway movements are likely to be limited. HSE and ONR are the EAs within these sites. Once a train exits from them on to the mainline railway network, enforcement passes from HSE or ONR to ORR. A67. When an incident occurs solely in relation to railway-related activities within the site (e.g. internal shunting of wagons), but has consequences which impact on activity on the mainline railway network, the EA will be that for the location where the original incident occurred, e.g. HSE if the failure occurs within the factory premises, and ORR if the failure occurs outside the factory premises. ## Mines A68. Under the Mines and Quarries Act 195438, a railway serving a mine and owned by a mining company is deemed to be part of the mine. However, for the purposes of EARR, the definition of a mine has been amended so that railways serving and owned by a mine, but outside the mine's curtilage, are not deemed to be part of the mine39. Under the definition in section 180 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, ORR is the EA for any:  specialist mines regulations which could apply to any such railway outside of the mine's curtilage; and  any activity of an ECM. ## Quarries A69. Enforcement responsibilities for the operation of a railway at quarries will be ORR's responsibility where the railway line is exclusively under the control of either:  a railway company40; or  a person who carries on an undertaking which consists of, or the main activity, or one of the main activities of which consists of, the management of a network within the meaning of section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993. A70. In all other circumstances, enforcement in relation to the operation of a railway in connection with a quarry will fall to HSE. Where enforcement matters arise relating to the safe design, construction, operation and maintenance of such a railway, ORR will provide technical support and advice to HSE in line with protocols existing at that time. The exception to this is in relation to the activities of an ECM, in which case ORR is the EA. ## Railway Systems Within Inter-Modal Depots A71. Inter-modal depots are usually either part of a dock's complex or connected to the mainline railway network by short sidings or with road freight-handling facilities. They handle freight containers, which are transferred from rail to road to sea and vice versa, generally by the use of straddle carriers. EARR does not define 'container', so this is taken to mean any box, container, tank or tank container, vessel or platform capable of being used to store and move freight items and transferred between different types of modal vehicles. This may cover not only containers, as defined in international transport standards, but also vessels for gases or liquids or non-standard designs. Goods handling and transfer facilities which are properly part of railway operations, such as transferring materials from road to engineering trains working in possessions, are not classified as inter-modal depots because the work undertaken there is primarily a part of the operation of a railway and is enforced by ORR. A72. ORR is the EA for the 'operation of a railway' within an inter-modal depot in relation to railway infrastructure maintenance and safe operation, train preparation and train movements, the interface with the mainline railway network, the safe design and use of rolling stock and the condition and distribution of the load (the load-examiners' duties)41. A73. HSE is the EA for loading and unloading on or from trains at intermodal depots42. Inter-modal sites can include facilities shared by road and railway workers. ORR is the EA for issues that arise from the operation of a railway and/or affect railway workers. HSE is the EA for all other non-railway issues related to the other work activities at intermodal sites. ## Level Crossings A74. ORR is the EA for all locations where railways cross public roads and other public rights of way, such as footpath and bridleway crossings, or cross private access ways, such as crossings between farm fields. HSE is the EA for crossings on railways within a range of industrial premises, including factories, mines, quarries, warehouses and certain harbour railways, in line with regulation 4 of EARR. ONR is the EA for crossings in GB nuclear sites, but ORR is the EA for any in-force level crossing orders made under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983, regardless of whether the crossing is within licensed nuclear premises. A75. The enforcement allocations described in A78 mean that only ORR can take enforcement action in the event of a breach of a level crossing order, wherever the crossing may be. These orders specify controls which must be in place at a particular crossing. The duty to comply with such an order is set out in regulation 3 of the Level Crossings Regulations 1997. Good liaison is required between ORR, HSE and ONR in dealing with level crossing on industrial premises, including licensed nuclear sites, which has an order; in such cases ORR will confirm to HSE and ONR whether an order is in force. A76. Enforcement action may be required in circumstances where a level crossing order is not in force, or that have nothing to do with an order's requirements, such as where a crossing is misused. These cases are often primarily enforced by the police, but following a police investigation both ORR and HSE can take enforcement action using general HSWA provisions. A77. Situations may arise where HSE is the EA for a duty holder whose premises include a level crossing for which ORR is the EA. For example, when a farmer uses an accommodation crossing between two fields, and access is by a private road or track over his land rather than a public right of way. An incident at such a crossing may well involve both ORR and HSE looking at issues of possible crossing misuse and the duty holder's wider health and safety management arrangements. In such cases, ORR and HSE inspectors will need to cooperate closely and determine who the appropriate EA is for any enforcement action considered necessary. A78. ORR inspectors have powers under HSWA section 20 to pursue inquiries with a nonrailway duty holder and, if relevant, require the non-railway duty holder to implement a safe system of work for the use of that crossing and to ensure the safety of the railway network and relevant railway, non-railway and other employees. ## Construction Work Regulation 5 A79. Regulation 5 of EARR sets out the type of construction work which is included in the definition 'operation of a railway' and is therefore enforced by ORR. Construction work is defined by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015)43; HSE is the EA for construction work which is not included within the term 'operation of a railway'. A80. Good communication and proactive liaison between HSE and ORR is essential to ensure clarity as to who is the appropriate EA in relation to construction work for a particular project. A81. In cases where the EA is clarified following discussion between HSE and ORR, it will be good practice to record the agreed enforcement roles electronically and to communicate these to the duty holders involved. For projects that should be notified to the relevant EA under CDM 2015, duty holders are encouraged to use HSE's on-line construction work notification form (the commonly known F-10 form). Such notifications will be regarded as having been made to the relevant EA as required by CDM 2015 as ORR has an agreement with HSE to access HSE's F10-notifiable construction projects database. A82. The following paragraphs summarise ORR's and HSE's enforcement roles for construction work in relation to any relevant transport system. Where the term 'railway' is used the arrangements specified would also equally apply to tramways and other guided transport systems. ORR's enforcement role A83. ORR is usually the EA for construction work in the following circumstances: (i) for the maintenance, repair, renewal or improvement of existing infrastructure as defined by EARR44. Infrastructure includes:  the permanent way, which includes: the track; level crossings; viaducts, tunnels, culverts and bridges or other structures used for the support of, or otherwise in connection with, the permanent way, and boundary walls or fences;  bridges or structures spanning the permanent way which are maintained by the owner, operator or manager of the railway, or someone working on their behalf. This would include bridges over the railway which are maintained by Network Rail, LUL, or any other infrastructure manager, or someone acting on their behalf e.g. a contractor; and  electrical and mechanical installations used for signalling, electrical installations used for supplying power to vehicles and any other plant, equipment or electrical or mechanical installation. In the case of a tramway this does not include road lighting or traffic signals/signs unless they are used for the operation of the tramway and maintained by the owner/operator/manager of the tramway or someone acting on their behalf. (ii) for the extension or enlargement of the infrastructure, where the construction work is in such close proximity to the operation of the railway that there is risk to workers engaged in that work from the railway. (iii) construction work carried out on the permanent way, within stations, light maintenance depots or on land adjacent to or adjoining the permanent way and used, occupied or held for the railway and relates to the maintenance, repair, renewal or improvement of any fixed asset (other than the infrastructure) of a railway. ## Hse'S Enforcement Role A84. Hse Is The Ea For Construction Work In Relation To:  work on any structure or premises whose primary function is unrelated to the operation of a railway, or forms parts of a station separately occupied as a business, such as retail premises –see paragraph A21;  work on a bridge, or other structure spanning, or adjacent to operational premises where it is carried out by someone other than the railway owner, operator or manager, or someone working on their behalf, for example work carried out by a local authority;  where normal railway activities in the operational premises have been suspended and the work is physically segregated from the railway infrastructure and the construction contractor can exclude people from the construction area;  where normal railway activities continue, and, in addition to the segregation and exclusion points above, there is only emergency access between the segregated area and the rest of the operational premises;  new build railways up to the point that they become 'operational railways'. A handover point should be agreed between HSE and ORR based on when both regulators agree that the railway has become operational- see paragraphs A87, A88; and  the extension or enlargement of existing infrastructure, if there is no risk to the construction workers from the operation of a railway. The proximity of the work to the operational railway comes into consideration here - see paragraph A87(ii). ## Situations where both EAs are required to reach agreement on allocation of responsibility based on the circumstances of the case A85. There is no provision in EARR or HSWA, for ORR and HSE to mutually transfer enforcement functions or, where the position is unclear, assign enforcement responsibility between them. Instead, agreement must be reached on who is the correct EA in accordance with the provisions of EARR and HSWA. A86. This section gives further guidance on the respective enforcement roles and deals with some of the more complex situations which can arise and may require both EAs to agree on who is the appropriate EA in that particular circumstance. It includes examples of how the enforcement allocation has been interpreted in the past and is intended to act as a guide to assist both HSE's and ORR's inspectors in making decisions in future. However, these examples do not preclude different interpretations or outcomes as the circumstances of each particular case must be considered afresh each time. ## Major Infrastructure Projects (New-Build Railways) A87. Under EARR HSE is the EA for construction work on a new-build railway infrastructure project, such as Crossrail, up to the point at which the system becomes an operational railway, when ORR becomes the EA. However, ORR and HSE have entered into an agency agreement which delegates certain EA functions to ORR during the design of railway infrastructure and before the railway has become operational. Annex 3 provides more detail on this agency agreement and ORR's role in this regard. A88. There should be agreement between HSE and ORR as to the point at which the new system becomes operational for the purpose of EARR - in practical terms this is usually the point at which functional connection is made between the new-build railway and the existing system, or the point at which test train running begins before the railway is connected to the existing system. This should be recorded, for example, by an exchange of e-mails, so that both EAs are clear about when HSE's enforcement role ends and ORR's enforcement role under EARR starts. The agreed arrangements should be explained to all the relevant duty holders. ## Example 1 - The Crossrail Enforcement Handover In the case of London's newly-built Crossrail central section, ORR and HSE have discussed and agreed that the construction work will be enforced by HSE up to the start of commissioning the system, i.e. operation of trains testing the signalling and control systems. At this point the railway is considered to be operational and enforcement will handover to ORR. ## Bridges Spanning The Railway A89. Where there is construction activity on a bridge spanning or adjacent to the railway the EA is, in most cases determined by whether the work is being carried out by someone other than the owner or the operator of the railway. EARR specifies that construction activity carried out in relation to a bridge which spans or is adjacent to operational premises by persons "other than the owners, operator or manager of the [railway] or persons acting on behalf of one or more of them" does not fall within the "operation of a railway" and is therefore not within ORR's enforcement remit. A90. In most cases in order to determine who is the EA it should be sufficient to find out whether the work on a bridge is being carried out by Network Rail, LUL, or any other railway infrastructure manager, or someone acting on their behalf eg a contractor. If so, ORR is the EA. A91. In situations where the position is not entirely clear under EARR, HSE and ORR should consider all the relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis and reach an agreed view on how EARR applies to the situation and who is the responsible EA. ## Example 2 - Construction Work On A Road Bridge Over The Railway Construction activity took place on a bridge that was part of a wider project of railway line electrification. The main site of construction activity in this case was considered to be about 'improvement of existing infrastructure' because it was electrical installation work. The demolition and replacement of a road bridge over the railway formed a key part of the work to enable installation of new overhead line electrification equipment. All of this work was being undertaken on Network Rail's behalf by contractors. In this situation ORR and HSE needed to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case and mutually agree on who the EA was according to the EARR. It was decided that ORR was the EA, primarily because the work was being done on behalf of the railway infrastructure manager and the work itself was about enhancing the 'operation of the railway'. It was not necessary to consider who normally maintains the bridge. Separately, this case also included separate excavation construction work by a contractor working for a utility company to relocate cables. For this aspect of the construction activity, it was mutually agreed by HSE and ORR that HSE was the EA because it was not carried out by a railway infrastructure manager or someone on their behalf, and the work was not directly related to the 'operation of a railway'. ## Bridges Spanning The Railway Where There Is No Construction Activity A92. There may be situations where there is no construction activity underway but there are concerns about the safety of a bridge's structure in relation to trains running underneath it. In these circumstances, the EA allocation is determined by whether the bridge falls within the term 'use of the infrastructure', because it would then fall within the 'operation of a railway'. To be covered by "use of the infrastructure", a bridge would need to be part of the "permanent way". According to EARR, a bridge could be part of the permanent way if it spans the permanent way and is maintained by the railway owner, operator, or manager, or someone on their behalf. A93. This means that, in most cases, ORR will be the EA for bridges that are maintained by Network Rail or LUL or another railway infrastructure manager. In previous circumstances, ORR and HSE have interpreted 'maintained by' as referring to the person who has legal responsibility for maintaining the structure. ## Work With Asbestos A94. HSE is the EA for any work with asbestos that requires a licence under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 201245 (COAR), whether or not such work is also 'construction work' as defined in CDM 2015. Asbestos-related work requiring a licence also requires notification to the appropriate EA (made at least 14-days before the work begins or as agreed with the EA), which for asbestos-related licensable work, including on Britain's railways, is HSE. A95. ORR is the EA for any other work with asbestos that does not require a licence and that is carried out at light maintenance depots, operational premises or elsewhere on the railway system46. ORR is also the EA for the duty on occupiers of railway premises to manage the presence of asbestos in their buildings. However, HSE is the EA at sites requiring a COAR licence. ## Gas Safety A96. HSE is the EA for the installation, maintenance or repair of any gas system (or any work in relation to a gas fitting) where the work is being carried out in premises by people who do not normally work in those premises. This would include most work being carried out by Network Rail's gas fitters. ORR is the EA for the installation, maintenance or repair of gas systems (or any work in relation to a gas fitting) when it is being carried out by people who normally work in the premises where the work is being carried out. ## Hse'S Liaison With Orr On Rail Accident Investigation Branch'S Recommendations A97. Under the Railway (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005 (as amended) (the RAIB Regulations), ORR has a role, as the Safety Authority for Britain's railways, to coordinate the implementation of recommendations addressed to ORR by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) under the RAIB Regulations47. Under regulation 12(2) of the RAIB Regulations, RAIB can directly address recommendations to HSE; HSE's response to those RAIB recommendations should also be copied to ORR. ## Annex 1 Road Vehicle Incursions - New Agreement On Enforcement Authority 1. There has been uncertainty over whether ORR or HSE is the correct Enforcing Authority in respect of risks arising from the incursion of a road vehicle from a road onto the railway. In the most serious cases a road vehicle may come to rest across the railway causing an obstruction which could lead to a train derailment. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 ('EARR') are not clear as to which body has enforcement responsibility for road vehicle incursions that could affect the safe operation of the railway. 2. As there is the potential for this risk to cause a serious rail accident ORR and HSE have decided to enter into a formal agreement to put beyond doubt the allocation of the enforcement responsibility for road vehicle incursion risks. The Road Vehicle Incursion Enforcement Agreement (the 'agreement') has been drawn up using the power in Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 and section 13(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 ('HSWA'). It recognises that there is uncertainty as to who is the correct EA under the current legal framework. 3. To the extent that the responsibility for the enforcement for road vehicle incursion risks have not been transferred to ORR under EARR and consequently remain with HSE under HSWA, the agreement provides that ORR will assume all of HSE's enforcement functions in relation to road vehicle incursions. ORR will exercise these enforcement functions in line with its published Enforcement Policy. This will include giving advice and guidance, issuing improvement or prohibition notices where appropriate, and taking decisions on formal enforcement action where necessary. 4. The agreement means that ORR is the EA for situations where there is a health and safety risk to the operation of the railway arising out of or in connection with an actual or potential road vehicle incursion. The agreement also enables ORR to deal with situations where a road vehicle may damage a bridge or other structure which could create a health or safety risk to the railway. ORR will actively encourage action by Local Highways Authorities to mitigate the risks of road vehicle incursion where these are known to be significant. 5. HSE will continue to act as the EA for premises of relevant undertakings adjacent to the railway which are not allocated to ORR for enforcement under EARR, including in relation to the risk of a road vehicle incursion to the railway from such premises e.g. a factory or farm. In these situations ORR and HSE will work closely together sharing information as necessary. 6. HSE and ORR will keep each other informed of issues which arise from road vehicle incursion events, and will share information to encourage improvements in the management of this risk. The experience of both regulators will be taken into account when the agreement is reviewed at regular intervals. ## Annex 2 Orr'S New Strategic Road Network Monitoring Role 1. From 1 April 2015 ORR took on responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the performance and efficiency of Highways England. 2. Unlike the railways this role does not include regulation of health and safety under HSWA. However, ORR will work with relevant stakeholders, including HSE, to take into account the effect of its monitoring role on England's strategic road network. ## Annex 3 Agency Agreement Between Hse And Orr On Enforcement Functions In Relation To The Design Of Railways, Tramways And Other Systems Of Guided Transport What The Agreement Covers 1. HSE and ORR have entered into a new agency agreement (the agreement) on enforcement in relation to the design of railways, tramways and other systems of guided transport. The agreement has been made using the powers in paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 and section 13(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The effect of the agreement is that ORR will assume certain enforcement functions during the design stage of railway48 infrastructure projects. ORR will, therefore, become the enforcing authority (EA) for the enforcement of existing relevant health and safety law as it applies in relation to aspects of the design of railway infrastructure. This delegation does not shift the ultimate statutory responsibility from HSE for making adequate arrangements for enforcing health and safety law (HSWA section 18) and therefore involves a shift of work, not a shift of responsibility. The objective is to ensure that designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway, or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the railway. 2. The key pieces of relevant legislation are:  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA);  Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;  Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006;  Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015). 3. The agreement does not create any form of approval process in relation to the design of railway infrastructure. Nor does the agreement alter the allocation of enforcement functions for railway construction activities set out in the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (EARR). 4. ORR does not have an enforcement remit in respect of buildings built over or around a new railway station which are separately occupied for another purpose, for example offices or domestic dwellings. 5. ORR and HSE have arrangements to manage, train and support their inspectors to ensure that they will deliver their enforcement functions in line with their published enforcement policies, so that both EAs will take a consistent approach to enforcement under HSWA. These policies share consistent wording and principles for the exercise of enforcement functions, in particular that such enforcement should be proportionate, targeted, consistent and transparent and that there should be accountability. In fact ORR's policy shares almost identical text having been developed from the HSE policy originally. Both EAs make enforcement decisions in line with HSE's Enforcement Management Model and comply with the Regulator's Compliance Code. Therefore, duty-holders can expect ORR and HSE to follow consistent approaches to enforcement activity and decision making. 6. ORR and HSE will co-ordinate their enforcement activities at the design stage of railway infrastructure projects and ensure that their roles are clear to the duty-holder. This will include:  Keeping each other informed of any issues which may be relevant to both EAs;  Communicating with each other if formal enforcement action is under consideration. In particular, if ORR is considering formal enforcement action, under this agreement it will inform HSE in advance;  Both EAs being represented at meetings with the duty holder as appropriate;  Setting up liaison arrangements at an operational level on a case by case basis to ensure good communication channels. 7. HSE and ORR will keep these working arrangements under review in order to assess the effectiveness of the liaison arrangements between the EAs, and to consider the impact of the agreement on enforcement arrangements. HSE and ORR are required to review the terms of the agreement at least once each year from the date that it comes into effect and will consult stakeholders, as appropriate, as part of that review to ensure any necessary and mutually agreeable changes are reflected in the agreement. ## Why We Have Entered Into An Agreement 9. The current period of significant growth and major new projects in the railway sector has highlighted the need for ORR to have an enforcement role in relation to the design of all railway infrastructure at an earlier stage. HSE and ORR both agree that it is appropriate for ORR to be the EA in respect of aspects of the design which are relevant to operational health and safety. 10. Under EARR, ORR's enforcement role begins when there is an operational railway. This means that HSE is the EA for the design and construction phases of a new build railway. HSE and ORR make arrangements to hand-over enforcement functions as a project moves from construction phase to operational phase. HSE is also the EA for certain construction activity on existing railways, for example HSE will be the EA for the extension or enlargement of railway infrastructure where the construction work is not in close proximity to the operation of the existing railway and consequently there is no risk from the operational railway to the health and safety of the construction workers. HSE could, therefore, be the EA for a construction project to extend the railway or a station. 11. Under the agreement, ORR will carry out certain enforcement functions on behalf of HSE. These functions relate to the design of infrastructure, operational premises or other fixed assets relating to a railway in so far as the design may adversely impact health and safety during the future operation of the system. HSE will retain its enforcement functions in relation to construction safety, i.e. ensuring that designs for the construction of railway infrastructure eliminate, reduce and/or mitigate health and safety risks during the construction phase. In practice this means that HSE's role in relation to construction safety on major railway projects such as Crossrail will not change. ## Application Of Agreement To Enforcement Roles On Construction Projects For New Railway Infrastructure 12. ORR will undertake a new role at the early stages of new railway construction projects such as HS2 or Crossrail 2 to ensure that the general principles of prevention49 are applied early in a project so that opportunities are taken to design out health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway. In particular, ORR will encourage designers to produce design options for the elimination or reduction of such risks which may arise during the operation and maintenance of the railway. For example, infrastructure should be designed so as to reduce the need for maintenance workers to access the operating railway, thereby limiting their exposure to health and safety risks. 13. HSE will continue to be involved at the design stage of new railway construction projects but its enforcement role will be in relation to ensuring that the designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which may otherwise arise during the construction phase. 14. Notwithstanding the principles set out in this MoU in relation to enforcement of CDM 2015 and HSWA by HSE and ORR, both EAs may wish to explore alternative coordination arrangements with further regulators which may suit the needs of a particular project. 15. The following list gives some examples of projects for which ORR will be the EA for the purpose of ensuring designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the system:  Railway or tramway systems including tunnels, bridges, viaducts, supporting structures, level crossings;  Signalling installations;  Electrical installations for supplying power to vehicles;  Plant and equipment or electrical or mechanical installations;  Stations;  Light Maintenance depots and;  Proposals for innovative guided transit systems. ## Application Of Agreement To Enforcement Roles For Construction Projects On The Existing Railway 16. The Agreement Also Clarifies That Orr Has An Enforcement Role In Respect Of The Design of infrastructure, operational premises (e.g. stations) or other fixed assets relating to or on the existing railway. This role will apply with respect to ensuring that the designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway, or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the railway. 17. For those construction projects on the existing railway for which HSE is the EA (see paragraph 11), ORR will also have an EA role in relation to ensuring that the general principles of prevention are applied early in a project so that opportunities are taken to design out health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway. ## Annex 4 Cross-Referenced A-Z Listing Of Railway-Related Enforcement Topic Areas \| Topic area \| page \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------\| \| (working with) asbestos \| Page 28 \| \| \| \| \| Bridges spanning the railway \| Page 27 \| \| \| \| \| Bridges spanning the railway where there is no construction activity \| Page 27 \| \| \| \| \| British Transport Police (including security of railways) \| Page 19 \| \| \| \| \| Bus substitution services \| Page 21 \| \| \| \| \| Cableway installation \| Page 20 \| \| \| \| \| Carriage of dangerous goods \| Page 19 \| \| \| \| \| Construction work \| Pages 24 - 28 \| \| \| \| \| Channel Tunnel UK Concession Area \| Page 19 \| \| \| \| \| Entities in charge of maintenance \| Page 16 \| \| \| \| \| Devonport Royal Dockyard \| Page 18 \| \| \| \| \| Factories \| Page 17 \| \| \| \| \| Fairground equipment \| Page 20 \| \| \| \| \| Gas safety \| Page 28 \| \| \| \| \| Guided buses \| Page 20 \| \| \| \| \| Harbours \| Page 21 \| \| \| \| \| Level crossings \| Page 23 \| \| \| \| \| Light maintenance \| Page 16 \| \| \| \| \| Major railway infrastructure projects (new-build railways) \| Page 26 \| \| \| \| \| Mines \| Page 22 \| \| \| \| \| Miniature railways \| Page 21 \| \| \| \| \| Museum and heritage centres not part of a 'heritage' railway \| Page 17 \| \| \| \| \| Non-railway premises \| Page 17 \| \| \| \| \| ORR's monitoring of the strategic road network \| Annex 2 \| \| \| \| \| Pier railways and tramways \| Page 22 \| \| \| \| \| Quarries \| Page 22 \| \| \| \| \| Radiation emergencies \| Page 19 \| \| \| \| \| Railways at airports \| Page 18 \| \| \| \| \| Railway-related occupational road safety \| Page 21 \| \| \| \| \| Railway security services \| Page 19 \| \| \| \| \| Railway systems within industrial sites \| Page 22 \| \| \| \| \| Railway systems within inter-modal depots \| Page 23 \| \| \| \| \| Railway systems in military establishments \| Page 17 \| \| \| \| \| Road vehicle incursion on to the railway infrastructure \| Annex 1 \| \| \| \| \| Safety by design - ORR agency agreement with HSE \| Annex 3 \| \| Signalling electrical and operational control centres \| Page 17 \| \| \| \| \| Stations occupied by a railway undertaking and non-railway premises \| Page 15 \| \| \| \| \| Training-related railway activities \| Page 16 \|	en
2219-pdf	## Report On The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Prepared by Sheila Dixon, Department of Health May 2009 ## Dh Information Reader Box Estates Performance IM & T Finance Partnership working Policy HR/Workforce Management Planning Clinical Document Statistical publication ROCR ref: n/a Gateway ref: n/a Title: Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Author: Sheila Dixon May 2009 Publication d Public and NHS Target di On-line publication only Circulation list: Description: Statistical publication of the results of the National Patient Choice survey for referrals made in December 2008. Cross ref: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publication s/PublicationsStatistics/DH_ 094013 n/a Superseded docs: n/a Action required: Timing: May 2009 Sheila.Dixon@dh.gsi.gov.uk Contact details: For recipient's use: © Crown copyright 2009 First published May 2009 Published to DH website, in electronic PDF format only. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics Table D.1 Percentage of patients aware of choice by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date .................................................................................................... 33 Table D.2 Percentage of patients offered choice by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date .................................................................................................... 34 Table D.3 Percentage of patients able to go where they wanted by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date............................................................................... 35 ## Results Of The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England. Introduction Since January 2006, all eligible1 patients referred by their GP should have been offered clinically appropriate choices for their elective care, initially from a list of four or more providers commissioned by their PCT. Since April 2008, patients can choose any clinically appropriate hospital provider that meets NHS standards and costs in England. As set out in the NHS Constitution, from April 2009 patients have a legal right to choose the organisation that provides their NHS care when referred for their first outpatient appointment. The Department of Health commissioned a series of national patient choice surveys to assess the implementation of choice at PCT level. Previous reports gave the results of earlier surveys, for referrals made from May/June 20062 to September3 2008, using an extended questionnaire from November 2007. This report gives summary results of around 76,000 responses to the sixteenth such survey, for referrals made in December 2008. Key findings - The percentage of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was 46% in December 2008, the same as in September and up from 30% in the first survey (May/June 2006). - 50% of patients were aware before they visited their GP that they had a choice of hospitals for their first appointment, up from 48% in September and 29% in the May/June 2006 survey. - 61% of patients who were aware of choice recalled being offered choice, whereas 32% of those not aware of choice recalled being offered it, similar to the September survey (61% and 33% respectively). - 68% of patients were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 23% having no preference and 7% unable to go where they wanted, compared with 67%, 23% and 8% respectively in September. - 90% of patients offered choice were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 4% having no preference. This compares with 48% of patients not offered choice able to go where they wanted and 40% having no preference. - 80% of patients were satisfied with how long they had to wait from the time their GP referred them to when they saw the hospital specialist. - Hospital cleanliness and low infection rates were selected most often (by 74% of patients) as an important factor when choosing a hospital. Choice of hospital The percentage of patients who recalled being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was 46% in December. This compares with between 43% and 47% doing so in surveys from May 2007 to September 2008 and 30% in the first (May/June 2006) survey. The percentage of patients aware of choice has kept rising, see Figure 1 and Annex Table A.2. In addition, 41% of patients in December said they discussed which hospital they might go to with their GP. Awareness of choice The percentage of patients who said that they knew before visiting their GP that there is now choice of hospital for a first hospital appointment was 50% in December 2008, up from 48% in September and 29% in the first (May/June 2006), see Figure 1 and Annex Table A.2. The 50% of patients who were aware of choice were more likely to say that they were offered a choice of hospital than those who were unaware of choice. 61% of patients who knew about choice recalled being offered it, whereas only 32% of those not knowing about choice recalled being offered it (Annex Table A.1). This difference is similar to previous surveys (eg 61% and 33% respectively in September). Going to the hospital of choice 68% of patients were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 23% having no preference and 7% unable to go where they wanted. This is similar to the September survey, when 67% of patients went to the hospital they wanted, 23% had no preference and 8% were unable to go where they wanted. For patients offered choice, 90% were able to go where they wanted whilst 5% were not and 4% had no preference. This was different from patients not offered choice, 48% of whom went where they wanted but 40% did not have a preference, see Figure 2 and Annex Table A.3. This may imply that the process of being offered and discussing choice helps patients to decide a preferred hospital. ## Sources Of Information On Choice Almost half the patients (48%) who were offered choice said they used the GP as a source of information to choose their hospital, with a third (33%) saying they used their own experience or that of friends and family. A booklet about choice was used by 8% patients, whilst 5% used the NHS Choices website, see Figure 3 and Annex Table A.4. Factors influencing choice Hospital cleanliness and low infection rates were given most often (by 74% of patients) as an important factor when choosing a hospital. Of all the factors listed for patients to select (as many as apply), six were given by more than half the patients, see Figure 4 and Annex Table A.5. The factors listed were all those that had been commonly identified in previous surveys. Patients selected 5.4 factors on average. The same six factors were selected most often in December as in the previous surveys. The other five are quality of care (given by 64% of patients), waiting times (63%), the friendliness of staff (57%), the reputation of the hospital (55%) and location or transport considerations (54%). ## Booking The First Appointment 37% of patients booked their first hospital appointment when the hospital contacted them following a letter from the GP, the same as in the September survey. Of the others, 29% patients telephoned an appointments line, 20% were booked on screen (by the GP or other practice staff) and 4% used the internet, again similar to September. Nearly half the patients (49%) who did not recall being offered choice booked their appointment when the hospital contacted them, whilst only a quarter (25%) of patients who were offered choice booked this way, see Annex Table A.3. Waiting for the first appointment 80% of patients were satisfied with how long they had to wait from the time their GP referred them to when they saw the hospital specialist, compared with 77% in September. The level of satisfaction was higher amongst those who were offered choice (85%, with 12% dissatisfied) than amongst those who weren't (77%, with 17% dissatisfied), see Annex Table A.3, which may indicate a benefit of offering choice. Results by type of provider The proportion of patients offered choice whose first outpatient appointment was in an Independent Sector (IS) provider was higher than for patients going to NHS organisations: 66% compared with 46%, see Figure 5 and Annex Table A.6. This compares with 62% for those going to IS and 46% for NHS providers in the September survey. However, only 792 (1%) patients taking part in the survey went to IS providers. As before, the difference between the proportions of patients from IS and NHS providers who were aware of choice before visiting their GP was small. Variation by SHA The proportion of patients who recalled being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment, 46% nationally, varied by SHA as shown in Figure 6 and Annex Table A.9. Most SHAs showed an increase in the percentage of patients offered choice in December compared with the May 2008 survey, but did not show an increase compared with the September 2008 survey. The proportion of patients who were aware that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment, 50% nationally, varied by SHA as shown in Figure 7 and Annex Table A.10. Most SHAs continue to show a sustained increase in patient awareness of choice over the surveys to date. Variation by PCT In 16 out of 152 PCTs (11%), over 60% of patients were offered choice, see Figure 8 and Annex Table A.8. This compares with 13 PCTs in the September survey with over 60% of patients offered choice. The proportion of patients aware of choice was under 40% in 7 (5%) PCTs, down from 10 (7%) in the September survey and 33 (22%) in the March 2008 survey. The percentage of patients able to go to the hospital they wanted, 68% nationally, varied by PCT as shown in Figure 9 and Annex Table A.7. Most of the remaining patients had no preference (23% nationally), although more than 10% patients said they were not able to go where they wanted in 33 (22%) PCTs. PCTs where fewer patients were able to go where they wanted tended to have lower levels of choice being offered. The geographic variation in the percentage of patients who said they were offered a choice of hospital in December and in September is illustrated in the PCT maps in Figure 10, see also Annex Table A.7. However, some PCT figures are based on few responses, with the possibility of response bias, so results for individual PCTs should be treated with caution. 60% or more 50 to <60% 40 to <50% 30 to <40% 20 to <30% Under 20% # Annex A: Tables Of Results Of The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Numbers and percentages1 Q1 Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment? Total2 Yes No Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 75,878 100% 37,758 50% 37,625 50% Q2 Did you discuss which hospital you might go to with your GP? Yes 30,763 41% 20,674 55% 10,034 27% No 42,597 56% 16,300 43% 26,195 70% Don't know 1,864 2% 605 2% 1,249 3% Not stated 654 1% 179 0% 147 0% Total 75,878 100% 37,758 100% 37,625 100% Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Yes 35,209 46% 23,090 61% 12,052 32% No 37,416 49% 13,248 35% 24,065 64% Don't know 2,398 3% 1,092 3% 1,298 3% Not stated 855 1% 328 1% 210 1% Total 75,878 100% 37,758 100% 37,625 100% 1. Apart from Q1, percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total within each column. 2. Total columns include responding patients who did not state whether they knew they had a choice of hospitals before visiting their GP. This accounts for 495 (1%) responses. Percentages Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted 3 Survey Total 4 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference May/June 2006 78,773 29% 69% 30% 64% July 2006 70,084 32% 67% 35% 59% September 2006 70,580 32% 67% 38% 57% November 2006 56,928 35% 64% 41% 53% January 2007 73,000 36% 63% 45% 50% March 2007 75,290 37% 62% 48% 47% May 2007 75,191 38% 61% 44% 50% July 2007 62,264 38% 61% 43% 50% September 2007 92,545 39% 60% 45% 49% November 2007 77,804 41% 58% 44% 52% 65% 7% 25% January 2008 72,153 43% 57% 46% 50% 67% 7% 23% March 2008 109,331 43% 56% 47% 48% 67% 7% 23% May 2008 89,903 45% 54% 45% 50% 66% 8% 24% July 2008 93,528 47% 53% 46% 49% 66% 8% 23% September 2008 93,003 48% 51% 46% 50% 67% 8% 23% December 2008 75,878 50% 50% 46% 49% 68% 7% 23% 1. Response to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 2. Response to Q3 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 3. Response to Q5 (introduced November 2007) 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to?' 4. Total valid responses, weighted by age and sex (see Annex B); includes patients who replied 'don't know' or did not respond to the question. Numbers and percentages1 Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Total2 Yes No Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 75,878 100% 35,209 46% 37,416 49% Q5 Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? Yes 51,478 68% 31,664 90% 17,933 48% No 5,497 7% 1,851 5% 3,497 9% I didn't have a preference 17,140 23% 1,372 4% 14,951 40% Not stated 1,763 2% 323 1% 1,034 3% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% Q6 How did you book your first hospital appointment? GP wrote and hospital contacted me 28,145 37% 8,726 25% 18,245 49% Telephoned a call centre 22,374 29% 15,074 43% 6,636 18% On screen (with GP or practice staff) 15,206 20% 7,310 21% 7,290 19% Via internet 3,404 4% 2,528 7% 817 2% All other responses 6,748 9% 1,572 4% 4,428 12% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% Q7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long you had to wait from the time your GP referred you to a hospital to when you actually saw the hospital? Very satisfied 34,687 46% 17,724 50% 15,797 42% Fairly satisfied 26,193 35% 12,055 34% 13,071 35% Not very satisfied 6,959 9% 2,886 8% 3,789 10% Not at all satisfied 4,103 5% 1,419 4% 2,540 7% No appointment date yet 2,377 3% 758 2% 1,464 4% Don't know / not stated 1,560 2% 368 1% 753 2% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% 1. Apart from Q3, percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total within each column. 2. Total columns include responding patients who did not know or did not state whether they were offered a choice of hospital. This accounts for 3,253 (4%) responses. ## Numbers and percentages Sources listed1 No. patients Percent of responses My GP 16,956 48% Friends/family members/own experience 11,727 33% A booklet or leaflet about my choices 2,841 8% NHS Choices website 1,842 5% Staff at Clinical Assessment or Referral Centre 1,485 4% Someone at GP surgery 1,334 4% Other internet site 350 1% Local patient organisation 334 1% Other 4,345 12% None of these 2,920 8% Don't know 276 1% 1. Patients who said they had been offered choice were invited to select, from a list of sources, those they used when choosing the hospital. On average, patients selected 1.2 sources. Numbers and percentages Most important factors listed1 No. patients Percent of responses Cleanliness / Low levels of infection 55,961 74% Quality of care 48,453 64% Length of wait to appointment 47,596 63% Friendliness of staff 42,952 57% Reputation of hospital 41,394 55% Location / Transport / Easy to get to 41,051 54% Car parking 35,637 47% Reputation of consultant 33,936 45% Good personal experience 31,125 41% Convenience of appointment time 28,808 38% Other 884 1% None of these 187 0% Don't know 392 1% 1. Patients were invited to select, from a list of factors, those they considered most important to them when choosing a hospital (whether they were offered a choice on this occasion or not). On average, patients selected 5.4 factors. ## Numbers and percentages Type of provider of outpatient service Total1 Independent Sector2 NHS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Q1 Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment? Yes 37,758 50% 389 54% 37,369 50% No 37,625 50% 333 46% 37,292 50% Not stated 495 1% 2 0% 493 1% Total1 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Yes 35,209 46% 476 66% 34,733 46% No 37,416 49% 225 31% 37,191 49% Don't know 2,398 3% 18 3% 2,380 3% Not stated 855 1% 4 1% 850 1% Total1 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q5 Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? Yes 51,478 68% 562 78% 50,917 68% No 5,497 7% 28 4% 5,469 7% I didn't have a preference 17,140 23% 125 17% 17,015 23% Not stated 1,763 2% 9 1% 1,754 2% Total 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long you had to wait from the time your GP referred you to a hospital to when you actually saw the hospital? Very satisfied 34,687 46% 566 78% 34,121 45% Fairly satisfied 26,193 35% 118 16% 26,075 35% Not very satisfied 6,959 9% 18 3% 6,940 9% Not at all satisfied 4,103 5% 14 2% 4,089 5% No appointment date yet 2,377 3% 4 1% 2,373 3% Don't know / not stated 1,559 2% 4 1% 1,556 2% Total 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% 1. Responses may not sum to total due to rounding following age and sex weighting of the survey results. 2. Some Independent Sector providers have taken part in the survey, issuing survey forms to their patients, since the November 2006 survey, see Annex B. Percentages 3 Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted to go PCT 4 SHA 5 Total 6 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference England 75,878 50% 50% 46% 49% 68% 7% 23% Ashton, Leigh and Wigan NW 354 57% 43% 59% 38% 75% 3% 19% Barking and Dagenham Lon 203 48% 52% 54% 40% 60% 19% 20% Barnet Lon 420 53% 45% 51% 41% 68% 11% 16% Barnsley YH 159 63% 37% 60% 37% 74% 8% 17% Bassetlaw EM 92 65% 35% 60% 38% 80% 5% 13% Bath and North East Somerset SW 407 57% 43% 49% 48% 75% 4% 19% Bedfordshire EoE 437 50% 49% 37% 58% 67% 4% 25% Berkshire East Teaching SC 176 45% 55% 44% 50% 61% 14% 22% Berkshire West SC 134 58% 41% 68% 28% 84% 3% 10% Bexley Care Trust Lon 256 55% 45% 49% 46% 68% 9% 20% Birmingham East and North WM 84 56% 43% 56% 42% 69% 11% 20% Blackburn with Darwen Teaching NW 143 62% 38% 57% 40% 76% 13% 10% Blackpool NW 307 56% 44% 48% 48% 73% 5% 20% Bolton NW 375 59% 40% 55% 42% 78% 5% 17% Bournemouth and Poole SW 388 54% 45% 57% 39% 84% 4% 10% Bradford and Airedale Teaching YH 628 48% 52% 36% 59% 56% 9% 31% Brent Teaching Lon 239 42% 56% 44% 47% 64% 7% 25% Brighton and Hove City Teaching SEC 246 40% 59% 26% 68% 53% 7% 37% Bristol Teaching SW 403 43% 57% 49% 46% 72% 8% 18% Bromley Lon 73 48% 52% 48% 47% 64% 12% 22% Buckinghamshire SC 873 51% 48% 48% 47% 71% 5% 22% Bury NW 120 56% 43% 58% 42% 77% 4% 17% Calderdale YH 427 54% 45% 48% 48% 79% 6% 13% Cambridgeshire EoE 834 48% 51% 36% 59% 75% 6% 17% Camden Lon 229 55% 44% 55% 39% 79% 3% 17% Central & Eastern Cheshire NW 1,107 55% 44% 45% 51% 71% 6% 21% Central Lancashire NW 216 57% 42% 56% 40% 70% 13% 16% City and Hackney Teaching Lon 235 35% 64% 37% 55% 57% 9% 32% Cornwall and Isles of Scilly SW 702 47% 51% 46% 49% 55% 19% 24% County Durham NE 986 67% 32% 67% 31% 77% 8% 14% Coventry Teaching WM 645 60% 39% 53% 42% 78% 3% 17% Croydon Lon 88 56% 43% 50% 48% 69% 9% 22% Cumbria NW 1,419 61% 38% 51% 44% 72% 8% 17% Darlington NE 223 59% 40% 44% 52% 76% 6% 16% Derby City EM 576 49% 51% 41% 54% 66% 7% 25% Derbyshire County EM 1,208 63% 36% 58% 39% 79% 4% 15% Devon SW 1,590 54% 45% 45% 51% 75% 6% 17% Doncaster YH 317 63% 36% 46% 50% 75% 5% 17% Dorset SW 825 63% 36% 61% 34% 78% 5% 14% Dudley WM 255 54% 45% 29% 66% 56% 7% 34% Ealing Lon 382 56% 44% 42% 52% 64% 9% 24% East and North Hertfordshire EoE 320 58% 41% 49% 47% 66% 10% 21% East Lancashire NW 620 61% 38% 65% 32% 72% 11% 15% East Riding of Yorkshire YH 708 45% 54% 36% 60% 57% 10% 30% East Sussex Downs and Weald SEC 709 50% 50% 39% 57% 70% 5% 22% Eastern and Coastal Kent Teaching SEC 1,115 49% 50% 49% 46% 65% 9% 22% Enfield Lon 465 55% 45% 54% 41% 70% 9% 18% Gateshead NE 542 63% 36% 57% 41% 72% 6% 19% Gloucestershire SW 954 48% 51% 53% 44% 72% 7% 18% Great Yarmouth and Waveney EoE 69 67% 33% 68% 32% 78% 6% 12% Greenwich Teaching Lon 349 52% 48% 52% 44% 69% 9% 22% \| \| \| \| Aware of \| \|------------------------------\|-------\|-------\|-------------\| \| choice \| \| \| \| \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Offered \| \| \| \| \| choice \| \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Able to go where wanted \| \| \| \| \| to go \| \| \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| PCT \| \| \| \| \| 4 \| \| \| \| \| SHA \| \| \| \| \| 5 \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| 6 \| \| \| \| \| %Yes \| %No \| \| %Yes \| \| %No \| \| \| \| \| preference \| \| \| \| \| Halton and St Helens \| NW \| 723 \| 55% \| \| Hammersmith and Fulham \| Lon \| 245 \| 49% \| \| Hampshire \| SC \| 2,021 \| 51% \| \| Haringey Teaching \| Lon \| 198 \| 41% \| \| Harrow \| Lon \| 183 \| 47% \| \| Hartlepool \| NE \| 56 \| 61% \| \| Hastings and Rother \| SEC \| 489 \| 47% \| \| Havering \| Lon \| 239 \| 48% \| \| Heart of Birmingham Teaching \| WM \| 110 \| 45% \| \| Herefordshire \| WM \| 421 \| 46% \| \| Hillingdon \| Lon \| 557 \| 40% \| \| Hounslow \| Lon \| 181 \| 44% \| \| Hull Teaching \| YH \| 487 \| 46% \| \| Isle of Wight Healthcare \| SC \| 366 \| 40% \| \| Islington \| Lon \| 88 \| 55% \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| Lon \| 114 \| 47% \| \| Kingston \| Lon \| 58 \| 43% \| \| Kirklees \| YH \| 732 \| 49% \| \| Knowsley \| NW \| 184 \| 47% \| \| Lambeth \| Lon \| 174 \| 47% \| \| Leeds \| YH \| 1,439 \| 48% \| \| Leicester City Teaching \| EM \| 566 \| 40% \| \| Leicestershire County and \| \| \| \| \| Rutland \| EM \| 974 \| 48% \| \| Lewisham \| Lon \| 289 \| 46% \| \| Lincolnshire Teaching \| EM \| 2,066 \| 60% \| \| Liverpool \| NW \| 422 \| 54% \| \| Luton Teaching \| EoE \| 15 \| 40% \| \| Manchester \| NW \| 728 \| 48% \| \| Medway Teaching \| SEC \| 70 \| 50% \| \| Mid Essex \| EoE \| 677 \| 43% \| \| Middlesbrough \| NE \| 232 \| 72% \| \| Milton Keynes \| SC \| 647 \| 39% \| \| Newcastle \| NE \| 384 \| 55% \| \| Newham \| Lon \| 274 \| 42% \| \| Norfolk \| EoE \| 1,190 \| 55% \| \| North East Essex \| EoE \| 887 \| 46% \| \| North East Lincolnshire \| YH \| 290 \| 60% \| \| North Lancashire \| NW \| 793 \| 61% \| \| North Lincolnshire \| YH \| 332 \| 62% \| \| North Somerset \| SW \| 558 \| 47% \| \| North Staffordshire \| WM \| 503 \| 57% \| \| North Tees \| NE \| 144 \| 56% \| \| North Tyneside \| NE \| 486 \| 60% \| \| North Yorkshire and York \| YH \| 1,577 \| 52% \| \| Northamptonshire Teaching \| EM \| 1,295 \| 60% \| \| Northumberland Care Trust \| NE \| 624 \| 58% \| \| Nottingham City \| EM \| 384 \| 54% \| \| Nottinghamshire County \| \| \| \| \| Teaching \| \| \| \| \| EM \| 1,328 \| 60% \| 40% \| \| Oldham \| NW \| 51 \| 59% \| \| Oxfordshire \| SC \| 805 \| 57% \| \| Peterborough \| EoE \| 297 \| 41% \| \| Plymouth Teaching \| SW \| 272 \| 55% \| \| Portsmouth City Teaching \| SC \| 392 \| 53% \| \| Redbridge \| Lon \| 419 \| 53% \| \| Redcar and Cleveland \| NE \| 267 \| 66% \| \| Richmond and Twickenham \| Lon \| 42 \| 31% \| \| Rochdale, Heywood and \| \| \| \| \| Middleton \| NW \| 47 \| 47% \| 3 Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted to go PCT 4 SHA 5 Total 6 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference Rotherham YH 74 70% 27% 61% 34% 80% 4% 14% Salford Teaching NW 344 62% 38% 50% 48% 80% 4% 15% Sandwell WM 88 50% 49% 55% 41% 75% 9% 13% Sefton NW 356 46% 53% 39% 58% 62% 4% 32% Sheffield YH 1,156 51% 48% 39% 56% 65% 7% 25% Shropshire County WM 84 56% 43% 58% 38% 73% 8% 15% Solihull WM 33 64% 33% 73% 27% 76% 12% 12% Somerset SW 547 62% 37% 62% 35% 73% 8% 17% South Birmingham WM 331 39% 60% 30% 64% 61% 2% 34% South East Essex EoE 93 48% 51% 58% 39% 73% 4% 16% South Gloucestershire SW 364 46% 53% 43% 53% 67% 10% 21% South Staffordshire WM 715 60% 39% 48% 47% 70% 6% 21% South Tyneside NE 273 72% 28% 44% 52% 72% 5% 21% South West Essex Teaching EoE 573 50% 49% 53% 45% 70% 8% 20% Southampton City SC 342 32% 67% 20% 73% 48% 9% 39% Southwark Lon 92 40% 60% 46% 48% 68% 7% 21% Stockport NW 444 54% 45% 53% 42% 77% 4% 17% Stoke on Trent Teaching WM 248 60% 39% 60% 36% 75% 5% 18% Suffolk EoE 612 48% 50% 33% 62% 66% 5% 25% Sunderland Teaching NE 741 65% 34% 45% 50% 74% 4% 19% Surrey SEC 1,855 50% 49% 47% 49% 70% 7% 20% Sutton and Merton Lon 502 46% 54% 42% 52% 64% 11% 23% Swindon SW 289 48% 51% 33% 64% 72% 1% 24% Tameside and Glossop NW 459 63% 37% 62% 36% 79% 4% 17% Telford and Wrekin WM 6 50% 50% 83% 17% 67% 33% 0% Torbay Care Trust SW 410 54% 45% 42% 55% 77% 5% 16% Tower Hamlets Lon 41 54% 46% 56% 37% 66% 12% 17% Trafford NW 224 45% 54% 43% 51% 68% 11% 19% Wakefield YH 757 52% 48% 50% 47% 65% 9% 23% Walsall Teaching WM 268 59% 40% 40% 52% 70% 5% 22% Waltham Forest Lon 428 47% 53% 44% 50% 65% 10% 23% Wandsworth Lon 46 52% 48% 50% 46% 70% 15% 11% Warrington NW 433 54% 46% 39% 57% 71% 3% 24% Warwickshire WM 490 57% 43% 63% 35% 77% 7% 15% West Cheshire NW 386 52% 47% 44% 51% 76% 5% 17% West Essex EoE 283 57% 42% 46% 52% 72% 4% 21% West Hertfordshire EoE 965 41% 58% 39% 57% 61% 9% 26% West Kent SEC 509 42% 56% 39% 55% 67% 6% 24% West Sussex Teaching SEC 957 51% 48% 50% 45% 74% 8% 16% Westminster Lon 115 37% 63% 33% 57% 65% 10% 23% Wiltshire SW 688 56% 43% 50% 46% 76% 4% 17% Wirral NW 192 57% 42% 52% 44% 69% 6% 22% Wolverhampton City WM 436 45% 54% 32% 65% 70% 3% 25% Worcestershire WM 123 55% 43% 50% 44% 63% 11% 24% 1. Response to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 2. Response to Q3 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 3. Response to Q5 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to?' 4. Responsible Care Trusts and Primary Care Trusts based on reconfigured (post 1 October 2006) organisations, see Annex B. PCT results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. 5. SHA is based on a mapping of responsible PCTs to Strategic Health Authorities: NE (North East), NW (North West), YH (Yorkshire & the Humber), EM (East Midlands), WM (West Midlands), EoE (East of England), Lon (London), SEC (South East Coast), SC (South Central) and SW (South West). 6. Total valid responses, including patients who replied 'don't know' or did not respond to the question. The national total is weighted and includes 3,482 (5%) weighted cases not listed by responsible PCT because the PCT was not clear. Results for PCTs with fewer than 50 responses should be treated with some caution (see Annex B Issues for PCT results). Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 No. of PCTs2 % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs Percentage of patients offered a choice of hospital3 60% and over 14 5% 10 7% 18 12% 11 7% 7 5% 14 9% 13 9% 16 11% 50% to <60% 17 6% 39 26% 39 26% 49 32% 50 33% 50 33% 52 34% 48 32% 40% to <50% 34 11% 53 35% 60 39% 61 40% 58 38% 52 34% 51 34% 53 35% 30% to <40% 71 23% 39 26% 27 18% 28 18% 31 20% 28 18% 29 19% 26 17% 20% to <30% 104 34% 10 7% 8 5% 3 2% 6 4% 8 5% 7 5% 7 5% 10% to < 20% 59 19% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% <10% 4 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 303 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Prior to PCT reconfiguration on 1 October 2006, there were 303 organisations (Care Trusts and Primary Care Trusts), compared with 152 subsequently. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 England 78,773 30% 77,804 44% 72,153 46% 109,331 47% 89,903 45% 93,528 46% 93,003 46% 75,878 46% North East 4,238 28% 5,141 44% 4,225 44% 6,824 51% 5,587 47% 3,922 52% 5,577 50% 4,958 50% North West 11,252 39% 11,774 49% 9,865 52% 14,117 52% 12,751 51% 13,139 52% 13,084 52% 10,447 51% Yorks & Humber 9,321 26% 10,203 39% 9,235 42% 12,486 44% 9,831 41% 10,699 41% 12,165 43% 9,083 42% East Midlands 7,240 38% 7,518 52% 7,168 54% 10,269 56% 8,514 52% 9,701 52% 10,113 52% 8,489 51% West Midlands 7,355 30% 5,531 44% 6,333 46% 8,605 45% 8,208 43% 8,002 43% 7,119 44% 4,840 46% East of England 8,580 24% 7,597 37% 7,663 39% 11,442 40% 8,976 37% 8,295 39% 8,764 40% 7,252 42% London 9,350 30% 8,071 43% 7,857 45% 11,563 45% 10,433 45% 10,318 45% 8,634 43% 7,224 45% South East Coast 7,490 20% 4,962 40% 5,005 43% 8,642 44% 7,530 44% 6,880 43% 7,797 44% 5,950 44% South Central 5,204 34% 5,011 44% 4,305 45% 6,486 47% 6,051 44% 7,001 46% 6,150 45% 5,756 42% South West 8,747 27% 6,278 46% 5,629 50% 10,690 49% 8,455 48% 11,177 50% 8,274 49% 8,397 49% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Total valid responses. From November 2006, total includes cases not identifiable by SHA (see Annex B). 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 4. SHA results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 England 78,773 29% 77,804 41% 72,153 43% 109,331 43% 89,903 45% 93,528 47% 93,003 48% 75,878 50% North East 4,238 30% 5,141 45% 4,225 46% 6,824 47% 5,587 49% 3,922 55% 5,577 58% 4,958 63% North West 11,252 34% 11,774 46% 9,865 48% 14,117 47% 12,751 50% 13,139 53% 13,084 54% 10,447 56% Yorks & Humber 9,321 30% 10,203 42% 9,235 43% 12,486 45% 9,831 46% 10,699 49% 12,165 51% 9,083 51% East Midlands 7,240 36% 7,518 51% 7,168 51% 10,269 51% 8,514 53% 9,701 53% 10,113 56% 8,489 57% West Midlands 7,355 31% 5,531 45% 6,333 48% 8,605 47% 8,208 48% 8,002 51% 7,119 52% 4,840 54% East of England 8,580 31% 7,597 42% 7,663 41% 11,442 43% 8,976 43% 8,295 45% 8,764 47% 7,252 48% London 9,350 32% 8,071 40% 7,857 42% 11,563 43% 10,433 46% 10,318 46% 8,634 46% 7,224 48% South East Coast 7,490 28% 4,962 38% 5,005 39% 8,642 41% 7,530 43% 6,880 45% 7,797 46% 5,950 48% South Central 5,204 32% 5,011 43% 4,305 41% 6,486 43% 6,051 46% 7,001 48% 6,150 48% 5,756 49% South West 8,747 31% 6,278 44% 5,629 46% 10,690 47% 8,455 50% 11,177 49% 8,274 51% 8,397 53% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Total valid responses. From November 2006, total includes cases not identifiable by SHA (see Annex B). 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 4. SHA results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. ## Annex B: Notes On The Survey Methodology Background This is the sixteenth National Patient Choice Survey conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Department of Health, in a series of surveys planned to monitor patient awareness of choice and recall of having been offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment. The surveys are designed to provide a national overview of choice and summary results at PCT level. After piloting the methodology with six NHS hospital trusts in February 2006, national surveys have been conducted for referrals in May/June, July, September and November 2006, January, March, May, July, September and November 2007, January, March, May, July, September and now December 2008. Methodology Patients who had been referred by a GP for a first outpatient appointment in any of 141 major acute NHS trusts or 14 Independent Sector (IS) organisations during the two-week period 15 to 28 December 2008 were invited to take part in the survey. Patients aged under 16 or referred for specialties exempted from choice were omitted from the survey (including urgent referrals, two week wait cancer patients, antenatal patients and those referred to rapid access chest pain clinics or mental health specialties - see footnote on Page 6). These providers of care together account for over 95% of NHS GP referrals to first outpatient appointments. Although the Independent Sector units receive relatively few referrals, their inclusion in the survey (from November 2006) helps to ensure representation of these patients, who might have a different experience of choice. The providers were asked to issue the survey questionnaire within a week of the two-week period. Around 218,000 questionnaires were issued. Patients were invited to complete the questionnaire and return it using the pre-paid Ipsos MORI reply envelope. The questionnaires were anonymous except for the information pre-completed regarding the issuing Trust and the responsible PCT of the patient (see below for issues regarding the PCT information). All responses were treated as completely confidential. The questionnaire for the December 2008 survey was the same as that used for the previous six surveys, following questionnaire redesign in November 2007 (see Annex C for the questionnaire). Response A total 75,916 patients responded to the survey, a response rate of 35%. Of these, 38 responses did not clearly indicate the code of the issuing Trust or IS provider (despite pre-printing of the organisation code) and were omitted as invalid. In addition, 3,335 (4%) responses did not clearly indicate the responsible PCT. Such cases have been included in national analysis since the November 2006 survey, as they have a valid provider code. This resulted in an effective national response rate of 35% (75,878 valid responses). This compares with valid response rates of between 25% and 33% in all surveys to January 2008 except 40% in September 2007, 50% in March 2008 and between 37% and 38% in May to September 2008. Although the survey results were weighted for age and sex bias among respondents (see below), they may be subject to other response bias for which no adjustment can be made. Weighting for non-response The age and sex of respondents to the survey was compared with Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Outpatients data sourced from the Information Centre for Health and Social Care (IC)1. The HES data related to 8.9 million first attendance outpatient appointments in 2006-07 for patients with known sex and age 16 and over where the source of referral was a General Medical Practitioner and the specialty was not one of those excluded from choice (cancer, obstetrics and mental health). There was a lower proportion of younger patients among the survey respondents than in the overall HES distribution, for both males and females, see Figure B.1. Although many of the survey results differed only slightly by age and sex, this sample difference is sufficiently marked that the decision was made to weight the national data to adjust for this response bias. No weighting was done by ethnic group since the HES outpatient data did not have an ethnic group recorded for the majority of patients. The national weighting was not applied to PCT or SHA results because the age and sex distribution differs by PCT and the HES outpatient data was not universally complete enough to provide a robust comparison. Analysis by age, sex and ethnic group Results of the survey by age, sex and ethnic group were last presented in the report for referrals made in March 20081. The report compiled results for the first twelve surveys, since the differences observed by age, sex and ethnic group were generally consistent over all the surveys and otherwise small samples for some groups made comparisons inconclusive. This analysis has been updated to include the subsequent four surveys and is presented in Annex D. Issues for PCT results Survey forms were marked with the commissioning organisation (Care Trust or Primary Care Trust, PCT) prior to issue. In most cases, issuing organisations identified the responsible PCT on the basis of contemporary PCTs, ie those following reconfiguration from 303 to 152 commissioning organisations on 1 October 2006. In the December survey, 97% of responses were marked with either new PCT codes (67%) or PCTs unaffected by reconfiguration (30%). The remaining 3% of responses had a discontinued PCT code. These were mapped to their new codes (where generally two or more of the 303 PCTs aggregated into one of the 152 reconfigured PCTs) for inclusion in the PCT level results of the survey. SHA results were aggregated from the PCT data (also unweighted). The number of valid responses received varied by PCT, from fewer than 60 patients in ten PCTs (where there were local problems with the survey process) to more than 1,000 in 14 PCTs, as shown in Annex Table A.7. If responses were unbiased, the average confidence interval2 around the percentage of patients offered choice in each PCT would be ± 6%, but in some cases this is as low as ± 2% or, in the worst case, as high as ± 32%. The variable response, possibility of response bias and lack of weighting for age and sex bias at a local level means that PCT results should be treated with some caution. ## Annex C: Survey Questionnaire Annex D: Combined Survey Results By Age, Sex And Ethnic Group Background Results of the survey by the age, sex and ethnic group of respondents were last presented in the report for referrals made in March 20081. That report compiled results for the first twelve surveys. These were aggregated for comparison, since the differences observed by age, sex and ethnic group were generally consistent over all the surveys and otherwise small samples for some groups made comparisons inconclusive. This annex updates that analysis by presenting the analysis of all sixteen surveys to date, combining these into groups of four successive surveys2. Age and sex results The proportion of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was nearly 2% higher for women than for men, see Figure D.1 and Table D.2. The proportion also varied by age, although this became less marked as the general level of recall of choice rose. The highest proportion of patients offered choice was for 35-54 year olds and 55 to 64 year olds, whilst there were lower proportions for 16-34 year olds and those aged over 65. The proportion of patients aware before visiting their GP that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment increased with age, see Figure D.2 and Table D.1. This trend was maintained across all the surveys to date, despite the general increase in awareness. Women generally had a greater awareness of choice, except in the over 65 age band where men had a greater awareness. The proportion of patients who were able to go to the hospital they wanted increased with age, whilst the proportion who had no preference decreased with age, see Figure D.3 and Table D.31. Men were somewhat less inclined to have a preference than women, slightly more of whom said they went to their hospital of choice. Combined results of surveys 10 to 12 Combined results of surveys 13 to 16 Ethnic group results The proportion of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients1, see Figure D.4 and Table D.2. The Asian or Asian British and Black or Black British ethnic groups were on average 12% below the overall proportion of patients offered choice in the latest four surveys, as was the Other group (based on less than 0.5% of responses, see Table D.2). Those with Mixed ethnicity were slightly closer to average, whilst the Chinese group showed most variability and was not always below average (but also based on less than 0.5% of responses and omitted from Figure D.4). The variation by ethnic group lessened in the latest four surveys. ## The proportion of patients aware before visiting their GP that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients, see Figure D.5 and Table D.1. Of all BME patients, those considering themselves in the Mixed and Asian or Asian British groups had the highest awareness of choice. Nevertheless, awareness has risen over time across all groups. The proportion of patients who were able to go to the hospital they wanted was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients, see Figure D.6 and Table D.31. All BME groups were less likely to have a preference of hospital than White patients (even when offered a choice). Numbers and percentages Surveys 1 to 4 20061 Surveys 5 to 8 20071 Surveys 9 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total 276,369 32% 285,736 37% 351,834 42% 352,316 47% 89,903 45% 93,528 47% 93,003 48% 75,878 50% By age and sex: Male 16-34 18,601 23% 19,237 27% 22,851 31% 20,237 36% 5,162 36% 5,371 35% 5,335 35% 4,368 37% 35-54 31,699 26% 32,784 31% 40,461 34% 39,431 39% 10,050 37% 10,468 38% 10,399 40% 8,514 42% 55-64 19,124 34% 19,779 38% 24,479 43% 24,004 50% 6,120 47% 6,371 50% 6,330 50% 5,183 53% 65+ 35,105 40% 36,306 45% 44,885 50% 43,896 56% 11,193 53% 11,651 55% 11,575 57% 9,477 58% Total4 107,761 32% 111,677 37% 134,298 41% 128,169 46% 32,694 44% 34,028 46% 33,790 47% 27,658 49% Female 16-34 36,415 25% 37,661 29% 50,405 34% 57,961 38% 14,780 36% 15,386 38% 15,282 39% 12,512 41% 35-54 51,872 32% 53,647 36% 68,115 41% 70,646 47% 18,015 45% 18,751 47% 18,628 48% 15,252 50% 55-64 24,102 35% 24,927 41% 30,932 47% 30,519 54% 7,780 52% 8,102 53% 8,048 55% 6,589 57% 65+ 45,060 37% 46,602 43% 57,584 48% 56,242 55% 14,340 52% 14,929 54% 14,830 55% 12,142 58% Total4 160,152 32% 165,791 37% 208,456 42% 216,041 48% 55,114 45% 57,342 47% 56,968 49% 46,617 51% By ethnic group: White 244,948 33% 251,765 38% 312,955 42% 311,425 48% 79,095 46% 82,511 48% 82,256 49% 67,563 51% All BME 24,138 26% 26,237 30% 30,925 34% 33,661 39% 8,841 38% 9,270 38% 8,670 39% 6,881 40% Mixed 3,430 28% 3,605 31% 7,648 36% 10,373 42% 2,747 41% 2,737 41% 2,856 42% 2,034 44% Asian or Asian British 10,655 26% 12,049 32% 12,489 35% 12,555 39% 3,281 37% 3,567 39% 3,084 39% 2,622 40% Black or Black British 5,986 25% 6,236 27% 7,297 32% 7,732 35% 1,998 34% 2,177 35% 1,967 34% 1,591 39% Chinese 1,192 26% 1,309 30% 1,340 31% 1,323 36% 365 39% 343 33% 333 36% 282 36% Other 2,874 29% 3,038 31% 2,151 31% 1,678 37% 450 36% 446 37% 430 39% 351 35% 1. Surveys 1 to 4 are for referrals made in May/June, July, September and November 2006. Surveys 5 to 8 are for referrals made in January, March, May and July 2007. Surveys 9 to 12 are for referrals made in September and November 2007 and January and March 2008. Surveys 13 to 16 are for referrals made in May, July, September and December 2008. For a breakdown by survey for surveys 1 to 12, see the Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - July 2007 England and the Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England. 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group. Numbers and percentages Surveys 1 to 4 20061 Surveys 5 to 8 20071 Surveys 9 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total 276,369 35% 285,736 45% 351,834 46% 352,316 46% 89,903 45% 93,528 46% 93,003 46% 75,878 46% By age and sex: Male 16-34 18,601 32% 19,237 41% 22,851 44% 20,237 43% 5,162 42% 5,371 43% 5,335 45% 4,368 43% 35-54 31,699 36% 32,784 46% 40,461 45% 39,431 45% 10,050 45% 10,468 44% 10,399 45% 8,514 46% 55-64 19,124 36% 19,779 46% 24,479 46% 24,004 47% 6,120 47% 6,371 47% 6,330 47% 5,183 48% 65+ 35,105 34% 36,306 44% 44,885 44% 43,896 44% 11,193 43% 11,651 44% 11,575 45% 9,477 45% Total4 107,761 35% 111,677 45% 134,298 45% 128,169 45% 32,694 44% 34,028 45% 33,790 45% 27,658 45% Female 16-34 36,415 34% 37,661 43% 50,405 45% 57,961 45% 14,780 44% 15,386 45% 15,282 44% 12,512 45% 35-54 51,872 39% 53,647 49% 68,115 49% 70,646 49% 18,015 48% 18,751 49% 18,628 49% 15,252 49% 55-64 24,102 38% 24,927 48% 30,932 49% 30,519 50% 7,780 49% 8,102 51% 8,048 49% 6,589 49% 65+ 45,060 35% 46,602 44% 57,584 44% 56,242 45% 14,340 44% 14,929 45% 14,830 46% 12,142 46% Total4 160,152 36% 165,791 46% 208,456 47% 216,041 47% 55,114 46% 57,342 47% 56,968 47% 46,617 47% By ethnic group: White 244,948 36% 251,765 46% 312,955 46% 311,425 47% 79,095 46% 82,511 47% 82,256 47% 67,563 47% All BME 24,138 30% 26,237 37% 30,925 40% 33,661 41% 8,841 42% 9,270 42% 8,670 41% 6,881 41% Mixed 3,430 33% 3,605 39% 7,648 42% 10,373 42% 2,747 43% 2,737 42% 2,856 42% 2,034 39% Asian or Asian British 10,655 30% 12,049 37% 12,489 39% 12,555 41% 3,281 41% 3,567 41% 3,084 40% 2,622 40% Black or Black British 5,986 29% 6,236 38% 7,297 40% 7,732 41% 1,998 41% 2,177 41% 1,967 39% 1,591 41% Chinese 1,192 32% 1,309 36% 1,340 43% 1,323 47% 365 45% 343 44% 333 47% 282 54% Other 2,874 30% 3,038 37% 2,151 39% 1,678 40% 450 38% 446 41% 430 44% 351 39% 1. Surveys 1 to 4 are for referrals made in May/June, July, September and November 2006. Surveys 5 to 8 are for referrals made in January, March, May and July 2007. Surveys 9 to 12 are for referrals made in September and November 2007 and January and March 2008. Surveys 13 to 16 are for referrals made in May, July, September and December 2008. For a breakdown by survey for surveys 1 to 12, see the Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - July 2007 England and the Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England. 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to the question: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group. Numbers and percentages Surveys 10 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. Total 259,289 66% 24% 352,316 67% 23% 89,903 66% 24% 93,528 66% 23% 93,003 67% 23% 75,878 68% 23% By age and sex: Male 16-34 16,632 61% 30% 20,237 62% 28% 5,162 61% 28% 5,371 62% 28% 5,335 62% 27% 4,368 62% 29% 35-54 29,861 63% 27% 39,431 63% 27% 10,050 62% 28% 10,468 62% 27% 10,399 63% 26% 8,514 65% 26% 55-64 18,084 67% 23% 24,004 67% 23% 6,120 66% 24% 6,371 67% 22% 6,330 67% 23% 5,183 69% 21% 65+ 33,147 70% 21% 43,896 70% 21% 11,193 70% 21% 11,651 69% 21% 11,575 71% 21% 9,477 71% 20% Total3 98,165 66% 25% 128,169 66% 24% 32,694 65% 25% 34,028 65% 24% 33,790 66% 24% 27,658 67% 23% Female 16-34 38,228 63% 28% 57,961 63% 28% 14,780 62% 29% 15,386 62% 28% 15,282 63% 28% 12,512 65% 26% 35-54 50,771 67% 23% 70,646 67% 23% 18,015 66% 23% 18,751 67% 23% 18,628 67% 23% 15,252 67% 23% 55-64 22,873 69% 21% 30,519 69% 20% 7,780 68% 21% 8,102 69% 19% 8,048 69% 20% 6,589 71% 19% 65+ 42,517 70% 20% 56,242 71% 19% 14,340 70% 20% 14,929 70% 19% 14,830 71% 19% 12,142 72% 19% Total3 154,877 67% 67% 23% 56,968 68% 23% 46,617 68% 22% By ethnic group: White 231,024 23% 67% 311,425 68% 23% 79,095 67% 24% 82,511 67% 23% 82,256 68% 23% 67,563 69% 22% 23% 216,041 67% 23% 55,114 66% 24% 57,342 All BME 22,825 60% 27% 33,661 61% 26% 8,841 61% 26% 9,270 61% 26% 8,670 61% 27% 6,881 62% 26% Mixed 6,605 62% 26% 10,373 63% 25% 2,747 63% 24% 2,737 62% 24% 2,856 62% 25% 2,034 63% 26% Asian or Asian British 8,834 60% 28% 12,555 62% 26% 3,281 61% 26% 3,567 61% 26% 3,084 62% 26% 2,622 63% 25% Black or Black British 5,308 59% 28% 7,732 59% 28% 1,998 59% 28% 2,177 59% 27% 1,967 57% 29% 1,591 60% 28% Chinese 834 62% 29% 1,323 63% 28% 365 62% 26% 343 60% 32% 333 64% 28% 282 68% 28% Other 1,244 58% 28% 1,678 60% 26% 450 59% 28% 446 62% 23% 430 63% 25% 351 58% 27% 1. The question was introduced from Survey 10 (November 2007). For a breakdown by survey for surveys 10 to 12, see the Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England. 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes or that they had No preference respectively to Q5 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group.	en
3027-pdf	# Follow Up Of The Agreed Actions From The 2015/16 Health & Safety Audit Report City Of York Council 2017/18 # Memorandum For: Assistant Director, Customer Services & Digital, Head of Health & Safety Status: Final Date Issued: 25/1/2018 Where information resulting from investigation and/or audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential. ## 1 Introduction 1.1 The council has responsibilities for the health and safety of its employees, customers accessing services and people in the city. To meet these responsibilities, the council undertakes a broad and diverse range of activities. 1.2 Following a request by the Audit & Governance Committee, it was agreed that the main part of this year's Health & Safety audit would focus on the council's arrangements for ensuring safety at public events. This has been reported separately to management. 1.3 The 2015/16 audit reviewed progress against actions raised in the 2013/14 and 2014/15 Health & Safety audits. It was found that there were a total of 11 outstanding actions for which the target implementation dates needed to be revised or the action reviewed. These actions have therefore been followed up as part of this year's audit. Due to the extent of the work involved in following up these actions, it was considered to be appropriate to report the findings separately to the main part of the audit. Scope and Objectives 1.4 The first objective of this audit was to establish the progress made towards achieving the actions identified as part of the 2015/16 Health & Safety audit. 1.5 The second objective was to agree further actions or revised target dates where necessary to address any outstanding issues. ## Key Findings 1.6 At the time of the audit the Health & Safety team (H&S team) were in the process of combining with the H&S Team of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) to form a Shared Health and Safety Service. The intention is to align and where practicable to merge H&S systems, but work on this was at an early stage. 1.7 Many of the risks identified during the previous audits have now been mitigated and the H&S Team are undertaking work that will address the remaining actions. It was found that sufficient progress has been made to achieving six of the actions. 1.8 In five cases, work is ongoing to address the risks previously identified. In some cases, the H&S Team have changed their approach to the risks, resulting in the need for new actions. Issues regarding identifying significant corporate and non-domestic property risks (action 4 in the 2015/16 audit report) and Site Asbestos Liaison Officers (SALOs) and Site Legionella Representatives (SLRs) (action 9) are now being addressed differently. Officers said that properties are now being assigned a health and safety risk rating (action 6), but clear evidence to support this was not available as the premises register (see 2.9-10 below) was not complete. A gap analysis has been undertaken by the H&S Team for all corporate and non-domestic premises to identify where asbestos surveys are required. The review identified 11 premises that require surveys. These have been commissioned for 3 premises and requests for authorisation to carry out surveys have been issued for the other 8 (action 8). Health surveillance (action 11) now comes under the remit of Human Resources, who have raised additional concerns in relation to this. 1.9 Detailed discussion of the findings is set out below. Four new actions are set out in Appendix 1. The issue of overall risk ratings for properties has been combined with the premises register as a single action, which should address both issues. ## 2 Findings Area Reviewed - Lone Working (Actions 1 & 2) 2.1 The 2015/16 audit found that risks were not fully documented for services with an element of lone working. The H&S team were to assess the appropriateness of documentation in high-risk services and raise awareness of the need to complete lone working risk assessments. 2.2 Discussions with the H&S team found that lone working forms are just one part of audits of service areas. Lone-working risks are assessed by services using the lone-working compliance note (updated April 2017). The risk assessments are sent to the H&S team for review. A new checklist to help managers assess the risk of lone working, violence and aggression in their service areas has also been developed. 2.3 The H&S team reviewed the use of Skyguard warning devices and the Staff Warning Register (SWR). It was found that many Skyguard profiles, which contain key contact information for use should the device be activated, were incomplete. In addition the SWR had been used infrequently: out of 300 people with access, only 25 had used it. 2.4 A report was taken to the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) in June 2017 that recommended a review of lone working, violence and aggression risks across the directorates. In addition a report and presentation on the situation as regards lone working was provided to Corporate Leadership Group. Work is currently ongoing to review Skyguard usage and profile information and update risk assessments as appropriate. Once this has been completed, the H&S team will conduct 'dip-sampling' of Skyguard profiles on a rolling basis. 2.5 The work done by the H&S team addresses the issues identified in the previous audit. The actions outlined in the previous audit can be considered complete. The H&S Team also said the SWR will be monitored regularly, but this had not begun at the time of the audit. ## Area Reviewed - Premises Registers (Actions 3 - 5) 2.6 The lack of a single, comprehensive premises register for corporate and nondomestic premises identifying the significant health and safety obligations the council has in relation to these premises had been identified as an issue in both the 2014/15 and 2015/16 audits. Documentation of obligations and risks was being stored in multiple file areas. Several services were involved, but they did not have a coordinated approach. The H&S Team also mentioned difficulties in retrieving property information from Techforge and limitations in Documentum. 2.7 It was found that the Health & Safety Risk Manager now regularly attends meetings with colleagues from Property Services, Housing, and Commercial Services. The meetings provide a discussion forum for the different services, allowing them to keep abreast of health and safety issues at council premises. 2.8 The H&S team are now also receiving updates from Commercial Services as and when properties are acquired or disposed of, leased or a lease is terminated, allowing them to update their records. 2.9 A register of the significant health and safety risks of corporate and nondomestic premises register is currently being developed by the H&S team and a similar register is being developed at NYCC. It will show health and safety responsibilities for services, corporate properties, local authority schools, and commercial properties. It will include a health and safety risk rating in order to inform the health and safety visit programme. Furthermore, it will identify the last advisor visit, the date of the most recent audit visit and due date for the next visit, as well as responsibilities for fire, asbestos, and Legionella, amongst other things. 2.10 At the time of the audit, the H&S team were working to resolve some functionality issues within the register between the NYCC and CYC versions and consequently had yet to populate it with all the relevant data, although efforts had begun in this area (for example, the dates of asbestos surveys at properties had been compiled). Completing the register will enable the H&S team to identify gaps in their records and provide management with a monitoring tool. 2.11 Actions 3 and 5, relating to coordination of services and updates on assets, can be considered complete. Although progress is being made towards completing Action 4 on the premises register, further follow up is required to confirm that issues have been resolved and the register updated with all required information. ## Area Reviewed - Fire Risk Assessments (Actions 6 & 7) 2.12 The 2015/16 audit identified that not all properties had a health and safety risk rating and there was not a formalised follow up and escalation procedure for actions arising from fire risk assessments. 2.13 Discussions with officers found that properties are now assigned an overall risk rating of 'high', 'medium' or 'low'. This is a judgement reached by the responsible health & safety officer based on fire, asbestos, Legionella and other health and safety risks at the property in question. The frequency of fire safety reviews has also been prioritised based on risk. However, due to the issues outlined in 2.10 above sufficient evidence was not available for all properties. 2.14 A formal follow up process is now in place. Once a health and safety audit has been completed, the service or property manager has 30 days to complete and return an action plan addressing the issues raised. If an action plan is not returned, then it is escalated to the relevant head of service and assistant director. This is clearly stated in the health and safety policy. 2.15 Action 6 (risk ratings) cannot be considered complete at this stage, but it is expected that the new premises register will address this issue. Therefore, a separate action has not been raised, but it is included in Action 1 in Appendix 1. As a formal follow up process is now in place, action 7 can be considered complete. ## Area Reviewed - Asbestos Risk Registers (Action 8) 2.16 It was agreed during the last audit that a review of non-domestic council properties would be undertaken to identify those that did not have an asbestos survey or management plan in place. 2.17 As part of the compilation of the new premises health and safety risk register (see 2.9-10 above), a gap analysis has been undertaken as outlined in 1.8 above to identify where asbestos surveys are required. Furthermore, a new asbestos management register is being developed, which will replace the current format and properties with asbestos will receive an annual visit. 2.18 Progress has been made against this action as the service has now identified where asbestos surveys are required. Once surveys have been conducted for properties without them, then this action can be considered complete. An action has been raised regarding the completion of surveys. ## Area Reviewed - Asbestos & Legionella Site Representatives (Action 9) 2.19 The 2015/16 Audit Found That There Were No Up To Date Lists Of Salos And SLRs for council premises and review forms often had the 'responsible officer' field left blank. 2.20 Discussion with the H&S team found that SALOs and SLRs are to be renamed 'nominated persons' in line with North Yorkshire County Council practice. The H&S Team said that responsibility for Legionella and asbestos should sit with a particular level of management (e.g. heads of service or head teachers at schools) as this better reflects the health and safety policy. Therefore, maintaining a list of names is not necessary as the relevant officer or head teacher retains overall responsibility. 2.21 The H&S team are updating the compliance notes for Legionella and asbestos to reflect this position. Consultation has currently commenced with trade unions and affected services. Training will then be provided to nominated persons, either face-to-face (for asbestos) or via e-learning (for Legionella), over the coming months. Ongoing training needs will be identified as part of the regular audit schedule. In order to facilitate this and other safety critical training, the Workforce Development Unit (WDU) are implementing a Learning Management (LMS) System which will assist in the roll out of training programmes, particularly e-learning. 2.22 It is critical that nominated persons understand their role and responsibilities. Although the H&S team have developed a plan to address the issue, it is yet to be fully implemented. The action is therefore outstanding and requires further follow up. ## Area Reviewed - Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome Monitoring (Action 10) 2.23 The 2014/15 And 2015/16 Audits Found That Havs Monitoring Was Inadequate because the paper forms in use were often incomplete, inaccurate, missing or delayed. It was agreed that a decision would be taken on implementing a new monitoring system. 2.24 Discussions with the Planning and Compliance Officer found that a new electronic vibration monitoring system has now been purchased to replace the old paper forms. The new system uses watches worn by users that record vibration levels over a period of time. At the time of the audit, the officer was training users and completing an inventory of machinery requiring monitoring prior to rolling out the system. 2.25 The Planning and Compliance Officer explained that the system includes an online portal to which data from the watches is uploaded automatically when they are placed in their docking station. He will receive automatic email alerts if an employee has breached safe usage levels and can also produce reports showing usage by individual employees. This information will be provided to managers for further investigation as required. 2.26 The paper-based monitoring system has now been replaced and the new system is more robust. The action can therefore be considered complete. ## Area Reviewed - Health Surveillance (Action 11) 2.27 The 2015/16 audit found that the process for keeping the list of employees who require health surveillance up to date was not working. It was agreed then that managers would be required to provide an annual update of employees requiring health surveillance to Business Support. 2.28 Discussion with the H&S team, the Business Support Operations Manager (BSOM) and the Human Resources Wellbeing & Occupational Health Advisor (WOHA) found that a different approach is being taken to resolve the problem, but also that there is a related issue of non-attendance that is particularly prevalent in certain services. 2.29 The BSOM explained that new starters requiring surveillance are now identified through Work Health Assessment Forms (WHAFs) issued by the Recruitment team and added to the health surveillance list. However, Business Support only find out that staff members have left the council or are on long-term sick leave when they try to book appointments and managers decline them, which means staff may not be receiving a final health check. 2.30 The WOHA explained that the 'gold standard' is for employees to have a final health check before they leave as this helps protect the council against future liability claims. One means of identifying leavers would be to include a requirement on the leavers' checklist for managers to inform Business Support that an employee is leaving who required health surveillance. It should be noted that it may be difficult to enforce such a health check of someone leaving the council, but refusal or non-attendance could be recorded on the appropriate record. 2.31 Non-attendance at appointments was highlighted during the audit as a particular issue. At 1/8/2017, there were 276 individuals who required health surveillance. Of these, 79 were overdue appointments, 18 of whom did not have appointments arranged. Of the 79 overdue individuals, 39 were from Waste Services. As of 31/10/2017 the situation had improved, but there were still 22 individuals from Waste Services who were overdue appointments. 2.32 The council is charged for non-attendance at appointments or if the appointment is cancelled within 48 hours of the arranged date. There is a clear financial risk to the council from non-attendance at appointments, as well as the inefficient use of Business Support time in reorganising these appointments. The WOHA suggested re-charging costs to services may incentivise managers to encourage attendance at appointments. This option should be explored as part of the review of occupational health arrangements that is being undertaken. 2.33 The original action requiring an annual update from managers is no longer appropriate and should be superseded with a requirement for managers to notify Business Support of leavers and staff members on long-term sick leave. The option for re-charging costs of non-attendance and the additional time taken by Business Support related to this to services should be explored. An action has been raised regarding these issues. ## 3 Conclusions 3.1 Overall, improvements have been made in the systems for managing the Health and Safety risks previously identified. Review of the actions raised in the 2015/16 audit found that six of the actions raised at that time (actions 1-3, 5, 7, and 10) have been completed or sufficient progress has been made in addressing the issues. 3.2 There are five actions that will need to be superseded with new actions and further follow up work carried out. Firstly, it will need to be confirmed that the new premises health and safety risk register (original action 4, see 2.9-10) has been completed and the outstanding technical issues resolved. Ensuring that it is finalised is important because it will be a key oversight and monitoring tool for a variety of health and safety risks. It will also provide evidence that properties have been assigned overall health and safety risk ratings as required by action 6. 3.3 Secondly, asbestos surveys (original action 8) need to be conducted for premises that do not have them. The H&S team have carried out work to identify these gaps in their records. Once surveys have been conducted, then action 8 from the 2015/16 report can be considered complete. 3.4 The H&S team are no longer maintaining a list of SALOs & SLRs as envisioned in action 9 of the 2015/16 audit. Instead, they are taking a new approach as outlined in section 2.19-22. Therefore, the original action is no longer appropriate and a new action has been raised to assess progress. 3.5 Finally, the action relating to health surveillance (original action 11) is no longer appropriate. As discussed in 2.27-2.33, a different approach is needed to address the issues, and so a new action has been raised. ## Appendix 1 - Actions Agreed To Address Control Weaknesses \| Action \| Report \| \|------------------------\|-------------\| \| Number \| Reference \| \| Issue \| Risk \| \| * \| \| \| \| \| \| Responsible \| \| \| 1 \| 2.6, 2.9-10 \| \| The premises \| \| \| register is \| \| \| incomplete. \| \| \| Health and safety \| \| \| responsibilities are \| \| \| not met in a timely \| \| \| manner. \| \| \| 2 \| 2.16-2.18 \| \| Not all premises \| \| \| have asbestos \| \| \| surveys. \| \| \| Asbestos risks are \| \| \| not appropriately \| \| \| managed. \| \| \| 3 \| 2.19-2.22 \| \| Legionella and \| \| \| asbestos \| \| \| compliance notes \| \| \| require updating \| \| \| and training needs \| \| \| to be provided to \| \| \| nominated persons. \| \| \| Asbestos and \| \| \| Legionella risks may \| \| \| not be managed \| \| \| appropriately, \| \| \| increasing the \| \| \| likelihood of exposure \| \| \| to asbestos or \| \| \| Legionella. \| \| Officer Timescale Head of 2 Health & April 2018 Safety The premises register will be completed and technical issues resolved. This will include entering the overall property risk ratings. Head of 3 Health & April 2018 Safety The H&S team will conduct surveys for those properties that require them and include the results in Techforge. a) The compliance notes for Legionella and asbestos will be updated. A & B - April 2018 Head of 2 Health & C - April b) The appropriate level of training at council premises and schools will be identified. Safety 2019 with interim update October c) Training will be rolled out to officers who require it following the revision of the compliance notes. 2018 Head of 4 2.27-2.33 3 Human July 2018 a) The leavers' checklist will be updated to include a requirement to notify Business Support if appropriate that the leaver requires a final health check. Resources Staff members requiring health surveillance are not attending appointments. Non-attendance has a potential cost to the council, both financially and in staff time. There is also a risk of future liability claims if staff members do not receive final health checks. b) A decision will be taken on re-charging costs of non-attendance to services. Priorities for Actions Priority 1 A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. Priority 2 A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. Priority 3 The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management.	en
3462-pdf	\| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| Transaction Reference \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\|------------\|-------------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 PACS (IT) \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| ACCENTURE \| 766584 \| 71,070.73 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 PACS (IT) \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| ACCENTURE \| 774399 \| 71,070.73 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 767749 \| 46,789.50 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 769741 \| 28,670.86 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 772087 \| 55,141.19 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| AMGEN LIMITED \| 770222 \| 26,028.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 771995 \| 31,464.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| BCS ELECTRICS LTD \| 779034 \| 24,923.40 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY \| 768535 \| 30,950.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY \| 772783 \| 30,950.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/07/2014 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 767121 \| 70,800.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 775473 \| 73,160.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| CALDER C.A.D LTD \| 773801 \| 54,054.24 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 31344 \| 41,723.25 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| AUDIT FEES: INTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 31483 \| 137,500.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 31779 \| 41,723.25 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| MED & SURG EQUIP DO NOT USE \| CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD \| 779426 \| 243,840.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/07/2014 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 780775 \| 3,784,096.97 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 771184 \| 83,508.73 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 771185 \| 69,940.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 771186 \| 68,070.19 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 773184 \| 85,280.71 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775132 \| 36,665.46 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775132 \| 0.74 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775137 \| 67,504.12 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775137 \| 33.55 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775276 \| 83,551.38 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775277 \| 85,455.12 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 775277 \| 81.48 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ELI LILLY & CO LTD \| 773101 \| 69,120.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 CORPORATE CENTRAL COSTS \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| ERNST & YOUNG LLP \| 778062 \| 504,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 MICROBIOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS \| GENMED.ME LIMITED \| 766009 \| 49,167.36 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| AUDIT FEES: EXT NON-STAT \| GRANT THORNTON \| 769839 \| 31,428.90 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 767878 \| 160,385.05 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 769601 \| 255,746.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 771170 \| 93,584.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 773170 \| 240,524.82 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 775172 \| 185,436.73 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 776862 \| 148,210.74 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| PREPAYMENT < 1 YEAR \| HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES \| 771836 \| 40,680.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 776426 \| 79,701.30 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 776426 \| 4,226.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 RADIOLOGY MEDICAL STAFFING \| OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR \| INHEALTH LTD \| 775120 \| 69,445.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 MRI SERVICE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| INHEALTH LTD \| 776972 \| 67,545.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| JANSSEN CILAG LTD \| 772077 \| 26,295.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI \| SENIOR LECTURER \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31162 \| 45,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31186 \| 446.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31186 \| 35,726.50 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31186 \| 2,379.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/07/2014 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31291 \| 45,006.89 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 760657 \| 175,282.79 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 767889 \| 187,964.74 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 767890 \| 194,766.02 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| MERZ PHARMA UK LTD \| 772753 \| 43,200.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 GENERAL OFFICE PGH \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C \| 775111 \| 30,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 31345 \| 104,860.05 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 31347 \| 39,462.96 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| OTH PROVN UTILISATION >1YR \| NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY \| 31561 \| 29,758.28 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR \| NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY \| 31562 \| 108,611.68 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2014 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 31661 \| 40,388.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2014 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 31662 \| 1,016,538.40 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 766451 \| 89,329.81 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 766451 \| 15,249.78 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|------------------------------\|---------------------------------\|----------\|-------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 768477 \| 4,588.95 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 768477 \| 106,299.86 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 768478 \| 92,193.96 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 768478 \| 13,427.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 770371 \| 91,751.86 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 770371 \| 14,322.83 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 770372 \| 23,978.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 770372 \| 25,094.58 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 771589 \| 38,946.48 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 771590 \| 119,840.93 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 773709 \| 62,400.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 773723 \| 31,919.98 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 773723 \| 23,248.71 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 773725 \| 88,503.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 773725 \| 14,808.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31201 \| 148,523.59 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31202 \| 62,668.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31263 \| 53,920.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31264 \| 137,604.45 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31358 \| 145,081.77 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31359 \| 59,317.57 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31437 \| 184,048.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31438 \| 54,349.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 31502 \| 154,652.54 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 767729 \| 84,318.24 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 771707 \| 107,026.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| NOVUS HEALTH LTD \| 647870 \| 42,200.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| NOVUS HEALTH LTD \| 778053 \| (42,200.00) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 02/07/2014 SLEEP SERVICE \| GENERAL MATERIALS \| PHILIPS RESPIRONICS \| 767259 \| 56,130.22 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 A&E PGH & PGI \| GENERAL PRACTITIONERS \| PRIMECARE \| 775131 \| 34,110.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 16/07/2014 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| RADIOMETER LTD \| 770444 \| 31,929.31 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 771988 \| 28,009.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 772691 \| 197,665.20 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 773950 \| 40,247.16 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED \| SCC SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES \| 768672 \| 72,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 PLASTIC SURGERY PGH \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL \| 755193 \| 22,023.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28/07/2014 UROLOGY PGH \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL \| 755193 \| 5,900.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/07/2014 LAUNDRY DDH \| EXT CONTR LAUNDRY \| SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD \| 774479 \| 36,440.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| UNISON \| 32494 \| 70,639.45 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 774004 \| 236,180.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 09/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 774005 \| 50,610.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD \| 772786 \| 153,806.39 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 776588 \| 450.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 776588 \| 37,622.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/06/2014 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| EDENRED \| 31378 \| 46,591.62 \|	en
4156-pdf	## National Disclosure Improvement Plan Phase Two - Embedding Culture Change And Continuous Improvement This has been an exceptionally busy period for work under the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. This report sets out the progress we have made over the course of the last 12 months and the evaluation of the impact our interventions are having. It demonstrates how we have brought together criminal justice partners at a local and national level to improve our collective confidence, performance and develop our capabilities. Our work has supported the drafting of the revised Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure, on which there is to be a public consultation later this year and we have worked with the Transforming Summary Justice Working Groups on changes to the Streamlined Disclosure Certificate which will also be the subject of consultation. The CPS has upgraded its case management system to assist prosecutors with recording decisions taken on disclosure and activities to identify how technology can be used to drive improvements in investigations have continued at pace, coordinated by the cross-agency working group. We have focussed on developing both national and local approaches on issues such as handling sensitive material and extending the use of the Disclosure Management Document. The College, CPS and the NPCC have also faced a significant challenge on the use of the digital processing notice, which was endorsed by the National Police Chiefs' Council as a way of bringing consistency to the approach to examining digital devices that belong to complainants and witnesses. The expansion of digital and mobile connectivity means that very often there will be evidence that is needed to support the prosecution held on a device belonging to the complainant. Equally, there may be circumstances in which it is necessary to examine particular parts of a complainant's telephone because a fair trial may not be possible if this is not done. We have emphasised in guidance to police and prosecutors that this must not ever be undertaken as a matter of course in all cases, must not be speculative and must be confined to pursuing reasonable lines of enquiry. The digital processing notices are intended to make it clear to complainants how their data may be used, who may see it and why. Investigations and trials must be consistent with protecting the rights of all of those involved, including the privacy rights of complainants and witnesses. We are awaiting the report of the Information Commissioner into the appropriate legal basis for processing this data and we will review our approach in the light of any recommendations she makes. We expect the report to be published early in the New Year. We are confident that the management of unused material both as part of the investigation and at the post charge stage across all crime types is in a far better place at the beginning of this year than it was at the beginning of 2018. The data we are now collecting on our performance also makes clear that our task is far from complete. Tackling these issues and improving our resilience in dealing with new technological challenges requires a sustained and long term national response. We cannot do this alone. We need to work even more closely together as investigators and prosecutors and with our criminal justice partners, including the defence. These progress reports are a crucial part of this ongoing effort as we work to ensure the commitments to improve disclosure at every level remain strong. ## Key Activity A full list of all of the actions under the NDIP Phase 2 are set out below at Annex A but progress against key measures and initiatives are as follows: Action: Learning from the on-going pilots led by our cross-agency technology working group will be coupled with evidence from a more detailed wider landscape review undertaken by the NPCC Digital Policing Portfolio. As per the Justice Select Committee recommendation, this work will inform the Home Office, in consultation with the CPS, the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing, in their production of a comprehensive strategy to ensure that all 43 police forces are equipped to handle the increasing volume and complexity of digital evidence In June 2019, the Solicitor General and the Minister for Policing jointly hosted a Technology Summit which brought together senior police and prosecutors, representatives from across the criminal justice system, and experts from the technology industry. The summit focused on the handling of digital evidence disclosure in criminal cases and considered how police and prosecutors can be supported to better handle the increasing volumes of digital evidence. The NPCC's Digital Policing Portfolio has published its landscape review (Annex C), assessing the high-level solutions currently available in the technology marketplace. One of the outcomes of this and other inter-related work is investment by the NPCC to address a number of potential gaps - particularly in outlining the requirements for a nationallyscalable solution for the redaction of sensitive material, and in ensuring there is ongoing coordination of e-disclosure activity and investment across the different police forces. Redaction is a critical dependency if we are to implement the rebuttable presumption recommendation from the Attorney General's Review of Disclosure. The NPCC is also working in partnership with TechUK to ensure that systems interoperability is at the forefront of this thinking, and following an industry engagement session last Autumn, in conjunction with the Attorney General's Office, are presenting an Outline Business Case to the Digital Policing Board in January 2020 setting out the technology options for the redaction of documents, still images and video. The pilot activities coordinated by members of the NDIP working group are continuing to explore the use of a range of technical solutions. These tools provide a variety of capabilities, including advanced analysis and artificial intelligence. The pilots are testing both the application of such technology to the criminal justice environment and also the operational requirements and impacts of its use. Particular progress over the last quarter has been made with the pathfinder project run by the Metropolitan Police, where the live application of this software has received positive feedback from police and prosecutors alike. The pilot use of an AI application is currently being undertaken in Surrey with a report due early in 2020. The Home Office, Attorney General's Office, Ministry of Justice, CPS, and Policing all continue to collaborate closely in this space. In particular, joint work has ensured that a consolidated cross-government view of the requirements to support disclosure will be presented into the next reviews of departmental spending. ## Action: Focussing On Disclosure In The Magistrates' And Youth Courts. On-Going We have identified the key barriers to delivering effective case progression as including the quality of evidence and police files which results in more cases being screened out or being sent back for further investigation by the CPS, and the increase in time taken to work through the process leads to higher attrition rates for both victims and witnesses. As we develop an action plan to tackle the issues we will be focussing on; - Police and CPS file quality: How can we adopt best practices on case file preparation from police forces to increase the rate of the National File Standard being met? - Engagement with Victims and Witnesses: How can we improve our processes when engaging with victims and witnesses to ensure they stay involved throughout the course of a case? The National Criminal Justice Board has commissioned a sub-group to examine case progression, led by the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has also set up a 'task and finish' group to look at case file quality and police and CPS engagement. This group will sit under the sub-group, helping to ensure work is joined up. We welcome both of these work streams as we look to publish a commitment on case progression in the next quarter. We have also been working on the Streamlined Disclosure Certificate (SDC), with police and prosecutor workshops identifying that having two versions of the SDC, one for cases in which there is material to disclose and one where there is not, is confusing for practitioners. We have therefore proposed a single combined version of the SDC, which will be consulted upon as part of the amendments to the CPIA Code of Practice under the Attorney General's Disclosure Review. Whilst we do not want to detract from the "thinking approach", in which decisions about disclosure are carefully considered and not dealt with as a matter of routine, we are also keen to ensure that what is required is clearly signposted for front-line investigators who may complete SDCs only as an infrequent part of their busy duties. ## Action: Continue Working With Hmcts To Develop A Section In The Crown Court Digital Case System Accommodating The Transfer Of Unused Material And A Record Of Disclosure Decisions A revised Plea and Trial Preparation Form was authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to replace the original PTPH form for new cases, commencing on 22 July 2019. An additional question has been added to the Prosecution Information for PTPH: 'Has a Disclosure Management Document been provided?' The form also makes provision for the defence to indicate whether a served DMD is adequate and if not why not, and also to identify reasonable lines of enquiry and what they say is the appropriate "level of extraction" from mobile devices and computers. The court is required to consider whether they should order a Disclosure Management Document (or an updated one). These amendments should ensure that DMDs are fully utilised from the outset of the case. Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service and the CPS are continuing to work on a section on the Digital Case System accessible by the parties in which disclosed material can be served, together with the MG6C. It is anticipated that this will be available for use in Spring 2020. Action: Assessing the training needs of prosecutors - ensuring new starters have the opportunity to undertake disclosure training as part of their induction and that recruits receive training appropriate to their level of experience. Evaluate the training provided to prosecutors and plan accordingly for future training based on organisational assessment of user needs. As part of the Lawyer Induction Programme all new Area prosecutors joining the Crown Prosecution Service receive extended face to face disclosure training over a number of days. In relation to established lawyers, in order to supplement the 2018 proactive disclosure course delivered as part of NDIP phase 1, all lawyers have received a half day training course on the new Code for Crown Prosecutors which is being delivered by Chief Crown Prosecutors and Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutors. This has a particular focus on advising on reasonable lines of enquiry and whether there is any material which might affect the sufficiency of evidence in relation to the Full Code Test. The following training courses have also been developed and delivered: - Think Digital Toolkit Videos - data extraction from telephones; - Use of Disclosure Management Documents in Rape and Serious Sexual Abuse cases. All prosecutors working in Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Units have received training on the use of Disclosure Management Documents. The current figures for completion of the College of Policing training on disclosure record that more than a hundred thousand police personnel from Home Office forces have completed all modules of the training, with many more having completed one or more of the six modules. A disclosure event for Assistant Chief Constables was held, which was well attended. Inputs were designed to update these force strategic leads and CPD was provided via sessions on disclosure handling from both Prosecution and Defence representatives. External academics were involved to encourage alternative approaches and dynamic thinking in relation to approaching cultural reform. ## Action: Rolling Out The Use Of Dmds Across Crown Court Cases And In Magistrates' And Youth Court Cases In Which There Are Significant Volumes Of Digital Material, Communications Evidence Or Third Party Material The Disclosure Management Document sets out the approach the prosecution team has taken to disclosure. It should clearly identify what has been considered to be a reasonable line of enquiry in the case and why, together with an explanation of how all seized electronic material has been dealt with. Transparency of the approach is crucial. It should be used to explain to the defence and the court what enquiries are being pursued, and crucially the enquiries we do not intend to make, and why. The DMD should be reviewed regularly. It must be continually updated throughout the life of the case, to form a record of key prosecution strategy, decision making and an audit trail. The use of the MG3 insert setting out the reasonable lines of enquiry and approach to digital and third party material, together with the DMD has been mandatory in cases dealt with by the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Units and the Complex Casework Units in the CPS since March 2018. The Attorney General's Review of disclosure recommended that these be extended to all Crown Court cases by the Summer of 2019. NDIP Phase Two has considered how these might be effectively rolled out. The NDIP Board initially considered that it would be appropriate to apply some form of criteria to extending the DMD to ensure it is utilised in those cases where it would add value rather than a blanket approach requiring a DMD in all cases. A proposal was discussed with representatives from the judiciary and defence community at the Disclosure Seminar in June 2019 suggesting utilising the DMD in cases where one or more of the following factors were present, regardless of whether they were a Crown Court, Youth or magistrates' court case: - Substantial or complex third party material, including forensics; - Digital material in which parameters of search, examination or analysis have been set (likely to include voluminous CCTV, ANPR data as well as digital devices); - Complex international enquiries which are likely to have a bearing on the case; - Linked operations; - Historical offences, especially where there has been a previous investigation. However, the views from the seminar were that a DMD is capable of adding value in all Crown Court cases, and if the case is very straightforward, then the DMD can also be relatively brief. We are therefore currently piloting the use of the DMD in all Crown Court cases in the CPS Area of Mersey Cheshire. The pilot began in October 2019 and will be for a period of 6 months. We will evaluate the impact of this at the conclusion before making a decision on further extension. Action: Updating and nationalising police guidelines on data protection and the legal basis for data extraction from digital devices. We will work with victims' groups and relevant Commissioners, including the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to create clear explanations so that complainants and witnesses understand when, how and why their information will be accessed and processed The way personal data is used in criminal investigations is an issue of growing significance. Balancing the huge increase in digital information with our duty to respect privacy and ensure all reasonable lines on enquiry are pursued is an important challenge. The lines of enquiry deemed "reasonable" will depend on the circumstances of each case. This was reinforced by the judgment from the Court of Appeal in R v E [2018] EWCA 2426 (Crim), which confirmed that a fair trial was still possible in a case where a mobile phone had not been seized. In many investigations it will be necessary for the prosecution to look at some personal data but this does not mean access is needed to everything or that it will be automatically disclosed to the defence. There are also important safeguards to prevent complainants being cross-examined on irrelevant sexual history. The CPS guidance is clear that police and prosecutors must only request data in order to follow a reasonable line of enquiry, which means when it forms an essential part of a fair investigation and prosecution. We are working with victims' groups to ensure that they understand how, and to what extent, devices will be examined, how data will be used and the circumstances when it will be necessary to share it with the defence. Although much of the publicity surrounding the Digital Processing Notices has been focused on complainants of sexual violence, these are to be used in every case where digital data is a reasonable line of enquiry. We want every victim to have the confidence to come forward knowing it will be fully investigated and, whenever the evidence supports, charged and fairly prosecuted. The Information Commissioner will shortly conclude her inquiry into the lawful basis for the processing of the data of victims and witnesses and we will review the consent forms in light of any recommendations from her report. ## Action: Reviewing Processes For Handling Sensitive Disclosure Outside Specialist Police Units And The Cps Central Casework Divisions. This Will Involve Ensuring Investigators And Prosecutors Have The Knowledge And Skills To Deal With Cases Involving Sensitive Lines Of Enquiry And Sensitive Unused Material. A small working group was set up to review the current processes which are operating in respect of handling sensitive material. It was recognised that different local practices had developed between law enforcement agencies and CPS areas which had the capacity to lead to confusion. Good practice was also identified. In order to clarify the roles and responsibilities between different law enforcement agencies and prosecutors we have produced a Service Level Agreement (SLA) which articulates the way in which all highly sensitive material ought to be handled and clarifies the roles and responsibilities between the prosecutor and the investigator. These will be implemented in forces and CPS Areas over the course of this year. We have also produced template documents to be used when making a Public Interest Immunity application to ensure applications are of a consistently high quality and comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules. The group has reviewed the guidance materials that are available to prosecutors about sensitive material and identified that there was already good legal guidance in place but its positioning meant it was not always easy to locate. These have now all been collated and published on the CPS intranet. We recognised that there was an absence of clear audit trails about disclosure decisions made for highly sensitive material. The group has produced a Highly Sensitive Disclosure Record sheet (DRS) to serve as a record of the rationale for decisions which are taken throughout the life of a case. ## Measuring Progress On Delivery The Code for Crown Prosecutors is the authoritative guide to the decision to prosecute. The CPS prosecutes cases when there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and it is in the public interest to do so. The CPS's role is to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and effectively, paying particular attention to the prosecutor's duties with regard to the disclosure of information to the defence. Careful judgment is required to achieve consistent, high quality decisions throughout the progress of a prosecution. It is an important part of the duty of the prosecutor to keep every case under continuous review and to bring cases to an end if the Code test is no longer met. On each occasion this occurs, the prosecutor is required to record the reason the case was stopped. In November 2018 the CPS introduced five new codes for prosecutors to use at the conclusion of every case in which the outcome was not a conviction. In addition, for every case which does not result in conviction, irrespective of the primary reason, the lawyer must record whether issues with disclosure were a contributory factor in the outcome of the case. These new codes were introduced to improve the data available in order that police and prosecutors can better monitor performance on disclosure, and track the impact of the actions being taken under the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. The sum of the volumes for primary and secondary reasons do not equal the total number of cases which are recorded as having had disclosure issues. This is as a result of a number of cases being finalised with both a primary and secondary disclosure reason being recorded, so they are counted twice for the purposes of the statistics. Disclosure is an integral part of every case, making it more likely that it will be a feature in cases that do not result in a conviction. The categorisation could mean that disclosure was not timely, or that issues came to light that were not known or could not have been anticipated at the point of charge. Please note the CPS Caveats relating to the data, full details can be found in Annex B of this document. \| Cases where disclosure was \| Cases where disclosure was a \| \|-------------------------------\|---------------------------------\| \| the primary reason for non- \| contributing factor to the \| \| conviction \| reason for non-conviction \| \| Quarter \| \| \| Number of \| \| \| cases \| \| \| % of all cases \| \| \| Number of \| \| \| cases \| \| \| % of all cases \| \| \| 18/19-Q3 \| \| \| (Nov-Dec only) \| \| \| 618 \| 6.0% \| \| 18/19-Q4 \| 751 \| \| 19/20-Q1 \| 592 \| \| 19/20-Q2 \| 545 \| This data is to be discussed at a local level by each police force and CPS Area in their joint Prosecution Team Performance Meeting, which are held each month. The data is now broken down by the reason for the disclosure issue, which allows for a close and transparent examination of performance. ## Primary Reasons D78 CPS cause, D77 Police / Investigator including cause, including timeliness and the timeliness quality of and quality of disclosure as a Total disclosure as % % of total primary of total Quarter non-conviction disclosure non-conviction reasons reasons reasons Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % 18/19- Q3 (Nov- 618 407 3.9% 81 0.8% 16 0.2% 104 1.0% 10 0.1% Dec only) 18/19- Q4 751 469 3.0% 113 0.7% 15 0.1% 132 0.8% 22 0.1% 19/20- Q1 592 376 2.7% 98 0.7% 17 0.1% 81 0.6% 20 0.1% 19/20- Q2 545 419 2.7% 78 0.5% 15 0.1% 18 0.1% 15 0.1% Secondary reasons D78 CPS cause, D77 Police / Investigator including cause, including timeliness and the timeliness quality of Total and quality of disclosure as a disclosure Quarter disclosure as % % of total nonfocus of total nonconviction reasons conviction reasons reasons Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % 18/19-Q3 (Nov- 957 340 3.3% 57 0.6% 95 0.9% 449 4.4% 16 0.2% Dec only) 18/19-Q4 959 411 2.6% 93 0.6% 90 0.6% 345 2.2% 20 0.1% 19/20-Q1 615 316 2.3% 47 0.3% 63 0.4% 177 1.3% 12 0.1% 19/20-Q2 571 362 2.3% 83 0.5% 42 0.3% 81 0.5% 3 0.0% D79 Other party cause (for example the D80 No fault: Timeliness and D81 No fault: failure of a third party to provide quality Public interest requested acceptable but immunity issues disclosure was a as a % of total material), including factor as a % of non-conviction timeliness and total reasons quality of non-conviction disclosure as a reasons % of total non-conviction reasons D80 No fault: D79 Other party Timeliness and cause, including D81 No fault: quality timeliness and Public interest acceptable but quality of immunity issues disclosure was a disclosure as a as a % of total factor as a % of % of total nonnon-conviction total nonconviction reasons conviction reasons reasons As a consequence of collecting more meaningful and granular data, we now have a greater understanding of where issues with disclosure continue to persist. Although there were issues with embedding the use of the new codes, and we are aware of a number of instances in the first quarter of their use where the codes were used incorrectly, the integrity of the data continues to become more reliable as prosecutors become more familiar with when they should be used. Where previously there had been a gap in the provision of clear, comprehensive and trusted information on the handling of unused material by both police and prosecutors, we are now able to target with more precision where further actions are needed. We continue to see progress and are confident that these numbers will continue to reduce. When mistakes do happen our approach will be positive and supportive so that we can learn from them, work through them as investigators and prosecutors, and use them to improve our performance for the future. ## Next Steps We are continually learning lessons and refining our approach, and recognise there is always more to do to improve. Our primary focus is on maintaining momentum to ensure that we maximise the impact of improvement activity across the full breadth of the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. We look forward to the report of HM Crown Prosecution Inspectorate on Crown Court cases and have cautious optimism about the direction of travel. We also anticipate a consultation on amendments to the CPIA Code of Practice and the Attorney General's Guidelines, as well as the report from the Information Commissioner on the appropriate basis for the processing of the data of complainants and witnesses. There is a strong desire across each of our organisations for continued leadership on disclosure and we recognise that any stepping back from this challenge would jeopardise the progress we have made so far. \| Item \| NDIP actions \| Timescale \| Status \| \|---------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\|--------------\|-----------\| \| \| CAPACITY \| \| \| \| 1 \| Learning from the on-going pilots led by \| \| \| \| our cross-agency technology working \| \| \| \| \| group will be coupled with evidence from \| \| \| \| \| a more detailed wider landscape review \| \| \| \| \| undertaken by the NPCC Digital Policing \| \| \| \| \| Portfolio. As per the Justice Select \| \| \| \| \| Committee recommendation, this work \| \| \| \| \| will inform the Home Office, in \| \| \| \| \| consultation with the CPS, the National \| \| \| \| \| Police Chiefs' Council and the College of \| \| \| \| \| Policing, in their production of a \| \| \| \| \| comprehensive strategy to ensure that all \| \| \| \| \| 43 police forces are equipped to handle \| \| \| \| \| the increasing volume and complexity of \| \| \| \| \| digital evidence. \| \| \| \| \| 2 \| Developing processes to ensure that \| \| \| \| when the investigator seeks a charging \| \| \| \| \| decision, whether from a supervising \| \| \| \| \| officer or from a prosecutor, information \| \| \| \| \| on the lines of enquiry that have been \| \| \| \| \| pursued will be supplied as part of the \| \| \| \| \| pre-charge file. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Ensuring that investigators document \| \| \| \| \| what has been considered a reasonable \| \| \| \| \| line of enquiry in the circumstances of \| \| \| \| \| the case in all requests to prosecutors for \| \| \| \| \| charging decisions. \| \| \| \| \| 3 \| Continue working with HMCTS on \| \| \| \| developing a section in the Crown Court \| \| \| \| \| Digital Case System accommodating the \| \| \| \| \| transfer of unused material and a record \| \| \| \| \| of disclosure decisions. \| \| \| \| \| 4 \| Evaluating the third party material \| \| \| \| protocol in 12 months' time and assess \| \| \| \| \| whether it is improving the quality of \| \| \| \| \| third party disclosure handling. \| \| \| \| \| 5 \| Rolling out the use of DMDs across Crown \| \| \| \| Court cases and in magistrates' and Youth \| \| \| \| \| court cases in which there are significant \| \| \| \| \| volumes of digital material, \| \| \| \| \| communications evidence or third party \| \| \| \| \| material. \| \| \| \| 6 Exploring standardisation of terminology in the preparation of disclosure schedules and exploring the recommendation of the Attorney General's Review that a \| On- going \| A Tech Summit took \| \|-------------------------\|-----------------------\| \| place on 10 June 2019. \| \| \| A landscape review \| \| \| identified key national \| \| \| initiatives that \| \| \| included a new \| \| \| Redaction Project \| \| \| Team and a new \| \| \| eDisclosure co- \| \| \| ordination role. \| \| \| Summer 2019 \| An evaluation on the \| \| effective provision of \| \| \| reasonable lines of \| \| \| enquiry is taking place \| \| \| before these \| \| \| processes are \| \| \| implemented. \| \| \| On- going \| The creation of new \| \| sections on the Digital \| \| \| Case System have \| \| \| been agreed. \| \| \| June 2019 \| Complete. \| \| Summer 2019 \| A 6 month pilot \| \| commenced in \| \| \| October, extending \| \| \| the use of the DMD \| \| \| for all Crown Court \| \| \| cases in a CPS Area. \| \| \| June 2019 \| To be taken forward \| \| via the Disclosure \| \| \| Manual. \| \| \| \| \| standard system be developed to provide more information about the nature of material and its potential relevance to the case. \| \| CAPABILITY: \| \| \|----------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| 7 \| Assessing the training needs of \| \| \| prosecutors - ensuring new starters have \| \| \| \| the opportunity to undertake disclosure \| \| \| \| training as part of their induction and \| \| \| \| that recruits receive training appropriate \| \| \| \| to their level of experience. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Evaluate the training provided to \| \| \| \| prosecutors and plan accordingly for \| \| \| \| future training based on organisational \| \| \| \| assessment of user needs. \| \| \| \| 8 \| Continuing the development of the \| \| \| champions' network across policing and \| \| \| \| CPS, making sure that there is sufficient \| \| \| \| capacity and capability to drive change. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Bringing together police and prosecutor \| \| \| \| champions with both local events and \| \| \| \| national conferences to further embed \| \| \| \| the force champions network and link \| \| \| \| that into the CPS champions. \| \| \| \| 9 \| Updating and nationalising police \| \| \| guidelines on data protection and the \| \| \| \| legal basis for data extraction from digital \| \| \| \| devices. We will work with victims \| \| \| \| groups and relevant Commissioners, \| \| \| \| including the Investigatory Powers \| \| \| \| Commissioner, on informing \| \| \| \| complainants and witnesses about how \| \| \| \| their information will be accessed and \| \| \| \| processed. \| \| \| \| 10 \| Refreshing the Disclosure Manual to \| \| \| reflect new guidance and process under \| \| \| \| the NDIP. \| \| \| \| 11 \| Developing training and toolkits on digital \| \| \| extraction and tools for analysis for \| \| \| \| investigators and prosecutors and raising \| \| \| \| awareness of developments with \| \| \| \| stakeholders across the criminal justice \| \| \| \| system. \| \| \| \| 12 \| Reviewing processes for handling \| \| \| sensitive disclosure outside specialist \| \| \| \| police units and the CPS central casework \| \| \| \| divisions. This will involve ensuring \| \| \| \| investigators and prosecutors have the \| \| \| \| knowledge and skills to deal with cases \| \| \| \| involving sensitive lines of enquiry and \| \| \| \| Spring/Summer 2019 \| Complete. \| \| \| June 2019 \| Both local and \| \| \| national events have \| \| \| \| taken place across the \| \| \| \| country, bringing \| \| \| \| together the \| \| \| \| champions' network \| \| \| \| across policing and \| \| \| \| CPS. \| \| \| \| Autumn/Winter 2019 \| See update. \| \| \| Spring 2019 \| Completed. Refreshed \| \| \| disclosure manual was \| \| \| \| published in \| \| \| \| December 2018. \| \| \| \| Spring/Summer 2019 \| Complete. \| \| \| June 2019 \| A new SLA has been \| \| \| drafted and new \| \| \| \| casework products \| \| \| \| have been developed \| \| \| \| to assist with audit \| \| \| \| trails and guidance \| \| \| \| materials. \| \| \| sensitive unused material. \| June 2019 \| Complete. \| \| 13 \| \|----------------------------------------------\|-------------\|-----\|-------------------------------------\| \| Disclosure Standards in the next 12 \| \| \| \| \| months to assess whether they have \| \| \| \| \| achieved improvements in the service of \| \| \| \| \| properly completed and endorsed \| \| \| \| \| disclosure schedules. \| \| \| \| \| January 2019 \| Complete. \| 14 \| Considering, in accordance with the \| \| timescales contained in NDIP1, whether a \| \| \| \| \| licence to practise could assist to drive up \| \| \| \| \| police standards in disclosure practice. \| \| \| \| ## Leadership: \| 15 \| Utilising the CPS Disclosure Champions to \| \|-------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\| \| perform a key role in compliance and \| \| \| assurance at a local level by undertaking \| \| \| local observation to assess change. \| \| \| Spring 2019 \| A network of CPS \| \| Disclosure Champions \| \| \| is fully established, \| \| \| supporting the \| \| \| delivery of high quality \| \| \| casework by \| \| \| embedding disclosure \| \| \| as a core skill. \| \| 16 Encouraging the inclusion of disclosure as part of Continuing Professional Development for police practitioners and driving learning through all levels within forces. \| On-going \| The College disclosure \| \|--------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\| \| product allows forces \| \| \| to adopt classroom \| \| \| based or individual \| \| \| training, supporting \| \| \| initial learning and \| \| \| CPD. \| \| \| 17 \| Raising awareness of disclosure \| \| improvement initiatives such as the \| \| \| Disclosure Management Document \| \| \| throughout the criminal justice system. \| \| \| On-going \| Disclosure Forums, \| \| both at a national and \| \| \| local level, continue to \| \| \| engage in disclosure \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| initiatives that impact \| \| \| on the Criminal Justice \| \| \| System. \| \| \| On-going \| Complete. Bi-annual \| \| seminars are taking \| \| \| place. \| \| \| 18 \| Maintaining the leadership momentum in \| \| the CPS by repeating the Disclosure \| \| \| Seminar, chaired by the Director of Public \| \| \| Prosecutions on a bi-annual basis. \| \| \| 19 \| Focussing on disclosure in the \| \| magistrates' and youth courts. \| \| \| Autumn/Winter 2019 \| Work is on-going for a \| \| number of initiatives \| \| \| that focus on \| \| \| improving disclosure \| \| \| performance in the \| \| \| magistrates' and \| \| \| youth courts. \| \| 20 Making disclosure improvement in the Area a specific objective for Chief Crown Prosecutors against which their performance will be measured. ## Partnership: \| 21 \| \|---------------------------------------------\| \| obligations forward, for example in the \| \| provision of schedules at the pre-charge \| \| stage, has brought significant benefits in \| \| some case types. Senior police leaders and \| \| prosecutors will work together to identify \| \| where this could be achieved in each force. \| 22 Exploring the possibility of bringing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. The potential to formalise this process is being considered with input from defence stakeholder groups. \| 23 \| Replicating the National Disclosure \| \|-------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\| \| Forum at a local level to facilitate \| \| \| discussions between stakeholders on \| \| \| issues that arise locally. \| \| \| 24 \| Working with the judiciary to embed the \| \| use of the Disclosure Management \| \| \| Document into the Better Case \| \| \| Management processes, including a \| \| \| section on the Plea and Trial Preparation \| \| \| Form. \| \| \| 25 \| Building on the experiences of what \| \| works well in our most complex \| \| \| casework, a streamlined version of the \| \| \| Early Case Planning Conference will be \| \| \| adopted in all Threshold Test charged \| \| \| cases to facilitate communication \| \| \| between the investigative team and the \| \| \| prosecutor. \| \| ## Governance: \| 26 \| Delivery against the commitments in this \| \|-------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------\| \| plan will continue to be overseen by the \| \| \| National Police Chiefs' Council, the \| \| \| Director of Public Prosecutions and the \| \| \| College of Policing. An update on \| \| \| progress will be published quarterly. \| \| \| 27 \| Improving the granularity of data \| \| captured in cases which did not result in \| \| \| a conviction but where disclosure was the \| \| \| primary or contributory reason for the \| \| \| Spring 2019 \| Complete. This is a \| \| specific performance \| \| \| objective for the most \| \| \| senior leaders in the \| \| \| CPS. \| \| \| Autumn/Winter 2019 \| On-going consultation. \| \| October 2019 \| Draft pre-charge \| \| engagement \| \| \| Guidelines, will be \| \| \| published for \| \| \| consultation by the \| \| \| AGO later this year. \| \| \| May 2019 \| Forums and meetings \| \| have taken place \| \| \| across the country at a \| \| \| local level. \| \| \| On-going \| Complete. \| \| Spring 2019 \| A pilot is being \| \| formulated to use \| \| \| ECPCs in all Crown \| \| \| Court Threshold Test \| \| \| cases in a CPS Area. \| \| \| On-going \| The Delivery Board \| \| meets monthly and \| \| \| quarterly updates on \| \| \| progress are issued. \| \| \| Autumn/Winter 2019 \| Complete. \| decision to stop the case. \| Autumn/Winter 2019 \| \|-----------------------\| \| significant \| \| development upgrade \| \| in June 2019 and a \| \| further enhancement \| \| will take place in \| \| Spring 202. \| 28 Developing automated data collection in relation to key stages of the disclosure process which will show levels of compliance by both police and CPS such as the identification of reasonable lines of enquiry (pre-charge), creation/management of the Disclosure Management Document/Disclosure Record Sheet and completion of schedules. Annex B: CPS Data Caveats The disclosure dashboard is for internal management purposes only. It, nor any part of it, should be published without direct permissions from the CPS. Any publication would breach the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice (for the release of statistics). 1. CPS data are available through its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS). The CPS collects data to assist in the effective management of its prosecution functions. The CPS does not collect data that constitutes official statistics as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. 2. These data have been drawn from the CPS's administrative IT system, which (as with any large scale recording system) is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the CPS. We are committed to improving the quality of our data and from mid-June 2015 introduced a new data assurance regime which may explain some unexpected variance in some future data sets. 3. The official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office (HO) and the official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Defendant 'outcomes' are counted by the CPS at finalisation. All cases resulting in an outcome other than a conviction are allocated a reason why the case failed. If more than one reason applies the principle reason is chosen. In pre-charge decision cases all cases resulting in a decision to take no further action for either evidential or public interest reasons are allocated a reason for that decision If more than one reason applies the principle reason in chosen. Annex C: e-Disclosure Landscape Review, May 2019 Please see below ## E-Disclosure Landscape Review May 2019 ## Table Of Contents Glossary 4 1. Executive Summary 6 2. Introduction 11 3. Purpose & Approach 13 4. e-Disclosure in Policing 14 5. Technology Landscape 22 6. Gap Analysis 29 32 7. Recommendations and Suggested Next Steps ## Classification Classification \| Government Security classification: \| Not Protectively Marked \| \|-----------------------------\|---------------------------\| \| Disclosable under FOIA 2000 \| Yes \| ## Glossary Of Acronyms Abbreviation Definition \| AI \| Artificial Intelligence \| \|------\|-----------------------------------------------\| \| API \| Application Programming Interface \| \| BWV \| Body Worn Video \| \| APCC \| Association of Police and Crime Commissioners \| \| CC \| Chief Constable \| \| CCTV \| Closed Circuit Television \| \| CI \| Chief Inspector \| \| CJ \| Criminal Justice \| \| CJS \| Criminal Justice System \| \| CJU \| Criminal Justice Unit \| \| CoP \| College of Policing \| \| CPIA \| Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act \| \| CPS \| Crown Prosecution Service \| \| DAMS \| Digital Asset Management System \| \| DASA \| Defence and Security Accelerator \| \| DCF \| Digital Case File \| \| DCS \| Detective Chief Superintendent \| \| DDI \| Data Driven Insights \| \| DEMS \| Digital Evidence Management System \| \| DETS \| Digital Evidence Transfer Service \| \| DF \| Digital First \| \| DII \| Digital Intelligence and Investigation \| \| DMD \| Disclosure Management Document \| \| DMI \| Digital Media Investigator \| \| DPA \| Data Protection Act \| \| DPP \| Digital Policing Portfolio \| \| DSTL \| Defence Science and Technology \| ## Abbreviation Definition \| EIA \| Early Investigative Advice \| \|---------\|-----------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| ESI \| Electronically Stored Information \| \| FOIA \| Freedom of Information Act \| \| FTK \| Forensic Tool Kit \| \| HMIC \| Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary \| \| HMICFRS \| Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services \| \| HMCPSI \| Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate \| \| HOSB \| Home Office Statistical Bulletin \| \| IHM \| Information Handling Model \| \| IT \| Information Technology \| \| NDAS \| National Data Analytics Solution \| \| NDDB \| National Disclosure Delivery Board \| \| NDIP \| National Disclosure Improvement Plan \| \| MME \| Multimedia evidence \| \| NPCC \| National Police Chiefs' Council \| \| NTWG \| National Technology Working Group \| \| PCC \| Police and Crime Commissioners \| \| POLE \| People, Objects, Locations and Events \| \| RFI \| Request For Information \| \| RIPA \| Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act \| \| RLOE \| Reasonable Lines of Enquiry \| \| SOC \| Scenes of Crime \| \| SME \| Subject Matter Expert \| \| TAR \| Technology Assisted Review \| \| TWIF \| Two-Way Interface \| \| UK \| United Kingdom \| \| VRI \| Video Recorded Interview \| ## 1. Executive Summary Disclosure is the process in a criminal case by which someone charged with a crime is provided with copies of, or access to, material from the investigation that is capable of undermining the prosecution case against them and/or assisting their defence. Without this process taking place a trial would not be fair.1 (The Government's Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 sets out the broad framework of disclosure obligations on law enforcement and prosecutors to provide the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against, or of assisting the case for, the accused. This is with specific reference to unused material that may be relevant to the investigation (i.e. which has been retained but does not form part of the case for the prosecution against the accused). Prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material (disclosure schedules), as well as with copies of any disclosable material. It is the police's responsibility to prepare and provide the prosecutor with disclosure schedules, as well as drawing the attention of the prosecutor to any material an investigator has retained which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to ultimately determine whether material is disclosable to the defence. ## Definition: Electronic Disclosure (E-Disclosure) e-Disclosure refers to the disclosure of electronically stored information (ESI). This includes any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices such as memory sticks and mobile phones. As well as documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, it includes documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and documents that have been deleted. It also includes metadata and other embedded data. ## Key Findings: The purpose of this review was to: - • consider the current challenges and review the current e-Disclosure landscape within policing; • provide an overview of the key capability requirements which may be met by technological solutions; and • provide an understanding of the possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace. The key findings of this e-Disclosure Landscape Review are: - ## 1.1 Technology Is Contributing To The Challenges Of E-Disclosure But Can Also Be An Enabler To Solve Them. As much as technology creates challenges with the proliferation, in terms of the volume and types of, information, it is also a necessary part of the solution. Traditional methods for cataloguing and finding information are limited. New technologies are capable of vastly ## 1.2 E-Disclosure Is A High-Profile Symptom Of A Wider Digital Information Management Problem That Is Magnified As The Volume Of Digital Information Continues To Increase. Successful e-Disclosure hinges upon the core capabilities to efficiently, effectively and accurately: improving the way we search, group and review information and they are the only effective way to manage rapidly expanding data volumes. Technologies to manage data on this scale must be implemented holistically, considering the lifecycle of technology adoption and coupled with processes and policies to manage change and the implementation of new services. • Collect relevant information from a wide range of digital devices; • Store the information in a secure way that enables accurate searching, review and analysis; • Determine relevance where this is not immediately clear; • Audit disclosure decisions; The significant range of law enforcement information infrastructure, in terms of maturity, capacity and inherent information management functionality, does not lend itself to a 'one solution fits all' approach. In some cases, the 'information housekeeping' required to gain the most from advanced technical techniques and tools for e-Disclosure can easily outweigh the potential gains. • Control sharing of disclosable information. The review found a range of shortfalls in current capability, the main points of which are: Although it was not possible to provide a complete analysis of e-Disclosure technology through this light touch landscape review, it is clear that a single ideal tool to support the needs of both the technical and investigative elements of digital investigations does not exist in the current marketplace. However, the tools identified did meet many of the key requirements and and could form a significant part of a combined solution. a) At the point of collecting electronically stored information, differing data formats and accuracy of collection processes (i.e. failure to retrieve relevant information) provides immediate weaknesses in the e-Disclosure process; b) There is no standard for compatible data storage infrastructure and consistent data indexing and cataloguing to enable accurate retrieval of all Electrically Stored Information (ESI); c) In relation to data acquisition, there are a number of tools that are adequate, but the diverse number of tools highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach; Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfall is the rollout of several technologies, some currently in use and some new, linked together where possible with common Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of outdated technologies, and provide the ability to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. d) Capability to undertake data search/ discovery across some information and media types is lacking. Various software programmes are in use but not consistently, however concerns over accuracy often exist; e) There is no comprehensive solution to give full confidence in the ability to conduct analysis to a common standard across policing; f) Audit is a key aspect of the review component. Effective and efficient capture of an audit trail is lacking. Systems are incompatible at the information level making it very difficult to maintain an audit trail throughout the e-Disclosure process; and g) There is little support to the disclosure schedule production process which is time consuming and an area where it is easy to introduce additional errors or omissions to the e-Disclosure process. ## 1.3 Spiralling Volumes Of Digital Information Challenges Law Enforcement To Maintain Information Management Strategies And The Process Of Identifying And Producing Electronic Information For Disclosure Purposes. The identified challenges relating to e-Disclosure are not unique to policing in England and Wales and are being experienced by law enforcement and private industry worldwide. Efficient, accurate and timely e-Disclosure is not an add-on function but starts when information is collected and stored. The ability to disclose ESI must not be an afterthought but a continuous aspect throughout the information lifecycle. Therefore, in defining the requirements for e-Disclosure it is necessary to examine the full scope of capability that spans the data capture, storage, acquisition and search components that are usually under the management of the information infrastructure and the analyse, review, produce and release components that are often associated with technology assisted review (TAR). To complicate matters there is no clear boundary between these different information management regimes. While technology alone will not deliver the full capability, it has the potential to make a significant contribution, but that contribution will not be realised without the corresponding people and process elements. ## 1.4 Technology To Address The Problem Will Help, But It Is Likely That There Will Always Be A Gap. Despite the work undertaken by national programmes and local force initiatives, there remain several aspects of e-Disclosure where further technology-based intervention is required. Technical solutions by their very nature have embedded processes within them and assume a level of skill and knowledge of the user. Any technology solution must be evaluated not only on the functionality itself, but the compliance of the embedded processes and the training of the user to utilise the technology in the way it was designed. All these factors must be underpinned by a strong legal and ethical foundation. Questions that already exist in relation to e-Disclosure include how data will be collected and processed, concerns about algorithmic bias & false positives and where the acceptable limits lie in this space. Key areas for further investment to address the remaining shortfalls include: Artificial Intelligence (AI): This is a broad term that encompasses a number of related fields, including machine learning (the ability to predict most likely events to occur) or predictive coding (use of a computer system to help determine which documents are representative of a defined category) and deep learning (pushing the boundaries of understanding what is possible), all of which are used in situations where the task is complex or varied. However, the test applied for disclosure is a particularly difficult one for AI to apply. It is also incredibly difficult to identify the factors used to reach its conclusion. ## 1.5 Hypothesis Advanced Search: There are a number of search techniques that require less specific inputs ranging from the use of search operators such as wild cards or exact phrases to the use of word clouds to highlight most regularly used words or phrases. Full text search, which requires a text indexing engine, enables searching all text inside any text-based file. There are also advances in video and image search technologies that would increase the efficiency of finding all relevant data. Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfalls is the rollout of a number of technologies, some currently in use and some new, with common APIs, linked together where possible with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of out dated technologies, and provide the ability to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. Whilst being cognisant of the necessary differences between forces and in priorities, Alerts: Alerts or notifications are machineto-person communications of important and / or time sensitive information. The use of alerts and notifications to notify the user when new information or data is available against saved searches has particular relevance to e-Disclosure. this rollout should be as wide as possible, and scalable, to encourage consistency in both process and technology across policing to enable better coordination. The most important parts of the solution are likely to be the supporting technology: the common or compatible storage, standards, indexing and cataloguing. Without these the key capabilities of review, search and analysis (which also apply across the rest of the investigation process) cannot be efficient or effective, particularly between forces. Next Steps: Based on the business challenges and statements of need highlighted in this review, as well as the identified gaps and associated recommendations, the suggested next step would be to assess the above hypothesis as part of an e-Disclosure Outline Business Case that will: • Conduct more in-depth reviews with representative police forces, including: • Capturing the 'as is' process • Supporting technologies already in use, and • Assessing any other related funded initiatives; Disclosure is the process in a criminal case by which someone charged with a crime is provided with copies of, or access to, material from the investigation • Engage with the related policing or government initiatives, pilots, proof of concepts to ascertain whether they are addressing any e-Disclosure requirements pertinent to their scope to de-duplicate effort, identify any gaps and maximise any opportunities for collaborative working. • Identify and assess potential options to deliver against the e-Disclosure requirements that have no other identified delivery mechanism. • Following the completion of existing proof of concepts/pilots, to select a preferred solution(s) and identify a funding source(s) to support the delivery of an e-Disclosure solution(s) that addresses the key business needs and capability gaps whilst delivering the required business outcomes and benefits. ## 2. Introduction The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 sets out the broad framework of disclosure obligations on law enforcement and prosecutors to provide the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against, or of assisting the case for, the accused. This is with specific reference to unused material that may be relevant to the investigation (i.e. which has been retained but does not form part of the case for the prosecution against the accused). "The disclosure to the defence of material obtained during a criminal investigation, that the prosecution has not used as part of its case is fundamentally important to ensuring a fair trial. Yet, I suspect that no one who has regular professional involvement with the criminal courts can have avoided the conclusion, often from painful experience, that for too long the system of disclosure has not operated effectively enough."2 (The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC MP) Prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material (disclosure schedules), as well as with copies of any disclosable material. It is the police's responsibility to prepare and provide the prosecutor with disclosure schedules, as well as drawing the attention of the prosecutor to any material an investigator has retained which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to ultimately determine whether material is disclosable to the defence. Several failings in the disclosure process have resulted in the collapse of trials and the successful appeal against unsafe convictions. These failings have resulted in several reviews of disclosure procedures and practice that highlight the need to improve the disclosure process and make a number of recommendations, which in turn has generated a series of key recommendations for change. These reviews include: • Making it Fair - A Joint Inspection of the Disclosure of Unused Material in Volume Crown Court Cases, July 2017 (HMCPSI, HMIC);3 • Mouncher Investigation Report, July 2017;4 • Justice Select Committee inquiry, July 2018;5 • Attorney General review: "Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system", Nov 2018.6 Ensuring disclosure is right is a fundamental part of a fair criminal justice system. Trials have collapsed or cases have had to be discontinued specifically due to the prosecution having failed to disclose, in a timely manner, vital information pertinent to the case. These failures have led to there no longer being a realistic prospect of conviction, a fundamental consideration as to whether a suspect should be, or continues to be, prosecuted, as outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. In addition to the impact on victims of crime there are wider consequences of disclosure failings including: • Risk of miscarriages of justice • Reduced public confidence in policing and the Criminal Justice System Coordination of these key recommendations for change is delivered through the National Disclosure Delivery Board (NDDB), via the National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP), with ownership being shared between the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the • Significant waste of time, resource and money across all involved in the justice process 2 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ review-of-the-efficiency-andeffectiveness-of-disclosure-inthe-criminal-justice-system 3 https://www. justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/ inspections/making-it-fair-the- Disclosure-of-unused-materialin-volume-crown-court-cases/ 4 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ mouncher-investigation-report 5 https://www.parliament. uk/business/committees/ committees-a-z/commonsselect/justice-committee/ inquiries/parliament-2017/ disclosure-criminalcases-17-19/publications/ 6 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ review-of-the-efficiency-andeffectiveness-of-disclosure-inthe-criminal-justice-system College of Policing (CoP). In its broadest terms, the NDIP sets out: • What has been done to date about this issue, • What further work is required against the recommendations, and • Looks to identify and prepare for anticipated future challenges. To this end, the NDIP is coordinating activities, under the following strategic priority areas: • Strengthening the capacity to deal with disclosure, ensuring we are fit to meet the challenges we face, both now and in the future; • Improving the capability of police and prosecutors and equipping them with the right skills, particularly in the context of handling large volumes of digital material; • Leading the transformation of the culture of the investigative mind-set, so that disclosure is viewed as an integral part of the investigation and any subsequent prosecution; • Engaging more effectively in our partnerships in the criminal justice system and improving communication between the prosecution and defence at the outset of criminal proceedings; and • Embedding the actions taken at a national level into local police forces and CPS areas by robust governance on both national and local improvement plans. The capacity priority includes recognition of the particular challenges of e-Disclosure, which is the disclosure of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). These challenges are reflective of the now ubiquitous nature of digital technology resulting in a rapidly increasing volume, diversity and complexity of potentially relevant ESI. The Attorney General's Review and the Justice Select Committee inquiry identified the unprecedented challenge that this presents to investigators and prosecutors, citing an example that the average mobile phone today is capable of holding the data equivalent of about 5 million A4 pages; " It is clear that the right thing to do in these cases is to adopt new, technologybased approaches to managing this scale of material because its growth is outpacing human capacity to handle it."7 Several national programmes and organisations are working closely with the criminal justice community and focusing on the technology element of the NDIP e.g. Digital First (DF), Digital Intelligence & investigation (DII), Transforming Forensics (Digital Forensics), Defence Science and Technology (DSTL). This Landscape Review was commissioned by NPCC's Criminal Justice lead (AC Nick Ephgrave) to examine and report on the challenges of e-Disclosure. The volume of cases that may require e-Disclosure is also increasing precipitously, as stated by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: ' The ubiquity of digital devices means that digital evidence may be present in almost every crime.'8 ## 3. Purpose & Approach In response to the recognition of these challenges, this Landscape Review will: • consider the current challenges and review the current e-Disclosure landscape within policing; • provide an overview of the key capability requirements which may be met by technological solutions; and • User group review: A review of the output of a user group workshop held at the Major Investigation Digital Insights Conference, chaired and facilitated by the DII team; In addition, the output from a joint workshop organised by the Ditchley Foundation and Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), regarding disclosure was also incorporated within this review. • provide an understanding of the possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace. • Interviews: Interviews were held with police force representative, technology providers and disclosure SMEs. The information gathered has been analysed and summarised in the following sections: • e-Disclosure in Policing: this section provides an overview of e-Disclosure in policing and develops a set of key capability requirements for consideration in review of the current technology landscape. The scope of the review is limited to the technical element of the required capability with the people, process, training and procedures elements addressed under the NDIP. Notwithstanding the limited scope of the review, in considering current capability and shortfalls, it takes note of the user's likely skill base and knowledge and the process and procedures required to ensure a compliant solution. The approach to developing this Landscape Review included the following activities: • Desktop Review: A review of the latest reports and recommendations for improvements in \| the disclosure process has been carried out, with specific attention to the points relating to digital material; • Current Technology Landscape: this section provides a high-level overview of technology, particularly supported by the Marketplace Review and Interviews. It considers both those currently in use in policing as well as developing techniques and capabilities and planned delivery, in the context of the key capability requirements and the e-Disclosure process map defined in the previous section. • Gap Analysis: this section highlights the areas in the current e-Disclosure in policing landscape that do not have an existing or planned solution known at the time of writing this review. • Recommendations: this section provides recommendations to address the gaps identified in the previous section. • Marketplace Review: A market place engagement exercise was conducted with techUK, which represents over 900 companies in the tech. industry. A review was carried out of the output from both formal 'Requests For Information' (RFI) and a subsequent roundtable discussion at techUK (attended by global, national and small medium enterprises) regarding possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace; ## 4. E-Disclosure In Policing 'e-Disclosure' refers to the disclosure of ESI i.e. any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices such as memory sticks and mobile phones. As well as documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, ESI includes documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and documents that have been deleted. It also includes metadata and other embedded data. The definition of e-Disclosure in this context thus becomes the process of identifying, collecting, processing, analysing and reviewing ESI for criminal legal proceedings. In the context of disclosure, material may be deemed relevant to an investigation if it appears to have some bearing on any offence under investigation or any person being investigated. As well as being broad in scope, this definition applies both to items in isolation or when combined with other material. The process of disclosure, and in particular e-Disclosure due to the rapidly increasing volumes of Data indexing and cataloguing Information handling material involved, therefore hinges upon the key capabilities of efficiently, effectively and in compliance with legislative and procedural requirements doing the following: • Data Review: Review the extracted relevant material from a wide range of digital devices; • Data Search: Searching and/or sifting available material; • Data Analysis: Enriching, analysing, connecting or combining material; • Data Assess: Assessing material, analysis or combinations of material in order to determine relevance; • Data Record: Documenting disclosure decisions; and • Data Reveal: Revealing unused material and schedules to the prosecutor. In turn these capabilities require the correct triaging at ingest, storing, referencing and handling of material or data throughout its retention period, and in this sense, e-Disclosure requirements impact across the entire investigation process. These data lifecycle activities are presented in the following diagram. Data enrichment Recording and sharing of data and / or metadata Data mapping / transformation Data search and / or sift Recording and sharing of data visualisations and / or supporting metadata The following two sections describe the capability requirements and process in more detail. 3. Establish methods/processes to ensure identification, grouping or restructuring of large volumes of material (such as telephone number, vehicles, and addresses) is effective, efficient and productive. ## 4.1 Key Capability Requirements 4. Creation of a coordinated investment approach in advanced data analytics capabilities, especially for mobile phone records to develop nationally consistent applications across investigations. Statements of business need were collated and validated by the National Technology Working Group under the National Disclosure Delivery Board. These business need statements have been reviewed and the following 5 have been identified as relevant to the scope of this e-Disclosure landscape review. 5. Assisting in developing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. 1. Development of nationally consistent standards, common tools, infrastructure or techniques to acquire, store and utilise the increasing amounts of digital material being seized/collected in a legal, ethical and efficient way. These statements can be deconstructed into their constituent parts to identify some of the key capability requirements for e-Disclosure as shown in the table overleaf. 2. Data is currently stored in siloed, unconnected systems or on individual drives. Develop a process that reduces data duplication, allows efficient sharing within forces & between forces, and compliance against management standards is achievable and auditable. 'e-Disclosure' refers to the disclosure of Electronically Stored Information i.e. any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices ## Business Need Statement Key Capability Requirements - There Is A Requirement For (An) Effective And Efficient: 1. Development of nationally consistent standards, common tools, infrastructure or techniques to acquire, store and utilise the increasing amounts of digital multimedia material being seized/ collected it in a legal, ethical and efficient way. • Nationally consistent data standards • Nationally consistent data formats • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent or compatible data enrichment capability • Nationally consistent or compatible data acquisition and ingest techniques • Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure • Nationally consistent or compatible search • Nationally consistent or compatible analytics capabilities • Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material • Nationally consistent or compatible data and material sifting and filtering capability 2. Data is currently stored in separate, unconnected systems or on individual drives. Develop a process that reduces data duplication, allows efficient sharing within forces & between forces, and compliance against management standards is achievable and auditable. • De-duplication across disparate storage • Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure • Cross force data access capability • Nationally consistent or compatible and auditable data access management • Cross force search capability • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent data standards • Nationally consistent data formats • Nationally consistent and auditable data management and standards • Nationally consistent or compatible capability for sharing digital material within and between forces • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material 3. Establish methods/processes to ensure identification, grouping or restructuring of large volumes of material (e.g. telephone number, vehicles, etc… ) is effective, efficient and productive. • Nationally consistent data analytics capabilities 4. Creation of a coordinated investment approach in advanced data analytics capabilities, especially for mobile phone records to develop nationally consistent applications across investigations. • Capability for sharing digital material with prosecution and defence • Capability for sharing analysis of digital material with prosecution and defence 5. Assisting in developing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. ## 4.2 E-Disclosure Process Map To aid understanding of the challenges, and to support the identification of where key capability requirements and existing or developing technologies align to the disclosure process, the following high-level business ## Pre Charge E-Disclosure Activities - Not All Activities Required For All Cases process map diagram has been developed through a review of the latest reports on disclosure procedures and practice. The following mapping between the process maps and the key capability requirements further illustrates this as the majority of these key capability requirements are also relevant to activities in the preceding investigation. The process map was reviewed against the high level scenarios developed as part of the investigation into the context of e-Disclosure. Assessment of the scenarios resulted in the conclusion that the volume, diversity and / or complexity of the ESI would vary, but the high level activities would, on the whole, remain the same, regardless of crime type9. ## Post Charge E-Disclosure Activities - All Activities Required For All Cases Disclosure Process Map Activities \| KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS \| \| \|----------------------------------\|----------------------------\| \| FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM \| \| \| STATEMENTS \| \| \| Review \| \| \| material \| \| \| gathered \| \| \| during \| \| \| investigation \| \| \| Search \| \| \| for other \| \| \| / new \| \| \| potentially \| \| \| relevant \| \| \| material \| \| \| Analysis \| \| \| to identify \| \| \| further \| \| \| and / or \| \| \| linked \| \| \| relevant \| \| \| material \| \| \| 1. \| Nationally consistent data \| \| standards \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 2. \| Nationally consistent data \| \| formats \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 3. \| Nationally consistent data \| \| indexing and cataloguing \| \| \| X \| X \| \| X \| X \| \| 4. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible data enrichment \| \| \| capability \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 5. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible data acquisition \| \| \| and ingest techniques \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 6. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible data storage \| \| \| infrastructure \| \| \| 7. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible search \| \| \| X \| \| \| 8. \| Nationally consistent \| \| or compatible analytics \| \| \| capabilities \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 9. \| Nationally consistent \| \| or compatible summary \| \| \| visualisation capability for \| \| \| digital material \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 10. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible data and material \| \| \| sifting and filtering capability \| \| \| X \| X \| \| 11. \| Nationally consistent or \| \| compatible and auditable \| \| \| data access management \| \| Record output, audit trail of findings and conclusions Assess unused material for disclosure purposes Record material to be disclosed by creating or updating a Disclosure Schedule Share material and Disclosure Schedule with prosecutor X \| KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS \| \|--------------------------------\| \| FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM \| \| STATEMENTS \| \| Review \| \| material \| \| gathered \| \| during \| \| investigation \| \| Search \| \| for other \| \| / new \| \| potentially \| \| relevant \| \| material \| and standards \| 13. \| \|---------------------------------\| \| compatible capability for \| \| sharing digital material within \| \| and between forces \| Cross force data access capability Cross force search capability disparate storage requirements and align investment with strategic priorities. The following section provides a high-level review of the current technology landscape. Through mapping these capabilities and capturing the key characteristics required within the e-Disclosure process the information can be used to assess business needs, technology ## Disclosure Process Map Activities Record output, audit trail of findings and conclusions Assess unused material for disclosure purposes Analysis to identify further and / or linked relevant material Record material to be disclosed by creating or updating a Disclosure Schedule Share material and Disclosure Schedule with prosecutor ## 5. Technology Landscape This section provides an overview of the technology landscape by considering the following: • current technology used in policing; • developing techniques and capabilities that could be utilised to assist with disclosure; • relevant planned delivery. ## 5.1 Summary Of Current Technology In Policing A number of core technological solutions are already used in policing today which support key aspects of disclosure, however none of the technologies reviewed for this report provide a comprehensive disclosure capability, and they cannot be scaled sufficiently to provide a national platform. They could however provide or inform part of the future solution. In addition, the improving documentation and auditing of e-Disclosure driven by the introduction and expanding use of the Disclosure Management Document (DMD) encourages consideration of all relevant electronic material but does not in itself improve the capability to review, search for, analyse or assess electronic material for disclosure. The remainder of this section provides a high-level overview of current technologies used in policing to support disclosure based on the information available in the RFI responses and interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs. The specific technologies are not identified to remove any competitive advantage issues. Review: There are a number of tools identified that appear to provide a good level of capability, providing the material has been imported into an accessible system and is easily found for review, which is currently a significant challenge for many forces. The number of tools does however highlight the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. Search: The range of tools identified in this space highlight the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the identification of all relevant electronic material for e-Disclosure, as well as the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is increasingly important to ensure that all relevant material can be found quickly with the rapidly expanding volume of material to be considered. This is relevant not only within a force but across forces as material may have been captured by other forces that is relevant to the case in question. Analysis: Similar to search, the range of tools identified in this space highlight the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the ability to perform effective analysis and identify links or combinations of material relevant for disclosure. It also highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach, and that none of the tools currently in operation appear to provide a sufficiently comprehensive solution to give full confidence in the ability to conduct analysis. Assess: The technologies identified against this stage in the process are used to view the material or redo or review analysis that supports the relevance of the material for disclosure. The effectiveness of this stage relies heavily on the ability of the Search and Analysis technologies to record, find and analyse the relevant material to enable their assessment. Record output of review, search and analysis: Although there are capabilities that provide an audit trail of searches and acquisition activities, this review has not identified any technology that particularly supports the effective and efficient capture of an audit trail of findings ## 5.2 Utilisation Of Technological Techniques And Capabilities and conclusions with any supporting reasoning. The conclusions to be made and recorded here require understanding of any handling caveats or sensitivities of the material which should be captured in the indexing or cataloguing of the material, the completeness of the evidential audit trail, as well as the ability to effectively reference or link to the data so that it can be easily found. Clarity of what analysis has and has not been undertaken is critical to successful passage through the criminal justice system, particularly given that understanding of emerging technologies is often limited. Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Technology can support this through the automatic generation of required documentation based on information captured in the previous Record stage. Only one technology has been identified in this review that supports this activity. The case for the utilisation of new technological techniques and capabilities in disclosure has been recognised in a number of court cases, including the 2015 ruling in the UK High Court endorsing the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR). TAR is a software approach that is increasingly assisting in the identification of relevant material through the use of mathematical algorithms, statistical sampling and machine learning or predictive coding. These court cases are illustrative of the acceptance that although the human element cannot be removed from the disclosure process, the utilisation of these kinds of technology supported approaches is both necessary and appropriate in order to balance the capacity challenge posed by the increasing volume of material. That said, this has not yet been trialled in the field of criminal justice, which may be naturally less predisposed to the use of such technology. It is clear that, at the very least, being able to provide clarity as to the capabilities applied will be no less important than the capabilities themselves. In addition, the appropriate use and ethical considerations associated must underpin all elements when considering utilising technological techniques and capabilities. Reveal: Technologies that support this activity have been identified in this review that appear to provide a level of capability and are fairly widely used, although not across all forces. However, this process is still partially reliant on manual processes such as scanning in paper documents and producing hard copies of digital images in order to compensate for the lack of a completely intuitive digital capability, resulting in wasted cost on all agencies involved, an increased risk of error and undermines the potential benefits that could be realised from digital working. It is important that technology is not considered in isolation. While the required capability will consist of people, process and technology there is a tight relationship between these elements that need to be viewed in a technical context. Technical solutions by their very nature have embedded processes within them and assume a level of skill and knowledge of the user. As depicted in Figure 4 any technology solution must also be evaluated not only on the functionality itself, but the compliance in the embedded processes and the training of the user to utilise the technology in the way it was designed. Due to its time bound nature it should be noted that this review has not undertaken an in-depth review of all technologies used in the e-Disclosure process, only those referenced in the RFI responses and interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs. As such it is recommended that further work is undertaken with policing to identify other relevant technologies currently in use in policing and assess their capability against the requirements. All these factors must be underpinned by a strong legal and ethical foundation. Questions that already exist in relation to e-Disclosure include how data will be collected and processed, concerns about algorithmic bias & false positives and where the acceptable tolerances lie in this space. The remainder of this section considers several new or recent technological techniques and capabilities identified through the RFI responses and the desktop review that could be utilised to address some of these challenges. Artificial Intelligence (AI): This is a broad term that encompasses a number of related fields, including machine learning (the ability to predict most likely events to occur) or predictive coding (use of a computer system to help determine which documents are representative of a defined category) and deep learning (pushing the boundaries of understanding what is possible), all of which are used in situations where the task is so complex or varied that is infeasible to develop an algorithm of specific instructions. It involves the use of algorithms and statistical models that enable computer systems to progressively improve their performance on a specific task through the use of sample or training data in order to make predictions or decisions without being explicitly programmed to perform the task. Examples of applications include data mining, image analysis and recognition, face recognition • Disadvantages: More expensive than simple search capabilities and manual review. and automation of tasks. There are AI tools with proven open APIs (Application Programming Interface) which would support a modular solution. • Advantages: Industry studies have shown that with the right training, predictive coding achieves better and more cost-effective results than the more traditional, Boolean logic-based approach, which requires humans to give detailed, specifically structured instruction sets for searches. Alerts: Alerts or notifications are machine-toperson communications of important and / or time sensitive information. The use of alerts and notifications to notify the user when new information or data is available against saved searches or analytics is becoming more widespread to replace, where possible, the requirement for manually repeating the same searches or analytics. Techniques include batch processing which is a scheduled run of pre-scripted jobs, and the use of more novel streaming analytics technology which supports the almost instantaneous automated analysis of data as it is arrives in the system. • Disadvantages: Machine learning requires large volumes of training data, and any bias or skew in the dataset will impact the performance. The test applied for disclosure (i.e. assisting the defence case or undermining the prosecution case) is a particularly difficult one for AI to apply. It is also incredibly difficult to identify the factors used to reach its conclusion. Complexity of devices due to encryption and decryption on the fly means that data might not be obvious to the tools. • Advantages: The use of AI can assist in the identification of what would be of interest and requires less manual input. Manual selection or setting of alerts is still more efficient than repeating the same activity on a regular basis, and this approach is more easily auditable. Compared to streaming analytics, batch processing is a relatively simple and inexpensive option to implement. Streaming analytics is closer to real time supporting more time sensitive situations. • Disadvantages: The procurement and implementation of alerting capabilities is more expensive than a manual individual search and analysis approach, and the use of AI would result in the issues identified in the AI section above. Advanced searches: As well as key word searches there are a number of search techniques that require less specific inputs ranging from the use of search operators such as wild cards or exact phrase to the use of word clouds to highlight most regularly used words or phrases. Full text search, which requires a text indexing engine, enables searching all text inside any text-based file. There are also advances in video and image search technologies that would increase the efficiency of finding all relevant data. Cloud Computing: This is the provision of software, applications and storage over the internet, and it is still evolving with companies of all shapes and sizes adapting to this new technology. • Advantages: Cloud computing is probably the most cost efficient for organisations to maintain and upgrade, it can scale as required • Advantages: These technologies increase the likelihood of and confidence in finding all relevant data, in particular the word cloud capability may highlight terms that the user may not have thought to search for, and the video and image search capabilities would reduce the time required to review images and video for the relevant files or sections. both in terms of storage and user numbers, and is quick to deploy. Public cloud services also provide a lot of services as standard such as backup and recovery. Key advantages for disclosure occur if the forces use the same cloud to store their data as this will facilitate secure sharing and utilisation of collected digital data across local, regional and national boundaries, as well as reduce duplication. • Disadvantages: Users are reliant on a good internet connection (or intranet if a private cloud) to access cloud. Also, there is often a perceived security risk if a public cloud is used, requiring additional confidence that the provider will keep the information totally secure. In addition, private cloud is significantly more expensive than public cloud. It is expected that it will be necessary to store vast volumes of data. ## 5.3 Planned Delivery There are a number of other initiatives that are planning on developing and delivering capability that could support the disclosure process and that should be engaged and aligned within any further investigation into or delivery in support of e-Disclosure. Those that have been identified in this landscape review are summarised below. National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP): This landscape review is one element of the work managed under NDIP, the next phase of which is planned to focus on: 1. Forging strong local partnerships so that police forces and CPS Areas take responsibility to deliver the changes required at every level; 2. Developing the professionalisation of disclosure as a discipline in every police force; 3. Utilising the opportunities of innovative technological solutions and making these tools available to frontline staff in their work; 4. Ensuring a clear line of sight between local and national expectations to ensure that national changes are embedded and taking effect at a local level; 5. Improving communication between the police, the CPS and the defence, including at the pre-charge stage; 6. Monitoring the impact of improvement measures and measuring their effectiveness in investigations and prosecutions; and 7. Learning the lessons of successes and failures of disclosure in our cases to continuously improve our performance month-on-month and year-on-year. Focus areas 3 and 5 in particular have clear technology links and implications, and as such are particularly pertinent to the technological scope of this review. The breadth of the scope and potential impacts of work planned or in progress is far reaching. As previously described the remit of the NDIP is to identify the necessary activities and coordinate, which will oversee alignment and deduplication of any activities with implications for e-Disclosure. Digital Policing Portfolio: The Digital Policing Portfolio is a national delivery organisation set up by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) to deliver the 'Digital Policing' strand of the Policing Vision 2025 focused on developing nationally consistent services, standards and capabilities, in order to: • Reduce duplication of effort and spend that would occur if all forces developed their own solutions; • Consolidate learning and share knowledge so all forces benefit; and • Reduce the 'service lottery' whilst enabling local tailoring and identity of policing services. The Portfolio is made up of three programmes: • Digital Public Contact (DPC): will change the police's relationship with the public by introducing new intuitive online contact and other services to make policing easier to navigate and more accessible for the public. National Data Analytics Solution (NDAS): This programme was established in West Midlands Police to investigate the possibility of extending a local strategic project it had funded, known as Data Driven Insights (DDI), which it believed could be scaled nationally. It is a proof-ofconcept with the ambition of providing a new scalable and flexible analytics capability to UK law enforcement using advanced analytics to deliver insights to partners on agreed high priority operational and organisational issues. NDAS plans to do the following: • Introduce a new shared, central data and analytics capability that is aimed and directed proportionately by participating UK law enforcement agencies. • Digital Intelligence & Investigation (DII): will enable the police to protect the public by improving forces' digital capabilities to prevent and detect crime and build on those capabilities for future technological advances. This programme's scope includes development and implementation of a national Information Handling Model (IHM), as well as supporting analytical capabilities. • Provide law enforcement agencies with reporting and support to action insights generated to create more evidence-based local interventions. Summary: A mapping of which of the key capability requirements these specific initiatives might support is detailed overleaf. • Digital First (DF): will facilitate better working and information sharing between policing and its criminal justice partners. This programme's scope includes the development and delivery of a Digital Evidence Transfer Service (DETS), a Digital Case File (DCF) and supporting implementation of the Two-Way Interface (TWIF) between the criminal justice system and police systems. KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM STATEMENTS DPC DII DF NDAS 1. Nationally consistent data standards X X 2. Nationally consistent data formats X X 3. Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing X X 4. Nationally consistent or compatible data enrichment capability X 5. Nationally consistent or compatible data acquisition and ingest techniques X 6. Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure X 7. Nationally consistent or compatible search X 8. Nationally consistent or compatible analytics capabilities X 9. Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material X 10. Nationally consistent or compatible data and material sifting and filtering capability X 11. Nationally consistent or compatible and auditable data access management X 12. Nationally consistent and auditable data management and standards X X X 13. Nationally consistent or compatible capability for sharing digital material within and between forces X 14. Nationally consistent data analytics capabilities X 15. Cross force data access capability X 16. Cross force search capability 17. De-duplication across disparate storage X X 18. Capability for sharing digital material with prosecution and defence X 19. Capability for sharing analysis of digital material with prosecution and defence X Recommendation: The planned delivery initiatives reviewed above are a subset of the planned or ongoing work relating to e-Disclosure across policing identified during this landscape review. Further work is required to identify any other initiatives to enable deconfliction and deduplication where possible. ## 6. Gap Analysis Search: The tools identified provide some capability, however the range highlights the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the identification of all relevant electronic material for e-Disclosure, as well as the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. The analysis undertaken in this review reinforces the key capability requirements identified from the business need statements. It should be noted that the technology landscape section is limited to the technologies identified in the RFI responses and additional interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs, and three strategic funded initiatives that are more than likely to be a subset of currently funded related work. However it has allowed the first stage of a gap analysis as well as recommendations for next steps. These are captured below: • The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is increasingly important to ensure that all relevant material can be found quickly with the rapidly expanding volume of material to be considered. This is relevant not only within a force but across forces as material may have been captured by other forces that is relevant to the case in question. • This capability is a more general requirement for the investigation process with some e-Disclosure specific requirement. This review has not identified any related planned delivery. Review: There are a number of tools identified that appear to provide a good level of capability, providing the material has been imported into a system and is easily found for review. The number of tools does however highlight the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. • The consistent extraction, import or ingest of material is critical to e-Disclosure. Process or procedural improvement is out of the scope of this review but is being considered by the wider NDIP. • Technology is advancing in this area with advanced search capabilities, AI supported data mining, and the potential for alerts on saved searches which would support the requirement to keep disclosure under review throughout the life of a case. • Recommendation: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the roll out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Consideration of advancing and new technologies that could provide an enhanced solution should also be included in this investigation. • This capability is a more general requirement for the investigation process with some e-Disclosure specific requirements including the capture of the evidential audit trail for electronic material. The Digital Case File work in the scope of the DF Programme may also deliver supporting capability. i.e. it will not assist with the review, only with the recording of the findings of the review. • Recommendation: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review, along with the work undertaken on the Digital Case File part of the DF Programme and any other relevant nationally funded initiatives should be undertaken to identify if there is a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Analysis: Similar to search, the tools identified provide some capability, however the range highlights the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the ability to perform effective analysis and identify links or combinations of material relevant for disclosure in policing. It also highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. • The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is even more important for analysis as it supports the enrichment of data leading to an increased ability to find links and identify combinations of material relevant for e-Disclosure. • Technology is rapidly expanding in this area, in particular with AI advances, but there are initiatives with a broader remit in this area that should include e-Disclosure use cases. The DII programme has analytical capabilities in its scope as well as enabling aspects such as national IHM and digital material storage requirement standards, and the NDAS programme which is particularly focussed on analytics. • Recommendation: There are a number of aspects across the identified related initiatives that have analytical capabilities and technologies in scope. These should be engaged with, along with any other related funded work to ensure that the needs of e-Disclosure are being considered. Record output of review, search and analysis: Although there are capabilities that provide an audit trail of searches and acquisition activities, this review has not identified any technology that particularly supports the effective and efficient capture of an audit trail of findings and conclusions with any supporting reasoning. This is related to the work being undertaken by Digital First regarding 'Digital Case File' • The conclusions to be made and recorded here require understanding of any handling caveats or sensitivities of the material which should be captured in the indexing or cataloguing of the material, the completeness of the evidential audit trail, as well as the ability to effectively reference or link to the data so that it can be easily found. • The indexing and cataloguing aspect that supports this activity is being considered under the DII programme scope that includes the development of a national IHM (Information Handling Model), and digital material storage requirement standards. The only initiative identified that may be considering the Record aspect of the process is the NDIP. • Recommendation: Further engagement with national programmes and NDDB, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the recording requirements of e-Disclosure are being considered. Assess: The technologies identified against this stage in the process are used to view the material or redo or review analysis that supports the relevance of the material for disclosure. • Key to the efficiency of this activity is the ability to quickly view / review the material and understand any sensitivities or handling caveats that need to be considered. • The indexing and cataloguing aspect that supports this activity is part of the DII programme scope that includes the development of a national IHM. • Recommendation: Further engagement with the DII Programme, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the e-Disclosure assessment requirements are being considered. Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Technology can support this through the automatic generation of required documentation based on information captured in the previous Record stage. Only one technology has been identified in this review that supports this activity. Once again this is highly relevant within the development of a Digital Case File. • Recommendation: Further investigation of this tool and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. systems with varying business processes and backup systems and little progress had been made in the area of transfer or accessibility of data. Since 2016, a number of forces have put in place solutions for the sharing of multimedia evidence (approximately 12, with more with plans to do so). These have primarily been focused on sharing of BWV, as a result of sharing solutions being offered by the manufacturers of the cameras themselves. • Recommendation: Further investigation of the existing capabilities including the work under DF to ensure that any e-Disclosure specific requirements are being met. Share: Technologies that support this activity have been identified in this review that appear to provide a good level of capability, and the DF Programme is also delivering a DETS and supporting the rollout of TWIF to those forces that have not already adopted this. A DF Landscape Review (2016) found that most England and Wales Police Forces still owned their digital storage in-house. Analysis identified that forces had multiple and often disparate ## 7. Recommendations And Suggested Next Steps This section presents the recommendations of this review, a hypothesis on the potential solution, and suggested next steps to address the identified gaps and recommendations. Technology Landscape Recommendations: The recommendations made as part of the Technology Landscape section are as follows: • Current Technology in Policing & Legal profession: Further work is required to identify other relevant technologies currently in use in policing and both criminal/civil legal profession to assess their capability against the requirements. • Planned Delivery: Further work is required to identify any other funded planned or ongoing initiatives to enable deduplication of effort and identify any gaps. Gap Analysis Recommendations: Based on the current technologies and planned deliveries identified and reviewed in this report, the recommendations made in the Gap Analysis are as follows: • Review: Ongoing investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review, along with the other relevant nationally funded initiatives, should be undertaken to identify if there is a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. • Search: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the role out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Consideration of advancing and new technologies that could provide an enhanced solution should also be included in this investigation. • Analysis: There are a few aspects across the identified related initiatives that have analytical capabilities and technologies in scope. These should be engaged with, along with any other related funded work to ensure that the needs of e-Disclosure are being considered. • Record output of review, search and analysis: The NDDB should continue to engage with national programmes and as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the recording requirements of e-Disclosure are being considered. • Assess: Continued engagement with the DII Programme, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the e-Disclosure assessment requirements are being considered. • Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Further examination of the tools (along with the work undertaken on the Digital Case File part of the DF Programme) and any others not identified in this review, may identify a preferred solution the role out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. • Share: Supplementary investigation of the existing capabilities including the work under DF to ensure that any e-Disclosure specific requirements are being met. Hypothesis: Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfalls is the rollout of a number of technologies, some currently in use and some new, with common APIs, linked together where possible with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of out dated technologies, and provide the opportunity to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. Whilst being cognisant of the necessary differences between forces and in priorities, this rollout should be as wide as possible, and scalable, to encourage consistency in both process and technology across policing to enable better coordination. The most important parts of the technical solution are likely to be the supporting technology, the common or compatible storage, standards, indexing and cataloguing. Without these the key capabilities of review, search and analysis (which also apply across the rest of the investigation process) cannot be efficient or effective, particularly between forces. Next Steps: Based on the business challenges and statements of need highlighted in this review, as well as the identified gaps and associated recommendations, the suggested next step would be to assess the above hypothesis as part of an e-Disclosure Outline Business Case that will: • Conduct more in-depth reviews with representative police forces, including: • Capturing the 'as is' process • Supporting technologies already in use, and • Supporting any other related funded initiatives; • Engage with the related policing or government initiatives, pilots, proof of concepts to ascertain whether they are addressing any e-Disclosure requirements pertinent to their scope to de-duplicate effort, identify any gaps and seize any opportunities for collaborative working. • Identify and assess potential options to deliver against the e-Disclosure requirements that have no other identified delivery mechanism. • Conduct assessments of existing proof of concepts/pilots to select a preferred solution(s) and identify the funding to support the delivery of an e-Disclosure solution(s) that addresses the key business needs and capability gaps whilst delivering the required business outcomes and benefits. Visit our Knowledge Hub pages https://knowledgehub.group/group/ digital-policing-portfolio-dpp On the NPCC website www.npcc.police.uk/ NPCCBusinessAreas/ ReformandTransformation/ Digitalpolicing.aspx Follow us @UKDigitalPol @DIIPolice www.vimeo.com/digitalpolicing	en
3684-pdf	## Questions And Answers Llyn Tegid Safety Works What's the work being planned for Llyn Tegid? The embankments are being investigated for their ability to withstand extreme flood events. This includes an assessment of their height, composition and erosion protection measures such as the stone wave protection on the upstream face. The embankments included in the assessment run along the lake shore from the Bala Adventure and Watersports Centre, around the Enterprise Park bordering the River Dee and Tryweryn, up as far as the A494 bridge. Why is the work necessary? The work is necessary to ensure that Llyn Tegid continues to meet the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975 and remains safe in the long term. Llyn Tegid is regulated under the Act which requires regular inspections by qualified reservoir Inspecting Engineers. At the last inspection in 2014 some statutory recommendations were made to which this scheme relates. When will it start? Construction work is extremely unlikely to start before Spring/ Summer 2019 depending on planning and other approvals that may be necessary. When will the work be completed? The project is at a very early stage and it is not possible to be definitive about timescales before a solution has been agreed. At this stage it is estimated that the construction may not be completed until 2021. How much disruption can we expect? It is likely that sections of footpaths may have to be closed and diverted for limited periods. There will also be increased construction traffic related to the works. However, the construction phase of the project will be carefully managed to minimise the amount of disruption to the local community. Where possible, work will be phased and affected stakeholders will be consulted on the approach adopted. How are you considering the exceptional environmental quality of the lake and its surroundings? Llyn Tegid is situated in the Snowdonia National Park and the embankments are within environmentally sensitive areas of international importance. Sympathetic solutions will be explored and opportunities identified to enhance the environment in line with the requirements under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. We will be consulting closely with Snowdonia National Park Authority, our own natural resources team responsible for the protected sites affected, and other key stakeholders to ensure that all possible solutions are appropriately assessed, impacts minimised and enhancement opportunities identified. What about the impact on people's recreational use of the lake and shore? Recreational use of the lake itself is very unlikely to be affected by the scheme. However, there may be some disruption to sections of footpaths during the project, which will be minimised as far as possible. What about the impact on tourism? The construction works will be managed sensitively to minimise any potential impacts on tourism. We will consult fully with the local community and other key stakeholders as the solution is developed to make sure that it is delivered in an acceptable way. In the long term, we hope the scheme will have a positive impact on tourism and the local economy. Maintaining the access along the lake shore and its magnificent views are a key consideration during the appraisal process. What will be the first thing we'll see? Over the coming months, you may see increased investigation activity in the area. This is to help provide technical background information on which options can be evaluated and developed. This is likely to include ground investigation works, topographical and environmental surveys. Whilst this will be highly visible, they are all relatively short duration activities. We will have to make some minor footpath diversions to ensure public safety, however this should not adversely affect your enjoyment of the local environment. When can we have our say and learn more? We are engaging with key stakeholders throughout the appraisal process and will be keeping our website page up to date. Once we have identified the extent of the work required, we will hold drop-in sessions for people to learn more about the work and to take on board your views and requirements as we design the work in more detail. Who is doing the work? We have appointed engineering consultancy firm Black & Veatch to undertake the initial appraisal phase of work. Subsequent detailed design work will be competitively tendered at the appropriate time. Who will consent the project? Snowdonia National Park Authority will be responsible for determining planning permission for the project. There are also other permissions that will need to be obtained from Natural Resources Wales. Whilst part of the same organisation, technical and permitting staff operate independently and impartially with respect to their assessments. Will trees be removed? It is possible that some trees may have to be removed depending on the extent of works required at different locations. This will only be done if necessary and environmental mitigation and enhancement opportunities will be identified to offset any potential impact. All trees that could be affected will be fully assessed in an arboricultural survey and other habitat surveys as necessary so that their removal is appropriately managed. Does this affect the planned Railway project We are aware of the proposed extension to the Bala Lake Railway and are working closely with them to understand the requirements of their scheme and how the interactions with this project could be managed. Will the project affect the risk of flooding in Bala? We are managing the risk of flooding to Bala in the long term and improving the safety of the embankments. This project will not increase the risk of flooding in the town and is likely to reduce the overall flood risk in the more extreme events. Will the capacity of the lake be increased? The capacity of the lake will not be increased. Will the embankments be raised? It may be necessary to provide additional resilience in targeted locations, but there are significant sections of the embankment that are likely to remain at their current level. If defence levels do need to be increased in specific areas, this could be done in a number of ways including the construction of wave walls. Embankment raising is a possibility and is being assessed alongside other options at this stage. How does water regulation work at Llyn Tegid? Llyn Tegid, Wales' largest natural lake, first became a reservoir in the 19th Century. To guarantee a supply of water to the Shropshire Union Canal, Thomas Telford built sluices at the outlet of Llyn Tegid. Water released through these sluices was abstracted into the canal at Horseshoe Falls, Llangollen. Then, in the 1950's, the Dee and Clwyd River Board built the Bala Lake Scheme. The lake's natural outlet was lowered (bypassing Telford's original sluices), and new sluice gates were built downstream of the confluence with the Afon Tryweryn. Embankments were built to contain water stored behind the sluice gates and to provide flood protection to the town of Bala. This provided around 21,000,000 m3 (cubic metres) of controllable, stored water in Llyn Tegid. This storage capability means that Llyn Tegid is considered a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. Today this reservoir is operated, alongside Llyn Celyn and Llyn Brenig, to ensure a continuous supply of water for abstraction from the River Dee. This can reach up to around 830 Ml/d (Megalitres per day), by three water companies and the Canal and Rivers Trust. In addition, flood water run-off is detained in Llyn Tegid, in a short-term and controlled way, to greatly reduce the frequency and extent of flooding in the Dee Valley downstream of Bala. March 2018	en
3807-pdf	## 'Measuring Up'Annual Rail Consumer Report 2018/19 At A Glance Summary Ticketing Retailing - Passenger Information - Assisted Travel - Complaints And Redress 'Measuring Up' focuses on the performance of train companies and Network Rail in the consumer areas we regulate. It summarises our key activities designed to secure improvements for passengers, highlights success and shows where progress has been made and where action has been necessary. The full report is available on our website: www.orr.gov.uk ## Office Of Rail And Road Office Of Rail And Road Office Of Rail And Road Ticket Retailing Our Role Is Focused On Ensuring Passengers Get Good Information When Choosing, Buying And Using Rail Tickets. In 2018/19 - Language around season ticket T&Cs was We completed research on passenger awareness and confusing understanding of key ticket restrictions and terms - Concerns about unclear information relating to and conditions (T&C) when buying and using tickets. fees for refunds Key findings: - Off-peak T&Cs had the lowest awareness - The low cost of rail tickets did not merit spending time reading T&Cs - We will work with industry stakeholders to improve the prominence, clarity and understanding of key terms and conditions - We will take steps to raise passenger awareness via social media and our website on key terms and conditions and passenger rights ## Passenger Information Our Role Is Focused On Ensuring Passengers Receive The Right Information At The Right Time To Help Plan Their Journey. In 2018/19 We undertook a formal investigation into whether Northern and GTR, on its Great Northern and Thameslink routes, had breached their passenger information licence obligations in the lead up to and after the 20 May timetable change. Key findings: - For Northern, we found that the company was not in breach of its licence - For GTR, we issued a £5m fine for failing to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers following the timetable change - We will publish the results of our research and will work with Network Rail, train companies and stakeholders to implement the findings Passengers need good information to help them to plan and make journeys. However, they often remain dissatisfied with how the rail industry performs when it comes to providing this. So we have commissioned research designed to put passengers at the front and centre of train companies thinking so that appropriate information is easily available when and where it is needed. ## Assisted Travel Our Role Is To Make Sure Passengers Needing Assistance To Travel Understand What Help Is Available And Can Use The Railway With Confidence. In 2018/19 There were circa 1.3 million booked assists, an increase of 2% on the year before. We have continued to monitor train companies performance via independent research with those passengers who have booked assistance to understand whether they received it and whether they were satisfied with it. Key findings: of the relevan - Nearly 5,000 passengers interviewed We have publi - 76% received all of the assistance they had to improve th booked information to - We will publish the outcome of our consultation and revised guidance on providing assistance to disabled passengers for train companies, and the timetable for submission of new policies to meet the guidance. - We will establish a regular forum with disabled people's organisations, including users of assisted travel, to consult on accessibility issues ## Complaints And Redress Our Role Is Dedicated To Ensuring Complaints Are Dealt With In A Fair And Effective Way, And When They Aren'T, That Passengers Have Access To A Means Of Independent Redress. In 2018/19 upon new enhanced monitoring data for delay There were 30.1 complaints per 100,000 journeys for compensation and have focused on the variance in franchised train companies, 22.4% of these related performance between companies. to punctuality / reliability. An average of 94.3% of Key findings: complaints were closed within the required 95% - 5.3m claims were closed within 20 working days. - 95.4% claims were closed within 20 working We also consulted on making membership of the days Rail Ombudsman a licence requirement to give passengers long-term certainty of access to binding - 16.4% of closed claims were not approved redress. Train companies consented to making their The proportion of due compensation paid to voluntary participation an obligation. passengers (the difference between due and paid ie For the first time, we have been able to draw 'compensation gap') remained stable since 2017. - We will publish our research on reviewing complaints handling in other regulated sectors where they e receiving from have an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme, and draw upon the new data we ar the Rail Ombudsman. - We will undertake further analysis of delay compensation data, with a focus on the performance in relation to rejection rates. - 85% were satisfied with the process from booking to receiving assistance Securing improvement to the services received by disabled passengers is an important area of focus for us. This year we have engaged extensively with various stakeholders, held workshops, and carried out station visits to ensure we obtained a full picture t issues. shed our consultation proposals e experience of assisted travel and disabled passengers. difference in www.orr.gov.uk @railandroad	en
3132-pdf	## Hm Revenue & Customs Hospitality Register 1 April 2014 - 30 June 2014 ## Lin Homer, Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 14 June ARC Dinner 17 June Warwick Africa Breakfast Edward Troup, Tax Assurance Commissioner & Second Permanent Secretary Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 3 April The President & Association of Taxation Technicians Drinks Reception 21 May CBI Annual Reception, Dinner and Champagne. 11 June Law Society Summer Party - Drinks Reception 17 June Scottish Financial Enterprise Drinks Reception Ruth Owen, Director General, Personal Tax Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 19 June Jaguar Land Rover Dinner and wine - transport was also provided to and from plant to station. Nick Lodge, Director General, Benefits & Credits Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Jim Harra, Director General, Business Tax Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 8 April CATA Glass of Wine and Canapes Jennie Granger, Director General, Enforcement and Compliance Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 28 May Strategic Alliance Group Drinks Reception Simon Bowles, Chief Finance Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil William Hague, Chief People Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Gill Aitken, General Counsel and Solicitor Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Mark Dearnley, Chief Digital and Information Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 6 April Cloudera Dinner 8 April Adobe Dinner Ian Barlow, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Volker Beckers, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Norman Pickavance, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil John Whiting, Non-Executive Director Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Edwina Dunn, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Paul Smith, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Leslie Ferrar, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Philippa Hird, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Does not include attendance at functions hosted by HM Government or the Royal Household; 'diplomatic' functions in the UK or abroad which are hosted by overseas governments; minor refreshments at meetings, receptions, conferences, and seminars; or offers of hospitality which were declined.	en
2889-pdf	# Monthly Report: Surveillance Project Sb4008 Ifng Tests For Bovine Tuberculosis (Tc0651 And Tc0751) Number 164 # Report Period 1St - 30Th April 2020 ## Operational Notes On Terminology, Definitions, Re-Test And Re-Samples Test Outcomes: - "Samples" refers to an individual tube of blood taken from an individual animal which is subsequently submitted for testing. It is generally assumed that the number of samples and the number of animals are analogous as any duplicate sample blood tube from the same animal will not be tested. However, minor discrepancies may occur where the same animal is tested more than once due to a request for a resample or the animal is tested twice under different categories (for example, as a PAR-RAPID and then as part of a PAR-HERD-S). - "Submissions" refers to an individual batch or set of samples received for testing. Submissions may comprise 1 or more samples (for example, if an entire herd is being tested it is usually sent as 1 submission). It is generally assumed that the number of submissions and the number of herds are analogous. - Retests are samples where the first ELISA assay fails and the same sample is retested on a new ELISA plate. Each sample can be retested only once. A retest is not a reportable test outcome. - Resamples are where a sample has been retested and failed a second time, so that the lab requests a new sample. This is a reportable test outcome. - Rejects are samples that are not tested by the lab for one of the following reasons: blood collected into wrong type of vacutainer, samples that have not been maintained at the appropriate temperature range (22±5C), unlabelled samples, broken or cracked tubes, blood that is extensively clotted (small clots are OK), samples received after 4pm on the day after sample collection. Such samples are reported separately in the tables and in figure 5. - POS (pokeweed mitogen) is a sample positive control reagent which provides a measure of the quality/viability of the blood sample. A POS fail (< 0.45 optical density reading) may indicate compromised blood quality as a result of collection/transportation conditions or due the animal having an unusually low/suppressed cellular immune response. - NEG (no-antigen control) is a sample negative control which provides a measure of the background antigen-independent IFN- responses. A NEG fail (> 0.3 optical density reading) may indicate a laboratory procedures problem (normally resolved during re-test) or that an animal has unusually high background levels of IFN-g. ## Test Criteria \| Submission Reason \| Explanation \| \|-----------------------------------------------------\|----------------------\| \| Possible Herd Slaughter \| \| \| (PAR-HERD-S) \| \| \| Parallel interferon-gamma blood testing of skin \| \| \| test negative cattle to inform whole or partial \| \| \| herd slaughters decisions \| \| \| Parallel blood testing of skin test-negative cattle \| \| \| in persistently infected herds that have failed to \| \| \| resolve by repeated short-interval skin testing \| \| \| and fulfill a minimum of biosecurity standards. \| \| \| Persistent TB breakdowns \| \| \| (OTF status withdrawn) \| \| \| (PAR-P-CONF) N.B. \| \| \| PAR-PERSIS from 1st April \| \| \| 2017 \| \| \| Parallel - Low Incidence \| \| \| (PAR-LOW-IN) N.B. \| \| \| PAR-NEW-IN from 1st April \| \| \| 2017 \| \| \| Parallel blood testing to maximise the \| \| \| probability of removing all infected cattle in a \| \| \| new herd breakdown as soon as possible after \| \| \| confirmation of TB. \| \| \| Rapid Testing of twice IR's \| \| \| (PAR-RAPID) \| \| \| Parallel blood testing of two-times IRs identified \| \| \| under the severe interpretation of the skin test \| \| \| used in Wales. \| \| \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| \| Parallel blood testing to maximise the \| \| \| probability of removing all infected cattle in a \| \| \| new breakdown as soon as possible after \| \| \| confirmation of TB where herd is situated in \| \| \| badger control areas of England that have \| \| \| completed at least 2 effective culls. \| \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| \| \| Parallel blood testing to maximise the \| \| \| probability of removing all infected cattle in a \| \| \| persistent confirmed breakdown where herd is \| \| \| situated within badger control areas of England \| \| \| that have completed at least 2 effective culls \| \| \| Parallel Other \| \| \| (PAR-OTHER) \| \| \| Other parallel blood testing not covered in any \| \| \| of the other scenarios \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion) \| \| \| 'NSR' Herds (SER-NSR) \| \| \| Modified serial blood testing of individual skin \| \| \| test reactors and/or IRs in unconfirmed TB \| \| \| breakdown herds to clarify their infection status \| \| \| where there is evidence of non-specific \| \| \| sensitisation to bovine tuberculin (the \| \| \| "non-specific reactor" procedure) \| \| \| Suspected Fraud \| \| \| (SER-FRAUD) \| \| \| Modified serial blood test of suspected \| \| \| fraudulent reactors to the skin test (animals with \| \| \| abnormal skin swellings), in confirmed or \| \| \| unconfirmed TB incidents. \| \| \| Serial Other \| \| \| (SER-OTHER) \| \| \| Serial test - other reasons \| NO (APHA Discretion) \| \| SER-FLEXI \| \| \| Extended blood test to provide flexible test \| \| \| readout in a confirmed M. bovis-infected herd \| \| \| where Johne's (M. a. paratuberculosis) infection \| \| \| or vaccination is suspected to be interferring \| \| \| with M. bovis infection detection \| \| \| YES, if APHA are \| \| \| contemplating a herd \| \| \| slaughter \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion) \| \| \| YES in Area of Low \| \| \| Incidence \| \| \| YES (Wales only) \| \| \| YES (in eligible badger \| \| \| control areas of England) \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion) \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion) \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion to \| \| \| firm up or rule out any \| \| \| suspicion of fraud and \| \| \| support any \| \| \| investigations) \| \| \| NO (APHA discretion) \| \| \| % \| Total 2020 \| % \| \|-------------------------\|--------------------------\|----------\| \| Num \| \| \| \| samples \| \| \| \| April 2020 \| \| \| \| Submissions \| 184 \| 1112 \| \| Samples \| Total (%) \| 10928 \| \| England \| 7482 \| 68.47 % \| \| Wales \| 2984 \| 27.31 % \| \| Scotland \| 462 \| 4.23 % \| \| Parallel Tests \| PAR-CUL-N \| 1461 \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 917 \| 8.39 % \| \| PAR-HERD-S \| 28 \| 0.26 % \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 7338 \| 67.15 % \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 133 \| 1.22 % \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 898 \| 8.22 % \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 142 \| 1.30 % \| \| Total(% of all samples) \| 10917 \| 99.90 % \| \| Serial/Extended Tests \| SER-FLEXI \| 11 \| \| SER-FRAUD \| 0 \| 0.00 % \| \| SER-NSR \| 0 \| 0.00 % \| \| Total(% of all samples) \| 11 \| 0.10 % \| \| Total \| 10928 \| 100.00 % \| \| Retests \| Total (% of all samples) \| 687 \| \| England \| 482 \| 4.41 % \| \| Wales \| 187 \| 1.71 % \| \| Scotland \| 18 \| 0.16 % \| \| Resamples \| Total (% of all samples) \| 535 \| \| England \| 379 \| 3.47 % \| \| Wales \| 142 \| 1.30 % \| \| Scotland \| 14 \| 0.13 % \| \| Rejects \| Total (% of all samples) \| 3 \| \| England \| 0 \| 0.00 % \| \| Wales \| 3 \| 0.03 % \| \| Scotland \| 0 \| 0.00 % \| PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other \| PAR-CUL-N \| 1461 \| 13.4 % \| \|-------------\|--------\|----------\| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 917 \| 8.4 % \| \| PAR-HERD-S \| 28 \| 0.3 % \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 7338 \| 67.1 % \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 133 \| 1.2 % \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 898 \| 8.2 % \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 142 \| 1.3 % \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 11 \| 0.1 % \| \| Total \| 10928 \| 100.00 % \| Breakdown of Samples submitted by County (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2A. Summary By County For April 2020 \| Country \| County \| \|-----------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| England - HRA \| Corn & Scilly \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 2 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| Devon \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| Dorset \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 1 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| Gloucs \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| Shropshire \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| Somerset excl N \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| England - Edge \| Berks \| \| Bucks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Cheshire \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Derbyshire \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| E Sussex \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Leics & Rut \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Northants \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Oxon \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Warks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| England - LRA \| Gr Manchester \| \| N Yorks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| England \| \| \| 67 \| 7482 \| \| Wales - High TB \| Carms \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 3 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 3 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 9 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. \| Country \| County \| \|-------------------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| Ceredigion \| PAR-OTHER \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 6 \| \| Gwent \| PAR-RAPID \| \| Pembs \| PAR-OTHER \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 7 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 16 \| \| Powys \| PAR-HERD-S \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 3 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 6 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 1 \| \| S Wales \| PAR-RAPID \| \| Wales - Intermediate TB \| Carms \| \| NE Wales \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 2 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 2 \| \| Powys \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| S Glamorgan \| PAR-RAPID \| \| Wales - Low TB \| Gwynedd \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 1 \| \| NE Wales \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 1 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 1 \| \| Wales \| \| \| 112 \| 2984 \| \| Scotland - Scotland \| Argyll & Bute \| \| Kirkcudbright \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Wigtown \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Scotland \| \| \| 5 \| 462 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. \| Country \| County \| \|-------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| Grand Total \| Sum: \| For test criteria please refer to Operational notes. Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2B. Summary By County For 2020 \| Country \| County \| \|-----------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| England - HRA \| Corn & Scilly \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 6 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 17 \| \| Devon \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 7 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 3 \| \| Dorset \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 6 \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 2 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 5 \| \| Gloucs \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| Heref \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 3 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 2 \| \| Shropshire \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 7 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 3 \| \| Somerset excl N \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 1 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 2 \| \| Staffs \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| Wiltshire \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-CUL-P \| 4 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 2 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. \| Country \| County \| \|-----------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 2 \| \| England - Edge \| Berks \| \| Bucks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Cheshire \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 68 \| \| Derbyshire \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| E Sussex \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Hampshire \| PAR-CUL-N \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 8 \| \| Leics & Rut \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Northants \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Notts \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Oxon \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Warks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| England - LRA \| Cumbria \| \| Gr Manchester \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Humberside \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Lincs \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Norfolk \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| N Yorks \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Surrey \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| England \| \| \| 615 \| 73317 \| \| Wales - High TB \| Carms \| \| PAR-NEW-IN \| 1 \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 14 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 24 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 28 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 2 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2B. Summary By County For 2020 Cont. \| Country \| County \| \|-------------------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| Ceredigion \| PAR-HERD-S \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 8 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 16 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 13 \| \| Gwent \| PAR-HERD-S \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 13 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 10 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 3 \| \| Pembs \| PAR-HERD-S \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 36 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 54 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 39 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 3 \| \| Powys \| PAR-HERD-S \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 9 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 28 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 13 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 10 \| \| S Wales \| PAR-PERSIS \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 1 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 1 \| \| W Glamorgan \| PAR-OTHER \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 2 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 1 \| \| Wales - Intermediate TB \| Carms \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 4 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 3 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 3 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. \| Country \| County \| \|---------------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| Ceredigion \| PAR-PERSIS \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 1 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 2 \| \| NE Wales \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 1 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 10 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 7 \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 7 \| \| Powys \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 1 \| \| S Glamorgan \| PAR-RAPID \| \| SER-FLEXI \| 3 \| \| Wales - Low TB \| Gwynedd \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 1 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 2 \| \| NE Wales \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| PAR-OTHER \| 1 \| \| PAR-PERSIS \| 1 \| \| PAR-RAPID \| 1 \| \| Wales \| \| \| 471 \| 17590 \| \| Scotland - Scotland \| Argyll & Bute \| \| Ayrshire \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Berwickshire \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Dumfries & G \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Kirkcudbright \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Wigtown \| PAR-NEW-IN \| \| Scotland \| \| \| 26 \| 2662 \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. \| Country \| County \| \|-------------\|----------------\| \| Submission \| \| \| Reasons* \| \| \| No. \| \| \| subs \| \| \| Samples \| Gamma Positive \| \| n \| % of total \| \| Grand Total \| Sum: \| For test criteria please refer to Operational notes. Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 3A. Summary Of Ifn Gamma Results By Country And Protocol April 2020 \| Country \| Protocol \| \|-----------------\|--------------\| \| No \| \| \| submissions \| Samples \| \| n \| % of total n \| \| England \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 0 \| \| Total \| 67 \| \| Scotland \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 0 \| \| Total \| 5 \| \| Wales \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 3 \| \| Total \| 112 \| \| GB \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 3 \| \| Total \| 184 \| \| 67.00 \| \| \| 112.00 \| \| \| 5.00 \| \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. ## Table 3B. Summary Of Ifn Gamma Results By Country And Protocol (Total 2020) \| Country \| Protocol \| \|-----------------\|--------------\| \| No \| \| \| submissions \| Samples \| \| n \| % of total n \| \| England \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 13 \| \| Total \| 615 \| \| Scotland \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 0 \| \| Total \| 26 \| \| Wales \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 32 \| \| Total \| 471 \| \| GB \| Parallel \| \| Serial/Extended \| 45 \| \| Total \| 1112 \| \| 615.00 \| \| \| 471.00 \| \| \| 26.00 \| \| * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. Submission Reason No submissions Samples Gamma Positive Gamma Negatives Retest Resample Reject n % of total n % n % n % n % n % GB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 3 11 0.1% 1 9.1% 9 81.8% 2 18.2 % 1 9.1 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 28 0.3% 2 7.1% 25 89.3% 1 3.6 % 1 3.6 % 0 Parallel New Infection 69 7338 67.1% 200 2.7% 6786 92.5% 458 6.2 % 349 4.8 % 3 0.0 % Parallel - new infection cull area 24 1461 13.4% 64 4.4% 1328 90.9% 85 5.8 % 69 4.7 % 0 Parallel - Other 22 133 1.2% 23 17.3% 103 77.4% 8 6.0 % 7 5.3 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 16 898 8.2% 58 6.5% 772 86.0% 82 9.1 % 68 7.6 % 0 Parallel - persistent infection cull area 3 917 8.4% 32 3.5% 860 93.8% 35 3.8 % 25 2.7 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 44 142 1.3% 28 19.7% 99 69.7% 16 11.3 % 15 10.6 % 0 Total 184 10928 100.0% 408 3.7% 9982 91.3% 687 6.3 % 535 4.9 % 3 0.0 % England - HRA Parallel - new infection cull area 24 1461 13.4% 64 4.4% 1328 90.9% 85 5.8 % 69 4.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 2 616 5.6% 42 6.8% 523 84.9% 64 10.4 % 51 8.3 % 0 Parallel - persistent infection cull area 3 917 8.4% 32 3.5% 860 93.8% 35 3.8 % 25 2.7 % 0 England - HRA 29 2994 27.4% 138 4.6% 2711 90.5% 184 6.1 % 145 4.8 % 0 England - Edge Parallel New Infection 33 3946 36.1% 111 2.8% 3630 92.0% 260 6.6 % 205 5.2 % 0 England - Edge 33 3946 36.1% 111 2.8% 3630 92.0% 260 6.6 % 205 5.2 % 0 England - LRA Parallel New Infection 5 542 5.0% 5 0.9% 508 93.7% 38 7.0 % 29 5.4 % 0 England - LRA 5 542 5.0% 5 0.9% 508 93.7% 38 7.0 % 29 5.4 % 0 Wales - High TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 1 1 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 28 0.3% 2 7.1% 25 89.3% 1 3.6 % 1 3.6 % 0 Parallel - Other 18 111 1.0% 20 18.0% 85 76.6% 7 6.3 % 6 5.4 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 14 282 2.6% 16 5.7% 249 88.3% 18 6.4 % 17 6.0 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 39 126 1.2% 27 21.4% 87 69.0% 13 10.3 % 12 9.5 % 0 Wales - High TB 75 548 5.0% 65 11.9% 446 81.4% 40 7.3 % 37 6.8 % 0 Wales - Intermediate TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 2 10 0.1% 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 1 10.0 % 0 0 Parallel New Infection 13 1085 9.9% 60 5.5% 965 88.9% 74 6.8 % 59 5.4 % 1 0.1 % Parallel - Other 3 17 0.2% 3 17.6% 13 76.5% 1 5.9 % 1 5.9 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 3 4 0.0% 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 0 0 0 Wales - Intermediate TB 21 1116 10.2% 65 5.8% 990 88.7% 76 6.8 % 60 5.4 % 1 0.1 % Wales - Low TB Parallel New Infection 13 1303 11.9% 15 1.2% 1244 95.5% 68 5.2 % 42 3.2 % 2 0.2 % Parallel - Other 1 5 0.0% 0 0.0 % 5 100.0% 0 0 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 2 12 0.1% 0 0.0 % 9 75.0% 3 25.0 % 3 25.0 % 0 Wales - Low TB 16 1320 12.1% 15 1.1% 1258 95.3% 71 5.4 % 45 3.4 % 2 0.2 % Scotland - Scotland Parallel New Infection 5 462 4.2% 9 1.9% 439 95.0% 18 3.9 % 14 3.0 % 0 Scotland - Scotland 5 462 4.2% 9 1.9% 439 95.0% 18 3.9 % 14 3.0 % 0 Submission Reason No submissions Samples Gamma Positive Gamma Negatives Retest Resample Reject n % of total n % n % n % n % n % GB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 45 1868 2.0% 129 6.9% 1673 89.6% 104 5.6 % 64 3.4 % 2 0.1 % Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 21 307 0.3% 29 9.4% 268 87.3% 21 6.8 % 10 3.3 % 0 Parallel New Infection 376 42815 45.8% 1197 2.8% 38177 89.2% 2693 6.3 % 2167 5.1 % 1274 3.0 % Parallel - new infection cull area 265 29044 31.0% 1180 4.1% 26014 89.6% 1784 6.1 % 1391 4.8 % 459 1.6 % Parallel - Other 76 1755 1.9% 152 8.7% 1471 83.8% 153 8.7 % 132 7.5 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 186 12507 13.4% 757 6.1% 11042 88.3% 871 7.0 % 686 5.5 % 22 0.2 % Parallel - persistent infection cull area 24 4832 5.2% 291 6.0% 4339 89.8% 274 5.7 % 201 4.2 % 1 0.0 % Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 119 441 0.5% 93 21.1% 321 72.8% 30 6.8 % 27 6.1 % 0 Total 1112 93569 100.0% 3828 4.1% 83305 89.0% 5930 6.3 % 4678 5.0 % 1758 1.9 % England - HRA Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 13 1224 1.3% 70 5.7% 1113 90.9% 59 4.8 % 41 3.3 % 0 Parallel New Infection 5 415 0.4% 15 3.6% 363 87.5% 49 11.8 % 36 8.7 % 1 0.2 % Parallel - new infection cull area 261 28630 30.6% 1164 4.1% 25645 89.6% 1735 6.1 % 1364 4.8 % 457 1.6 % Parallel Persistent Infection 32 5574 6.0% 283 5.1% 5025 90.2% 348 6.2 % 263 4.7 % 3 0.1 % Parallel - persistent infection cull area 24 4832 5.2% 291 6.0% 4339 89.8% 274 5.7 % 201 4.2 % 1 0.0 % England - Edge Parallel New Infection 251 30443 32.5% 890 2.9% 27138 89.1% 1899 6.2 % 1525 5.0 % 890 2.9 % Parallel - new infection cull area 4 414 0.4% 16 3.9% 369 89.1% 49 11.8 % 27 6.5 % 2 0.5 % England - LRA Parallel New Infection 25 1785 1.9% 40 2.2% 1364 76.4% 82 4.6 % 67 3.8 % 314 17.6 % England 615 73317 78.4% 2769 3.8% 65356 89.1% 4495 6.1 % 3524 4.8 % 1668 2.3 % Wales - High TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 20 454 0.5% 42 9.3% 398 87.7% 31 6.8 % 14 3.1 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 18 277 0.3% 24 8.7% 244 88.1% 18 6.5 % 9 3.2 % 0 Parallel New Infection 1 8 0.0% 2 25.0% 6 75.0% 0 0 0 Parallel - Other 68 1704 1.8% 147 8.6% 1429 83.9% 147 8.6 % 128 7.5 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 138 6211 6.6% 386 6.2% 5415 87.2% 484 7.8 % 391 6.3 % 19 0.3 % Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 104 397 0.4% 86 21.7% 289 72.8% 25 6.3 % 22 5.5 % 0 Wales - Intermediate TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 12 190 0.2% 17 8.9% 162 85.3% 14 7.4 % 9 4.7 % 2 1.1 % Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 30 0.0% 5 16.7% 24 80.0% 3 10.0 % 1 3.3 % 0 ## Table 4B. Summaryof Ifn Gamma Results By Submission Reason (Total 2020) Cont. Parallel New Infection 43 4849 5.2% 143 2.9% 4402 90.8% 351 7.2 % 303 6.2 % 1 0.0 % Parallel - Other 6 45 0.0% 5 11.1% 37 82.2% 5 11.1 % 3 6.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 15 682 0.7% 88 12.9% 570 83.6% 29 4.3 % 24 3.5 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 12 31 0.0% 7 22.6% 22 71.0% 2 6.5 % 2 6.5 % 0 Wales - Low TB Parallel New Infection 25 2653 2.8% 32 1.2% 2508 94.5% 165 6.2 % 110 4.1 % 3 0.1 % Parallel - Other 2 6 0.0% 0 0.0 % 5 83.3% 1 16.7 % 1 16.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 1 40 0.0% 0 0.0 % 32 80.0% 10 25.0 % 8 20.0 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 3 13 0.0% 0 0.0 % 10 76.9% 3 23.1 % 3 23.1 % 0 Wales 471 17590 18.8% 984 5.6% 15553 88.4% 1288 7.3 % 1028 5.8 % 25 0.1 % Scotland - Scotland Parallel New Infection 26 2662 2.8% 75 2.8% 2396 90.0% 147 5.5 % 126 4.7 % 65 2.4 % Scotland 26 2662 2.8% 75 2.8% 2396 90.0% 147 5.5 % 126 4.7 % 65 2.4 % \| Year \| Month \| \|--------------\|---------\| \| Herds \| \| \| sampled \| \| \| Samples \| \| \| tested \| \| \| IFNg+ \| \| \| samples \| \| \| Wrong \| \| \| Eartags \| \| \| VL No \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Herds \| \| \| with \| \| \| positives \| \| \| No PM \| \| \| No \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| No PM \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Pend \| \| \| No PM \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Neg \| \| \| No PM \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Mb \| \| \| VL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Neg \| \| \| VL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Pend \| \| \| VL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Mb \| \| \| VL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Other \| \| \| NVL \| \| \| No \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| NVL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Pend \| \| \| NVL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Neg \| \| \| NVL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Mb \| \| \| NVL \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Other \| \| \| No \| \| \| PM \| \| \| Cult \| \| \| Other \| \| \| 2019 \| May \| \| June \| 287 \| \| July \| 316 \| \| August \| 262 \| \| September \| 245 \| \| October \| 298 \| \| November \| 272 \| \| December \| 234 \| \| 2020 \| January \| \| February \| 323 \| \| March \| 262 \| \| April \| 184 \| \| Totals (last \| \| \| 12 months) \| \| \| 3390 \| 310034 \| Country Herds sampled Samples tested IFNg+ samples VL No Cult Herds with positives No PM No Cult No PM Cult Pend No PM Cult Neg No PM Cult Mb VL Cult Neg VL Cult Pend VL Cult Mb VL Cult Other NVL No Cult NVL Cult Pend NVL Cult Neg NVL Cult Mb NVL Cult Other No PM Cult Other England 1951 245696 1194 8276 158 0 0 0 0 1049 8 2 43 2 6935 4 54 0 1 Scotland 45 4989 25 161 4 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 4 0 111 15 2 0 0 Wales 1394 59349 700 2834 89 0 0 0 0 116 8 5 21 5 1993 47 540 0 6 Totals 3390 310034 1919 11271 251 0 0 0 0 1189 16 7 68 7 9039 66 596 0 7 Includes all animals with IFNg test negative, resample and reject outcomes \| \| County \| %Resampled %Retested \| \|---------------\|----------\|------------------------\| \| Argyll & Bute \| 37.50 % \| 37.50 % \| \| Berks \| 6.77 % \| 8.83 % \| \| Bucks \| 8.33 % \| 12.50 % \| \| Carms \| 5.52 % \| 6.63 % \| \| Ceredigion \| 16.13 % \| 16.13 % \| \| Cheshire \| 5.01 % \| 6.22 % \| \| Corn & Scilly \| 2.39 % \| 3.53 % \| \| Derbyshire \| 3.83 % \| 4.14 % \| \| Devon \| 4.95 % \| 6.07 % \| \| Dorset \| 7.15 % \| 9.09 % \| \| E Sussex \| 5.06 % \| 5.52 % \| \| Gloucs \| 4.95 % \| 5.45 % \| \| Gr Manchester \| \| \| \| Gwent \| \| \| \| Gwynedd \| 3.48 % \| 5.54 % \| \| Kirkcudbright \| 2.35 % \| 3.53 % \| \| Leics & Rut \| 3.67 % \| 8.72 % \| \| NE Wales \| 4.80 % \| 6.58 % \| \| Northants \| 2.78 % \| 5.56 % \| \| N Yorks \| 5.37 % \| 7.04 % \| \| Oxon \| 8.33 % \| 10.42 % \| \| Pembs \| 6.87 % \| 7.22 % \| \| Powys \| 4.20 % \| 4.20 % \| S Glamorgan Shropshire Somerset excl N 5.00 % 5.00 % S Wales Warks 6.92 % 8.85 % Wigtown 1.66 % 2.49 % Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 7439 254 3.4% 7482 254 3.4% Wales 2923 145 5.0% 2984 145 4.9% Scotland 461 9 2.0% 462 9 1.9% GB 10823 408 3.8% 10928 408 3.7% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 23451 918 3.9% 23776 918 3.9% Wales 6535 217 3.3% 6544 217 3.3% GB 29986 1135 3.8% 30320 1135 3.7% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 69064 2769 4.0% 73317 2769 3.8% Wales 16751 983 5.9% 17590 984 5.6% Scotland 2517 75 3.0% 2662 75 2.8% GB 88332 3827 4.3% 93569 3828 4.1% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 86743 4519 5.2% 91395 4519 4.9% Wales 22260 1348 6.1% 23740 1348 5.7% Scotland 366 4 1.1% 366 4 1.1% GB 109369 5871 5.4% 115501 5871 5.1% % Positive samples % Positive samples % Positive samples % Positive samples Test type Num Submissions Num Samples Num Positives Private % Positive Total 0 0 0 \| % Positive \| * Test type \| \|-----------------\|---------------\| \| Num \| \| \| Submissions \| \| \| Num \| \| \| Samples \| \| \| Num \| \| \| Positives \| \| \| Private \| \| \| Cheshire \| PRV-SP \| \| Devon \| PRV-SE \| \| PRV-SP \| 1 \| \| Dorset \| PRV-SE \| \| PRV-SP \| 1 \| \| Gloucestershire \| PRV-SE \| \| Oxfordshire \| PRV-SP \| \| Staffordshire \| PRV-SE \| \| Worcestershire \| PRV-SP \| \| Total \| \| \| 9 \| \| \| 195 \| \| \| 3 \| 1.54 % \| \| Isle of Man \| SER-IOM \| *SER-IOM: Serial High Specificity test - Isle of Man; PRV-SE: Private High Sensitivity test - England; PRV-SP: Private High Specificity test - England \| \| Test \| County \| Num Submissions \| Num Samples Tested \| Num Positive Samples % Positive \| \|------------------\|-----------------\|----------\|-------------------\|----------------------\|-----------------------------------\| \| TC0077 \| Carmarthenshire \| 4 \| 29 \| 5 \| 17.2% \| \| Ceredigion \| 3 \| 19 \| 3 \| 15.8% \| \| \| North East Wales \| 2 \| 10 \| 1 \| 10.0% \| \| \| Pembrokeshire \| 12 \| 86 \| 22 \| 25.6% \| \| \| Powys \| 2 \| 20 \| 2 \| 10.0% \| \| \| South Wales \| 2 \| 7 \| 4 \| 57.1% \| \| \| TC0077 \| 25 \| 171 \| 37 \| 21.6 % \| \| \| \| Test \| County \| Num Submissions \| Num Samples Tested \| Num Positive Samples % Positive \| \|------------------\|-----------------\|----------\|-------------------\|----------------------\|-----------------------------------\| \| TC0077 \| Carmarthenshire \| 12 \| 245 \| 37 \| 15.1% \| \| Ceredigion \| 7 \| 26 \| 4 \| 15.4% \| \| \| Devon \| 4 \| 1,032 \| 95 \| 9.2% \| \| \| North East Wales \| 14 \| 515 \| 55 \| 10.7% \| \| \| Pembrokeshire \| 28 \| 443 \| 78 \| 17.6% \| \| \| Powys \| 4 \| 103 \| 13 \| 12.6% \| \| \| South Wales \| 10 \| 149 \| 34 \| 22.8% \| \| \| TC0077 \| 79 \| 2,513 \| 316 \| 12.6 % \| \|	en
0493-pdf	nd The number of racially/religiously aggravated offences that reached a first hearing in a Magistrates Court Request Number of racially or religiously aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Part 11 of Schedule 9 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) that reached a first hearing in a Magistrate's Court, by offence classification/type. Response In response to your questions, please find attached, a table of data showing the racist/religious hate crime offences created by the Crime and Disorder (CDA) Act 1998. These are the number of offences which reached a first hearing in magistrates' courts as requested. This data should be read in conjunction with the appended caveats. Information Management Unit 020 3357 0788 IMU@cps.gov.uk Crown Prosecution Service, Information Management Unit, Floor 8, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ	en
1200-pdf	ARCHIVES UNLOCKED RELEASING THE POTENTIAL ## Releasing The Potential Of Archives. Ministerial Foreword. Archives sit at the heart of our collective understanding: who we are, where we came from, and, indeed, where we are going. The materials that archives hold challenge, inspire and transform what we think we know of times, events and people, past and present. In this digital age, with so much focus on the management and security of data, archives and their collections make the national local and the local global. So Archives Unlocked is an ambitious vision. It recognises and celebrates the value of archives within the wider cultural sector and across society. Digital transformation is at its heart: the democratisation of information and knowledge, the boundless creativity and innovation made possible by archival material, and the confidence we can all share in exploring and using the record, supported by world-class archival practice. In part, thanks to the opportunities of new technology, this is an exciting time for archives. For the people that experience and use them, and for those who are dedicated to developing and preserving their uniqueness. Embracing these opportunities will allow archives to thrive and contribute fully to the wellbeing of our nation, culturally, ## Introduction. Imagine a world without archives. Without records, we could not prove where and when we were born, or who owns the property we live in. ## In Short: Archives Matter. Our collections need to be used to be useful. Until they are unlocked, archive records are just papers, images, or sequences of bytes. Once revealed, they can tell us our stories, bringing alive the people, events and decisions that got us here today. Archives have the power to change peoples lives. We could not trace our ancestry, explore our collective and individual identities, or challenge established views of the past. Without this collective memory, the evidence store for our histories, we could not hold governments and organisations to account. The impact of archives is felt across society: inspiring art and literature; influencing product design and branding; enabling insightful and pioneering research; and informing decision-making in organisations of all types. The publics interest in archives and what they have to offer is growing, and digital economically, and intellectually. Archives Unlocked sees a future in which businesses, creative industries, arts organisations, academia, and communities can fully exploit archives. The National Archives, as sector leader, will work with archives, partners and users to make this ambition a reality, and rise to the challenges we face. It is time to unlock the potential. THE RT HON MATT HANCOCK MP MINISTER OF STATE FOR DIGITAL AND CULTURE. technologies are opening up our archives like never before, to local, national and global audiences keen to learn and be inspired. We need an archives sector that can evolve and adapt to change. Working together, we can ensure that the benefits of archives are realised and enjoyed by future generations. ## The Vision Archives Unlocked. Archives will strengthen society through the trust they inspire, the enrichment they offer and their openness to all. We will be the home of world-leading archives, both digital and physical. People will be able to find and navigate collections, and have confidence that reliable archival evidence exists to support their research. Our collections will reflect all of society, so that, whether an individual, community or organisation, archives can tell us who we are and how we got here. ## The Ambitions At The Heart Of The Vision Are. Trust people and institutions trust in the authenticity of archive records, and how they are preserved and presented. ## Enrichment archives enhance and enrich our society intellectually, culturally and economically. ## Openness archives cultivate an open approach to knowledge and are accessible to all. ## Whats Driving The Need For Change? Discussions with stakeholders have highlighted these key drivers of change: CONFIDENCE IN DATA AND INFORMATION People need to have confidence in the integrity of institutions. Organisations need to be open and transparent, and high profile enquiries into the history and culture of public, corporate and charitable bodies have highlighted the evidential value of records. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE Digital technology has fundamentally changed what it means to be an archive. Archivists can help the IT and knowledge management communities by bringing professional archival practice to this digital world. USER EXPECTATIONS Society is changing, opening up new uses for data and records, and posing new questions about what is collected now and in the future, in both paper-based documents and digital formats. ## The Vision. Archives Unlocked. About This Document. This vision is the result of extensive consultation and development work within the archives sector, with our partners and beyond. Further details of those involved can be found at the end of the document. The vision articulates three ambitions for the benefits which archives will deliver. Emerging from each of these is a set of outcomes which underpin our action plan. We have set out to keep the core of the vision very simple and concise, bringing its ambitions to life with case studies and think-pieces. The case studies showcase existing good practice and innovation in the archives sector. The think-pieces are from contributors both within and beyond the archives sector and seek to challenge existing practice and provoke new ideas about the future. The document ends with a high-level overview of the action plan which articulates how our partnership of archive institutions and external partners, with support from The National Archives, will help the sector deliver the outcomes we have expressed. ## Think-Piece. Collecting And The Archive Ecology. from interventions, if based on a deep understanding, and supported by long-term, comprehensive and detailed information. We have seen the response of zoos, which have developed from being self-contained sub-sections of the natural world to multi-faceted participants in wildlife conservation. In short, ecologies can and should be nurtured. Over the past few decades, both the archival landscape and the role of archivists have changed fundamentally. There is now a wider definition of archives, which are being created in ways that are more varied, complex and (especially in the digital realm) less visible and tangible. There is also greater diversity in the ways in which archives are preserved and used. Archivists are no longer the sole focus of collecting, but are helping others to do the same. They have become participants in an archive ecology, rather than gatekeepers to it. The term ecology suggests interdependence and organic development, with no single director or predetermined end point. We know that ecologies can be harmed in unpredictable ways by external factors and can benefit We need an equally collective response for an archive ecology, a new vision, in several senses. This starts with an aspiration that it encompasses the entirety of potential archives now being created, as diverse and complex as the society they record. It also requires oversight and foresight: a comprehensive understanding of archives, now and in the future. We need to extend our field of vision and action to those records still at risk of being lost, either because they are not preserved or not visible to potential users. Archivists now share stewardship of archives, but retain a key collective responsibility in ensuring their survival and sustainability. To do that effectively, they need the support of policymakers, employers and funders. Together we need to know a lot more about the archive ecology and to be prepared to act on that knowledge. JUDY BURG HEAD OF ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DURHAM UNIVERSITY ## Trust. Democracy and society are strengthened by scrutiny of the archival record, holding institutions and individuals to account. Archive users have confidence in the integrity and authenticity of records, and in the professionals who support their research. People and institutions trust in the authenticity of archive records, and how they are preserved and presented. Services embrace the opportunities of technological change, ensuring confidence in both digital and physical records. ## Case Study. Protecting Our Digital Memory: E-Ark. and the Digital Preservation Coalition. Discussing the biblical significance of the project name, project leader Professor Janet Delve points out that never before in human history have we been at risk of losing so much knowledge in one go. If you are careless with digital information, it is gone forever. E-ARK is a pioneering global research project, aimed at improving the technologies of digital archiving to ensure that records and databases remain authentic and usable over time. It has brought together international practice to develop the first ever end-to-end digital archive system. This single, scalable, robust system can be used by all memory institutions, public and private, large and small, to meet the challenge of born digital records. It has the potential to be truly transformative. The project partnership of national archives from across Europe, Chile and the United States of America is supported by experts at the University of Brighton The partnership approach makes best use of the existing expertise of each participating archive, and also supports them in learning new skills from others. This provides a better service to users in the long term, and fosters consistent approaches on an international scale. In one example of the projects work, The Danish National Archives developed ## Think-Piece Trust In The Digital Future Its exhilarating, perhaps the most exciting time to be an archivist that theres ever been. The digital challenge for archives today is one of pace. The days of digitally simulating long-established archival practices devised for physical records are behind us. Snapchat, Google Docs, microservices, blockchains, neural networks, all disrupt how information is created, encoded and used. All disrupt archiving, requiring fundamentally new capabilities and approaches. Todays digital archivists must rapidly develop new archival practices, with and for each new generation of technology. The rub is that the digital challenge for archives can never be completely solved. This is not about moving from one relatively steady state of archival practice to a new steady state for digital. We are moving from relative stability to continual change. This raises an important question: as archives move more quickly, how do we retain the legitimacy we confer on the digital evidence we preserve? Ultimately, even in this digital age, it falls to archivists to create and sustain archives. Until now, how we do that, archival theory and practice, has tended to evolve quite gradually over the last 120 years (albeit with the occasional leap, thanks to archive theorists like Jenkinson or Schellenberg). Archival practice is key for rapidly evolving digital archives. The opportunity is to shift the basis of trust, from the authority of the archive as an institution to transparency of archival practice. This trust must be founded on the evidence an open source tool that connects to live databases and migrates data to the appropriate preservation format. This vastly reduces the cost of getting material into archives, and opens up competition in the commercial sector to provide the best solutions. Janet concludes that the strong network of partners means the project is greater than the sum of its parts: instead of each archive having a bit of expertise, every archive can have a whole system to share. That means a massive improvement in terms of cost and skills. we make available about what we do in digital archives. Just like showing your workings in a school maths exam, trust in digital archives should mean demonstrating what we are doing in ways that others can see and verify. The digital archivist, equipped with hashing algorithms and cryptography as their tools of the trade, can remain trusted custodians in this digital future. JOHN SHERIDAN DIGITAL DIRECTOR THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. ## Trust. Archives are not just about things already past; they will capture the histories of the present and the future. People need to trust that the record will be preserved, whether paper or digital, and made available to future generations. ## Case Study. Finding The Evidence: Independent Police Complaints Commission/Hillsborough Investigation. In a devastating tragedy, 96 Liverpool supporters died due to overcrowding at Hillsborough football stadium on 15 April 1989. 27 years later, a jury found the victims had been unlawfully killed. This conclusion was the result of decades of campaigning by families of the deceased, and highlighted that records are a powerful tool for accountability. The ruling was made possible by the release in 2012 of all the material relating to the incident, 450,000 documents from 85 sources. The Hillsborough Independent Panel had recommended that a Permanent Archive be established. While physical records are largely split between Sheffield Archives, Liverpool Archives and The National Archives, digital copies of the material are all available on the panels website. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now carrying out its first historic inquiry into the role of the police, both during and in the aftermath of the disaster. A significant amount of the evidence for the IPCCs investigation comes directly from the historical material, with managed access to the vast collection of records provided by a professional archivist. The archivist supports the needs of the investigative teams, and has introduced robust processes to support collection, collation, cataloguing and access. Managing the archive material in this way ensures its integrity and authenticity. The investigations work with the archive has underlined the importance of maintaining documents which could become vital in future investigations. It demonstrates the value of robust practice: both ## Think-Piece. Telling Stories. Part of the BBC Archives value is that it is the creation of one institution over almost a century, giving it cohesiveness even in its incompleteness. There is an ideology that permeates it, its contents were largely decided upon by the sort of people who work for the BBC, which researchers and users should at least note as they pass among the shelves and search the catalogues. While perhaps not always so apparent, we know that every collection was shaped in some way, and the story of that shaping must be part of our understanding and assessment of the authority of the finished product. When the journalist Joan Didion wrote we tell ourselves stories in order to live (in The White Album, 1979), she was expressing a deep truth about how we construct meaning in our lives. Many of our stories come from those relics of the past that live in our archives, libraries and galleries. Some are newly minted; others retell and reframe the past to better understand the present. And the archive too is a story: whether creative fiction, careful scholarship or news journalism, any exploration of an archive must grapple with questions surrounding the collection itself, why and how was this material preserved? Is this all, or is there missing work that will change my perspective? How can this selection of past material have authority? The ways we use archives to tell our stories has shifted with electronic collections as the sheer volume of available data increases exponentially, preserving original records and keeping order in archives are vital. The power and importance of these records for holding individuals and organisations to account for their actions continues to be their lasting legacy. Archive Manager Rebekah Taylor says: Being able to demonstrate that an organisation like the IPCC is committed to preserving the quality and integrity of these important documents, is key to accountability and public confidence. along with the capacity of our drives and tapes. Nothing is accessible without indexes and catalogues, and in the future we will value them as much as the archived object. The choices made as we add metadata will embody the beliefs of the archivists as much as the choice of items to preserve, and we must remember this and expose it, as we tell stories on the backs of these new collections. We have told ourselves stories in order to live: we can use a greater understanding of the choices that shape an archive to build ourselves catalogues that will help us thrive. ## Bill Thompson Head Of Partnership Development Bbc Archive Enrichment. Our culture of knowledge and learning expands through new ways to discover and use archive material. ## Archives Enhance And Enrich Our Society Intellectually, Economically And Culturally. Value in businesses grows through the use of archive material to support change, innovation and efficiency. Peoples lives are enhanced through their engagement with archive collections. ## Case Study. Recovering Our Past: Barnardos Archive. Established in 1867, Barnardos works to transform the lives of the most vulnerable children across the UK. Once famous for its care homes, the charity now supports over 900 services, including fostering and adoption. Barnardos Archive has changed the way in which former residents and their relatives access their personal records, recognising what it means for people to understand their past. The way the archive works is now very user-focused. Archive Manager, Martine King, says: It is a massive decision for people to contact us, as there is no assurance about what they might find and how it matches what they have previously been told. The service gives people choice about how to research, either in the privacy of their home, or in the supportive environment of the charity. Open access to records began in 1995, predating the Data Protection Act, after a BBC documentary fuelled a spike in enquiries. The archive now meets the needs of former residents and their families by enabling access to records, and providing support through the difficult process of receiving what might be painful or confusing information. Among developments to support users, the archive has invested 120,000 pounds to digitise 500,000 photographs. In the absence of a family home, these photographs may be the only images people have of their own childhoods. Ease of use is paramount, so Barnardos Archive is working with the Wellcome Trust to develop an archive catalogue and improve their finding aids. Furthermore, the ## Think-Piece. Are Archives Good For Our Wellbeing? sense of belonging. Perhaps surprisingly, governance and the trust in our collective institutions is a factor in our happiness, and archives are at the heart of this national accountability. Archives give me a sense of joy, as they do for many others; the question, then, is why?. At the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, we are looking at evidence of what can be done to improve wellbeing in the UK. There are clear benefits to this goal; we get ill less and recover more quickly, we are more creative, collaborative, and giving. We perform better at work; and have stronger social networks. So what evidence is there on wellbeing that is relevant to archives? Archives make us think, and learning is one of the five ways to wellbeing.* Of these five ways, learning drops off most dramatically with age in the UK, which suggests a potential role for archives in an ageing population. An understanding of our personal and shared histories, and constructing an intergenerational sense of self, connects us with something much larger than ourselves, giving us a There are social benefits of archives too, providing another of the five ways; the connections, trust and the sense of community that come from everyday interactions are vital for our wellbeing. Studies have suggested that the impact of unwanted social isolation, loneliness, may be as bad for health as smoking, and increases the risk of conditions including dementia. Sharing positive emotions, including the things we experience in an archive, such as feeling interested, engaged or having a sense of accomplishment, makes their effect on us stronger. This is important as we tend to notice negative feelings more strongly than positive ones. A social environment retention policy has now been changed to preserve more case files, recognising the enormous value of these files to the individuals involved and to their families. Martine concludes, We are helping lots of people to understand all variations of experience of being in care, and how important it is to learn from our past, question and improve the way we support and protect children today. Our ongoing legacy of duty to those who were in our care, our long experience of working with our former children, and of course the archive itself, are all powerful tools for informing that debate and recovering precious fragments from the past. that supports ease and choice in opportunities for interaction is also a magic formula for wellbeing. Understanding the connection between things we value and our happiness will help us see how spending decisions can improve wellbeing in the UK. The challenge is for the archives sector to develop its understanding of these and other connections, and harness them to increase our happiness. NANCY HEY DIRECTOR WHAT WORKS CENTRE FOR WELLBEING ## Enrichment. The power of archives is in both their evidential and emotional impact. Whether revisiting national history or telling the story of your own family, they turn names into personalities, give us the arguments behind decisions and reveal the complexity of individuals, communities and societies. ## Case Study. The Dna Of A Business: John Lewis Partnership Archive. Le Creuset ovenware and an updated version of a classic Silver Cross pram. One such product was the revival of a DaisyChain design created by Pat Albeck in the 1960s, which was itself a homage to the work of British designer William Morris, emphasising the importance of heritage to the organisation. The 150th anniversary of retailer John Lewis, in 2014, provided the archive with an opportunity to demonstrate its value, and contribute to innovation. The archive was used to reinforce the brands history and values, and to celebrate its unique partnership model. From the principle of never knowingly undersold, to its famous customer service, the company today remains closely connected to its past and actively uses this knowledge to inspire those working in business now and in the future. The archive helped boost sales during the anniversary period. Furthermore, the work also reinforced the value which teams across the business derive from working with the archive. It highlights the corporate memory which is in the DNA of the John Lewis Partnership culture, as well as inspiring new store designs, and supporting staff training and development. Using John Lewis comprehensive design archive, teams from across the business worked with long-standing suppliers to bring back fresh reinterpretations of iconic designs. Limited edition items were launched, such as a Smeg fridge, ## Think-Piece. Archives And Economic Growth. What do archives contribute towards economic growth or economic development? It is not a question that is very often considered, let alone the technicalities of how this would be measured. While it is undoubtedly a challenge, I am sure that this is a missed opportunity. Returning to economic growth, as Chair of the Business Archives Council, I see many interesting examples of firms benefitting from the use of their historic records. They can be used to develop new product lines based on heritage designs, or packaging might be given a retro theme. Similarly, advertising campaigns can draw upon archive material to help emphasise the history of a firm or to reinforce well-known brands. Economic growth is typically discussed in terms of gross national product. That means increases in the total value of goods and services produced by a country in any one year, making it richer. But there are alternative measures, for example wellbeing or happiness. Experiences, feelings and values, such as discovery, education, justice and truth, all have worth to individuals and to society. All are different forms of richness that archives help deliver. Sales of new products, advertising, the attachment to a trusted brand, this all translates into consumer expenditure, into profits, into jobs and ultimately into growth. Whether that is a retailer selling clothes or cosmetics, or a financial institutions television advert resulting in more customers, it all contributes to the total value of goods and services produced. In addition to the regular work undertaken by the archive team, the building is now open to the public one day a week. A programme of talks, team days, events and craft activities ensure that the archive is now the cultural heart of an international business. Judy Faraday, John Lewis Partnership Archivist, says: The investment in the archive has undoubtedly released greater productivity and value through an ability to offer a great service to the business. The archive is genuinely at the heart of the company, actively influencing its future. Of course, archives have always been able to create these impacts. However, in the digital world there is the opportunity to unlock even more data and information, and in ways that were not possible, or even imaginable, before. This offers even greater potential to promote growth. The challenge is not just to think about how this can be done, but demonstrate the impact. We know that, but we must convince others, and that means advocacy and evidence. Meanwhile, I look forward to a day when I read the headline Archives Make Us Richer. MIKE ANSON ARCHIVIST BANK OF ENGLAND ARCHIVE ## Openness. Archives deliver an excellent user experience, enabling people to find, access and interpret archive records, whether digital or physical. ## Archives Cultivate An Open Approach To Knowledge, And Are Accessible To All. The rich diversity of society is reflected in our archives collections, users and workers. Archives are networked globally to maintain excellent practice and open new possibilities for institutions and users. ## Case Study. Reaching New Audiences: Archives+, Manchester.. used archives before, including young people and people from marginalised groups. Archives + is a partnership of archive collections from across the region, and the home of Manchesters history and heritage services. The documents, photographs and films at the heart of the collection connect people with the story of the city: its industry, its communities, and its history of radical politics. The redevelopment of Manchester Central Library provided the opportunity for Archives+ to transform its relationship with local communities. The centre handed the power to its partners, who jointly curated the striking new exhibition in the buildings entrance, using their own collections. The goal was to reach new audiences, people who may never have The citys reputation for radical thought is reflected in the councils engagement agenda. Through the Activation programme, the public themselves decide where the gaps in collections are, and use the archives to design and deliver their own heritage activities. Participants have included the Coalition of Disabled People, and black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, giving them a unique opportunity to curate a digital exhibition that appears in a library that has 1.4 million visitors a year, in addition to online access. ## Think-Piece. Archiving Journeys To Belonging. For newish migrant-settler communities, there is an accelerated interest in archiving their journeys to belonging as full and valued citizens. For these communities, archives have become a site of struggle against social and political marginalisation and exclusion. There are implications for the professional archivist establishment. Archivists have a vital role in reparative history-making. Cultural Archives, currently, up and down the country, there are groups from these same communities energetically discussing and devising new strategies to challenge that tired, debilitating narrative of inconsistent funding. Recognising that errors of omission in dominant heritage narratives result as much from ignorance as disregard, cultural activists from these communities aim to assist in, as well as demand, the plugging of the gaps. Among Caribbean, South Asian, and African migrant-settler communities, for example, from the last century until now, funding initiatives in support of heritage projects have often been piecemeal, with a tendency to flavour-of-themoment tokenism. Notwithstanding the arrival on the scene of the Black Beyond the bold ambitions and demands coming out of these and other newer migrant-settler communities is the matter of obtaining the active and proactive assistance of established archives and archivists. This assistance will be needed to address major archival challenges The development of collections now comes from proper engagement with communities who can work with many different archives. By working more effectively together, the archives also have a louder voice and bigger influence on the citys cultural programme. Kevin Bolton, the archivist who designed and delivered the project, says: It is no longer always about us continuing to deliver projects, however worthy. It is a big culture change for staff and partners to be willing to cede control to the community. But the rewards are worth the effort. in collecting, evaluating, conserving, interpreting and making records and archival materials accessible and available to educators and cultural animators. Central to all this will be the acquisition of new archival skills by non-professionals, assisted by established professionals. Providing this assistance will bring new kinds of challenge to existing professional practice. These demands and difficulties coming from marginalised constituencies can be viewed as daunting, or, they can be grasped as exciting professional challenges for archivists. ## Colin Prescod Chair Institute Of Race Relations Openness. Archives are for everyone. Just as our language, our culture and our high streets reflect changes in society, our records should too. When future generations look back at today, they need to see the vibrancy of our society and the diversity of our experience. ## Case Study. Seeing Archives Differently: Know Your Place, Bristol. of the First World War, new layers were added, plotting sites of significance for the conflict, such as munitions factories, military hospitals and memorials. Know Your Place is a digital mapping project which allows users to explore their local area online, placing local history and heritage at their fingertips. It is more intuitive and flexible than a traditional archival catalogue, recognising that when it comes to our streets, our towns and our countryside, it is often easiest to find things on a map. The website can be freely used by individuals and groups, leading to exciting projects that build a sense of place. It has been used by Bristols LGBT+ community to map the shifting spaces important to their history. Through the map, you can listen to peoples stories, view photographs, posters and flyers and explore places important to histories of both toleration and oppression. A key project aim was to improve planning applications; by using Know Your Place is a collaboration between Bristol Archives and the citys planning team. The website uses historic maps and street views alongside the councils pin-point mapping software, overlaid with digital surrogates from a wide range of collections. This can lead to bespoke interpretations; for the centenary ## Think-Piece. The Archivist Of The Future. Instead of focusing on digitisation, we will need to curate content and engage new audiences, as the NT has started to do using the opportunities afforded by new technologies such as the Google Cultural Institute, virtual reality and apps. In periods of organisational change, archives remain constant. This is true for governments, companies, or, as we have recently experienced at the National Theatre (NT), a new artistic director. Since it was founded in 1963, the NT has had six artistic directors. Each brings their own leadership and vision, shaping the company in different ways; the archive has an important role in recording those shifts, demonstrating its integral part to play in business continuity and as the authoritative source on performance history. Preservation, conservation and access have always been the backbone of our sector, and so they will continue to be across different formats of materials. This broader outlook on collections should also encourage widespread and more sustained collaborations with libraries, museums, and the education sector to ensure cross-pollination of ideas and projects. The NTs involvement with students has allowed us to open up one of our collections to a much wider researcher base than we would have otherwise thought, not only improving our understanding and appreciation of In the future, digital expertise will become engrained in the traditional archive skillset; approaches to paper, born digital and collections of other media will need to merge. With the increasing levels of digitised archive content available online, the role of archivists will change. screengrabs and prints from Know Your Place, users are now better informed by evidence from the historic record. The archive has seen use of its collections greatly increase, and its success means the project is now expanding to the South West region with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund. City Archivist Julian Warren says, the mapping tool gives you so much data in one place, with such rich context, that would have normally taken ages to assemble in the search room. It is a winwin for users, staff and the council. the materials but also disseminating the collection to wider audiences. Just as the NT strives to represent the nation it serves, our sector must focus on diversifying our workforce across all areas of the population to ensure that we are truly representative of our country. Fairer and more accessible routes into the profession are needed to enrich our sector with diverse skills and knowledge. The sector increasingly needs skills beyond the traditional, ensuring that we can meet the challenges of fundraising, outreach, increasing demand for content and growing enthusiasm for engagement with users. ERIN LEE ARCHIVIST NATIONAL THEATRE ## Action Plan. The National Archives is committed to realising this vision and we have developed an action plan to support it. The plan will be delivered in partnership with the whole archives sector, and partners from the wider cultural, digital, heritage and education spheres. We will revise the action plan on an annual basis. Build the sectors resilience to ensure more archives can meet and sustain the Archive Service Accreditation standard, open the sector to new skills and a more diverse workforce, increase income generation capacities, and support innovative service models. To achieve our ambitions of trust, enrichment and openness, we must tackle the barriers to success. To do so, we need to meet the key challenges facing the sector, but also advocate for archives and ensure their value is understood. The action plan will address three vital themes: digital capacity, resilience and impact. The plan will: Develop the digital capacity of the archives sector, to preserve digital records and increase discoverability of the paper and digital archive. Demonstrate the impact of archives by developing and expanding audiences, piloting approaches to using data and evidence, and influencing thinking in the IT, commercial and knowledge sectors. ## Consultation Process And Who We Worked With. October 2016-January 2017 and we received a further 130 responses to this. We also held six expert panels with our key strategic partners to explore the draft vision in detail. The National Archives leads and supports the sector of over 2,500 archives in England, and has statutory responsibilities for public records held by archive services in Wales, where we work in collaboration with the Welsh Government. While Archives Unlocked is focused on archives in England, we will continue to work with partners in the home nations and internationally, to address the challenges and opportunities of using archives in a digital world within a UK context, and to support research and innovation. HOW THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED Throughout our consultation, we were supported by a reference group from across the archives sector. Reference group members were: Mike Anson (Bank of England), Rob Baker (Blind Veterans Association), Kevin Bolton (then at Archives +), Judy Burg (Durham University), Sam Johnston (Dorset History Centre), Alex Miller (Wigan Council), Chris Mumby (The National Archives), Arike Oke (Rambert Archive), Geoff Pick (London Metropolitan Archives), Gary Tuson (Norfolk County Council), Chris Webb (York University), and Simon Wilson (Hull History Centre). Archives Unlocked is the result of a process of co-creation. We consulted widely, listening to a very broad range of voices from across the archives sector: a range of funders and partners from the wider culture, heritage and information worlds, and archive users. Expert Panel members came from: Ancestry. com, Archives and Records Association, Arts and Humanities Research Council, Arts Council England, BBC, Borthwick Institute, British Library, Business Archives Council, Chief Archivists in Local Government Group, CILIP, CIPFA, Community Archives & Heritage We ran four roundtables across England, attended by 179 people from across the archives sector, and conducted an online survey which received 235 responses. A public consultation and survey on the draft vision ran To make the plan happen, The National Archives will be supported by a challenge panel comprising leading organisations within the sector, and partners from the wider cultural, digital and education spheres. Group, Creative and Cultural Skills, Digital Preservation Coalition, FARMER, Find My Past, Gale Cengage, Heritage Lottery Fund, Historic Houses Archivists Group, Imperial War Museum, Innovate UK, JISC, Local Government Association, London Metropolitan Archives, National Media Museum, National Theatre, Polonsky Digital Preservation Programme, Pilgrim Trust, Rambert Archive, Religious Archives Group, Research Libraries UK, Tate, University of London Computer Centre, Wellcome Trust and Zooniverse, in addition to academics and representatives from local archive services. Archives Unlocked and the accompanying action plan were developed with the support of Activist Group. ## © Crown Copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is also available on our website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at asd@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk Developed with the support of Activist Group.	en
0330-pdf	# The Office Of Rail And Road 163Rd Board Meeting 24 September 2019, 09:00 - 15:00 One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN Non-executive members: Declan Collier (Chair), Stephen Glaister, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Graham Mather, Justin McCracken Executive members: John Larkinson (Chief Executive), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety). In attendance: Daniel Brown (Director Strategy and Policy & Railway Markets and Economics), Russell Grossman (Director of Communications), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate Operations), Juliet Lazarus (General Counsel), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary) Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text. ## Item 1 Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies. ## Item 2 Declarations Of Interest 2. No new relevant interests were declared. Stephen Glaister informed the board that, with the agreement of the Chair, he had accepted an invitation to sit (in a personal capacity) on the Advisory panel for the review of HS2. This had been commissioned by the government to report in the autumn. ## Item 3 Approval Of Previous Minutes And Matters Arising 3. The Board noted a minor correction to the minutes. The Chair would sign an amended version. 4. The board secretary reported some updates on the action list. It was noted that the outstanding delegation approved in November 2018 in relation to the Memorandum of Cooperation with IRG-Rail could only be exercised when this was ratified - after the UK's departure from the EU. ## Item 4 Health And Safety Monthly Report 5. Ian Prosser reported on current understanding of a tragic incident at Waterloo resulting in the death of a cleaning contractor. Investigations were continuing alongside the BTP. It was noted that, since this was not an incident directly relating to trains, HSE might have relevant experience that RSD could draw on. 6. Ian also reported that BTP had handed over primacy on Margam to the ORR and described a recent meeting with the families of those who died in the incident. This was in line with ORR's usual approach to investigating fatalities or major injuries. He understood that NR's CEO would be meeting the families in London. 7. In relation to the improvement notices on trackworker safety, he had been told by NR that they would be withdrawing their appeal against the notices and would write setting out their plans to comply with a three year programme and an annual report on progress. Some routes were moving more quickly to deliver improvements. Ian stressed the importance of the trade unions engaging with this initiative. Justin McCracken reported that HSRC had discussed the emerging findings of the internal review of handling on the notices and the board would receive the final report at its October meeting [forward programme]. The committee were content that the review was being done thoroughly and robustly. The board agreed that the chair and CEO should meet their NR counterparts to discuss the review after that meeting. [Action] 8. On trams, DfT had announced publicly that funding was secure for the LSRB for 2021. The board noted with dismay that the CPS were still considering BTPs submission on whether prosecutions should be brought in relation to the Croydon tram fatalities in 2016. However as BTP has primacy at this point there was nothing that ORR can do to unblock this logjam. Ian said that his team were ready to go if the case was handed over. 9. Ian reported on [this content redacted as it is potentially commercially sensitive]. The board asked for clarification on the ORR's role in approving disposals - which was acknowledged to be narrow, and any assurance taken in this case that the access rights were appropriately secured [Action] 10. Finally, Ian reminded the board that 5 October this year would be the 20th anniversary of the Ladbroke Grove train crash. He expected a level of media and public interest. 11. The board asked about the impact of the power blackout at the end of August. In safety terms, the response had been managed reasonably well and the rolling stock had all failed safe. But the impact on customers and the time taken to re-establish the service were very serious. The industry was still working through the issues and the board asked for a report on current understanding of what the issues remaining to be addressed are and particularly whether the rolling stock had behaved as expected by the TOCs [Action]. John Larkinson reported that there had been helpful contact from Ofgem in advance of the National Grid report being public. ## Item 5 Board Information Pack 12. The board asked that the presentation of performance by TOC should give a better sense of performance over time and comparisons between operator, noting that over time regional differences might also be informative [Action]. 13. The board discussed emerging public concern around the safety of all lane running and smart motorways, which had been explored thoroughly at the Highways Committee the day before. ORR's role in safety on the network was limited to reporting on HE's performance and management, but staff had already started work to assure the robustness of HE's evidence base underpinning the policy, as well as emerging evidence from actual operation. Work to review the quality of HE's regular post-opening project evaluation was also in hand. In addition, staff were working with HE to understand how it applied safety considerations and statistics in prioritising its plans for network development. The board welcomed this work. It noted that the upgrade to smart motorways had been underway for some time and that further upgrades were planned in RIS2 as part of expanding capacity at a lower cost. Policy considerations would include not only safety but also issues such as sustainability, future-proofing and efficiency. Motorways continued to be significantly safer than the rest of the road network and evidence on the impact of smart motorways on safety will take time to build, but it was important that any emerging picture of a decrease in actual safety performance was recognised and addressed urgently. Given the level of existing and planned investment in smart motorways it was important that there was transparency around judgements by government and HE on the benefits and the balance of risks in relation to these changes. To this end ORR should satisfy itself that HE is taking all reasonably practicable steps to gather and analyse the safety impact of converting motorways to all lane running, on either a full or part time basis. It was important to public confidence that such evidence should be made public without delay. ORR needed to be prepared to explain its role and its assessment of HE's underlying assurance. [Action/Forward programme - report in October]. ## Item 6 Chief Executive'S Report 14. John Larkinson reported to the board on meetings with the new Secretary of State and the Rail Minister. He described the relationship between Transport Scotland, Abellio and Network Rail Scotland and resulting financial issues and pressures. He planned to write to the NR CEO highlighting his concern on its potential to disrupt the wider regulatory settlement. 15. John also assured the board that the senior team had increased vigilance around business-as-usual decisions that had the potential to provoke negative stakeholder reactions so that they could engage and mitigate such reactions. ## Item 7 Other Executive Reports 16. Graham Richards reported on positive meetings with the Road Haulage Association, the Association of Consulting Engineers (commercial directors) and with the network of sub-national transport bodies. The latter group had been particularly interested in any support ORR could give them in understanding and developing their new roles as project clients and members of route supervisory boards for NR. 17. Dan Brown noted that Williams and NR efficiency were items already on the agenda. He highlighted two other areas: customers and open access. He updated the board on the legal challenge around rail replacement bus services and ORR's response. A paper on research on passenger information from earlier in the year would be brought in October [forward programme]. He was continuing to increase resource in the consumer team in advance of next year's business planning. 18. Dan reported a high level of activity around open access, including forthcoming approval of increased services London/Sunderland and a group of potentially competing bids on the West Coast Mainline. The board asked for a simple analysis of what open access applications were in hand and what had been approved over recent years as well as how successful they had been commercially and for passengers. [Action] 19. Russell Grossman updated the board on good coverage on the recent change to on-time performance statistics and Q1 SPAD figures. Today's annual safety statistics would show the highest number of public fatalities in many years and an emerging picture of LUL's declining performance. The board said that it was important that ORR's statistical releases were supported with comment and interpretation that aided public understanding of risk. The board also discussed further incidents of exaggerated costings being wrongly ascribed by interested parties to ORR's safety interventions. John Larkinson was considering how best to address this misinformation. [Action] 20. Russell also reported on other media and social media activity and the beginning of work to map key influencers. 21. Freya Guinness reported that practical completion on the fit out of Cabot Square had been completed on schedule. She also gave updates on the three remaining major risks (connectivity, facilities management procurement and leaks). The programme remained on track for move dates around mid-October: agreements were in place for the payment to staff of increased travel and carer costs. The exit agreement from OKS was in place. 22. Juliet Lazarus reported on progress with the employment tribunal where (following ORR's application for strike out) the court had required the complainant to make a deposit in order to proceed. The court service could not yet tell us whether the associated deadline had been met. ## Item 8 Hs1 - Pr19 - Periodic Review – Most of this item (paras 27-37) has been redacted from the published version as potentially commercially sensitive Steve Fletcher, Carl Hetherington, Laura Majithia, Debbie Daniels, Joe Quill joined the meeting for this item 23. The board confirmed that they were being asked to approve the Executive's recommendations after exercise of appropriate scrutiny of them. 24. Graham Richards introduced the item, reminding the board that ORR's appraisal of the HS1 5YAMS for the purpose of PR19 was in the context of HS1's delivery of the general duty which requires the company "to secure in respect of the HS1 Railway Infrastructure: its operation and maintenance; its renewal and replacement; and the planning and carrying out of any Specified Upgrades and other upgrades, in each case:  in accordance with Best Practice;  in a timely, efficient and economical manner; and  save in the case of the EdF Assets, as if HS1 Ltd were responsible for the stewardship of the HS1 Ltd Railway Infrastructure for the period of 40 years following the date that any such activities are planned or carried out, subject to: - the Safety Authorisation for HS1; and - the Capability Requirements." 25. The board was reminded of which areas of income were regulated by ORR for HS1: it could not take into account the unregulated income or the investment recovery charge. There was no other funding mechanism to address any shortfall in charges, so with the exception of Southeastern, (which was held harmless to changes to charges during its franchise period,) the TOC and FOC charges had to meet HS1's costs including the annuity charge to deliver the right level of increase in the escrow account to maintain asset condition. The recommendations on PR19 are therefore judgements - albeit based on significant levels of analysis and the most robust available evidence. 26. Carl Hetherington explained that considerations about the right level of escrow funding include the required condition of assets on completion, intergenerational equity so that current users pay a fair proportion of lifetime costs, impact on operators, and affordability. There was an evidence based assessment of the cost of the asset investment required. In PR14 the evidence base had not been as robust (because there was less experience operating the assets) and ORR had taken slightly more regard to affordability for operators than long term investment. The proposals for PR19 were based on stronger evidence and were more balanced between current affordability and long term need. [redaction here] 38. John Larkinson summed up that the proposed outcome was a good one which weighted all the various interests reasonably. 39. The board delegated the sign off of the final draft determination to John Larkinson. The final determination would be discussed at the board meeting scheduled for 10 December [forward programme]. ## Item 9 Highways Sarah Robinson and Richard Coates attended for this item 40. Richard explained the proposed approach to review the Monitoring and Enforcement policy for Highways and that it would be subject to consultation before the Board was asked to adopt it formally. Paragraphs 41-44 have been redacted from the published version as relating to policy development. 45. The board supported the approach to reviewing the policy. Lunch ## Item 10 Network Rail: Update On Cp6 Efficiency Carl Hetherington and Gordon Cole joined the meeting for this item. 46. Carl Hetherington reported that as a result of increased pressure from ORR over a long period, NR had tightened its focus on efficiency from the start of CP6. This appeared to be delivering good progress against plan, but there was still a significant challenge ahead, particularly in later years of the control period. 47. John Larkinson described a vigorous and intensive internal debate around the issue because staff had applied an appropriate level of scepticism to the available reports which had showed encouraging delivery against their year 1 plan. It was noted that NR tended to use precise figures where a range would be more realistic, but they were also showing a degree of caution in their plans. There remained significant challenges for the rest of the period. 48. The board noted the report and asked that NR's executive be invited to attend the board meeting in January 2020 when more evidence on progress would be available [forward programme]. ## Item 11 Cardiff - Core Valley Lines Catherine Williams and David Reed attended the meeting for this item 49. Catherine Williams introduced the paper and gave an update on progress since circulation including a provisional revised transfer date. She expected to be asked formally to report on the cost assessment in relation to CP6 avoided costs which would add valuable assurance to the parties and give a baseline for future financial performance reporting. TfW were considering how to meet HMT's requirement of long run cost validation and ORR staff were helping them identify what they would need and how it might be met. The board sought assurance that there was adequate resource available for the current work, noting that those staff might also be involved in PR19. It was also important that the process did not set precedents with stakeholders which led to resource pressures in future. ## Item 12 Central Spending Round 50. Freya Guinness reported that she had now received verbal assurance from HMT that the non-discretionary pressures set out in ORR's funding submission would be met. Business planning for 2020-21 would begin on the basis of what was expected, but with clear choices built in so that if the settlement did not meet our needs, plans could be constrained. ## Item 13 Williams Review Rob Cook was on the phone for this item 51. John Larkinson updated the board on recent meetings with DfT officials, the Secretary of State and others around the Williams proposals. ORR continued to offer support and information, and were now included in the working group on implementation. As the proposals were developed it was clear that ORR would need to move to a more active role, making concrete observations and recommendations on how any new structures could be independently assured and reported on. The discussions continued to be highly sensitive for people employed in all the bodies involved and potentially commercially sensitive. ## Item 14 Feedback From Committees And Panels Health And Safety Regulatory Committee 52. Justin McCracken reported on a good meeting noting that the committee had approved the new crowding policy statement. ## Highways Committee 53. Stephen Glaister reported on discussions on RIS2 where the advice to DfT had been well received. He noted that RIS2 still had funding gaps around the VAT and PFI changes. ## Consumer Panel 54. Anne Heal reported that the panel had contributed on the crowding policy and also discussed communicating risk and uncertainty to the wider public. ## Renco 55. Michael Luger reported that he would attend Staff Council as an observer and Renco would meet them after the results of the staff survey were available in January. Item 16 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 56. The board asked whether it had any powers to intervene on the quality of service on a given TOC where social media reports suggested there was a significant issue. The Executive advised that it was looking at safety questions on this TOC, but that addressing the quality of service on a TOC was the responsibility of the franchising authority and not for ORR. Next meeting: the next meeting would be on 30 October 2019 in Bristol.	en
2999-pdf	Community Safety and Violence, Vulnerability and Exploitation Delivery Plan 2018 - 2020 The Community Safety and Violence, Vulnerability and Exploitation Delivery Plan is based around the Council's vision which is to 'work together to make a difference for Harrow'. Each element of this Delivery Plan sits under one of the Strategic Objectives outlined in the overarching Strategy. This Plan has a strong focus on both high volume and high harm crime which reinforce our commitment to tackle crime in the borough, and firmly echoes the current Mayor's priorities, and includes a renewed focus on Anti- Social Behaviour and Youth Violence. We pledge to make Harrow the safest place to live for all those who live, work, and study in the borough and this will be achieved through a distinct set of strategic objectives set out below: High Volume Crimes 1. Burglary – To reduce the number of burglaries and fear of crime in the borough and increase public confidence in the police 2. Non-domestic violence with injury - To reduce the number of incidents of grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm 3. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) – To reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. ## 4. Motor Vehicle Crime – (a) To reduce the number of thefts of a vehicle that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. (b) To reduce the number of thefts from a vehicle that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. ## High Harm Crime Priorities 1. Youth violence, weapon based crime and vulnerability & exploitation(including gang crime, and Child Sexual Exploitation) – (a)To reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime and to decrease the number of young people carrying offensive weapons (guns and knives) (b) To embed a cultural shift within the schools on the issues of sexual assault, child sexual exploitation and digital exploitation, and to promote a culture of awareness of child sexual exploitation 2. Modern Slavery - To ensure there is an effective and co-ordinated response to modern slavery in Harrow 3. Domestic and sexual abuse - To provide critical support to the most vulnerable members of our community who are affected by domestic and sexual violence and female genital mutilation with a focus on the following: o Prevention / Education o Police / Enforcement o Support / Recovery 4. Drug and alcohol misuse - (a)To reduce the number of young people involved in the supply of illegal substances and to build resilience in young people so that they are able to spot the signs of dealer grooming; (b) To reduce alcohol and drug-related reoffending via targeted early support and treatment for ex-prisoners 5. Extremism and hate crime - To prevent young people from being drawn into terrorism; and to improve hate crime reporting rates. The Strategy and Delivery Plan will be reviewed annually and Measures stated below will be tracked at regular Review Points which occur throughout the year. This will enable Safer Harrow to review the success of each Measure on an ongoing basis until 2020. ## High Volume Crime Strategic Objective 1 - Burglary: To Reduce The Number Of Burglaries And Fear Of Crime In The Borough And Increase Public Confidence In The Police Measures & Targets Action Review Point Lead Existing / New Action January 2019 Deliver the 'Be Safe' programme in September 2018 for on-going work (previously known as 'Autumn Nights') Burglaries are reduced September compared to the same period in the Take forward recommendations from the Locality Assessment into community engagement around violence, vulnerability and exploitation, and inegrate into the Delivery Plan last 12 months Continue to work closely with the MET Police and Secured by design team to set principles to 'design out crime'. Continue to work closely with the local community including the youth in order to make sure the Louis Smith Harrow Police Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director 2018 Strategic Commissioning Tobias Goevert Head of Ongoing Regeneration + Design developments take into meaningful consideration their aspirations and concerns. September Disseminate recommendations to businesses and supply chain as well as those engaging in employment support and training Strategic Objective 2 - Non-domestic violence with injury : To reduce the number of incidents of grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm Measures & targets Action Review Point Lead Progress (RAG rating) The number of incidents of June 2018 grievous bodily harm are Developing our response to the rise in crime and anti-social behaviour in Wealdstone Town centre through the Wealdstone Action Group reduced compared to the same September Based on success of the Wealdstone Group, consider replicating this for South Harrow period in the last 12 months The number of incidents of March 2019 actual bodily Building awareness across the partnership and frontline staff on serious organised crime Mark Billington Head of 2018 Economic Development Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Set up in Director New Action Strategic Commissioning Ongoing Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director New Action 2019 Strategic Commissioning Safer Harrow & Zara Baker, New Action MET harm are Delivery of workshops reduced compared to the same period in the last 12 months ## Strategic Objective 3 - Anti-Social Behaviour (Asb) : To Reduce The Number Of Anti-Social Behaviour Incidents That Occur In The Borough And Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. \| Measures & targets \| \|---------------------------------------\| \| Progress \| \| (RAG rating) \| \| The number of \| \| repeat anti- \| \| social \| \| \| \| Use of tools and Powers such as \| \| Public Space Protection Orders to \| \| reduce incidents of anti-social \| \| behaviour in identified hotspots \| \| \| \| behaviour \| \| incidents that \| \| March 2019 \| \| occur in the \| \| borough \| \| are \| \| Reduce incidents of repeat victims \| \| of anti-social behaviour by Multi- \| \| agency response to cases at Anti- \| \| Social Behaviour Action Group \| \| \| \| reduced \| \| compared to \| \| the same \| \| period in the \| \| March 2019 \| \| last 12 months \| \| Continue to use existing and new \| \| tools to educate tenants and \| \| leaseholders to resolve incidents of \| \| anti-social behaviour at the earliest \| \| point. And to explore powers to take \| \| evidenced based action against \| \| tenants and leaseholders who \| Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety Richard Le Brun , Head of Community Safety Karen Connell, Head Resident Services December commit anti-social behaviour. Consider designing a consultation on Anti-social behaviour working directly with young people in its design and delivery September Refer victims of ASB to victim support and obtain service user feedback To ensure victims of ASB get the support they need Develop the process for victims satisfaction surveys ensure they have received appropriate support and advice 'Call backs' to victims of ASB, evaluate and analyse the data and surveys ## Objective 4A - Motor Vehicle Crime : To Reduce The Number Of Thefts Of A Vehicle That Occur In The Borough And Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director 2018 Strategic Commissioning Richard Le Brun , Head of Community Safety 2018 Karen Connell, Head of Resident Services Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety ## Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. No Specific Actions, Being Dealt With As Business As Usual (See Page 27/28 Of The Strategy) Objective 4B - Motor Vehicle Crime : To Reduce The Number Of Thefts Of A Vehicle That Occur In The Borough And Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. No Specific Actions, Being Dealt With As Business As Usual (See Page 27/28 Of The Strategy) High Harm Crime Strategic Objective 1A - Youth Violence, Weapon Based Crime And Vulnerability & Exploitation(Including Gang Crime, And Child Sexual Exploitation) - To Reduce The Number Of Young People Involved In Youth Violence And Gang Crime And To Decrease The Number Of Young People Carrying Offensive Weapons \| Measures & targets \| \|--------------------------------------\| \| Progress \| \| (RAG rating) \| \| March 2019 \| \| Support frontline \| \| teams to identify \| \| and deliver more \| \| effective and \| \| timely \| \| interventions. \| \| Analysis of local data to enable the \| \| development of a problem profile \| \| which underpin Harrow's Strategy \| \| on Violence, Vulnerability and \| \| Exploitation \| \| \| \| \| David Harrington, Head of Business Intelligence Measures: Development of a problem profile Establish monitoring system that can be accessed by the partnership June 2019 Ignite Reduce incidents of violent youth crime in Harrow 2 year fixed term FTE appointment of a gangs worker to provide targeted support to reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime in the Rayners Lane Estate and South Harrow area Measures: a) Quarter on Richard Le Brun, Head of Ongoing Community The above linking into the daily intelligence meeting (TBA) Safety Richard Le Brun, Head of quarter reduction measured through MPS data. Ongoing Community b) A reduction in Safety Develop a partnership response to tackling knife crime, linked to Mayor's strategy for reducing knife crime Mark Scanlon Head of Service March 2018 for Early children and young people 'coming to notice' through youth Youth Offer, including Street Doctors Programme delivered to enable young people to respond to incidents of knife crime Support and YOT violence for anyone under 18. Youth Offending Service will Evaluate the impact of this Programme and determin whether it can be re-commissioned for a further year , or expanded Mark Billington Head of July 2018 Economic Enable friends & family to seek support for YP through contact with Xcite & Learn Harrow Development March 2019 Synergy Drama project delivered in 4 secondary schools working with young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system March 2019 Harrow MPS Series of primary schools based engagement programmes aimed at raising general awareness around crime and personal safety (for Academic year September 2017) A programme of Mohammed Ilyas activity and funding agreed and in palce New Action December 2018 for 2019/20 and Policy Team March 2019 2020/21 Engage with MOPAC over plans for years 3/4 for the London Crime Prevention Fund projects Agreed funding and programme of activity for April 2019 Analysis of the Monitor the impact of the projects Ongoing Mohammed New Action impact of the projects undertaken and shared with commissioned from the top 30% slice of MOPAC funding and the benefits to Harrow Safer Harrow ## Strategic Objective 1B - Youth Violence, Weapon Based Crime And Vulnerability & Exploitation(Including Gang Crime, And Child Sexual Exploitation) - To Embed A Cultural Shift Within The Schools On The Issues Of Sexual Assault, Child Sexual Exploitation And Digital Exploitation, And To Promote A Culture Of Awareness Of Child Sexual Exploitation Measures &Targets Action Deadline Lead To support schools to deal more effectively with issues of CSE. Measures: a) Progress reviewed March 2019 by surveys and feedback forms; b) Improvement in 2 year fixed term part time worker to generate a cultural shift within schools on the issue of sexual assault, CSE, and digital exploitation violence, and promote a culture of awareness young people's safety from repeat victimisation measured using the Young Persons Core tool. Ilyas Policy Team The Wish Centre & Parmjit Chahal, Head of Service for Children's Access Produce a combined multiagency training package Training package produce and which can be delivered as a single course or split into different levels e.g. (a) March 2019 implemented prevention and identification (b) responding to FGM (and risk of). Guidance produced and disseminated March 2019 across the borough Develop new local FGM guidance and disseminate it across the Borough ## Strategic Objective 2 - Modern Slavery - To Ensure There Is An Effective And Co-Ordinated Response To Modern slavery in Harrow Development and Complete a baseline-line document on modern slavery, arising from an information gathering exercise / gap analysis undertaken in conjunction with stakeholders. June 2018 delivery of modern slavery action plan June / July 2018 Develop an action plan to address the gaps identified through the baseline research \| New Action \| \| \|--------------------\|-----\| \| Carole Furlong, \| \| \| Director of Public \| \| \| Health \| \| \| New Action \| \| \| Carole Furlong, \| \| \| Director of Public \| \| \| Health \| \| \| Marzuki Haji, \| \| \| Policy Officer \| \| \| New Action \| \| \| Marzuki Haji, \| \| \| Policy Officer \| \| \| New Action \| \| Deliver the action plan Timescales to be determined Embed the Be Safe, Stay Safe messages and advice in all Employment & Skills July 2018 guidance from the Council. Include Employment Rights in the advice. ## Strategic Objective 3 - Domestic And Sexual Abuse : To Provide Critical Support To The Most Vulnerable Members of our community who are affected by domestic and sexual violence and female genital mutilation with a focus on the following: Modern slavery multi-agency task & finish group Mark Billington Head of Economic Development Reduction in risk of clients by exit and after 6 and 12 months IDVA (Independent Additional Measures: Domestic Violence a) Exit interview/ Quarterly Hestia Advocate) support to 240 new cases per year. RIC (Risk Identification Checklist) /DASH (domestic abuse, stalking and 'honour'-based violence) and PSOCC (Hestia's database) Training with partner organisations to ensure Increase in MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) referrals from partner organisations Quarterly Hestia they are confident in the referral process; six days minimum of MARAC Measures: a) MARAC data on referrals training per year to be provided referring agencies and MARAC members b) Service provider information on number of training sessions Increase in number of social workers who have been provided with specialist Domestic Violence training from Maintain Domestic Violence as significant referral reason for undertaking Children and Young People Services assessment activity. Measures: Quarterly Hestia b) Number of provider; Service Provider to deliver a minimum of six days' training on Domestic Violence to frontline staff in Children's Services each year Schools to identify and implement pastoral support for young people in transition from primary / secondary education families identified through MASH (Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub)/Family Referral Team with Domestic Violence needs c) Children's Services to provide numbers of social workers trained December 2018 Produce an options appraisal for a local perpetrator programme. Consideration for programme to offer service to individuals not convicted of Domestic Violence offence where appropriate Consider how the business case for a local perpetrator programme can be sustainably funded in Harrow Business case to be presented to Safer Harrow re resources/ capacity Future proof Harrow April 2019 Couples Domestic Violence Programme Continue to deliver the Couples Programme, and consider options for sustainable funding of this programme Secure funding for the domestic September 2018 violence contract for 2019 and beyond Investigate all options available for funding services currently provided under the Domestic and Sexual Violence contract; Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum & Rachel Gapp, Head of Policy Parmjit Chahal, Head of Service for Children's Access Rachel Gapp, Head of Policy areas being explored will include MOPAC, Hestia to reduce costs of contract; external funding options etc. I Provide up to date information about domestic abuse Ongoing Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum services to residents and other stakeholders on the Council's website. Explore better opportunities to share information with existing VCS organisations that deliver DSV services in Harrow and other statutory bodies Increase the number of Harrow residents using services March 2019 Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum New Action provided under the Ascent programme (funded by London Councils) Raise awareness of the services through the Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum to encourage an increase in signposting, referrals and usage. Increase in the number of referrals to partner New Action organisations in the September 2018 community, Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum including the Review the information on the Council's website and make the necessary changes. interfaith forum Ensure employment New Action Make timely referrals to employment/training September 2018 Victoria Isaacs Employment & & training options are included in support to build confidence and independance support & recovery plans Strategic Objective 4a - Drug and alcohol misuse : To reduce the number of young people involved in the supply of illicit substances and to build resilience in young people so that they are able to spot the signs of dealer grooming Measures &Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Progress (RAG rating) Conduct a needs assessment using data from Compass An increase in the number of young people currently YPSMS and other local sources including, School health assessment, and carry out engaged in a drug dealing lifestyle community and stakeholder supported to exit this lifestyle and reducing the July 2019 Compass consultation to ascertain and determine the level of need of Young People who are at risk of grooming for supply of substances 3-6 months and to increase knowledge and numbers of young people choosing to or being coerced into supplying understanding of level of under 18's involved in supply of illicit substances in Harrow by sharing service level data throughout the project term. substances. Measure: The number of Skills \| \| \| young \| people \| \|---------------------------------\|----------\|------------\|-----------\| \| Identify \| local \| hotspot \| areas \| \| July 2019 \| Compass \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| referred to the drug \| \| \| \| \| and alcohol service \| \| \| \| \| regarding \| \| \| \| \| preventative \| work \| \| \| \| where drug dealing is known in \| \| \| \| \| the borough \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| (using local public \| \| \| \| \| health data). \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| July 2019 \| Compass \| \| \| \| Deliver a series of workshops \| \| \| \| \| and assemblies to at least 90% \| \| \| \| \| of High Schools in the Harrow \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Deliver a number of 1-2-1 \| \| \| \| \| prevention \| sessions \| on \| \| \| awareness of drug dealing and \| \| \| \| \| to \| include \| strategies \| and \| \| mechanism to attain this \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| March 2019 \| \| \| \| \| Compass \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Deliver a number of 1-2-1 \| \| \| \| \| intervention sessions for young \| \| \| \| \| people who are involved in drug \| \| \| \| \| dealing and to provide and \| \| \| \| \| develop an exit strategy for \| \| \| \| \| them to leave and access PAYP \| \| \| \| \| (Positive Activities for Young \| \| \| \| People) March 2019 Tanya Sprunks and Paul Gamble Undertake a trial of the DISC information sharing system to help address VVE in the Town centre ## Strategic Objective 4B - Drug And Alcohol Misuse : To Reduce Alcohol And Drug-Related Reoffending Via Targeted Early Support And Treatment For Ex-Prisoners Measures & Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Specialist caseload management of all prison Year on year increase in the March 2019 Service Manager, WDP transfer rate from release service users to support through treatment and recovery prison to the community in 2017/18 and the transfer rate from Specialist Prison Link Worker that in-reaches to prison establishments: prison to the  Bridging the gap for community in March 2019 Service Manager, WDP 2018/19 service users between Harrow Substance Misuse Services and HMP. New Action \| Assessing, \| engaging \| and \| \|------------------------------\|-------------\|----------\| \| providing support to service \| \| \| \| users \| being \| released \| \| prison \| to \| maximise \| \| engagement with community \| \| \| \| services on release. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| September 2018 Engage Skills & Employment teams for current opportunities and Local Labour market support ## Strategic Objective 5 - Extremism And Hate Crime : To Prevent People From Being Drawn Into Terrorism Or Supporting Terrorism; And To Improve Hate Crime Reporting Rates. Measures & Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Prevention of people being drawn March 2019 into terrorism or Delivery of WRAP Training to all statutory partners supporting terrorism and improving March 2019 community engagement Community Engagement activity with Community Leaders Victoria Isaacs Skills & Employment Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead March 2019 Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Delivery of the Local Prevent Programme March 2019 Effective delivery of Channel arrangements Mark Scanlon, Head of Early Support & Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead September 2019 Review arrangements for hate crime reporting Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety & Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Increase in the reporting of incidents of Hate March 2019 Crime Victim Worker support in place to support victims of Hate Crime Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety March 2019 Through victim satisfaction surveys increase confidence to report incidents Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety	en
4314-pdf	NATION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Base : All respondents REGION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Base : All respondents URBANITY .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Base : All respondents CABLE AREA.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Base : All respondents DEPRIVATION LEVEL.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Base : All respondents SE. GENDER ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Base : All respondents SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Base : All respondents QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Base : All respondents QZ7 (SG). WORKING STATUS (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Base : All respondents QZ10 (SH). HOUSEHOLD STATUS (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Base : All respondents SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31 Base : All respondents SI (SK). Household size...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 Base : All respondents SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Base : All respondents SK (SM). Can you speak or write in Welsh at all? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38 Base : All respondents in Wales SL (SN). What is you preferred language? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Base : All respondents in Wales QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................42 Base : All respondents QB2. SHOWCARD And do you personally use...? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................48 Base : All respondents QB3 (QB4). SHOWCARD Which games console/s do you or does anyone in your household have at the moment? (MULTI CODE) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Base : Those who have access to a games console at home QB4 (QB5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use your games console for? (MULTI CODE) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................59 Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? ..............67 Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Base : All respondents QC2 (QC2A). Do you ever use this landline phone at home yourself to make and/or receive calls, for internet access or both? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................73 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QC3 (QC10). Thinking of when you use your landline, which one of these uses is the most important to you? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls QC4 (QC30). SHOWCARD How do you pay the line rental for your landline phone service? Please answer about your line renatl only and not charges for calls and other costs. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................77 Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................79 Base : All respondents QC6 (QC28A). SHOWCARD And thinking about when you are at home, which is your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................82 Base : All respondents QC7 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QC8A (QC13A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your home phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with the overall service provided by (MAIN SUPPLIER). (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................89 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Base : All respondents QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................96 Base : All respondents QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................100 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD4 (QD24B). Do you personally use a smartphone? IF UNSURE - A smartphone is a phone on which you can easily access emails, download files and applications, as well as view websites and generally surf the internet. Popular brands of smartphone include BlackBerry, iPhone and Android phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S4.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................106 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD5 (QD39). SHOWCARD Which brand or type of smartphone do you have? IF MORE THAN ONE - Which one do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................108 Base : Those with a smartphone QD6 (QD41). Do you have a 4G service? This is a service that enables faster mobile internet access..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................112 Base : Those with a smartphone QD7 (QD27). SHOWCARD How likely is it that you will get a smartphone in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................114 Base : Those without a smartphone QD8 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................118 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD9 (QD11A). When you signed up for your current mobile contract did you get a handset with the contract or did you only get a SIM card? (SINGLE CODE).......................................................................................................................................................................120 Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................122 Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract QD11 (QD32). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes your current situation, now that your minimum contract period for your mobile phone service and handset has ended? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................................126 Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period QD12 (QD33). What type of SIM-only deal are you on? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................128 Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended QD13 (QD34). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes where you got your mobile phone handset from? (SINGLE CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................130 Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff QD14A (QD4A). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you use your mobile phone to send or receive text messages? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................134 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................138 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD14C (QD4C). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to access email or internet services? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................142 Base : Those with a smartphone QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................146 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................162 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD17 (QD28E) SHOWCARD Which of these ways do you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (MULTI CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................179 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet QD18 (QD28C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE) ................................................................................................................................................................................................183 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet QD19 (QD28F). SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use your mobile phone to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................187 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................191 Base : Those with a smartphone QD21 (QD28H). SHOWCARD And which of these types of apps or applications have you PAID FOR to download on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................197 Base : Those with a smartphone QD22A (QD21A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... The overall service provided by MAIN SUPPLIER. (SINGLE CODE) ....................203 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD22J (QD21J). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Reception/ accessing network. (SINGLE CODE).....................................................207 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD23K (QD21K). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Ability to connect to the internet using the mobile network (3G or 4G). (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................211 Base : Those with a smartphone QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................215 Base : All respondents QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................219 Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household QE3 (QE36). Do you personally use this/ any of these tablet computer/s? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................221 Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household QE4 (QE37). Is your tablet computer 3G or 4G enabled? This means that the tablet could be used - with a SIM card - to go online from anywhere with a signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................223 Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer QE5 (QE38). And do you have a separate mobile subscription for your tablet, which allows you to go online from anywhere with a 3G or 4G signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................225 Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer QE6 (QE44). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the mobile signal on your tablet computer to go online - rather than using a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................227 Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer QE7 (QE1A). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a tablet computer - such as an iPad - in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................229 Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household QE8 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................233 Base : All respondents QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................235 Base : All respondents QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................................................................................239 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE11 (QE40). SHOWCARD Which is the most important device you use to connect to the internet, at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................243 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE12 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................247 Base : Those with access to the internet at home QE13 (QE48). Do you pay line rental as part of, or in addition to, your fixed broadband charges?.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................255 Base : Those with fixed broadband at home QE14 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? 257 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE15 (QE39). What were the reasons you took up a mobile broadband service? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................259 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet QE16 (QE22C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use mobile broadband to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................263 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet QE17 (QE32). SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use mobile broadband to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................................267 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home QE18 (QE3B). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the fixed broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? ........................................................................................................................................................270 Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household QE19 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? .....................................................................................................................................................272 Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................274 Base : Those with access to the internet at home QE21 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................280 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE22 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................299 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE23 (QENEW11) SHOWCARD What was the advertised speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection when you took up your service? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................319 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................325 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE25 (QE11C). Do you know how to find out what speeds you are getting on your computer at home? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................331 Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home QE26A (QE8AA). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The overall service provided by MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE).........................................333 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE26B (QE8AB). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The speed of your service while online (not just the connection)? (SINGLE CODE) ...................337 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE26C (QE8AC). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The reliability of the service from MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE)......................................341 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE27 (QE12). SHOWCARD Thinking about the speed of your household's fixed broadband internet, is this faster, slower or about the same as you expected it to be when you first got it? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................345 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28A (QE8A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The overall service provided by MAIN PROVIDER. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................349 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28B (QE8B). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The speed of your service while online (not just the connection)? (SINGLE CODE).........................353 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28C (QE8C). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The reliability of the service from MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE)............................................357 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE29 (QE35). READ OUT DESCRIPTION OF WIRELESS ROUTER. Do you or anyone in your household use a fixed wireless internet connection at home (Wi-Fi)? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................361 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE30 (QE11D). SHOWCARD How many of these devices does your household connect to the fixed wireless internet connection (Wi-Fi)? (MULTI CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................363 Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................369 Base : Those without internet access at home QE32 (QE25A). Why are you unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................373 Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months QE33 (QE25B). And, which one of these reasons is your MAIN reason for not getting internet access at home? (SINGLE CODE) UNPROMPTED..........................................................................................................................................................................................381 Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months QE34 (QENI1). EXPLAIN SATELLITE BROADBAND Were you aware that satellite broadband is available? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................387 Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales QE35 (QE29). EXPLAIN THAT PHONE CALLS CAN BE MADE USING THE INTERNET USING SERVICES SUCH AS SKYPE. Before now, were you aware that you could make voice calls using the internet? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................389 Base : All respondents QE36 (QE30). Have you or anyone in your household ever used one of these services to make voice calls using the internet at home? (SINGLE CODE) ...............................................................................................................................................................................391 Base : All respondents QE37 (QE31). SHOWCARD Which supplier does/ did your household use to make voice calls using the internet? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................393 Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code)......................................................................................................................................................460 Base : Those with a TV in the household ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets 'Smart Tvs'? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. ...............................................................................464 Base : Those with a TV in the household ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your 'Smart Tv' Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................466 Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................472 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................478 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QH18A (QH65A). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ1? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................484 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18B (QH65B). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ2? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................486 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................488 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18D (QH65D). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TG4? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................492 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................494 Base : All respondents QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................498 Base : All respondents QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................502 Base : All respondents QG2 (QG3A). SHOWCARD Please could you tell me which services are part of this deal or package you have with the same supplier? (MULTI CODE).................................................................................................................................................................................504 Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package QG3 (QG3D). Which supplier do you use for this package of services? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................508 Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................514 Base : All respondents QP2A (QP11A). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Radio set with AM receiver - either at home, in the car or on portable radio. (SINGLE CODE)............................................................................................................................................518 Base : Those who listen to radio QP2B (QP11B). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Radio set with FM stereo - either at home, in the car or on portable radio. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................................521 Base : Those who listen to radio QP2C (QP11C). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Mobile phone. (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................524 Base : Those who listen to radio All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Nation Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% England 2236 1089 1147 309 391 765 771 250 213 311 509 613 604 479 539 2236 - - - 84% 84% 83% 85% 83% 84% 83% 79% 82% 87% 87% 86% 84% 82% 82% 100% -% -% -% g gh n pqr 49% 51% 14% 17% 34% 34% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 27% 21% 24% 100% -% -% -% Scotland 233 112 121 29 40 81 83 38 27 25 46 54 65 53 62 - 233 - - 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 12% 10% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% -% 100% -% -% ij oqr 48% 52% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 12% 11% 20% 23% 28% 23% 27% -% 100% -% -% Wales 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% -% -% 100% -% opr 49% 51% 11% 19% 33% 37% 15% 11% 10% 18% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Northern Ireland 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% -% -% -% 100% j opq 48% 52% 15% 18% 35% 32% 12% 8% 12% 7% 22% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Nation Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% England 2236 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 1972 264 1304 922 1229 1007 84% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 73% 84% 83% 85% 82% k o 15% 16% 10% 8% 11% 11% 10% 5% 13% 88% 12% 58% 41% 55% 45% Scotland 233 - - - - - - - - - 194 39 133 100 104 129 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 11% 9% 9% 7% 11% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 57% 43% 44% 56% Wales 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Northern Ireland 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 8% 3% 3% 2% 3% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% North East 114 53 60 15 23 34 41 23 10 14 14 18 32 23 42 114 - - - 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 5% -% -% -% j k pqr 47% 53% 13% 20% 30% 36% 20% 9% 12% 12% 16% 28% 20% 37% 100% -% -% -% North West 302 151 151 41 42 107 112 41 27 64 65 79 85 54 84 302 - - - 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 12% 12% 13% 11% 18% 11% 11% 12% 9% 13% 13% -% -% -% hj pqr 50% 50% 14% 14% 35% 37% 13% 9% 21% 22% 26% 28% 18% 28% 100% -% -% -% Yorkshire 226 105 121 38 30 66 92 43 29 44 46 59 47 56 65 226 - - - 8% 8% 9% 11% 6% 7% 10% 13% 11% 12% 8% 8% 6% 10% 10% 10% -% -% -% d de j j l l pqr 47% 53% 17% 13% 29% 41% 19% 13% 19% 20% 26% 21% 25% 29% 100% -% -% -% East Midlands 189 91 97 24 32 57 76 29 16 25 37 46 49 44 50 189 - - - 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 8% 9% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% -% -% -% pqr 48% 52% 13% 17% 30% 40% 15% 8% 13% 19% 24% 26% 23% 26% 100% -% -% -% West Midlands 237 113 124 39 40 77 81 20 15 13 16 56 65 54 63 237 - - - 9% 9% 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 6% 6% 4% 3% 8% 9% 9% 9% 11% -% -% -% j j pqr 48% 52% 16% 17% 33% 34% 8% 6% 6% 7% 24% 27% 23% 26% 100% -% -% -% East of England 245 112 132 26 51 81 88 35 28 47 65 72 62 52 59 245 - - - 9% 9% 10% 7% 11% 9% 9% 11% 11% 13% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 11% -% -% -% pqr 46% 54% 10% 21% 33% 36% 14% 11% 19% 27% 29% 25% 21% 24% 100% -% -% -% London 338 171 167 54 92 140 52 12 37 43 104 112 111 52 64 338 - - - 13% 13% 12% 15% 20% 15% 6% 4% 14% 12% 18% 16% 15% 9% 10% 15% -% -% -% f f f g g gi mn mn pqr 51% 49% 16% 27% 41% 15% 3% 11% 13% 31% 33% 33% 15% 19% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% South East 359 182 177 46 49 127 137 27 34 37 97 114 94 85 65 359 - - - 13% 14% 13% 13% 10% 14% 15% 8% 13% 10% 17% 16% 13% 15% 10% 16% -% -% -% d gi n n pqr 51% 49% 13% 14% 35% 38% 7% 9% 10% 27% 32% 26% 24% 18% 100% -% -% -% South West 227 110 117 26 32 77 92 22 17 24 65 58 61 59 49 227 - - - 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 10% 7% 7% 7% 11% 8% 8% 10% 7% 10% -% -% -% ghi pqr 49% 51% 11% 14% 34% 41% 10% 8% 11% 28% 25% 27% 26% 21% 100% -% -% -% Wales 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% -% -% 100% -% opr 49% 51% 11% 19% 33% 37% 15% 11% 10% 18% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Scotland 233 112 121 29 40 81 83 38 27 25 46 54 65 53 62 - 233 - - 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 12% 10% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% -% 100% -% -% ij oqr 48% 52% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 12% 11% 20% 23% 28% 23% 27% -% 100% -% -% Northern Ireland 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% -% -% -% 100% j opq 48% 52% 15% 18% 35% 32% 12% 8% 12% 7% 22% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% North East 114 - - - - - - - 114 - 106 8 58 55 57 57 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 5% 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% abcdefgi k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 93% 7% 51% 48% 50% 50% North West 302 - - - - - - - - 302 282 20 171 130 166 136 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 12% 6% 11% 12% 11% 11% abcdefgh k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 93% 7% 57% 43% 55% 45% Yorkshire 226 - - - - - - 226 - - 200 26 119 106 115 111 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 9% abcdefhi -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 89% 11% 53% 47% 51% 49% East Midlands 189 - - - 189 - - - - - 157 31 100 88 133 55 7% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 7% 9% 6% 8% 9% 4% abcefghi o -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 53% 47% 71% 29% West Midlands 237 - - - - 237 - - - - 210 27 136 100 124 113 9% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 9% abcdfghi -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 57% 42% 52% 48% East of England 245 - - - - - 245 - - - 198 47 140 104 153 91 9% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 9% 13% 9% 9% 11% 7% abcdeghi j o -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 81% 19% 57% 42% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% London 338 338 - - - - - - - - 338 - 256 83 74 265 13% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 15% -% 16% 7% 5% 21% bcdefghi k m n 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 76% 24% 22% 78% South East 359 - 359 - - - - - - - 308 51 195 163 250 109 13% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 14% 13% 15% 17% 9% acdefghi o -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% 14% 54% 45% 70% 30% South West 227 - - 227 - - - - - - 173 54 130 95 157 70 8% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 7% 15% 8% 9% 11% 6% abdefghi j o -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 57% 42% 69% 31% Wales 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Scotland 233 - - - - - - - - - 194 39 133 100 104 129 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 11% 9% 9% 7% 11% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 57% 43% 44% 56% Northern Ireland 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 8% 3% 3% 2% 3% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Urbanity Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Urban 2315 1128 1188 334 419 792 771 281 227 310 504 590 645 483 597 1972 194 103 46 87% 87% 86% 92% 89% 86% 83% 88% 87% 87% 86% 83% 90% 83% 90% 88% 83% 78% 63% ef f km km pqr r r 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 33% 12% 10% 13% 22% 25% 28% 21% 26% 85% 8% 4% 2% Rural 360 173 187 31 50 124 156 37 33 48 79 122 75 97 64 264 39 29 27 13% 13% 14% 8% 11% 14% 17% 12% 13% 13% 14% 17% 10% 17% 10% 12% 17% 22% 37% c cd ln ln o o opq 48% 52% 9% 14% 34% 43% 10% 9% 13% 22% 34% 21% 27% 18% 73% 11% 8% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Urbanity Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Urban 2315 338 308 173 157 210 198 200 106 282 2315 - 1349 956 1128 1187 87% 100% 86% 76% 83% 89% 81% 89% 93% 93% 100% -% 87% 86% 78% 96% bcdefghi c c cf cf bcdf bcdf k n 15% 13% 7% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 100% -% 58% 41% 49% 51% Rural 360 - 51 54 31 27 47 26 8 20 - 360 202 157 315 45 13% -% 14% 24% 17% 11% 19% 11% 7% 7% -% 100% 13% 14% 22% 4% ahi abdeghi ahi a aeghi a a a j o -% 14% 15% 9% 7% 13% 7% 2% 6% -% 100% 56% 44% 88% 12% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Cable Area Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% TELEWEST 426 211 214 56 75 155 140 37 47 53 96 97 118 106 104 343 82 - - 16% 16% 16% 15% 16% 17% 15% 12% 18% 15% 16% 14% 16% 18% 16% 15% 35% -% -% g k qr oqr 50% 50% 13% 18% 36% 33% 9% 11% 13% 22% 23% 28% 25% 24% 81% 19% -% -% NTL 929 460 470 141 169 316 303 119 76 136 214 257 255 176 241 862 15 34 18 35% 35% 34% 39% 36% 35% 33% 37% 29% 38% 37% 36% 35% 30% 36% 39% 7% 26% 25% f h h h m m pqr p p 49% 51% 15% 18% 34% 33% 13% 8% 15% 23% 28% 27% 19% 26% 93% 2% 4% 2% NEITHER 1320 629 690 167 225 444 484 161 137 169 273 357 347 298 316 1031 135 98 55 49% 48% 50% 46% 48% 49% 52% 51% 53% 47% 47% 50% 48% 51% 48% 46% 58% 74% 75% c o op op 48% 52% 13% 17% 34% 37% 12% 10% 13% 21% 27% 26% 23% 24% 78% 10% 7% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Cable Area Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TELEWEST 426 82 - 48 - 107 1 47 9 50 425 1 251 173 177 249 16% 24% -% 21% -% 45% % 21% 8% 16% 18% % 16% 16% 12% 20% bdfhi bdfh abcdfghi bdfh bdf bdfh k n 19% -% 11% -% 25% % 11% 2% 12% 100% % 59% 41% 41% 59% NTL 929 173 208 18 98 21 120 50 53 122 897 32 547 378 438 491 35% 51% 58% 8% 52% 9% 49% 22% 47% 40% 39% 9% 35% 34% 30% 40% cegi ceghi cegi ceg ce ceg ceg k n 19% 22% 2% 10% 2% 13% 5% 6% 13% 97% 3% 59% 41% 47% 53% NEITHER 1320 84 151 160 91 110 124 129 52 131 993 326 753 563 829 491 49% 25% 42% 71% 48% 46% 51% 57% 45% 43% 43% 91% 49% 51% 57% 40% a abdefghi a a a abehi a a j o 6% 11% 12% 7% 8% 9% 10% 4% 10% 75% 25% 57% 43% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Deprivation Level Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Low 1443 697 747 155 221 514 554 125 108 187 370 488 391 314 250 1229 104 77 34 54% 54% 54% 42% 47% 56% 60% 40% 42% 52% 63% 69% 54% 54% 38% 55% 44% 58% 45% cd cd gh ghi lmn n n pr pr 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 38% 9% 8% 13% 26% 34% 27% 22% 17% 85% 7% 5% 2% Medium 1093 536 557 187 219 350 338 162 120 153 195 205 293 243 351 889 117 51 37 41% 41% 41% 51% 47% 38% 36% 51% 46% 43% 33% 29% 41% 42% 53% 40% 50% 38% 50% ef ef ij j j k k klm oq oq 49% 51% 17% 20% 32% 31% 15% 11% 14% 18% 19% 27% 22% 32% 81% 11% 5% 3% High 139 68 71 23 29 52 35 30 32 18 19 19 36 24 60 118 13 4 4 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 4% 9% 12% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 9% 5% 5% 3% 5% f f ij ij k klm 49% 51% 17% 21% 37% 25% 21% 23% 13% 14% 14% 26% 17% 43% 85% 9% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. DEPRIVATION LEVEL Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Low 1443 74 250 157 133 124 153 115 57 166 1128 315 853 585 1443 - 54% 22% 70% 69% 71% 52% 63% 51% 50% 55% 49% 88% 55% 53% 100% -% aeghi aeghi aeghi a aegh a a a j o 5% 17% 11% 9% 9% 11% 8% 4% 11% 78% 22% 59% 41% 100% -% Medium 1093 200 109 70 47 103 91 95 51 121 1048 45 615 474 - 1093 41% 59% 30% 31% 25% 43% 37% 42% 45% 40% 45% 12% 40% 43% -% 89% bcdefghi bcd d bcd bcd bcd k n 18% 10% 6% 4% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 96% 4% 56% 43% -% 100% High 139 64 - - 8 11 - 16 5 15 139 - 84 55 - 139 5% 19% -% -% 4% 4% -% 7% 5% 5% 6% -% 5% 5% -% 11% bcdefghi bcf bcf bcf bcf bcf k n 46% -% -% 6% 8% -% 11% 4% 11% 100% -% 60% 39% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Se. Gender Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Male 1301 1301 - 178 199 427 496 133 117 184 291 363 334 318 285 1089 112 64 36 49% 100% -% 49% 42% 47% 53% 42% 45% 51% 50% 51% 46% 55% 43% 49% 48% 49% 48% b de g g n ln 100% -% 14% 15% 33% 38% 10% 9% 14% 22% 28% 26% 24% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Female 1374 - 1374 186 270 488 431 184 143 174 292 349 386 262 376 1147 121 68 38 51% -% 100% 51% 58% 53% 47% 58% 55% 49% 50% 49% 54% 45% 57% 51% 52% 51% 52% a f f ij m km -% 100% 14% 20% 35% 31% 13% 10% 13% 21% 25% 28% 19% 27% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Se. Gender Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Male 1301 171 182 110 91 113 112 105 53 151 1128 173 783 512 697 604 49% 51% 51% 49% 48% 48% 46% 47% 47% 50% 49% 48% 50% 46% 48% 49% m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 60% 39% 54% 46% Female 1374 167 177 117 97 124 132 121 60 151 1188 187 768 602 747 628 51% 49% 49% 51% 52% 52% 54% 53% 53% 50% 51% 52% 50% 54% 52% 51% l 12% 13% 8% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 56% 44% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 16 - 17 46 28 18 46 - - - 2 1 2 5 14 13 8 11 39 3 2 3 2% 2% 1% 13% -% -% -% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 4% def opq 61% 39% 100% -% -% -% 4% 2% 5% 11% 30% 28% 17% 25% 84% 6% 4% 6% 18 - 24 319 150 168 319 - - - 44 25 31 49 57 101 71 89 270 26 13 9 12% 12% 12% 87% -% -% -% 14% 10% 9% 8% 8% 14% 12% 13% 12% 11% 10% 12% def ij k k k 47% 53% 100% -% -% -% 14% 8% 10% 16% 18% 32% 22% 28% 85% 8% 4% 3% 25 - 34 469 199 270 - 469 - - 51 45 67 127 99 134 114 121 391 40 25 13 18% 15% 20% -% 100% -% -% 16% 17% 19% 22% 14% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 19% 18% a cef g k k k 42% 58% -% 100% -% -% 11% 10% 14% 27% 21% 29% 24% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% 35 - 44 459 211 248 - - 459 - 38 36 75 139 141 128 92 98 377 42 25 14 17% 16% 18% -% -% 50% -% 12% 14% 21% 24% 20% 18% 16% 15% 17% 18% 19% 20% cdf gh gh n 46% 54% -% -% 100% -% 8% 8% 16% 30% 31% 28% 20% 21% 82% 9% 5% 3% 45 - 54 456 216 239 - - 456 - 42 36 71 144 140 108 97 111 388 38 18 11 17% 17% 17% -% -% 50% -% 13% 14% 20% 25% 20% 15% 17% 17% 17% 16% 14% 16% cdf g gh l 47% 53% -% -% 100% -% 9% 8% 16% 32% 31% 24% 21% 24% 85% 8% 4% 3% 55 - 64 388 205 183 - - - 388 49 46 57 79 104 95 94 96 320 35 22 11 15% 16% 13% -% -% -% 42% 15% 18% 16% 14% 15% 13% 16% 15% 14% 15% 17% 15% cde 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 15% 20% 27% 24% 24% 25% 83% 9% 6% 3% 65 - 74 287 157 130 - - - 287 38 34 33 28 78 84 56 68 239 27 15 7 11% 12% 9% -% -% -% 31% 12% 13% 9% 5% 11% 12% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 9% b cde j j j 55% 45% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 11% 10% 27% 29% 19% 24% 83% 9% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 75+ 252 134 118 - - - 252 54 37 23 13 79 57 50 67 212 22 12 6 9% 10% 9% -% -% -% 27% 17% 14% 6% 2% 11% 8% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% cde ij ij j l 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 21% 15% 9% 5% 31% 23% 20% 27% 84% 9% 5% 2% AGE SUMMARY 16-24 364 178 186 364 - - - 46 26 33 54 71 114 79 100 309 29 15 11 14% 14% 14% 100% -% -% -% 15% 10% 9% 9% 10% 16% 14% 15% 14% 12% 11% 15% def ij k k 49% 51% 100% -% -% -% 13% 7% 9% 15% 20% 31% 22% 27% 85% 8% 4% 3% 25-34 469 199 270 - 469 - - 51 45 67 127 99 134 114 121 391 40 25 13 18% 15% 20% -% 100% -% -% 16% 17% 19% 22% 14% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 19% 18% a cef g k k k 42% 58% -% 100% -% -% 11% 10% 14% 27% 21% 29% 24% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% 35-54 915 427 488 - - 915 - 80 72 146 282 281 237 188 209 765 81 44 26 34% 33% 35% -% -% 100% -% 25% 28% 41% 48% 40% 33% 32% 32% 34% 35% 33% 35% cdf gh ghi lmn 47% 53% -% -% 100% -% 9% 8% 16% 31% 31% 26% 21% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% 55-64 388 205 183 - - - 388 49 46 57 79 104 95 94 96 320 35 22 11 15% 16% 13% -% -% -% 42% 15% 18% 16% 14% 15% 13% 16% 15% 14% 15% 17% 15% cde 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 15% 20% 27% 24% 24% 25% 83% 9% 6% 3% 65+ 539 291 248 - - - 539 92 71 55 40 156 141 106 135 451 48 27 12 20% 22% 18% -% -% -% 58% 29% 27% 15% 7% 22% 20% 18% 20% 20% 21% 20% 17% b cde ij ij j 54% 46% -% -% -% 100% 17% 13% 10% 7% 29% 26% 20% 25% 84% 9% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 16 - 17 46 4 5 2 8 7 2 5 1 5 42 3 5 41 24 22 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% % 4% 2% 2% acfh l 8% 11% 5% 17% 14% 5% 12% 2% 10% 92% 8% 11% 89% 52% 48% 18 - 24 319 51 40 24 16 32 23 33 14 37 291 27 185 134 131 188 12% 15% 11% 10% 9% 13% 10% 15% 13% 12% 13% 8% 12% 12% 9% 15% d d k n 16% 13% 7% 5% 10% 7% 10% 4% 12% 91% 9% 58% 42% 41% 59% 25 - 34 469 92 49 32 32 40 51 30 23 42 419 50 369 96 221 248 18% 27% 14% 14% 17% 17% 21% 13% 20% 14% 18% 14% 24% 9% 15% 20% bcdegi bg k m n 20% 10% 7% 7% 9% 11% 6% 5% 9% 89% 11% 79% 21% 47% 53% 35 - 44 459 76 60 33 30 34 38 40 15 53 409 50 371 88 246 214 17% 22% 17% 14% 16% 14% 15% 18% 13% 17% 18% 14% 24% 8% 17% 17% ceh m 16% 13% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 3% 11% 89% 11% 81% 19% 53% 47% 45 - 54 456 64 67 44 27 44 43 26 19 54 382 73 363 88 268 188 17% 19% 19% 19% 14% 18% 17% 11% 17% 18% 17% 20% 23% 8% 19% 15% g g g g j m o 14% 15% 10% 6% 10% 9% 6% 4% 12% 84% 16% 80% 19% 59% 41% 55 - 64 388 20 59 35 32 41 31 40 20 41 320 68 219 168 228 160 15% 6% 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 18% 18% 14% 14% 19% 14% 15% 16% 13% a a a a a a a a j o 5% 15% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% 5% 11% 82% 18% 57% 43% 59% 41% 65 - 74 287 19 44 28 23 17 29 29 11 39 240 48 34 253 178 109 11% 6% 12% 12% 12% 7% 12% 13% 10% 13% 10% 13% 2% 23% 12% 9% a ae a a ae ae l o 7% 15% 10% 8% 6% 10% 10% 4% 14% 83% 17% 12% 88% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 75+ 252 13 34 29 21 24 27 23 10 31 212 40 5 246 148 104 9% 4% 10% 13% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 10% 9% 11% % 22% 10% 8% a a a a a a a a l 5% 14% 12% 8% 9% 11% 9% 4% 12% 84% 16% 2% 98% 59% 41% AGE SUMMARY 16-24 364 54 46 26 24 39 26 38 15 41 334 31 190 174 155 210 14% 16% 13% 11% 13% 16% 10% 17% 13% 14% 14% 9% 12% 16% 11% 17% f k l n 15% 13% 7% 7% 11% 7% 11% 4% 11% 92% 8% 52% 48% 42% 58% 25-34 469 92 49 32 32 40 51 30 23 42 419 50 369 96 221 248 18% 27% 14% 14% 17% 17% 21% 13% 20% 14% 18% 14% 24% 9% 15% 20% bcdegi bg k m n 20% 10% 7% 7% 9% 11% 6% 5% 9% 89% 11% 79% 21% 47% 53% 35-54 915 140 127 77 57 77 81 66 34 107 792 124 734 176 514 402 34% 41% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 29% 30% 35% 34% 34% 47% 16% 36% 33% dgh m 15% 14% 8% 6% 8% 9% 7% 4% 12% 86% 14% 80% 19% 56% 44% 55-64 388 20 59 35 32 41 31 40 20 41 320 68 219 168 228 160 15% 6% 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 18% 18% 14% 14% 19% 14% 15% 16% 13% a a a a a a a a j o 5% 15% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% 5% 11% 82% 18% 57% 43% 59% 41% 65+ 539 32 78 58 44 40 57 51 21 70 451 88 39 499 326 213 20% 9% 22% 25% 23% 17% 23% 23% 19% 23% 19% 24% 3% 45% 23% 17% a ae a a a a a a j l o 6% 15% 11% 8% 7% 11% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 7% 93% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A 67 41 27 2 9 24 33 - 3 2 34 67 - - - 61 3 3 1 3% 3% 2% % 2% 3% 4% -% 1% 1% 6% 9% -% -% -% 3% 1% 2% 1% c c g ghi lmn 60% 40% 3% 13% 35% 49% -% 4% 3% 51% 100% -% -% -% 90% 4% 5% 1% B 644 322 322 69 90 257 227 14 29 74 232 644 - - - 552 51 26 15 24% 25% 23% 19% 19% 28% 25% 4% 11% 21% 40% 91% -% -% -% 25% 22% 20% 20% cd cd g gh ghi lmn 50% 50% 11% 14% 40% 35% 2% 5% 12% 36% 100% -% -% -% 86% 8% 4% 2% C1 720 334 386 114 134 237 236 56 62 115 153 - 720 - - 604 65 33 18 27% 26% 28% 31% 29% 26% 25% 18% 24% 32% 26% -% 100% -% -% 27% 28% 25% 24% f g gh g kmn 46% 54% 16% 19% 33% 33% 8% 9% 16% 21% -% 100% -% -% 84% 9% 5% 2% C2 580 318 262 79 114 188 199 38 66 100 119 - - 580 - 479 53 31 18 22% 24% 19% 22% 24% 21% 22% 12% 25% 28% 20% -% -% 100% -% 21% 23% 24% 24% b g gj g kln 55% 45% 14% 20% 32% 34% 7% 11% 17% 21% -% -% 100% -% 82% 9% 5% 3% D 376 177 199 57 71 136 112 66 71 52 37 - - - 376 313 33 20 11 14% 14% 15% 16% 15% 15% 12% 21% 27% 15% 6% -% -% -% 57% 14% 14% 15% 14% ij ij j klm 47% 53% 15% 19% 36% 30% 18% 19% 14% 10% -% -% -% 100% 83% 9% 5% 3% E 284 107 177 43 50 73 119 143 29 16 8 - - - 284 227 29 17 11 11% 8% 13% 12% 11% 8% 13% 45% 11% 4% 1% -% -% -% 43% 10% 13% 13% 15% a e e hij ij j klm o 38% 62% 15% 18% 26% 42% 50% 10% 6% 3% -% -% -% 100% 80% 10% 6% 4% Refused 2 1 1 - 1 * 1 - * - - - - - - 2 - * * % % % -% % % % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% % -% % % 54% 46% -% 40% 8% 52% -% 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% -% 6% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% SOCIAL GROUP AB 712 363 349 71 99 281 260 14 32 76 266 712 - - - 613 54 30 16 27% 28% 25% 20% 21% 31% 28% 4% 12% 21% 46% 100% -% -% -% 27% 23% 22% 22% cd cd g gh ghi lmn r 51% 49% 10% 14% 40% 37% 2% 5% 11% 37% 100% -% -% -% 86% 8% 4% 2% C1C2 1300 652 648 193 247 425 435 94 128 214 272 - 720 580 - 1082 117 65 36 49% 50% 47% 53% 53% 46% 47% 30% 49% 60% 47% -% 100% 100% -% 48% 50% 49% 49% e ef g ghj g kn kn 50% 50% 15% 19% 33% 33% 7% 10% 16% 21% -% 55% 45% -% 83% 9% 5% 3% DE 661 285 376 100 121 209 231 209 100 68 45 - - - 661 539 62 38 22 25% 22% 27% 27% 26% 23% 25% 66% 38% 19% 8% -% -% -% 100% 24% 27% 28% 30% a hij ij j klm o 43% 57% 15% 18% 32% 35% 32% 15% 10% 7% -% -% -% 100% 82% 9% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A 67 17 15 2 2 3 7 7 - 7 59 8 43 25 46 21 3% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% -% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% cdeh cdh h h h o 25% 23% 4% 3% 5% 11% 10% -% 11% 88% 12% 64% 36% 69% 31% B 644 96 99 55 44 53 65 52 18 71 531 114 395 247 441 203 24% 28% 28% 24% 23% 22% 26% 23% 16% 24% 23% 32% 25% 22% 31% 16% h h h h h h h j m o 15% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 11% 82% 18% 61% 38% 69% 31% C1 720 111 94 61 49 65 62 47 32 85 645 75 449 269 391 329 27% 33% 26% 27% 26% 27% 25% 21% 28% 28% 28% 21% 29% 24% 27% 27% g k m 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 6% 4% 12% 90% 10% 62% 37% 54% 46% C2 580 52 85 59 44 54 52 56 23 54 483 97 393 186 314 267 22% 15% 24% 26% 23% 23% 21% 25% 20% 18% 21% 27% 25% 17% 22% 22% a ai a a a j m 9% 15% 10% 8% 9% 9% 10% 4% 9% 83% 17% 68% 32% 54% 46% D 376 52 39 31 24 28 32 39 19 49 343 33 261 114 147 229 14% 15% 11% 14% 13% 12% 13% 17% 16% 16% 15% 9% 17% 10% 10% 19% k m n 14% 10% 8% 6% 7% 9% 10% 5% 13% 91% 9% 69% 30% 39% 61% E 284 11 25 17 25 35 27 26 23 36 254 31 11 271 103 182 11% 3% 7% 8% 14% 15% 11% 12% 20% 12% 11% 9% 1% 24% 7% 15% a abc abc a a abcfgi a l n 4% 9% 6% 9% 12% 9% 9% 8% 13% 89% 11% 4% 95% 36% 64% Refused 2 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 * 2 1 1 % -% % % -% -% -% -% -% -% % % % % % % -% 46% 40% -% -% -% -% -% -% 46% 54% 6% 94% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% SOCIAL GROUP AB 712 112 114 58 46 56 72 59 18 79 590 122 438 271 488 224 27% 33% 32% 25% 24% 24% 29% 26% 16% 26% 25% 34% 28% 24% 34% 18% deh eh h h h h h h j m o 16% 16% 8% 6% 8% 10% 8% 2% 11% 83% 17% 62% 38% 69% 31% C1C2 1300 162 179 120 93 118 114 102 54 139 1128 173 842 455 704 596 49% 48% 50% 53% 49% 50% 46% 45% 48% 46% 49% 48% 54% 41% 49% 48% m 12% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 65% 35% 54% 46% DE 661 64 65 49 50 63 59 65 42 84 597 64 272 386 250 411 25% 19% 18% 21% 26% 26% 24% 29% 37% 28% 26% 18% 18% 35% 17% 33% b b ab abcdefi ab k l n 10% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 10% 6% 13% 90% 10% 41% 58% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Working full time (30hrs/wk+) 1120 691 430 130 286 545 159 18 86 184 379 334 331 278 177 930 108 50 32 42% 53% 31% 36% 61% 60% 17% 6% 33% 51% 65% 47% 46% 48% 27% 42% 46% 38% 43% b f cf cf g gh ghi n n n q 62% 38% 12% 26% 49% 14% 2% 8% 16% 34% 30% 30% 25% 16% 83% 10% 4% 3% Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk) 431 93 339 60 83 189 99 49 31 74 114 104 118 115 95 374 25 23 9 16% 7% 25% 17% 18% 21% 11% 15% 12% 21% 19% 15% 16% 20% 14% 17% 11% 18% 13% a f f f h h kn pr p 21% 79% 14% 19% 44% 23% 11% 7% 17% 26% 24% 27% 27% 22% 87% 6% 5% 2% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired 603 318 285 - - 8 595 102 91 59 48 180 159 116 147 507 53 30 13 23% 24% 21% -% -% 1% 64% 32% 35% 16% 8% 25% 22% 20% 22% 23% 23% 23% 18% b cde ij ij j m r 53% 47% -% -% 1% 99% 17% 15% 10% 8% 30% 26% 19% 24% 84% 9% 5% 2% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work) 132 73 59 33 36 42 20 56 17 7 3 11 8 10 102 102 14 10 6 5% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 2% 18% 7% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 15% 5% 6% 7% 9% ef ef f hij ij klm o o 55% 45% 25% 27% 32% 15% 42% 13% 5% 3% 8% 6% 7% 78% 77% 10% 7% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - student 137 71 65 122 5 9 - 19 8 5 15 40 64 16 17 115 13 5 5 5% 5% 5% 34% 1% 1% -% 6% 3% 1% 3% 6% 9% 3% 3% 5% 5% 3% 6% def f f ij mn kmn 52% 48% 90% 4% 7% -% 14% 6% 4% 11% 29% 47% 11% 13% 84% 9% 3% 3% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other 242 50 193 19 55 117 51 71 25 29 23 41 38 45 119 199 22 14 8 9% 4% 14% 5% 12% 13% 6% 22% 10% 8% 4% 6% 5% 8% 18% 9% 9% 10% 11% a cf cf hij j j klm 20% 80% 8% 23% 48% 21% 29% 10% 12% 9% 17% 16% 18% 49% 82% 9% 6% 3% Don't know 10 5 5 - 3 5 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 9 - - % % % -% 1% 1% % % 1% % % % % % % % -% -% 1% 54% 46% -% 31% 50% 19% 16% 21% 10% 13% 29% 23% 17% 31% 95% -% -% 5% WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING 1552 783 768 190 369 734 258 67 117 258 492 438 449 393 272 1304 133 74 41 58% 60% 56% 52% 79% 80% 28% 21% 45% 72% 84% 62% 62% 68% 41% 58% 57% 56% 55% b f cf cf g gh ghi n n kln 50% 50% 12% 24% 47% 17% 4% 8% 17% 32% 28% 29% 25% 18% 84% 9% 5% 3% NOT WORKING 1114 512 602 174 96 176 667 248 141 99 89 271 269 186 386 922 100 58 32 42% 39% 44% 48% 21% 19% 72% 78% 54% 28% 15% 38% 37% 32% 58% 41% 43% 44% 44% a de cde hij ij j m m klm 46% 54% 16% 9% 16% 60% 22% 13% 9% 8% 24% 24% 17% 35% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Base for % 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Working full time (30hrs/wk+) 1120 200 130 86 60 104 102 76 45 128 984 136 1120 - 599 521 42% 59% 36% 38% 32% 44% 42% 34% 39% 42% 42% 38% 72% -% 41% 42% bcdefghi dg d dg m 18% 12% 8% 5% 9% 9% 7% 4% 11% 88% 12% 100% -% 53% 47% Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk) 431 55 65 45 39 32 38 43 14 43 366 66 431 - 254 178 16% 16% 18% 20% 21% 13% 15% 19% 12% 14% 16% 18% 28% -% 18% 14% h eh h m o 13% 15% 10% 9% 7% 9% 10% 3% 10% 85% 15% 100% -% 59% 41% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired 603 30 88 65 49 49 57 61 26 82 503 100 - 603 366 237 23% 9% 24% 29% 26% 21% 23% 27% 23% 27% 22% 28% -% 54% 25% 19% a ae a a a a a a j l o 5% 15% 11% 8% 8% 9% 10% 4% 14% 83% 17% -% 100% 61% 39% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work) 132 10 12 11 11 18 7 10 8 15 122 10 - 132 50 82 5% 3% 3% 5% 6% 8% 3% 5% 7% 5% 5% 3% -% 12% 3% 7% abf f k l n 7% 9% 9% 8% 14% 5% 8% 6% 12% 92% 8% -% 100% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - student 137 33 18 4 9 11 11 12 3 15 129 8 - 137 50 86 5% 10% 5% 2% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 5% 6% 2% -% 12% 3% 7% cdefh c k l n 24% 13% 3% 6% 8% 8% 9% 2% 11% 94% 6% -% 100% 37% 63% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other 242 11 45 14 19 22 29 23 18 17 203 40 - 242 119 124 9% 3% 13% 6% 10% 9% 12% 10% 16% 6% 9% 11% -% 22% 8% 10% aci a a aci a acei l 4% 19% 6% 8% 9% 12% 9% 7% 7% 84% 16% -% 100% 49% 51% Don't know 10 - 2 2 1 1 1 1 * 1 10 * - - 5 5 % -% % 1% 1% 1% 1% % % % % % -% -% % % -% 15% 19% 11% 13% 14% 9% 4% 10% 99% 1% -% -% 54% 46% WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING 1552 256 195 130 100 136 140 119 58 171 1349 202 1552 - 853 699 58% 76% 54% 57% 53% 57% 57% 53% 51% 57% 58% 56% 100% -% 59% 57% bcdefghi m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 100% -% 55% 45% NOT WORKING 1114 83 163 95 88 100 104 106 55 130 956 157 - 1114 585 528 42% 24% 45% 42% 47% 42% 42% 47% 48% 43% 41% 44% -% 100% 41% 43% a a a a a a a a l 7% 15% 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 5% 12% 86% 14% -% 100% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Being bought on mortgage 811 366 445 95 155 430 131 16 34 110 329 302 231 196 83 667 85 35 24 30% 28% 32% 26% 33% 47% 14% 5% 13% 31% 56% 42% 32% 34% 13% 30% 36% 26% 33% a f cf cdf g gh ghi lmn n n oq 45% 55% 12% 19% 53% 16% 2% 4% 14% 41% 37% 28% 24% 10% 82% 10% 4% 3% Owned outright by household 737 406 331 35 19 112 570 70 79 91 114 252 204 156 125 632 47 40 18 28% 31% 24% 10% 4% 12% 61% 22% 30% 25% 20% 35% 28% 27% 19% 28% 20% 30% 24% b d d cde gj lmn n n p p 55% 45% 5% 3% 15% 77% 10% 11% 12% 16% 34% 28% 21% 17% 86% 6% 5% 2% Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust 517 237 280 74 116 184 142 143 87 75 22 34 91 109 283 413 64 30 10 19% 18% 20% 20% 25% 20% 15% 45% 34% 21% 4% 5% 13% 19% 43% 18% 28% 23% 13% f f f hij ij j k kl klm r or r 46% 54% 14% 23% 36% 27% 28% 17% 14% 4% 7% 18% 21% 55% 80% 12% 6% 2% Rented from Private Landlord 474 224 250 120 157 148 48 68 53 73 103 94 156 88 136 415 31 18 11 18% 17% 18% 33% 34% 16% 5% 22% 20% 20% 18% 13% 22% 15% 21% 19% 13% 13% 15% ef ef f km km pq 47% 53% 25% 33% 31% 10% 14% 11% 15% 22% 20% 33% 18% 29% 88% 6% 4% 2% Other 56 31 25 10 7 19 20 11 1 4 7 12 14 12 19 44 2 4 6 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% % 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 9% hj p opq 55% 45% 18% 12% 35% 35% 19% 1% 7% 12% 21% 24% 21% 34% 78% 3% 8% 11% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 81 37 43 30 14 20 17 9 7 5 8 18 25 21 15 66 5 6 4 3% 3% 3% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 6% def op 46% 54% 37% 17% 25% 21% 11% 8% 7% 10% 23% 31% 26% 19% 82% 6% 7% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Base for % 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Being bought on mortgage 811 93 130 71 46 56 71 66 31 103 707 104 657 154 503 308 30% 28% 36% 31% 25% 24% 29% 29% 27% 34% 31% 29% 42% 14% 35% 25% adeh de m o 11% 16% 9% 6% 7% 9% 8% 4% 13% 87% 13% 81% 19% 62% 38% Owned outright by household 737 46 111 80 75 63 71 74 32 80 608 128 247 487 463 273 28% 14% 31% 35% 40% 27% 29% 33% 28% 27% 26% 36% 16% 44% 32% 22% a aei abefhi a a a a a j l o 6% 15% 11% 10% 9% 10% 10% 4% 11% 83% 17% 34% 66% 63% 37% Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust 517 66 52 40 35 64 54 32 22 48 452 65 252 262 196 321 19% 19% 14% 17% 19% 27% 22% 14% 19% 16% 20% 18% 16% 24% 14% 26% bcdgi bg l n 13% 10% 8% 7% 12% 11% 6% 4% 9% 87% 13% 49% 51% 38% 62% Rented from Private Landlord 474 122 55 17 27 32 37 34 25 66 428 46 332 142 212 262 18% 36% 15% 8% 14% 14% 15% 15% 22% 22% 18% 13% 21% 13% 15% 21% bcdefghi c c c c c cde cde k m n 26% 12% 4% 6% 7% 8% 7% 5% 14% 90% 10% 70% 30% 45% 55% Other 56 - 6 13 - 10 1 9 3 1 48 8 26 27 28 29 2% -% 2% 6% -% 4% % 4% 3% % 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% ad abdfi adfi adfi adfi -% 11% 23% -% 19% 1% 16% 5% 2% 85% 15% 46% 48% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 81 11 6 6 6 11 11 11 1 3 71 9 38 42 42 39 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% h hi hi hi 14% 8% 8% 7% 14% 13% 14% 1% 3% 89% 11% 47% 52% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sh (Si). Total Number In Household (Including Respondent And Any Children) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 1 457 230 227 15 40 95 307 143 52 47 26 100 116 72 170 361 61 22 13 17% 18% 17% 4% 9% 10% 33% 45% 20% 13% 4% 14% 16% 12% 26% 16% 26% 16% 18% c c cde hij ij j klm oqr 50% 50% 3% 9% 21% 67% 31% 11% 10% 6% 22% 25% 16% 37% 79% 13% 5% 3% 2 921 491 430 96 111 223 491 89 111 127 187 259 249 194 218 756 89 52 24 34% 38% 31% 26% 24% 24% 53% 28% 43% 35% 32% 36% 35% 33% 33% 34% 38% 39% 33% b cde gj g 53% 47% 10% 12% 24% 53% 10% 12% 14% 20% 28% 27% 21% 24% 82% 10% 6% 3% 3 519 210 309 99 140 204 77 41 53 76 143 142 159 113 105 432 44 29 14 19% 16% 23% 27% 30% 22% 8% 13% 20% 21% 24% 20% 22% 20% 16% 19% 19% 22% 19% a f ef f g g g n 40% 60% 19% 27% 39% 15% 8% 10% 15% 28% 27% 31% 22% 20% 83% 8% 6% 3% 4 529 260 269 100 123 269 38 30 23 86 167 143 139 154 93 467 28 20 14 20% 20% 20% 27% 26% 29% 4% 9% 9% 24% 29% 20% 19% 27% 14% 21% 12% 15% 20% f f f gh gh n n kln pq p 49% 51% 19% 23% 51% 7% 6% 4% 16% 32% 27% 26% 29% 18% 88% 5% 4% 3% 5+ 248 110 139 55 54 124 15 15 21 22 60 69 57 47 75 220 11 9 8 9% 8% 10% 15% 12% 14% 2% 5% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 8% 11% 10% 5% 7% 10% f f f gi l p p 44% 56% 22% 22% 50% 6% 6% 8% 9% 24% 28% 23% 19% 30% 89% 5% 4% 3% Mean number of people 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.8 a df f f g gh ghi n n ln pq p p Standard deviation 1.35 1.33 1.36 1.31 1.24 1.39 .85 1.25 1.28 1.18 1.21 1.33 1.26 1.28 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.28 1.36 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .05 .04 .02 .05 .06 .06 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .03 .06 .06 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 1 457 24 61 27 31 38 46 43 24 66 397 60 150 306 227 230 17% 7% 17% 12% 16% 16% 19% 19% 21% 22% 17% 17% 10% 27% 16% 19% a a a ac ac ac ac l 5% 13% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 5% 14% 87% 13% 33% 67% 50% 50% 2 921 101 116 98 65 80 76 79 44 96 779 142 464 453 551 370 34% 30% 32% 43% 34% 34% 31% 35% 39% 32% 34% 40% 30% 41% 38% 30% abdefi a j l o 11% 13% 11% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 10% 85% 15% 50% 49% 60% 40% 3 519 67 66 39 36 47 54 43 18 62 453 66 375 143 276 243 19% 20% 19% 17% 19% 20% 22% 19% 16% 21% 20% 18% 24% 13% 19% 20% m 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 10% 8% 3% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 53% 47% 4 529 87 90 45 37 49 44 41 18 56 460 70 402 126 290 240 20% 26% 25% 20% 20% 21% 18% 18% 16% 18% 20% 19% 26% 11% 20% 19% h h m 16% 17% 8% 7% 9% 8% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 55% 45% 5+ 248 60 26 17 20 22 24 19 10 22 227 21 161 86 99 149 9% 18% 7% 8% 11% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% 8% 7% 12% bcdefghi k m n 24% 10% 7% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 9% 91% 9% 65% 35% 40% 60% Mean number of people 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.8 bcdefghi h h k m n Standard deviation 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.28 1.50 1.36 1.40 1.30 1.31 1.31 1.36 1.27 1.28 1.34 1.25 1.45 Standard error .02 .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .03 .04 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Si (Sk). Household Size Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Small (1-2 people) 1378 721 658 111 151 318 798 232 163 174 213 358 365 266 388 1117 150 73 38 52% 55% 48% 31% 32% 35% 86% 73% 63% 48% 37% 50% 51% 46% 59% 50% 64% 55% 51% b cde hij ij j klm oqr 52% 48% 8% 11% 23% 58% 17% 12% 13% 15% 26% 26% 19% 28% 81% 11% 5% 3% Medium (3-4 people) 1049 470 578 198 263 473 115 71 76 163 310 284 298 268 198 899 72 49 28 39% 36% 42% 54% 56% 52% 12% 22% 29% 45% 53% 40% 41% 46% 30% 40% 31% 37% 38% a f f f g gh ghi n n kn p p 45% 55% 19% 25% 45% 11% 7% 7% 15% 30% 27% 28% 26% 19% 86% 7% 5% 3% Large (5+ people) 248 110 139 55 54 124 15 15 21 22 60 69 57 47 75 220 11 9 8 9% 8% 10% 15% 12% 14% 2% 5% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 8% 11% 10% 5% 7% 10% f f f gi l p p 44% 56% 22% 22% 50% 6% 6% 8% 9% 24% 28% 23% 19% 30% 89% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Si (Sk). Household Size Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Small (1-2 people) 1378 126 177 126 95 119 122 122 68 162 1176 202 613 759 779 600 52% 37% 49% 55% 51% 50% 50% 54% 60% 54% 51% 56% 40% 68% 54% 49% a a a a a a abdef a j l o 9% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 85% 15% 45% 55% 56% 44% Medium (3-4 people) 1049 153 156 84 73 96 98 84 36 118 913 136 777 269 566 483 39% 45% 43% 37% 39% 41% 40% 37% 32% 39% 39% 38% 50% 24% 39% 39% h h h m 15% 15% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 74% 26% 54% 46% Large (5+ people) 248 60 26 17 20 22 24 19 10 22 227 21 161 86 99 149 9% 18% 7% 8% 11% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% 8% 7% 12% bcdefghi k m n 24% 10% 7% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 9% 91% 9% 65% 35% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sj. Total Number Of Children In Household (Under 18), Including Respondent (If Respondent Is Under 18) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None 1673 900 773 199 188 395 891 228 177 205 313 439 472 355 406 1376 166 85 46 63% 69% 56% 55% 40% 43% 96% 72% 68% 57% 54% 62% 66% 61% 61% 62% 71% 65% 62% b de cde ij ij or 54% 46% 12% 11% 24% 53% 14% 11% 12% 19% 26% 28% 21% 24% 82% 10% 5% 3% 1 456 176 279 105 128 197 26 45 32 67 114 129 121 98 108 383 37 23 12 17% 14% 20% 29% 27% 21% 3% 14% 12% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 17% a ef ef f h gh 39% 61% 23% 28% 43% 6% 10% 7% 15% 25% 28% 27% 21% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% 2 385 165 220 42 110 226 7 28 25 71 127 103 102 96 85 340 20 15 10 14% 13% 16% 11% 23% 25% 1% 9% 10% 20% 22% 14% 14% 16% 13% 15% 9% 11% 14% a f cf cf gh gh p p 43% 57% 11% 29% 59% 2% 7% 7% 18% 33% 27% 26% 25% 22% 88% 5% 4% 3% 3 113 43 69 11 31 68 2 11 18 12 23 32 16 21 43 100 4 5 3 4% 3% 5% 3% 7% 7% % 3% 7% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 7% 4% 2% 4% 5% a f cf cf l lm p p 39% 61% 10% 28% 60% 2% 10% 16% 11% 20% 28% 15% 19% 39% 89% 3% 5% 3% 4 36 10 26 5 11 20 - 4 8 3 5 6 6 9 15 28 3 3 2 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% a f f f ij l 27% 73% 15% 30% 55% -% 12% 23% 8% 13% 16% 18% 25% 41% 78% 10% 8% 4% 5+ 13 6 7 2 1 10 - 1 - 1 2 4 2 3 4 10 2 1 1 % % 1% 1% % 1% -% % -% % % 1% % % 1% % 1% 1% 1% f f 46% 54% 15% 11% 75% -% 6% -% 8% 16% 29% 17% 20% 33% 72% 18% 6% 4% Mean number of children .7 .5 .8 .7 1.0 1.1 .1 .5 .6 .7 .8 .7 .6 .7 .7 .7 .5 .6 .7 a f cf cf g g gh l l l p p p Standard deviation 1.02 .95 1.08 .97 1.08 1.18 .28 .92 1.10 .98 1.01 1.00 .92 1.02 1.14 1.02 .95 1.09 1.10 Standard error .02 .02 .02 .04 .04 .03 .01 .04 .06 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .04 .02 .04 .05 .05 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None 1673 181 224 144 112 153 145 147 71 199 1427 246 827 840 932 741 63% 54% 62% 63% 59% 65% 59% 65% 63% 66% 62% 68% 53% 75% 65% 60% a a a a j l o 11% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 85% 15% 49% 50% 56% 44% 1 456 72 46 38 32 39 46 37 19 53 405 51 324 131 243 213 17% 21% 13% 17% 17% 16% 19% 17% 17% 17% 17% 14% 21% 12% 17% 17% b m 16% 10% 8% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 12% 89% 11% 71% 29% 53% 47% 2 385 56 73 33 28 31 39 32 12 36 339 47 299 84 195 190 14% 17% 20% 15% 15% 13% 16% 14% 10% 12% 15% 13% 19% 8% 14% 15% ehi m 15% 19% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 9% 88% 12% 78% 22% 51% 49% 3 113 26 11 8 11 7 9 8 8 11 103 10 75 36 53 60 4% 8% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 3% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% beg be m 23% 10% 7% 10% 6% 8% 7% 7% 10% 91% 9% 67% 32% 47% 53% 4 36 - 5 3 1 7 5 1 3 2 30 5 19 16 16 19 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% % 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% ag a ag -% 13% 10% 4% 19% 14% 3% 9% 6% 85% 15% 55% 45% 45% 55% 5+ 13 3 - 1 3 - 1 1 - 1 12 1 7 6 5 9 % 1% -% % 2% -% 1% % -% % 1% % % 1% % 1% beh 22% -% 6% 24% -% 10% 4% -% 7% 91% 9% 52% 48% 36% 64% Mean number of children .7 .8 .7 .6 .8 .6 .7 .6 .7 .6 .7 .6 .8 .5 .6 .7 egi gi k m n Standard deviation 1.02 1.06 .99 .99 1.19 1.01 1.07 .92 1.10 .94 1.03 1.00 1.04 .96 .98 1.07 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sj. Total Number Of Children In Household (Under 18), Including Respondent (If Respondent Is Under 18) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Standard error .02 .07 .06 .06 .08 .06 .07 .06 .07 .06 .02 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sk (Sm). Can You Speak Or Write In Welsh At All? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n ~o ~p q ~r Unweighted total 489 231 258 58 76 138 217 76 58 43 66 100 161 104 123 - - 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 301 146 155 36 47 87 142 50 32 27 45 62 105 65 79 - - 301 - Total 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 49% 51% 33% 37% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Yes, and fluent 12 7 5 3 7 3 3 4 2 - - 12 - 9% 11% 8% 8% 15% 11% 10% 12% 5% -% -% 9% -% 57% 43% 27% 59% 26% 27% 30% 17% -% -% 100% -% Yes, but not fluent 19 9 10 5 6 5 4 4 6 - - 19 - 14% 14% 14% 13% 12% 17% 12% 14% 15% -% -% 14% -% 49% 51% 29% 30% 26% 21% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% No 101 48 53 35 36 21 26 23 30 - - 101 - 76% 75% 78% 80% 74% 72% 78% 75% 80% -% -% 76% -% 47% 53% 34% 36% 21% 26% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SK (SM). Can you speak or write in Welsh at all? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 489 - - - - - - - - - 240 249 210 279 287 202 Effective Weighted Sample 301 - - - - - - - - - 198 211 135 192 161 145 Total 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Yes, and fluent 12 - - - - - - - - - 6 7 6 6 8 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 23% 9% 10% 10% 8% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 45% 55% 52% 48% 64% 36% Yes, but not fluent 19 - - - - - - - - - 16 3 9 10 11 8 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 10% 12% 18% 14% 15% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% 14% 45% 55% 56% 44% No 101 - - - - - - - - - 81 19 59 42 58 42 76% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 79% 67% 80% 72% 76% 77% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 58% 42% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sl (Sn). What Is You Preferred Language? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n ~o ~p q ~r Unweighted total 489 231 258 58 76 138 217 76 58 43 66 100 161 104 123 - - 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 301 146 155 36 47 87 142 50 32 27 45 62 105 65 79 - - 301 - Total 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 49% 51% 33% 37% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THOSE WHO CAN SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH English 26 13 13 8 10 7 6 6 7 - - 26 - 20% 20% 20% 18% 20% 23% 19% 20% 18% -% -% 20% -% 49% 51% 30% 37% 26% 24% 24% 25% -% -% 100% -% Welsh 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 - - 4 - 3% 4% 1% 1% 5% 3% 2% 3% 2% -% -% 3% -% 74% 26% 15% 64% 29% 23% 27% 21% -% -% 100% -% Don't know 1 1 1 * 1 * * 1 * - - 1 - 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% % 2% % -% -% 1% -% 53% 47% 25% 68% 21% 10% 54% 15% -% -% 100% -% CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH 101 48 53 35 36 21 26 23 30 - - 101 - 76% 75% 78% 80% 74% 72% 78% 75% 80% -% -% 76% -% 47% 53% 34% 36% 21% 26% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SL (SN). What is you preferred language? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 489 - - - - - - - - - 240 249 210 279 287 202 Effective Weighted Sample 301 - - - - - - - - - 198 211 135 192 161 145 Total 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THOSE WHO CAN SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH English 26 - - - - - - - - - 21 6 13 14 15 12 20% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 20% 20% 17% 24% 19% 22% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 48% 52% 55% 45% Welsh 4 - - - - - - - - - 1 3 2 2 3 * 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 9% 2% 3% 4% % j o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 26% 74% 52% 48% 95% 5% Don't know 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 * 1 1 1 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% % 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 15% 85% 37% 63% 44% 56% CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH 101 - - - - - - - - - 81 19 59 42 58 42 76% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 79% 67% 80% 72% 76% 77% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 58% 42% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A standard DVD player 1502 718 784 193 218 545 545 166 147 202 366 426 383 346 346 1262 114 84 41 56% 55% 57% 53% 47% 60% 59% 52% 56% 56% 63% 60% 53% 60% 52% 56% 49% 64% 56% cd d g ln ln p opr 48% 52% 13% 15% 36% 36% 11% 10% 13% 24% 28% 26% 23% 23% 84% 8% 6% 3% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 1130 542 588 235 279 503 114 106 99 162 321 284 311 278 256 939 101 58 32 42% 42% 43% 64% 59% 55% 12% 34% 38% 45% 55% 40% 43% 48% 39% 42% 43% 44% 43% ef f f g ghi kn 48% 52% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% An MP3 player/iPod 844 421 423 150 180 379 135 57 62 121 284 289 241 168 146 719 68 47 9 32% 32% 31% 41% 38% 41% 15% 18% 24% 34% 49% 41% 33% 29% 22% 32% 29% 36% 13% f f f gh ghi lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 18% 21% 45% 16% 7% 7% 14% 34% 34% 29% 20% 17% 85% 8% 6% 1% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 744 348 397 97 119 287 242 41 53 96 232 274 211 165 95 622 58 47 16 28% 27% 29% 27% 25% 31% 26% 13% 20% 27% 40% 38% 29% 28% 14% 28% 25% 36% 22% df g g ghi lmn n n r opr 47% 53% 13% 16% 39% 33% 6% 7% 13% 31% 37% 28% 22% 13% 84% 8% 6% 2% A Blu Ray DVD player 661 346 315 104 129 276 153 39 55 99 216 204 185 151 122 573 49 30 9 25% 27% 23% 28% 27% 30% 16% 12% 21% 28% 37% 29% 26% 26% 18% 26% 21% 23% 12% b f f f g g ghi n n n r r r 52% 48% 16% 19% 42% 23% 6% 8% 15% 33% 31% 28% 23% 18% 87% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 521 230 291 106 120 246 49 50 54 71 147 134 144 129 114 436 43 35 6 19% 18% 21% 29% 26% 27% 5% 16% 21% 20% 25% 19% 20% 22% 17% 20% 19% 26% 9% a f f f g n r r opr 44% 56% 20% 23% 47% 9% 10% 10% 14% 28% 26% 28% 25% 22% 84% 8% 7% 1% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 145 78 67 27 33 65 20 11 12 16 54 52 42 24 27 125 9 10 1 5% 6% 5% 7% 7% 7% 2% 3% 5% 5% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% 4% 8% 2% f f f ghi mn r pr 54% 46% 19% 23% 45% 14% 7% 8% 11% 38% 36% 29% 16% 19% 86% 6% 7% 1% ANY DVD PLAYER 1791 867 924 236 288 654 613 178 175 249 462 513 465 411 401 1501 143 99 48 67% 67% 67% 65% 61% 71% 66% 56% 67% 70% 79% 72% 65% 71% 61% 67% 61% 75% 65% cdf g g ghi ln ln opr 48% 52% 13% 16% 37% 34% 10% 10% 14% 26% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 8% 6% 3% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 44% 43% 45% 68% 62% 57% 13% 35% 40% 47% 56% 41% 45% 50% 41% 44% 45% 45% 44% ef f f g ghi kn 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% None of these 531 269 262 49 87 139 256 92 45 63 53 117 147 94 172 447 48 19 17 20% 21% 19% 13% 19% 15% 28% 29% 17% 18% 9% 16% 20% 16% 26% 20% 21% 14% 23% cde hij j j klm q q q 51% 49% 9% 16% 26% 48% 17% 8% 12% 10% 22% 28% 18% 32% 84% 9% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 6 4 2 - 2 4 2 2 - - - 3 1 3 5 1 - * % % % -% % % % 1% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % -% % j 63% 37% -% 3% 31% 66% 25% 38% -% -% -% 42% 15% 42% 85% 12% -% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A standard DVD player 1502 125 203 133 118 133 171 137 72 170 1284 218 884 611 871 631 56% 37% 56% 59% 63% 56% 70% 61% 63% 56% 55% 61% 57% 55% 60% 51% a a a a abcei a a a j o 8% 13% 9% 8% 9% 11% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 59% 41% 58% 42% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 1130 95 146 105 87 112 113 95 50 135 984 147 810 314 611 519 42% 28% 41% 46% 46% 47% 46% 42% 44% 45% 42% 41% 52% 28% 42% 42% a a a a a a a a m 8% 13% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% An MP3 player/iPod 844 81 113 76 64 73 100 74 44 95 719 125 613 226 503 341 32% 24% 31% 33% 34% 31% 41% 33% 39% 32% 31% 35% 40% 20% 35% 28% a a abei a a m o 10% 13% 9% 8% 9% 12% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 73% 27% 60% 40% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 744 40 102 65 60 92 81 80 32 72 618 127 482 262 476 268 28% 12% 28% 29% 32% 39% 33% 35% 28% 24% 27% 35% 31% 23% 33% 22% a a a abchi ai ai a a j m o 5% 14% 9% 8% 12% 11% 11% 4% 10% 83% 17% 65% 35% 64% 36% A Blu Ray DVD player 661 40 78 80 53 67 74 63 33 84 554 107 463 195 407 255 25% 12% 22% 35% 28% 28% 30% 28% 29% 28% 24% 30% 30% 17% 28% 21% a ab a a ab a a a j m o 6% 12% 12% 8% 10% 11% 10% 5% 13% 84% 16% 70% 29% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 521 52 54 50 40 47 54 44 34 60 456 65 378 142 281 240 19% 15% 15% 22% 21% 20% 22% 20% 30% 20% 20% 18% 24% 13% 19% 19% abcdefgi m 10% 10% 10% 8% 9% 10% 8% 7% 12% 87% 13% 73% 27% 54% 46% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 145 24 17 12 10 10 21 11 6 15 122 23 113 32 81 64 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 3% 6% 5% e m 16% 12% 9% 7% 7% 15% 7% 4% 10% 84% 16% 78% 22% 56% 44% ANY DVD PLAYER 1791 153 236 163 135 161 195 170 87 203 1536 255 1084 698 1032 759 67% 45% 66% 72% 71% 68% 80% 75% 76% 67% 66% 71% 70% 63% 71% 62% a a a a abcdei ab abei a m o 9% 13% 9% 8% 9% 11% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 58% 42% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 44% 33% 41% 47% 47% 49% 48% 43% 47% 46% 44% 42% 54% 29% 44% 44% a a a a a a a a m 9% 13% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None of these 531 143 60 32 29 48 17 34 19 65 478 53 252 278 233 298 20% 42% 17% 14% 16% 20% 7% 15% 17% 22% 21% 15% 16% 25% 16% 24% bcdefghi f f f f f f cf k l n 27% 11% 6% 6% 9% 3% 6% 4% 12% 90% 10% 48% 52% 44% 56% Don't know 6 3 - 1 1 - 1 * - - 5 1 1 5 3 4 % 1% -% % % -% % % -% -% % % % % % % l 43% -% 12% 9% -% 13% 7% -% -% 85% 15% 17% 83% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A standard DVD player 1239 600 639 141 177 444 478 147 130 163 304 355 314 283 286 1043 100 60 36 46% 46% 46% 39% 38% 48% 52% 46% 50% 45% 52% 50% 44% 49% 43% 47% 43% 46% 49% cd cd ln 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 12% 10% 13% 25% 29% 25% 23% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 578 348 230 184 190 173 30 61 45 77 154 132 169 135 141 474 60 27 17 22% 27% 17% 51% 41% 19% 3% 19% 17% 22% 26% 19% 23% 23% 21% 21% 26% 20% 23% b def ef f gh k 60% 40% 32% 33% 30% 5% 11% 8% 13% 27% 23% 29% 23% 24% 82% 10% 5% 3% An MP3 player/iPod 543 284 260 112 133 216 82 39 40 74 197 190 161 100 93 472 41 27 3 20% 22% 19% 31% 28% 24% 9% 12% 15% 21% 34% 27% 22% 17% 14% 21% 18% 20% 4% ef f f g ghi mn mn r r r 52% 48% 21% 25% 40% 15% 7% 7% 14% 36% 35% 30% 18% 17% 87% 8% 5% 1% A Blu Ray DVD player 516 286 230 74 104 213 124 28 41 71 173 164 150 117 85 447 38 24 8 19% 22% 17% 20% 22% 23% 13% 9% 16% 20% 30% 23% 21% 20% 13% 20% 16% 18% 10% b f f f g g ghi n n n r r r 55% 45% 14% 20% 41% 24% 5% 8% 14% 34% 32% 29% 23% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 495 189 306 51 84 197 163 30 32 71 168 180 155 100 59 420 34 29 11 18% 15% 22% 14% 18% 21% 18% 10% 12% 20% 29% 25% 22% 17% 9% 19% 15% 22% 15% a cf gh ghi mn n n pr 38% 62% 10% 17% 40% 33% 6% 6% 14% 34% 36% 31% 20% 12% 85% 7% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 185 103 82 64 59 55 7 17 19 23 51 46 51 43 45 152 18 12 3 7% 8% 6% 18% 13% 6% 1% 5% 7% 6% 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 4% ef ef f r r r 56% 44% 35% 32% 30% 4% 9% 10% 12% 27% 25% 28% 23% 25% 82% 10% 7% 1% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 83 53 29 17 18 37 11 9 4 9 30 28 30 9 16 69 6 6 1 3% 4% 2% 5% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% b f f f h m m r 65% 35% 21% 21% 45% 13% 11% 5% 11% 36% 34% 36% 11% 19% 84% 8% 7% 1% ANY DVD PLAYER 1517 750 767 179 244 552 542 158 151 204 396 444 394 346 332 1277 124 74 42 57% 58% 56% 49% 52% 60% 58% 50% 58% 57% 68% 62% 55% 60% 50% 57% 53% 56% 57% cd cd g ghi ln n 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 36% 10% 10% 13% 26% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 607 356 251 191 193 189 34 64 48 83 165 143 173 141 149 499 62 28 17 23% 27% 18% 52% 41% 21% 4% 20% 18% 23% 28% 20% 24% 24% 23% 22% 27% 21% 23% b def ef f gh 59% 41% 31% 32% 31% 6% 10% 8% 14% 27% 24% 29% 23% 25% 82% 10% 5% 3% None of these 762 345 417 70 135 236 321 116 72 103 102 175 196 149 240 632 70 38 21 28% 27% 30% 19% 29% 26% 35% 37% 28% 29% 17% 25% 27% 26% 36% 28% 30% 29% 29% a c c cde hij j j klm 45% 55% 9% 18% 31% 42% 15% 9% 13% 13% 23% 26% 20% 32% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 12 7 5 1 2 8 2 2 - - * 4 1 5 10 1 * 1 % 1% % % % % 1% 1% 1% -% -% % 1% % 1% % % % 1% j 59% 41% 9% 2% 21% 68% 20% 21% -% -% 4% 38% 12% 46% 84% 7% 4% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A standard DVD player 1239 104 173 110 93 110 143 123 62 125 1058 182 713 521 723 516 46% 31% 48% 48% 49% 47% 58% 54% 55% 41% 46% 51% 46% 47% 50% 42% a a a a abcdei ai ai a o 8% 14% 9% 7% 9% 12% 10% 5% 10% 85% 15% 58% 42% 58% 42% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 578 53 81 49 43 61 60 47 24 55 509 68 402 175 293 285 22% 16% 23% 22% 23% 26% 25% 21% 21% 18% 22% 19% 26% 16% 20% 23% a a m 9% 14% 8% 7% 11% 10% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 70% 30% 51% 49% An MP3 player/iPod 543 54 81 48 42 37 73 56 28 53 465 79 395 146 328 216 20% 16% 22% 21% 22% 16% 30% 25% 24% 18% 20% 22% 25% 13% 23% 18% acei ae ae m o 10% 15% 9% 8% 7% 13% 10% 5% 10% 86% 14% 73% 27% 60% 40% A Blu Ray DVD player 516 36 67 68 41 52 51 47 29 54 434 82 359 154 320 197 19% 11% 19% 30% 22% 22% 21% 21% 26% 18% 19% 23% 23% 14% 22% 16% a abdefgi a a a a a a j m o 7% 13% 13% 8% 10% 10% 9% 6% 11% 84% 16% 69% 30% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 495 28 69 48 43 50 54 55 23 51 407 88 325 169 319 176 18% 8% 19% 21% 23% 21% 22% 24% 20% 17% 18% 25% 21% 15% 22% 14% a a a a a ai a a j m o 6% 14% 10% 9% 10% 11% 11% 5% 10% 82% 18% 66% 34% 65% 35% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 185 17 20 22 16 14 17 17 11 19 167 18 130 55 91 93 7% 5% 6% 9% 9% 6% 7% 7% 10% 6% 7% 5% 8% 5% 6% 8% a m 9% 11% 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 6% 10% 90% 10% 70% 30% 49% 51% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 83 17 9 9 8 5 6 4 3 9 68 14 64 18 41 41 3% 5% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 3% g m 21% 10% 11% 9% 6% 7% 4% 4% 11% 83% 17% 78% 22% 50% 50% ANY DVD PLAYER 1517 131 206 141 110 140 162 152 79 156 1300 218 907 602 879 638 57% 39% 57% 62% 59% 59% 66% 67% 69% 52% 56% 60% 58% 54% 61% 52% a ai a a ai abdi abdei a m o 9% 14% 9% 7% 9% 11% 10% 5% 10% 86% 14% 60% 40% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB2. SHOWCARD And do you personally use...? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 607 57 85 52 43 63 64 51 25 59 534 73 422 184 310 297 23% 17% 24% 23% 23% 26% 26% 22% 22% 20% 23% 20% 27% 17% 21% 24% a a m 9% 14% 9% 7% 10% 11% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 70% 30% 51% 49% None of these 762 162 87 52 48 64 37 50 25 108 678 84 391 369 371 391 28% 48% 24% 23% 25% 27% 15% 22% 22% 36% 29% 23% 25% 33% 26% 32% bcdefghi f f f f bcdefgh k l n 21% 11% 7% 6% 8% 5% 7% 3% 14% 89% 11% 51% 48% 49% 51% Don't know 12 3 - 1 1 4 1 * - - 10 2 3 9 4 8 % 1% -% 1% % 2% % % -% -% % 1% % 1% % 1% l 24% -% 13% 5% 31% 7% 4% -% -% 82% 18% 22% 78% 35% 65% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Nintendo Wii/ Wii U 362 147 214 68 79 167 47 29 31 57 121 108 111 76 66 310 19 25 8 31% 27% 34% 28% 27% 32% 40% 26% 30% 34% 37% 37% 34% 26% 25% 32% 19% 41% 24% a cd g mn mn p opr 41% 59% 19% 22% 46% 13% 8% 9% 16% 33% 30% 31% 21% 18% 86% 5% 7% 2% XBox 360 339 160 180 72 82 157 28 36 36 49 86 85 82 93 78 270 38 22 9 29% 29% 29% 29% 28% 30% 24% 32% 34% 29% 26% 29% 25% 32% 29% 28% 37% 36% 28% o o 47% 53% 21% 24% 46% 8% 11% 11% 15% 25% 25% 24% 27% 23% 80% 11% 6% 3% PlayStation 3 276 133 143 64 77 114 20 28 27 32 86 69 73 73 61 239 14 17 5 23% 24% 23% 26% 27% 22% 17% 26% 25% 19% 26% 23% 22% 25% 23% 24% 14% 29% 15% f pr pr 48% 52% 23% 28% 41% 7% 10% 10% 12% 31% 25% 26% 26% 22% 87% 5% 6% 2% PlayStation 4 265 131 134 68 63 120 14 14 19 32 85 63 76 73 52 210 30 13 12 23% 24% 21% 28% 22% 23% 12% 13% 18% 19% 26% 22% 23% 25% 19% 21% 29% 21% 37% f f f g oq 50% 50% 26% 24% 45% 5% 5% 7% 12% 32% 24% 29% 28% 20% 79% 11% 5% 4% Nintendo DS/ DSi/ DS Lite/ 3DS 264 103 161 56 63 121 24 25 27 39 71 58 82 69 55 221 19 20 4 22% 19% 26% 23% 22% 23% 20% 23% 25% 23% 22% 20% 25% 24% 21% 23% 18% 33% 13% a r opr 39% 61% 21% 24% 46% 9% 10% 10% 15% 27% 22% 31% 26% 21% 84% 7% 8% 2% XBox One 171 92 79 44 45 70 12 13 12 29 47 28 53 43 47 149 11 7 3 15% 17% 13% 18% 16% 13% 10% 12% 12% 17% 14% 10% 16% 15% 18% 15% 10% 12% 10% f k k 54% 46% 26% 27% 41% 7% 8% 7% 17% 28% 16% 31% 25% 28% 88% 6% 4% 2% PlayStation 2 123 55 68 39 29 36 19 11 16 21 29 24 26 33 41 96 12 13 3 10% 10% 11% 16% 10% 7% 16% 10% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 11% 15% 10% 12% 21% 8% de e kl opr 45% 55% 32% 24% 29% 15% 9% 13% 17% 24% 19% 21% 27% 33% 78% 10% 10% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% XBox 78 36 42 14 13 43 9 6 13 9 18 19 19 25 16 69 3 3 4 7% 7% 7% 6% 4% 8% 8% 6% 12% 5% 6% 6% 6% 9% 6% 7% 3% 5% 13% d ij p opq 46% 54% 17% 16% 55% 12% 8% 16% 11% 23% 24% 24% 32% 20% 88% 3% 3% 6% PlayStation Portable (PSP)/ PlayStation Vita 62 38 24 13 14 31 4 9 7 11 9 12 11 18 21 51 6 4 1 5% 7% 4% 5% 5% 6% 3% 8% 7% 6% 3% 4% 3% 6% 8% 5% 5% 7% 2% b j l r 61% 39% 21% 22% 50% 7% 14% 12% 17% 15% 20% 17% 29% 34% 83% 9% 7% 1% Other 13 9 4 2 2 9 - 1 1 4 2 2 2 4 4 10 1 1 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 69% 31% 15% 15% 70% -% 4% 5% 28% 19% 15% 19% 32% 34% 81% 10% 4% 4% PS3/ PS4/ Wii/ XBox 360/ XBox/ XBox One 1077 512 565 232 270 474 101 102 95 152 310 273 291 268 244 900 91 55 30 92% 92% 91% 94% 93% 91% 85% 92% 91% 90% 94% 93% 90% 93% 91% 92% 88% 92% 93% f f f 48% 52% 22% 25% 44% 9% 10% 9% 14% 29% 25% 27% 25% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% DS/ PSP/ PORTABLE CONSOLE 297 127 170 64 69 139 26 31 28 46 77 66 87 78 66 249 23 21 4 25% 23% 27% 26% 24% 27% 22% 28% 27% 27% 23% 23% 27% 27% 25% 25% 22% 35% 14% r opr 43% 57% 21% 23% 47% 9% 11% 10% 16% 26% 22% 29% 26% 22% 84% 8% 7% 1% Don't know 46 16 30 8 6 19 14 2 5 5 10 16 14 8 9 35 7 3 1 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 12% 2% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 5% 4% cde 35% 65% 18% 12% 40% 30% 5% 10% 12% 21% 34% 30% 16% 20% 74% 16% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 * 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Nintendo Wii/ Wii U 362 45 34 23 42 33 17 35 312 49 255 103 209 152 31% 41% 38% 20% 36% 34% 31% 25% 31% 32% 30% 31% 33% 28% ei ei e e 12% 9% 6% 12% 9% 5% 10% 86% 14% 71% 28% 58% 42% XBox 360 339 40 32 27 32 29 16 43 293 47 247 90 182 158 29% 37% 36% 24% 27% 30% 30% 31% 29% 31% 29% 28% 29% 29% e 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 5% 13% 86% 14% 73% 26% 54% 46% PlayStation 3 276 34 18 28 27 17 13 26 238 38 195 78 146 129 23% 31% 20% 24% 23% 17% 25% 19% 23% 25% 23% 24% 23% 24% gi 12% 7% 10% 10% 6% 5% 9% 86% 14% 71% 28% 53% 47% PlayStation 4 265 23 26 30 17 20 11 31 233 32 193 71 136 129 23% 22% 29% 26% 14% 21% 21% 22% 23% 21% 23% 22% 21% 24% f f 9% 10% 11% 6% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 73% 27% 51% 49% Nintendo DS/ DSi/ DS Lite/ 3DS 264 23 22 18 25 19 15 44 231 33 185 77 152 112 22% 22% 25% 15% 21% 20% 27% 32% 23% 22% 22% 24% 24% 21% e e 9% 8% 7% 9% 7% 6% 17% 88% 12% 70% 29% 58% 42% XBox One 171 12 17 26 12 19 20 15 148 22 123 47 85 86 15% 11% 20% 23% 10% 20% 38% 11% 14% 15% 15% 15% 13% 16% cfi f cdefgi 7% 10% 15% 7% 11% 12% 9% 87% 13% 72% 28% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% PlayStation 2 123 14 12 14 14 11 7 6 108 15 84 38 71 52 10% 13% 13% 12% 12% 11% 13% 4% 11% 10% 10% 12% 11% 10% i i i i 11% 9% 11% 11% 9% 6% 5% 88% 12% 68% 31% 57% 43% XBox 78 8 4 13 16 5 3 8 62 17 54 23 41 38 7% 8% 4% 12% 13% 6% 5% 6% 6% 11% 6% 7% 6% 7% d dh j 11% 5% 17% 20% 7% 3% 11% 79% 21% 69% 30% 52% 48% PlayStation Portable (PSP)/ PlayStation Vita 62 5 6 2 3 9 2 15 54 7 47 14 31 31 5% 4% 6% 2% 3% 9% 3% 11% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 6% ef efh 8% 9% 3% 5% 15% 3% 24% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% Other 13 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10 2 7 5 9 3 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 6% 5% 6% 19% 18% 6% 14% 82% 18% 58% 42% 75% 25% PS3/ PS4/ Wii/ XBox 360/ XBox/ XBox One 1077 98 86 111 112 87 52 121 939 138 770 302 567 509 92% 91% 96% 96% 95% 89% 96% 87% 92% 90% 91% 92% 90% 93% i i i i n 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 11% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% DS/ PSP/ PORTABLE CONSOLE 297 24 27 19 26 22 16 53 260 37 212 85 173 125 25% 22% 31% 17% 22% 23% 29% 38% 25% 25% 25% 26% 27% 23% e e cefg 8% 9% 6% 9% 7% 5% 18% 87% 13% 71% 28% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Don't know 46 8 1 2 3 5 1 3 38 8 33 13 32 14 4% 7% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3% d o ** 16% 3% 5% 6% 11% 3% 6% 82% 18% 71% 27% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Online gaming 421 252 169 137 103 163 18 41 28 55 115 89 117 109 106 340 43 23 15 36% 46% 27% 56% 36% 31% 15% 37% 27% 33% 35% 30% 36% 38% 40% 35% 42% 38% 45% b def f f k o 60% 40% 33% 24% 39% 4% 10% 7% 13% 27% 21% 28% 26% 25% 81% 10% 5% 3% Watching DVDs/ Blu Ray DVDs 260 145 115 77 80 94 10 26 17 43 80 65 72 69 55 220 20 16 4 22% 26% 19% 31% 27% 18% 8% 24% 16% 25% 24% 22% 22% 24% 20% 22% 19% 27% 14% b ef ef f r r 56% 44% 29% 31% 36% 4% 10% 6% 16% 31% 25% 28% 26% 21% 84% 8% 6% 2% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go 249 136 113 85 69 84 10 23 20 31 83 64 73 54 58 218 16 12 3 21% 25% 18% 35% 24% 16% 9% 21% 19% 19% 25% 22% 22% 19% 22% 22% 15% 21% 8% b def ef f r r 55% 45% 34% 28% 34% 4% 9% 8% 13% 33% 26% 29% 22% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Browsing the web/ internet 192 103 89 63 54 67 8 17 15 27 66 41 55 48 48 159 18 11 4 16% 19% 14% 26% 19% 13% 7% 15% 15% 16% 20% 14% 17% 17% 18% 16% 17% 18% 13% ef ef f 54% 46% 33% 28% 35% 4% 9% 8% 14% 34% 21% 29% 25% 25% 83% 9% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. Playstation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. LoveFilm Instant, Netflix) 163 90 73 56 41 61 4 18 10 24 54 47 39 40 36 135 11 9 7 14% 16% 12% 23% 14% 12% 4% 16% 9% 14% 16% 16% 12% 14% 13% 14% 11% 16% 22% b def f f op 55% 45% 34% 25% 38% 3% 11% 6% 15% 33% 29% 24% 24% 22% 83% 7% 6% 4% Watching short video clips online (e.g. YouTube or Dailymotion) 153 92 61 64 27 58 4 14 13 21 52 35 45 39 34 134 11 8 1 13% 17% 10% 26% 9% 11% 4% 13% 12% 12% 16% 12% 14% 14% 13% 14% 10% 13% 4% b def f r r 60% 40% 42% 17% 38% 3% 9% 9% 13% 34% 23% 29% 26% 22% 87% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube or on other sites e.g. Vimeo, South Park Studios) 116 59 57 44 30 39 3 11 7 19 29 30 32 33 21 105 5 5 1 10% 11% 9% 18% 10% 8% 3% 10% 6% 11% 9% 10% 10% 12% 8% 11% 4% 9% 3% def f pr 50% 50% 38% 26% 34% 3% 9% 6% 16% 25% 26% 27% 29% 18% 91% 4% 4% 1% Watching 'live' TV programmes/ content via your internet connection 66 39 27 25 14 22 4 4 4 10 21 18 16 19 13 58 4 3 * 6% 7% 4% 10% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 7% 5% 6% 4% 6% % b def r r r 60% 40% 38% 21% 34% 6% 7% 6% 15% 32% 27% 24% 29% 20% 88% 7% 5% % Other 25 11 14 3 5 11 5 2 3 3 9 7 7 5 6 18 5 2 * 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 1% c or 44% 56% 11% 21% 46% 22% 9% 12% 11% 35% 29% 27% 21% 23% 73% 20% 6% 1% WATCHING VIDEO CONTENT 431 226 204 128 123 164 16 45 34 71 130 108 122 101 100 367 30 23 11 37% 41% 33% 52% 43% 31% 14% 40% 33% 42% 39% 37% 38% 35% 37% 37% 29% 38% 34% b def ef f 53% 47% 30% 29% 38% 4% 10% 8% 16% 30% 25% 28% 23% 23% 85% 7% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% IPTV 351 183 168 113 99 125 13 33 28 56 105 86 101 83 80 300 24 18 9 30% 33% 27% 46% 34% 24% 11% 30% 27% 33% 32% 29% 31% 29% 30% 31% 23% 29% 28% b def ef f 52% 48% 32% 28% 36% 4% 10% 8% 16% 30% 25% 29% 24% 23% 86% 7% 5% 3% None of these 501 200 301 64 112 250 76 48 53 72 127 125 139 124 113 422 42 26 12 43% 36% 48% 26% 39% 48% 63% 43% 51% 42% 39% 42% 43% 43% 42% 43% 40% 43% 36% a c cd cde j 40% 60% 13% 22% 50% 15% 9% 11% 14% 25% 25% 28% 25% 22% 84% 8% 5% 2% Don't know 39 12 27 5 4 22 8 1 * 5 18 17 10 8 4 33 1 2 3 3% 2% 4% 2% 1% 4% 7% % % 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 9% a d cd gh n op 31% 69% 12% 9% 58% 21% 1% 1% 12% 46% 45% 27% 19% 9% 84% 3% 5% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Online gaming 421 38 34 47 39 40 22 38 373 48 301 118 205 216 36% 35% 39% 41% 33% 41% 40% 27% 36% 31% 36% 36% 33% 40% i i i n 9% 8% 11% 9% 9% 5% 9% 89% 11% 71% 28% 49% 51% Watching DVDs/ Blu Ray DVDs 260 25 19 32 33 26 10 23 218 42 188 72 147 114 22% 23% 22% 28% 28% 27% 19% 16% 21% 28% 22% 22% 23% 21% i i 10% 7% 12% 13% 10% 4% 9% 84% 16% 72% 28% 56% 44% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go 249 23 24 26 36 24 10 28 211 38 181 66 132 116 21% 22% 27% 23% 31% 25% 18% 20% 21% 25% 22% 20% 21% 21% h 9% 10% 11% 15% 10% 4% 11% 85% 15% 73% 27% 53% 47% Browsing the web/ internet 192 16 11 20 21 22 8 18 164 28 146 45 89 103 16% 14% 12% 17% 18% 23% 15% 13% 16% 18% 17% 14% 14% 19% d n 8% 6% 10% 11% 12% 4% 10% 85% 15% 76% 23% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. Playstation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. LoveFilm Instant, Netflix) 163 16 11 27 23 10 4 25 135 28 120 41 85 78 14% 15% 13% 24% 19% 10% 8% 18% 13% 18% 14% 13% 13% 14% dgh h h 10% 7% 17% 14% 6% 3% 15% 83% 17% 74% 25% 52% 48% Watching short video clips online (e.g. YouTube or Dailymotion) 153 13 8 16 22 16 5 18 131 22 107 46 78 75 13% 12% 9% 14% 18% 16% 8% 12% 13% 14% 13% 14% 12% 14% dh 9% 5% 10% 14% 10% 3% 11% 86% 14% 70% 30% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube or on other sites e.g. Vimeo, South Park Studios) 116 10 8 15 17 8 4 13 102 14 80 36 56 60 10% 9% 9% 13% 15% 9% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 11% 9% 11% 9% 7% 13% 15% 7% 4% 12% 88% 12% 69% 31% 48% 52% Watching 'live' TV programmes/ content via your internet connection 66 7 6 14 10 7 2 4 54 12 49 17 35 31 6% 7% 7% 12% 9% 7% 4% 3% 5% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% hi 11% 9% 22% 16% 11% 4% 6% 82% 18% 74% 26% 53% 47% Other 25 4 3 3 2 3 1 - 23 2 15 10 8 17 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% i n 15% 13% 14% 8% 12% 3% -% 92% 8% 59% 41% 31% 69% WATCHING VIDEO CONTENT 431 30 35 50 56 35 16 50 370 61 311 118 219 212 37% 27% 39% 43% 48% 36% 29% 35% 36% 40% 37% 36% 35% 39% ch ch 7% 8% 12% 13% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB4 (QB5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use your games console for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% IPTV 351 26 29 40 49 28 12 42 302 49 254 95 173 178 30% 24% 33% 35% 42% 29% 23% 30% 29% 32% 30% 29% 27% 33% ch 7% 8% 11% 14% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 49% 51% None of these 501 53 36 45 43 37 25 76 438 63 357 140 282 219 43% 49% 40% 39% 37% 38% 46% 54% 43% 42% 42% 43% 45% 40% defg 11% 7% 9% 9% 7% 5% 15% 87% 13% 71% 28% 56% 44% Don't know 39 4 2 2 4 5 3 1 33 6 30 9 27 12 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 5% 6% 1% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% i o 11% 6% 5% 10% 14% 8% 3% 84% 16% 76% 24% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| ~c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 668 \| 249 \| 419 \| 69 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 466 \| 179 \| 288 \| 45 \| \| Total \| 495 \| 189 \| 306 \| 51 \| \| 38% \| 62% \| \| 17% \| 40% \| \| Yes \| 181 \| 68 \| 113 \| \| \| 36% \| 36% \| 37% \| \| 39% \| \| 38% \| 62% \| \| 18% \| 39% \| \| No \| 279 \| 110 \| 169 \| \| \| 56% \| 58% \| 55% \| \| 54% \| \| q \| \| \| \| \| \| 39% \| 61% \| \| 16% \| 41% \| \| Don't know \| 36 \| 11 \| 24 \| \| \| 7% \| 6% \| 8% \| \| 7% \| \| 32% \| 68% \| \| 16% \| 37% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 668 20 46 52 55 48 51 55 48 41 467 201 387 280 378 290 Effective Weighted Sample 466 18 43 50 53 46 49 52 44 38 368 103 279 195 275 200 Total 495 28 69 48 43 50 54 55 23 51 407 88 325 169 319 176 82% 18% 66% 34% 65% 35% Yes 181 139 41 115 66 116 64 36% 34% 47% 35% 39% 36% 37% j 77% 23% 64% 36% 64% 36% No 279 238 41 187 90 178 101 56% 58% 46% 58% 53% 56% 57% k 85% 15% 67% 32% 64% 36% Don't know 36 30 6 23 13 25 11 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 6% 84% 16% 64% 36% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc1. Is There A Landline Phone In Your Home That Can Be Used To Make And Receive Calls? (Single Code) Prompted Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Can use to make and receive calls 2220 1075 1146 247 317 791 866 212 210 295 532 653 588 496 483 1853 197 109 62 83% 83% 83% 68% 68% 86% 93% 67% 81% 82% 91% 92% 82% 86% 73% 83% 84% 83% 84% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Can receive but not make calls/ incoming only 42 19 23 13 18 10 1 3 3 6 10 10 20 6 7 38 3 1 1 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% ef ef f mn 46% 54% 30% 43% 24% 3% 6% 7% 15% 23% 23% 46% 13% 16% 89% 7% 2% 2% Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired 28 14 14 8 6 12 2 8 2 6 5 5 9 7 7 24 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% f f f 50% 50% 28% 21% 43% 8% 27% 7% 21% 18% 19% 33% 23% 25% 84% 5% 9% 3% No, do not have landline phone 382 191 191 95 127 102 58 95 45 51 37 44 103 72 163 320 32 20 10 14% 15% 14% 26% 27% 11% 6% 30% 17% 14% 6% 6% 14% 12% 25% 14% 14% 15% 14% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 50% 50% 25% 33% 27% 15% 25% 12% 13% 10% 11% 27% 19% 43% 84% 8% 5% 3% Don't know 2 1 1 2 * - - - 1 - - * - * 2 2 - * * % % % 1% % -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % % % -% % % ef 59% 41% 96% 4% -% -% -% 37% -% -% 4% -% 4% 93% 93% -% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY 115 56 59 2 7 8 98 31 7 7 4 26 17 22 50 93 12 6 5 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 11% 10% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 7% cde hij j klm o 48% 52% 2% 6% 7% 85% 27% 6% 6% 3% 22% 15% 19% 44% 80% 10% 5% 4% FIXED & MOBILE 2176 1052 1123 265 335 805 771 191 208 300 543 642 599 487 446 1821 189 106 59 81% 81% 82% 73% 71% 88% 83% 60% 80% 84% 93% 90% 83% 84% 67% 81% 81% 81% 80% cdf cd g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 37% 35% 9% 10% 14% 25% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% MOBILE ONLY 379 188 191 97 126 100 56 92 45 51 37 44 103 72 159 318 31 19 10 14% 14% 14% 27% 27% 11% 6% 29% 17% 14% 6% 6% 14% 12% 24% 14% 13% 15% 13% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 50% 50% 26% 33% 26% 15% 24% 12% 13% 10% 12% 27% 19% 42% 84% 8% 5% 3% ALL FIXED 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 86% 85% 86% 73% 73% 89% 94% 70% 83% 86% 94% 94% 86% 88% 75% 86% 86% 85% 86% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% ALL MOBILE 2554 1240 1314 362 460 905 827 284 253 351 579 686 703 558 605 2139 221 126 69 95% 95% 96% 99% 98% 99% 89% 89% 97% 98% 99% 96% 98% 96% 92% 96% 95% 95% 93% f f f g g gh n n n r 49% 51% 14% 18% 35% 32% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% NEITHER 5 4 1 1 2 2 3 - - - * - * 5 4 1 * * % % % % % % % 1% -% -% -% % -% % 1% % % % % j klm 76% 24% 1% 22% 41% 35% 57% -% -% -% 1% -% 2% 97% 74% 12% 8% 5% MOBILE ONLY NO FIXED BROADBAND 255 124 131 56 82 69 48 77 34 33 18 22 64 47 122 214 21 14 7 10% 10% 10% 15% 18% 7% 5% 24% 13% 9% 3% 3% 9% 8% 18% 10% 9% 10% 9% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 48% 52% 22% 32% 27% 19% 30% 13% 13% 7% 9% 25% 18% 48% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Can use to make and receive calls 2220 253 328 202 164 190 204 184 88 239 1894 326 1282 931 1270 951 83% 75% 91% 89% 87% 80% 83% 82% 78% 79% 82% 91% 83% 84% 88% 77% aefghi aeghi ahi a j o 11% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% Can receive but not make calls/ incoming only 42 24 1 1 1 2 3 - 3 3 39 3 32 11 13 29 2% 7% % % 1% 1% 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdefghi g m n 57% 3% 2% 3% 4% 8% -% 7% 6% 92% 8% 75% 25% 31% 69% Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired 28 2 5 1 2 3 3 1 1 5 28 1 20 8 15 13 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % % 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% k 8% 18% 3% 8% 12% 11% 3% 2% 18% 98% 2% 72% 28% 54% 46% No, do not have landline phone 382 59 25 22 22 41 34 40 22 54 353 29 218 162 145 237 14% 18% 7% 10% 12% 17% 14% 18% 20% 18% 15% 8% 14% 15% 10% 19% bc bc b bc bcd bc k n 16% 7% 6% 6% 11% 9% 11% 6% 14% 92% 8% 57% 42% 38% 62% Don't know 2 - - 1 - - - - - 1 2 * 2 * 2 % -% -% % -% -% -% -% -% % % % % % % % -% -% 37% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 93% 7% 4% 96% 4% 96% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY 115 15 16 9 12 11 5 6 8 10 103 13 20 95 59 56 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 3% 7% 3% 4% 3% 1% 9% 4% 5% f fg l 13% 14% 8% 10% 10% 4% 5% 6% 9% 89% 11% 17% 83% 51% 49% FIXED & MOBILE 2176 264 318 195 155 184 206 179 84 237 1858 318 1314 854 1239 937 81% 78% 88% 86% 82% 78% 84% 79% 74% 78% 80% 88% 85% 77% 86% 76% aeghi aehi h h j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 60% 39% 57% 43% MOBILE ONLY 379 59 25 22 22 41 34 37 22 55 349 29 216 161 145 234 14% 18% 7% 10% 12% 17% 14% 17% 20% 18% 15% 8% 14% 14% 10% 19% bc bc b bc bcd bcd k n 16% 7% 6% 6% 11% 9% 10% 6% 14% 92% 8% 57% 43% 38% 62% ALL FIXED 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 86% 82% 93% 90% 88% 83% 86% 82% 80% 82% 85% 92% 86% 85% 90% 81% aefghi aeghi hi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% ALL MOBILE 2554 323 342 217 177 226 240 216 106 291 2207 347 1530 1015 1384 1170 95% 96% 95% 96% 94% 95% 98% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 99% 91% 96% 95% dh m 13% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 60% 40% 54% 46% NEITHER 5 - - 1 - - - 3 - - 5 2 3 * 5 % -% -% % -% -% -% 1% -% -% % % % % % % n -% -% 14% -% -% -% 60% -% -% 97% 3% 30% 62% 6% 94% MOBILE ONLY NO FIXED BROADBAND 255 51 6 15 15 31 15 29 17 37 236 19 138 116 99 156 10% 15% 2% 7% 8% 13% 6% 13% 15% 12% 10% 5% 9% 10% 7% 13% bcdf b b bcf b bcf bcdf bcf k n 20% 2% 6% 6% 12% 6% 11% 7% 14% 93% 7% 54% 46% 39% 61% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes to make calls 2001 963 1038 201 253 709 838 182 188 262 481 617 521 440 423 1687 166 98 51 87% 87% 88% 75% 74% 87% 96% 82% 87% 85% 88% 92% 84% 86% 85% 88% 82% 87% 79% cd cde g lmn pr r 48% 52% 10% 13% 35% 42% 9% 9% 13% 24% 31% 26% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Yes to receive calls 2038 991 1048 215 270 722 832 182 194 271 491 626 545 443 421 1731 158 98 52 89% 89% 89% 80% 79% 89% 96% 82% 90% 88% 90% 94% 88% 87% 85% 90% 79% 87% 81% cd cde g g g lmn pr p 49% 51% 11% 13% 35% 41% 9% 10% 13% 24% 31% 27% 22% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Yes for internet access 1669 803 865 220 281 654 513 129 145 234 466 516 462 381 310 1412 121 84 50 73% 72% 73% 82% 82% 81% 59% 58% 68% 76% 85% 77% 75% 75% 62% 74% 60% 75% 79% f f f g gh ghi n n n p p op 48% 52% 13% 17% 39% 31% 8% 9% 14% 28% 31% 28% 23% 19% 85% 7% 5% 3% TOTAL PERSONALLY USE 2222 1074 1148 248 326 789 859 211 207 300 530 653 600 489 478 1857 193 111 62 97% 97% 97% 93% 95% 97% 99% 95% 96% 97% 97% 98% 97% 96% 96% 97% 96% 98% 97% c cde 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% No do not use landline at home 64 29 34 19 16 21 7 9 8 7 16 11 17 19 17 52 8 2 2 3% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 1% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% ef f f 46% 54% 30% 24% 34% 12% 13% 13% 11% 25% 18% 26% 29% 26% 81% 13% 3% 3% Don't know 6 5 1 - * 2 3 2 - 1 1 3 * 1 2 5 - - * % % % -% % % % 1% -% % % % % % % % -% -% % 87% 13% -% % 43% 56% 32% -% 13% 14% 55% % 13% 32% 97% -% -% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Yes to make calls 2001 243 295 187 143 174 190 170 74 211 1697 304 1125 870 1157 844 87% 87% 88% 92% 85% 89% 90% 92% 81% 85% 87% 92% 84% 92% 89% 85% h dhi h h dh j l o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 56% 43% 58% 42% Yes to receive calls 2038 271 300 191 145 172 191 173 79 209 1738 300 1163 870 1172 866 89% 97% 90% 94% 87% 88% 90% 93% 86% 85% 89% 91% 87% 92% 90% 87% bdefhi dehi dhi l o 13% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 57% 43% 58% 42% Yes for internet access 1669 235 244 174 115 125 165 145 52 156 1424 245 1074 590 949 720 73% 84% 73% 86% 69% 64% 78% 78% 57% 63% 73% 74% 81% 62% 73% 72% bdehi ehi bdehi h dehi dehi m 14% 15% 10% 7% 7% 10% 9% 3% 9% 85% 15% 64% 35% 57% 43% TOTAL PERSONALLY USE 2222 276 322 200 160 183 209 184 90 231 1898 324 1290 925 1257 964 97% 99% 96% 98% 96% 94% 99% 100% 99% 94% 97% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% ei ei bdei bdei ei 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% No do not use landline at home 64 1 10 3 7 13 1 1 1 16 57 6 42 21 36 28 3% % 3% 1% 4% 6% 1% % 1% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% a afg acfgh acfgh 1% 16% 4% 10% 20% 2% 1% 2% 25% 90% 10% 65% 33% 56% 44% Don't know 6 2 2 1 1 - - - - - 6 - 2 3 5 1 % 1% 1% % % -% -% -% -% -% % -% % % % % 41% 32% 11% 13% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 44% 56% 85% 15% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc3 (Qc10). Thinking Of When You Use Your Landline, Which One Of These Uses Is The Most Important To You? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1958 917 1041 243 295 727 693 162 201 265 453 546 632 417 362 1234 220 261 243 Effective Weighted Sample 1366 650 716 162 193 516 502 120 134 191 338 405 429 301 243 1085 134 165 184 Total 1518 731 787 188 231 599 501 104 134 209 432 498 414 342 264 1308 96 73 41 48% 52% 12% 15% 39% 33% 7% 9% 14% 28% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 6% 5% 3% Make/ receive calls 221 103 118 17 15 65 123 20 35 27 40 71 58 45 46 188 15 12 6 15% 14% 15% 9% 7% 11% 25% 20% 26% 13% 9% 14% 14% 13% 17% 14% 16% 16% 14% cde j ij 47% 53% 8% 7% 30% 56% 9% 16% 12% 18% 32% 26% 21% 21% 85% 7% 5% 2% Internet access 685 331 354 113 136 293 144 43 39 118 220 225 193 159 108 589 43 33 20 45% 45% 45% 60% 59% 49% 29% 41% 29% 57% 51% 45% 46% 47% 41% 45% 45% 45% 49% ef ef f h gh h 48% 52% 16% 20% 43% 21% 6% 6% 17% 32% 33% 28% 23% 16% 86% 6% 5% 3% Both are equally important 612 297 315 58 80 240 233 40 59 64 171 201 163 137 110 531 37 28 15 40% 41% 40% 31% 35% 40% 47% 38% 44% 31% 40% 40% 39% 40% 42% 41% 39% 39% 38% c cde i i 48% 52% 10% 13% 39% 38% 7% 10% 10% 28% 33% 27% 22% 18% 87% 6% 5% 2% Don't know * - * - - - * * - - - - - - * * - - - % -% % -% -% -% % % -% -% -% -% -% -% % % -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc3 (Qc10). Thinking Of When You Use Your Landline, Which One Of These Uses Is The Most Important To You? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g ~h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1958 171 153 176 131 121 145 133 88 116 1404 554 1126 827 1058 900 Effective Weighted Sample 1366 153 145 169 124 113 138 127 82 108 1113 271 796 585 742 633 Total 1518 230 224 167 101 121 151 134 41 140 1290 228 962 552 881 637 15% 15% 11% 7% 8% 10% 9% 9% 85% 15% 63% 36% 58% 42% Make/ receive calls 221 20 47 21 17 15 26 21 17 184 37 86 134 144 77 15% 9% 21% 13% 17% 13% 17% 16% 12% 14% 16% 9% 24% 16% 12% ac a a l o 9% 21% 9% 8% 7% 12% 10% 8% 83% 17% 39% 61% 65% 35% Internet access 685 75 108 80 29 51 80 83 62 584 101 492 190 399 286 45% 33% 48% 48% 28% 42% 53% 62% 44% 45% 44% 51% 34% 45% 45% ad ad d ad abcdei d m 11% 16% 12% 4% 7% 12% 12% 9% 85% 15% 72% 28% 58% 42% Both are equally important 612 135 69 66 55 55 46 29 61 521 91 384 228 339 274 40% 59% 31% 40% 55% 45% 30% 21% 44% 40% 40% 40% 41% 38% 43% bcefgi g bcfg bfg bfg 22% 11% 11% 9% 9% 7% 5% 10% 85% 15% 63% 37% 55% 45% Don't know * - - - - - - * ** - * - - * - * % -% -% -% -% -% -% % ** -% % -% -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% * -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc4 (Qc30). Showcard How Do You Pay The Line Rental For Your Landline Phone Service? Please Answer About Your Line Renatl Only And Not Charges For Calls And Other Costs. (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3060 1448 1612 337 414 997 1312 342 324 382 566 736 936 667 717 1827 410 394 429 Effective Weighted Sample 2069 982 1088 226 270 690 897 238 213 273 423 537 627 458 465 1580 257 247 312 Total 2220 1075 1146 247 317 791 866 212 210 295 532 653 588 496 483 1853 197 109 62 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% On a monthly or quarterly basis, alongside call charges and other costs 2004 978 1025 184 283 740 797 196 192 266 488 585 524 447 448 1656 189 102 56 90% 91% 89% 74% 89% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 92% 90% 89% 90% 93% 89% 96% 93% 91% c cd c l or 49% 51% 9% 14% 37% 40% 10% 10% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% 12 months in advance (a lump sum of around £120-£160 for the year) and then pay monthly or quarterly for call charges and other costs 122 54 68 15 15 41 51 7 10 23 35 37 39 29 18 113 3 3 3 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 8% 7% 6% 7% 6% 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% g n p 44% 56% 13% 12% 34% 41% 5% 9% 19% 29% 30% 32% 23% 15% 92% 3% 3% 2% Don't know 94 42 52 48 19 10 18 9 8 6 8 31 25 21 17 83 5 4 3 4% 4% 5% 19% 6% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 5% def ef j 44% 56% 51% 20% 10% 19% 9% 8% 6% 9% 33% 27% 22% 18% 88% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc4 (Qc30). Showcard How Do You Pay The Line Rental For Your Landline Phone Service? Please Answer About Your Line Renatl Only And Not Charges For Calls And Other Costs. (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3060 188 228 219 214 199 196 193 193 197 2186 874 1548 1504 1572 1488 Effective Weighted Sample 2069 167 216 210 202 185 187 181 179 182 1693 404 1074 1025 1083 1010 Total 2220 253 328 202 164 190 204 184 88 239 1894 326 1282 931 1270 951 11% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% On a monthly or quarterly basis, alongside call charges and other costs 2004 216 299 186 146 163 188 169 84 205 1710 294 1166 830 1146 858 90% 85% 91% 92% 89% 86% 92% 92% 95% 86% 90% 90% 91% 89% 90% 90% aei adei 11% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 58% 41% 57% 43% 12 months in advance (a lump sum of around £120-£160 for the year) and then pay monthly or quarterly for call charges and other costs 122 32 12 7 8 14 9 8 2 22 103 19 75 48 68 54 6% 13% 4% 4% 5% 8% 4% 4% 2% 9% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% bcdfgh h bch 26% 10% 6% 6% 12% 7% 6% 2% 18% 84% 16% 61% 39% 56% 44% Don't know 94 5 17 9 10 13 8 8 2 12 81 14 41 53 56 39 4% 2% 5% 4% 6% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 4% a l 6% 17% 9% 10% 13% 8% 8% 2% 13% 85% 15% 44% 56% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc5 (Qc28). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider To Be Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 1822 879 944 344 434 717 327 192 168 260 447 462 505 399 455 1536 148 81 58 68% 68% 69% 95% 93% 78% 35% 60% 64% 73% 77% 65% 70% 69% 69% 69% 63% 61% 78% ef ef f gh gh k q opq 48% 52% 19% 24% 39% 18% 11% 9% 14% 25% 25% 28% 22% 25% 84% 8% 4% 3% Landline phone at home 745 361 384 12 28 160 545 104 80 87 121 232 186 155 171 618 75 39 14 28% 28% 28% 3% 6% 17% 59% 33% 31% 24% 21% 33% 26% 27% 26% 28% 32% 29% 19% cd cde ij j lmn r r r 48% 52% 2% 4% 21% 73% 14% 11% 12% 16% 31% 25% 21% 23% 83% 10% 5% 2% Landline phone at work 54 33 21 4 3 17 29 9 4 7 10 11 14 17 11 39 4 9 1 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 7% 2% cd opr 61% 39% 8% 6% 32% 55% 16% 7% 12% 19% 20% 27% 31% 21% 73% 8% 17% 2% Public payphone 28 11 17 3 3 9 12 5 6 4 - 3 7 6 12 22 3 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% -% % 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% j j j k 40% 60% 11% 11% 32% 45% 19% 23% 13% -% 11% 24% 20% 45% 81% 12% 3% 4% Internet voice service (VoIP) 3 2 1 - 1 2 1 2 1 - - 2 * 1 2 1 * - % % % -% % % % 1% % -% -% % % % % % % % -% 78% 22% -% 22% 55% 23% 56% 35% -% -% 3% 58% 6% 33% 71% 19% 9% -% Other 9 6 3 1 - 3 5 2 2 1 1 * 2 2 4 6 1 1 - % % % % -% % 1% 1% 1% % % % % % 1% % 1% 1% -% 70% 30% 10% -% 34% 57% 28% 20% 10% 14% 4% 23% 26% 48% 71% 16% 13% -% Don't know 15 9 6 - 7 7 4 - 1 4 3 4 1 6 13 1 1 * 1% 1% % % -% 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % 1% % 62% 38% 1% -% 49% 50% 25% -% 5% 27% 23% 28% 9% 40% 88% 7% 5% % Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Mobile phone 1822 289 227 132 129 154 164 164 88 190 1619 203 1258 555 910 913 68% 86% 63% 58% 68% 65% 67% 72% 77% 63% 70% 56% 81% 50% 63% 74% bcdefghi c bci bcdefi k m n 16% 12% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9% 5% 10% 89% 11% 69% 30% 50% 50% Landline phone at home 745 31 128 93 52 71 73 54 22 94 599 147 243 501 474 271 28% 9% 36% 41% 28% 30% 30% 24% 19% 31% 26% 41% 16% 45% 33% 22% agh adefghi ah ah ah a a ah j l o 4% 17% 12% 7% 9% 10% 7% 3% 13% 80% 20% 33% 67% 64% 36% Landline phone at work 54 13 1 1 4 7 3 2 1 8 47 7 26 27 31 22 2% 4% % % 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% bch bc b 23% 2% 2% 7% 13% 5% 4% 1% 14% 88% 12% 49% 51% 58% 42% Public payphone 28 5 - - 2 4 1 3 1 8 26 2 12 15 14 13 1% 1% -% -% 1% 2% % 1% % 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% bc bcf 17% -% -% 7% 15% 3% 9% 2% 29% 93% 7% 45% 54% 51% 49% Internet voice service (VoIP) 3 - - - - 1 1 - * - 3 * 1 2 1 2 % -% -% -% -% % % -% % -% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 22% 35% -% 14% -% 91% 9% 41% 59% 44% 56% Other 9 - - 1 2 1 2 1 - - 8 * 2 6 5 4 % -% -% % 1% % 1% % -% -% % % % 1% % % -% -% 10% 18% 10% 24% 10% -% -% 95% 5% 27% 73% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 15 1 3 - - - 2 2 3 2 14 1 8 7 8 6 1% % 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% cde 8% 23% -% -% -% 10% 16% 17% 13% 94% 6% 53% 47% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc6 (Qc28A). Showcard And Thinking About When You Are At Home, Which Is Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 1694 832 862 344 417 641 291 189 159 244 394 401 470 378 444 1434 130 75 55 63% 64% 63% 94% 89% 70% 31% 60% 61% 68% 68% 56% 65% 65% 67% 64% 56% 57% 74% def ef f g g k k k pq opq 49% 51% 20% 25% 38% 17% 11% 9% 14% 23% 24% 28% 22% 26% 85% 8% 4% 3% Landline phone at home 924 439 485 18 47 253 606 115 99 108 179 295 238 189 201 755 98 52 18 35% 34% 35% 5% 10% 28% 65% 36% 38% 30% 31% 41% 33% 32% 30% 34% 42% 40% 24% c cd cde ij lmn r or or 47% 53% 2% 5% 27% 66% 12% 11% 12% 19% 32% 26% 20% 22% 82% 11% 6% 2% Internet voice service (VoIP) 17 8 9 - 2 4 11 4 2 - * 3 4 5 5 14 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% -% % % 1% 1% 1% -% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% c j 46% 54% -% 10% 22% 68% 22% 12% -% 1% 18% 23% 27% 32% 85% 5% 7% 3% Public payphone 15 6 9 2 2 5 5 3 1 5 5 3 5 2 13 1 1 * 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % % 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 37% 63% 16% 16% 37% 31% 18% 1% 6% 32% 33% 20% 35% 12% 85% 8% 5% 1% Other 5 4 1 1 - 2 3 2 1 - * 1 * 3 3 1 1 - % % % % -% % % % % % -% % % % 1% % 1% 1% -% o 72% 28% 17% -% 32% 51% 31% 3% 21% -% 6% 23% 3% 67% 53% 28% 19% -% Don't know 21 13 7 - 10 11 5 - 4 5 8 4 4 5 18 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% % -% 1% 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % d cd h 65% 35% % -% 46% 53% 24% -% 20% 24% 37% 19% 19% 24% 87% 5% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC6 (QC28A). SHOWCARD And thinking about when you are at home, which is your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Mobile phone 1694 274 202 110 121 150 156 154 82 184 1514 180 1147 541 819 875 63% 81% 56% 48% 64% 63% 64% 68% 72% 61% 65% 50% 74% 49% 57% 71% bcdefghi c c c bc bcefi c k m n 16% 12% 6% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 11% 89% 11% 68% 32% 48% 52% Landline phone at home 924 60 147 115 63 83 82 66 28 112 751 173 372 547 594 330 35% 18% 41% 51% 33% 35% 34% 29% 25% 37% 32% 48% 24% 49% 41% 27% agh abdefghi ah ah ah a ah j l o 6% 16% 12% 7% 9% 9% 7% 3% 12% 81% 19% 40% 59% 64% 36% Internet voice service (VoIP) 17 1 - - 3 2 1 1 1 6 15 2 6 11 9 8 1% % -% -% 1% 1% % % 1% 2% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% bc 8% -% -% 15% 9% 4% 7% 6% 36% 89% 11% 38% 62% 53% 47% Public payphone 15 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 - - 13 1 11 4 9 6 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% -% -% 1% % 1% % 1% % 12% 21% 9% 11% 14% 7% 11% -% -% 90% 10% 73% 24% 63% 37% Other 5 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 5 1 4 * 5 % -% % -% -% % -% % -% -% % % % % % % n -% 19% -% -% 17% -% 17% -% -% 96% 4% 18% 82% 3% 97% Don't know 21 2 6 1 - - 5 2 2 - 17 3 14 7 12 8 1% % 2% % -% -% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% dei dei dei 8% 30% 5% -% -% 24% 10% 10% -% 84% 16% 67% 33% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% BT 889 430 459 73 89 308 420 84 81 102 216 295 216 190 187 735 68 52 34 39% 39% 39% 27% 26% 38% 48% 38% 38% 33% 40% 44% 35% 37% 38% 38% 34% 47% 53% cd cde lmn op op 48% 52% 8% 10% 35% 47% 9% 9% 11% 24% 33% 24% 21% 21% 83% 8% 6% 4% Sky 461 221 239 69 98 192 101 37 54 75 110 118 127 107 108 377 42 25 17 20% 20% 20% 26% 29% 24% 12% 16% 25% 24% 20% 18% 21% 21% 22% 20% 21% 22% 27% f f f g g o 48% 52% 15% 21% 42% 22% 8% 12% 16% 24% 26% 28% 23% 24% 82% 9% 5% 4% Virgin Media 408 214 194 56 63 150 138 34 30 50 117 110 122 93 83 339 58 7 3 18% 19% 16% 21% 18% 19% 16% 15% 14% 16% 21% 16% 20% 18% 17% 18% 29% 6% 5% gh qr oqr 52% 48% 14% 15% 37% 34% 8% 7% 12% 29% 27% 30% 23% 20% 83% 14% 2% 1% TalkTalk 241 111 130 26 38 83 94 37 27 34 41 64 68 48 61 203 18 15 6 11% 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 11% 17% 13% 11% 8% 10% 11% 9% 12% 11% 9% 13% 9% j j 46% 54% 11% 16% 34% 39% 15% 11% 14% 17% 27% 28% 20% 25% 84% 7% 6% 2% EE/ Everything Everywhere 74 31 43 11 21 25 17 5 3 13 20 20 23 21 10 64 4 5 * 3% 3% 4% 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% f ef h r r 42% 58% 15% 28% 34% 22% 7% 3% 17% 28% 27% 31% 28% 14% 87% 6% 6% 1% Plusnet 72 37 36 4 11 22 36 6 3 12 19 26 18 16 13 69 1 2 * 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% % c pr r 51% 49% 5% 15% 30% 49% 8% 5% 17% 26% 36% 25% 21% 18% 95% 2% 3% % Post Office 20 8 12 2 * 4 14 4 2 5 1 4 6 1 9 17 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 2% 2% 1% 2% % 1% 1% % 2% 1% % 1% 1% de j j m 39% 61% 8% 2% 20% 70% 18% 11% 27% 5% 19% 31% 7% 44% 85% 3% 8% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% KComm 17 7 10 2 1 3 11 2 4 2 3 4 5 5 4 15 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 42% 58% 9% 8% 18% 65% 14% 23% 9% 16% 22% 27% 28% 23% 88% 5% 5% 2% Tesco Telecom 6 2 4 - 1 3 2 1 - 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 - - % % % -% % % % 1% -% % % % % % % % 1% -% -% o 32% 68% -% 22% 42% 37% 23% -% 23% 14% 34% 26% 8% 32% 67% 33% -% -% SSE 4 1 2 - 1 - 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 - 3 - - % % % -% % -% % % % -% % % % % -% % -% % -% 37% 63% -% 28% -% 72% 26% 21% -% 28% 28% 15% 56% -% 92% -% 8% -% Primus 3 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 3 - - % % % -% % % % % -% -% -% -% % % % % -% % -% 64% 36% -% 38% 37% 25% 36% -% -% -% -% 26% 38% 36% 89% -% 11% -% The Phone Co-op/ The Cooperative 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - - % -% % -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % -% -% -% % -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% Other 45 20 25 8 4 14 20 5 5 9 8 13 13 12 7 40 2 2 1 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 44% 56% 17% 9% 31% 43% 11% 10% 21% 17% 29% 29% 26% 16% 89% 5% 5% 1% Don't know 50 24 26 17 12 8 13 5 5 2 9 11 15 13 11 44 3 2 1 2% 2% 2% 6% 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% ef ef 48% 52% 35% 24% 16% 26% 9% 10% 5% 18% 21% 30% 25% 23% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC7 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% BT 889 112 137 84 55 79 87 62 27 94 697 192 457 429 561 328 39% 40% 41% 41% 33% 40% 41% 33% 29% 38% 36% 58% 34% 45% 43% 33% h h h h h j l o 13% 15% 9% 6% 9% 10% 7% 3% 11% 78% 22% 51% 48% 63% 37% Sky 461 65 64 36 35 35 37 38 24 43 416 45 319 141 226 235 20% 23% 19% 18% 21% 18% 18% 20% 26% 18% 21% 14% 24% 15% 17% 24% k m n 14% 14% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 5% 9% 90% 10% 69% 31% 49% 51% Virgin Media 408 46 57 22 40 34 44 29 24 43 394 14 263 144 195 213 18% 17% 17% 11% 24% 17% 21% 16% 27% 17% 20% 4% 20% 15% 15% 21% cg c abcegi k m n 11% 14% 5% 10% 8% 11% 7% 6% 11% 97% 3% 65% 35% 48% 52% TalkTalk 241 29 39 28 15 10 21 22 10 30 211 30 134 106 145 96 11% 10% 12% 14% 9% 5% 10% 12% 11% 12% 11% 9% 10% 11% 11% 10% e e e e e 12% 16% 11% 6% 4% 9% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 55% 44% 60% 40% EE/ Everything Everywhere 74 11 7 9 6 7 3 6 2 13 63 10 53 21 39 34 3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% f m 15% 10% 12% 8% 10% 4% 9% 2% 18% 86% 14% 72% 28% 53% 47% Plusnet 72 3 17 13 5 10 6 8 1 4 53 19 39 33 54 18 3% 1% 5% 7% 3% 5% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 6% 3% 4% 4% 2% ah ahi ah j o 5% 24% 18% 7% 13% 9% 11% 2% 6% 74% 26% 54% 46% 75% 25% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Post Office 20 1 - 1 1 3 2 4 1 5 18 2 6 14 13 7 1% % -% 1% % 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% b b l 6% -% 5% 4% 15% 9% 20% 3% 23% 88% 12% 30% 70% 64% 36% KComm 17 2 - - 1 1 - 9 - 3 17 4 13 13 4 1% 1% -% -% % % -% 5% -% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% % abcdefh l 11% -% -% 4% 5% -% 50% -% 18% 99% 1% 26% 74% 76% 24% Tesco Telecom 6 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 2 6 - 3 3 1 5 % % -% -% -% % -% % -% 1% % -% % % % % 12% -% -% -% 8% -% 13% -% 34% 100% -% 54% 46% 23% 77% SSE 4 1 - 1 - - 1 1 - - 4 - 1 3 1 3 % % -% % -% -% % % -% -% % -% % % % % 15% -% 26% -% -% 28% 21% -% -% 100% -% 28% 72% 26% 74% Primus 3 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 2 1 2 1 1 2 % -% -% 1% -% % -% % -% -% % % % % % % -% -% 38% -% 26% -% 25% -% -% 62% 38% 64% 36% 38% 62% The Phone Co-op/ The Co-operative 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 % -% -% -% -% -% % -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other 45 6 9 5 2 6 8 3 1 - 37 8 23 22 23 22 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 1% 1% -% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% i i i i i 13% 21% 12% 4% 14% 17% 6% 3% -% 82% 18% 51% 49% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Don't know 50 2 4 4 8 10 2 3 2 10 42 8 30 19 26 25 2% 1% 1% 2% 5% 5% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% abf abf a 4% 8% 8% 15% 19% 4% 6% 4% 19% 84% 16% 59% 39% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2245 1084 1161 254 330 800 861 217 210 304 535 660 605 493 485 1874 198 110 63 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 38% 10% 9% 14% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Very satisfied 1171 577 594 123 162 395 492 132 115 158 251 319 322 258 272 987 94 55 36 52% 53% 51% 48% 49% 49% 57% 61% 55% 52% 47% 48% 53% 52% 56% 53% 47% 50% 57% cde ij k p 49% 51% 10% 14% 34% 42% 11% 10% 13% 21% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Fairly satisfied 799 383 416 99 120 301 279 62 69 105 220 244 212 183 159 653 83 42 21 36% 35% 36% 39% 36% 38% 32% 28% 33% 35% 41% 37% 35% 37% 33% 35% 42% 38% 34% f gh or 48% 52% 12% 15% 38% 35% 8% 9% 13% 28% 31% 27% 23% 20% 82% 10% 5% 3% TOTAL SATISFIED 1970 960 1010 221 281 696 771 193 184 263 470 563 534 441 430 1639 176 97 57 88% 89% 87% 87% 85% 87% 90% 89% 88% 86% 88% 85% 88% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 91% d 49% 51% 11% 14% 35% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Neither 144 68 76 22 27 56 39 8 15 21 34 52 37 28 27 126 8 6 4 6% 6% 7% 9% 8% 7% 4% 4% 7% 7% 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% f f f 47% 53% 15% 19% 39% 27% 6% 10% 15% 23% 36% 26% 20% 19% 87% 6% 4% 3% Fairly dissatisfied 85 34 51 9 15 26 34 8 9 16 23 29 21 14 21 73 7 4 1 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 40% 60% 11% 18% 30% 41% 9% 10% 19% 28% 35% 24% 16% 25% 86% 8% 5% 1% Very dissatisfied 46 22 24 2 6 22 16 7 3 5 8 16 13 10 6 36 6 3 * 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% r 49% 51% 4% 12% 49% 35% 16% 6% 10% 17% 35% 28% 23% 14% 79% 13% 7% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 131 56 74 11 21 48 51 15 11 20 31 45 34 24 28 109 13 7 2 6% 5% 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 2% r r r 43% 57% 9% 16% 37% 39% 12% 9% 16% 24% 35% 26% 18% 21% 83% 10% 6% 1% Don't know 46 24 22 13 12 13 9 5 5 3 11 8 12 15 11 40 3 2 1 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Base for % 2245 279 330 200 160 189 206 182 88 241 1923 322 1304 934 1274 971 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 42% 57% 43% Very satisfied 1171 123 174 99 97 98 85 105 53 153 1031 141 644 525 634 538 52% 44% 53% 50% 61% 52% 41% 58% 60% 64% 54% 44% 49% 56% 50% 55% f acf f af acf abcef k l n 10% 15% 8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 4% 13% 88% 12% 55% 45% 54% 46% Fairly satisfied 799 132 109 67 47 68 84 59 26 62 667 132 484 310 461 338 36% 47% 33% 33% 29% 36% 41% 33% 29% 26% 35% 41% 37% 33% 36% 35% bcdeghi i dhi j 16% 14% 8% 6% 9% 11% 7% 3% 8% 83% 17% 61% 39% 58% 42% TOTAL SATISFIED 1970 254 283 166 144 167 169 164 78 215 1697 273 1128 836 1094 876 88% 91% 86% 83% 90% 88% 82% 90% 89% 89% 88% 85% 86% 89% 86% 90% cf cf cf f k l n 13% 14% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 57% 42% 56% 44% Neither 144 15 33 15 8 17 14 7 3 13 124 20 93 52 99 45 6% 5% 10% 7% 5% 9% 7% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 8% 5% gh o 10% 23% 10% 6% 11% 10% 5% 2% 9% 86% 14% 64% 36% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 85 4 10 14 5 1 17 8 4 9 66 18 52 32 52 33 4% 1% 3% 7% 3% % 8% 4% 5% 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 4% 3% e ae e abde e e e j 5% 12% 17% 6% 1% 20% 9% 5% 11% 78% 22% 62% 38% 62% 38% Very dissatisfied 46 6 5 5 3 4 6 2 2 3 35 11 31 15 28 18 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 12% 10% 11% 7% 10% 12% 5% 4% 7% 76% 24% 68% 32% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 131 10 15 19 8 5 23 10 6 13 102 29 84 47 81 50 6% 3% 4% 10% 5% 3% 11% 6% 7% 5% 5% 9% 6% 5% 6% 5% abe abdei j 7% 11% 15% 6% 4% 18% 8% 5% 10% 78% 22% 64% 36% 62% 38% Don't know 46 - 4 4 7 7 5 3 4 6 38 8 30 15 24 22 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd1. How Many Mobile Phones In Total Do You And Members Of Your Household Use? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% One (1.0) 589 288 301 44 91 126 328 157 87 73 32 122 154 98 215 474 65 34 16 22% 22% 22% 12% 19% 14% 35% 49% 33% 21% 5% 17% 21% 17% 33% 21% 28% 26% 22% ce cde hij ij j m klm o 49% 51% 7% 15% 21% 56% 27% 15% 12% 5% 21% 26% 17% 36% 80% 11% 6% 3% Two (2.0) 1077 515 562 117 241 349 370 85 105 160 284 318 297 238 224 896 99 55 28 40% 40% 41% 32% 52% 38% 40% 27% 40% 45% 49% 45% 41% 41% 34% 40% 42% 42% 38% cef c g g gh n n n 48% 52% 11% 22% 32% 34% 8% 10% 15% 26% 29% 28% 22% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Three (3.0) 456 218 238 78 73 220 85 26 45 71 128 119 137 105 95 387 35 22 12 17% 17% 17% 21% 16% 24% 9% 8% 17% 20% 22% 17% 19% 18% 14% 17% 15% 17% 17% df f df g g g n 48% 52% 17% 16% 48% 19% 6% 10% 15% 28% 26% 30% 23% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Four or more (4.0) 432 219 213 123 55 210 44 16 15 48 136 127 114 118 72 382 23 14 12 16% 17% 15% 34% 12% 23% 5% 5% 6% 13% 23% 18% 16% 20% 11% 17% 10% 11% 17% def f df gh ghi n n ln pq pq 51% 49% 29% 13% 49% 10% 4% 4% 11% 31% 29% 26% 27% 17% 89% 5% 3% 3% None (0.0) 109 53 56 - 3 7 98 34 7 7 2 19 14 22 54 86 12 6 5 4% 4% 4% -% 1% 1% 11% 11% 3% 2% % 3% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 6% cde hij j j klm o 49% 51% -% 3% 6% 90% 31% 7% 6% 2% 17% 13% 20% 49% 79% 11% 6% 4% Don't know 12 7 5 3 5 3 1 - - - 2 7 3 - 2 11 - * 1 % 1% % 1% 1% % % -% -% -% % 1% % -% % 1% -% % 1% f m 58% 42% 21% 39% 28% 12% -% -% -% 15% 60% 24% -% 16% 93% -% 2% 6% Mean mobiles in household 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 def f df g gh ghi n n n pq p Standard deviation 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.05 .91 1.02 .96 .96 .92 .98 .91 1.04 1.03 1.09 1.10 1.08 1.02 1.03 1.14 Standard error .02 .03 .02 .05 .04 .03 .03 .04 .05 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .03 .02 .05 .05 .05 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% One (1.0) 589 42 81 35 37 50 56 59 30 84 511 78 219 368 302 287 22% 12% 23% 16% 19% 21% 23% 26% 26% 28% 22% 22% 14% 33% 21% 23% a a a a ac ac acd l 7% 14% 6% 6% 9% 9% 10% 5% 14% 87% 13% 37% 62% 51% 49% Two (2.0) 1077 141 145 102 76 84 100 86 46 115 921 157 664 409 618 459 40% 42% 40% 45% 40% 36% 41% 38% 41% 38% 40% 44% 43% 37% 43% 37% e m o 13% 13% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 62% 38% 57% 43% Three (3.0) 456 64 56 41 32 43 48 35 17 50 394 62 332 122 234 222 17% 19% 16% 18% 17% 18% 20% 15% 15% 17% 17% 17% 21% 11% 16% 18% m 14% 12% 9% 7% 10% 11% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 51% 49% Four or more (4.0) 432 77 61 38 32 48 36 36 12 42 382 50 315 116 230 202 16% 23% 17% 17% 17% 20% 15% 16% 11% 14% 16% 14% 20% 10% 16% 16% fhi h m 18% 14% 9% 7% 11% 8% 8% 3% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% None (0.0) 109 4 16 10 12 11 5 9 8 10 96 13 12 97 59 50 4% 1% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 4% 7% 3% 4% 4% 1% 9% 4% 4% a a af a a af l 3% 15% 9% 11% 10% 5% 9% 7% 10% 88% 12% 11% 89% 54% 46% Don't know 12 11 - - - - - - - - 12 * 10 2 1 12 % 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % 1% % % 1% bcdefghi n 93% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 99% 1% 83% 17% 5% 95% Mean mobiles in household 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.2 bcdefghi h h h h h m Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Standard deviation 1.08 1.02 1.10 1.06 1.13 1.15 1.02 1.10 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.03 .99 1.08 1.07 1.10 Standard error .02 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .02 .03 .02 .03 .03 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd2. Do You Personally Use A Mobile Phone? How Many Mobile Phones With Different Telephone Numbers Do You Use At Least Once A Month? Please Include Any Phones Used For Work Or Other Purposes. (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% No (0.0) 60 36 24 1 4 10 45 6 13 10 2 16 16 10 17 44 9 6 1 2% 3% 2% % 1% 1% 5% 2% 5% 3% % 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% cde j gj j or or 60% 40% 2% 7% 16% 75% 10% 21% 17% 3% 27% 27% 16% 29% 73% 16% 10% 1% 1 (1.0) 2303 1081 1222 323 422 817 741 267 231 326 510 592 643 509 557 1923 203 112 64 86% 83% 89% 89% 90% 89% 80% 84% 89% 91% 87% 83% 89% 88% 84% 86% 87% 85% 87% a f f f g kn k 47% 53% 14% 18% 35% 32% 12% 10% 14% 22% 26% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% 2 (2.0) 171 113 57 31 33 71 35 9 7 14 62 69 35 38 29 154 7 7 2 6% 9% 4% 8% 7% 8% 4% 3% 3% 4% 11% 10% 5% 6% 4% 7% 3% 6% 3% b f f f ghi ln pr 66% 34% 18% 20% 42% 21% 5% 4% 8% 36% 40% 21% 22% 17% 90% 4% 4% 1% 3 (3.0) 11 5 6 4 1 3 4 1 2 1 3 4 6 * 1 10 1 * 1 % % % 1% % % % % 1% % 1% 1% 1% % % % % % 1% 47% 53% 34% 10% 23% 32% 9% 20% 5% 27% 32% 54% 4% 10% 85% 8% 2% 5% 4 or more (4.0) 10 5 5 3 - 4 2 - 1 - 3 5 2 2 1 9 - * % % % 1% -% % % -% % -% 1% 1% % % % % % -% % 47% 53% 35% -% 43% 23% -% 9% -% 32% 50% 22% 19% 9% 96% 1% -% 3% No mobiles in household (0.0) 121 60 61 3 8 10 100 34 7 7 4 26 17 22 55 97 12 6 5 5% 5% 4% 1% 2% 1% 11% 11% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 7% cde hij j klm o 50% 50% 2% 7% 9% 83% 28% 6% 6% 3% 21% 14% 18% 46% 80% 10% 5% 4% Mean mobiles used 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 .9 .9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 .9 1.0 .9 1.0 1.0 df f f g g ghi n n n pqr Standard deviation .42 .46 .39 .45 .32 .38 .47 .40 .41 .31 .41 .48 .39 .39 .41 .43 .37 .39 .43 Standard error .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd2. Do You Personally Use A Mobile Phone? How Many Mobile Phones With Different Telephone Numbers Do You Use At Least Once A Month? Please Include Any Phones Used For Work Or Other Purposes. (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 93% 93% 94% 99% 97% 98% 84% 88% 92% 95% 99% 94% 95% 95% 89% 94% 91% 91% 92% f f f g g ghi n n n pq 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% No 168 89 79 1 7 17 143 40 20 17 3 35 31 32 71 129 22 12 5 6% 7% 6% % 2% 2% 15% 12% 8% 5% 1% 5% 4% 5% 11% 6% 9% 9% 7% c cde hij j j klm o o 53% 47% 1% 4% 10% 85% 23% 12% 10% 2% 21% 18% 19% 42% 77% 13% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% No (0.0) 60 5 5 6 6 3 5 5 2 6 52 7 13 46 42 18 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 1% l o 9% 8% 10% 10% 5% 8% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 21% 78% 70% 30% 1 (1.0) 2303 275 314 196 157 205 214 203 95 264 1988 315 1372 923 1241 1062 86% 81% 88% 86% 83% 87% 88% 90% 84% 87% 86% 88% 88% 83% 86% 86% ad m 12% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 60% 40% 54% 46% 2 (2.0) 171 41 18 15 12 14 20 7 8 20 150 21 136 35 90 80 6% 12% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 3% 7% 6% 6% 6% 9% 3% 6% 7% bcdegi g m 24% 10% 9% 7% 8% 12% 4% 5% 11% 88% 12% 80% 20% 53% 47% 3 (3.0) 11 1 1 - - 3 1 1 1 2 9 3 6 5 5 7 % % % -% -% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% % % % 1% 10% 10% -% -% 23% 6% 12% 6% 18% 76% 24% 52% 48% 42% 58% 4 or more (4.0) 10 1 5 1 1 2 - - - - 8 1 4 5 6 4 % % 1% % 1% 1% -% -% -% -% % % % % % % 12% 48% 9% 11% 16% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 45% 55% 61% 39% No mobiles in household (0.0) 121 15 16 10 12 11 5 9 8 10 108 13 22 99 60 61 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 4% 7% 3% 5% 4% 1% 9% 4% 5% f f l 12% 14% 8% 10% 9% 4% 8% 6% 9% 89% 11% 18% 82% 49% 51% Mean mobiles used 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 .9 1.0 1.0 dgh m Standard deviation .42 .47 .48 .41 .46 .47 .36 .35 .43 .38 .43 .41 .38 .47 .43 .42 Standard error .01 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 93% 94% 94% 93% 90% 94% 96% 94% 91% 95% 93% 94% 98% 87% 93% 94% dh m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% No 168 9 22 16 18 14 10 14 10 17 148 20 24 143 101 68 6% 3% 6% 7% 10% 6% 4% 6% 9% 5% 6% 6% 2% 13% 7% 5% a af af l 5% 13% 9% 11% 8% 6% 8% 6% 10% 88% 12% 14% 85% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% EE/ Everything Everywhere 578 271 307 101 124 216 137 50 46 85 156 164 169 122 123 501 38 35 5 23% 23% 24% 28% 27% 24% 18% 18% 19% 25% 27% 24% 25% 22% 21% 24% 18% 29% 7% f f f g gh pr r pr 47% 53% 18% 21% 37% 24% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 29% 21% 21% 87% 6% 6% 1% O2 548 263 285 92 88 203 166 67 56 64 135 150 141 128 129 435 57 15 40 22% 22% 22% 25% 19% 23% 21% 24% 23% 19% 23% 22% 21% 23% 22% 21% 27% 13% 60% d q oq opq 48% 52% 17% 16% 37% 30% 12% 10% 12% 25% 27% 26% 23% 23% 79% 10% 3% 7% Vodafone 448 228 219 67 75 168 138 41 30 54 115 133 133 99 81 383 36 19 9 18% 19% 17% 19% 16% 19% 18% 15% 13% 16% 20% 20% 19% 18% 14% 18% 17% 16% 14% h n n r 51% 49% 15% 17% 37% 31% 9% 7% 12% 26% 30% 30% 22% 18% 86% 8% 4% 2% '3' 207 103 104 31 59 84 34 24 28 28 54 52 58 40 55 171 19 11 5 8% 9% 8% 8% 13% 9% 4% 9% 12% 8% 9% 8% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 9% 8% f f f 50% 50% 15% 29% 40% 16% 12% 14% 14% 26% 25% 28% 20% 27% 83% 9% 5% 2% Tesco 153 74 79 17 15 43 78 25 18 22 29 28 40 42 42 124 20 6 3 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 5% 10% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 6% 8% 7% 6% 10% 5% 5% cde j k k oqr 48% 52% 11% 10% 28% 51% 16% 12% 14% 19% 18% 26% 28% 28% 81% 13% 4% 2% Virgin Media/ Any Virgin 137 66 72 6 19 50 63 20 14 22 21 30 36 33 38 122 12 3 1 6% 5% 6% 2% 4% 6% 8% 7% 6% 7% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 1% c c cde j qr r 48% 52% 4% 14% 36% 46% 14% 10% 16% 15% 22% 26% 24% 28% 89% 8% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Orange 129 59 71 10 20 42 58 18 13 11 23 38 29 28 33 104 10 15 1 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 7% 6% 5% 3% 4% 6% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5% 12% 2% cde r opr 45% 55% 8% 15% 33% 45% 14% 10% 8% 18% 30% 23% 22% 26% 80% 8% 11% 1% T-Mobile 87 47 40 11 20 30 26 7 9 23 18 23 23 16 25 75 5 7 1 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 1% gj r pr 54% 46% 12% 23% 35% 30% 8% 10% 26% 20% 27% 26% 18% 28% 86% 5% 8% 1% Giffgaff 59 29 30 14 14 21 9 7 4 14 14 17 12 10 19 55 3 1 * 2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% % f f r 49% 51% 24% 24% 36% 16% 11% 7% 23% 23% 29% 21% 17% 33% 92% 5% 2% % TalkTalk 34 19 14 2 6 7 18 6 2 4 3 8 11 4 10 27 3 2 2 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% e j 57% 43% 7% 18% 21% 54% 19% 5% 13% 10% 25% 32% 13% 30% 82% 8% 6% 5% Lycatel 16 8 8 2 11 1 2 3 2 - 1 2 5 4 5 16 - - - 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% % % 1% 1% -% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% ef 48% 52% 15% 68% 6% 10% 18% 10% -% 9% 10% 34% 24% 32% 100% -% -% -% Talk Mobile 10 4 6 1 * 4 5 1 1 * 1 2 4 4 * 8 1 1 - % % % % % % 1% % % % % % 1% 1% % % % 1% -% n 40% 60% 8% 3% 38% 51% 12% 9% 3% 13% 21% 37% 41% 1% 84% 7% 9% -% Lebara 6 3 4 - 2 4 - - 1 1 1 3 - - 4 6 - - - % % % -% % % -% -% % % % % -% -% 1% % -% -% -% f l 42% 58% -% 30% 70% -% -% 15% 13% 14% 42% -% -% 58% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Other 48 20 27 6 5 17 20 3 12 8 4 10 12 11 14 41 4 2 * 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% % gj r 43% 57% 13% 11% 35% 41% 7% 25% 17% 9% 21% 25% 24% 29% 86% 9% 5% % Don't know 36 12 24 1 - 6 28 6 5 4 2 7 13 6 9 29 4 3 * 1% 1% 2% % -% 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% % 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% % cde j j r r 34% 66% 4% -% 16% 80% 16% 14% 12% 5% 21% 35% 17% 27% 80% 11% 8% % Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% EE/ Everything Everywhere 578 88 66 44 33 67 41 46 26 90 497 81 387 189 307 271 23% 28% 19% 21% 19% 30% 18% 22% 25% 31% 23% 24% 26% 20% 23% 23% bdf bcdfg bcdfg m 15% 11% 8% 6% 12% 7% 8% 5% 16% 86% 14% 67% 33% 53% 47% O2 548 54 68 54 33 37 59 50 23 57 458 89 327 220 283 265 22% 17% 20% 26% 19% 17% 25% 24% 22% 20% 21% 26% 22% 23% 21% 23% ae ae j 10% 13% 10% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 10% 84% 16% 60% 40% 52% 48% Vodafone 448 58 100 37 23 38 45 29 15 40 375 72 298 147 261 186 18% 18% 30% 17% 14% 17% 19% 14% 14% 14% 17% 21% 20% 15% 19% 16% acdefghi m o 13% 22% 8% 5% 8% 10% 6% 3% 9% 84% 16% 67% 33% 58% 42% '3' 207 39 24 10 13 18 23 22 6 16 180 26 133 72 95 112 8% 12% 7% 5% 8% 8% 10% 10% 6% 6% 8% 8% 9% 7% 7% 10% chi c c n 19% 12% 5% 6% 9% 11% 11% 3% 8% 87% 13% 64% 35% 46% 54% Tesco 153 6 23 14 14 15 17 17 8 11 131 22 65 88 78 75 6% 2% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 4% 6% 7% 4% 9% 6% 6% a a a a a a a l 4% 15% 9% 9% 10% 11% 11% 5% 7% 85% 15% 43% 57% 51% 49% Virgin Media/ Any Virgin 137 11 14 15 17 12 15 18 7 13 132 5 69 66 75 62 6% 3% 4% 7% 10% 5% 7% 9% 7% 5% 6% 2% 5% 7% 6% 5% abi a k l 8% 10% 11% 12% 9% 11% 13% 5% 9% 96% 4% 51% 48% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Orange 129 7 9 18 12 14 6 11 9 18 113 16 68 62 76 54 5% 2% 3% 9% 7% 6% 3% 5% 9% 6% 5% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% abf abf a abf a l 5% 7% 14% 9% 11% 5% 8% 7% 14% 88% 12% 52% 48% 58% 42% T-Mobile 87 18 8 2 5 5 11 6 3 17 79 8 60 26 51 36 3% 6% 2% 1% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% c c ce 21% 9% 3% 5% 6% 12% 7% 3% 20% 91% 9% 69% 30% 59% 41% Giffgaff 59 9 11 3 6 9 4 2 2 9 54 5 40 19 30 29 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 15% 19% 5% 9% 15% 7% 4% 4% 15% 92% 8% 67% 33% 51% 49% TalkTalk 34 2 3 4 7 3 1 - 1 5 31 2 17 16 22 12 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2% % -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% g abfg 7% 10% 12% 22% 10% 2% -% 4% 15% 93% 7% 51% 49% 65% 35% Lycatel 16 12 1 - 1 1 - - - - 16 - 14 2 7 8 1% 4% % -% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% % 1% 1% bcdefghi m 77% 8% -% 6% 9% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 90% 10% 47% 53% Talk Mobile 10 - 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 - 7 3 2 8 8 2 % -% % 1% 1% -% % 1% 1% -% % 1% % 1% 1% % l -% 8% 23% 19% -% 9% 16% 9% -% 67% 33% 23% 77% 80% 20% Lebara 6 5 - - - - - 1 - - 6 - 5 1 - 6 % 2% -% -% -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % % -% 1% n 87% -% -% -% -% -% 13% -% -% 100% -% 87% 13% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Other 48 8 3 7 2 2 6 7 1 6 41 6 21 26 25 22 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% l 16% 6% 14% 5% 5% 12% 14% 2% 12% 87% 13% 44% 56% 54% 46% Don't know 36 2 6 2 3 1 7 2 1 4 33 3 9 26 22 13 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% % 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% e l 5% 18% 5% 9% 2% 20% 6% 4% 13% 92% 8% 26% 74% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy S4. Base : Those Who Personally Use A Mobile Phone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 3425 \| 1629 \| 1796 \| 513 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2318 \| 1101 \| 1218 \| 340 \| \| Total \| 2494 \| 1204 \| 1290 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 14% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Yes \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 76% \| 75% \| 77% \| 91% \| 93% \| \| ef \| ef \| f \| gh \| ghi \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| No \| 596 \| 301 \| 295 \| 32 \| \| 24% \| 25% \| 23% \| 9% \| 6% \| \| cd \| cde \| ij \| ij \| j \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 5% \| 5% \| 23% \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 3 \| 1 \| 2 \| - \| 1 \| \| % \| % \| % \| -% \| % \| \| 20% \| 80% \| -% \| 46% \| 16% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy S4. Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Yes 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 76% 87% 72% 74% 74% 75% 76% 78% 71% 73% 77% 72% 87% 59% 75% 77% bcdefghi m 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% No 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 24% 13% 28% 26% 26% 25% 24% 22% 29% 27% 23% 28% 13% 41% 25% 22% a a a a a a a a j l 7% 16% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 13% 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% Don't know 3 - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 2 1 * 3 % -% % -% -% -% -% % -% -% % % % % % % -% 46% -% -% -% -% 28% -% -% 87% 13% 54% 46% 10% 90% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Apple iPhone \| 865 \| 397 \| 469 \| 180 \| \| 46% \| 44% \| 47% \| 55% \| 47% \| \| f \| f \| f \| g \| ghi \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 21% \| 23% \| 42% \| \| Samsung \| 606 \| 287 \| 319 \| 86 \| \| 32% \| 32% \| 32% \| 26% \| 34% \| \| c \| ce \| j \| j \| j \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 14% \| 24% \| 37% \| \| Nokia \| 101 \| 46 \| 55 \| 11 \| \| 5% \| 5% \| 6% \| 3% \| 4% \| \| cde \| l \| \| \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 11% \| 17% \| 36% \| \| Sony Xperia \| 91 \| 41 \| 50 \| 10 \| \| 5% \| 5% \| 5% \| 3% \| 5% \| \| 45% \| 55% \| 11% \| 22% \| 48% \| \| HTC \| 80 \| 52 \| 28 \| 18 \| \| 4% \| 6% \| 3% \| 6% \| 3% \| \| b \| \| \| \| \| \| 65% \| 35% \| 23% \| 18% \| 40% \| \| BlackBerry \| 37 \| 21 \| 16 \| 7 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| 57% \| 43% \| 19% \| 12% \| 45% \| \| Motorola \| 27 \| 15 \| 12 \| 2 \| \| 1% \| 2% \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| \| ce \| \| \| \| \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 9% \| 22% \| 24% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% LG 19 8 12 3 5 7 4 1 3 4 1 6 5 4 4 16 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% j 40% 60% 15% 25% 38% 22% 5% 17% 19% 6% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 6% 5% 6% Nexus 6 3 3 1 1 3 - - - - 4 5 1 - - 5 - 1 - % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 1% 1% % -% -% % -% 1% -% 46% 54% 24% 24% 53% -% -% -% -% 66% 87% 13% -% -% 89% -% 11% -% Other 56 29 27 10 11 19 15 10 4 8 13 13 14 14 14 49 3 4 1 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 1% j r 52% 48% 19% 20% 34% 27% 18% 7% 14% 24% 24% 25% 25% 24% 88% 5% 7% 1% Don't know 6 4 3 - * 1 5 2 * - 2 2 2 * 2 4 1 1 * % % % -% % % 1% 1% % -% % % % % % % 1% 1% % ce 59% 41% -% 5% 19% 76% 36% 2% -% 24% 39% 26% 5% 30% 64% 21% 13% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Apple iPhone 865 113 123 71 58 82 82 64 35 95 749 116 650 211 494 372 46% 41% 51% 45% 46% 49% 46% 39% 48% 45% 45% 47% 49% 37% 49% 42% g m o 13% 14% 8% 7% 10% 10% 7% 4% 11% 87% 13% 75% 24% 57% 43% Samsung 606 120 66 48 32 39 46 61 26 67 541 65 399 206 274 332 32% 44% 27% 31% 25% 23% 26% 37% 36% 32% 33% 27% 30% 36% 27% 37% bcdefi def e k l n 20% 11% 8% 5% 6% 8% 10% 4% 11% 89% 11% 66% 34% 45% 55% Nokia 101 8 14 8 10 10 8 11 3 12 82 19 59 41 60 42 5% 3% 6% 5% 8% 6% 5% 7% 4% 6% 5% 8% 5% 7% 6% 5% j l 8% 14% 8% 9% 10% 8% 11% 3% 12% 81% 19% 59% 41% 59% 41% Sony Xperia 91 4 9 9 12 11 11 8 3 12 78 13 62 28 52 39 5% 2% 4% 6% 9% 7% 6% 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% a abh a a a 5% 10% 10% 13% 12% 12% 9% 3% 14% 85% 15% 68% 30% 58% 42% HTC 80 13 8 5 6 10 5 7 3 10 76 4 56 24 40 40 4% 5% 3% 3% 5% 6% 3% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% k 16% 11% 7% 7% 12% 7% 9% 4% 12% 95% 5% 70% 30% 50% 50% BlackBerry 37 10 3 1 4 7 5 1 1 2 31 6 27 11 16 22 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% cgi 28% 8% 3% 10% 19% 12% 3% 3% 4% 83% 17% 72% 28% 42% 58% Motorola 27 1 8 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 23 4 12 15 19 8 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% l 5% 29% 12% 11% 7% 12% 4% 3% 8% 86% 14% 43% 57% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% LG 19 2 2 3 1 2 4 3 - - 17 3 11 8 12 7 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 12% 8% 15% 3% 10% 19% 16% -% -% 86% 14% 57% 43% 64% 36% Nexus 6 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 2 6 - 4 1 3 3 % 1% -% % -% -% 1% -% -% 1% % -% % % % % 24% -% 13% -% -% 22% -% -% 30% 100% -% 76% 24% 53% 47% Other 56 1 10 7 2 3 11 6 1 7 43 13 33 23 29 26 3% % 4% 5% 1% 2% 6% 4% 1% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% a a adeh a a j 2% 18% 13% 3% 5% 20% 11% 2% 13% 77% 23% 59% 41% 53% 47% Don't know 6 - - - - 2 - 2 - 5 1 1 6 4 2 % -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% % -% % 1% % 1% % % l -% -% -% -% 33% -% 26% 5% -% 80% 20% 11% 89% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd6 (Qd41). Do You Have A 4G Service? This Is A Service That Enables Faster Mobile Internet Access. Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1275 618 657 260 307 528 180 91 108 204 379 358 391 279 247 1083 94 58 40 67% 68% 66% 79% 72% 70% 47% 54% 69% 73% 73% 66% 73% 67% 60% 68% 57% 68% 77% def f f g g g kn n p p opq 48% 52% 20% 24% 41% 14% 7% 8% 16% 30% 28% 31% 22% 19% 85% 7% 5% 3% No 530 256 274 61 105 192 171 55 38 66 126 157 122 119 131 438 63 23 7 28% 28% 28% 19% 25% 25% 44% 33% 24% 23% 24% 29% 23% 29% 32% 27% 38% 26% 13% c cde ij l l l r oqr r 48% 52% 12% 20% 36% 32% 10% 7% 12% 24% 30% 23% 22% 25% 83% 12% 4% 1% Don't know 90 28 62 7 14 35 34 20 11 11 12 25 20 15 30 72 7 5 5 5% 3% 6% 2% 3% 5% 9% 12% 7% 4% 2% 5% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 6% 10% a cde ij j lm op 31% 69% 8% 15% 39% 37% 23% 12% 12% 13% 28% 22% 17% 33% 80% 8% 6% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD6 (QD41). Do you have a 4G service? This is a service that enables faster mobile internet access. Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Yes 1275 183 155 94 75 117 125 106 55 172 1141 134 939 332 662 613 67% 66% 64% 60% 60% 70% 70% 65% 75% 82% 69% 55% 71% 58% 66% 69% bcd abcdefg k m 14% 12% 7% 6% 9% 10% 8% 4% 14% 89% 11% 74% 26% 52% 48% No 530 89 82 54 45 34 44 43 17 29 436 95 329 198 301 229 28% 32% 34% 35% 36% 20% 25% 26% 23% 14% 26% 39% 25% 35% 30% 26% ei ehi ehi efhi i i i j l 17% 15% 10% 9% 6% 8% 8% 3% 5% 82% 18% 62% 37% 57% 43% Don't know 90 4 6 8 5 17 8 14 2 8 74 16 46 44 41 49 5% 1% 2% 5% 4% 10% 5% 9% 3% 4% 4% 7% 4% 8% 4% 6% a abdhi abh l 4% 6% 9% 6% 19% 9% 16% 2% 9% 82% 18% 51% 49% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f g h ~i ~j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 931 469 462 38 50 203 640 196 141 88 74 156 253 208 313 549 131 151 100 Effective Weighted Sample 615 303 312 28 29 131 430 129 93 61 52 117 170 131 202 469 80 92 75 Total 596 301 295 32 29 139 396 110 84 60 61 130 152 136 179 501 47 33 15 51% 49% 23% 66% 18% 14% 22% 25% 23% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% Certain to 7 3 4 * 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 - - - 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 2% * 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% 39% 61% 3% 47% 22% 27% 25% 31% 22% 22% 100% -% -% -% Very likely 26 9 17 11 8 2 1 5 9 4 7 23 2 1 - 4% 3% 6% 8% 2% 2% 2% 4% 6% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% -% f 33% 67% 41% 29% 10% 6% 21% 35% 16% 28% 88% 10% 3% -% Likely 63 31 32 24 23 14 7 15 17 15 17 53 6 3 1 11% 10% 11% 17% 6% 13% 8% 11% 11% 11% 10% 11% 14% 10% 5% f 49% 51% 38% 36% 22% 10% 23% 27% 23% 27% 83% 10% 5% 1% TOTAL LIKELY 96 42 54 35 34 18 10 22 28 20 26 83 9 4 1 16% 14% 18% 25% 8% 16% 12% 17% 19% 15% 15% 17% 19% 12% 5% f r r 44% 56% 36% 35% 19% 10% 23% 29% 21% 27% 86% 9% 4% 1% Unlikely 89 46 44 17 65 16 10 24 29 17 18 75 8 4 2 15% 15% 15% 12% 16% 14% 12% 19% 19% 13% 10% 15% 16% 13% 16% n n 51% 49% 19% 73% 18% 11% 27% 33% 19% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Very unlikely 127 70 56 22 100 22 24 26 28 30 43 106 11 7 3 21% 23% 19% 16% 25% 20% 28% 20% 19% 22% 24% 21% 24% 22% 18% e 56% 44% 17% 79% 17% 19% 21% 22% 23% 34% 83% 9% 6% 2% Certain not to 200 99 101 39 150 43 34 41 48 41 69 171 15 10 4 34% 33% 34% 28% 38% 39% 40% 32% 32% 31% 39% 34% 32% 30% 25% e 49% 51% 19% 75% 21% 17% 21% 24% 21% 35% 86% 8% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f g h ~i ~j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 931 469 462 38 50 203 640 196 141 88 74 156 253 208 313 549 131 151 100 Effective Weighted Sample 615 303 312 28 29 131 430 129 93 61 52 117 170 131 202 469 80 92 75 Total 596 301 295 32 29 139 396 110 84 60 61 130 152 136 179 501 47 33 15 51% 49% 23% 66% 18% 14% 22% 25% 23% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% TOTAL UNLIKELY 416 215 201 77 316 80 67 92 106 88 130 352 34 22 9 70% 71% 68% 55% 80% 73% 80% 71% 70% 65% 73% 70% 72% 65% 59% e r 52% 48% 19% 76% 19% 16% 22% 25% 21% 31% 85% 8% 5% 2% Don't know 83 44 39 27 47 12 7 16 18 27 23 66 4 8 5 14% 15% 13% 19% 12% 11% 8% 12% 12% 20% 13% 13% 10% 23% 36% f l op op 53% 47% 32% 56% 14% 8% 19% 21% 33% 27% 79% 5% 9% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 931 35 70 62 62 62 60 58 71 69 641 290 263 664 459 472 Effective Weighted Sample 615 29 67 59 58 58 57 52 65 64 495 128 174 449 306 325 Total 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% Certain to 7 7 - 1 6 5 3 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100% -% 19% 81% 64% 36% Very likely 26 24 2 15 11 17 9 4% 5% 2% 7% 3% 5% 4% m 94% 6% 57% 42% 64% 36% Likely 63 56 7 30 33 35 28 11% 11% 8% 15% 8% 10% 11% m 88% 12% 48% 52% 56% 44% TOTAL LIKELY 96 87 9 47 49 56 40 16% 17% 10% 23% 13% 17% 16% k m 91% 9% 48% 51% 58% 42% Unlikely 89 75 15 32 58 56 33 15% 15% 16% 16% 15% 17% 13% 83% 17% 36% 64% 63% 37% Very unlikely 127 103 24 34 93 66 61 21% 20% 26% 17% 24% 19% 24% 81% 19% 27% 73% 52% 48% Certain not to 200 161 38 48 152 106 94 34% 32% 41% 24% 39% 31% 36% l 81% 19% 24% 76% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 931 35 70 62 62 62 60 58 71 69 641 290 263 664 459 472 Effective Weighted Sample 615 29 67 59 58 58 57 52 65 64 495 128 174 449 306 325 Total 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% TOTAL UNLIKELY 416 339 77 114 302 228 188 70% 68% 82% 57% 77% 68% 73% j l 81% 19% 27% 73% 55% 45% Don't know 83 76 8 41 42 53 30 14% 15% 8% 20% 11% 16% 12% k m 90% 10% 49% 50% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd8 (Qd11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes The Mobile Package You Personally Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Prepay/ Pay as you go 722 370 352 73 77 189 383 146 87 73 83 154 164 163 240 597 66 36 23 29% 31% 27% 20% 17% 21% 49% 53% 36% 21% 14% 23% 24% 30% 41% 28% 31% 30% 34% cde hij ij j kl klm o 51% 49% 10% 11% 26% 53% 20% 12% 10% 11% 21% 23% 23% 33% 83% 9% 5% 3% Postpay/ monthly contract 1757 825 933 287 377 700 393 131 153 268 488 509 520 383 344 1485 145 82 45 70% 68% 72% 80% 83% 78% 50% 47% 63% 79% 84% 76% 76% 70% 59% 71% 68% 69% 66% a f f f g gh ghi mn mn n 47% 53% 16% 21% 40% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 29% 30% 22% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Other 10 7 3 * 2 5 2 - * * 7 4 1 2 2 9 * * - % 1% % % 1% 1% % -% % % 1% 1% % % % % % % -% g 65% 35% 4% 25% 46% 25% -% 4% 1% 74% 44% 9% 25% 21% 95% 2% 3% -% Don't know 5 3 1 - * 1 4 1 * * - 2 1 * 1 4 * 1 * % % % -% % % % % % % -% % % % % % % % % 70% 30% -% 3% 24% 73% 15% 2% 3% -% 37% 28% 3% 30% 84% 3% 11% 2% CONTRACT TYPE Subsidised handset 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 60% 57% 62% 70% 75% 66% 40% 38% 51% 67% 74% 64% 66% 59% 49% 60% 59% 56% 60% a f ef f g gh ghi n mn n 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% SIM only 247 123 124 33 34 103 78 24 29 39 57 75 64 57 51 214 19 13 2 10% 10% 10% 9% 7% 11% 10% 9% 12% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% 11% 3% d r r r 50% 50% 13% 14% 41% 31% 10% 12% 16% 23% 30% 26% 23% 21% 86% 8% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD8 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Prepay/ Pay as you go 722 56 105 66 48 76 60 58 35 92 607 115 267 453 403 319 29% 17% 31% 31% 28% 34% 26% 27% 34% 32% 28% 34% 18% 47% 30% 28% a a a a a a a a j l 8% 15% 9% 7% 11% 8% 8% 5% 13% 84% 16% 37% 63% 56% 44% Postpay/ monthly contract 1757 262 232 141 121 147 173 154 68 189 1535 222 1239 511 930 827 70% 83% 69% 67% 71% 66% 73% 73% 65% 66% 71% 65% 82% 53% 69% 72% bcdefghi k m 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Other 10 - - 2 1 - 2 - 1 3 8 2 8 2 6 4 % -% -% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 1% % 1% 1% % % % -% -% 22% 11% -% 20% -% 8% 34% 76% 24% 84% 16% 62% 38% Don't know 5 - - 2 1 - - * - 1 5 * 2 3 2 3 % -% -% 1% 1% -% -% % -% % % % % % % % -% -% 34% 22% -% -% 7% -% 22% 95% 5% 49% 51% 46% 54% CONTRACT TYPE Subsidised handset 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 60% 73% 61% 54% 59% 57% 56% 59% 52% 59% 61% 54% 71% 42% 59% 61% bcdefghi k m 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% SIM only 247 30 20 26 20 18 38 26 14 21 214 33 144 101 127 120 10% 10% 6% 12% 11% 8% 16% 12% 13% 7% 10% 10% 9% 10% 9% 10% b b abei b b 12% 8% 11% 8% 7% 15% 11% 6% 9% 86% 14% 58% 41% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd9 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2266 1044 1222 386 467 861 552 224 200 324 514 555 767 481 462 1423 277 277 289 Effective Weighted Sample 1577 729 848 265 318 608 393 155 145 238 385 406 532 340 314 1230 179 175 219 Total 1757 825 933 287 377 700 393 131 153 268 488 509 520 383 344 1485 145 82 45 47% 53% 16% 21% 40% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 29% 30% 22% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Handset and contract 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 85% 84% 86% 88% 91% 84% 79% 81% 81% 85% 88% 84% 87% 85% 84% 85% 86% 82% 91% f ef gh oq 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% SIM card only 247 123 124 33 34 103 78 24 29 39 57 75 64 57 51 214 19 13 2 14% 15% 13% 11% 9% 15% 20% 18% 19% 15% 12% 15% 12% 15% 15% 14% 13% 16% 4% d cde j r r r 50% 50% 13% 14% 41% 31% 10% 12% 16% 23% 30% 26% 23% 21% 86% 8% 5% 1% Don't know 19 12 7 2 1 11 5 1 1 1 9 5 2 4 13 2 2 2 1% 1% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 1% % % % 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% o o 63% 37% 10% 5% 58% 28% 7% 1% 4% 3% 45% 24% 12% 19% 69% 10% 11% 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd9 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2266 190 159 148 154 150 164 164 142 152 1697 569 1459 801 1072 1194 Effective Weighted Sample 1577 171 150 142 144 139 156 152 133 139 1329 267 1034 562 760 835 Total 1757 262 232 141 121 147 173 154 68 189 1535 222 1239 511 930 827 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Handset and contract 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 85% 88% 88% 81% 83% 87% 77% 82% 80% 89% 85% 83% 87% 79% 85% 85% fh f f fh m 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% SIM card only 247 30 20 26 20 18 38 26 14 21 214 33 144 101 127 120 14% 12% 9% 19% 16% 12% 22% 17% 20% 11% 14% 15% 12% 20% 14% 14% b abei b abi l 12% 8% 11% 8% 7% 15% 11% 6% 9% 86% 14% 58% 41% 52% 48% Don't know 19 - 7 1 1 1 2 2 - - 16 4 12 8 15 4 1% -% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % ahi o -% 37% 4% 3% 4% 12% 8% -% -% 81% 19% 61% 39% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1899 866 1033 335 419 720 425 180 159 270 447 462 655 401 380 1179 228 228 264 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 599 716 227 285 504 303 123 115 198 337 334 452 283 256 1023 151 144 201 Total 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 1138 523 615 192 268 450 227 86 87 174 333 319 338 248 231 938 116 52 32 76% 76% 77% 76% 78% 77% 73% 81% 71% 76% 77% 75% 75% 77% 80% 75% 94% 77% 78% oqr 46% 54% 17% 24% 40% 20% 8% 8% 15% 29% 28% 30% 22% 20% 82% 10% 5% 3% I am paying a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. lower amount of inclusive minutes, texts or data) 109 46 64 16 20 47 26 3 14 10 31 33 36 26 15 94 3 7 5 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 8% 9% 3% 11% 4% 7% 8% 8% 8% 5% 7% 2% 11% 13% gi p p op 42% 58% 15% 18% 43% 24% 3% 13% 9% 29% 30% 33% 23% 14% 86% 3% 7% 5% I am paying a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. added minutes, texts or data) 122 61 61 26 34 41 21 5 12 22 36 37 31 33 22 116 2 3 1 8% 9% 8% 10% 10% 7% 7% 4% 9% 10% 8% 9% 7% 10% 8% 9% 1% 5% 3% pr 50% 50% 22% 28% 33% 17% 4% 10% 18% 29% 30% 25% 27% 18% 95% 1% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1899 866 1033 335 419 720 425 180 159 270 447 462 655 401 380 1179 228 228 264 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 599 716 227 285 504 303 123 115 198 337 334 452 283 256 1023 151 144 201 Total 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% No, I am out of my minimum contract period 92 44 48 11 18 39 23 7 8 19 26 28 37 13 13 85 2 3 2 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 9% 6% 7% 8% 4% 5% 7% 2% 4% 5% m p 48% 52% 12% 20% 42% 25% 7% 9% 21% 28% 31% 40% 15% 14% 93% 2% 3% 2% Don't know 30 15 15 6 2 9 12 5 3 2 4 8 9 4 8 26 1 3 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 4% 1% de ij 50% 50% 20% 7% 31% 41% 18% 10% 8% 13% 28% 31% 13% 28% 87% 3% 8% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1899 163 140 118 123 129 126 133 113 134 1418 481 1269 626 898 1001 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 147 132 113 118 120 120 124 106 123 1108 225 894 436 633 696 Total 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 1138 146 154 81 76 100 93 102 43 142 1001 136 828 307 622 516 76% 63% 75% 71% 76% 78% 70% 81% 80% 85% 77% 74% 76% 76% 79% 73% a a a af a acf o 13% 14% 7% 7% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 88% 12% 73% 27% 55% 45% I am paying a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. lower amount of inclusive minutes, texts or data) 109 22 20 12 8 7 10 10 2 3 95 15 81 28 52 57 7% 9% 10% 11% 8% 5% 8% 8% 3% 2% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% i i hi i i i 20% 18% 11% 7% 6% 9% 9% 2% 3% 87% 13% 75% 25% 48% 52% I am paying a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. added minutes, texts or data) 122 46 10 5 11 13 5 8 4 13 117 5 94 28 51 72 8% 20% 5% 5% 11% 10% 4% 6% 7% 8% 9% 3% 9% 7% 6% 10% bcefghi f k n 38% 8% 4% 9% 11% 4% 7% 3% 11% 96% 4% 77% 23% 41% 59% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1899 163 140 118 123 129 126 133 113 134 1418 481 1269 626 898 1001 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 147 132 113 118 120 120 124 106 123 1108 225 894 436 633 696 Total 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% No, I am out of my minimum contract period 92 14 12 14 5 7 20 4 3 4 66 25 66 26 48 44 6% 6% 6% 13% 5% 6% 15% 3% 6% 3% 5% 14% 6% 6% 6% 6% dgi abdeghi j 16% 13% 16% 5% 8% 21% 5% 4% 5% 73% 27% 72% 28% 52% 48% Don't know 30 4 9 1 - 1 5 1 2 4 27 3 15 14 15 15 2% 2% 4% 1% -% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% d d l 12% 29% 4% -% 3% 15% 3% 5% 15% 89% 11% 49% 46% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd11 (Qd32). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Current Situation, Now That Your Minimum Contract Period For Your Mobile Phone Service And Handset Has Ended? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 107 51 56 15 20 39 33 11 9 22 26 30 47 12 18 83 4 10 10 Effective Weighted Sample 81 37 45 12 13 33 26 8 8 18 18 23 37 9 14 72 3 7 8 Total 92 44 48 11 18 39 23 7 8 19 26 28 37 13 13 85 2 3 2 I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 66 72% I am now on a SIM-only cheaper tariff 10 11% I am now on a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up, but not SIM-only 7 8% I am now on a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up 6 7% Don't know 2 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd11 (Qd32). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Current Situation, Now That Your Minimum Contract Period For Your Mobile Phone Service And Handset Has Ended? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 107 9 9 17 6 7 18 5 8 4 73 34 73 34 55 52 Effective Weighted Sample 81 8 8 16 6 7 17 5 7 4 57 25 54 29 40 42 Total 92 14 12 14 5 7 20 4 3 4 66 25 66 26 48 44 I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 66 72% I am now on a SIM-only cheaper tariff 10 11% I am now on a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up, but not SIM-only 7 8% I am now on a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up 6 7% Don't know 2 3% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd12 (Qd33). What Type Of Sim-Only Deal Are You On? (Single Code) Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 13 \| 3 \| 10 \| 1 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 11 \| 3 \| 8 \| 1 \| \| Total \| 10 \| 2 \| 8 \| * \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 30 day \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 12 month \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 18 month \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd12 (Qd33). What Type Of Sim-Only Deal Are You On? (Single Code) Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 13 2 1 3 1 1 1 - 3 - 8 5 10 3 7 6 Effective Weighted Sample 11 2 1 3 1 1 1 - 3 - 7 4 9 2 6 5 Total 10 2 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 6 4 9 1 6 4 -% -% 30 day - - -% -% -% -% 12 month - - -% -% -% -% 18 month - - -% -% -% -% Don't know - - -% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 1468 \| 730 \| 738 \| 173 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 980 \| 484 \| 497 \| 113 \| \| Total \| 970 \| 493 \| 476 \| 106 \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 11% \| 11% \| 30% \| \| PROMPTED RESPONSES \| \| \| \| \| \| An independent retailer - either high \| \| \| \| \| \| street or online (e.g. Amazon, \| \| \| \| \| \| Carphone Warehouse, Simply \| \| \| \| \| \| Electronics, etc.) \| 369 \| 190 \| 179 \| 45 \| \| 38% \| 39% \| 38% \| 43% \| 41% \| \| i \| i \| r \| r \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 12% \| 12% \| 29% \| \| Your current mobile phone network \| \| \| \| \| \| operator \| 260 \| 127 \| 133 \| 27 \| \| 27% \| 26% \| 28% \| 25% \| 28% \| \| opq \| \| \| \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 10% \| 12% \| 29% \| \| A previous mobile phone network \| \| \| \| \| \| operator \| 69 \| 40 \| 30 \| 6 \| \| 7% \| 8% \| 6% \| 6% \| 5% \| \| 57% \| 43% \| 8% \| 7% \| 35% \| \| Directly from the phone handset \| \| \| \| \| \| manufacturer (e.g. Apple, Samsung, \| \| \| \| \| \| etc.) \| 47 \| 24 \| 23 \| 4 \| \| 5% \| 5% \| 5% \| 4% \| 5% \| \| ghj \| \| \| \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 9% \| 11% \| 21% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 1468 \| 730 \| 738 \| 173 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 980 \| 484 \| 497 \| 113 \| \| Total \| 970 \| 493 \| 476 \| 106 \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 11% \| 11% \| 30% \| \| UNPROMPTED RESPONSES \| \| \| \| \| \| Hand me down/ second hand/ \| \| \| \| \| \| passed on to me/ eBay \| 71 \| 35 \| 36 \| 8 \| \| 7% \| 7% \| 8% \| 7% \| 6% \| \| klm \| or \| \| \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 11% \| 10% \| 32% \| \| A gift/ present \| 33 \| 12 \| 21 \| 3 \| \| 3% \| 2% \| 4% \| 3% \| 2% \| \| k \| r \| r \| r \| \| \| 37% \| 63% \| 9% \| 6% \| 27% \| \| Don't know \| 120 \| 65 \| 55 \| 13 \| \| 12% \| 13% \| 11% \| 13% \| 14% \| \| g \| n \| p \| \| \| \| 55% \| 45% \| 11% \| 13% \| 36% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1468 73 90 105 98 104 98 97 112 99 1032 436 524 937 705 763 Effective Weighted Sample 980 62 85 101 89 97 93 89 102 92 797 194 356 639 471 533 Total 970 86 126 93 67 94 98 84 49 113 821 148 411 554 531 439 10% 10% 5% 85% 15% 42% 57% 55% 45% ## Prompted Responses An independent retailer - either high street or online (e.g. Amazon, Carphone Warehouse, Simply Electronics, etc.) 369 34 33 22 313 56 158 211 211 157 38% 37% 35% 45% 38% 38% 38% 38% 40% 36% 9% 9% 6% 85% 15% 43% 57% 57% 43% Your current mobile phone network operator 260 29 29 9 221 40 109 149 130 131 27% 31% 31% 19% 27% 27% 27% 27% 24% 30% h h 11% 11% 4% 85% 15% 42% 57% 50% 50% A previous mobile phone network operator 69 8 9 4 58 11 32 37 42 28 7% 9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 8% 7% 8% 6% 12% 13% 6% 84% 16% 47% 53% 60% 40% Directly from the phone handset manufacturer (e.g. Apple, Samsung, etc.) 47 7 2 3 41 6 23 24 27 20 5% 8% 2% 6% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 16% 5% 6% 87% 13% 48% 52% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1468 73 90 105 98 104 98 97 112 99 1032 436 524 937 705 763 Effective Weighted Sample 980 62 85 101 89 97 93 89 102 92 797 194 356 639 471 533 Total 970 86 126 93 67 94 98 84 49 113 821 148 411 554 531 439 10% 10% 5% 85% 15% 42% 57% 55% 45% UNPROMPTED RESPONSES Hand me down/ second hand/ passed on to me/ eBay 71 7 8 6 60 11 25 46 37 34 7% 7% 8% 11% 7% 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% 10% 11% 8% 85% 15% 36% 64% 53% 47% A gift/ present 33 1 5 * 27 6 7 26 19 14 3% 1% 5% 1% 3% 4% 2% 5% 4% 3% l 2% 14% 1% 82% 18% 20% 80% 58% 42% Don't know 120 6 8 4 101 19 57 61 65 55 12% 7% 9% 8% 12% 13% 14% 11% 12% 13% 5% 7% 3% ** 85% 15% 47% 51% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a day 1325 597 728 270 321 519 215 124 127 189 369 356 393 305 270 1104 120 56 44 53% 50% 56% 75% 70% 58% 28% 45% 53% 55% 64% 53% 57% 56% 46% 53% 57% 47% 66% a ef ef f g g ghi n n n q opq 45% 55% 20% 24% 39% 16% 9% 10% 14% 28% 27% 30% 23% 20% 83% 9% 4% 3% Every day 502 222 280 59 91 215 137 48 38 70 126 149 138 102 113 422 43 27 9 20% 18% 22% 16% 20% 24% 18% 17% 16% 20% 22% 22% 20% 19% 19% 20% 21% 23% 13% cf r r r 44% 56% 12% 18% 43% 27% 9% 8% 14% 25% 30% 27% 20% 22% 84% 9% 5% 2% Several times a week 287 157 130 16 34 93 144 34 28 39 47 70 57 63 96 241 22 15 10 12% 13% 10% 4% 7% 10% 18% 12% 12% 11% 8% 10% 8% 12% 16% 11% 10% 12% 14% b c cde klm 55% 45% 5% 12% 32% 50% 12% 10% 14% 16% 24% 20% 22% 33% 84% 8% 5% 3% At least once a week 110 62 48 9 5 31 65 20 16 17 17 26 37 22 25 98 5 6 2 4% 5% 4% 2% 1% 3% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 2% 5% 2% d cde j j r 56% 44% 8% 4% 28% 60% 18% 14% 16% 16% 24% 34% 20% 22% 89% 4% 5% 1% At least once a month 60 40 20 5 1 9 45 11 7 2 6 14 12 13 21 51 5 3 1 2% 3% 2% 1% % 1% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% b cde ij i l 66% 34% 8% 2% 15% 75% 18% 12% 3% 10% 23% 21% 21% 35% 85% 9% 5% 1% Less than once a month 65 41 25 1 2 10 53 8 8 10 4 18 17 16 15 58 4 3 1 3% 3% 2% % % 1% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% b cde j j j r 62% 38% 2% 3% 15% 81% 12% 13% 15% 6% 27% 25% 24% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Never 142 83 59 2 3 16 121 33 16 14 9 35 32 28 47 119 12 9 2 6% 7% 5% 1% 1% 2% 15% 12% 7% 4% 2% 5% 5% 5% 8% 6% 5% 7% 3% b cde hij j j l r r 58% 42% 1% 2% 11% 85% 24% 12% 10% 6% 25% 22% 20% 33% 84% 8% 6% 1% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2223 1038 1185 353 451 857 562 226 209 315 559 601 625 492 503 1865 191 104 64 89% 86% 92% 98% 99% 96% 72% 81% 87% 92% 97% 90% 91% 90% 86% 89% 90% 87% 95% a f ef f gh ghi n n n opq 47% 53% 16% 20% 39% 25% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2349 1119 1230 359 454 876 660 244 224 327 569 633 654 521 539 1973 200 110 66 94% 93% 95% 99% 99% 98% 84% 88% 93% 96% 98% 95% 95% 95% 92% 94% 95% 92% 97% a f f f g g ghi n n oq 48% 52% 15% 19% 37% 28% 10% 10% 14% 24% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 4 3 1 - - 3 1 - - - - 1 1 - 2 3 - * % % % -% -% % % -% -% -% -% % % -% % % -% % % 82% 18% -% -% 73% 27% -% -% -% -% 35% 14% -% 51% 86% -% 8% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Several times a day 1325 148 180 110 85 105 115 140 64 157 1159 166 941 378 708 617 53% 47% 53% 52% 50% 47% 49% 66% 62% 55% 54% 49% 62% 39% 53% 54% abcdefi acdef m 11% 14% 8% 6% 8% 9% 11% 5% 12% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Every day 502 91 67 31 49 45 46 21 15 58 442 60 337 164 279 222 20% 29% 20% 15% 28% 20% 20% 10% 14% 20% 21% 18% 22% 17% 21% 19% bcefghi g bcefghi g g g m 18% 13% 6% 10% 9% 9% 4% 3% 12% 88% 12% 67% 33% 56% 44% Several times a week 287 58 28 24 15 35 26 19 11 23 252 35 139 148 142 145 12% 18% 8% 12% 9% 16% 11% 9% 11% 8% 12% 10% 9% 15% 11% 13% bdfghi bdgi l 20% 10% 9% 5% 12% 9% 7% 4% 8% 88% 12% 49% 51% 50% 50% At least once a week 110 13 10 16 5 15 13 7 5 13 85 25 40 68 54 56 4% 4% 3% 8% 3% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% 7% 4% 5% bd j l 12% 9% 15% 5% 14% 12% 7% 4% 12% 78% 22% 37% 62% 49% 51% At least once a month 60 2 13 10 4 8 4 4 3 3 49 11 15 45 34 26 2% 1% 4% 5% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% a afi a l 4% 21% 17% 6% 14% 6% 7% 5% 5% 82% 18% 25% 75% 57% 43% Less than once a month 65 5 17 6 4 2 11 5 1 6 51 14 15 51 42 23 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 1% 5% 3% 2% aeh aeh l 7% 27% 10% 6% 3% 18% 7% 1% 10% 79% 21% 22% 78% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Never 142 1 22 13 9 11 20 15 5 23 113 29 26 114 81 61 6% % 6% 6% 5% 5% 9% 7% 5% 8% 5% 9% 2% 12% 6% 5% a a a a a a a a j l 1% 15% 9% 6% 8% 14% 11% 4% 16% 80% 20% 19% 81% 57% 43% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2223 310 286 181 154 200 200 188 95 251 1938 285 1458 758 1183 1040 89% 98% 85% 86% 90% 90% 85% 89% 91% 88% 90% 84% 96% 78% 88% 90% bcdefghi bf k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 66% 34% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 2349 317 316 198 162 211 215 196 98 260 2039 310 1488 854 1259 1090 94% 100% 94% 94% 95% 95% 91% 93% 95% 91% 95% 91% 98% 88% 94% 95% bcdefghi k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 63% 36% 54% 46% Don't know 4 - - - - 1 - - - 2 4 * 3 1 1 2 % -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% 1% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 35% -% -% -% 51% 98% 2% 77% 23% 39% 61% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a day 1110 549 561 214 266 472 159 90 107 156 326 301 338 251 220 909 101 53 47 45% 46% 44% 59% 58% 53% 20% 32% 44% 46% 56% 45% 49% 46% 37% 43% 48% 45% 70% ef f f g g ghi n n n opq 49% 51% 19% 24% 43% 14% 8% 10% 14% 29% 27% 30% 23% 20% 82% 9% 5% 4% Every day 522 234 288 72 113 200 137 54 37 75 117 125 147 124 125 439 43 30 10 21% 19% 22% 20% 25% 22% 18% 20% 15% 22% 20% 19% 21% 23% 21% 21% 20% 25% 15% f f r r 45% 55% 14% 22% 38% 26% 10% 7% 14% 22% 24% 28% 24% 24% 84% 8% 6% 2% Several times a week 463 221 242 45 58 145 215 60 51 68 80 125 109 95 132 396 43 15 8 19% 18% 19% 12% 13% 16% 28% 22% 21% 20% 14% 19% 16% 17% 22% 19% 21% 13% 12% cde j j j lm qr qr 48% 52% 10% 12% 31% 47% 13% 11% 15% 17% 27% 24% 21% 28% 86% 9% 3% 2% At least once a week 182 84 98 19 11 51 101 29 22 23 30 54 46 26 54 158 13 10 1 7% 7% 8% 5% 2% 6% 13% 11% 9% 7% 5% 8% 7% 5% 9% 8% 6% 8% 2% d cde j j m m r r r 46% 54% 10% 6% 28% 56% 16% 12% 13% 16% 30% 26% 15% 30% 87% 7% 5% 1% At least once a month 101 49 52 8 4 17 72 17 9 9 17 34 23 21 23 90 5 5 4% 4% 4% 2% 1% 2% 9% 6% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% % cde ij r r r 49% 51% 8% 4% 17% 72% 17% 9% 9% 16% 33% 23% 21% 22% 89% 5% 5% % Less than once a month 97 60 38 3 3 6 86 21 12 8 8 25 19 25 28 88 5 5 - 4% 5% 3% 1% 1% 1% 11% 8% 5% 2% 1% 4% 3% 5% 5% 4% 2% 4% -% b cde ij j l r r r 61% 39% 3% 3% 6% 88% 22% 12% 8% 9% 26% 19% 26% 29% 90% 5% 5% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Never 16 5 10 1 2 3 9 4 3 1 1 3 4 4 5 14 1 1 * 1% % 1% % % % 1% 2% 1% % % % 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % e j 34% 66% 7% 14% 19% 60% 29% 16% 7% 5% 17% 23% 27% 34% 89% 4% 6% 1% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2277 1088 1190 349 448 867 613 234 217 322 552 606 641 497 532 1902 200 108 67 91% 90% 92% 97% 98% 97% 78% 84% 90% 95% 96% 91% 93% 91% 90% 91% 95% 90% 99% f f f g g gh oq opq 48% 52% 15% 20% 38% 27% 10% 10% 14% 24% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2475 1196 1279 360 454 891 771 272 238 340 577 665 682 543 583 2079 211 118 67 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% f g g 48% 52% 15% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 3 3 - - 1 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 - 3 - 1 * % % % -% -% % % % -% -% -% % % % -% % -% 1% % 87% 13% -% -% 42% 58% 35% -% -% -% 40% 16% 44% -% 75% -% 18% 7% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Several times a day 1110 159 150 69 70 73 104 89 51 145 982 128 828 277 573 538 45% 50% 44% 33% 41% 33% 44% 42% 49% 51% 46% 38% 55% 29% 43% 47% ce ce ce c ce cde k m 14% 13% 6% 6% 7% 9% 8% 5% 13% 88% 12% 75% 25% 52% 48% Every day 522 88 50 46 41 51 52 41 18 52 459 63 349 173 281 241 21% 28% 15% 22% 24% 23% 22% 19% 17% 18% 21% 19% 23% 18% 21% 21% bhi b b b m 17% 10% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 3% 10% 88% 12% 67% 33% 54% 46% Several times a week 463 64 70 39 30 52 35 40 22 44 406 57 225 236 249 214 19% 20% 21% 19% 18% 23% 15% 19% 21% 16% 19% 17% 15% 24% 19% 19% fi l 14% 15% 9% 7% 11% 7% 9% 5% 10% 88% 12% 49% 51% 54% 46% At least once a week 182 5 22 27 15 22 19 18 6 23 145 37 68 112 101 80 7% 1% 7% 13% 9% 10% 8% 8% 5% 8% 7% 11% 5% 12% 8% 7% a abh a a a a a a j l 3% 12% 15% 8% 12% 11% 10% 3% 13% 80% 20% 38% 61% 56% 44% At least once a month 101 2 17 18 7 16 8 11 2 10 77 24 27 74 62 39 4% 1% 5% 8% 4% 7% 3% 5% 2% 3% 4% 7% 2% 8% 5% 3% a afhi a ah a a j l 2% 16% 18% 7% 16% 8% 11% 2% 10% 77% 23% 27% 73% 62% 38% Less than once a month 97 - 29 8 6 6 15 11 3 9 71 27 14 84 66 32 4% -% 9% 4% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 9% 5% 3% acdehi a a a a a a a j l o -% 30% 9% 6% 6% 16% 11% 4% 9% 73% 27% 14% 86% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Never 16 - - 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 12 4 4 11 7 8 1% -% -% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% ab l -% -% 13% 16% 5% 10% 19% 14% 12% 75% 25% 27% 73% 47% 53% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2277 316 292 182 156 198 210 187 96 265 1992 285 1470 799 1204 1073 91% 99% 86% 86% 91% 89% 90% 88% 92% 93% 92% 84% 97% 82% 90% 93% bcdefghi bc bc k m n 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 65% 35% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 2475 318 337 208 168 221 233 209 102 283 2140 336 1510 957 1332 1144 99% 100% 100% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% h h m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Don't know 3 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 3 3 1 3 1 % -% -% 1% -% 1% -% -% -% -% % % % % % % -% -% 35% -% 40% -% -% -% -% 97% 3% 82% 18% 79% 21% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Several times a day \| 1086 \| 517 \| 570 \| 247 \| \| 57% \| 57% \| 57% \| 75% \| 68% \| \| def \| ef \| f \| n \| n \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 23% \| 27% \| 40% \| \| Every day \| 412 \| 188 \| 224 \| 58 \| \| 22% \| 21% \| 23% \| 18% \| 22% \| \| c \| gh \| g \| m \| r \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 14% \| 22% \| 44% \| \| Several times a week \| 147 \| 78 \| 69 \| 10 \| \| 8% \| 9% \| 7% \| 3% \| 7% \| \| c \| c \| cde \| j \| klm \| \| 53% \| 47% \| 7% \| 19% \| 41% \| \| At least once a week \| 71 \| 35 \| 36 \| 5 \| \| 4% \| 4% \| 4% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| d \| cde \| l \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 8% \| 5% \| 37% \| \| At least once a month \| 23 \| 16 \| 7 \| 1 \| \| 1% \| 2% \| 1% \| % \| % \| \| cde \| k \| k \| k \| p \| \| 69% \| 31% \| 3% \| 7% \| 33% \| \| Less than once a month \| 33 \| 13 \| 20 \| 1 \| \| 2% \| 1% \| 2% \| % \| % \| \| cde \| j \| r \| \| \| \| 40% \| 60% \| 2% \| 4% \| 29% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Never \| 119 \| 55 \| 64 \| 8 \| \| 6% \| 6% \| 6% \| 2% \| 2% \| \| cde \| j \| k \| r \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 6% \| 9% \| 25% \| \| TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK \| 1716 \| 817 \| 899 \| 320 \| \| 91% \| 91% \| 91% \| 97% \| 97% \| \| ef \| ef \| f \| g \| g \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 19% \| 24% \| 41% \| \| TOTAL EVER \| 1773 \| 846 \| 926 \| 321 \| \| 94% \| 94% \| 93% \| 98% \| 98% \| \| f \| f \| f \| g \| m \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 18% \| 23% \| 41% \| \| Don't know \| 4 \| 1 \| 2 \| - \| \| % \| % \| % \| -% \| -% \| \| 39% \| 61% \| -% \| -% \| 57% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14C (QD4C). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to access email or internet services? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Several times a day 1086 123 148 84 62 82 111 111 47 134 956 131 809 271 559 528 57% 45% 61% 54% 49% 49% 63% 68% 63% 64% 58% 53% 62% 47% 56% 59% ade ade acde ade ade m 11% 14% 8% 6% 8% 10% 10% 4% 12% 88% 12% 75% 25% 51% 49% Every day 412 86 53 36 33 39 31 20 13 45 358 54 291 121 239 173 22% 31% 22% 23% 26% 23% 17% 12% 17% 21% 22% 22% 22% 21% 24% 19% fghi g g g g g o 21% 13% 9% 8% 9% 7% 5% 3% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 58% 42% Several times a week 147 44 12 12 8 12 11 10 5 9 127 20 92 55 59 88 8% 16% 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 4% 8% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% bcdefghi n 30% 8% 8% 6% 8% 7% 7% 4% 6% 87% 13% 63% 37% 40% 60% At least once a week 71 8 8 8 5 9 7 5 2 8 61 10 31 40 49 22 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 7% 5% 2% l o 12% 11% 11% 7% 13% 10% 7% 3% 12% 85% 15% 44% 56% 69% 31% At least once a month 23 1 3 3 3 4 1 3 1 1 15 8 14 10 14 9 1% % 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% j 6% 15% 13% 12% 16% 4% 11% 5% 6% 66% 34% 58% 42% 62% 38% Less than once a month 33 3 2 2 1 8 2 3 1 4 30 4 17 17 20 14 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% abdf l 9% 6% 5% 3% 25% 5% 10% 2% 13% 89% 11% 50% 50% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Never 119 10 15 12 14 13 15 12 5 7 103 16 59 58 61 58 6% 4% 6% 7% 11% 8% 8% 7% 7% 4% 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% 7% ai l 9% 13% 10% 12% 11% 13% 10% 4% 6% 86% 14% 50% 49% 51% 49% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 1716 261 221 140 108 143 160 146 67 195 1501 215 1224 487 906 810 91% 95% 91% 90% 86% 85% 90% 89% 90% 93% 91% 88% 93% 85% 90% 91% de de m 15% 13% 8% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 1773 265 226 145 112 155 162 152 68 201 1546 226 1254 513 940 833 94% 96% 93% 93% 89% 92% 92% 93% 93% 96% 94% 93% 95% 89% 94% 93% d d m 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Don't know 4 - 1 - - - - * 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 % -% % -% -% % -% -% 1% % % 1% % % % % j -% 30% -% -% 9% -% -% 10% 19% 47% 53% 30% 70% 78% 22% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2227 1058 1169 348 440 837 602 227 211 317 546 612 625 489 500 1878 182 106 61 89% 88% 91% 97% 96% 94% 77% 82% 88% 93% 95% 91% 91% 89% 85% 90% 86% 88% 91% a ef f f gh gh n n n 47% 53% 16% 20% 38% 27% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% Take photos 1750 812 938 317 384 686 363 153 145 245 495 500 495 384 369 1471 144 84 50 70% 67% 73% 88% 84% 77% 46% 55% 60% 72% 86% 75% 72% 70% 63% 70% 68% 70% 74% a ef ef f gh ghi n n n 46% 54% 18% 22% 39% 21% 9% 8% 14% 28% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% General browsing/ surfing the internet 1515 722 793 307 371 609 228 127 124 219 433 436 434 323 320 1272 127 69 47 61% 60% 61% 85% 81% 68% 29% 46% 52% 64% 75% 65% 63% 59% 54% 61% 60% 58% 70% ef ef f gh ghi mn n opq 48% 52% 20% 25% 40% 15% 8% 8% 14% 29% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1410 669 741 272 336 574 227 98 116 206 422 450 409 289 260 1199 112 59 40 57% 56% 57% 75% 74% 64% 29% 35% 48% 60% 73% 67% 60% 53% 44% 57% 53% 49% 59% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n q q 47% 53% 19% 24% 41% 16% 7% 8% 15% 30% 32% 29% 21% 18% 85% 8% 4% 3% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 1227 557 670 248 314 493 173 95 95 179 358 361 367 263 233 1019 107 59 41 49% 46% 52% 69% 69% 55% 22% 34% 40% 52% 62% 54% 54% 48% 40% 49% 51% 49% 61% a ef ef f gh ghi n n n opq 45% 55% 20% 26% 40% 14% 8% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 21% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1221 543 678 275 330 494 122 106 109 185 356 343 346 260 272 1023 102 58 37 49% 45% 53% 76% 72% 55% 16% 38% 45% 54% 62% 51% 50% 47% 46% 49% 48% 49% 55% a ef ef f gh ghi o 45% 55% 23% 27% 40% 10% 9% 9% 15% 29% 28% 28% 21% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 1177 525 651 270 326 459 122 89 94 170 335 340 357 240 239 993 95 53 35 47% 44% 50% 75% 71% 51% 16% 32% 39% 50% 58% 51% 52% 44% 41% 47% 45% 45% 52% a ef ef f gh ghi mn mn 45% 55% 23% 28% 39% 10% 8% 8% 14% 28% 29% 30% 20% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 1086 543 543 234 287 430 135 84 94 157 326 319 324 228 214 920 92 42 31 44% 45% 42% 65% 63% 48% 17% 30% 39% 46% 56% 48% 47% 42% 36% 44% 44% 35% 46% ef ef f g g ghi n n q q q 50% 50% 22% 26% 40% 12% 8% 9% 14% 30% 29% 30% 21% 20% 85% 9% 4% 3% Record video clips using the phone 978 453 525 218 266 394 100 72 83 146 314 293 275 213 197 820 79 47 32 39% 38% 41% 60% 58% 44% 13% 26% 34% 43% 54% 44% 40% 39% 33% 39% 37% 40% 48% ef ef f g gh ghi n n opq 46% 54% 22% 27% 40% 10% 7% 8% 15% 32% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% Play games 856 421 435 228 253 301 75 77 72 115 240 213 258 181 205 741 56 32 27 34% 35% 34% 63% 55% 34% 10% 28% 30% 34% 41% 32% 38% 33% 35% 35% 27% 27% 40% def ef f ghi k pq pq 49% 51% 27% 30% 35% 9% 9% 8% 13% 28% 25% 30% 21% 24% 87% 7% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Accessing/ receiving news 842 452 391 163 218 353 109 50 65 118 291 297 261 169 116 709 69 36 28 34% 38% 30% 45% 48% 39% 14% 18% 27% 35% 50% 44% 38% 31% 20% 34% 33% 30% 41% b f ef f g g ghi lmn mn n opq 54% 46% 19% 26% 42% 13% 6% 8% 14% 34% 35% 31% 20% 14% 84% 8% 4% 3% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 827 414 413 201 239 311 75 69 67 131 265 228 239 174 185 731 48 34 14 33% 34% 32% 56% 52% 35% 10% 25% 28% 38% 46% 34% 35% 32% 31% 35% 23% 28% 21% ef ef f gh ghi pqr r 50% 50% 24% 29% 38% 9% 8% 8% 16% 32% 28% 29% 21% 22% 88% 6% 4% 2% Send/ receive video clips 771 350 420 170 222 305 74 52 62 115 241 239 243 157 131 639 70 35 27 31% 29% 33% 47% 49% 34% 9% 19% 26% 34% 42% 36% 35% 29% 22% 30% 33% 29% 40% ef ef f g gh ghi mn mn n oq 45% 55% 22% 29% 40% 10% 7% 8% 15% 31% 31% 32% 20% 17% 83% 9% 5% 3% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 597 267 331 133 182 227 55 38 61 72 182 169 192 122 114 515 48 22 12 24% 22% 26% 37% 40% 25% 7% 14% 25% 21% 32% 25% 28% 22% 19% 25% 23% 18% 18% ef ef f g g gi n mn qr 45% 55% 22% 30% 38% 9% 6% 10% 12% 31% 28% 32% 20% 19% 86% 8% 4% 2% Listen to music using MP3 function 591 319 272 172 165 212 42 56 42 86 199 181 178 122 109 504 51 24 12 24% 26% 21% 48% 36% 24% 5% 20% 17% 25% 34% 27% 26% 22% 19% 24% 24% 20% 18% b def ef f h ghi n n r r 54% 46% 29% 28% 36% 7% 9% 7% 15% 34% 31% 30% 21% 19% 85% 9% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 554 270 284 125 151 211 67 48 47 84 181 179 166 114 95 479 33 31 12 22% 22% 22% 35% 33% 24% 9% 17% 20% 25% 31% 27% 24% 21% 16% 23% 16% 26% 17% ef ef f g ghi mn n pr pr 49% 51% 23% 27% 38% 12% 9% 8% 15% 33% 32% 30% 21% 17% 86% 6% 6% 2% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 520 367 152 110 140 206 64 25 34 79 192 172 171 110 67 437 48 18 16 21% 31% 12% 30% 31% 23% 8% 9% 14% 23% 33% 26% 25% 20% 11% 21% 23% 15% 24% b ef ef f gh ghi mn n n q q q 71% 29% 21% 27% 40% 12% 5% 6% 15% 37% 33% 33% 21% 13% 84% 9% 4% 3% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 507 241 266 110 147 203 47 28 45 67 163 157 161 90 98 439 42 16 10 20% 20% 21% 30% 32% 23% 6% 10% 19% 20% 28% 23% 23% 16% 17% 21% 20% 13% 15% ef ef f g g ghi mn mn qr q 48% 52% 22% 29% 40% 9% 6% 9% 13% 32% 31% 32% 18% 19% 87% 8% 3% 2% Listen to FM radio 385 190 195 94 90 152 48 27 34 37 138 124 109 81 69 337 27 14 6 15% 16% 15% 26% 20% 17% 6% 10% 14% 11% 24% 19% 16% 15% 12% 16% 13% 12% 10% def f f ghi n n r 49% 51% 24% 24% 40% 13% 7% 9% 10% 36% 32% 28% 21% 18% 88% 7% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 341 185 156 84 104 122 31 25 26 40 133 106 96 71 67 304 17 14 6 14% 15% 12% 23% 23% 14% 4% 9% 11% 12% 23% 16% 14% 13% 11% 14% 8% 12% 9% b ef ef f ghi n pr 54% 46% 25% 30% 36% 9% 7% 8% 12% 39% 31% 28% 21% 20% 89% 5% 4% 2% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 337 168 169 82 82 135 38 25 31 43 112 116 101 64 56 289 23 18 7 14% 14% 13% 23% 18% 15% 5% 9% 13% 13% 19% 17% 15% 12% 10% 14% 11% 15% 11% ef f f ghi mn n 50% 50% 24% 24% 40% 11% 7% 9% 13% 33% 34% 30% 19% 17% 86% 7% 5% 2% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 325 177 148 95 94 119 17 21 20 39 110 117 101 52 55 280 22 13 10 13% 15% 11% 26% 21% 13% 2% 8% 8% 11% 19% 17% 15% 10% 9% 13% 11% 11% 15% b ef ef f ghi mn mn 54% 46% 29% 29% 37% 5% 7% 6% 12% 34% 36% 31% 16% 17% 86% 7% 4% 3% Listen to Podcasts 226 136 90 63 54 92 16 9 14 38 86 78 80 43 24 206 7 8 5 9% 11% 7% 18% 12% 10% 2% 3% 6% 11% 15% 12% 12% 8% 4% 10% 3% 6% 7% b def f f gh gh mn mn n p 60% 40% 28% 24% 41% 7% 4% 6% 17% 38% 35% 35% 19% 11% 91% 3% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 220 114 105 64 65 80 10 21 18 32 72 60 56 50 53 190 10 14 5 9% 10% 8% 18% 14% 9% 1% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 7% ef ef f gh p p 52% 48% 29% 30% 36% 5% 9% 8% 15% 33% 28% 25% 23% 24% 87% 5% 6% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 199 120 79 48 58 77 17 14 12 24 82 58 49 51 39 176 11 8 4 8% 10% 6% 13% 13% 9% 2% 5% 5% 7% 14% 9% 7% 9% 7% 8% 5% 7% 5% b ef ef f ghi 60% 40% 24% 29% 39% 9% 7% 6% 12% 41% 29% 25% 26% 20% 88% 6% 4% 2% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 195 105 91 49 57 72 17 15 12 26 65 69 60 41 26 165 19 7 4 8% 9% 7% 14% 13% 8% 2% 5% 5% 8% 11% 10% 9% 7% 4% 8% 9% 6% 7% ef ef f gh n n n 54% 46% 25% 29% 37% 9% 8% 6% 13% 33% 35% 31% 21% 13% 84% 10% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 192 103 89 52 67 62 11 20 15 21 65 51 57 44 40 164 12 9 6 8% 9% 7% 14% 15% 7% 1% 7% 6% 6% 11% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 6% 8% 9% ef ef f ghi 54% 46% 27% 35% 32% 6% 10% 8% 11% 34% 26% 30% 23% 21% 86% 6% 5% 3% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 126 74 53 22 32 65 8 7 11 20 53 46 35 21 24 112 5 8 1 5% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 1% 3% 5% 6% 9% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 2% 7% 2% b f f f g gh mn pr pr 58% 42% 18% 25% 51% 6% 6% 9% 16% 42% 36% 28% 16% 19% 89% 4% 7% 1% Other 37 22 15 2 2 17 17 3 1 6 3 11 11 9 6 30 6 2 - 1% 2% 1% % % 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% % 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% -% d cd r r r 60% 40% 5% 4% 45% 46% 9% 4% 16% 7% 29% 30% 25% 16% 81% 15% 4% -% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 70% 69% 71% 90% 92% 79% 39% 53% 60% 76% 84% 76% 72% 68% 64% 70% 70% 67% 75% ef ef f gh ghi mn n q 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% WATCHING AV CONTENT 949 482 467 227 273 363 86 81 71 144 303 263 271 204 210 826 59 43 21 38% 40% 36% 63% 60% 41% 11% 29% 29% 42% 52% 39% 40% 37% 36% 39% 28% 36% 30% ef ef f gh ghi pr p 51% 49% 24% 29% 38% 9% 9% 7% 15% 32% 28% 29% 21% 22% 87% 6% 5% 2% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 786 409 376 212 207 292 75 68 66 105 261 235 236 163 151 682 61 29 14 32% 34% 29% 59% 45% 33% 10% 24% 27% 31% 45% 35% 34% 30% 26% 33% 29% 24% 21% b def ef f ghi n n qr r 52% 48% 27% 26% 37% 10% 9% 8% 13% 33% 30% 30% 21% 19% 87% 8% 4% 2% None of these 171 102 69 4 5 20 143 37 21 14 8 42 35 40 54 142 12 12 5 7% 9% 5% 1% 1% 2% 18% 13% 9% 4% 1% 6% 5% 7% 9% 7% 6% 10% 7% b cde ij ij j l 60% 40% 3% 3% 12% 83% 22% 12% 8% 5% 24% 21% 23% 32% 83% 7% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2227 303 295 180 151 206 204 194 93 252 1940 287 1431 788 1191 1036 89% 95% 87% 85% 89% 92% 87% 91% 90% 88% 90% 84% 94% 81% 89% 90% bcdfhi c c k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 64% 35% 53% 47% Take photos 1750 251 240 160 111 152 160 156 60 180 1513 236 1208 535 932 818 70% 79% 71% 76% 65% 68% 68% 74% 58% 63% 70% 70% 80% 55% 69% 71% defhi h dhi h h hi m 14% 14% 9% 6% 9% 9% 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 69% 31% 53% 47% General browsing/ surfing the internet 1515 248 194 118 95 132 122 137 58 167 1336 179 1092 421 797 717 61% 78% 57% 56% 56% 59% 52% 65% 56% 59% 62% 53% 72% 43% 59% 62% bcdefghi f k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 8% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 28% 53% 47% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1410 245 189 124 85 118 134 109 51 144 1241 169 1043 364 752 658 57% 77% 56% 59% 50% 53% 57% 51% 49% 50% 58% 50% 69% 38% 56% 57% bcdefghi h k m 17% 13% 9% 6% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 74% 26% 53% 47% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 1227 206 137 103 78 102 107 96 46 146 1083 143 898 325 649 578 49% 65% 41% 49% 46% 46% 45% 45% 44% 51% 50% 42% 59% 34% 48% 50% bcdefghi b k m 17% 11% 8% 6% 8% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 73% 26% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1221 197 148 101 82 94 114 104 51 132 1085 136 898 319 616 605 49% 62% 44% 48% 48% 42% 49% 49% 49% 46% 50% 40% 59% 33% 46% 52% bcdefghi k m n 16% 12% 8% 7% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 74% 26% 50% 50% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 1177 224 129 93 79 101 107 96 48 118 1034 143 868 304 587 589 47% 70% 38% 44% 46% 45% 46% 45% 46% 41% 48% 42% 57% 31% 44% 51% bcdefghi k m n 19% 11% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 74% 26% 50% 50% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 1086 188 109 104 75 93 101 110 30 110 952 134 795 289 545 540 44% 59% 32% 49% 44% 42% 43% 52% 29% 39% 44% 39% 52% 30% 41% 47% bcdefhi bhi bh bh bh behi h m n 17% 10% 10% 7% 9% 9% 10% 3% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 50% 50% Record video clips using the phone 978 217 94 84 58 61 95 90 33 87 866 112 727 249 477 501 39% 68% 28% 40% 34% 27% 40% 43% 32% 31% 40% 33% 48% 26% 36% 43% bcdefghi bei bei behi k m n 22% 10% 9% 6% 6% 10% 9% 3% 9% 89% 11% 74% 25% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Play games 856 149 94 77 64 87 71 69 36 93 771 85 600 254 433 423 34% 47% 28% 36% 38% 39% 30% 33% 35% 33% 36% 25% 40% 26% 32% 37% bcfghi b bf k m n 17% 11% 9% 8% 10% 8% 8% 4% 11% 90% 10% 70% 30% 51% 49% Accessing/ receiving news 842 146 104 72 55 56 90 69 32 85 734 108 631 211 457 385 34% 46% 31% 34% 32% 25% 38% 33% 31% 30% 34% 32% 42% 22% 34% 33% bcdeghi e e m 17% 12% 9% 7% 7% 11% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 75% 25% 54% 46% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 827 168 93 68 57 51 87 83 28 96 731 96 606 218 391 435 33% 53% 28% 32% 34% 23% 37% 39% 27% 34% 34% 28% 40% 23% 29% 38% bcdefghi e e beh beh e k m n 20% 11% 8% 7% 6% 11% 10% 3% 12% 88% 12% 73% 26% 47% 53% Send/ receive video clips 771 166 72 58 48 60 68 60 24 82 685 86 582 187 399 372 31% 52% 21% 27% 28% 27% 29% 28% 23% 29% 32% 25% 38% 19% 30% 32% bcdefghi k m 22% 9% 8% 6% 8% 9% 8% 3% 11% 89% 11% 75% 24% 52% 48% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 597 174 60 49 33 48 54 35 17 45 532 65 453 144 267 330 24% 55% 18% 23% 20% 22% 23% 16% 16% 16% 25% 19% 30% 15% 20% 29% bcdefghi k m n 29% 10% 8% 6% 8% 9% 6% 3% 8% 89% 11% 76% 24% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to music using MP3 function 591 91 72 46 48 35 77 57 15 62 524 67 416 172 300 290 24% 29% 21% 22% 28% 16% 33% 27% 14% 22% 24% 20% 27% 18% 22% 25% eh h h eh bcehi eh h k m 15% 12% 8% 8% 6% 13% 10% 2% 11% 89% 11% 70% 29% 51% 49% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 554 52 67 58 48 47 65 68 18 54 476 78 401 151 300 254 22% 16% 20% 28% 28% 21% 28% 32% 17% 19% 22% 23% 26% 16% 22% 22% ahi abhi ahi abehi m 9% 12% 10% 9% 9% 12% 12% 3% 10% 86% 14% 72% 27% 54% 46% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 520 118 48 40 35 36 47 47 17 49 449 71 400 120 271 249 21% 37% 14% 19% 21% 16% 20% 22% 16% 17% 21% 21% 26% 12% 20% 22% bcdefghi b m 23% 9% 8% 7% 7% 9% 9% 3% 9% 86% 14% 77% 23% 52% 48% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 507 183 41 38 25 25 56 23 8 39 455 52 388 117 222 285 20% 58% 12% 18% 15% 11% 24% 11% 8% 14% 21% 15% 26% 12% 17% 25% bcdefghi egh h bdeghi k m n 36% 8% 8% 5% 5% 11% 5% 2% 8% 90% 10% 77% 23% 44% 56% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to FM radio 385 61 65 37 26 24 41 31 12 41 347 38 282 102 221 164 15% 19% 19% 17% 15% 11% 17% 14% 11% 14% 16% 11% 19% 11% 16% 14% eh eh k m 16% 17% 10% 7% 6% 11% 8% 3% 11% 90% 10% 73% 27% 57% 43% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 341 57 40 41 27 17 33 35 9 43 302 39 252 88 188 153 14% 18% 12% 20% 16% 8% 14% 17% 9% 15% 14% 11% 17% 9% 14% 13% eh beh eh e eh eh m 17% 12% 12% 8% 5% 10% 10% 3% 13% 89% 11% 74% 26% 55% 45% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 337 33 33 47 21 26 44 33 12 38 284 53 248 88 177 160 14% 11% 10% 22% 12% 12% 19% 16% 12% 13% 13% 16% 16% 9% 13% 14% abdehi abeh m 10% 10% 14% 6% 8% 13% 10% 4% 11% 84% 16% 73% 26% 52% 48% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 325 58 46 28 17 20 39 27 9 36 293 32 245 80 166 159 13% 18% 14% 13% 10% 9% 16% 13% 9% 13% 14% 9% 16% 8% 12% 14% deh deh k m 18% 14% 9% 5% 6% 12% 8% 3% 11% 90% 10% 75% 25% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to Podcasts 226 55 26 20 10 11 37 23 7 18 198 27 165 61 111 115 9% 17% 8% 9% 6% 5% 16% 11% 7% 6% 9% 8% 11% 6% 8% 10% bcdehi bcdehi e m 24% 12% 9% 5% 5% 16% 10% 3% 8% 88% 12% 73% 27% 49% 51% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 220 48 21 27 13 13 24 14 5 25 195 24 170 49 103 116 9% 15% 6% 13% 8% 6% 10% 7% 4% 9% 9% 7% 11% 5% 8% 10% bdeghi begh h m n 22% 10% 12% 6% 6% 11% 6% 2% 12% 89% 11% 78% 22% 47% 53% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 199 33 35 21 13 13 19 16 5 22 181 18 151 47 108 91 8% 10% 10% 10% 7% 6% 8% 8% 5% 8% 8% 5% 10% 5% 8% 8% h h h k m 16% 17% 11% 6% 7% 9% 8% 2% 11% 91% 9% 76% 24% 54% 46% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 195 28 27 14 16 18 23 15 6 18 169 27 151 43 97 99 8% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 10% 7% 6% 6% 8% 8% 10% 4% 7% 9% m 14% 14% 7% 8% 9% 12% 8% 3% 9% 86% 14% 77% 22% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 192 28 28 20 11 16 18 17 5 22 168 24 143 50 101 91 8% 9% 8% 9% 6% 7% 8% 8% 5% 8% 8% 7% 9% 5% 8% 8% m 15% 14% 10% 6% 8% 9% 9% 3% 12% 87% 13% 74% 26% 53% 47% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 126 11 15 15 11 7 18 18 3 14 109 18 95 31 77 50 5% 3% 4% 7% 7% 3% 8% 9% 3% 5% 5% 5% 6% 3% 6% 4% eh aeh m 9% 12% 12% 9% 6% 14% 14% 2% 11% 86% 14% 76% 24% 61% 39% Other 37 1 7 1 12 2 6 - - 1 29 8 21 16 22 15 1% % 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% -% -% % 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% gh abcefghi ghi 4% 19% 4% 32% 5% 16% -% -% 2% 79% 21% 57% 43% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 70% 84% 68% 68% 64% 71% 68% 71% 65% 66% 71% 65% 82% 52% 69% 71% bcdefghi k m 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% WATCHING AV CONTENT 949 186 116 81 66 61 94 87 32 103 839 110 695 251 467 482 38% 58% 34% 39% 39% 27% 40% 41% 31% 36% 39% 33% 46% 26% 35% 42% bcdefghi e e e eh k m n 20% 12% 9% 7% 6% 10% 9% 3% 11% 88% 12% 73% 26% 49% 51% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 786 120 105 69 60 52 95 73 25 83 697 89 562 220 409 377 32% 38% 31% 32% 35% 23% 41% 34% 24% 29% 32% 26% 37% 23% 30% 33% eh e eh behi eh k m 15% 13% 9% 8% 7% 12% 9% 3% 11% 89% 11% 72% 28% 52% 48% None of these 171 8 28 17 14 11 20 14 7 24 136 35 33 137 96 75 7% 2% 8% 8% 8% 5% 8% 7% 7% 8% 6% 10% 2% 14% 7% 7% a a a a a a a j l 5% 16% 10% 8% 6% 11% 8% 4% 14% 80% 20% 19% 80% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2034 969 1065 332 405 782 515 204 193 292 511 555 572 449 458 1716 162 98 58 82% 80% 83% 92% 89% 87% 66% 74% 80% 86% 88% 83% 83% 82% 78% 82% 77% 82% 85% ef f f g gh n n p p 48% 52% 16% 20% 38% 25% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1308 627 681 275 339 508 187 105 108 190 375 369 385 278 274 1106 100 59 43 52% 52% 53% 76% 74% 57% 24% 38% 45% 56% 65% 55% 56% 51% 47% 53% 47% 50% 64% ef ef f gh ghi n n opq 48% 52% 21% 26% 39% 14% 8% 8% 15% 29% 28% 29% 21% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Take photos 1187 530 657 243 300 463 181 100 98 175 350 335 335 263 253 1003 89 63 32 48% 44% 51% 67% 66% 52% 23% 36% 41% 51% 61% 50% 49% 48% 43% 48% 42% 52% 47% a ef ef f gh ghi n n p 45% 55% 20% 25% 39% 15% 8% 8% 15% 30% 28% 28% 22% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1145 536 609 227 288 457 172 71 83 165 358 373 336 231 203 998 67 49 31 46% 45% 47% 63% 63% 51% 22% 26% 35% 48% 62% 56% 49% 42% 34% 48% 32% 41% 45% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n pq p p 47% 53% 20% 25% 40% 15% 6% 7% 14% 31% 33% 29% 20% 18% 87% 6% 4% 3% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1072 464 608 258 295 413 105 96 101 168 310 292 310 224 245 904 83 52 32 43% 39% 47% 72% 65% 46% 13% 34% 42% 49% 54% 44% 45% 41% 42% 43% 39% 44% 47% a def ef f g gh p 43% 57% 24% 27% 39% 10% 9% 9% 16% 29% 27% 29% 21% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 935 410 525 234 259 354 87 73 75 137 263 256 281 195 202 793 67 43 32 37% 34% 41% 65% 57% 40% 11% 26% 31% 40% 45% 38% 41% 35% 34% 38% 32% 36% 47% a def ef f gh gh n p opq 44% 56% 25% 28% 38% 9% 8% 8% 15% 28% 27% 30% 21% 22% 85% 7% 5% 3% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 788 344 444 170 220 301 96 55 56 120 237 229 239 164 155 659 59 44 25 32% 29% 34% 47% 48% 34% 12% 20% 23% 35% 41% 34% 35% 30% 26% 31% 28% 37% 37% a ef ef f gh gh n n p op 44% 56% 22% 28% 38% 12% 7% 7% 15% 30% 29% 30% 21% 20% 84% 7% 6% 3% Play games 647 312 335 193 190 215 49 63 56 87 180 162 194 137 153 567 39 25 17 26% 26% 26% 53% 42% 24% 6% 23% 23% 25% 31% 24% 28% 25% 26% 27% 18% 21% 25% def ef f gh pq p 48% 52% 30% 29% 33% 8% 10% 9% 13% 28% 25% 30% 21% 24% 88% 6% 4% 3% Accessing/ receiving news 633 357 276 119 171 269 74 28 53 89 240 232 200 120 80 542 45 25 20 25% 30% 21% 33% 37% 30% 9% 10% 22% 26% 42% 35% 29% 22% 14% 26% 21% 21% 29% b f ef f g g ghi lmn mn n pq 56% 44% 19% 27% 42% 12% 4% 8% 14% 38% 37% 32% 19% 13% 86% 7% 4% 3% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 600 301 299 149 176 218 57 41 55 80 170 154 188 121 138 527 32 29 13 24% 25% 23% 41% 39% 24% 7% 15% 23% 23% 29% 23% 27% 22% 23% 25% 15% 24% 19% ef ef f g g g m pr p 50% 50% 25% 29% 36% 9% 7% 9% 13% 28% 26% 31% 20% 23% 88% 5% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 563 279 284 153 170 195 45 46 43 89 178 146 169 111 136 507 25 24 7 23% 23% 22% 42% 37% 22% 6% 17% 18% 26% 31% 22% 25% 20% 23% 24% 12% 20% 10% ef ef f gh gh pr pr 50% 50% 27% 30% 35% 8% 8% 8% 16% 32% 26% 30% 20% 24% 90% 4% 4% 1% Record video clips using the phone 539 239 300 137 167 203 33 31 46 81 178 148 153 117 120 464 28 32 16 22% 20% 23% 38% 37% 23% 4% 11% 19% 24% 31% 22% 22% 21% 20% 22% 13% 27% 24% a ef ef f g g ghi p p p 44% 56% 25% 31% 38% 6% 6% 9% 15% 33% 28% 28% 22% 22% 86% 5% 6% 3% Listen to music using MP3 function 434 234 200 137 121 149 27 42 23 69 153 121 135 94 83 371 36 19 8 17% 19% 15% 38% 26% 17% 3% 15% 9% 20% 26% 18% 20% 17% 14% 18% 17% 16% 11% b def ef f h h ghi n r r 54% 46% 32% 28% 34% 6% 10% 5% 16% 35% 28% 31% 22% 19% 86% 8% 4% 2% Send/ receive video clips 385 167 219 103 111 141 30 25 30 58 117 113 118 81 73 328 24 21 12 15% 14% 17% 29% 24% 16% 4% 9% 13% 17% 20% 17% 17% 15% 12% 16% 11% 17% 18% a ef ef f g gh n n p p 43% 57% 27% 29% 37% 8% 6% 8% 15% 30% 29% 31% 21% 19% 85% 6% 5% 3% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 375 278 97 78 98 154 44 15 25 54 149 121 132 75 47 322 29 14 10 15% 23% 8% 22% 21% 17% 6% 5% 10% 16% 26% 18% 19% 14% 8% 15% 14% 11% 15% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n 74% 26% 21% 26% 41% 12% 4% 7% 14% 40% 32% 35% 20% 12% 86% 8% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 374 152 222 78 126 137 33 21 38 48 115 103 117 69 85 338 18 14 4 15% 13% 17% 22% 28% 15% 4% 8% 16% 14% 20% 15% 17% 13% 14% 16% 8% 12% 6% a ef ef f g g gi m pr r 41% 59% 21% 34% 36% 9% 6% 10% 13% 31% 28% 31% 18% 23% 90% 5% 4% 1% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 339 153 186 79 97 130 34 26 23 53 119 104 105 73 57 299 14 19 7 14% 13% 14% 22% 21% 14% 4% 9% 9% 16% 21% 16% 15% 13% 10% 14% 7% 16% 10% ef ef f gh gh n n pr pr 45% 55% 23% 29% 38% 10% 8% 7% 16% 35% 31% 31% 21% 17% 88% 4% 6% 2% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 313 149 164 70 98 120 24 15 26 45 100 84 96 59 74 279 19 11 4 13% 12% 13% 19% 22% 13% 3% 5% 11% 13% 17% 13% 14% 11% 13% 13% 9% 9% 6% ef ef f g g gh pr 48% 52% 22% 31% 38% 8% 5% 8% 14% 32% 27% 31% 19% 24% 89% 6% 3% 1% Listen to FM radio 237 117 120 56 57 98 26 16 21 28 88 80 64 47 46 210 15 10 2 10% 10% 9% 16% 12% 11% 3% 6% 9% 8% 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 10% 7% 8% 3% ef f f ghi n r r r 49% 51% 24% 24% 41% 11% 7% 9% 12% 37% 34% 27% 20% 19% 88% 7% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 229 120 109 85 60 74 10 13 17 27 71 82 69 40 38 196 16 10 6 9% 10% 8% 23% 13% 8% 1% 5% 7% 8% 12% 12% 10% 7% 6% 9% 8% 8% 9% def ef f gh mn n 52% 48% 37% 26% 32% 5% 6% 7% 12% 31% 36% 30% 17% 16% 86% 7% 4% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 213 107 106 53 56 78 26 19 19 28 65 68 72 39 33 184 15 10 4 9% 9% 8% 15% 12% 9% 3% 7% 8% 8% 11% 10% 10% 7% 6% 9% 7% 9% 5% ef f f g n mn r 50% 50% 25% 26% 37% 12% 9% 9% 13% 30% 32% 34% 18% 15% 86% 7% 5% 2% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 200 101 99 56 60 68 16 14 15 28 70 59 56 38 45 180 9 8 3 8% 8% 8% 16% 13% 8% 2% 5% 6% 8% 12% 9% 8% 7% 8% 9% 4% 7% 4% ef ef f gh pr 50% 50% 28% 30% 34% 8% 7% 7% 14% 35% 30% 28% 19% 23% 90% 4% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 140 79 61 43 49 43 5 15 9 21 46 41 31 27 42 125 5 9 2 6% 7% 5% 12% 11% 5% 1% 5% 4% 6% 8% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 2% 8% 3% ef ef f h pr pr 56% 44% 31% 35% 31% 3% 10% 6% 15% 33% 29% 22% 19% 30% 89% 3% 7% 1% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 137 70 68 38 37 51 11 11 7 20 48 48 44 26 19 118 11 5 3 6% 6% 5% 11% 8% 6% 1% 4% 3% 6% 8% 7% 6% 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 5% ef f f gh n n 51% 49% 28% 27% 37% 8% 8% 5% 14% 35% 35% 32% 19% 14% 86% 8% 4% 2% Listen to Podcasts 136 86 50 37 35 55 9 5 11 25 47 45 46 28 17 125 5 4 2 5% 7% 4% 10% 8% 6% 1% 2% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% b ef f f g g n n p 64% 36% 28% 26% 40% 6% 4% 8% 18% 34% 33% 34% 21% 13% 92% 4% 3% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 104 64 40 27 33 38 7 9 5 13 39 30 27 23 23 97 2 4 1 4% 5% 3% 7% 7% 4% 1% 3% 2% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 1% 3% 2% b ef ef f gh pr 62% 38% 26% 31% 36% 7% 9% 5% 13% 38% 29% 26% 22% 22% 93% 2% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 102 52 50 30 39 28 5 11 11 12 28 22 29 25 26 89 5 4 4 4% 4% 4% 8% 9% 3% 1% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 6% ef ef f p 51% 49% 29% 39% 27% 5% 10% 11% 12% 27% 22% 29% 24% 25% 87% 5% 4% 4% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 79 45 34 11 22 41 5 2 9 15 30 29 23 14 13 71 2 5 * 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 5% 1% 1% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 4% % f f f g g g n pr pr 57% 43% 14% 27% 52% 7% 3% 11% 18% 38% 37% 29% 18% 16% 90% 3% 7% % Other 32 19 14 2 2 14 14 2 1 5 3 9 10 9 4 26 5 1 - 1% 2% 1% % % 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% d r r 58% 42% 5% 5% 45% 45% 5% 4% 16% 9% 26% 31% 29% 14% 81% 15% 5% -% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1663 792 870 324 412 664 263 134 136 251 470 480 471 353 357 1403 135 76 49 67% 66% 67% 90% 90% 74% 34% 48% 57% 74% 81% 72% 69% 64% 61% 67% 64% 63% 72% ef ef f g gh ghi mn n opq 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% WATCHING AV CONTENT 661 331 329 174 202 235 49 58 51 98 211 176 199 129 157 587 31 32 11 26% 28% 26% 48% 44% 26% 6% 21% 21% 29% 36% 26% 29% 23% 27% 28% 14% 27% 16% ef ef f gh ghi m pr pr 50% 50% 26% 31% 36% 7% 9% 8% 15% 32% 27% 30% 20% 24% 89% 5% 5% 2% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 596 319 277 171 158 215 52 50 41 87 207 178 180 121 116 521 43 23 9 24% 26% 21% 47% 35% 24% 7% 18% 17% 26% 36% 27% 26% 22% 20% 25% 21% 19% 13% b def ef f gh ghi n n qr r r 53% 47% 29% 26% 36% 9% 8% 7% 15% 35% 30% 30% 20% 19% 87% 7% 4% 1% None of these 264 150 114 5 5 31 223 52 34 25 18 63 61 62 78 223 21 15 6 11% 12% 9% 1% 1% 3% 29% 19% 14% 7% 3% 9% 9% 11% 13% 11% 10% 12% 9% b cd cde ij ij j kl 57% 43% 2% 2% 12% 84% 20% 13% 10% 7% 24% 23% 24% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2034 281 272 158 136 183 183 180 86 236 1785 248 1332 694 1076 958 82% 88% 81% 75% 79% 82% 78% 85% 83% 83% 83% 73% 88% 72% 80% 83% bcdf c c c k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 88% 12% 66% 34% 53% 47% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1308 225 165 102 76 113 110 128 49 139 1155 154 946 360 670 638 52% 71% 49% 48% 44% 51% 47% 60% 47% 49% 54% 45% 62% 37% 50% 55% bcdefghi bcdefhi k m n 17% 13% 8% 6% 9% 8% 10% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 27% 51% 49% Take photos 1187 215 142 95 72 98 128 109 44 101 1032 155 851 331 592 595 48% 68% 42% 45% 42% 44% 54% 51% 42% 35% 48% 46% 56% 34% 44% 52% bcdefghi i bdehi bi m n 18% 12% 8% 6% 8% 11% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 72% 28% 50% 50% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1145 223 157 95 63 92 121 99 38 110 1009 136 861 281 604 540 46% 70% 46% 45% 37% 41% 52% 47% 36% 38% 47% 40% 57% 29% 45% 47% bcdefghi dh dehi dh k m 19% 14% 8% 6% 8% 11% 9% 3% 10% 88% 12% 75% 25% 53% 47% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1072 163 137 86 72 82 105 94 46 118 957 115 772 296 527 545 43% 51% 41% 41% 42% 37% 45% 45% 45% 41% 44% 34% 51% 31% 39% 47% bcei k m n 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 72% 28% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 935 175 105 74 63 81 91 81 34 88 821 114 684 247 448 487 37% 55% 31% 35% 37% 36% 39% 38% 33% 31% 38% 33% 45% 26% 33% 42% bcdefghi m n 19% 11% 8% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 9% 88% 12% 73% 26% 48% 52% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 788 171 71 68 54 56 79 65 28 69 703 84 575 210 392 396 32% 54% 21% 32% 31% 25% 33% 31% 27% 24% 33% 25% 38% 22% 29% 34% bcdefghi b b bi b k m n 22% 9% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 9% 89% 11% 73% 27% 50% 50% Play games 647 121 59 57 51 72 61 54 27 65 586 62 443 202 309 338 26% 38% 18% 27% 30% 32% 26% 26% 26% 23% 27% 18% 29% 21% 23% 29% bcfghi b b bi b b b k m n 19% 9% 9% 8% 11% 9% 8% 4% 10% 90% 10% 69% 31% 48% 52% Accessing/ receiving news 633 110 79 54 41 36 74 62 23 64 551 82 475 156 341 291 25% 34% 23% 26% 24% 16% 31% 29% 22% 22% 26% 24% 31% 16% 25% 25% bdehi e e ehi e m 17% 12% 9% 6% 6% 12% 10% 4% 10% 87% 13% 75% 25% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 600 143 54 48 42 52 69 57 15 47 537 63 428 172 268 332 24% 45% 16% 23% 24% 23% 30% 27% 14% 17% 25% 19% 28% 18% 20% 29% bcdefghi h bhi h bhi bhi k m n 24% 9% 8% 7% 9% 12% 10% 2% 8% 90% 10% 71% 29% 45% 55% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 563 125 60 46 38 30 66 61 19 62 497 66 397 164 257 306 23% 39% 18% 22% 22% 13% 28% 29% 18% 22% 23% 19% 26% 17% 19% 27% bcdefghi e e beh beh e m n 22% 11% 8% 7% 5% 12% 11% 3% 11% 88% 12% 70% 29% 46% 54% Record video clips using the phone 539 160 39 40 35 20 72 40 17 41 481 58 409 129 237 302 22% 50% 12% 19% 20% 9% 30% 19% 16% 14% 22% 17% 27% 13% 18% 26% bcdefghi be be bcdeghi be e k m n 30% 7% 7% 6% 4% 13% 7% 3% 8% 89% 11% 76% 24% 44% 56% Listen to music using MP3 function 434 70 49 35 37 23 62 42 10 41 386 48 307 125 206 228 17% 22% 15% 17% 22% 11% 26% 20% 10% 15% 18% 14% 20% 13% 15% 20% ehi h eh bcehi eh m n 16% 11% 8% 8% 5% 14% 10% 2% 10% 89% 11% 71% 29% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive video clips 385 101 22 25 27 18 49 29 12 45 351 34 284 101 186 200 15% 32% 7% 12% 16% 8% 21% 14% 11% 16% 16% 10% 19% 10% 14% 17% bcdefghi be bcegh b be k m n 26% 6% 7% 7% 5% 13% 7% 3% 12% 91% 9% 74% 26% 48% 52% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 375 89 40 28 19 21 39 37 12 37 328 47 287 87 195 180 15% 28% 12% 13% 11% 9% 17% 18% 12% 13% 15% 14% 19% 9% 15% 16% bcdefghi e e m 24% 11% 8% 5% 6% 10% 10% 3% 10% 87% 13% 77% 23% 52% 48% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 374 134 38 27 22 27 37 23 9 21 340 35 289 84 143 231 15% 42% 11% 13% 13% 12% 16% 11% 9% 8% 16% 10% 19% 9% 11% 20% bcdefghi hi k m n 36% 10% 7% 6% 7% 10% 6% 2% 6% 91% 9% 77% 22% 38% 62% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 339 34 40 38 32 24 49 47 11 25 288 51 242 94 189 150 14% 11% 12% 18% 19% 11% 21% 22% 11% 9% 13% 15% 16% 10% 14% 13% aehi abehi abehi abehi m 10% 12% 11% 10% 7% 14% 14% 3% 7% 85% 15% 71% 28% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 313 138 22 18 15 14 33 13 5 21 285 28 238 74 117 196 13% 43% 7% 8% 9% 6% 14% 6% 5% 7% 13% 8% 16% 8% 9% 17% bcdefghi beghi k m n 44% 7% 6% 5% 5% 11% 4% 2% 7% 91% 9% 76% 24% 37% 63% Listen to FM radio 237 45 38 13 19 16 28 20 8 25 216 21 173 64 131 106 10% 14% 11% 6% 11% 7% 12% 9% 8% 9% 10% 6% 11% 7% 10% 9% ceh c c k m 19% 16% 5% 8% 7% 12% 8% 3% 11% 91% 9% 73% 27% 55% 45% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 229 37 30 17 16 13 29 17 5 31 207 22 166 62 114 115 9% 12% 9% 8% 9% 6% 12% 8% 5% 11% 10% 6% 11% 6% 8% 10% eh eh h k m 16% 13% 7% 7% 6% 13% 8% 2% 14% 90% 10% 73% 27% 50% 50% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 213 23 24 27 14 13 35 19 7 21 177 36 155 58 115 98 9% 7% 7% 13% 8% 6% 15% 9% 7% 7% 8% 10% 10% 6% 9% 8% beh abdehi m 11% 11% 13% 6% 6% 17% 9% 3% 10% 83% 17% 73% 27% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 200 36 21 22 18 8 21 27 6 21 179 21 140 59 111 89 8% 11% 6% 10% 11% 4% 9% 13% 5% 7% 8% 6% 9% 6% 8% 8% eh e eh e beh m 18% 10% 11% 9% 4% 10% 14% 3% 11% 89% 11% 70% 29% 56% 44% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 140 35 13 17 9 6 20 7 3 15 125 15 112 28 59 81 6% 11% 4% 8% 5% 3% 8% 3% 2% 5% 6% 4% 7% 3% 4% 7% bdeghi egh egh m n 25% 9% 12% 6% 4% 14% 5% 2% 11% 89% 11% 80% 20% 42% 58% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 137 26 20 10 13 12 15 10 3 8 120 18 106 30 67 70 6% 8% 6% 5% 8% 6% 7% 5% 3% 3% 6% 5% 7% 3% 5% 6% hi hi m 19% 15% 7% 10% 9% 11% 7% 2% 6% 87% 13% 77% 22% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to Podcasts 136 33 17 10 5 5 30 10 4 11 118 18 96 40 71 65 5% 10% 5% 5% 3% 2% 13% 5% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 6% bcdeghi bcdeghi m 24% 12% 7% 4% 4% 22% 8% 3% 8% 87% 13% 71% 29% 52% 48% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 104 23 16 13 9 7 10 12 2 6 95 9 78 26 50 54 4% 7% 5% 6% 5% 3% 4% 6% 2% 2% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% hi hi m 22% 16% 12% 8% 7% 9% 12% 2% 6% 91% 9% 75% 25% 48% 52% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 102 9 20 7 9 9 12 12 3 7 90 12 70 32 54 47 4% 3% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 9% 19% 7% 9% 9% 12% 12% 3% 7% 88% 12% 69% 31% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 79 6 9 8 9 3 13 12 3 8 69 10 58 21 50 29 3% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% e e ae m 8% 12% 10% 12% 4% 16% 16% 4% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 64% 36% Other 32 1 7 1 9 2 4 - - 1 24 8 19 14 18 14 1% % 2% 1% 5% 1% 2% -% -% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% gh aceghi gh 4% 21% 5% 28% 6% 14% -% -% 2% 75% 25% 58% 42% 57% 43% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1663 261 217 134 102 145 152 146 63 182 1463 200 1198 461 876 787 67% 82% 64% 64% 60% 65% 65% 69% 61% 64% 68% 59% 79% 48% 65% 68% bcdefghi k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 28% 53% 47% WATCHING AV CONTENT 661 148 77 56 45 38 70 65 21 67 586 75 473 185 308 353 26% 47% 23% 26% 27% 17% 30% 31% 20% 24% 27% 22% 31% 19% 23% 31% bcdefghi e e eh eh k m n 22% 12% 8% 7% 6% 11% 10% 3% 10% 89% 11% 72% 28% 47% 53% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 596 105 74 46 50 38 78 53 18 58 530 66 426 168 294 302 24% 33% 22% 22% 29% 17% 33% 25% 17% 20% 25% 19% 28% 17% 22% 26% bcehi ehi bcehi eh k m n 18% 12% 8% 8% 6% 13% 9% 3% 10% 89% 11% 71% 28% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% None of these 264 12 49 27 23 17 32 23 10 31 214 50 51 212 151 113 11% 4% 14% 13% 14% 8% 13% 11% 10% 11% 10% 15% 3% 22% 11% 10% ae a ae ae a a a j l 5% 18% 10% 9% 6% 12% 9% 4% 12% 81% 19% 19% 80% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband network at home 1375 656 719 265 325 562 222 103 103 191 421 410 391 307 266 1142 119 68 46 78% 79% 78% 81% 78% 80% 73% 70% 71% 73% 87% 81% 79% 82% 71% 77% 81% 85% 90% f f ghi n n n o op 48% 52% 19% 24% 41% 16% 8% 7% 14% 31% 30% 28% 22% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Via mobile network (2G, 3G or 4G) 1281 619 662 249 331 508 193 96 107 189 398 383 370 254 273 1094 105 56 27 73% 74% 72% 76% 79% 72% 63% 66% 74% 73% 82% 76% 75% 68% 73% 74% 71% 70% 53% f ef f gi m m r r r 48% 52% 19% 26% 40% 15% 8% 8% 15% 31% 30% 29% 20% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband elsewhere (i.e. 'hotspots') 655 324 331 124 173 252 106 42 55 90 247 204 189 146 115 544 61 38 13 37% 39% 36% 38% 41% 36% 35% 29% 38% 35% 51% 40% 38% 39% 31% 37% 41% 47% 26% ghi n n n r r or 50% 50% 19% 26% 38% 16% 6% 8% 14% 38% 31% 29% 22% 17% 83% 9% 6% 2% MOBILE NETWORK AND NOT WI- FI 305 145 160 50 78 119 58 35 31 58 57 78 88 48 92 271 21 9 4 17% 17% 17% 15% 19% 17% 19% 24% 22% 22% 12% 15% 18% 13% 24% 18% 14% 12% 8% j j j klm qr r 48% 52% 16% 26% 39% 19% 12% 10% 19% 19% 26% 29% 16% 30% 89% 7% 3% 1% WI-FI AND NOT MOBILE NETWORK 449 202 246 72 87 186 104 49 36 68 86 115 120 112 100 359 43 24 24 26% 24% 27% 22% 21% 26% 34% 34% 25% 26% 18% 23% 24% 30% 27% 24% 29% 30% 46% d cde j j k opq 45% 55% 16% 19% 42% 23% 11% 8% 15% 19% 26% 27% 25% 22% 80% 9% 5% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% ANY WI-FI USE 1425 677 748 270 340 575 239 110 111 198 427 420 403 318 282 1182 126 70 47 81% 81% 81% 83% 81% 82% 78% 75% 77% 76% 88% 83% 81% 85% 75% 80% 86% 88% 92% ghi n n n o op 47% 53% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 14% 30% 29% 28% 22% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 23 12 11 5 9 8 1 1 4 1 9 6 7 1 21 * 1 * 1% 1% 1% 2% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 2% % 1% % 1% 1% d d d n n 53% 47% 24% 1% 41% 33% 6% 6% 16% 6% 41% 25% 30% 4% 94% 2% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband network at home 1375 187 189 132 79 128 131 126 56 114 1192 183 989 383 734 640 78% 70% 83% 92% 72% 81% 83% 83% 83% 60% 78% 83% 79% 76% 79% 78% adi abdefghi i ai adi adi adi j 14% 14% 10% 6% 9% 10% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 72% 28% 53% 47% Via mobile network (2G, 3G or 4G) 1281 250 154 97 71 96 111 131 43 140 1141 140 943 337 674 608 73% 93% 67% 68% 65% 60% 70% 87% 65% 74% 74% 64% 76% 67% 72% 74% bcdefhi bcdefhi e k m 19% 12% 8% 6% 7% 9% 10% 3% 11% 89% 11% 74% 26% 53% 47% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband elsewhere (i.e. 'hotspots') 655 62 82 81 34 71 74 56 29 54 577 78 493 160 361 294 37% 23% 36% 57% 31% 45% 47% 37% 44% 29% 38% 36% 40% 32% 39% 36% a abdeghi adi adi a adi m 9% 13% 12% 5% 11% 11% 9% 4% 8% 88% 12% 75% 24% 55% 45% MOBILE NETWORK AND NOT WI-FI 305 79 25 6 22 23 12 25 9 70 282 24 216 89 160 145 17% 29% 11% 4% 20% 15% 7% 17% 14% 37% 18% 11% 17% 18% 17% 18% bcefgh c bcf c cf c bcdefgh k 26% 8% 2% 7% 8% 4% 8% 3% 23% 92% 8% 71% 29% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% WI-FI AND NOT MOBILE NETWORK 449 18 66 44 33 62 47 20 23 47 374 75 290 156 242 207 26% 7% 29% 31% 30% 39% 29% 13% 35% 25% 24% 34% 23% 31% 26% 25% ag ag ag agi ag ag ag j l 4% 15% 10% 7% 14% 10% 4% 5% 10% 83% 17% 65% 35% 54% 46% ANY WI-FI USE 1425 189 195 135 82 134 146 126 57 117 1234 191 1016 404 755 669 81% 71% 85% 95% 75% 85% 92% 83% 85% 62% 80% 87% 82% 80% 81% 81% adi abdeghi i adi adgi ai adi j 13% 14% 10% 6% 9% 10% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% Don't know 23 - 10 1 6 1 1 - * 3 18 5 13 9 15 7 1% -% 4% 1% 5% 1% % -% % 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% aefgh acefgh -% 43% 6% 24% 4% 3% -% 1% 12% 79% 21% 59% 41% 67% 33% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% I always use in the home 142 65 77 20 20 58 46 23 17 12 27 27 38 36 41 117 11 10 5 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 8% 15% 16% 12% 4% 6% 5% 8% 10% 11% 8% 7% 12% 10% d cde ij ij k k 46% 54% 14% 14% 40% 32% 16% 12% 8% 19% 19% 27% 26% 29% 82% 8% 7% 3% I mainly use in the home 355 135 221 54 90 136 75 49 31 56 84 92 94 84 84 314 18 16 8 20% 16% 24% 17% 22% 19% 25% 33% 21% 21% 17% 18% 19% 22% 22% 21% 12% 20% 16% a c hij p 38% 62% 15% 25% 38% 21% 14% 9% 16% 24% 26% 27% 24% 24% 88% 5% 4% 2% I use equally in the home and outside the home 1058 514 544 229 285 427 118 68 79 155 317 312 313 208 226 876 99 47 36 60% 62% 59% 70% 68% 61% 39% 46% 55% 60% 65% 62% 63% 56% 60% 59% 67% 58% 71% ef ef f g gh m o oq 49% 51% 22% 27% 40% 11% 6% 7% 15% 30% 29% 30% 20% 21% 83% 9% 4% 3% I mainly use outside the home 157 94 63 18 21 71 47 3 16 33 48 58 44 35 20 131 18 6 1 9% 11% 7% 5% 5% 10% 15% 2% 11% 13% 10% 11% 9% 9% 5% 9% 12% 7% 3% b cd cde g g g n n n r r r 60% 40% 11% 14% 45% 30% 2% 10% 21% 31% 37% 28% 22% 13% 84% 12% 4% 1% I always use outside the home 25 17 7 2 3 4 15 4 * 2 6 14 4 3 4 21 2 2 - 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 3% % 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% b cde lm r 71% 29% 8% 12% 18% 63% 15% 2% 9% 24% 55% 16% 11% 17% 87% 6% 7% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 498 200 298 74 110 193 120 72 48 67 112 119 133 120 125 431 28 25 13 28% 24% 32% 23% 26% 27% 40% 49% 33% 26% 23% 23% 27% 32% 33% 29% 19% 32% 26% a cde hij j k kl p p 40% 60% 15% 22% 39% 24% 15% 10% 14% 22% 24% 27% 24% 25% 87% 6% 5% 3% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 181 111 70 19 24 75 62 7 17 35 54 71 49 38 24 153 20 7 1 10% 13% 8% 6% 6% 11% 20% 5% 12% 13% 11% 14% 10% 10% 6% 10% 13% 9% 3% b cd cde g g g ln r r r 61% 39% 11% 13% 42% 34% 4% 9% 19% 30% 39% 27% 21% 13% 84% 11% 4% 1% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 91% 91% 91% 93% 95% 91% 84% 84% 88% 94% 94% 94% 92% 88% 89% 91% 93% 87% 90% f ef f gh gh mn 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% Don't know 15 9 6 3 - 8 4 - 3 3 5 3 7 - 15 - 1 * 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% 1% -% 1% % d d n 59% 41% 22% -% 52% 27% -% 2% 18% 20% 35% 17% 48% -% 96% -% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD18 (QD28C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% I always use in the home 142 7 18 12 12 18 18 11 7 14 111 31 74 67 80 62 8% 2% 8% 9% 11% 11% 11% 7% 11% 7% 7% 14% 6% 13% 9% 8% a a a a a a a a j l 5% 13% 9% 9% 13% 12% 8% 5% 10% 78% 22% 52% 47% 56% 44% I mainly use in the home 355 16 60 46 23 42 35 46 18 28 292 63 217 136 189 166 20% 6% 26% 32% 21% 26% 22% 31% 27% 15% 19% 29% 17% 27% 20% 20% ai adi a ai a ai ai a j l 5% 17% 13% 6% 12% 10% 13% 5% 8% 82% 18% 61% 38% 53% 47% I use equally in the home and outside the home 1058 232 112 73 61 83 92 69 35 118 962 97 811 246 529 529 60% 87% 49% 51% 56% 53% 58% 46% 52% 62% 63% 44% 65% 49% 57% 64% bcdefghi g bg k m n 22% 11% 7% 6% 8% 9% 7% 3% 11% 91% 9% 77% 23% 50% 50% I mainly use outside the home 157 10 24 10 10 11 11 21 6 28 136 21 116 41 101 56 9% 4% 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 14% 8% 15% 9% 9% 9% 8% 11% 7% a a acf acef o 6% 16% 6% 6% 7% 7% 14% 4% 18% 87% 13% 74% 26% 64% 36% I always use outside the home 25 - 7 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 20 4 17 7 19 6 1% -% 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% a a o -% 28% 4% 3% 17% 11% 13% 5% 5% 83% 17% 71% 29% 78% 22% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 498 23 78 58 35 59 53 57 25 41 403 95 291 204 269 228 28% 9% 34% 40% 32% 38% 33% 38% 38% 22% 26% 43% 23% 41% 29% 28% ai ai a ai ai ai ai a j l 5% 16% 12% 7% 12% 11% 12% 5% 8% 81% 19% 59% 41% 54% 46% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 181 10 31 11 11 15 14 24 7 30 156 25 134 48 120 61 10% 4% 14% 7% 10% 10% 9% 16% 10% 16% 10% 11% 11% 10% 13% 7% a a a ac a ac o 5% 17% 6% 6% 9% 7% 13% 4% 16% 86% 14% 74% 26% 66% 34% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 91% 97% 89% 90% 86% 89% 89% 93% 89% 92% 92% 84% 93% 86% 90% 92% bcdefh k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% Don't know 15 2 7 1 3 - - - - 1 12 3 10 5 12 3 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% -% -% -% -% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % efgh o 15% 49% 9% 18% -% -% -% -% 5% 80% 20% 65% 35% 81% 19% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2045 957 1088 430 490 784 341 210 175 288 469 512 672 407 451 1264 259 226 296 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 663 747 282 333 553 244 145 122 214 354 373 463 285 300 1093 165 142 238 Total 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) 1199 580 618 250 308 471 170 78 92 190 365 364 352 237 245 1012 108 44 35 75% 76% 74% 82% 77% 74% 67% 63% 73% 77% 80% 77% 77% 72% 74% 75% 79% 63% 77% ef f f g g q q q 48% 52% 21% 26% 39% 14% 7% 8% 16% 30% 30% 29% 20% 20% 84% 9% 4% 3% Outdoors 1094 542 552 216 276 443 158 78 88 172 339 329 304 227 234 912 109 41 32 69% 71% 66% 71% 69% 69% 62% 63% 70% 70% 74% 69% 67% 69% 70% 68% 80% 58% 69% b f f g q oqr q 50% 50% 20% 25% 41% 14% 7% 8% 16% 31% 30% 28% 21% 21% 83% 10% 4% 3% Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/ restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) 1073 518 555 226 263 436 149 85 79 162 322 340 305 216 212 898 105 41 30 67% 68% 67% 75% 66% 68% 58% 69% 62% 66% 71% 71% 67% 66% 64% 67% 77% 58% 65% df f n q oqr 48% 52% 21% 24% 41% 14% 8% 7% 15% 30% 32% 28% 20% 20% 84% 10% 4% 3% In other people's homes (e.g. friends/ family) 849 393 456 193 230 316 110 75 69 131 255 256 253 177 162 685 96 38 31 53% 52% 55% 64% 58% 50% 43% 61% 54% 53% 56% 54% 56% 54% 49% 51% 70% 55% 67% ef ef oq oq 46% 54% 23% 27% 37% 13% 9% 8% 15% 30% 30% 30% 21% 19% 81% 11% 4% 4% At your workplace 813 436 377 144 223 369 76 23 57 136 301 257 240 196 120 670 88 32 24 51% 57% 45% 48% 56% 58% 30% 19% 45% 56% 66% 54% 53% 60% 36% 50% 64% 45% 53% b f cf cf g g ghi n n n oqr 54% 46% 18% 27% 45% 9% 3% 7% 17% 37% 32% 30% 24% 15% 82% 11% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2045 957 1088 430 490 784 341 210 175 288 469 512 672 407 451 1264 259 226 296 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 663 747 282 333 553 244 145 122 214 354 373 463 285 300 1093 165 142 238 Total 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% Other 33 18 15 16 2 11 4 3 1 2 10 9 11 8 5 26 5 1 1 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% def 54% 46% 49% 7% 33% 11% 9% 3% 7% 30% 27% 34% 24% 15% 80% 14% 4% 2% Don't know 17 7 9 2 6 6 3 2 1 3 1 8 3 1 4 15 * 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% % 2% 1% % 1% 1% % 1% 2% 44% 56% 9% 36% 36% 19% 12% 9% 20% 6% 50% 18% 7% 25% 88% 3% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2045 189 136 135 121 141 133 146 123 140 1535 510 1361 681 962 1083 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 169 129 130 113 131 126 137 115 128 1202 227 960 467 672 754 Total 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) 1199 233 142 101 70 82 93 112 47 133 1079 119 895 302 595 603 75% 90% 70% 78% 73% 59% 66% 80% 79% 76% 77% 65% 77% 70% 71% 80% bcdefghi ef e ef ef e k m n 19% 12% 8% 6% 7% 8% 9% 4% 11% 90% 10% 75% 25% 50% 50% Outdoors 1094 211 125 94 56 71 74 114 39 128 987 107 820 271 543 552 69% 82% 62% 73% 59% 50% 53% 81% 66% 73% 70% 58% 71% 63% 65% 73% bdefh def bdefh ef def k m n 19% 11% 9% 5% 6% 7% 10% 4% 12% 90% 10% 75% 25% 50% 50% Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/ restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) 1073 191 128 104 56 79 86 114 40 100 963 110 793 279 540 533 67% 74% 63% 80% 59% 57% 61% 81% 67% 57% 68% 60% 68% 65% 64% 70% bdefi bdefhi bdefhi k n 18% 12% 10% 5% 7% 8% 11% 4% 9% 90% 10% 74% 26% 50% 50% In other people's homes (e.g. friends/ family) 849 109 107 84 46 82 73 57 39 90 747 103 622 224 451 399 53% 42% 52% 65% 48% 58% 52% 40% 65% 51% 53% 56% 54% 52% 54% 53% abdfgi ag adfgi 13% 13% 10% 5% 10% 9% 7% 5% 11% 88% 12% 73% 26% 53% 47% At your workplace 813 169 83 59 46 65 78 56 30 83 726 86 750 62 397 416 51% 65% 41% 46% 49% 47% 55% 40% 51% 47% 52% 47% 65% 15% 47% 55% bcdeghi bg m n 21% 10% 7% 6% 8% 10% 7% 4% 10% 89% 11% 92% 8% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2045 189 136 135 121 141 133 146 123 140 1535 510 1361 681 962 1083 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 169 129 130 113 131 126 137 115 128 1202 227 960 467 672 754 Total 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% Other 33 - 1 5 4 1 4 4 1 5 28 5 15 18 15 18 2% -% 1% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% a a a a a a l -% 4% 17% 12% 3% 12% 12% 4% 16% 86% 14% 46% 54% 45% 55% Don't know 17 2 - - 4 - 6 - 1 2 10 7 9 8 14 3 1% 1% -% -% 4% -% 4% -% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 2% % bceg bceg j o 15% -% -% 25% -% 36% -% 3% 10% 58% 42% 54% 46% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 1207 548 659 272 329 484 122 99 105 185 346 334 346 257 269 1009 106 55 37 64% 61% 66% 83% 77% 64% 32% 59% 67% 66% 67% 62% 65% 62% 66% 63% 64% 64% 71% a ef ef f o 45% 55% 23% 27% 40% 10% 8% 9% 15% 29% 28% 29% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Weather 1163 583 580 203 281 480 199 76 87 174 383 361 349 267 186 976 98 54 35 61% 65% 58% 62% 66% 64% 52% 45% 55% 62% 74% 67% 65% 65% 46% 61% 60% 63% 66% b f f f g ghi n n n 50% 50% 17% 24% 41% 17% 6% 7% 15% 33% 31% 30% 23% 16% 84% 8% 5% 3% Maps/ navigation 1105 553 551 204 270 468 163 71 86 172 367 363 343 230 167 949 91 44 21 58% 61% 56% 62% 63% 62% 42% 43% 55% 61% 71% 67% 64% 56% 41% 60% 56% 51% 40% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n qr r r 50% 50% 19% 24% 42% 15% 6% 8% 16% 33% 33% 31% 21% 15% 86% 8% 4% 2% News 962 511 451 178 241 398 146 55 77 128 338 323 284 199 156 791 87 47 37 51% 57% 45% 54% 56% 53% 38% 33% 49% 46% 65% 60% 53% 48% 38% 50% 53% 55% 70% b f f f g g ghi lmn n n opq 53% 47% 18% 25% 41% 15% 6% 8% 13% 35% 34% 30% 21% 16% 82% 9% 5% 4% Games 909 440 469 240 254 333 81 84 82 117 267 237 260 206 204 772 70 38 29 48% 49% 47% 73% 60% 44% 21% 51% 52% 42% 52% 44% 49% 50% 50% 48% 43% 44% 54% def ef f i i pq 48% 52% 26% 28% 37% 9% 9% 9% 13% 29% 26% 29% 23% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Banking 870 419 451 184 250 345 90 59 75 141 276 261 262 207 140 722 81 39 28 46% 46% 45% 56% 59% 46% 24% 35% 48% 50% 54% 48% 49% 50% 34% 45% 49% 45% 54% ef ef f g g g n n n o 48% 52% 21% 29% 40% 10% 7% 9% 16% 32% 30% 30% 24% 16% 83% 9% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Music 810 402 408 216 221 300 73 68 72 115 247 233 239 183 154 689 68 33 19 43% 44% 41% 66% 52% 40% 19% 41% 46% 41% 48% 43% 45% 44% 38% 43% 42% 39% 37% def ef f n r 50% 50% 27% 27% 37% 9% 8% 9% 14% 30% 29% 30% 23% 19% 85% 8% 4% 2% Travel/ journey planning 761 385 376 142 190 319 109 42 56 103 260 260 243 153 104 645 62 34 20 40% 43% 38% 43% 45% 42% 28% 25% 36% 37% 50% 48% 46% 37% 26% 41% 38% 39% 38% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n 51% 49% 19% 25% 42% 14% 5% 7% 14% 34% 34% 32% 20% 14% 85% 8% 4% 3% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 685 292 393 146 205 270 64 53 61 102 213 214 201 142 127 564 66 34 21 36% 32% 40% 44% 48% 36% 17% 32% 39% 36% 41% 40% 38% 34% 31% 35% 40% 40% 40% a ef ef f g n n 43% 57% 21% 30% 39% 9% 8% 9% 15% 31% 31% 29% 21% 19% 82% 10% 5% 3% Sports/ sports news 561 417 145 119 140 225 78 25 43 84 183 169 177 130 85 458 59 24 21 30% 46% 15% 36% 33% 30% 20% 15% 28% 30% 35% 31% 33% 32% 21% 29% 36% 28% 39% b ef f f g g g n n n o oq 74% 26% 21% 25% 40% 14% 5% 8% 15% 33% 30% 31% 23% 15% 82% 11% 4% 4% Books 292 127 165 71 64 118 40 21 30 35 85 93 86 64 49 251 16 15 10 15% 14% 17% 21% 15% 16% 10% 12% 19% 12% 17% 17% 16% 15% 12% 16% 10% 17% 20% def f f n p p p 43% 57% 24% 22% 40% 14% 7% 10% 12% 29% 32% 29% 22% 17% 86% 6% 5% 4% Finance/ business 230 136 94 45 69 89 27 14 14 18 96 92 62 55 21 203 11 8 8 12% 15% 9% 14% 16% 12% 7% 8% 9% 6% 19% 17% 12% 13% 5% 13% 7% 10% 15% b f ef f ghi ln n n p p 59% 41% 20% 30% 39% 12% 6% 6% 8% 41% 40% 27% 24% 9% 88% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Vouchers 203 83 120 42 54 87 21 8 21 32 77 70 60 43 30 174 11 16 2 11% 9% 12% 13% 13% 11% 5% 5% 13% 11% 15% 13% 11% 10% 7% 11% 7% 19% 4% f f f g g g n r opr 41% 59% 21% 26% 43% 10% 4% 10% 16% 38% 34% 29% 21% 15% 86% 5% 8% 1% NONE OF THESE 201 98 103 17 19 63 103 30 17 29 37 50 49 51 51 164 20 12 5 11% 11% 10% 5% 4% 8% 27% 18% 11% 10% 7% 9% 9% 12% 13% 10% 12% 14% 9% d cde ij 49% 51% 8% 9% 31% 51% 15% 8% 14% 18% 25% 24% 25% 25% 82% 10% 6% 2% Don't know 5 2 3 - - 1 4 1 - 1 2 2 * 1 1 4 * - 1 % % % -% -% % 1% 1% -% % % % % % % % % -% 1% de 33% 67% -% -% 11% 89% 23% -% 25% 41% 41% 7% 25% 27% 85% 4% -% 12% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 1207 202 135 92 82 101 110 97 49 140 1060 147 888 314 593 613 64% 73% 55% 59% 65% 60% 62% 59% 67% 67% 64% 60% 68% 55% 59% 69% bcefg b b m n 17% 11% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 74% 26% 49% 51% Weather 1163 171 141 118 77 96 109 103 39 122 1004 159 853 307 630 532 61% 62% 58% 76% 61% 57% 61% 62% 53% 58% 61% 65% 65% 53% 63% 60% abdefghi m 15% 12% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 3% 11% 86% 14% 73% 26% 54% 46% Maps/ navigation 1105 180 138 109 74 81 109 96 39 123 970 135 841 260 603 502 58% 65% 57% 70% 59% 48% 61% 58% 52% 59% 59% 55% 64% 45% 60% 56% eh begh e m 16% 12% 10% 7% 7% 10% 9% 3% 11% 88% 12% 76% 24% 55% 45% News 962 163 130 82 55 78 83 69 32 98 850 112 730 229 516 446 51% 59% 54% 53% 44% 46% 47% 42% 44% 47% 52% 46% 56% 40% 51% 50% defghi g m 17% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 7% 3% 10% 88% 12% 76% 24% 54% 46% Games 909 125 111 82 70 95 73 80 36 100 803 106 642 264 464 444 48% 45% 46% 52% 56% 57% 41% 49% 49% 48% 49% 43% 49% 46% 46% 50% f af 14% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 71% 29% 51% 49% Banking 870 115 112 79 56 76 82 69 31 101 761 108 660 207 455 414 46% 42% 46% 50% 45% 45% 46% 42% 42% 48% 46% 44% 50% 36% 45% 46% m 13% 13% 9% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 76% 24% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Music 810 118 97 84 63 64 83 76 25 79 706 103 597 210 407 402 43% 43% 40% 54% 50% 38% 47% 46% 33% 38% 43% 42% 45% 37% 41% 45% abehi ehi h h m 15% 12% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 3% 10% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% Travel/ journey planning 761 129 107 71 39 56 72 61 22 87 663 97 575 182 402 359 40% 47% 44% 46% 31% 33% 41% 37% 29% 42% 40% 40% 44% 32% 40% 40% deh deh deh h h m 17% 14% 9% 5% 7% 10% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 53% 47% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 685 82 75 61 51 65 68 61 30 70 594 91 521 163 374 311 36% 30% 31% 39% 40% 39% 38% 37% 41% 34% 36% 37% 40% 28% 37% 35% a a m 12% 11% 9% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 10% 87% 13% 76% 24% 55% 45% Sports/ sports news 561 98 56 39 45 50 46 47 22 54 495 67 432 128 291 270 30% 35% 23% 25% 36% 30% 26% 28% 30% 26% 30% 27% 33% 22% 29% 30% bc bc m 17% 10% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 77% 23% 52% 48% Books 292 50 32 32 16 33 35 24 10 19 256 37 214 77 140 152 15% 18% 13% 21% 13% 20% 19% 14% 14% 9% 15% 15% 16% 13% 14% 17% i i i i 17% 11% 11% 5% 11% 12% 8% 4% 6% 87% 13% 73% 26% 48% 52% Finance/ business 230 39 32 21 21 18 26 19 7 20 198 32 184 44 126 104 12% 14% 13% 13% 17% 11% 15% 11% 10% 10% 12% 13% 14% 8% 13% 12% m 17% 14% 9% 9% 8% 11% 8% 3% 9% 86% 14% 80% 19% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Vouchers 203 34 23 17 16 22 22 17 5 16 181 23 161 41 102 101 11% 12% 9% 11% 13% 13% 13% 11% 7% 8% 11% 9% 12% 7% 10% 11% m 17% 11% 9% 8% 11% 11% 9% 3% 8% 89% 11% 79% 20% 50% 50% NONE OF THESE 201 13 23 12 15 22 29 23 8 19 166 36 96 102 104 97 11% 5% 9% 8% 12% 13% 16% 14% 11% 9% 10% 15% 7% 18% 10% 11% a a ac a a j l 6% 11% 6% 8% 11% 14% 12% 4% 9% 82% 18% 48% 51% 52% 48% Don't know 5 - - 1 - * 2 - 1 - 5 * 1 4 5 * % -% -% 1% -% % 1% -% 1% -% % % % 1% % % -% -% 25% -% 8% 41% -% 11% -% 93% 7% 28% 72% 92% 8% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Games 181 104 77 53 56 61 11 12 21 31 49 49 58 39 35 156 16 5 3 10% 12% 8% 16% 13% 8% 3% 7% 13% 11% 9% 9% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 6% 6% b ef ef f g 58% 42% 29% 31% 34% 6% 6% 11% 17% 27% 27% 32% 22% 19% 86% 9% 3% 2% Music 168 101 67 50 50 60 8 4 10 21 66 51 57 41 19 139 20 4 5 9% 11% 7% 15% 12% 8% 2% 3% 6% 7% 13% 9% 11% 10% 5% 9% 12% 5% 9% b ef f f g ghi n n n q 60% 40% 30% 30% 36% 5% 2% 6% 12% 39% 31% 34% 24% 11% 83% 12% 3% 3% Books 60 32 28 14 13 23 9 1 7 9 18 26 12 13 8 56 2 1 1 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% g g ln r 53% 47% 24% 23% 38% 15% 2% 12% 16% 31% 44% 21% 22% 14% 94% 3% 2% 1% Maps/ navigation 48 26 22 6 9 24 9 3 4 5 15 21 11 12 4 40 6 2 1 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% n 54% 46% 12% 19% 51% 18% 6% 9% 10% 32% 43% 24% 25% 9% 83% 13% 3% 1% Weather 48 24 25 2 17 22 7 4 7 6 16 9 19 10 10 42 5 * 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% 3% 5% 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% % 1% c c r r 49% 51% 5% 35% 46% 14% 9% 15% 12% 32% 18% 41% 22% 20% 88% 10% 1% 1% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 47 18 29 9 10 24 4 4 4 12 6 10 15 10 11 40 5 1 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% % 2% f j q q 38% 62% 20% 21% 52% 8% 8% 9% 25% 13% 22% 32% 22% 24% 87% 11% % 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| News \| 42 \| 19 \| 23 \| 2 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| 4% \| \| cf \| c \| mn \| q \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 4% \| 39% \| 47% \| \| Vouchers \| 35 \| 15 \| 21 \| 5 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| 3% \| \| g \| g \| n \| r \| \| \| 41% \| 59% \| 14% \| 32% \| 39% \| \| Travel/ journey planning \| 30 \| 17 \| 13 \| 4 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| 1% \| 2% \| \| 56% \| 44% \| 13% \| 32% \| 44% \| \| Sports/ sports news \| 30 \| 25 \| 4 \| 7 \| \| 2% \| 3% \| % \| 2% \| 3% \| \| b \| f \| g \| g \| g \| \| 85% \| 15% \| 24% \| 37% \| 31% \| \| Banking \| 27 \| 13 \| 15 \| 3 \| \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| 2% \| \| f \| f \| g \| k \| r \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 12% \| 30% \| 53% \| \| Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, \| \| \| \| \| \| eBay) \| 26 \| 10 \| 15 \| 8 \| \| 1% \| 1% \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| \| ef \| f \| \| \| \| \| 40% \| 60% \| 31% \| 39% \| 25% \| \| Finance/ business \| 15 \| 12 \| 3 \| 3 \| \| 1% \| 1% \| % \| 1% \| % \| \| b \| i \| l \| \| \| \| 81% \| 19% \| 17% \| 13% \| 39% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% NONE OF THESE 1441 656 785 219 310 580 331 141 119 214 385 392 397 326 325 1202 122 75 41 76% 73% 79% 66% 73% 77% 86% 84% 76% 76% 75% 73% 75% 79% 80% 75% 75% 87% 78% a c cde hij k k opr 46% 54% 15% 22% 40% 23% 10% 8% 15% 27% 27% 28% 23% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 39 19 20 6 8 17 8 4 3 1 13 17 9 3 9 34 2 1 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% % 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% m 49% 51% 15% 20% 43% 22% 10% 9% 4% 34% 45% 23% 8% 23% 87% 6% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Games 181 34 19 11 12 22 12 12 6 28 164 17 131 50 85 96 10% 12% 8% 7% 10% 13% 7% 8% 7% 13% 10% 7% 10% 9% 8% 11% 19% 10% 6% 7% 12% 7% 7% 3% 15% 91% 9% 73% 27% 47% 53% Music 168 43 16 10 13 11 17 9 2 18 151 17 143 23 69 98 9% 16% 7% 6% 10% 7% 10% 5% 3% 9% 9% 7% 11% 4% 7% 11% bcegh h h h m n 26% 9% 6% 7% 7% 10% 5% 1% 11% 90% 10% 85% 14% 41% 59% Books 60 14 8 3 5 4 10 5 2 5 50 9 48 11 28 32 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 24% 13% 5% 8% 6% 16% 9% 3% 9% 84% 16% 81% 19% 47% 53% Maps/ navigation 48 12 13 5 2 2 3 - - 3 42 6 41 7 27 21 3% 5% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% gh egh gh m 26% 26% 10% 4% 4% 6% -% -% 6% 87% 13% 84% 15% 56% 44% Weather 48 11 11 3 4 1 7 2 - 4 43 5 38 10 29 19 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% % 4% 1% -% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% eh eh h eh 22% 23% 5% 9% 2% 14% 4% -% 9% 89% 11% 78% 22% 61% 39% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 47 9 13 3 1 1 7 - 1 6 44 2 33 13 21 26 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% % 4% -% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% g deg deg g 19% 28% 6% 2% 2% 16% -% 3% 12% 95% 5% 70% 28% 44% 56% News 42 17 8 2 2 2 3 - - 3 40 2 38 4 23 19 2% 6% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% cdefghi gh m 41% 20% 4% 6% 4% 7% -% -% 7% 95% 5% 91% 9% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Vouchers 35 23 1 2 3 1 1 - - - 32 4 34 1 8 27 2% 8% % 1% 3% 1% 1% -% -% -% 2% 1% 3% % 1% 3% bcdefghi ghi m n 66% 3% 6% 10% 4% 4% -% -% -% 90% 10% 96% 4% 22% 78% Travel/ journey planning 30 9 3 2 2 1 4 2 - 4 28 2 26 4 15 15 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% h m 29% 11% 5% 5% 3% 12% 5% -% 12% 92% 8% 86% 14% 49% 51% Sports/ sports news 30 4 5 2 2 - 2 - * 5 29 1 25 4 13 16 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% -% 1% 3% 2% % 2% 1% 1% 2% eg k m 13% 16% 6% 6% -% 6% -% 1% 18% 98% 2% 86% 14% 45% 55% Banking 27 7 3 2 2 3 3 - - 3 26 2 26 1 16 11 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 2% % 2% 1% g m 24% 11% 8% 8% 11% 10% -% -% 11% 94% 6% 95% 3% 58% 42% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 26 3 5 1 1 4 7 1 - 1 22 4 22 4 10 15 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 4% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% cdghi 12% 18% 4% 3% 14% 28% 3% -% 5% 84% 16% 86% 14% 40% 60% Finance/ business 15 6 3 1 - 3 1 - - 1 11 4 13 2 10 6 1% 2% 1% % -% 2% 1% -% -% % 1% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 43% 18% 5% -% 18% 7% -% -% 6% 71% 29% 86% 14% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% NONE OF THESE 1441 182 175 127 100 128 128 140 64 158 1246 195 972 463 786 654 76% 66% 72% 81% 80% 76% 72% 85% 86% 76% 75% 80% 74% 81% 78% 73% a a a abefi abefi l o 13% 12% 9% 7% 9% 9% 10% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 32% 55% 45% Don't know 39 7 7 4 - 6 7 1 2 - 33 6 24 15 22 17 2% 3% 3% 3% -% 4% 4% 1% 2% -% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% di di di di dgi 19% 19% 10% -% 16% 17% 2% 4% -% 85% 15% 62% 38% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 3425 \| 1629 \| 1796 \| 513 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2318 \| 1101 \| 1218 \| 340 \| \| Total \| 2494 \| 1204 \| 1290 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 14% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Base for % \| 2484 \| 1198 \| 1286 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 15% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Very satisfied \| 1376 \| 628 \| 748 \| 219 \| \| 55% \| 52% \| 58% \| 61% \| 59% \| \| a \| ef \| f \| j \| j \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 16% \| 20% \| 35% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 893 \| 451 \| 443 \| 120 \| \| 36% \| 38% \| 34% \| 33% \| 36% \| \| ghi \| \| \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 13% \| 18% \| 35% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 2269 \| 1078 \| 1191 \| 339 \| \| 91% \| 90% \| 93% \| 94% \| 95% \| \| a \| ef \| ef \| k \| k \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 15% \| 19% \| 35% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 124 \| 71 \| 53 \| 7 \| 14 \| \| 5% \| 6% \| 4% \| 2% \| 3% \| \| cd \| cd \| lmn \| r \| r \| \| 57% \| 43% \| 5% \| 11% \| 42% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 53 \| 26 \| 26 \| 7 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| d \| r \| r \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 14% \| 7% \| 49% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 38 \| 23 \| 15 \| 8 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| 60% \| 40% \| 22% \| 11% \| 40% \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 3425 \| 1629 \| 1796 \| 513 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2318 \| 1101 \| 1218 \| 340 \| \| Total \| 2494 \| 1204 \| 1290 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 14% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 91 \| 49 \| 42 \| 16 \| \| 4% \| 4% \| 3% \| 4% \| 2% \| \| d \| d \| \| \| \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 17% \| 9% \| 45% \| \| Don't know \| 11 \| 7 \| 4 \| - \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Base for % 2484 318 337 211 168 223 234 211 104 281 2146 338 1515 960 1334 1150 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Very satisfied 1376 139 204 103 96 122 113 124 69 190 1221 155 832 537 695 681 55% 44% 60% 49% 57% 55% 48% 59% 67% 67% 57% 46% 55% 56% 52% 59% acf a a acf acdef acdef k n 10% 15% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 89% 11% 60% 39% 51% 49% Fairly satisfied 893 157 106 86 64 83 95 70 28 54 760 134 554 339 505 389 36% 49% 31% 41% 38% 37% 41% 33% 27% 19% 35% 40% 37% 35% 38% 34% bdeghi i bhi hi hi bhi i i o 18% 12% 10% 7% 9% 11% 8% 3% 6% 85% 15% 62% 38% 57% 43% TOTAL SATISFIED 2269 296 310 189 160 204 208 194 98 243 1981 288 1385 876 1200 1069 91% 93% 92% 90% 95% 92% 89% 92% 94% 86% 92% 85% 91% 91% 90% 93% i cfi fi k n 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 53% 47% Neither 124 17 16 13 3 9 10 9 3 26 99 25 68 55 80 43 5% 6% 5% 6% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 9% 5% 7% 4% 6% 6% 4% d deh j o 14% 13% 11% 3% 7% 8% 7% 3% 21% 80% 20% 55% 45% 65% 35% Fairly dissatisfied 53 2 4 8 3 5 10 7 6 39 14 37 16 31 21 2% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3% % 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% ah ah ah j 3% 8% 15% 6% 9% 19% 13% 1% 11% 74% 26% 71% 29% 60% 40% Very dissatisfied 38 3 8 1 2 5 6 1 2 7 27 11 25 13 22 15 2% 1% 2% % 1% 2% 2% % 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% j 7% 20% 2% 5% 12% 15% 3% 6% 17% 71% 29% 66% 34% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 91 4 12 9 5 9 16 8 3 13 66 24 62 28 54 37 4% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4% 7% 4% 2% 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 4% 3% ah j 5% 13% 9% 5% 10% 17% 9% 3% 14% 73% 27% 69% 31% 59% 41% Don't know 11 - - - 3 - 1 1 - 4 9 2 2 8 8 3 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 3425 \| 1629 \| 1796 \| 513 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2318 \| 1101 \| 1218 \| 340 \| \| Total \| 2494 \| 1204 \| 1290 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 14% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Base for % \| 2479 \| 1197 \| 1282 \| 361 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 15% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Very satisfied \| 1286 \| 588 \| 698 \| 210 \| \| 52% \| 49% \| 54% \| 58% \| 54% \| \| a \| ef \| j \| j \| k \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 16% \| 19% \| 35% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 863 \| 442 \| 421 \| 117 \| \| 35% \| 37% \| 33% \| 32% \| 36% \| \| b \| h \| \| \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 14% \| 19% \| 35% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 2149 \| 1031 \| 1118 \| 326 \| \| 87% \| 86% \| 87% \| 91% \| 90% \| \| ef \| ef \| k \| km \| oq \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 15% \| 19% \| 35% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 126 \| 72 \| 54 \| 19 \| 18 \| \| 5% \| 6% \| 4% \| 5% \| 4% \| \| b \| \| \| \| \| \| 57% \| 43% \| 15% \| 14% \| 38% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 124 \| 51 \| 73 \| 9 \| \| 5% \| 4% \| 6% \| 3% \| 3% \| \| cd \| h \| h \| lmn \| r \| \| 41% \| 59% \| 8% \| 13% \| 49% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 81 \| 44 \| 37 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 4% \| 3% \| 2% \| 2% \| \| c \| n \| n \| \| \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 7% \| 14% \| 44% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 205 95 110 15 27 96 66 24 14 25 64 80 56 40 28 177 16 9 3 8% 8% 9% 4% 6% 11% 9% 9% 6% 7% 11% 12% 8% 7% 5% 8% 8% 8% 5% cd c h lmn n r 46% 54% 7% 13% 47% 32% 12% 7% 12% 31% 39% 27% 20% 14% 86% 8% 4% 2% Don't know 15 7 8 1 3 11 4 * * 4 6 2 3 5 12 1 2 * Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Base for % 2479 318 337 210 167 223 234 209 104 282 2142 337 1514 957 1333 1146 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Very satisfied 1286 142 189 86 86 121 103 116 64 177 1162 124 775 505 629 656 52% 45% 56% 41% 52% 54% 44% 55% 61% 63% 54% 37% 51% 53% 47% 57% acf c acf acf acf acdf k n 11% 15% 7% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 90% 10% 60% 39% 49% 51% Fairly satisfied 863 157 96 76 68 76 85 72 32 55 758 106 534 327 475 389 35% 49% 29% 36% 41% 34% 36% 34% 31% 19% 35% 31% 35% 34% 36% 34% bcefghi i i bhi i i i i 18% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 6% 88% 12% 62% 38% 55% 45% TOTAL SATISFIED 2149 299 286 162 155 197 188 188 96 232 1919 230 1309 832 1104 1045 87% 94% 85% 77% 93% 88% 80% 90% 92% 82% 90% 68% 86% 87% 83% 91% bcefi c bcfi cf cfi bcfi k n 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 61% 39% 51% 49% Neither 126 11 10 20 5 9 19 9 2 20 92 34 73 53 86 40 5% 3% 3% 10% 3% 4% 8% 4% 2% 7% 4% 10% 5% 5% 6% 3% abdegh abdh bdh j o 9% 8% 16% 4% 7% 15% 7% 1% 16% 73% 27% 58% 42% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 124 5 26 17 3 7 23 7 3 17 90 34 77 47 78 45 5% 2% 8% 8% 2% 3% 10% 3% 3% 6% 4% 10% 5% 5% 6% 4% adegh adegh adegh ad j o 4% 21% 14% 3% 5% 19% 5% 2% 14% 72% 28% 62% 38% 63% 37% Very dissatisfied 81 3 16 10 4 10 4 5 3 13 42 39 55 26 65 16 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 12% 4% 3% 5% 1% a a a a j o 3% 19% 13% 5% 12% 5% 7% 4% 16% 51% 49% 68% 32% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 205 8 42 27 8 17 27 12 6 30 131 74 132 73 143 61 8% 3% 12% 13% 5% 8% 12% 6% 6% 11% 6% 22% 9% 8% 11% 5% adgh adgh a adgh ad j o 4% 20% 13% 4% 8% 13% 6% 3% 15% 64% 36% 64% 36% 70% 30% Don't know 15 - - 1 4 - 1 3 - 3 12 3 4 11 9 6 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Base for % \| 1824 \| 868 \| 956 \| 327 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 18% \| 23% \| 41% \| \| Very satisfied \| 953 \| 441 \| 513 \| 195 \| \| 52% \| 51% \| 54% \| 59% \| 54% \| \| ef \| f \| j \| j \| k \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 20% \| 24% \| 39% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 659 \| 321 \| 338 \| 108 \| \| 36% \| 37% \| 35% \| 33% \| 38% \| \| i \| \| \| \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 16% \| 24% \| 41% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 1613 \| 762 \| 851 \| 303 \| \| 88% \| 88% \| 89% \| 93% \| 92% \| \| ef \| ef \| f \| oq \| \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 19% \| 24% \| 40% \| \| Neither \| 95 \| 46 \| 48 \| 10 \| \| 5% \| 5% \| 5% \| 3% \| 4% \| \| cde \| or \| \| \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 11% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 70 \| 33 \| 37 \| 8 \| \| 4% \| 4% \| 4% \| 3% \| 3% \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 12% \| 16% \| 48% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 47 \| 27 \| 20 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| 58% \| 42% \| 12% \| 13% \| 52% \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 1157 \| 1330 \| 475 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 800 \| 909 \| 313 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 903 \| 993 \| 329 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 116 \| 60 \| 57 \| 14 \| \| 6% \| 7% \| 6% \| 4% \| 4% \| \| cd \| cd \| \| \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 12% \| 15% \| 50% \| \| Don't know \| 72 \| 35 \| 37 \| 2 \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone \| ENGLAND REGIONS \| URBANITY \| WORKING \| DEPRIVATION LEVEL \| \|-----------------------------------------------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| EAST \| \| \| \| \| SOUTH \| SOUTH \| EAST \| WEST \| \| Total \| LONDON \| EAST \| WEST \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 201 \| 164 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 180 \| 155 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 275 \| 243 \| \| 15% \| 13% \| 8% \| 7% \| \| Base for % \| 1824 \| 274 \| 236 \| \| 15% \| 13% \| 8% \| 7% \| \| Very satisfied \| 953 \| 124 \| 122 \| \| 52% \| 45% \| 52% \| 47% \| \| acf \| abcefg \| k \| n \| \| 13% \| 13% \| 7% \| 7% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 659 \| 142 \| 80 \| \| 36% \| 52% \| 34% \| 38% \| \| bcdefghi \| i \| i \| i \| \| 21% \| 12% \| 9% \| 6% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 1613 \| 266 \| 202 \| \| 88% \| 97% \| 86% \| 84% \| \| bcdefgi \| bcefi \| k \| n \| \| 16% \| 13% \| 8% \| 7% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| 95 \| 2 \| 21 \| 9 \| \| 5% \| 1% \| 9% \| 6% \| \| ah \| a \| a \| a \| \| 2% \| 22% \| 10% \| 5% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 70 \| 6 \| 11 \| \| 4% \| 2% \| 5% \| 5% \| \| h \| h \| h \| h \| \| 9% \| 16% \| 10% \| 5% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone \| ENGLAND REGIONS \| URBANITY \| WORKING \| DEPRIVATION LEVEL \| \|-----------------------------------------------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| EAST \| \| \| \| \| SOUTH \| SOUTH \| EAST \| WEST \| \| Total \| LONDON \| EAST \| WEST \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| \| Unweighted total \| 2487 \| 201 \| 164 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1708 \| 180 \| 155 \| \| Total \| 1896 \| 275 \| 243 \| \| 15% \| 13% \| 8% \| 7% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 47 \| - \| 2 \| \| 3% \| -% \| 1% \| 5% \| \| ab \| a \| a \| a \| \| -% \| 4% \| 16% \| 10% \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 116 \| 6 \| 13 \| \| 6% \| 2% \| 6% \| 9% \| \| ah \| a \| ah \| a \| \| 5% \| 11% \| 12% \| 7% \| \| Don't know \| 72 \| 1 \| 7 \| \| Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe1. Does Your Household Have A Desktop Pc, Laptop, Netbook Or Tablet Computer? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes - PC (including iMacs) 835 456 380 106 95 336 298 48 64 107 253 310 250 158 118 727 53 43 12 31% 35% 28% 29% 20% 37% 32% 15% 25% 30% 43% 43% 35% 27% 18% 32% 23% 33% 17% b d cdf d g g ghi lmn mn n pr r pr 55% 45% 13% 11% 40% 36% 6% 8% 13% 30% 37% 30% 19% 14% 87% 6% 5% 1% Yes - laptop (including MacBooks) 1711 820 891 260 313 675 463 118 135 233 503 553 483 361 314 1449 141 80 42 64% 63% 65% 71% 67% 74% 50% 37% 52% 65% 86% 78% 67% 62% 48% 65% 60% 61% 56% f f df g gh ghi lmn n n r 48% 52% 15% 18% 39% 27% 7% 8% 14% 29% 32% 28% 21% 18% 85% 8% 5% 2% Yes - netbook 195 98 98 40 23 92 40 13 18 25 60 78 52 37 28 164 20 9 3 7% 7% 7% 11% 5% 10% 4% 4% 7% 7% 10% 11% 7% 6% 4% 7% 8% 7% 4% df df g lmn n r r r 50% 50% 20% 12% 47% 20% 7% 9% 13% 31% 40% 27% 19% 14% 84% 10% 5% 1% Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 59% 57% 62% 63% 67% 70% 43% 35% 52% 63% 78% 67% 63% 63% 43% 59% 56% 67% 60% a f f cf g gh ghi n n n opr 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% TOTAL YES 2245 1097 1148 328 415 836 666 185 198 323 577 671 627 492 454 1890 184 112 59 84% 84% 84% 90% 89% 91% 72% 58% 76% 90% 99% 94% 87% 85% 69% 85% 79% 85% 80% f f f g gh ghi lmn n n pr 49% 51% 15% 18% 37% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% PC ONLY 111 75 36 8 9 24 70 15 15 27 7 30 37 19 25 95 7 6 2 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% 8% 5% 6% 7% 1% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% b cde j j j 68% 32% 7% 8% 21% 64% 13% 14% 24% 6% 27% 34% 17% 22% 86% 6% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% LAPTOP ONLY 422 213 209 73 86 125 138 49 36 60 85 110 97 86 128 362 38 11 11 16% 16% 15% 20% 18% 14% 15% 15% 14% 17% 15% 16% 14% 15% 19% 16% 16% 9% 15% ef e lm q q q 51% 49% 17% 20% 30% 33% 12% 9% 14% 20% 26% 23% 20% 30% 86% 9% 3% 3% TABLET ONLY 251 109 142 43 68 82 58 43 31 38 25 38 56 70 86 194 30 14 13 9% 8% 10% 12% 15% 9% 6% 13% 12% 11% 4% 5% 8% 12% 13% 9% 13% 11% 17% f ef f j j j kl kl o oq 43% 57% 17% 27% 33% 23% 17% 13% 15% 10% 15% 22% 28% 34% 78% 12% 6% 5% No 428 202 226 36 54 79 259 132 62 36 6 41 92 88 206 345 49 20 14 16% 16% 16% 10% 11% 9% 28% 42% 24% 10% 1% 6% 13% 15% 31% 15% 21% 15% 20% cde hij ij j k k klm o o 47% 53% 9% 13% 18% 60% 31% 15% 8% 1% 9% 22% 21% 48% 81% 11% 5% 3% Don't know 2 1 1 - - * 2 - - - - - 1 - 1 1 - * * % % % -% -% % % -% -% -% -% -% % -% % % -% % % 64% 36% -% -% 9% 91% -% -% -% -% -% 64% -% 36% 80% -% 11% 9% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes - PC (including iMacs) 835 95 150 89 56 72 88 60 33 83 705 130 524 308 509 326 31% 28% 42% 39% 30% 31% 36% 27% 29% 28% 30% 36% 34% 28% 35% 27% adeghi adghi gi j m o 11% 18% 11% 7% 9% 11% 7% 4% 10% 84% 16% 63% 37% 61% 39% Yes - laptop (including MacBooks) 1711 268 244 155 115 131 175 135 54 172 1481 230 1129 577 939 772 64% 79% 68% 68% 61% 55% 72% 60% 48% 57% 64% 64% 73% 52% 65% 63% bcdeghi ehi ehi h deghi h m 16% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 10% 87% 13% 66% 34% 55% 45% Yes - netbook 195 20 17 19 16 26 18 19 11 16 162 34 134 58 120 75 7% 6% 5% 8% 9% 11% 7% 9% 10% 5% 7% 9% 9% 5% 8% 6% abi b m o 10% 9% 10% 8% 13% 9% 10% 6% 8% 83% 17% 69% 30% 62% 38% Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 59% 51% 66% 66% 59% 48% 67% 58% 56% 58% 58% 64% 69% 45% 63% 54% aeh aeh e aegh e e j m o 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% TOTAL YES 2245 301 328 203 154 170 218 185 86 245 1931 314 1430 807 1263 982 84% 89% 91% 89% 81% 72% 89% 82% 76% 81% 83% 87% 92% 72% 88% 80% deghi deghi deghi e deghi e e j m o 13% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% PC ONLY 111 9 21 7 6 11 9 12 5 15 97 14 43 67 71 40 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 6% 5% 3% l o 8% 19% 7% 5% 10% 9% 11% 5% 14% 88% 12% 39% 61% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% LAPTOP ONLY 422 101 45 32 26 33 31 32 13 48 371 51 247 174 204 218 16% 30% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 12% 16% 16% 14% 16% 16% 14% 18% bcdefghi n 24% 11% 8% 6% 8% 7% 8% 3% 11% 88% 12% 59% 41% 48% 52% TABLET ONLY 251 14 24 24 22 19 16 28 17 31 215 36 156 94 142 109 9% 4% 7% 10% 12% 8% 6% 12% 15% 10% 9% 10% 10% 8% 10% 9% a af abf abef a 6% 9% 9% 9% 8% 6% 11% 7% 12% 86% 14% 62% 37% 56% 44% No 428 38 31 24 35 66 27 41 27 57 384 44 121 305 179 249 16% 11% 9% 11% 19% 28% 11% 18% 24% 19% 17% 12% 8% 27% 12% 20% abcf abcdfgi abcf abcf abcf k l n 9% 7% 6% 8% 15% 6% 9% 6% 13% 90% 10% 28% 71% 42% 58% Don't know 2 - - - - 1 - - * - 1 1 * 2 1 1 % -% -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 55% -% -% 25% -% 45% 55% 9% 91% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe2 (Qe35). How Many Tablet Computers Do You Have In Your Household? (Single Code) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2085 944 1141 318 399 800 568 188 193 280 485 532 678 461 412 1270 264 294 257 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 661 782 212 268 563 406 133 136 205 365 388 466 325 275 1101 164 189 205 Total 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% One (1.0) 893 423 470 124 181 306 282 73 83 128 223 258 265 192 177 726 88 55 24 56% 58% 55% 54% 58% 47% 71% 66% 61% 57% 49% 54% 58% 53% 63% 55% 68% 62% 55% e cde j j km or 47% 53% 14% 20% 34% 32% 8% 9% 14% 25% 29% 30% 21% 20% 81% 10% 6% 3% Two (2.0) 447 201 246 57 87 215 89 27 36 73 144 132 134 114 67 389 24 21 13 28% 27% 29% 24% 28% 33% 22% 24% 27% 33% 32% 28% 29% 31% 24% 29% 19% 24% 30% cf n p p 45% 55% 13% 19% 48% 20% 6% 8% 16% 32% 30% 30% 25% 15% 87% 5% 5% 3% Three (3.0) 162 75 87 34 31 81 16 10 14 17 56 64 36 34 28 136 11 9 5 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 12% 4% 9% 10% 8% 12% 13% 8% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 11% f f f l 46% 54% 21% 19% 50% 10% 6% 9% 11% 35% 40% 22% 21% 17% 84% 7% 6% 3% Four (4.0) 49 25 24 12 6 26 6 2 1 4 18 17 11 17 5 40 6 3 1 3% 3% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 5% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% df f n 52% 48% 24% 12% 53% 11% 4% 2% 7% 36% 34% 22% 34% 9% 81% 12% 5% 2% Five or more (5.0) 30 11 19 4 9 16 2 2 3 14 8 9 9 4 28 1 1 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% % % 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% % 1% 1% f f g 37% 63% 14% 28% 52% 6% % 6% 11% 47% 25% 31% 30% 14% 93% 2% 3% 2% Don't know 2 - 2 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 2 - - - % -% % -% -% % % -% -% -% -% % -% -% % % -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 55% 45% -% -% -% -% 45% -% -% 55% 100% -% -% -% Mean number 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 f f df ghi n n p Standard deviation .92 .91 .93 1.00 .93 .97 .67 .73 .82 .82 1.01 .94 .89 .98 .85 .93 .87 .87 .89 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .05 .03 .03 .05 .06 .05 .05 .04 .03 .05 .04 .03 .05 .05 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2085 126 163 156 142 116 157 135 132 143 1501 584 1283 796 1063 1022 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 112 154 149 133 108 149 127 123 132 1181 283 902 557 750 716 Total 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% One (1.0) 893 121 128 71 49 54 91 75 29 108 762 131 576 315 497 397 56% 69% 54% 48% 44% 47% 55% 58% 46% 61% 56% 57% 54% 62% 54% 59% bcdefh d cdeh l 14% 14% 8% 5% 6% 10% 8% 3% 12% 85% 15% 65% 35% 56% 44% Two (2.0) 447 36 79 50 35 41 44 34 22 47 385 62 328 119 274 173 28% 21% 33% 34% 32% 36% 27% 26% 35% 27% 28% 27% 31% 24% 30% 26% a a a a a m 8% 18% 11% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 61% 39% Three (3.0) 162 14 21 18 19 9 18 14 9 15 142 20 111 48 93 69 10% 8% 9% 12% 17% 8% 11% 11% 14% 9% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% abei 8% 13% 11% 12% 6% 11% 9% 5% 9% 88% 12% 69% 30% 58% 42% Four (4.0) 49 2 4 8 4 7 8 5 3 - 39 10 35 13 30 19 3% 1% 2% 5% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% -% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% i i ai i i i 3% 8% 16% 9% 13% 16% 10% 6% -% 80% 20% 71% 27% 60% 40% Five or more (5.0) 30 2 5 2 4 4 3 3 4 25 5 23 7 19 12 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 7% 18% 7% 12% 13% 11% 9% 1% 15% 82% 18% 75% 25% 61% 39% Don't know 2 - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % % -% % % % -% 45% -% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 55% 45% -% 100% 45% 55% Mean number 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 a ai abi ai a a ai m Standard deviation .92 .78 .88 .94 1.03 1.04 .98 .95 .88 .86 .91 .97 .93 .88 .93 .91 Standard error .02 .07 .07 .08 .09 .10 .08 .08 .08 .07 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe3 (Qe36). Do You Personally Use This/ Any Of These Tablet Computer/S? (Single Code) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2085 944 1141 318 399 800 568 188 193 280 485 532 678 461 412 1270 264 294 257 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 661 782 212 268 563 406 133 136 205 365 388 466 325 275 1101 164 189 205 Total 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% Yes 1274 576 698 173 261 519 321 80 107 187 381 392 377 299 205 1063 106 67 38 80% 78% 82% 75% 84% 81% 81% 72% 79% 83% 84% 82% 83% 82% 73% 80% 82% 75% 86% a c g g n n n oq 45% 55% 14% 20% 41% 25% 6% 8% 15% 30% 31% 30% 23% 16% 83% 8% 5% 3% No 308 159 149 58 51 124 75 32 29 38 73 86 79 66 77 257 24 22 6 19% 22% 18% 25% 16% 19% 19% 28% 21% 17% 16% 18% 17% 18% 27% 19% 18% 25% 14% d ij klm r r 52% 48% 19% 16% 40% 24% 10% 9% 12% 24% 28% 25% 21% 25% 83% 8% 7% 2% Don't know 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - % % -% -% -% % -% -% -% -% % % -% -% -% % -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE3 (QE36). Do you personally use this/ any of these tablet computer/s? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2085 126 163 156 142 116 157 135 132 143 1501 584 1283 796 1063 1022 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 112 154 149 133 108 149 127 123 132 1181 283 902 557 750 716 Total 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% Yes 1274 149 185 118 88 102 125 107 47 140 1090 184 876 396 741 532 80% 86% 78% 80% 79% 89% 76% 82% 75% 80% 80% 80% 82% 78% 81% 79% h bdfh 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% No 308 25 53 30 23 13 38 24 16 36 263 45 196 110 170 138 19% 14% 22% 20% 21% 11% 23% 18% 25% 20% 19% 20% 18% 22% 19% 21% e e e ae 8% 17% 10% 7% 4% 12% 8% 5% 12% 85% 15% 63% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - % -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% % -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe4 (Qe37). Is Your Tablet Computer 3G Or 4G Enabled? This Means That The Tablet Could Be Used - With A Sim Card - To Go Online From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1680 730 950 242 331 645 462 136 153 233 401 445 567 370 297 1013 214 229 224 Effective Weighted Sample 1152 511 641 159 220 448 332 98 107 170 302 319 385 259 198 877 137 146 178 Total 1274 576 698 173 261 519 321 80 107 187 381 392 377 299 205 1063 106 67 38 45% 55% 14% 20% 41% 25% 6% 8% 15% 30% 31% 30% 23% 16% 83% 8% 5% 3% Yes 457 217 239 65 112 188 92 23 36 73 143 138 143 109 66 382 32 26 17 36% 38% 34% 38% 43% 36% 29% 29% 33% 39% 37% 35% 38% 37% 32% 36% 30% 39% 45% f f f op 48% 52% 14% 25% 41% 20% 5% 8% 16% 31% 30% 31% 24% 14% 84% 7% 6% 4% No 722 330 392 101 137 299 186 49 58 102 230 231 213 156 121 602 69 32 19 57% 57% 56% 58% 52% 58% 58% 62% 54% 55% 60% 59% 57% 52% 59% 57% 65% 48% 49% q qr 46% 54% 14% 19% 41% 26% 7% 8% 14% 32% 32% 30% 22% 17% 83% 10% 4% 3% Don't know 95 28 67 7 12 33 44 8 14 12 9 23 20 34 18 79 5 9 2 7% 5% 10% 4% 5% 6% 14% 9% 13% 6% 2% 6% 5% 11% 9% 7% 5% 13% 6% a cde j j j kl opr 30% 70% 7% 13% 34% 46% 8% 15% 12% 9% 25% 21% 35% 19% 83% 6% 9% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe4 (Qe37). Is Your Tablet Computer 3G Or 4G Enabled? This Means That The Tablet Could Be Used - With A Sim Card - To Go Online From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g ~h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1680 104 124 125 114 104 120 109 98 115 1211 469 1045 633 859 821 Effective Weighted Sample 1152 94 117 120 107 96 114 103 91 105 943 227 729 442 604 568 Total 1274 149 185 118 88 102 125 107 47 140 1090 184 876 396 741 532 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% * 11% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% Yes 457 85 43 34 33 27 34 31 74 397 59 327 129 257 199 36% 57% 23% 29% 38% 27% 27% 29% 53% 36% 32% 37% 33% 35% 37% bcdefg b bcdefg 19% 10% 8% 7% 6% 7% 7% 16% 87% 13% 72% 28% 56% 44% No 722 63 131 69 43 62 87 67 54 617 105 499 222 418 304 57% 43% 71% 59% 49% 61% 69% 62% 39% 57% 57% 57% 56% 56% 57% adi ai ai adi ai 9% 18% 10% 6% 9% 12% 9% 8% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% Don't know 95 - 11 15 12 13 5 10 12 75 20 50 44 67 29 7% -% 6% 12% 13% 12% 4% 9% 8% 7% 11% 6% 11% 9% 5% a af af af a a j l o -% 12% 15% 12% 13% 5% 10% 12% 79% 21% 53% 46% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe5 (Qe38). And Do You Have A Separate Mobile Subscription For Your Tablet, Which Allows You To Go Online From Anywhere With A 3G Or 4G Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 590 263 327 90 133 231 136 41 47 78 145 150 207 141 92 357 61 82 90 Effective Weighted Sample 402 182 221 59 94 159 93 30 32 61 112 109 139 98 59 307 37 55 76 Total 457 217 239 65 112 188 92 23 36 73 143 138 143 109 66 382 32 26 17 48% 52% 25% 41% 20% 31% 30% 31% 24% 84% Yes 156 79 77 44 65 24 56 41 56 33 135 34% 37% 32% 39% 35% 26% 39% 30% 39% 31% 35% f 51% 49% 28% 42% 15% 36% 27% 36% 21% 87% No 286 131 155 65 116 65 84 95 80 73 236 63% 60% 65% 58% 62% 70% 59% 69% 56% 67% 62% l 46% 54% 23% 41% 23% 29% 33% 28% 26% 83% Don't know 14 7 8 3 6 3 3 2 8 3 10 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 1% 6% 2% 3% 46% 54% 18% 44% 24% 22% 11% 56% 18% 72% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe5 (Qe38). And Do You Have A Separate Mobile Subscription For Your Tablet, Which Allows You To Go Online From Anywhere With A 3G Or 4G Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 590 59 31 36 43 28 33 30 39 58 444 146 388 202 281 309 Effective Weighted Sample 402 54 29 34 40 26 32 28 37 53 336 72 270 137 203 206 Total 457 85 43 34 33 27 34 31 19 74 397 59 327 129 257 199 87% 13% 72% 28% 56% 44% Yes 156 140 16 125 31 82 74 34% 35% 27% 38% 24% 32% 37% m 90% 10% 80% 20% 52% 48% No 286 245 42 192 95 165 121 63% 62% 71% 59% 73% 64% 61% l 85% 15% 67% 33% 58% 42% Don't know 14 13 1 10 4 10 4 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 92% 8% 70% 30% 74% 26% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe6 (Qe44). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Mobile Signal On Your Tablet Computer To Go Online - Rather Than Using A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 192 \| 97 \| 95 \| 29 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 134 \| 67 \| 67 \| 19 \| \| Total \| 156 \| 79 \| 77 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Every day \| 67 \| \| \| \| \| 43% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Several times a week \| \| \| \| \| \| 43 \| \| \| \| \| \| 27% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| At least once a week \| 17 \| \| \| \| \| 11% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| At least once a month \| 11 \| \| \| \| \| 7% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| A few times a year \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| 4% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Less than once a year \| \| \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| 1% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Never \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| 5% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| 1% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe6 (Qe44). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Mobile Signal On Your Tablet Computer To Go Online - Rather Than Using A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l ~m ~n o Unweighted total 192 27 6 7 17 12 8 10 12 27 150 42 140 52 89 103 Effective Weighted Sample 134 24 6 7 15 12 8 9 11 24 116 20 102 33 62 75 Total 156 36 10 6 13 12 8 10 6 34 140 16 125 31 82 74 90% 80% 48% Every day 67 62 52 35 43% 44% 42% 47% 92% 78% 52% Several times a week 43 41 37 20 27% 29% 30% 27% 96% 87% 47% At least once a week 17 15 15 7 11% 11% 12% 9% 91% 91% 40% At least once a month 11 8 9 7 7% 6% 7% 9% 75% 81% 59% A few times a year 7 6 6 2 4% 4% 5% 3% 82% 84% 34% Less than once a year 2 1 - * 1% 1% -% % * 55% -% 5% Never 8 6 5 3 5% 4% 4% 4% 70% 57% 39% Don't know 1 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 100% 100% ** 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1652 846 806 201 205 372 874 371 208 171 130 265 444 330 610 969 238 195 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 537 528 132 132 244 566 244 132 120 96 190 290 209 385 817 147 116 176 Total 1092 564 527 133 157 271 531 206 124 133 128 232 264 216 379 915 103 43 30 52% 48% 12% 14% 25% 49% 19% 11% 12% 12% 21% 24% 20% 35% 84% 9% 4% 3% Certain to 23 8 14 5 5 10 3 3 * 5 3 10 3 5 4 20 2 * * 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% % 4% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% f f f h ln 37% 63% 22% 20% 43% 14% 15% % 23% 11% 45% 13% 23% 19% 88% 10% 2% 1% Very likely 54 32 21 9 12 20 12 6 4 6 14 11 22 8 12 46 5 2 1 5% 6% 4% 7% 7% 7% 2% 3% 3% 4% 11% 5% 8% 4% 3% 5% 5% 5% 2% f f f gh n 60% 40% 18% 22% 38% 23% 11% 8% 10% 25% 21% 41% 16% 22% 85% 10% 4% 1% Likely 123 63 60 24 28 41 30 20 17 16 26 25 32 28 37 107 10 4 3 11% 11% 11% 18% 18% 15% 6% 10% 13% 12% 21% 11% 12% 13% 10% 12% 10% 9% 10% f f f g 51% 49% 20% 23% 34% 24% 16% 14% 13% 21% 21% 26% 23% 30% 86% 8% 3% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 200 104 96 39 44 72 45 29 21 26 43 47 56 42 54 172 18 6 4 18% 18% 18% 29% 28% 26% 9% 14% 17% 20% 33% 20% 21% 19% 14% 19% 17% 14% 13% f f f ghi n r 52% 48% 19% 22% 36% 23% 14% 11% 13% 21% 24% 28% 21% 27% 86% 9% 3% 2% Unlikely 190 93 97 27 28 51 84 27 22 24 32 54 47 43 46 153 25 6 6 17% 17% 18% 20% 18% 19% 16% 13% 18% 18% 25% 23% 18% 20% 12% 17% 24% 13% 21% g n n n oq 49% 51% 14% 15% 27% 44% 14% 12% 13% 17% 28% 25% 23% 24% 81% 13% 3% 3% Very unlikely 215 115 101 25 29 41 120 47 19 32 19 37 53 36 89 178 22 12 3 20% 20% 19% 19% 18% 15% 23% 23% 15% 24% 15% 16% 20% 17% 23% 19% 21% 27% 11% e k r r r 53% 47% 12% 13% 19% 56% 22% 9% 15% 9% 17% 25% 17% 41% 83% 10% 5% 2% Certain not to 269 127 142 12 12 41 205 68 41 31 12 51 49 59 111 231 20 14 6 25% 23% 27% 9% 8% 15% 39% 33% 33% 23% 9% 22% 18% 27% 29% 25% 19% 31% 19% d cde j j j l l pr 47% 53% 4% 4% 15% 76% 25% 15% 11% 4% 19% 18% 22% 41% 86% 7% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1652 846 806 201 205 372 874 371 208 171 130 265 444 330 610 969 238 195 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 537 528 132 132 244 566 244 132 120 96 190 290 209 385 817 147 116 176 Total 1092 564 527 133 157 271 531 206 124 133 128 232 264 216 379 915 103 43 30 52% 48% 12% 14% 25% 49% 19% 11% 12% 12% 21% 24% 20% 35% 84% 9% 4% 3% TOTAL UNLIKELY 675 335 340 64 69 133 409 143 82 87 63 142 149 138 246 562 66 31 15 62% 59% 64% 48% 44% 49% 77% 69% 66% 65% 49% 61% 56% 64% 65% 61% 64% 71% 51% cde j j j l r r or 50% 50% 9% 10% 20% 61% 21% 12% 13% 9% 21% 22% 20% 36% 83% 10% 5% 2% Don't know 217 126 91 31 44 66 77 34 21 20 23 43 59 36 79 181 19 6 11 20% 22% 17% 23% 28% 24% 14% 17% 17% 15% 18% 19% 22% 17% 21% 20% 19% 14% 36% b f f f opq 58% 42% 14% 20% 30% 35% 16% 10% 9% 10% 20% 27% 17% 36% 83% 9% 3% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b ~c d e ~f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1652 123 88 91 108 135 80 117 119 108 1210 442 578 1067 729 923 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 109 84 88 100 125 77 105 109 99 905 174 391 699 469 606 Total 1092 165 121 78 78 123 81 95 51 126 961 130 479 608 531 561 15% 7% 11% 9% 5% 12% 88% 12% 44% 56% 49% 51% Certain to 23 2 1 6 1 1 3 21 2 13 10 14 9 2% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 8% 5% 26% 4% 4% 13% 93% 7% 57% 43% 59% 41% Very likely 54 14 5 10 1 4 6 51 2 36 17 23 31 5% 8% 7% 9% 1% 7% 4% 5% 2% 8% 3% 4% 6% g g g g k m 26% 10% 19% 1% 7% 11% 95% 5% 68% 32% 42% 58% Likely 123 29 10 15 12 3 10 108 15 74 49 56 67 11% 18% 12% 12% 12% 6% 8% 11% 12% 15% 8% 11% 12% hi m 24% 8% 12% 9% 2% 8% 88% 12% 60% 40% 46% 54% TOTAL LIKELY 200 45 16 31 13 7 18 181 19 123 77 92 107 18% 27% 21% 25% 14% 15% 14% 19% 15% 26% 13% 17% 19% ghi ghi m 23% 8% 16% 7% 4% 9% 90% 10% 62% 38% 46% 54% Unlikely 190 37 11 14 10 5 21 172 18 101 89 96 94 17% 22% 14% 11% 11% 11% 17% 18% 14% 21% 15% 18% 17% egh m 19% 6% 7% 5% 3% 11% 91% 9% 53% 47% 51% 49% Very unlikely 215 26 13 22 20 6 22 185 30 82 133 101 114 20% 16% 17% 18% 21% 11% 17% 19% 23% 17% 22% 19% 20% 12% 6% 10% 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 38% 62% 47% 53% Certain not to 269 10 19 29 34 22 38 227 43 60 208 136 134 25% 6% 25% 24% 36% 45% 30% 24% 33% 12% 34% 26% 24% a a ae adei a j l 4% 7% 11% 13% 8% 14% 84% 16% 22% 77% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b ~c d e ~f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1652 123 88 91 108 135 80 117 119 108 1210 442 578 1067 729 923 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 109 84 88 100 125 77 105 109 99 905 174 391 699 469 606 Total 1092 165 121 78 78 123 81 95 51 126 961 130 479 608 531 561 15% 7% 11% 9% 5% 12% 88% 12% 44% 56% 49% 51% TOTAL UNLIKELY 675 73 43 66 64 34 81 584 91 242 429 333 342 62% 44% 56% 54% 68% 67% 65% 61% 70% 51% 71% 63% 61% ae ae a j l 11% 6% 10% 9% 5% 12% 87% 13% 36% 64% 49% 51% Don't know 217 46 18 26 17 9 26 197 20 113 102 105 112 20% 28% 23% 21% 18% 19% 21% 20% 15% 24% 17% 20% 20% m 21% 8% 12% ** 8% 4% 12% 91% 9% 52% 47% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe8 (Qe2). Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have Access To The Internet/ Worldwide Web At Home (Via Any Device, E.G. Pc, Laptop, Mobile Phone Etc)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes - have access and use at home 2236 1088 1148 335 429 837 636 193 204 327 570 653 632 481 468 1880 190 107 59 84% 84% 84% 92% 91% 91% 69% 61% 78% 91% 98% 92% 88% 83% 71% 84% 81% 81% 80% f f f g gh ghi lmn mn n r 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 28% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Yes - have access but don't use at home 70 37 33 2 9 18 40 14 12 9 7 19 14 18 19 57 7 4 2 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% cde j j 53% 47% 3% 13% 26% 57% 20% 17% 13% 11% 27% 20% 26% 27% 81% 10% 6% 3% No do not have access at home 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 13% 13% 14% 7% 5% 6% 26% 33% 17% 6% 1% 5% 10% 13% 25% 13% 15% 15% 16% cde hij ij j k kl klm 47% 53% 7% 7% 16% 70% 30% 12% 6% 1% 11% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 6% 3% Don't know 21 13 8 3 6 4 8 4 1 1 2 3 4 3 10 17 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 62% 38% 13% 28% 20% 40% 18% 7% 4% 10% 15% 21% 17% 48% 83% 7% 7% 4% INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 86% 86% 86% 92% 93% 93% 73% 65% 83% 94% 99% 94% 90% 86% 74% 87% 84% 84% 83% f f f g gh ghi lmn n n r 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% NO 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 13% 13% 14% 7% 5% 6% 26% 33% 17% 6% 1% 5% 10% 13% 25% 13% 15% 15% 16% cde hij ij j k kl klm 47% 53% 7% 7% 16% 70% 30% 12% 6% 1% 11% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE8 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes - have access and use at home 2236 297 316 196 153 181 217 185 85 250 1929 307 1431 797 1228 1008 84% 88% 88% 86% 81% 76% 89% 82% 75% 83% 83% 85% 92% 72% 85% 82% eh deh eh degh h m o 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Yes - have access but don't use at home 70 10 11 8 5 3 5 5 3 7 63 7 34 36 42 28 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 14% 16% 11% 7% 4% 7% 8% 4% 10% 90% 10% 48% 51% 60% 40% No do not have access at home 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 13% 9% 8% 9% 16% 21% 9% 16% 22% 14% 13% 11% 5% 24% 11% 15% abcf abcf abcf abcfi bc l n 8% 8% 6% 8% 14% 6% 10% 7% 12% 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Don't know 21 3 3 4 1 3 - * 1 1 16 5 11 10 11 10 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% f 14% 15% 20% 5% 16% -% 2% 5% 6% 77% 23% 53% 47% 52% 48% INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 86% 91% 91% 90% 84% 77% 91% 84% 77% 85% 86% 87% 94% 75% 88% 84% degh deghi eh degh eh m o 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% NO 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 13% 9% 8% 9% 16% 21% 9% 16% 22% 14% 13% 11% 5% 24% 11% 15% abcf abcf abcf abcfi bc l n 8% 8% 6% 8% 14% 6% 10% 7% 12% 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe9 (In6). Showcard Do You Ever Go Online Anywhere Other Than In Your Home At All? If Yes: Where Is That? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Your workplace 954 491 462 134 245 452 123 26 68 141 371 331 313 211 99 795 92 43 24 36% 38% 34% 37% 52% 49% 13% 8% 26% 39% 64% 46% 43% 36% 15% 36% 39% 32% 32% b f cf cf g gh ghi mn mn n r 52% 48% 14% 26% 47% 13% 3% 7% 15% 39% 35% 33% 22% 10% 83% 10% 4% 2% In someone else's home 936 424 512 206 235 332 164 87 82 138 247 263 269 202 202 770 89 47 29 35% 33% 37% 57% 50% 36% 18% 27% 32% 38% 42% 37% 37% 35% 31% 34% 38% 36% 40% a ef ef f g gh n n o 45% 55% 22% 25% 35% 17% 9% 9% 15% 26% 28% 29% 22% 22% 82% 10% 5% 3% Internet caf� 211 107 104 43 60 81 27 17 18 36 59 58 78 46 28 187 9 10 5 8% 8% 8% 12% 13% 9% 3% 6% 7% 10% 10% 8% 11% 8% 4% 8% 4% 8% 6% f ef f g g n n n p p 51% 49% 21% 28% 38% 13% 8% 8% 17% 28% 28% 37% 22% 14% 89% 4% 5% 2% Library 175 93 81 54 37 50 34 22 16 29 40 55 57 25 38 153 10 7 5 7% 7% 6% 15% 8% 5% 4% 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% 8% 4% 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% def f m m 53% 47% 31% 21% 28% 20% 13% 9% 17% 23% 31% 33% 14% 22% 87% 6% 4% 3% School/ college 168 84 84 94 28 39 6 9 8 26 42 57 65 22 23 148 9 4 6 6% 6% 6% 26% 6% 4% 1% 3% 3% 7% 7% 8% 9% 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 8% def f f gh gh mn mn q pq 50% 50% 56% 16% 24% 4% 5% 5% 16% 25% 34% 39% 13% 14% 88% 5% 3% 4% University 96 45 50 54 17 21 4 15 5 11 26 25 54 11 6 87 6 * 2 4% 3% 4% 15% 4% 2% % 5% 2% 3% 4% 4% 7% 2% 1% 4% 3% % 3% def f f n kmn q q q 47% 53% 57% 18% 22% 4% 16% 5% 12% 27% 27% 56% 11% 6% 91% 6% % 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe9 (In6). Showcard Do You Ever Go Online Anywhere Other Than In Your Home At All? If Yes: Where Is That? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% UK culture centre/ Learn Direct/ other online learning centres 60 30 30 17 16 21 7 7 6 14 13 16 23 7 14 57 1 1 1 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% % 1% 1% ef f f m p 50% 50% 28% 26% 34% 12% 11% 10% 24% 21% 27% 38% 12% 23% 95% 1% 2% 2% Other 103 48 55 13 14 36 41 6 16 17 17 30 30 20 23 95 3 4 1 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1% 3% 1% gj g pr 47% 53% 13% 13% 35% 39% 6% 16% 16% 16% 29% 29% 20% 22% 93% 3% 4% 1% No, do not 1048 519 528 58 93 273 624 187 119 130 111 203 221 252 369 876 89 54 29 39% 40% 38% 16% 20% 30% 67% 59% 46% 36% 19% 29% 31% 43% 56% 39% 38% 41% 39% cd cde hij ij j kl klm 50% 50% 6% 9% 26% 60% 18% 11% 12% 11% 19% 21% 24% 35% 84% 9% 5% 3% EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR ELSEWHERE 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 87% 87% 87% 97% 97% 95% 71% 68% 84% 94% 99% 94% 91% 86% 77% 87% 87% 86% 83% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n r 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Your workplace 954 182 115 78 58 76 97 62 34 93 835 118 909 44 524 429 36% 54% 32% 34% 30% 32% 40% 27% 30% 31% 36% 33% 59% 4% 36% 35% bcdefghi dghi m 19% 12% 8% 6% 8% 10% 7% 4% 10% 88% 12% 95% 5% 55% 45% In someone else's home 936 128 121 96 62 91 83 62 40 86 807 129 634 297 498 438 35% 38% 34% 42% 33% 39% 34% 27% 35% 29% 35% 36% 41% 27% 35% 36% gi dgi gi m 14% 13% 10% 7% 10% 9% 7% 4% 9% 86% 14% 68% 32% 53% 47% Internet caf� 211 82 29 24 3 6 21 8 3 12 183 28 169 42 92 119 8% 24% 8% 10% 1% 3% 8% 3% 2% 4% 8% 8% 11% 4% 6% 10% bcdefghi degh deghi degh m n 39% 14% 11% 1% 3% 10% 4% 1% 6% 87% 13% 80% 20% 43% 57% Library 175 59 18 16 8 13 17 10 2 9 163 12 98 76 55 120 7% 17% 5% 7% 4% 5% 7% 5% 2% 3% 7% 3% 6% 7% 4% 10% bcdefghi hi hi k n 34% 10% 9% 5% 7% 10% 6% 1% 5% 93% 7% 56% 44% 32% 68% School/ college 168 63 13 11 5 14 15 7 3 16 157 11 80 87 59 109 6% 19% 4% 5% 3% 6% 6% 3% 2% 5% 7% 3% 5% 8% 4% 9% bcdefghi h h k l n 37% 8% 7% 3% 8% 9% 4% 2% 10% 93% 7% 48% 52% 35% 65% University 96 37 11 2 3 2 9 8 4 10 92 3 47 48 18 77 4% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 1% 6% bcdefghi ce c c k n 39% 12% 2% 4% 2% 10% 8% 4% 10% 96% 4% 50% 50% 19% 81% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% UK culture centre/ Learn Direct/ other online learning centres 60 31 6 2 - 1 8 1 2 5 60 * 45 16 9 51 2% 9% 2% 1% -% % 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% % 3% 1% 1% 4% bcdefghi d deg d d k m n 51% 10% 4% -% 1% 14% 2% 4% 9% 100% % 74% 26% 15% 85% Other 103 1 11 5 22 6 12 26 7 5 87 16 51 52 66 37 4% % 3% 2% 12% 3% 5% 11% 6% 2% 4% 4% 3% 5% 5% 3% a abcefhi a a abcefi aci o 1% 10% 5% 22% 6% 12% 25% 7% 5% 84% 16% 50% 50% 64% 36% No, do not 1048 104 151 81 71 94 82 97 49 148 905 143 381 663 557 490 39% 31% 42% 36% 38% 40% 33% 43% 43% 49% 39% 40% 25% 59% 39% 40% a a af af acdef l 10% 14% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 86% 14% 36% 63% 53% 47% EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR ELSEWHERE 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 87% 94% 89% 88% 85% 83% 90% 83% 78% 86% 87% 88% 96% 75% 88% 86% cdeghi eh h h egh h m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe10 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Every day 1834 871 963 307 397 708 421 152 161 265 492 567 528 383 355 1547 152 89 47 79% 77% 80% 87% 87% 82% 64% 71% 74% 79% 86% 84% 81% 77% 70% 79% 75% 79% 76% a f ef f g ghi mn n n 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 23% 8% 9% 14% 27% 31% 29% 21% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a week 317 166 151 33 44 111 129 35 30 55 61 66 84 71 95 266 29 13 9 14% 15% 13% 9% 10% 13% 20% 16% 14% 17% 11% 10% 13% 14% 19% 14% 14% 11% 15% cde j j k kl 52% 48% 11% 14% 35% 41% 11% 9% 17% 19% 21% 26% 22% 30% 84% 9% 4% 3% At least once a week 100 55 45 10 8 27 56 15 9 8 20 28 23 18 31 80 12 4 4 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 3% 9% 7% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 6% 4% 6% 4% 6% cde ij l 55% 45% 10% 8% 27% 56% 15% 9% 8% 20% 28% 23% 18% 31% 80% 12% 4% 4% At least once a month 37 19 18 3 1 8 24 5 10 4 1 4 6 12 15 29 4 3 1 2% 2% 2% 1% % 1% 4% 3% 5% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% cde j ij kl kl 51% 49% 8% 3% 22% 66% 15% 28% 12% 3% 11% 15% 33% 40% 79% 10% 9% 2% A few times a year 14 6 7 - 3 5 6 1 2 * * 1 7 3 2 9 2 2 * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % % % 1% 1% % % 1% 2% % o 46% 54% -% 21% 35% 44% 6% 14% % 2% 11% 48% 24% 17% 67% 18% 13% 2% Less than once a year 2 1 1 - - 1 1 1 - - - * - 1 1 2 * - * % % % -% -% % % % -% -% -% % -% % % % % -% % 46% 54% -% -% 46% 54% 36% -% -% -% 17% -% 46% 36% 83% 7% -% 10% Never 19 9 10 1 * 5 13 5 4 3 1 1 6 6 6 15 2 1 * 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% cde j j k k 49% 51% 6% 2% 26% 66% 28% 22% 13% 6% 5% 31% 32% 32% 80% 13% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe10 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2251 1093 1159 350 449 846 606 202 200 328 572 661 634 473 481 1892 193 106 60 97% 96% 97% 99% 99% 98% 92% 94% 92% 98% 100% 98% 97% 95% 95% 97% 96% 94% 97% f f f gh ghi mn q 49% 51% 16% 20% 38% 27% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2304 1119 1185 353 453 860 638 209 212 333 574 667 647 489 499 1932 199 111 61 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 97% 99% 100% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 99% f f f gh 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 8 6 2 * 2 - 6 1 2 - * 3 * 3 2 7 * 1 * % 1% % % % -% 1% % 1% -% % 1% % 1% % % % 1% % e 73% 27% 4% 22% -% 74% 6% 22% -% 5% 41% 5% 33% 21% 87% 1% 9% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Every day 1834 218 270 175 123 152 191 157 74 187 1562 272 1237 590 1010 823 79% 68% 84% 87% 76% 77% 86% 83% 83% 72% 78% 86% 83% 70% 79% 78% adi adei a adei ai ai j m 12% 15% 10% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 10% 85% 15% 67% 32% 55% 45% Several times a week 317 70 30 15 24 28 18 19 8 54 289 28 170 147 168 150 14% 22% 9% 8% 15% 14% 8% 10% 9% 21% 14% 9% 11% 18% 13% 14% bcfgh cf c bcfgh k l 22% 10% 5% 8% 9% 6% 6% 3% 17% 91% 9% 54% 46% 53% 47% At least once a week 100 19 12 6 7 10 7 3 4 13 89 11 51 49 61 39 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% 4% g l 19% 12% 6% 7% 10% 7% 3% 4% 13% 89% 11% 51% 49% 61% 39% At least once a month 37 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 34 2 12 25 15 22 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% l 14% 14% 8% 9% 7% 6% 7% 4% 9% 93% 7% 32% 68% 41% 59% A few times a year 14 3 - 1 1 3 - - - 2 13 1 7 7 9 4 1% 1% -% % % 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% % 23% -% 6% 6% 19% -% -% -% 13% 92% 8% 52% 48% 68% 32% Less than once a year 2 - - - - - 1 1 - - 2 * 1 1 * 2 % -% -% -% -% -% % 1% -% -% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% -% 36% 46% -% -% 93% 7% 46% 54% 17% 83% Never 19 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 17 2 7 12 6 13 1% % % % 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% a l 4% 5% 4% 11% 7% 12% 24% 4% 8% 90% 10% 34% 63% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2251 306 313 196 154 190 216 179 87 253 1940 311 1459 786 1239 1012 97% 96% 97% 98% 96% 97% 98% 95% 97% 98% 96% 98% 98% 94% 97% 96% m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 55% 45% TOTAL EVER 2304 314 318 199 159 195 219 182 88 258 1989 315 1479 819 1264 1040 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 99% 99% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 98% g m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 8 4 2 - 1 - - 1 - - 8 2 6 5 4 % 1% 1% -% % -% -% 1% -% -% % % % 1% % % l 43% 20% -% 7% -% -% 17% -% -% 96% 4% 27% 73% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Smartphone 841 386 455 200 254 306 81 94 78 108 215 187 242 200 211 690 80 40 30 36% 34% 38% 56% 56% 35% 12% 44% 36% 32% 37% 28% 37% 40% 42% 35% 40% 36% 49% ef ef f i k k k opq 46% 54% 24% 30% 36% 10% 11% 9% 13% 26% 22% 29% 24% 25% 82% 10% 5% 4% Laptop 682 331 351 83 97 266 237 54 58 100 172 238 185 117 141 581 55 30 17 29% 29% 29% 23% 21% 31% 36% 25% 26% 30% 30% 35% 28% 24% 28% 30% 27% 26% 27% cd cde lmn 49% 51% 12% 14% 39% 35% 8% 8% 15% 25% 35% 27% 17% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 475 208 267 37 70 204 164 32 49 71 124 137 131 121 87 396 41 30 9 20% 18% 22% 11% 15% 24% 25% 15% 23% 21% 22% 20% 20% 24% 17% 20% 20% 26% 14% a cd cd g g g n r or 44% 56% 8% 15% 43% 34% 7% 10% 15% 26% 29% 28% 25% 18% 83% 9% 6% 2% Desktop PC 271 179 91 26 20 74 152 24 29 49 48 93 80 46 52 235 18 11 5 12% 16% 8% 7% 4% 9% 23% 11% 13% 15% 8% 14% 12% 9% 10% 12% 9% 10% 9% b d cde j m 66% 34% 9% 7% 27% 56% 9% 11% 18% 18% 34% 30% 17% 19% 87% 7% 4% 2% Netbook 10 6 4 - 3 2 5 2 - 5 5 4 - 1 10 - - * % 1% % -% 1% % 1% 1% % -% 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% -% -% % 61% 39% -% 30% 21% 49% 16% 1% -% 50% 52% 36% -% 12% 98% -% -% 2% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 6 2 4 1 - 3 2 - * 2 1 1 3 2 * 6 1 * - % % % % -% % % -% % 1% % % % % % % % % -% 36% 64% 21% -% 51% 28% -% 4% 37% 16% 16% 50% 27% 7% 87% 9% 4% -% TV set 5 3 2 - 3 2 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 - - % % % -% 1% % % % -% % % % % % % % -% % -% 62% 38% -% 56% 30% 14% 21% -% 24% 48% 14% 31% 24% 31% 93% -% 7% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Games console 4 3 1 3 1 - * 1 - 1 - - 1 2 2 3 1 - - % % % 1% % -% % 1% -% % -% -% % % % % % -% -% ef 68% 32% 71% 20% -% 9% 29% -% 15% -% -% 15% 36% 49% 80% 20% -% -% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 3 2 1 1 - - 2 - - - 2 2 - - 1 3 - - - % % % % -% -% % -% -% -% % % -% -% % % -% -% -% 53% 47% 47% -% -% 53% -% -% -% 53% 53% -% -% 47% 100% -% -% -% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) * * - - - * - * - - - - - - * * - - - % % -% -% -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% % % -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Other device 5 3 2 - * 3 2 1 - 2 3 2 2 1 * 5 * - - % % % -% % % % % -% % 1% % % % % % % -% -% 55% 45% -% 3% 60% 37% 15% -% 30% 56% 40% 30% 23% 8% 97% 3% -% -% None 17 6 11 3 4 5 5 5 4 1 1 3 2 5 6 10 5 1 * 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% % % 1% % 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% % ij j or 35% 65% 20% 21% 30% 29% 33% 21% 4% 3% 21% 13% 29% 37% 63% 32% 5% % Don't know 11 5 7 - 4 1 7 1 - 3 3 3 3 2 10 * 1 * % % 1% -% 1% % 1% % % -% % % % 1% % % % 1% % e e 40% 60% -% 35% 5% 61% 6% 4% -% 23% 26% 27% 31% 17% 86% 4% 7% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE11 (QE40). SHOWCARD Which is the most important device you use to connect to the internet, at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Smartphone 841 112 96 59 62 84 78 87 43 71 738 103 610 227 404 437 36% 35% 30% 29% 38% 43% 35% 46% 48% 27% 37% 32% 41% 27% 32% 41% i bci abcfi abcfi m n 13% 11% 7% 7% 10% 9% 10% 5% 8% 88% 12% 73% 27% 48% 52% Laptop 682 129 100 59 44 42 62 40 19 85 592 90 413 269 369 313 29% 41% 31% 30% 27% 21% 28% 21% 21% 33% 29% 28% 28% 32% 29% 30% bcdefgh egh egh l 19% 15% 9% 6% 6% 9% 6% 3% 12% 87% 13% 60% 39% 54% 46% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 475 44 69 46 35 40 39 39 15 69 406 70 296 180 293 182 20% 14% 22% 23% 22% 20% 18% 21% 17% 27% 20% 22% 20% 21% 23% 17% a a a afh o 9% 15% 10% 7% 8% 8% 8% 3% 14% 85% 15% 62% 38% 62% 38% Desktop PC 271 24 53 29 12 26 31 19 9 32 228 43 127 141 174 96 12% 8% 16% 15% 8% 13% 14% 10% 10% 12% 11% 14% 9% 17% 14% 9% ad ad ad l o 9% 20% 11% 5% 10% 11% 7% 3% 12% 84% 16% 47% 52% 64% 36% Netbook 10 - 2 2 1 1 2 1 - 1 9 1 7 3 7 3 % -% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % -% % % % % % 1% % -% 20% 21% 8% 9% 19% 8% -% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 71% 29% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 6 - - 1 2 - 2 - 1 - 4 3 3 3 4 2 % -% -% % 1% -% 1% -% 1% -% % 1% % % % % j -% -% 12% 30% -% 30% -% 15% -% 58% 42% 53% 47% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TV set 5 - - - * 1 4 - - - 1 4 3 2 2 3 % -% -% -% % % 2% -% -% -% % 1% % % % % j -% -% -% 6% 14% 72% -% -% -% 28% 72% 55% 45% 48% 52% Games console 4 - - - - 2 1 - * - 4 * 2 2 2 3 % -% -% -% -% 1% 1% -% % -% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 39% 32% -% 9% -% 96% 4% 51% 49% 36% 64% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 3 2 - - - - - - - 1 3 - 3 - - 3 % 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % -% % -% -% % 53% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 47% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) * - - - - - - - * - * - - * - * % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% % -% % -% -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other device 5 - - 1 - 2 2 - 1 - 3 2 4 1 3 2 % -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% -% % 1% % % % % -% -% 23% -% 30% 29% -% 15% -% 67% 33% 85% 15% 56% 44% None 17 6 - - 2 - 1 2 - - 16 14 2 10 7 1% 2% -% -% 1% -% % 1% -% -% 1% % 1% % 1% 1% 34% -% -% 11% -% 4% 14% -% -% 98% 2% 82% 14% 59% 41% Don't know 11 2 - 2 3 1 1 - 1 - 10 2 5 6 7 5 % 1% -% 1% 2% 1% % -% 1% -% % 1% % 1% 1% % bgi 17% -% 20% 31% 9% 6% -% 4% -% 84% 16% 43% 57% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Ordinary phone line - dialup access 26 14 13 * 4 13 10 1 2 1 9 13 3 3 7 26 - * * 1% 1% 1% % 1% 2% 1% % 1% % 1% 2% % 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% c c l 51% 49% % 14% 49% 37% 3% 9% 2% 33% 50% 12% 11% 27% 97% -% 1% 2% Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi router. This would include superfast broadband services. 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 91% 91% 91% 89% 84% 94% 94% 80% 85% 90% 96% 96% 91% 92% 85% 91% 93% 92% 93% cd cd g ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card 118 63 55 23 29 45 21 14 10 16 38 39 32 24 22 103 7 5 2 5% 6% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3% 7% 4% 5% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% f f f 53% 47% 19% 24% 38% 18% 12% 8% 13% 33% 33% 27% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network 1058 511 547 202 258 399 199 88 101 155 321 308 300 225 225 907 75 45 31 46% 45% 46% 60% 59% 47% 29% 43% 47% 46% 55% 46% 46% 45% 46% 47% 38% 40% 52% ef ef f ghi p pq 48% 52% 19% 24% 38% 19% 8% 10% 15% 30% 29% 28% 21% 21% 86% 7% 4% 3% Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering 50 22 28 7 18 17 9 2 2 9 20 21 13 9 8 46 1 1 2 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% ef 45% 55% 14% 35% 33% 18% 5% 4% 17% 39% 41% 26% 17% 16% 92% 3% 2% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Accessing the internet through a Mi- Fi mobile broadband wireless router - which taps into a 3G or 4G mobile network and can be shared between devices within range of the signal 30 18 12 4 6 15 6 3 6 5 6 8 11 6 6 25 2 1 2 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% oq 59% 41% 12% 21% 49% 19% 12% 21% 17% 20% 25% 37% 20% 18% 83% 8% 2% 7% TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2283 1115 1168 334 432 853 664 204 213 334 578 664 638 496 482 1918 195 109 60 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 98% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% df gh 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2157 1057 1100 313 380 817 647 176 190 313 565 648 602 475 431 1810 185 104 58 94% 94% 93% 93% 87% 96% 96% 85% 88% 93% 98% 97% 93% 95% 88% 93% 94% 94% 94% d d d gh ghi ln n n 49% 51% 15% 18% 38% 30% 8% 9% 15% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 66 36 30 15 18 22 11 13 13 15 9 6 21 18 21 60 3 2 1 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 6% 4% 2% 1% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% f f j j j k k k 55% 45% 23% 27% 33% 17% 19% 19% 22% 14% 9% 32% 27% 32% 90% 5% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND 108 49 59 18 46 29 14 26 19 18 13 14 33 17 44 92 9 5 2 5% 4% 5% 5% 11% 3% 2% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2% 5% 3% 9% 5% 5% 4% 3% f cef ij j j k klm 45% 55% 17% 43% 27% 13% 24% 18% 16% 12% 13% 30% 15% 41% 86% 8% 4% 2% ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 176 86 90 34 66 49 27 38 30 31 21 21 52 34 68 153 12 7 3 8% 8% 8% 10% 15% 6% 4% 18% 14% 9% 4% 3% 8% 7% 14% 8% 6% 6% 6% ef ef ij j j k k klm 49% 51% 19% 37% 28% 15% 22% 17% 18% 12% 12% 29% 19% 39% 87% 7% 4% 2% Other 5 2 3 * 1 * 4 * 1 2 - 1 2 * 1 4 - 1 - % % % % % % 1% % 1% % -% % % % % % -% 1% -% 38% 62% 2% 18% 4% 76% 4% 30% 35% -% 26% 40% 4% 30% 87% -% 13% -% Don't know 18 7 11 3 5 2 8 3 1 - - 4 5 3 5 15 2 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% e ij 38% 62% 19% 26% 10% 45% 18% 8% -% -% 25% 30% 19% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Ordinary phone line - dialup access 26 - - 1 5 1 4 - 1 14 20 6 18 8 22 4 1% -% -% 1% 3% 1% 2% -% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % abg b abcegh o -% -% 5% 18% 4% 15% -% 2% 53% 77% 23% 69% 31% 84% 16% Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi- Fi router. This would include superfast broadband services. 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 91% 82% 98% 94% 93% 92% 93% 89% 91% 88% 91% 96% 91% 92% 94% 89% adefghi ai a a a a j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 12% 5% 4% 6% 4% 5% 5% abdefgh m 12% 11% 12% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 27% 88% 12% 74% 25% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network 1058 202 76 73 77 104 118 133 41 84 932 126 733 321 529 529 46% 66% 23% 36% 48% 57% 53% 70% 47% 33% 47% 40% 50% 39% 42% 51% bcdfhi b bci bci bci bcdefhi bci b k m n 19% 7% 7% 7% 10% 11% 13% 4% 8% 88% 12% 69% 30% 50% 50% Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering 50 13 1 10 2 - 12 3 2 4 43 7 35 15 26 24 2% 4% % 5% 1% -% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% be bdeg bdegi 26% 2% 20% 4% -% 23% 5% 3% 8% 85% 15% 70% 30% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Accessing the internet through a Mi-Fi mobile broadband wireless router - which taps into a 3G or 4G mobile network and can be shared between devices within range of the signal 30 8 1 2 3 1 - 4 4 2 28 2 21 9 12 19 1% 3% % 1% 2% % -% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% f f bcefi 27% 5% 6% 9% 3% -% 14% 13% 7% 93% 7% 70% 30% 38% 62% TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2283 303 328 203 155 179 220 187 86 257 1972 311 1454 821 1258 1025 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 100% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% deh deh 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2157 258 325 197 149 171 209 176 82 242 1851 305 1370 779 1216 940 94% 84% 99% 97% 94% 93% 94% 93% 93% 94% 93% 97% 94% 94% 96% 91% adefghi a a a a a a a j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE12 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 66 14 5 6 3 2 1 9 3 16 62 5 45 21 29 37 3% 4% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 5% 4% 6% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% ef bef f bdef 20% 7% 9% 5% 3% 2% 14% 5% 25% 93% 7% 68% 32% 44% 56% SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND 108 39 2 5 5 8 10 9 3 12 104 4 73 35 35 73 5% 13% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% 1% 5% 4% 3% 7% bcdefghi b b b b b k n 36% 2% 4% 5% 7% 9% 9% 2% 11% 96% 4% 67% 33% 33% 67% ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 176 51 7 11 8 9 13 18 6 30 166 9 118 58 68 107 8% 17% 2% 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 12% 8% 3% 8% 7% 5% 10% bcdefgh b b bcdef k n 29% 4% 6% 4% 5% 7% 10% 4% 17% 95% 5% 67% 33% 39% 61% Other 5 - - - - 2 1 1 - - 4 1 4 1 3 2 % -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% -% % % % % % % -% -% -% -% 35% 30% 23% -% -% 87% 13% 75% 25% 65% 35% Don't know 18 3 - 1 3 3 1 2 2 - 16 1 8 10 8 9 1% 1% -% % 2% 2% % 1% 2% -% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% bi bi 19% -% 4% 18% 16% 5% 10% 10% -% 92% 8% 46% 54% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe13 (Qe48). Do You Pay Line Rental As Part Of, Or In Addition To, Your Fixed Broadband Charges? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1743 862 881 205 294 690 555 126 155 270 486 535 485 394 328 1455 160 79 50 83% 84% 82% 68% 80% 86% 87% 76% 85% 89% 87% 83% 83% 85% 79% 82% 87% 78% 88% c cd cd g g g n q oq 49% 51% 12% 17% 40% 32% 7% 9% 15% 28% 31% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% No 225 111 114 30 50 89 56 24 19 27 52 69 60 45 51 194 13 16 2 11% 11% 11% 10% 14% 11% 9% 15% 11% 9% 9% 11% 10% 10% 12% 11% 7% 16% 4% f r opr 49% 51% 13% 22% 40% 25% 11% 9% 12% 23% 31% 27% 20% 23% 86% 6% 7% 1% Don't know 139 55 84 65 22 25 27 16 9 6 18 39 41 23 36 117 11 7 5 7% 5% 8% 22% 6% 3% 4% 10% 5% 2% 3% 6% 7% 5% 9% 7% 6% 7% 9% a def e ij m 40% 60% 47% 16% 18% 19% 11% 6% 4% 13% 28% 30% 17% 26% 84% 8% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE13 (QE48). Do you pay line rental as part of, or in addition to, your fixed broadband charges? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Yes 1743 215 249 172 116 137 173 144 59 190 1491 252 1129 607 975 768 83% 85% 78% 90% 79% 81% 83% 85% 74% 83% 83% 84% 84% 80% 82% 84% h bdeh h h h m 12% 14% 10% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 56% 44% No 225 28 60 9 17 15 19 15 11 21 195 30 138 87 143 82 11% 11% 19% 5% 12% 9% 9% 9% 14% 9% 11% 10% 10% 11% 12% 9% c acefgi c c o 12% 27% 4% 8% 7% 8% 7% 5% 9% 87% 13% 61% 39% 64% 36% Don't know 139 10 12 11 13 18 16 11 10 17 120 19 70 69 72 67 7% 4% 4% 6% 9% 10% 7% 6% 13% 7% 7% 6% 5% 9% 6% 7% b ab abc l 7% 8% 8% 9% 13% 11% 8% 7% 12% 86% 14% 50% 50% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe14 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband? Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| ~e \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Yes \| 92 \| \| \| \| \| 78% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| No \| 20 \| \| \| \| \| 17% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| 6 \| \| \| \| \| 5% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe14 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband? Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Yes 92 84 78% 81% 91% No 20 15 17% 15% 75% Don't know 6 5 5% 5% 85% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 To have access to broadband on the move 61 67% Because I don't want to pay for a landline 15 17% Because it was cheaper than a fixed broadband contract 15 16% Because it is less of a commitment than a fixed broadband contract 7 7% As a back-up in case I have problems with my fixed broadband line 5 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 For work/ my employer purchased it 2 2% Other 3 4% Don't know 2 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 To have access to broadband on the move 61 67% Because I don't want to pay for a landline 15 17% Because it was cheaper than a fixed broadband contract 15 16% Because it is less of a commitment than a fixed broadband contract 7 7% As a back-up in case I have problems with my fixed broadband line 5 5% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 For work/ my employer purchased it 2 2% Other 3 4% Don't know 2 2% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 I always use in the home 15 16% I mainly use in the home 19 20% I use equally in the home and outside the home 37 40% I mainly use outside the home 14 16% I always use outside the home 7 8% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 34 36% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 21 23% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 77 84% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 I always use in the home 15 16% I mainly use in the home 19 20% I use equally in the home and outside the home 37 40% I mainly use outside the home 14 16% I always use outside the home 7 8% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 34 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 21 23% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 77 84% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 92 48 44 23 23 32 14 16 9 14 24 22 35 20 15 58 15 14 5 Effective Weighted Sample 62 33 29 14 16 23 11 12 7 11 18 17 24 12 11 49 10 7 4 Total 77 40 37 14 20 33 10 8 6 13 27 25 26 15 11 66 6 3 1 When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) At your work place Outdoors Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) In other people's home (e.g. friends/ family) Other Don't know Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 92 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 17 69 23 61 31 42 50 Effective Weighted Sample 62 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 16 55 9 45 20 25 39 Total 77 12 11 8 3 4 4 2 2 20 71 6 61 16 37 40 When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) At your work place Outdoors Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) In other people's home (e.g. friends/ family) Other Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 92 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 17 69 23 61 31 42 50 Effective Weighted Sample 62 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 16 55 9 45 20 25 39 Total 77 12 11 8 3 4 4 2 2 20 71 6 61 16 37 40 Don't know Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe18 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2453 1174 1279 400 438 924 691 189 221 343 564 625 788 549 489 1522 294 319 318 Effective Weighted Sample 1704 819 885 268 294 647 501 136 150 246 425 462 543 384 329 1325 189 199 240 Total 1885 912 973 292 339 747 507 117 156 272 531 573 524 430 357 1591 152 91 51 48% 52% 15% 18% 40% 27% 6% 8% 14% 28% 30% 28% 23% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% 1 126 34 91 12 26 48 39 30 17 26 5 20 33 22 51 105 10 8 3 7% 4% 9% 4% 8% 6% 8% 26% 11% 10% 1% 3% 6% 5% 14% 7% 6% 9% 6% a c hij j j k klm 27% 73% 10% 21% 38% 31% 24% 13% 21% 4% 16% 26% 17% 41% 84% 8% 6% 2% 2 1106 564 542 100 233 404 369 53 106 172 341 369 300 242 193 920 99 58 30 59% 62% 56% 34% 69% 54% 73% 45% 68% 63% 64% 64% 57% 56% 54% 58% 65% 64% 59% b ce c ce g g g lmn 51% 49% 9% 21% 37% 33% 5% 10% 16% 31% 33% 27% 22% 17% 83% 9% 5% 3% 3 349 163 185 88 37 158 66 16 24 46 101 103 104 86 56 298 30 14 7 19% 18% 19% 30% 11% 21% 13% 14% 15% 17% 19% 18% 20% 20% 16% 19% 20% 15% 14% def df 47% 53% 25% 10% 45% 19% 5% 7% 13% 29% 30% 30% 25% 16% 85% 9% 4% 2% 4 219 113 106 63 29 103 25 13 3 23 67 59 60 69 30 192 10 9 8 12% 12% 11% 22% 8% 14% 5% 11% 2% 8% 13% 10% 11% 16% 9% 12% 7% 10% 15% def df h h h kln p p 51% 49% 29% 13% 47% 11% 6% 1% 10% 31% 27% 27% 32% 14% 88% 5% 4% 3% 5 or more 81 36 45 28 13 33 7 4 5 6 16 22 27 8 24 72 4 2 3 4% 4% 5% 10% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 7% 5% 2% 2% 6% def f f m m 44% 56% 35% 17% 40% 8% 5% 7% 7% 20% 27% 33% 10% 30% 89% 4% 3% 4% Don't know 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 * 1 - 1 2 2 4 1 * * % % % % % % % 1% 1% % % -% % % 1% % % % % 32% 68% 13% 22% 45% 19% 30% 43% 4% 21% -% 15% 42% 43% 81% 11% 4% 4% Mean number of people 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 b def df gh ghi n n n pq pq Standard deviation .98 .93 1.02 1.13 .93 1.01 .71 1.15 .83 .85 .87 .90 1.01 .95 1.08 .99 .84 .89 1.06 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .04 .03 .03 .08 .06 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04 .05 .03 .05 .05 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe18 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2453 177 188 186 174 159 173 159 144 162 1778 675 1473 972 1252 1201 Effective Weighted Sample 1704 159 178 179 164 148 165 149 134 150 1402 325 1033 688 890 830 Total 1885 246 272 174 136 157 181 153 68 202 1617 268 1235 642 1068 817 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 66% 34% 57% 43% 1 126 8 17 9 9 13 11 8 7 24 112 13 58 67 66 60 7% 3% 6% 5% 6% 8% 6% 5% 10% 12% 7% 5% 5% 10% 6% 7% a ac l 7% 13% 7% 7% 10% 9% 7% 6% 19% 89% 11% 46% 53% 52% 48% 2 1106 129 164 100 76 76 115 97 48 115 936 170 713 388 662 444 59% 52% 60% 57% 56% 49% 63% 64% 71% 57% 58% 64% 58% 60% 62% 54% e e ae abcdei o 12% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 85% 15% 64% 35% 60% 40% 3 349 48 49 34 29 34 32 21 9 41 304 45 250 98 197 152 19% 19% 18% 20% 21% 22% 18% 14% 14% 20% 19% 17% 20% 15% 18% 19% m 14% 14% 10% 8% 10% 9% 6% 3% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 57% 43% 4 219 39 36 22 15 27 15 20 3 15 186 33 167 52 110 109 12% 16% 13% 12% 11% 17% 8% 13% 4% 7% 12% 12% 14% 8% 10% 13% fhi h h h fhi h m n 18% 16% 10% 7% 13% 7% 9% 1% 7% 85% 15% 76% 24% 50% 50% 5 or more 81 22 7 10 8 5 6 6 1 8 75 6 45 34 33 48 4% 9% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% 3% 6% befh h h k n 28% 9% 12% 10% 6% 8% 7% 1% 9% 93% 7% 56% 42% 41% 59% Don't know 5 - - 1 - 1 2 - - - 3 1 2 2 1 3 % -% -% % -% 1% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % % -% -% 19% -% 22% 39% -% -% -% 77% 23% 47% 53% 23% 77% Mean number of people 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 bfghi h h h h h h h m n Standard deviation .98 1.09 .93 1.07 1.02 .98 .92 .96 .71 .97 .99 .90 .96 1.00 .90 1.07 Standard error .02 .08 .07 .08 .08 .08 .07 .08 .06 .08 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe19 (Qe3A). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Mobile Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 123 \| 63 \| 60 \| 33 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 82 \| 43 \| 39 \| 19 \| \| Total \| 102 \| 54 \| 48 \| 20 \| \| * \| \| \| \| \| \| 1 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| 22% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| 53 \| \| \| \| \| \| 52% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 3 \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| 10% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 4 \| 11 \| \| \| \| \| 11% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 5 or more \| 1 \| \| \| \| \| 1% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 5 \| \| \| \| \| \| 5% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Mean number of people \| 2.0 \| \| \| \| \| Standard deviation \| 1.01 \| \| \| \| \| Standard error \| .09 \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE19 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 123 8 7 14 5 7 4 9 5 19 89 34 80 42 64 59 Effective Weighted Sample 82 8 7 13 5 6 4 8 5 17 70 14 58 25 42 43 Total 102 14 12 14 4 7 4 6 2 25 92 10 78 22 60 42 1 23 22% 2 53 52% 3 10 10% 4 11 11% 5 or more 1 1% Don't know 5 5% Mean number of people 2.0 Standard deviation 1.01 Standard error .09 ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Sky 529 257 271 90 118 214 107 45 63 83 121 136 148 121 123 433 45 29 21 23% 23% 23% 27% 27% 25% 16% 22% 29% 25% 21% 20% 23% 24% 25% 22% 23% 27% 34% f f f j op 49% 51% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 12% 16% 23% 26% 28% 23% 23% 82% 9% 6% 4% Virgin Media 446 232 215 72 81 166 128 36 33 54 138 130 138 94 85 368 65 8 5 19% 21% 18% 21% 18% 19% 19% 17% 15% 16% 24% 19% 21% 19% 17% 19% 33% 8% 8% hi qr oqr 52% 48% 16% 18% 37% 29% 8% 7% 12% 31% 29% 31% 21% 19% 82% 15% 2% 1% Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse) 251 116 135 31 50 78 93 41 25 37 44 53 84 51 63 209 19 17 7 11% 10% 11% 9% 11% 9% 14% 20% 12% 11% 8% 8% 13% 10% 13% 11% 10% 15% 11% ce hij k k o 46% 54% 12% 20% 31% 37% 16% 10% 15% 17% 21% 34% 20% 25% 83% 8% 7% 3% BT Infinity 247 119 128 36 31 103 78 13 20 34 71 94 66 60 28 208 8 22 9 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 12% 12% 6% 9% 10% 12% 14% 10% 12% 6% 11% 4% 19% 15% d d g n n n p op op 48% 52% 14% 12% 41% 32% 5% 8% 14% 29% 38% 27% 24% 11% 84% 3% 9% 4% BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT Openworld 232 106 126 23 26 103 80 9 22 30 78 96 54 45 37 197 19 9 8 10% 9% 11% 7% 6% 12% 12% 4% 10% 9% 13% 14% 8% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 13% cd cd g g g lmn q 46% 54% 10% 11% 44% 35% 4% 9% 13% 33% 41% 23% 19% 16% 85% 8% 4% 4% BT (other/ unspecified) 147 81 67 16 20 59 52 10 12 19 35 46 37 30 34 118 16 7 6 6% 7% 6% 5% 5% 7% 8% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 8% 6% 10% d o 55% 45% 11% 14% 40% 35% 7% 8% 13% 24% 31% 25% 20% 23% 80% 11% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% EE/ Everything Everywhere 91 34 57 15 30 29 18 9 8 14 22 13 24 30 25 79 7 5 * 4% 3% 5% 4% 7% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 5% % a ef k k r r r 37% 63% 16% 32% 31% 20% 10% 8% 15% 24% 14% 26% 33% 27% 86% 8% 6% % Plusnet 82 43 39 5 10 22 46 6 5 16 24 34 17 16 15 78 2 3 - 4% 4% 3% 1% 2% 3% 7% 3% 2% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% -% cde l pr r 52% 48% 6% 12% 27% 56% 7% 6% 20% 29% 41% 21% 20% 18% 95% 2% 3% -% O2 29 18 11 6 8 14 2 8 6 4 1 4 7 4 14 24 4 * 1 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% % 4% 3% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% % 2% f f f j j klm 61% 39% 20% 27% 46% 7% 27% 19% 15% 4% 15% 24% 12% 48% 83% 13% 1% 4% Vodafone 26 15 11 9 7 6 4 1 1 8 7 12 9 3 3 25 1 1 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% % % 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% ef 57% 43% 33% 27% 24% 16% 3% 4% 29% 27% 44% 34% 10% 12% 94% 2% 1% 3% '3' 23 9 14 3 8 8 4 6 5 4 - 4 5 4 10 20 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% % 1% 1% f j j j k 39% 61% 14% 37% 33% 16% 25% 20% 19% -% 15% 22% 20% 43% 88% 3% 6% 3% Tesco.net 13 7 6 1 2 2 7 4 1 2 3 3 4 3 4 11 2 * 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 2% % % 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 52% 48% 11% 19% 17% 53% 32% 6% 12% 26% 21% 27% 20% 31% 81% 15% 4% 1% AOL 12 8 4 1 4 6 1 * 5 3 5 3 3 2 11 1 * * 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% % % 1% % 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % % 64% 36% 2% 10% 36% 52% 7% 1% 37% 23% 39% 23% 21% 16% 85% 11% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Orange 10 5 5 2 1 4 3 1 * 1 4 2 5 2 1 8 1 1 - % % % 1% % % % 1% % % 1% % 1% % % % 1% 1% -% 52% 48% 17% 14% 36% 32% 13% 1% 8% 34% 23% 47% 21% 9% 75% 11% 14% -% Other 80 42 39 12 21 24 23 6 10 19 16 21 22 18 19 72 2 4 2 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 3% p 52% 48% 15% 26% 30% 29% 8% 12% 23% 20% 26% 28% 23% 23% 90% 3% 5% 2% TOTAL BT 627 306 321 74 77 265 211 32 54 84 184 236 158 134 98 523 44 37 23 27% 27% 27% 22% 17% 31% 31% 15% 25% 25% 32% 35% 24% 27% 20% 27% 22% 34% 38% cd cd g g gi lmn n op op 49% 51% 12% 12% 42% 34% 5% 9% 13% 29% 38% 25% 21% 16% 83% 7% 6% 4% Don't know 84 33 51 17 24 19 23 11 6 7 11 19 23 17 25 78 2 3 1 4% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% e e ij p 39% 61% 20% 29% 23% 28% 13% 7% 8% 13% 23% 27% 20% 30% 93% 3% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Sky 529 70 75 43 40 49 40 43 26 48 475 54 362 166 252 276 23% 23% 23% 21% 25% 27% 18% 23% 30% 19% 24% 17% 25% 20% 20% 27% f fi k m n 13% 14% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 5% 9% 90% 10% 68% 31% 48% 52% Virgin Media 446 57 63 26 39 42 50 31 20 41 431 15 299 145 206 241 19% 19% 19% 13% 25% 23% 23% 16% 23% 16% 22% 5% 20% 17% 16% 23% cgi c c c k n 13% 14% 6% 9% 9% 11% 7% 4% 9% 97% 3% 67% 32% 46% 54% Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse) 251 24 34 27 16 11 23 22 12 39 223 28 145 105 145 106 11% 8% 11% 13% 10% 6% 10% 12% 14% 15% 11% 9% 10% 13% 11% 10% e e ae 9% 14% 11% 6% 4% 9% 9% 5% 16% 89% 11% 58% 42% 58% 42% BT Infinity 247 17 36 28 15 10 33 25 11 33 185 62 150 97 167 80 11% 5% 11% 14% 10% 6% 15% 13% 13% 13% 9% 20% 10% 12% 13% 8% a ae ae ae ae ae j o 7% 14% 11% 6% 4% 13% 10% 4% 13% 75% 25% 61% 39% 68% 32% BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT Openworld 232 50 60 15 7 13 15 10 2 24 188 45 143 89 155 77 10% 16% 18% 7% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3% 9% 9% 14% 10% 11% 12% 7% cdefghi cdefghi h h h j o 22% 26% 7% 3% 6% 6% 4% 1% 10% 81% 19% 61% 38% 67% 33% BT (other/ unspecified) 147 28 6 19 2 19 20 10 2 11 112 35 89 57 87 61 6% 9% 2% 9% 1% 10% 9% 5% 2% 4% 6% 11% 6% 7% 7% 6% bdh bdh bdhi bdh d j 19% 4% 13% 1% 13% 14% 7% 1% 8% 76% 24% 60% 39% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% EE/ Everything Everywhere 91 15 8 11 5 6 5 7 4 18 79 13 66 25 45 46 4% 5% 2% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% bf 16% 9% 12% 6% 7% 5% 7% 4% 20% 86% 14% 72% 28% 50% 50% Plusnet 82 - 19 16 6 13 9 10 1 4 58 24 42 40 63 19 4% -% 6% 8% 4% 7% 4% 5% 1% 2% 3% 8% 3% 5% 5% 2% ahi ahi a ahi a ah j l o -% 23% 19% 8% 16% 10% 12% 1% 5% 71% 29% 52% 48% 77% 23% O2 29 8 1 1 - 3 1 7 1 3 27 2 19 10 5 24 1% 3% % % -% 1% % 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 2% d bcdf n 28% 4% 3% -% 9% 3% 24% 4% 9% 93% 7% 66% 34% 18% 82% Vodafone 26 16 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 25 1 22 4 14 12 1% 5% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 2% % 1% 1% bcdefghi m 60% -% 6% 3% 5% 5% 5% 2% 7% 97% 3% 86% 14% 55% 45% '3' 23 4 1 - 1 1 2 4 1 5 22 1 13 10 9 13 1% 1% % -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% c 16% 4% -% 6% 4% 11% 19% 6% 21% 95% 5% 56% 44% 41% 59% Tesco.net 13 1 4 - - 1 - 2 * 2 9 4 7 6 6 7 1% % 1% -% -% % -% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% 6% 34% -% -% 6% -% 12% 4% 19% 70% 30% 57% 43% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% AOL 12 - - 2 2 1 2 - - 4 10 3 6 7 9 4 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 2% % 1% % 1% 1% % -% -% 13% 15% 9% 17% -% -% 32% 79% 21% 47% 53% 71% 29% Orange 10 3 - 2 1 1 1 - - - 8 2 8 2 4 6 % 1% -% 1% 1% % 1% -% -% -% % 1% 1% % % 1% 27% -% 19% 10% 7% 12% -% -% -% 79% 21% 80% 20% 38% 62% Other 80 12 8 4 4 5 13 11 3 13 67 13 48 32 53 28 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% c 15% 10% 5% 5% 7% 16% 13% 3% 16% 84% 16% 60% 40% 65% 35% TOTAL BT 627 95 102 62 24 42 68 45 15 68 485 142 382 243 409 218 27% 31% 31% 30% 15% 23% 31% 24% 17% 27% 24% 45% 26% 29% 32% 21% dh dh dh dh d dh j o 15% 16% 10% 4% 7% 11% 7% 2% 11% 77% 23% 61% 39% 65% 35% Don't know 84 3 13 9 18 7 7 8 3 11 72 12 45 39 49 36 4% 1% 4% 4% 12% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 3% a a abcefghi a a a 3% 15% 10% 22% 9% 8% 9% 3% 13% 86% 14% 54% 46% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 2061 1012 1049 318 412 777 554 187 192 305 538 598 589 441 431 1736 169 99 57 88% 89% 88% 90% 90% 90% 84% 87% 88% 91% 93% 89% 90% 88% 85% 89% 84% 87% 92% f f f gh n p p 49% 51% 15% 20% 38% 27% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending and receiving e-mail 2032 991 1041 315 402 779 535 164 189 301 533 622 592 412 403 1723 160 97 52 87% 87% 87% 89% 88% 90% 82% 76% 87% 90% 93% 93% 91% 83% 80% 88% 79% 86% 84% f f f g g gh mn mn p p 49% 51% 15% 20% 38% 26% 8% 9% 15% 26% 31% 29% 20% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc. 1554 756 798 226 318 603 408 122 144 238 464 497 452 332 271 1303 132 76 43 67% 67% 67% 64% 70% 70% 62% 57% 66% 71% 81% 74% 69% 67% 53% 67% 66% 67% 70% f f g g ghi mn n n 49% 51% 15% 20% 39% 26% 8% 9% 15% 30% 32% 29% 21% 17% 84% 9% 5% 3% Banking 1478 720 758 215 344 596 322 98 124 225 476 478 441 316 242 1262 106 72 38 63% 64% 63% 61% 76% 69% 49% 45% 57% 67% 83% 71% 68% 63% 48% 65% 53% 64% 62% f cef cf g gh ghi mn n n p p p 49% 51% 15% 23% 40% 22% 7% 8% 15% 32% 32% 30% 21% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1303 579 724 264 315 520 205 115 120 208 379 372 379 268 283 1110 99 57 37 56% 51% 60% 74% 69% 60% 31% 53% 55% 62% 66% 55% 58% 54% 56% 57% 49% 51% 60% a ef ef f g gh p pq 44% 56% 20% 24% 40% 16% 9% 9% 16% 29% 29% 29% 21% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 1247 570 677 250 321 474 202 111 113 189 329 362 367 247 270 1052 100 60 35 53% 50% 57% 70% 70% 55% 31% 52% 52% 56% 57% 54% 56% 50% 53% 54% 50% 53% 56% a ef ef f m 46% 54% 20% 26% 38% 16% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 29% 20% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% To find information on health related issues 1036 457 579 133 217 412 274 74 92 162 328 344 290 210 191 886 62 53 35 44% 40% 48% 38% 48% 48% 42% 34% 42% 48% 57% 51% 44% 42% 38% 45% 31% 47% 57% a c cf g ghi lmn n p p opq 44% 56% 13% 21% 40% 26% 7% 9% 16% 32% 33% 28% 20% 18% 86% 6% 5% 3% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 1013 550 463 140 229 479 165 51 76 159 352 374 297 195 147 861 74 53 25 43% 48% 39% 39% 50% 55% 25% 24% 35% 47% 61% 56% 45% 39% 29% 44% 37% 47% 41% b f cf cf g gh ghi lmn mn n p p 54% 46% 14% 23% 47% 16% 5% 8% 16% 35% 37% 29% 19% 15% 85% 7% 5% 2% Accessing news 981 522 459 147 206 411 217 67 80 155 307 343 302 177 160 834 75 48 24 42% 46% 38% 42% 45% 47% 33% 31% 37% 46% 53% 51% 46% 35% 31% 43% 37% 42% 39% b f f f gh gh mn mn 53% 47% 15% 21% 42% 22% 7% 8% 16% 31% 35% 31% 18% 16% 85% 8% 5% 2% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 962 501 461 193 228 377 165 74 93 151 304 304 285 185 188 850 59 36 17 41% 44% 38% 54% 50% 44% 25% 35% 43% 45% 53% 45% 44% 37% 37% 43% 29% 32% 28% b ef ef f g ghi mn mn pqr 52% 48% 20% 24% 39% 17% 8% 10% 16% 32% 32% 30% 19% 20% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 852 429 422 163 179 334 175 57 73 130 297 307 243 160 141 735 59 42 16 37% 38% 35% 46% 39% 39% 27% 27% 34% 39% 52% 46% 37% 32% 28% 38% 29% 37% 26% ef f f g ghi lmn n pr r 50% 50% 19% 21% 39% 21% 7% 9% 15% 35% 36% 29% 19% 17% 86% 7% 5% 2% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 824 419 404 95 146 341 242 56 65 137 277 307 243 148 126 708 56 37 23 35% 37% 34% 27% 32% 39% 37% 26% 30% 41% 48% 46% 37% 30% 25% 36% 28% 33% 37% cd c gh ghi lmn mn p p 51% 49% 12% 18% 41% 29% 7% 8% 17% 34% 37% 30% 18% 15% 86% 7% 5% 3% Downloading music files 779 407 372 176 187 319 97 65 76 122 253 231 248 167 132 665 65 28 22 33% 36% 31% 50% 41% 37% 15% 30% 35% 36% 44% 34% 38% 33% 26% 34% 32% 24% 35% b def f f ghi n n n q q q 52% 48% 23% 24% 41% 12% 8% 10% 16% 33% 30% 32% 21% 17% 85% 8% 4% 3% Playing games online/ interactively 765 400 365 182 182 282 119 83 76 110 207 183 220 176 185 656 63 29 17 33% 35% 30% 51% 40% 33% 18% 39% 35% 33% 36% 27% 34% 35% 36% 34% 31% 26% 28% b def ef f k k k qr 52% 48% 24% 24% 37% 16% 11% 10% 14% 27% 24% 29% 23% 24% 86% 8% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 690 339 351 127 160 278 124 41 58 98 216 234 215 120 120 601 49 28 12 30% 30% 29% 36% 35% 32% 19% 19% 26% 29% 38% 35% 33% 24% 24% 31% 24% 25% 19% f f f g ghi mn mn pr 49% 51% 18% 23% 40% 18% 6% 8% 14% 31% 34% 31% 17% 17% 87% 7% 4% 2% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 636 295 341 132 163 240 100 48 62 92 202 216 178 116 126 552 36 30 18 27% 26% 28% 37% 36% 28% 15% 22% 28% 27% 35% 32% 27% 23% 25% 28% 18% 26% 29% ef ef f gi mn p p p 46% 54% 21% 26% 38% 16% 8% 10% 14% 32% 34% 28% 18% 20% 87% 6% 5% 3% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 606 276 330 160 118 266 62 42 50 99 184 219 197 93 97 529 29 31 17 26% 24% 28% 45% 26% 31% 9% 19% 23% 30% 32% 33% 30% 19% 19% 27% 14% 27% 28% def f f g gh mn mn p p p 46% 54% 26% 19% 44% 10% 7% 8% 16% 30% 36% 32% 15% 16% 87% 5% 5% 3% Trading/ auctions 568 309 259 86 138 241 104 40 41 92 199 186 156 133 93 498 39 19 12 24% 27% 22% 24% 30% 28% 16% 19% 19% 27% 35% 28% 24% 27% 18% 25% 19% 16% 19% b f f f gh ghi n n n pqr 54% 46% 15% 24% 42% 18% 7% 7% 16% 35% 33% 27% 23% 16% 88% 7% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 472 248 224 90 113 194 74 32 44 57 179 176 150 78 68 417 25 22 9 20% 22% 19% 25% 25% 22% 11% 15% 20% 17% 31% 26% 23% 16% 13% 21% 12% 19% 15% f f f ghi mn mn pr p 53% 47% 19% 24% 41% 16% 7% 9% 12% 38% 37% 32% 17% 14% 88% 5% 5% 2% Listening to radio 469 251 218 87 92 191 99 35 33 66 167 170 124 87 89 415 31 17 7 20% 22% 18% 25% 20% 22% 15% 16% 15% 20% 29% 25% 19% 18% 17% 21% 15% 15% 11% b f f f ghi lmn pqr 54% 46% 19% 19% 41% 21% 7% 7% 14% 36% 36% 26% 19% 19% 88% 7% 4% 1% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 458 259 199 100 110 194 54 33 37 70 169 143 135 97 82 405 18 27 7 20% 23% 17% 28% 24% 22% 8% 15% 17% 21% 29% 21% 21% 19% 16% 21% 9% 24% 12% b ef f f ghi n pr pr 56% 44% 22% 24% 42% 12% 7% 8% 15% 37% 31% 30% 21% 18% 89% 4% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 454 256 198 87 109 180 77 33 31 72 170 159 129 85 79 402 21 25 6 19% 23% 17% 25% 24% 21% 12% 15% 14% 21% 29% 24% 20% 17% 16% 21% 10% 22% 10% b f f f h ghi mn pr pr 56% 44% 19% 24% 40% 17% 7% 7% 16% 37% 35% 28% 19% 17% 88% 5% 5% 1% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 452 236 216 130 126 165 30 30 31 66 148 149 144 85 74 382 30 25 15 19% 21% 18% 37% 28% 19% 5% 14% 14% 20% 26% 22% 22% 17% 15% 20% 15% 22% 24% def ef f ghi mn mn p p 52% 48% 29% 28% 37% 7% 7% 7% 15% 33% 33% 32% 19% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 371 188 184 88 109 138 36 29 30 50 131 114 110 78 68 310 28 20 13 16% 17% 15% 25% 24% 16% 5% 14% 14% 15% 23% 17% 17% 16% 14% 16% 14% 18% 21% ef ef f ghi op 51% 49% 24% 29% 37% 10% 8% 8% 14% 35% 31% 30% 21% 18% 84% 7% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 337 193 144 92 88 124 32 22 26 50 125 104 111 70 51 285 29 17 6 14% 17% 12% 26% 19% 14% 5% 10% 12% 15% 22% 16% 17% 14% 10% 15% 14% 15% 9% b def ef f ghi n n r r r 57% 43% 27% 26% 37% 10% 6% 8% 15% 37% 31% 33% 21% 15% 85% 9% 5% 2% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 306 163 143 94 79 110 23 15 25 45 98 111 96 54 45 263 19 12 11 13% 14% 12% 26% 17% 13% 3% 7% 11% 14% 17% 16% 15% 11% 9% 13% 10% 10% 19% def ef f g gh mn n opq 53% 47% 31% 26% 36% 8% 5% 8% 15% 32% 36% 31% 18% 15% 86% 6% 4% 4% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 231 126 105 50 64 99 18 23 17 42 69 66 72 41 52 207 9 10 4 10% 11% 9% 14% 14% 11% 3% 11% 8% 13% 12% 10% 11% 8% 10% 11% 5% 9% 7% f f f pr p 55% 45% 21% 28% 43% 8% 10% 7% 18% 30% 29% 31% 18% 23% 90% 4% 4% 2% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 163 95 68 22 35 80 26 10 11 23 65 60 52 20 31 138 10 11 5 7% 8% 6% 6% 8% 9% 4% 5% 5% 7% 11% 9% 8% 4% 6% 7% 5% 10% 7% b f f ghi m m p 58% 42% 14% 21% 49% 16% 6% 7% 14% 40% 37% 32% 13% 19% 85% 6% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Real time gambling 158 112 45 32 46 65 14 13 13 27 53 34 48 38 37 125 22 7 3 7% 10% 4% 9% 10% 8% 2% 6% 6% 8% 9% 5% 7% 8% 7% 6% 11% 7% 5% b f f f or 71% 29% 21% 29% 41% 9% 8% 8% 17% 34% 22% 31% 24% 24% 79% 14% 5% 2% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 153 93 59 48 39 55 11 9 10 18 64 53 42 25 32 126 15 8 4 7% 8% 5% 14% 8% 6% 2% 4% 5% 5% 11% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 7% b def f f ghi 61% 39% 32% 25% 36% 7% 6% 7% 12% 42% 35% 28% 16% 21% 82% 10% 5% 3% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 72 41 31 9 22 34 7 3 1 6 33 31 19 9 13 65 2 5 1 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 1% 1% % 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 1% f f ghi m pr pr 57% 43% 13% 30% 48% 10% 3% 1% 8% 45% 42% 27% 12% 19% 90% 2% 7% 1% Other 15 12 3 1 1 5 8 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 5 8 6 2 - 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% % 1% % 3% 1% -% b or or 78% 22% 9% 4% 36% 51% 8% 14% 5% 16% 24% 27% 13% 36% 49% 39% 11% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1362 616 746 275 331 542 213 118 122 216 397 392 395 282 291 1157 104 62 39 58% 54% 62% 78% 73% 63% 32% 55% 56% 64% 69% 58% 60% 57% 57% 59% 51% 55% 63% a ef ef f gh gh p p 45% 55% 20% 24% 40% 16% 9% 9% 16% 29% 29% 29% 21% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 1335 667 668 249 316 510 260 104 120 212 413 414 392 269 259 1156 90 60 29 57% 59% 56% 70% 69% 59% 40% 48% 55% 63% 72% 62% 60% 54% 51% 59% 45% 53% 47% ef ef f g ghi mn mn pr 50% 50% 19% 24% 38% 19% 8% 9% 16% 31% 31% 29% 20% 19% 87% 7% 4% 2% USE TWITTER 474 248 226 134 132 171 37 30 36 67 153 157 156 86 76 401 31 26 16 20% 22% 19% 38% 29% 20% 6% 14% 16% 20% 27% 23% 24% 17% 15% 21% 15% 23% 26% def ef f ghi mn mn p p 52% 48% 28% 28% 36% 8% 6% 8% 14% 32% 33% 33% 18% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 366 207 160 98 97 135 36 24 26 51 141 115 120 74 58 305 37 18 6 16% 18% 13% 28% 21% 16% 6% 11% 12% 15% 24% 17% 18% 15% 11% 16% 18% 16% 10% b def ef f ghi n n r r r 56% 44% 27% 26% 37% 10% 6% 7% 14% 38% 32% 33% 20% 16% 83% 10% 5% 2% None of these 40 26 14 4 7 10 19 8 4 2 4 * 9 10 21 31 6 3 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% % 1% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% e ij k k kl 64% 36% 10% 17% 24% 48% 20% 11% 5% 10% % 22% 25% 53% 77% 14% 6% 3% Don't know 1 - 1 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - % -% % % -% -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% % % % % -% -% -% 100% 62% -% -% 38% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% 62% 38% 62% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% General surfing/ browsing the internet 2061 285 290 186 134 171 184 177 79 231 1774 287 1339 716 1139 922 88% 89% 90% 93% 83% 87% 83% 94% 89% 89% 88% 90% 90% 86% 89% 87% df def def m 14% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 55% 45% Sending and receiving e-mail 2032 298 284 185 130 171 195 158 72 230 1753 279 1354 674 1116 916 87% 93% 88% 92% 81% 87% 88% 84% 81% 89% 87% 88% 91% 81% 88% 87% degh dh dgh d dh m 15% 14% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 33% 55% 45% Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc. 1554 196 214 152 107 112 166 135 52 170 1316 238 1045 506 879 675 67% 61% 67% 76% 66% 57% 75% 71% 58% 66% 65% 75% 70% 60% 69% 64% e abdehi aehi aeh j m o 13% 14% 10% 7% 7% 11% 9% 3% 11% 85% 15% 67% 33% 57% 43% Banking 1478 218 205 152 82 114 151 116 50 175 1271 207 1050 422 821 657 63% 68% 64% 76% 51% 58% 68% 62% 56% 67% 63% 65% 71% 50% 64% 62% deh d bdegh deh d dh m 15% 14% 10% 6% 8% 10% 8% 3% 12% 86% 14% 71% 29% 56% 44% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1303 210 166 113 76 87 143 108 58 149 1136 168 920 380 661 643 56% 66% 52% 56% 47% 44% 65% 57% 66% 57% 56% 53% 62% 45% 52% 61% bcde e bde e bde de m n 16% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 1247 236 133 106 78 93 135 114 46 110 1082 165 865 377 624 622 53% 74% 42% 53% 49% 47% 61% 60% 52% 43% 54% 52% 58% 45% 49% 59% bcdefghi bi bdei bdei b m n 19% 11% 9% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 9% 87% 13% 69% 30% 50% 50% To find information on health related issues 1036 141 184 106 61 69 99 75 39 112 887 149 694 340 601 436 44% 44% 57% 53% 38% 35% 45% 40% 44% 43% 44% 47% 47% 41% 47% 41% adefghi degi e m o 14% 18% 10% 6% 7% 10% 7% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 33% 58% 42% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 1013 209 123 94 51 66 104 61 43 109 876 137 827 186 537 476 43% 66% 38% 47% 32% 34% 47% 32% 48% 42% 43% 43% 56% 22% 42% 45% bcdefghi deg deg deg dg m 21% 12% 9% 5% 7% 10% 6% 4% 11% 86% 14% 82% 18% 53% 47% Accessing news 981 154 135 100 50 70 94 72 35 124 837 144 684 293 548 433 42% 48% 42% 50% 31% 36% 42% 38% 39% 48% 42% 45% 46% 35% 43% 41% de d degh d de m 16% 14% 10% 5% 7% 10% 7% 4% 13% 85% 15% 70% 30% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 962 207 109 97 54 58 100 94 34 97 834 128 686 274 470 492 41% 65% 34% 49% 34% 30% 45% 50% 38% 37% 41% 40% 46% 33% 37% 47% bcdefghi bdehi bde bdehi m n 22% 11% 10% 6% 6% 10% 10% 4% 10% 87% 13% 71% 29% 49% 51% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 852 93 118 99 52 57 97 94 25 100 725 127 589 261 483 369 37% 29% 37% 49% 32% 29% 44% 50% 28% 39% 36% 40% 40% 31% 38% 35% abdehi adeh abdehi ah m 11% 14% 12% 6% 7% 11% 11% 3% 12% 85% 15% 69% 31% 57% 43% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 824 106 135 93 48 46 83 68 30 99 692 131 563 258 469 354 35% 33% 42% 46% 30% 24% 38% 36% 34% 38% 34% 41% 38% 31% 37% 34% e de adegh e e e e j m 13% 16% 11% 6% 6% 10% 8% 4% 12% 84% 16% 68% 31% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Downloading music files 779 134 71 77 48 72 93 69 24 77 671 109 567 209 387 392 33% 42% 22% 38% 30% 37% 42% 37% 27% 30% 33% 34% 38% 25% 30% 37% bdhi bh bh bdhi bh m n 17% 9% 10% 6% 9% 12% 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 73% 27% 50% 50% Playing games online/ interactively 765 83 99 74 62 62 79 73 32 93 660 105 505 258 406 359 33% 26% 31% 37% 38% 32% 36% 39% 36% 36% 33% 33% 34% 31% 32% 34% a a a a a a 11% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 66% 34% 53% 47% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 690 226 63 57 30 45 69 55 13 42 599 91 492 197 323 367 30% 71% 20% 28% 18% 23% 31% 29% 15% 16% 30% 29% 33% 24% 25% 35% bcdefghi bdhi h bdhi bdhi m n 33% 9% 8% 4% 7% 10% 8% 2% 6% 87% 13% 71% 29% 47% 53% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 636 114 68 66 42 55 70 47 20 72 539 97 452 182 310 326 27% 36% 21% 33% 26% 28% 31% 25% 22% 28% 27% 31% 30% 22% 24% 31% bdgh bh bh m n 18% 11% 10% 7% 9% 11% 7% 3% 11% 85% 15% 71% 29% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 606 115 97 54 36 39 61 44 20 63 527 79 394 210 313 293 26% 36% 30% 27% 22% 20% 28% 23% 23% 24% 26% 25% 26% 25% 25% 28% cdeghi e 19% 16% 9% 6% 6% 10% 7% 3% 10% 87% 13% 65% 35% 52% 48% Trading/ auctions 568 64 83 70 43 48 58 53 22 58 497 71 430 137 320 248 24% 20% 26% 35% 27% 24% 26% 28% 24% 22% 25% 22% 29% 16% 25% 23% abehi m 11% 15% 12% 8% 8% 10% 9% 4% 10% 88% 12% 76% 24% 56% 44% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 472 58 66 65 32 32 55 45 16 47 390 82 347 122 254 218 20% 18% 21% 33% 20% 17% 25% 24% 17% 18% 19% 26% 23% 15% 20% 21% abdehi e j m 12% 14% 14% 7% 7% 12% 10% 3% 10% 83% 17% 74% 26% 54% 46% Listening to radio 469 52 78 52 26 28 68 44 15 52 391 79 336 132 279 191 20% 16% 24% 26% 16% 14% 31% 23% 16% 20% 19% 25% 23% 16% 22% 18% ae adeh adehi e j m o 11% 17% 11% 6% 6% 14% 9% 3% 11% 83% 17% 72% 28% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 458 100 50 68 23 30 43 33 12 45 395 63 342 115 240 218 20% 32% 16% 34% 15% 15% 19% 18% 14% 17% 20% 20% 23% 14% 19% 21% bdefghi bdefghi m 22% 11% 15% 5% 7% 9% 7% 3% 10% 86% 14% 75% 25% 52% 48% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 454 65 67 55 26 29 49 38 13 61 393 61 335 118 260 194 19% 20% 21% 27% 16% 15% 22% 20% 14% 23% 20% 19% 23% 14% 20% 18% deh eh m 14% 15% 12% 6% 6% 11% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 74% 26% 57% 43% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 452 78 44 37 30 31 39 42 22 58 402 50 338 114 228 223 19% 24% 14% 19% 18% 16% 18% 22% 25% 22% 20% 16% 23% 14% 18% 21% be b be b m 17% 10% 8% 7% 7% 9% 9% 5% 13% 89% 11% 75% 25% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 371 33 39 39 16 34 40 36 17 57 319 52 280 90 188 184 16% 10% 12% 19% 10% 17% 18% 19% 19% 22% 16% 16% 19% 11% 15% 17% abd ad ad ad ad abd m 9% 10% 10% 4% 9% 11% 10% 5% 15% 86% 14% 75% 24% 50% 50% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 337 50 40 33 17 21 38 24 11 51 296 41 261 76 167 170 14% 16% 12% 16% 11% 11% 17% 13% 13% 20% 15% 13% 18% 9% 13% 16% bde m n 15% 12% 10% 5% 6% 11% 7% 3% 15% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 306 51 27 24 19 24 33 32 11 41 266 40 221 84 157 148 13% 16% 9% 12% 12% 12% 15% 17% 12% 16% 13% 13% 15% 10% 12% 14% b b b b m 17% 9% 8% 6% 8% 11% 11% 4% 14% 87% 13% 72% 27% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 231 62 19 13 11 22 30 15 5 31 203 29 164 68 101 131 10% 20% 6% 6% 7% 11% 14% 8% 5% 12% 10% 9% 11% 8% 8% 12% bcdeghi h bcdh bh m n 27% 8% 6% 5% 9% 13% 6% 2% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 44% 56% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 163 16 18 17 12 15 17 18 5 21 143 20 124 39 101 63 7% 5% 6% 8% 7% 8% 8% 9% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 5% 8% 6% m 10% 11% 10% 7% 9% 10% 11% 3% 13% 88% 12% 76% 24% 62% 38% Real time gambling 158 22 13 14 11 13 17 9 3 23 142 16 130 28 71 86 7% 7% 4% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% 4% 9% 7% 5% 9% 3% 6% 8% bh m n 14% 8% 9% 7% 8% 11% 6% 2% 15% 90% 10% 82% 18% 45% 55% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 153 23 8 18 12 7 20 14 4 19 132 20 120 33 74 78 7% 7% 3% 9% 7% 4% 9% 8% 4% 7% 7% 6% 8% 4% 6% 7% b be b be b b m 15% 5% 12% 8% 5% 13% 9% 2% 12% 87% 13% 78% 22% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 72 14 8 4 4 6 10 3 1 16 61 12 65 7 41 32 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% 6% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% cgh m 19% 12% 5% 5% 8% 14% 4% 2% 22% 84% 16% 90% 10% 56% 44% Other 15 - 1 2 1 2 - - * 1 12 3 5 11 8 7 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% -% -% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% l -% 5% 10% 8% 15% -% -% 1% 9% 81% 19% 31% 69% 52% 48% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1362 219 175 122 77 91 147 112 61 154 1185 176 960 398 699 663 58% 69% 55% 61% 48% 46% 66% 59% 68% 59% 59% 56% 65% 48% 55% 63% bde de bde de bde de m n 16% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 70% 29% 51% 49% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 1335 240 161 133 81 95 140 121 49 138 1149 186 939 393 679 656 57% 75% 50% 66% 50% 48% 63% 64% 54% 53% 57% 59% 63% 47% 53% 62% bcdefghi bdehi bdei bdei m n 18% 12% 10% 6% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 70% 29% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE21 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% USE TWITTER 474 83 46 41 30 34 42 43 22 60 419 55 351 121 240 233 20% 26% 14% 20% 18% 17% 19% 23% 25% 23% 21% 17% 24% 14% 19% 22% be b b b m 17% 10% 9% 6% 7% 9% 9% 5% 13% 88% 12% 74% 26% 51% 49% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 366 54 40 37 22 24 41 24 12 51 323 44 283 83 181 185 16% 17% 12% 18% 14% 12% 19% 13% 14% 20% 16% 14% 19% 10% 14% 17% be m n 15% 11% 10% 6% 6% 11% 7% 3% 14% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% None of these 40 5 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 9 37 3 21 19 19 21 2% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% c 11% 7% 2% 8% 7% 6% 8% 6% 22% 93% 7% 52% 47% 47% 53% Don't know 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% % -% % -% -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1889 927 962 292 390 716 492 168 170 278 508 551 547 395 394 1594 153 90 51 81% 82% 80% 82% 86% 83% 75% 78% 78% 83% 88% 82% 84% 79% 78% 82% 76% 80% 83% f f f ghi n p p 49% 51% 15% 21% 38% 26% 9% 9% 15% 27% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending and receiving e-mail 1744 847 897 267 350 678 449 130 152 266 499 554 526 331 331 1494 126 85 40 75% 75% 75% 75% 77% 78% 68% 60% 70% 79% 87% 83% 80% 67% 65% 76% 62% 75% 65% f f f g gh ghi mn mn pr pr 49% 51% 15% 20% 39% 26% 7% 9% 15% 29% 32% 30% 19% 19% 86% 7% 5% 2% Banking 1158 562 596 164 277 472 245 74 96 181 393 381 337 252 187 1001 70 59 27 50% 50% 50% 46% 61% 55% 37% 35% 44% 54% 68% 57% 52% 51% 37% 51% 35% 52% 45% f cef cf g gh ghi n n n pr p p 49% 51% 14% 24% 41% 21% 6% 8% 16% 34% 33% 29% 22% 16% 86% 6% 5% 2% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1126 495 631 231 273 454 168 107 105 176 329 311 326 230 257 956 87 52 31 48% 44% 53% 65% 60% 52% 26% 50% 48% 52% 57% 46% 50% 46% 51% 49% 43% 46% 51% a ef ef f h 44% 56% 21% 24% 40% 15% 10% 9% 16% 29% 28% 29% 20% 23% 85% 8% 5% 3% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 950 415 535 201 254 357 138 90 80 139 273 260 283 186 221 816 62 46 26 41% 37% 45% 57% 56% 41% 21% 42% 36% 41% 47% 39% 43% 37% 44% 42% 31% 41% 42% a ef ef f h p p p 44% 56% 21% 27% 38% 15% 9% 8% 15% 29% 27% 30% 20% 23% 86% 7% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc. 921 431 490 119 198 396 207 63 78 146 314 321 271 185 144 797 63 43 17 40% 38% 41% 34% 44% 46% 32% 29% 36% 44% 55% 48% 41% 37% 28% 41% 31% 38% 28% cf cf g ghi lmn n n pr r 47% 53% 13% 22% 43% 23% 7% 9% 16% 34% 35% 29% 20% 16% 87% 7% 5% 2% Accessing news 713 405 308 100 156 295 161 39 53 113 246 260 224 118 111 610 52 34 17 31% 36% 26% 28% 34% 34% 25% 18% 24% 34% 43% 39% 34% 24% 22% 31% 26% 30% 28% b f f gh ghi mn mn 57% 43% 14% 22% 41% 23% 5% 7% 16% 34% 36% 31% 17% 16% 86% 7% 5% 2% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 696 384 311 93 158 338 107 38 37 104 274 276 207 119 94 608 37 35 17 30% 34% 26% 26% 35% 39% 16% 18% 17% 31% 48% 41% 32% 24% 19% 31% 18% 30% 27% b f cf cf gh ghi lmn mn n p p p 55% 45% 13% 23% 49% 15% 5% 5% 15% 39% 40% 30% 17% 14% 87% 5% 5% 2% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 640 352 288 142 152 253 93 51 49 97 213 193 191 117 139 579 26 25 9 27% 31% 24% 40% 33% 29% 14% 24% 22% 29% 37% 29% 29% 24% 27% 30% 13% 23% 14% b ef f f ghi m pqr pr 55% 45% 22% 24% 39% 15% 8% 8% 15% 33% 30% 30% 18% 22% 91% 4% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 534 274 260 109 112 204 108 35 42 80 193 195 153 95 89 471 29 25 8 23% 24% 22% 31% 25% 24% 17% 16% 19% 24% 34% 29% 23% 19% 18% 24% 14% 22% 13% ef f f g ghi lmn n pr pr 51% 49% 21% 21% 38% 20% 7% 8% 15% 36% 37% 29% 18% 17% 88% 5% 5% 2% Playing games online/ interactively 509 274 235 131 111 181 87 57 51 71 137 117 145 111 135 443 37 21 9 22% 24% 20% 37% 24% 21% 13% 27% 23% 21% 24% 17% 22% 22% 27% 23% 18% 18% 14% b def f f k k r 54% 46% 26% 22% 35% 17% 11% 10% 14% 27% 23% 29% 22% 27% 87% 7% 4% 2% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 427 215 211 83 120 165 59 24 34 65 136 137 138 70 82 389 19 14 5 18% 19% 18% 23% 26% 19% 9% 11% 16% 19% 24% 20% 21% 14% 16% 20% 9% 13% 8% f ef f g gh m mn pqr 50% 50% 19% 28% 39% 14% 6% 8% 15% 32% 32% 32% 16% 19% 91% 4% 3% 1% Downloading music files 424 230 193 114 103 168 39 38 35 73 148 122 135 88 79 369 27 16 11 18% 20% 16% 32% 23% 19% 6% 17% 16% 22% 26% 18% 21% 18% 16% 19% 14% 14% 18% b def f f gh n p 54% 46% 27% 24% 40% 9% 9% 8% 17% 35% 29% 32% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% To find information on health related issues 400 159 241 55 92 164 89 26 34 70 146 148 96 76 79 345 15 26 13 17% 14% 20% 15% 20% 19% 14% 12% 16% 21% 25% 22% 15% 15% 16% 18% 8% 23% 21% a f f g gh lmn p op p 40% 60% 14% 23% 41% 22% 6% 9% 18% 36% 37% 24% 19% 20% 86% 4% 7% 3% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 367 180 188 83 105 132 47 28 33 54 123 118 100 67 83 322 19 16 10 16% 16% 16% 24% 23% 15% 7% 13% 15% 16% 21% 18% 15% 13% 16% 16% 10% 14% 17% ef ef f g p p 49% 51% 23% 29% 36% 13% 8% 9% 15% 33% 32% 27% 18% 23% 88% 5% 4% 3% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 358 172 186 121 57 149 31 27 27 57 104 129 123 47 58 315 14 17 12 15% 15% 16% 34% 12% 17% 5% 12% 13% 17% 18% 19% 19% 9% 12% 16% 7% 15% 20% def f df g mn mn p p p 48% 52% 34% 16% 42% 9% 7% 8% 16% 29% 36% 34% 13% 16% 88% 4% 5% 3% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 310 153 157 36 54 141 78 24 16 58 123 118 91 55 47 284 9 11 5 13% 14% 13% 10% 12% 16% 12% 11% 7% 17% 21% 18% 14% 11% 9% 15% 5% 10% 9% cdf gh gh mn n pr p p 49% 51% 12% 17% 46% 25% 8% 5% 19% 40% 38% 29% 18% 15% 92% 3% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 309 167 141 94 83 111 20 20 20 40 116 107 93 57 51 260 20 19 10 13% 15% 12% 26% 18% 13% 3% 9% 9% 12% 20% 16% 14% 11% 10% 13% 10% 17% 16% b def ef f ghi mn n p p 54% 46% 30% 27% 36% 7% 6% 6% 13% 37% 35% 30% 19% 16% 84% 6% 6% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 292 157 135 52 75 131 34 25 24 33 115 108 94 51 38 259 14 14 5 13% 14% 11% 15% 16% 15% 5% 12% 11% 10% 20% 16% 14% 10% 7% 13% 7% 12% 9% f f f ghi mn mn pr p 54% 46% 18% 26% 45% 12% 9% 8% 11% 39% 37% 32% 18% 13% 89% 5% 5% 2% Listening to radio 283 159 124 49 55 125 54 19 17 44 112 107 80 43 52 254 17 9 4 12% 14% 10% 14% 12% 14% 8% 9% 8% 13% 20% 16% 12% 9% 10% 13% 8% 8% 6% b f f f h ghi mn pqr 56% 44% 17% 19% 44% 19% 7% 6% 16% 40% 38% 28% 15% 19% 90% 6% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 265 172 93 66 65 109 26 22 18 39 105 81 84 43 57 238 7 15 4 11% 15% 8% 19% 14% 13% 4% 10% 8% 12% 18% 12% 13% 9% 11% 12% 4% 13% 7% b ef f f ghi m pr pr 65% 35% 25% 24% 41% 10% 8% 7% 15% 40% 30% 32% 16% 21% 90% 3% 6% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 261 154 107 44 67 106 44 19 14 39 111 99 65 48 47 233 11 14 3 11% 14% 9% 12% 15% 12% 7% 9% 6% 12% 19% 15% 10% 10% 9% 12% 5% 13% 4% b f f f h ghi lmn pr pr 59% 41% 17% 26% 41% 17% 7% 5% 15% 43% 38% 25% 19% 18% 89% 4% 6% 1% Trading/ auctions 258 146 112 33 62 121 43 20 19 42 92 90 66 53 49 230 14 10 5 11% 13% 9% 9% 14% 14% 6% 10% 9% 13% 16% 13% 10% 11% 10% 12% 7% 9% 7% b f cf gh pr 57% 43% 13% 24% 47% 16% 8% 7% 16% 36% 35% 26% 21% 19% 89% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 215 109 105 56 65 77 17 19 15 32 78 63 62 44 46 179 18 11 7 9% 10% 9% 16% 14% 9% 3% 9% 7% 10% 14% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 10% 11% ef ef f h 51% 49% 26% 30% 36% 8% 9% 7% 15% 36% 30% 29% 20% 21% 83% 8% 5% 3% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 202 120 82 55 52 74 20 9 19 28 78 65 64 36 36 171 18 12 2 9% 11% 7% 16% 12% 9% 3% 4% 9% 8% 14% 10% 10% 7% 7% 9% 9% 11% 3% b ef f f gi r r r 59% 41% 27% 26% 37% 10% 5% 10% 14% 38% 32% 32% 18% 18% 84% 9% 6% 1% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 200 110 91 66 52 65 18 13 19 30 62 69 65 35 31 169 15 9 8 9% 10% 8% 19% 11% 7% 3% 6% 9% 9% 11% 10% 10% 7% 6% 9% 7% 8% 12% def ef f g n n op 55% 45% 33% 26% 32% 9% 6% 10% 15% 31% 34% 33% 18% 16% 84% 7% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 132 72 61 25 36 61 11 12 11 22 41 41 39 19 32 119 5 6 2 6% 6% 5% 7% 8% 7% 2% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 6% 6% 2% 5% 3% f f f pr 54% 46% 19% 27% 46% 8% 9% 9% 17% 31% 31% 30% 14% 24% 90% 4% 5% 1% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 94 61 33 12 23 46 13 4 5 13 39 32 35 13 14 79 7 6 2 4% 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 7% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 4% b f f gh mn 65% 35% 13% 25% 49% 14% 4% 5% 14% 42% 34% 37% 14% 15% 84% 8% 6% 2% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 91 61 30 31 22 32 7 3 10 8 37 34 23 12 21 78 8 4 * 4% 5% 2% 9% 5% 4% 1% 1% 4% 2% 6% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% b def f f g gi m r r r 67% 33% 34% 24% 35% 7% 3% 11% 9% 40% 38% 26% 14% 23% 86% 9% 4% 1% Real time gambling 59 41 18 7 19 27 6 7 5 11 18 9 19 13 18 45 9 3 1 3% 4% 1% 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 2% b f f k o 70% 30% 12% 32% 45% 11% 12% 8% 19% 30% 16% 32% 22% 30% 77% 16% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 3100 \| 1471 \| 1629 \| 505 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2126 \| 1018 \| 1108 \| 332 \| \| Total \| 2332 \| 1134 \| 1197 \| 354 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 15% \| 20% \| 37% \| \| Remotely control or monitor \| \| \| \| \| \| household appliances e.g. fridge, \| \| \| \| \| \| cooker, washing machine, tumble \| \| \| \| \| \| dryer and/ or home heating, lighting \| \| \| \| \| \| or security system or home energy \| \| \| \| \| \| consumption \| 43 \| 23 \| 20 \| 3 \| \| 2% \| 2% \| 2% \| 1% \| 3% \| \| cf \| f \| ghi \| mn \| r \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 7% \| 32% \| 52% \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 12 \| 10 \| 2 \| 1 \| * \| \| 1% \| 1% \| % \| % \| % \| \| b \| or \| \| \| \| \| 83% \| 17% \| 11% \| 3% \| 32% \| \| USE SOCIAL NETWORKING \| \| \| \| \| \| SITES \| 1187 \| 531 \| 657 \| 248 \| \| 51% \| 47% \| 55% \| 70% \| 64% \| \| a \| ef \| ef \| f \| gh \| \| 45% \| 55% \| 21% \| 25% \| 40% \| \| TV/ VIDEO VIEWING \| 987 \| 509 \| 478 \| 201 \| \| 42% \| 45% \| 40% \| 57% \| 52% \| \| b \| ef \| ef \| f \| gh \| \| 52% \| 48% \| 20% \| 24% \| 37% \| \| USE TWITTER \| \| \| \| \| \| 332 \| 178 \| 154 \| 99 \| 93 \| \| 14% \| 16% \| 13% \| 28% \| 20% \| \| def \| ef \| f \| ghi \| n \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 30% \| 28% \| 35% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 228 134 94 63 59 85 22 9 19 29 92 75 71 41 40 189 23 14 2 10% 12% 8% 18% 13% 10% 3% 4% 9% 9% 16% 11% 11% 8% 8% 10% 11% 12% 3% b ef f f g ghi r r r 59% 41% 28% 26% 37% 10% 4% 9% 13% 40% 33% 31% 18% 17% 83% 10% 6% 1% None of these 84 44 41 6 13 19 47 12 11 9 8 12 17 26 29 71 8 4 2 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 7% 6% 5% 3% 1% 2% 3% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% cde j j kl kl 52% 48% 7% 15% 23% 55% 15% 13% 11% 10% 15% 20% 31% 34% 84% 9% 5% 2% Don't know 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - % % % % -% % % -% -% -% -% -% % % % % % -% -% 40% 60% 37% -% 40% 23% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 23% 37% 63% 37% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1889 269 269 167 119 158 167 169 68 210 1630 260 1247 637 1037 853 81% 84% 84% 83% 74% 81% 75% 90% 76% 81% 81% 82% 84% 76% 81% 81% dfh df df defhi m 14% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 66% 34% 55% 45% Sending and receiving e-mail 1744 272 257 158 109 132 177 147 59 183 1507 238 1177 563 954 790 75% 85% 80% 79% 67% 67% 80% 78% 67% 71% 75% 75% 79% 67% 75% 75% dehi dehi deh dehi deh m 16% 15% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 3% 10% 86% 14% 67% 32% 55% 45% Banking 1158 178 156 115 65 78 131 101 43 134 992 166 838 314 640 518 50% 56% 49% 57% 40% 39% 59% 53% 49% 52% 49% 52% 56% 37% 50% 49% de de bdeh de de m 15% 14% 10% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 55% 45% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1126 170 143 93 64 74 132 98 49 132 978 148 784 338 556 570 48% 53% 45% 47% 40% 38% 60% 52% 55% 51% 49% 47% 53% 40% 44% 54% de bcde de bde de m n 15% 13% 8% 6% 7% 12% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 70% 30% 49% 51% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 950 181 100 71 63 65 117 100 37 82 828 122 654 293 452 498 41% 57% 31% 36% 39% 33% 53% 53% 41% 32% 41% 38% 44% 35% 35% 47% bcdehi bcdehi bcdehi b m n 19% 11% 7% 7% 7% 12% 11% 4% 9% 87% 13% 69% 31% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc. 921 142 110 92 67 52 129 88 33 85 777 144 646 272 503 418 40% 45% 34% 46% 41% 27% 58% 47% 37% 33% 39% 45% 43% 32% 39% 40% bei bei e abcdeghi bei e j m 15% 12% 10% 7% 6% 14% 10% 4% 9% 84% 16% 70% 29% 55% 45% Accessing news 713 113 94 62 36 53 71 62 28 91 611 102 493 215 398 315 31% 35% 29% 31% 22% 27% 32% 33% 31% 35% 30% 32% 33% 26% 31% 30% d d d d d m 16% 13% 9% 5% 7% 10% 9% 4% 13% 86% 14% 69% 30% 56% 44% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 696 152 82 63 31 42 89 43 28 78 596 100 584 111 378 317 30% 48% 26% 31% 20% 21% 40% 23% 31% 30% 30% 31% 39% 13% 30% 30% bcdeghi de bdegi de d m 22% 12% 9% 5% 6% 13% 6% 4% 11% 86% 14% 84% 16% 54% 46% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 640 174 56 66 35 33 66 72 19 59 555 85 449 190 297 343 27% 55% 17% 33% 22% 17% 30% 38% 21% 23% 28% 27% 30% 23% 23% 32% bcdefghi bdehi be bdehi m n 27% 9% 10% 5% 5% 10% 11% 3% 9% 87% 13% 70% 30% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 534 63 73 48 31 34 78 71 13 60 453 81 358 173 300 234 23% 20% 23% 24% 19% 17% 35% 38% 15% 23% 22% 25% 24% 21% 24% 22% h h abcdehi abcdehi h 12% 14% 9% 6% 6% 15% 13% 2% 11% 85% 15% 67% 32% 56% 44% Playing games online/ interactively 509 49 60 49 43 44 62 58 22 56 429 80 322 186 271 237 22% 16% 19% 25% 27% 22% 28% 31% 25% 22% 21% 25% 22% 22% 21% 22% a a ab abi a 10% 12% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 4% 11% 84% 16% 63% 37% 53% 47% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 427 180 29 25 21 20 51 33 7 22 377 49 312 113 173 254 18% 57% 9% 12% 13% 10% 23% 17% 8% 9% 19% 16% 21% 14% 14% 24% bcdefghi bcdehi bhi m n 42% 7% 6% 5% 5% 12% 8% 2% 5% 88% 12% 73% 27% 40% 60% Downloading music files 424 94 43 31 22 25 64 45 12 32 367 57 306 115 197 227 18% 30% 13% 16% 14% 13% 29% 24% 13% 12% 18% 18% 21% 14% 15% 21% bcdehi bcdehi bcdehi m n 22% 10% 7% 5% 6% 15% 11% 3% 8% 87% 13% 72% 27% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% To find information on health related issues 400 57 62 31 26 17 61 38 14 40 346 54 270 129 225 175 17% 18% 19% 15% 16% 9% 28% 20% 15% 15% 17% 17% 18% 15% 18% 17% e e e e acdehi e e e 14% 16% 8% 6% 4% 15% 9% 3% 10% 87% 13% 68% 32% 56% 44% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 367 75 37 30 22 20 49 29 13 47 319 48 270 96 167 200 16% 23% 11% 15% 13% 10% 22% 16% 14% 18% 16% 15% 18% 12% 13% 19% bcdeh bde e m n 20% 10% 8% 6% 5% 13% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 73% 26% 46% 54% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 358 62 54 26 23 24 43 33 12 39 312 46 210 146 185 173 15% 19% 17% 13% 14% 12% 20% 18% 13% 15% 15% 15% 14% 17% 14% 16% e e l 17% 15% 7% 6% 7% 12% 9% 3% 11% 87% 13% 59% 41% 52% 48% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 310 45 36 26 21 22 56 37 8 32 262 48 217 90 173 137 13% 14% 11% 13% 13% 11% 25% 19% 9% 12% 13% 15% 15% 11% 14% 13% abcdehi beh m 15% 12% 9% 7% 7% 18% 12% 3% 10% 84% 16% 70% 29% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 309 53 34 21 21 16 36 28 10 40 274 35 220 89 156 153 13% 17% 11% 11% 13% 8% 16% 15% 12% 15% 14% 11% 15% 11% 12% 14% e e e e m 17% 11% 7% 7% 5% 12% 9% 3% 13% 89% 11% 71% 29% 51% 49% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 292 34 41 41 17 17 44 27 10 28 240 52 221 70 159 133 13% 11% 13% 21% 11% 9% 20% 14% 11% 11% 12% 16% 15% 8% 12% 13% abdehi adehi j m 12% 14% 14% 6% 6% 15% 9% 3% 10% 82% 18% 76% 24% 55% 45% Listening to radio 283 40 42 23 21 14 54 27 9 23 229 54 200 83 171 112 12% 13% 13% 12% 13% 7% 24% 14% 11% 9% 11% 17% 13% 10% 13% 11% abcdeghi e j m o 14% 15% 8% 7% 5% 19% 10% 3% 8% 81% 19% 71% 29% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 265 72 22 34 12 12 33 21 6 26 230 35 201 64 129 136 11% 22% 7% 17% 8% 6% 15% 11% 7% 10% 11% 11% 13% 8% 10% 13% bdeghi bdehi bdeh m n 27% 8% 13% 5% 4% 12% 8% 2% 10% 87% 13% 76% 24% 49% 51% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 261 41 35 27 14 12 40 28 7 30 228 33 199 61 149 112 11% 13% 11% 14% 9% 6% 18% 15% 8% 11% 11% 10% 13% 7% 12% 11% e e bdeh eh m 16% 13% 10% 5% 5% 15% 11% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 57% 43% Trading/ auctions 258 35 30 28 17 18 36 33 11 22 218 41 195 62 144 115 11% 11% 9% 14% 10% 9% 16% 17% 13% 9% 11% 13% 13% 7% 11% 11% bei bdei m 13% 12% 11% 6% 7% 14% 13% 4% 9% 84% 16% 75% 24% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 215 13 18 21 5 20 37 28 10 28 181 33 160 53 101 113 9% 4% 6% 10% 3% 10% 17% 15% 11% 11% 9% 11% 11% 6% 8% 11% ad ad abd abd ad ad m n 6% 8% 10% 2% 9% 17% 13% 5% 13% 84% 16% 75% 25% 47% 53% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 202 30 25 22 11 7 31 15 8 23 174 29 157 45 100 102 9% 9% 8% 11% 7% 3% 14% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 5% 8% 10% e e bde e e m 15% 12% 11% 5% 3% 15% 7% 4% 11% 86% 14% 78% 22% 50% 50% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 200 32 13 14 13 13 29 18 5 30 174 26 135 66 94 107 9% 10% 4% 7% 8% 7% 13% 10% 6% 12% 9% 8% 9% 8% 7% 10% b bceh b bh n 16% 7% 7% 7% 7% 15% 9% 3% 15% 87% 13% 67% 33% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 132 40 9 5 9 12 22 8 4 11 111 21 95 37 62 70 6% 12% 3% 2% 5% 6% 10% 4% 4% 4% 6% 7% 6% 4% 5% 7% bcdeghi bcghi m 30% 7% 4% 7% 9% 17% 6% 3% 9% 84% 16% 72% 28% 47% 53% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 94 11 4 8 8 9 15 10 3 11 81 13 73 21 57 37 4% 4% 1% 4% 5% 4% 7% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% b b b b m 12% 4% 8% 9% 9% 16% 11% 3% 11% 87% 13% 78% 22% 61% 39% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 91 10 7 14 9 5 15 8 3 8 75 15 73 18 53 38 4% 3% 2% 7% 6% 3% 7% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% be b m 11% 7% 15% 10% 6% 16% 8% 3% 8% 83% 17% 81% 19% 58% 42% Real time gambling 59 8 6 7 3 4 10 3 2 3 54 5 46 13 26 33 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% i m 13% 10% 11% 5% 6% 17% 6% 3% 5% 92% 8% 78% 22% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 43 13 2 4 2 4 9 1 1 5 34 10 37 7 23 21 2% 4% % 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% bg bg m 29% 3% 8% 6% 9% 20% 3% 2% 11% 78% 22% 85% 15% 53% 47% Other 12 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 9 3 4 8 7 5 1% -% % % 1% 1% -% -% % 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % l -% 7% 7% 11% 10% -% -% 2% 12% 77% 23% 31% 69% 55% 45% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1187 180 155 102 66 78 135 104 51 135 1033 154 829 354 594 593 51% 57% 48% 51% 41% 40% 61% 55% 57% 52% 51% 49% 56% 42% 47% 56% de de bcde de de de m n 15% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 70% 30% 50% 50% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 987 217 110 91 54 62 109 102 29 94 858 129 689 294 477 510 42% 68% 34% 45% 34% 31% 49% 54% 33% 36% 43% 41% 46% 35% 37% 48% bcdefghi bdeh bdehi bdehi m n 22% 11% 9% 5% 6% 11% 10% 3% 10% 87% 13% 70% 30% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% USE TWITTER 332 63 36 24 21 17 38 29 11 42 294 38 237 95 167 166 14% 20% 11% 12% 13% 9% 17% 16% 12% 16% 15% 12% 16% 11% 13% 16% bceh e e e m 19% 11% 7% 6% 5% 11% 9% 3% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 50% 50% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 228 32 25 25 15 10 33 18 8 23 196 31 178 50 118 110 10% 10% 8% 13% 9% 5% 15% 10% 9% 9% 10% 10% 12% 6% 9% 10% e be m 14% 11% 11% 7% 4% 14% 8% 4% 10% 86% 14% 78% 22% 52% 48% None of these 84 10 9 6 11 5 7 6 3 13 78 6 39 45 46 39 4% 3% 3% 3% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 4% 2% 3% 5% 4% 4% k l 12% 11% 7% 13% 6% 8% 7% 4% 16% 93% 7% 46% 53% 54% 46% Don't know 2 - - - - 1 - - 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 1 % -% -% -% -% % -% -% 1% -% % -% % % % % -% -% -% -% 40% -% -% 23% -% 100% -% 60% 40% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Up to 512kb 6 4 2 1 3 2 - 2 - 2 2 1 1 2 6 * - - % % % % % % % -% 1% -% % % % % % % % -% -% 63% 37% 12% 2% 45% 41% -% 43% -% 35% 35% 14% 24% 27% 98% 2% -% -% Up to 1MB 8 2 6 2 4 2 * 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 6 1 1 - % % 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% % 1% 1% -% ef 29% 71% 24% 53% 22% 1% 22% 18% 20% 20% 14% 8% 36% 42% 75% 13% 12% -% Up to 2MB 18 10 8 * 4 6 8 * 2 1 5 9 2 4 2 16 * 1 - 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% -% l 56% 44% 1% 22% 34% 43% 2% 10% 6% 28% 52% 12% 24% 13% 89% 3% 8% -% Up to 4MB 22 13 9 - 5 5 12 2 2 4 8 9 6 5 2 18 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 1% ce 61% 39% -% 23% 23% 54% 8% 10% 20% 37% 40% 29% 22% 9% 84% 4% 8% 3% Up to 8MB 53 34 19 4 15 18 16 4 5 9 19 18 19 7 8 44 6 1 1 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% b c 65% 35% 7% 28% 34% 30% 7% 9% 17% 35% 35% 36% 14% 15% 84% 12% 3% 1% Up to 10MB 59 44 15 14 10 23 12 4 2 7 24 22 12 15 9 53 3 3 - 3% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% -% b f h r r 75% 25% 24% 17% 39% 20% 7% 3% 12% 41% 38% 20% 26% 16% 91% 4% 5% -% Up to 16MB 47 27 19 5 13 20 10 5 4 7 18 15 16 11 4 42 2 3 * 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% % n r r 58% 42% 11% 27% 42% 21% 11% 8% 16% 39% 33% 35% 24% 8% 90% 3% 6% % Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Up to 20MB 84 55 29 9 15 36 23 3 5 12 25 39 17 17 11 69 8 7 1 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6% 2% b ln r 65% 35% 11% 18% 43% 28% 3% 6% 14% 30% 46% 20% 20% 14% 81% 10% 8% 1% Up to 30MB 41 27 14 10 9 14 8 4 3 2 19 12 17 8 4 30 7 2 1 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% b i n o 65% 35% 23% 22% 34% 20% 10% 8% 5% 46% 30% 42% 20% 9% 74% 18% 5% 3% Up to 40MB 56 32 25 9 10 22 16 2 3 8 17 21 13 16 7 50 1 3 2 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% p p 56% 44% 15% 18% 39% 28% 4% 5% 15% 30% 38% 22% 28% 12% 89% 2% 5% 4% Up to 50MB 72 53 20 7 13 34 18 7 5 10 26 23 16 16 17 62 8 * 1 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% % 3% b q q q 73% 27% 10% 18% 47% 25% 10% 7% 14% 37% 32% 23% 22% 23% 86% 11% 1% 2% Up to 100MB 48 33 15 7 13 16 11 3 4 5 20 15 16 9 8 36 10 1 1 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% b oqr 68% 32% 15% 27% 34% 23% 6% 8% 11% 41% 31% 34% 18% 17% 75% 20% 3% 2% Over 100MB 55 39 16 11 13 24 7 1 1 11 18 15 20 13 7 50 2 2 1 3% 4% 1% 4% 3% 3% 1% % 1% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% b f f f gh g 71% 29% 21% 23% 43% 13% 1% 2% 20% 33% 27% 35% 24% 14% 91% 3% 3% 3% SUPERFAST BROADBAND (30MB AND ABOVE) 273 183 90 44 58 110 60 18 16 37 100 87 82 62 43 228 28 9 8 13% 18% 8% 15% 16% 14% 9% 11% 9% 12% 18% 13% 14% 13% 10% 13% 15% 8% 14% b f f f ghi q 67% 33% 16% 21% 40% 22% 6% 6% 13% 37% 32% 30% 23% 16% 84% 10% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 1538 656 882 220 242 581 494 128 143 224 354 441 430 336 330 1283 134 75 46 73% 64% 82% 73% 66% 72% 78% 77% 78% 74% 64% 69% 73% 73% 80% 73% 73% 74% 82% a d de j j j klm opq 43% 57% 14% 16% 38% 32% 8% 9% 15% 23% 29% 28% 22% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Up to 512kb 6 - - 1 1 - 3 1 * - 3 3 3 3 5 1 % -% -% % 1% -% 1% % 1% -% % 1% % % % % j -% -% 16% 18% -% 44% 12% 8% -% 53% 47% 45% 55% 88% 12% Up to 1MB 8 - - - 2 - 4 - 1 - 4 5 5 4 7 1 % -% -% -% 1% -% 2% -% 1% -% % 2% % % 1% % b j -% -% -% 22% -% 47% -% 6% -% 45% 55% 57% 43% 86% 14% Up to 2MB 18 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 - 8 10 10 6 15 3 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % -% % 3% 1% 1% 1% % j o 14% 15% 11% 11% 11% 12% 13% 2% -% 44% 56% 58% 33% 85% 15% Up to 4MB 22 - - 7 2 1 4 1 2 1 13 9 12 10 13 9 1% -% -% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% % 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% abi b ab j -% -% 32% 10% 4% 19% 6% 10% 3% 61% 39% 53% 47% 61% 39% Up to 8MB 53 1 12 10 4 6 3 3 1 5 39 14 38 14 34 19 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% afh j 3% 22% 19% 8% 11% 5% 6% 1% 10% 74% 26% 72% 26% 64% 36% Up to 10MB 59 12 11 4 6 6 3 4 2 5 50 9 41 18 32 27 3% 5% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 20% 19% 6% 10% 11% 5% 7% 3% 9% 84% 16% 70% 30% 54% 46% Up to 16MB 47 9 6 5 8 2 3 8 1 - 44 2 37 10 28 19 2% 4% 2% 3% 5% 1% 2% 5% 1% -% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% i i ehi ehi k m 19% 12% 12% 17% 4% 7% 18% 1% -% 95% 5% 79% 21% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Up to 20MB 84 14 6 5 6 9 7 4 3 14 77 7 61 23 51 34 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 6% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% 4% b 16% 7% 6% 7% 11% 9% 5% 4% 16% 91% 9% 72% 28% 60% 40% Up to 30MB 41 5 8 3 4 2 6 2 - 1 33 8 27 14 26 15 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% -% % 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% h h hi 11% 19% 8% 9% 5% 15% 5% -% 1% 80% 20% 66% 34% 63% 37% Up to 40MB 56 6 12 6 3 3 5 5 2 8 43 13 37 19 37 20 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% j 11% 22% 11% 5% 6% 8% 8% 4% 14% 77% 23% 66% 34% 65% 35% Up to 50MB 72 9 17 3 2 5 4 10 4 8 67 6 48 24 39 34 3% 4% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 6% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% 4% d cd d 13% 23% 4% 3% 7% 6% 14% 6% 11% 92% 8% 67% 33% 54% 46% Up to 100MB 48 2 6 3 2 3 10 4 1 5 39 9 39 9 24 24 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% a m 4% 13% 7% 4% 7% 20% 8% 3% 10% 82% 18% 82% 18% 49% 51% Over 100MB 55 12 7 4 4 3 2 5 1 12 54 1 42 12 19 36 3% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 5% 3% % 3% 2% 2% 4% f fh k m n 22% 12% 7% 8% 5% 4% 8% 2% 22% 97% 3% 77% 22% 34% 66% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE23 (QENEW11) SHOWCARD What was the advertised speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection when you took up your service? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% SUPERFAST BROADBAND (30MB AND ABOVE) 273 34 49 20 14 16 27 25 9 34 236 37 194 78 144 129 13% 14% 15% 10% 10% 10% 13% 14% 11% 15% 13% 12% 15% 10% 12% 14% m 13% 18% 7% 5% 6% 10% 9% 3% 12% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% Don't know 1538 179 234 138 102 127 152 120 62 169 1331 206 936 598 861 677 73% 71% 73% 72% 69% 75% 73% 71% 77% 74% 74% 68% 70% 78% 72% 74% k l 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% 512K 5 1 4 - 1 3 1 - - - 4 5 * - - 4 * 1 - % % % -% % % % -% -% -% 1% 1% % -% -% % % 1% -% l 23% 77% -% 18% 64% 18% -% -% -% 75% 98% 2% -% -% 82% 2% 16% -% 750K 6 5 1 1 2 1 1 - - 1 3 4 2 - 6 * * - % % % % 1% % % -% -% % % 1% % -% % % % % -% 78% 22% 20% 39% 22% 20% -% -% 22% 41% 69% 28% -% 3% 91% 3% 6% -% 1MB 13 9 4 2 6 5 * 2 3 5 3 3 4 4 10 2 2 - 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% 68% 32% 1% 14% 45% 40% 3% 14% 20% 37% 24% 21% 28% 27% 76% 12% 12% -% 1.5MB 9 7 2 1 - 5 3 2 * - 4 6 1 1 1 7 1 1 - % 1% % % -% 1% % 1% % -% 1% 1% % % % % 1% 1% -% 76% 24% 13% -% 54% 33% 21% 1% -% 38% 66% 13% 11% 10% 76% 11% 13% -% 2MB 15 9 6 1 3 8 2 1 1 2 6 5 6 3 - 14 1 - 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% % 1% -% n 58% 42% 10% 17% 57% 16% 5% 8% 14% 41% 36% 41% 23% -% 92% 2% 6% -% 3MB 12 9 3 1 1 4 5 1 * 3 2 6 1 4 1 11 * * * 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% % 1% % 1% % % 1% 72% 28% 10% 11% 34% 45% 12% 2% 27% 17% 48% 12% 32% 8% 92% 3% 2% 3% 4MB 36 25 11 2 8 10 16 1 1 9 14 16 10 7 2 30 2 3 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% % 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% b n 69% 31% 6% 21% 28% 45% 3% 3% 24% 38% 45% 29% 20% 6% 84% 7% 7% 2% 8MB 45 28 17 7 8 17 13 4 2 6 16 14 10 15 6 38 4 2 * 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 62% 38% 15% 18% 37% 29% 9% 5% 14% 36% 32% 22% 33% 13% 84% 10% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% 10MB 51 32 20 9 11 13 17 4 3 5 18 22 10 10 9 46 4 1 1 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 62% 38% 18% 21% 26% 34% 8% 5% 10% 36% 42% 20% 19% 18% 90% 8% 1% 1% 16MB 30 19 11 7 8 9 5 4 3 3 10 11 12 2 5 27 1 1 * 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% % 1% 2% % 1% % m 63% 37% 23% 28% 31% 17% 13% 9% 11% 34% 37% 41% 6% 16% 91% 3% 5% 1% 20MB 56 44 12 9 13 21 13 4 5 8 19 26 11 15 4 48 3 5 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 5% % b ln n r r 79% 21% 16% 23% 38% 23% 7% 8% 15% 35% 46% 20% 26% 8% 86% 6% 8% % 24MB 37 19 18 1 10 17 8 2 1 3 18 14 11 9 3 32 2 2 * 2% 2% 2% % 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% c i 51% 49% 3% 27% 47% 23% 5% 3% 8% 49% 37% 29% 25% 9% 87% 7% 5% 1% 50MB 66 48 18 11 6 31 19 4 5 7 24 16 23 14 12 55 8 2 1 3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% b 73% 27% 16% 9% 47% 28% 6% 8% 11% 36% 24% 35% 21% 19% 84% 11% 3% 2% 100MB 28 22 6 1 6 13 8 1 3 3 11 11 6 7 4 17 9 2 1% 2% 1% % 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% b oqr 79% 21% 5% 20% 47% 28% 4% 11% 9% 38% 40% 20% 25% 14% 60% 33% 5% 1% Over 100MB 46 32 14 9 8 21 8 1 4 8 16 15 15 9 7 39 5 2 1 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% % 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% b 69% 31% 20% 18% 46% 16% 2% 9% 18% 35% 33% 34% 19% 15% 84% 10% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Other 55 35 20 8 10 19 18 2 5 13 16 21 17 12 5 50 1 3 1 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% b p p 64% 36% 15% 17% 35% 33% 4% 9% 24% 28% 39% 30% 21% 10% 91% 2% 6% 1% TOTAL 512K+ 456 308 148 62 86 182 125 29 30 62 169 175 123 99 59 385 42 23 6 22% 30% 14% 21% 24% 23% 20% 18% 17% 20% 30% 27% 21% 21% 14% 22% 23% 23% 10% b ghi lmn n n r r r 68% 32% 14% 19% 40% 28% 6% 7% 14% 37% 38% 27% 22% 13% 84% 9% 5% 1% TOTAL 2MB+ 422 286 136 60 81 166 115 27 28 58 154 156 117 95 55 357 39 19 6 20% 28% 13% 20% 22% 21% 18% 16% 15% 19% 28% 24% 20% 20% 13% 20% 22% 19% 10% b ghi n n n r r r 68% 32% 14% 19% 39% 27% 6% 7% 14% 37% 37% 28% 22% 13% 85% 9% 5% 1% Don't know 1596 685 911 229 270 603 493 134 148 228 372 447 447 351 350 1331 140 75 50 76% 67% 84% 76% 74% 75% 77% 81% 81% 75% 67% 69% 76% 76% 84% 75% 76% 74% 89% a j j j k k klm opq 43% 57% 14% 17% 38% 31% 8% 9% 14% 23% 28% 28% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% 512K 5 - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 3 2 4 1 5 - % -% -% 1% 1% -% % 1% -% -% % 1% % % % -% o -% -% 23% 19% -% 18% 22% -% -% 56% 44% 79% 21% 100% -% 750K 6 2 - - - - - 2 - 1 5 1 4 2 6 * % 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% % % % % 1% % 39% -% -% -% -% -% 31% -% 22% 84% 16% 69% 31% 94% 6% 1MB 13 - - - 1 - 3 2 * 3 7 6 10 3 9 4 1% -% -% -% 1% -% 2% 1% % 1% % 2% 1% % 1% % j -% -% -% 8% -% 26% 17% 3% 22% 50% 50% 80% 20% 70% 30% 1.5MB 9 - 1 3 1 1 - - - 1 4 5 6 4 7 2 % -% % 2% % 1% -% -% -% % % 2% % % 1% % j -% 13% 31% 8% 14% -% -% -% 11% 47% 53% 60% 40% 78% 22% 2MB 15 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 - 2 12 2 10 3 10 5 1% 1% % 2% % 1% % 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 10% 10% 26% 4% 7% 5% 14% -% 16% 83% 17% 70% 20% 65% 35% 3MB 12 - 1 3 1 1 3 2 * - 7 5 4 8 10 2 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% % 2% % 1% 1% % j l -% 12% 22% 12% 7% 22% 13% 4% -% 58% 42% 29% 71% 81% 19% 4MB 36 5 5 8 1 6 2 4 - - 24 12 26 10 22 14 2% 2% 2% 4% % 4% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2% 1% dfhi dhi j 14% 14% 22% 2% 17% 4% 10% -% -% 66% 34% 73% 27% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% 8MB 45 8 8 4 5 4 4 2 1 2 35 9 28 16 28 17 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 17% 18% 9% 10% 9% 9% 5% 2% 4% 79% 21% 63% 35% 61% 39% 10MB 51 7 5 6 7 8 3 3 1 5 43 8 37 14 28 23 2% 3% 2% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% h h 14% 10% 11% 14% 16% 7% 7% 1% 10% 84% 16% 72% 28% 54% 46% 16MB 30 4 4 4 5 2 2 4 2 2 29 1 23 7 18 12 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% % 2% 1% 2% 1% 14% 12% 12% 15% 6% 7% 13% 5% 6% 96% 4% 75% 25% 60% 40% 20MB 56 13 4 7 5 2 8 2 3 4 50 6 45 10 31 25 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 1% 4% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% bg m 23% 7% 12% 9% 4% 14% 3% 6% 7% 89% 11% 81% 19% 56% 44% 24MB 37 4 6 3 2 2 10 1 1 3 26 11 26 11 26 11 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% % 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2% 1% gh j 11% 17% 9% 6% 6% 26% 2% 2% 8% 70% 30% 69% 31% 69% 31% 50MB 66 1 15 6 2 6 7 4 5 9 59 7 44 21 36 30 3% 1% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% a ad a 2% 23% 10% 3% 9% 10% 6% 7% 14% 90% 10% 68% 32% 54% 46% 100MB 28 2 4 - 1 - 2 4 2 2 26 2 23 5 9 19 1% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% ce ce n 7% 13% -% 5% -% 6% 14% 8% 8% 93% 7% 81% 19% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Over 100MB 46 9 7 3 2 2 3 3 1 8 43 4 34 11 21 26 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 3% 19% 16% 6% 4% 4% 7% 7% 3% 17% 92% 8% 74% 24% 45% 55% Other 55 - 4 6 5 3 6 12 1 14 43 12 37 19 40 15 3% -% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 7% 1% 6% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% a a a abeh abh o -% 7% 10% 8% 6% 12% 23% 1% 24% 79% 21% 66% 34% 73% 27% TOTAL 512K+ 456 57 62 52 34 36 48 36 16 42 373 83 325 127 265 191 22% 23% 19% 27% 23% 21% 23% 21% 20% 19% 21% 28% 24% 17% 22% 21% j m 13% 14% 11% 8% 8% 11% 8% 4% 9% 82% 18% 71% 28% 58% 42% TOTAL 2MB+ 422 55 61 48 32 35 44 30 16 37 354 68 301 118 237 184 20% 22% 19% 25% 21% 20% 21% 18% 20% 16% 20% 23% 22% 15% 20% 20% i m 13% 14% 11% 7% 8% 10% 7% 4% 9% 84% 16% 71% 28% 56% 44% Don't know 1596 195 254 135 108 130 153 121 63 171 1389 207 975 617 884 711 76% 77% 79% 70% 73% 77% 74% 72% 79% 75% 77% 69% 73% 81% 74% 78% c k l 12% 16% 8% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe25 (Qe11C). Do You Know How To Find Out What Speeds You Are Getting On Your Computer At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2840 1359 1481 433 490 1015 902 282 278 396 596 716 922 607 593 1745 364 370 361 Effective Weighted Sample 1962 946 1017 289 328 706 647 203 188 285 449 524 631 425 400 1512 235 230 275 Total 2157 1057 1100 313 380 817 647 176 190 313 565 648 602 475 431 1810 185 104 58 49% 51% 15% 18% 38% 30% 8% 9% 15% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 753 478 274 117 146 287 203 48 46 112 251 268 221 153 111 640 55 47 11 35% 45% 25% 37% 39% 35% 31% 27% 24% 36% 44% 41% 37% 32% 26% 35% 30% 45% 19% b f gh ghi mn n n r r opr 64% 36% 16% 19% 38% 27% 6% 6% 15% 33% 36% 29% 20% 15% 85% 7% 6% 1% No 1131 456 675 161 197 420 353 104 119 170 286 317 312 252 249 959 88 51 34 52% 43% 61% 52% 52% 51% 55% 59% 63% 54% 51% 49% 52% 53% 58% 53% 47% 49% 59% a j k pq 40% 60% 14% 17% 37% 31% 9% 11% 15% 25% 28% 28% 22% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Don't know 273 123 150 35 36 110 91 24 24 31 28 63 69 70 70 211 42 7 13 13% 12% 14% 11% 10% 14% 14% 14% 13% 10% 5% 10% 12% 15% 16% 12% 23% 7% 23% d j j j k kl q oq oq 45% 55% 13% 13% 40% 33% 9% 9% 11% 10% 23% 25% 25% 26% 77% 16% 3% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE25 (QE11C). Do you know how to find out what speeds you are getting on your computer at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2840 184 224 212 192 175 202 186 174 196 2060 780 1635 1197 1435 1405 Effective Weighted Sample 1962 166 212 203 181 163 192 174 162 180 1617 372 1143 843 1012 973 Total 2157 258 325 197 149 171 209 176 82 242 1851 305 1370 779 1216 940 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Yes 753 66 104 78 49 57 100 66 32 88 627 126 520 229 434 319 35% 26% 32% 40% 33% 34% 48% 37% 39% 36% 34% 41% 38% 29% 36% 34% a abdegi a a a j m 9% 14% 10% 7% 8% 13% 9% 4% 12% 83% 17% 69% 30% 58% 42% No 1131 172 185 106 73 79 99 84 39 121 989 142 696 433 621 510 52% 67% 57% 54% 49% 46% 47% 48% 48% 50% 53% 47% 51% 56% 51% 54% bcdefghi e k l 15% 16% 9% 6% 7% 9% 7% 3% 11% 87% 13% 62% 38% 55% 45% Don't know 273 20 37 13 27 35 10 26 11 32 236 37 153 118 161 112 13% 8% 11% 7% 18% 20% 5% 15% 13% 13% 13% 12% 11% 15% 13% 12% f abcf abcf acf cf cf l 7% 13% 5% 10% 13% 4% 10% 4% 12% 86% 14% 56% 43% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| * \| \| \| \| \| \| Base for % \| 110 \| 60 \| 50 \| 21 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very satisfied \| 39 \| \| \| \| \| 36% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 57 \| \| \| \| \| 52% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 96 \| \| \| \| \| 87% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| \| 7% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 3 \| \| \| \| \| 3% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 3 \| \| \| \| \| 3% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| 6% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 Very satisfied 39 36% Fairly satisfied 57 52% TOTAL SATISFIED 96 87% Neither 7 7% Fairly dissatisfied 3 3% Very dissatisfied 3 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 7 6% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Don't know 8 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| ~e \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Base for % \| 110 \| 60 \| 50 \| 21 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very satisfied \| 38 \| \| \| \| \| 34% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly satisfied \| \| \| \| \| \| 54 \| \| \| \| \| \| 49% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 91 \| \| \| \| \| 83% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Neither \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| 9% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 5 \| \| \| \| \| 4% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very dissatisfied \| \| \| \| \| \| 4 \| \| \| \| \| \| 4% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 9 \| \| \| \| \| 8% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those In A Household With Mobile Broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| ~e \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 Very satisfied 38 34% Fairly satisfied 54 49% TOTAL SATISFIED 91 83% Neither 10 9% Fairly dissatisfied 5 4% Very dissatisfied 4 4% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 9 8% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Don't know 8 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Base for % \| 110 \| 60 \| 50 \| 21 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very satisfied \| 47 \| \| \| \| \| 43% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 46 \| \| \| \| \| 42% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 93 \| \| \| \| \| 85% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 11 \| \| \| \| \| \| 10% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 4 \| \| \| \| \| 3% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| 2% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 6 \| \| \| \| \| 5% \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| ~a \| ~b \| ~c \| ~d \| \| Unweighted total \| 142 \| 75 \| 67 \| 37 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 96 \| 51 \| 45 \| 23 \| \| Total \| 118 \| 63 \| 55 \| 23 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Don't know \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 Very satisfied 47 43% Fairly satisfied 46 42% TOTAL SATISFIED 93 85% Neither 11 10% Fairly dissatisfied 4 3% Very dissatisfied 2 2% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 6 5% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 88% Don't know 8 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% A lot faster 108 57 51 12 29 42 26 14 12 11 35 32 28 26 23 84 14 6 5 5% 6% 5% 4% 8% 5% 4% 9% 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 9% f i o 53% 47% 11% 26% 39% 24% 13% 11% 10% 32% 30% 26% 24% 21% 77% 12% 6% 4% A little faster 228 107 121 33 46 86 63 23 16 43 62 72 58 59 39 194 20 7 7 11% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 10% 14% 9% 14% 11% 11% 10% 13% 9% 11% 11% 7% 13% q q 47% 53% 15% 20% 38% 28% 10% 7% 19% 27% 32% 25% 26% 17% 85% 9% 3% 3% TOTAL FASTER 336 164 172 45 74 128 88 37 28 55 98 104 86 85 61 278 33 13 12 16% 16% 16% 15% 20% 16% 14% 22% 15% 18% 18% 16% 15% 18% 15% 16% 18% 13% 21% f oq 49% 51% 13% 22% 38% 26% 11% 8% 16% 29% 31% 25% 25% 18% 83% 10% 4% 4% About the same 1116 551 565 160 208 429 318 83 100 163 289 337 319 225 234 925 114 53 23 53% 54% 52% 54% 57% 53% 50% 50% 55% 54% 52% 52% 54% 49% 57% 52% 63% 52% 41% f m r oqr r 49% 51% 14% 19% 38% 28% 7% 9% 15% 26% 30% 29% 20% 21% 83% 10% 5% 2% A little slower 258 137 121 33 33 108 84 21 21 36 77 93 77 50 37 224 14 16 4 12% 13% 11% 11% 9% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 14% 15% 13% 11% 9% 13% 7% 16% 7% d d n n pr pr 53% 47% 13% 13% 42% 33% 8% 8% 14% 30% 36% 30% 20% 14% 87% 5% 6% 1% A lot slower 147 70 77 15 21 61 51 5 12 18 51 53 38 33 22 125 10 10 3 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 8% 8% 3% 7% 6% 9% 8% 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 10% 5% g r 48% 52% 10% 14% 41% 34% 3% 8% 12% 34% 36% 26% 23% 15% 85% 7% 7% 2% TOTAL SLOWER 405 207 198 48 54 169 135 26 34 54 128 147 115 84 59 349 23 27 6 19% 20% 18% 16% 15% 21% 21% 15% 18% 18% 23% 23% 20% 18% 14% 20% 13% 26% 11% d d g n n pr opr 51% 49% 12% 13% 42% 33% 6% 8% 13% 32% 36% 28% 21% 15% 86% 6% 7% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 250 107 143 47 30 77 96 21 21 31 42 55 67 68 59 214 12 9 15 12% 10% 13% 16% 8% 10% 15% 13% 12% 10% 8% 9% 11% 15% 14% 12% 7% 9% 26% de de j k k p opq 43% 57% 19% 12% 31% 38% 8% 9% 13% 17% 22% 27% 27% 24% 86% 5% 4% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% A lot faster 108 5 7 14 9 16 11 6 8 8 93 15 71 37 47 61 5% 2% 2% 7% 6% 10% 5% 4% 10% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% ab b abgi abgi n 5% 6% 13% 8% 15% 10% 6% 7% 8% 86% 14% 66% 34% 43% 57% A little faster 228 22 27 27 16 21 30 16 12 24 189 38 155 72 119 109 11% 9% 8% 14% 11% 12% 14% 10% 15% 11% 10% 13% 12% 9% 10% 12% 10% 12% 12% 7% 9% 13% 7% 5% 11% 83% 17% 68% 32% 52% 48% TOTAL FASTER 336 27 34 41 25 37 40 22 19 32 283 53 227 109 166 170 16% 11% 10% 21% 17% 22% 19% 13% 24% 14% 16% 18% 17% 14% 14% 19% abg abg ab abgi n 8% 10% 12% 7% 11% 12% 7% 6% 10% 84% 16% 67% 33% 49% 51% About the same 1116 173 178 95 76 83 93 69 37 121 990 126 731 380 604 512 53% 69% 56% 50% 51% 49% 45% 41% 46% 53% 55% 42% 55% 50% 51% 56% bcdefghi fg g g k m n 16% 16% 9% 7% 7% 8% 6% 3% 11% 89% 11% 65% 34% 54% 46% A little slower 258 25 36 28 20 15 35 21 11 34 215 43 160 98 160 98 12% 10% 11% 15% 14% 9% 17% 12% 13% 15% 12% 14% 12% 13% 13% 11% e 10% 14% 11% 8% 6% 13% 8% 4% 13% 83% 17% 62% 38% 62% 38% A lot slower 147 6 20 14 8 13 19 19 4 22 100 48 97 50 101 47 7% 2% 6% 7% 5% 8% 9% 11% 5% 10% 6% 16% 7% 7% 8% 5% a a a adh a j o 4% 13% 9% 5% 9% 13% 13% 3% 15% 68% 32% 66% 34% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL SLOWER 405 30 56 42 28 28 54 40 15 56 315 91 257 148 261 145 19% 12% 18% 22% 19% 17% 26% 23% 18% 25% 17% 30% 19% 19% 22% 16% a abe a a j o 7% 14% 10% 7% 7% 13% 10% 4% 14% 78% 22% 63% 37% 64% 36% Don't know 250 22 52 14 18 21 20 38 9 18 218 32 122 126 160 90 12% 9% 16% 7% 13% 13% 10% 23% 11% 8% 12% 11% 9% 16% 13% 10% aci acdefhi l o 9% 21% 6% 7% 8% 8% 15% 4% 7% 87% 13% 49% 50% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2774 \| 1323 \| 1451 \| 410 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1919 \| 921 \| 999 \| 276 \| \| Total \| 2107 \| 1029 \| 1078 \| 300 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| Base for % \| 2069 \| 1007 \| 1062 \| 296 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Very satisfied \| 887 \| 421 \| 467 \| 146 \| \| 43% \| 42% \| 44% \| 50% \| 43% \| \| ef \| ij \| j \| j \| k \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 16% \| 18% \| 36% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 915 \| 457 \| 459 \| 127 \| \| 44% \| 45% \| 43% \| 43% \| 48% \| \| g \| ghi \| oqr \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 14% \| 19% \| 39% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 1803 \| 877 \| 925 \| 273 \| \| 87% \| 87% \| 87% \| 93% \| 91% \| \| ef \| ef \| k \| q \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 15% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 122 \| 60 \| 62 \| 9 \| 15 \| \| 6% \| 6% \| 6% \| 3% \| 4% \| \| cde \| gj \| p \| \| \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 8% \| 13% \| 33% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 85 \| 44 \| 41 \| 7 \| \| 4% \| 4% \| 4% \| 2% \| 3% \| \| 52% \| 48% \| 8% \| 15% \| 47% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 60 \| 27 \| 33 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 3% \| 2% \| 1% \| \| d \| n \| \| \| \| \| 44% \| 56% \| 10% \| 9% \| 49% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 145 71 75 13 18 69 45 11 9 24 41 58 38 29 20 123 9 9 3 7% 7% 7% 4% 5% 9% 7% 7% 5% 8% 7% 9% 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 9% 6% cd n 49% 51% 9% 12% 48% 31% 8% 6% 16% 28% 40% 26% 20% 13% 85% 6% 6% 2% Don't know 38 21 17 4 2 12 20 6 4 2 5 6 6 13 13 32 4 2 * Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2069 251 315 188 145 165 203 165 78 224 1772 297 1319 743 1166 903 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 887 65 158 83 75 77 72 81 35 116 789 98 547 338 481 407 43% 26% 50% 44% 52% 46% 35% 49% 45% 52% 45% 33% 41% 45% 41% 45% af a af af af a af k 7% 18% 9% 8% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 89% 11% 62% 38% 54% 46% Fairly satisfied 915 165 128 70 51 71 91 58 34 75 801 114 610 301 506 409 44% 66% 41% 37% 35% 43% 45% 35% 43% 33% 45% 38% 46% 40% 43% 45% bcdefghi i k m 18% 14% 8% 6% 8% 10% 6% 4% 8% 88% 12% 67% 33% 55% 45% TOTAL SATISFIED 1803 231 287 153 127 148 163 139 69 190 1590 213 1157 638 987 816 87% 92% 91% 81% 88% 90% 80% 84% 88% 85% 90% 72% 88% 86% 85% 90% cfgi cfg cf f k n 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 64% 35% 55% 45% Neither 122 13 12 20 8 6 23 9 3 10 90 31 62 60 83 39 6% 5% 4% 11% 5% 4% 11% 6% 4% 4% 5% 11% 5% 8% 7% 4% behi abdehi j l o 11% 10% 17% 6% 5% 19% 8% 3% 8% 74% 26% 51% 49% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 85 4 10 9 7 6 9 8 3 15 59 27 51 34 53 32 4% 2% 3% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% 9% 4% 5% 5% 4% a j 5% 12% 10% 8% 7% 10% 9% 4% 17% 69% 31% 60% 40% 63% 37% Very dissatisfied 60 3 6 6 3 5 8 9 2 9 34 26 48 11 43 17 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 2% 9% 4% 2% 4% 2% ab j m o 5% 10% 10% 6% 8% 14% 16% 4% 15% 56% 44% 81% 19% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 145 7 16 15 10 11 17 17 6 24 92 53 100 45 97 49 7% 3% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 10% 7% 11% 5% 18% 8% 6% 8% 5% a a a ab j o 5% 11% 10% 7% 7% 12% 12% 4% 17% 64% 36% 69% 31% 67% 33% Don't know 38 2 5 4 2 5 5 4 2 3 33 5 18 20 24 14 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2774 \| 1323 \| 1451 \| 410 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1919 \| 921 \| 999 \| 276 \| \| Total \| 2107 \| 1029 \| 1078 \| 300 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| Base for % \| 2064 \| 1008 \| 1056 \| 296 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Very satisfied \| 822 \| 392 \| 430 \| 136 \| \| 40% \| 39% \| 41% \| 46% \| 43% \| \| ef \| ij \| j \| j \| k \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 19% \| 36% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 861 \| 436 \| 426 \| 132 \| \| 42% \| 43% \| 40% \| 44% \| 42% \| \| ghi \| oqr \| \| \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 15% \| 18% \| 39% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 1684 \| 828 \| 856 \| 268 \| \| 82% \| 82% \| 81% \| 90% \| 85% \| \| def \| f \| k \| kl \| q \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 16% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 160 \| 74 \| 86 \| 11 \| 25 \| \| 8% \| 7% \| 8% \| 4% \| 7% \| \| c \| c \| j \| n \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 7% \| 16% \| 39% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 126 \| 62 \| 63 \| 10 \| \| 6% \| 6% \| 6% \| 3% \| 6% \| \| c \| h \| mn \| n \| r \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 8% \| 16% \| 40% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 95 \| 44 \| 51 \| 7 \| \| 5% \| 4% \| 5% \| 2% \| 3% \| \| cd \| c \| l \| \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 8% \| 10% \| 47% \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2774 \| 1323 \| 1451 \| 410 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1919 \| 921 \| 999 \| 276 \| \| Total \| 2107 \| 1029 \| 1078 \| 300 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 221 \| 106 \| 114 \| 17 \| \| 11% \| 11% \| 11% \| 6% \| 8% \| \| c \| cd \| mn \| pr \| \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 8% \| 14% \| 43% \| \| Don't know \| 43 \| 21 \| 22 \| 3 \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2064 251 315 188 145 163 203 164 78 223 1770 295 1316 741 1163 902 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 822 69 147 68 66 64 71 71 38 105 731 91 509 310 437 385 40% 27% 47% 36% 46% 39% 35% 43% 49% 47% 41% 31% 39% 42% 38% 43% acf af a a acf acf k n 8% 18% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 5% 13% 89% 11% 62% 38% 53% 47% Fairly satisfied 861 151 121 73 54 74 84 64 26 65 769 93 571 286 462 399 42% 60% 38% 39% 37% 45% 41% 39% 33% 29% 43% 31% 43% 39% 40% 44% bcdefghi hi i k m n 18% 14% 8% 6% 9% 10% 7% 3% 8% 89% 11% 66% 33% 54% 46% TOTAL SATISFIED 1684 220 269 140 120 138 155 134 64 170 1500 184 1080 597 899 784 82% 88% 85% 74% 83% 84% 76% 82% 82% 76% 85% 62% 82% 81% 77% 87% cfi cfi c c k n 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 89% 11% 64% 35% 53% 47% Neither 160 20 18 24 10 9 23 8 4 16 123 38 95 65 114 46 8% 8% 6% 13% 7% 5% 11% 5% 5% 7% 7% 13% 7% 9% 10% 5% begh begh j o 13% 11% 15% 6% 5% 14% 5% 2% 10% 77% 23% 59% 41% 71% 29% Fairly dissatisfied 126 7 20 13 9 7 11 10 8 22 93 32 74 52 81 44 6% 3% 6% 7% 6% 4% 5% 6% 10% 10% 5% 11% 6% 7% 7% 5% ae ae j 6% 16% 11% 7% 5% 9% 8% 6% 17% 74% 26% 59% 41% 65% 35% Very dissatisfied 95 3 9 11 6 10 15 11 2 15 54 41 68 27 68 28 5% 1% 3% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 3% 7% 3% 14% 5% 4% 6% 3% a a ab a a j o 3% 9% 12% 6% 11% 15% 12% 2% 16% 57% 43% 72% 28% 71% 29% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 221 10 28 24 15 17 25 22 10 37 147 73 142 79 149 72 11% 4% 9% 13% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13% 16% 8% 25% 11% 11% 13% 8% a a a a a a ab j o 5% 13% 11% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% 17% 67% 33% 64% 36% 67% 33% Don't know 43 2 5 4 2 6 5 5 2 5 36 7 20 22 27 15 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2774 \| 1323 \| 1451 \| 410 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1919 \| 921 \| 999 \| 276 \| \| Total \| 2107 \| 1029 \| 1078 \| 300 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| Base for % \| 2068 \| 1008 \| 1060 \| 296 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Very satisfied \| 892 \| 422 \| 470 \| 137 \| \| 43% \| 42% \| 44% \| 46% \| 43% \| \| ij \| j \| k \| p \| p \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 15% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| Fairly satisfied \| 857 \| 432 \| 425 \| 128 \| \| 41% \| 43% \| 40% \| 43% \| 43% \| \| gh \| oqr \| \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 15% \| 18% \| 37% \| \| TOTAL SATISFIED \| 1749 \| 854 \| 895 \| 265 \| \| 85% \| 85% \| 84% \| 89% \| 86% \| \| ef \| kl \| q \| q \| q \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 15% \| 18% \| 37% \| \| Neither \| \| \| \| \| \| 147 \| 67 \| 80 \| 11 \| 24 \| \| 7% \| 7% \| 8% \| 4% \| 7% \| \| c \| c \| n \| opr \| \| \| 45% \| 55% \| 7% \| 16% \| 44% \| \| Fairly dissatisfied \| 107 \| 59 \| 48 \| 15 \| \| 5% \| 6% \| 4% \| 5% \| 5% \| \| n \| r \| \| \| \| \| 55% \| 45% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| Very dissatisfied \| 66 \| 29 \| 37 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 3% \| 2% \| 2% \| \| 43% \| 57% \| 9% \| 12% \| 47% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2774 \| 1323 \| 1451 \| 410 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1919 \| 921 \| 999 \| 276 \| \| Total \| 2107 \| 1029 \| 1078 \| 300 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 17% \| 38% \| \| TOTAL DISSATISFIED \| 172 \| 87 \| 85 \| 21 \| \| 8% \| 9% \| 8% \| 7% \| 7% \| \| n \| \| \| \| \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 12% \| 15% \| 41% \| \| Don't know \| 39 \| 21 \| 19 \| 3 \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2068 251 315 188 145 163 203 165 78 224 1772 295 1317 744 1165 902 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 892 81 156 75 74 71 75 79 40 105 802 90 555 333 473 419 43% 32% 49% 40% 52% 44% 37% 48% 51% 47% 45% 30% 42% 45% 41% 46% af acf a af acf a k n 9% 17% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 4% 12% 90% 10% 62% 37% 53% 47% Fairly satisfied 857 146 120 74 46 71 85 63 26 75 727 129 559 295 489 367 41% 58% 38% 39% 32% 43% 42% 38% 33% 33% 41% 44% 42% 40% 42% 41% bcdefghi d d 17% 14% 9% 5% 8% 10% 7% 3% 9% 85% 15% 65% 34% 57% 43% TOTAL SATISFIED 1749 226 276 149 121 142 160 143 66 179 1530 219 1113 628 962 786 85% 90% 88% 79% 83% 87% 79% 86% 85% 80% 86% 74% 85% 84% 83% 87% cfi cf cf k n 13% 16% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 64% 36% 55% 45% Neither 147 16 20 20 8 7 20 7 5 20 121 26 88 60 92 55 7% 6% 6% 11% 6% 4% 10% 4% 6% 9% 7% 9% 7% 8% 8% 6% eg g 11% 13% 14% 5% 5% 14% 5% 3% 14% 82% 18% 60% 40% 63% 37% Fairly dissatisfied 107 4 14 12 9 6 16 10 5 15 80 27 65 41 69 37 5% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 8% 6% 7% 7% 4% 9% 5% 6% 6% 4% a a a a a a j 4% 13% 11% 8% 5% 15% 9% 5% 14% 75% 25% 61% 39% 65% 35% Very dissatisfied 66 4 6 8 7 8 7 6 2 9 42 24 50 15 41 24 3% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 2% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3% j m 6% 10% 12% 11% 12% 11% 9% 3% 14% 64% 36% 77% 23% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 172 8 20 19 16 13 23 16 7 24 121 51 116 56 111 61 8% 3% 6% 10% 11% 8% 11% 10% 9% 11% 7% 17% 9% 8% 10% 7% a a a a a a j o 5% 12% 11% 9% 8% 13% 9% 4% 14% 71% 29% 67% 33% 64% 36% Don't know 39 2 5 4 2 6 5 4 2 3 33 6 20 19 25 15 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe29 (Qe35). Read Out Description Of Wireless Router. Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Use A Fixed Wireless Internet Connection At Home (Wi-Fi)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 92% 94% 91% 96% 98% 96% 95% 96% 93% 95% 91% 96% 93% f f h ghi n p p 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% No 56 26 30 7 8 17 24 7 12 11 3 11 17 13 15 40 11 3 3 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 4% % 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 6% 3% 6% j j j o o 46% 54% 13% 14% 30% 44% 12% 21% 19% 5% 20% 30% 24% 26% 70% 19% 5% 6% Don't know 50 22 28 7 5 12 26 2 5 2 6 15 11 7 16 41 6 2 1 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% de m 43% 57% 14% 11% 24% 52% 5% 10% 4% 13% 31% 22% 14% 32% 83% 12% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe29 (Qe35). Read Out Description Of Wireless Router. Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Use A Fixed Wireless Internet Connection At Home (Wi-Fi)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Yes 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 95% 97% 96% 99% 91% 95% 97% 96% 88% 95% 95% 96% 96% 93% 94% 96% dh h dhi h dh h h m 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% No 56 3 8 2 2 4 4 5 6 5 51 5 26 30 34 23 3% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% abcdefi l 6% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 9% 11% 9% 90% 10% 47% 53% 60% 40% Don't know 50 5 6 1 11 4 3 2 3 7 44 6 25 24 34 16 2% 2% 2% 1% 7% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% abcefg c 9% 12% 2% 22% 7% 5% 4% 7% 14% 88% 12% 49% 48% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2620 1254 1366 390 457 965 808 244 248 372 579 681 851 561 526 1613 331 343 333 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 875 941 262 306 672 583 178 166 267 437 499 585 393 357 1406 212 215 256 Total 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% Laptop 1443 700 743 217 254 583 389 97 104 202 458 489 404 311 238 1223 122 66 32 72% 71% 73% 76% 72% 75% 66% 62% 62% 69% 83% 79% 72% 70% 62% 73% 73% 68% 60% f f ghi lmn n n r r 49% 51% 15% 18% 40% 27% 7% 7% 14% 32% 34% 28% 22% 17% 85% 8% 5% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 1271 596 675 186 241 530 314 83 97 190 405 410 366 295 200 1064 99 72 37 64% 61% 66% 65% 68% 68% 53% 53% 58% 66% 74% 66% 65% 67% 52% 63% 60% 74% 70% a f f f g ghi n n n op op 47% 53% 15% 19% 42% 25% 7% 8% 15% 32% 32% 29% 23% 16% 84% 8% 6% 3% Smartphone 1267 599 668 223 280 534 231 89 95 187 397 377 367 279 245 1059 109 58 41 63% 61% 66% 78% 79% 69% 39% 57% 57% 64% 73% 61% 66% 63% 64% 63% 66% 59% 78% a ef ef f ghi opq 47% 53% 18% 22% 42% 18% 7% 7% 15% 31% 30% 29% 22% 19% 84% 9% 5% 3% Desktop PC 536 296 241 79 61 203 194 32 42 78 167 191 166 99 80 469 36 26 5 27% 30% 24% 28% 17% 26% 33% 21% 25% 27% 30% 31% 30% 22% 21% 28% 22% 26% 10% b d d de g mn mn r r r 55% 45% 15% 11% 38% 36% 6% 8% 14% 31% 36% 31% 18% 15% 88% 7% 5% 1% Games console 434 218 216 106 102 200 26 23 44 64 141 116 114 113 90 355 46 24 9 22% 22% 21% 37% 29% 26% 4% 14% 26% 22% 26% 19% 20% 26% 23% 21% 28% 24% 18% def f f g g g k or 50% 50% 24% 23% 46% 6% 5% 10% 15% 33% 27% 26% 26% 21% 82% 11% 5% 2% TV set 325 165 160 52 65 122 86 19 33 51 123 116 78 72 59 272 18 30 5 16% 17% 16% 18% 18% 16% 15% 12% 20% 17% 22% 19% 14% 16% 15% 16% 11% 31% 9% g l pr opr 51% 49% 16% 20% 38% 26% 6% 10% 16% 38% 36% 24% 22% 18% 84% 5% 9% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2620 1254 1366 390 457 965 808 244 248 372 579 681 851 561 526 1613 331 343 333 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 875 941 262 306 672 583 178 166 267 437 499 585 393 357 1406 212 215 256 Total 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 293 131 162 43 42 120 88 11 16 36 101 114 83 67 29 254 16 18 4 15% 13% 16% 15% 12% 15% 15% 7% 10% 12% 18% 18% 15% 15% 8% 15% 10% 19% 8% ghi n n n pr pr 45% 55% 15% 14% 41% 30% 4% 6% 12% 34% 39% 28% 23% 10% 87% 5% 6% 1% Netbook 127 62 65 25 15 62 25 6 15 16 45 49 31 28 19 110 8 7 1 6% 6% 6% 9% 4% 8% 4% 4% 9% 6% 8% 8% 6% 6% 5% 7% 5% 8% 3% df df r r 49% 51% 20% 12% 49% 20% 5% 12% 13% 36% 39% 25% 22% 15% 87% 6% 6% 1% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) 69 35 33 13 14 33 10 3 9 27 23 17 17 11 61 2 4 1 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% % 2% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 1% 4% 2% f f f g g 52% 48% 18% 20% 48% 14% 1% 5% 13% 40% 34% 25% 25% 16% 89% 3% 6% 2% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 39 24 14 8 6 18 6 4 1 17 16 9 9 5 33 2 3 * 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% % 2% % 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% gi r 63% 37% 20% 16% 47% 17% 1% 10% 4% 45% 42% 23% 23% 12% 86% 4% 9% 1% None of these 16 6 11 1 1 3 11 1 2 1 2 * 3 6 8 14 1 * * 1% 1% 1% % % % 2% 1% 1% % % % 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% % 1% e k kl 35% 65% 6% 8% 17% 70% 9% 13% 7% 10% 1% 18% 35% 46% 89% 7% 2% 3% Don't know 13 8 4 1 - 8 4 - 1 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 * - 1% 1% % % -% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% % % % 1% 2% 1% % % -% kl 65% 35% 8% -% 62% 29% -% 10% 16% 8% 15% 12% 18% 55% 94% 2% 4% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Mean number of types of devices 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.6 def f f g g ghi n n n r opr Standard deviation 1.68 1.72 1.64 1.78 1.51 1.76 1.47 1.32 1.58 1.58 1.76 1.76 1.67 1.62 1.59 1.69 1.47 1.95 1.42 Standard error .03 .05 .04 .09 .07 .06 .05 .08 .10 .08 .07 .07 .06 .07 .07 .04 .08 .11 .08 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2620 175 210 204 173 165 194 169 148 175 1892 728 1533 1080 1325 1295 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 158 198 196 162 154 185 159 138 162 1490 350 1072 765 937 898 Total 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% Laptop 1443 220 214 142 86 107 152 116 43 143 1245 198 962 477 793 650 72% 90% 70% 75% 64% 66% 76% 71% 61% 67% 73% 68% 75% 67% 71% 74% bcdefghi dh dh m 15% 15% 10% 6% 7% 11% 8% 3% 10% 86% 14% 67% 33% 55% 45% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 1271 130 186 131 86 90 136 113 52 141 1075 197 875 392 739 532 64% 53% 61% 69% 64% 56% 67% 69% 74% 65% 63% 68% 68% 55% 66% 61% ae a ae ae abe a m o 10% 15% 10% 7% 7% 11% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 69% 31% 58% 42% Smartphone 1267 170 150 126 74 114 137 126 51 113 1089 179 903 361 676 591 63% 69% 49% 66% 55% 70% 68% 78% 72% 52% 64% 62% 70% 51% 60% 67% bdi bdi bdi bdi bcdfi bdi m n 13% 12% 10% 6% 9% 11% 10% 4% 9% 86% 14% 71% 28% 53% 47% Desktop PC 536 55 100 59 27 51 55 47 21 55 447 90 324 210 321 215 27% 23% 33% 31% 20% 32% 27% 29% 29% 26% 26% 31% 25% 30% 29% 25% ad d d l o 10% 19% 11% 5% 10% 10% 9% 4% 10% 83% 17% 60% 39% 60% 40% Games console 434 37 50 37 32 49 47 34 19 49 373 60 315 117 244 190 22% 15% 16% 19% 24% 30% 23% 21% 27% 23% 22% 21% 25% 17% 22% 22% abc ab m 9% 12% 8% 7% 11% 11% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 56% 44% TV set 325 13 24 41 24 24 50 62 15 18 245 79 231 94 188 136 16% 5% 8% 22% 18% 15% 25% 38% 21% 9% 14% 27% 18% 13% 17% 16% abi abi ab abei abcdefhi abi j m 4% 7% 13% 7% 8% 15% 19% 5% 6% 76% 24% 71% 29% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2620 175 210 204 173 165 194 169 148 175 1892 728 1533 1080 1325 1295 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 158 198 196 162 154 185 159 138 162 1490 350 1072 765 937 898 Total 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 293 17 42 31 21 41 37 38 8 18 231 62 200 93 198 95 15% 7% 14% 16% 15% 25% 19% 23% 12% 8% 13% 21% 16% 13% 18% 11% a ai a abcdhi ai abhi j o 6% 14% 11% 7% 14% 13% 13% 3% 6% 79% 21% 68% 32% 68% 32% Netbook 127 18 11 12 7 23 11 13 4 12 102 25 89 37 75 52 6% 7% 4% 6% 6% 14% 5% 8% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 5% 7% 6% bcdfhi 14% 9% 9% 6% 18% 8% 10% 3% 9% 80% 20% 70% 29% 59% 41% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) 69 3 2 13 3 14 10 4 4 8 54 14 53 16 44 25 3% 1% 1% 7% 2% 8% 5% 2% 6% 4% 3% 5% 4% 2% 4% 3% abdg abdg b ab b m 5% 3% 20% 4% 20% 15% 6% 6% 11% 80% 20% 77% 23% 64% 36% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 39 1 3 6 1 4 4 4 2 7 31 8 30 9 27 12 2% % 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 9% 14% 4% 12% 11% 12% 4% 18% 80% 20% 77% 23% 70% 30% None of these 16 2 4 4 1 1 - - - 3 14 2 10 7 8 8 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% f 10% 22% 25% 6% 9% -% -% -% 17% 87% 13% 59% 41% 51% 49% Don't know 13 - 5 1 2 - 1 1 - 2 10 2 8 5 8 5 1% -% 2% % 2% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 40% 6% 17% -% 8% 8% -% 15% 81% 19% 62% 38% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Mean number of types of devices 2.9 2.7 2.6 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 abdi abdi abdi abdi abdi j m Standard deviation 1.68 1.42 1.51 1.96 1.65 2.01 1.59 1.67 1.66 1.64 1.64 1.86 1.69 1.61 1.77 1.56 Standard error .03 .11 .10 .14 .13 .16 .11 .13 .14 .12 .04 .07 .04 .05 .05 .04 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe31 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without internet access at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o p ~q r Unweighted total 650 321 329 37 41 96 476 209 83 31 7 55 136 141 316 343 104 89 114 Effective Weighted Sample 397 185 212 25 25 60 287 129 51 20 3 37 82 81 200 286 62 54 87 Total 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 47% 53% * 70% 30% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 3% Certain to 5 4 1 * 1 * 2 1 5 - - 1% 2% 1% % 1% * 1% 3% 1% 2% -% -% 74% 26% 2% 16% 8% 48% 16% 98% -% -% Very likely 8 6 2 2 1 ** 3 2 3 7 * ** * 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 73% 27% 21% 13% 34% 24% 33% 85% 4% 5% Likely 29 13 17 3 12 7 5 14 24 2 * 8% 8% 9% 1% 12% 10% 7% 8% 9% 6% 4% 44% 56% 12% 42% 24% 18% 47% 83% 8% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 43 23 20 5 14 10 10 17 36 3 1 12% 14% 11% 2% 13% 15% 12% 11% 13% 7% 7% 53% 47% 12% 33% 24% 23% 41% 85% 6% 2% Unlikely 37 16 21 24 11 5 10 18 29 3 2 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% 8% 12% 11% 10% 8% 14% 43% 57% 67% 30% 15% 26% 50% 79% 8% 5% Very unlikely 43 21 22 32 13 13 10 18 30 8 2 12% 13% 12% 13% 12% 18% 13% 11% 11% 22% 16% o 49% 51% 76% 30% 29% 24% 42% 71% 18% 5% Certain not to 186 83 103 165 60 36 37 91 151 19 6 53% 51% 56% 68% 57% 52% 48% 56% 54% 54% 51% 44% 56% 89% 32% 19% 20% 49% 81% 10% 3% TOTAL UNLIKELY 266 120 146 222 84 54 57 127 211 29 10 76% 73% 79% 91% 79% 77% 73% 78% 75% 84% 82% 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% 11% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe31 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without internet access at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o p ~q r Unweighted total 650 321 329 37 41 96 476 209 83 31 7 55 136 141 316 343 104 89 114 Effective Weighted Sample 397 185 212 25 25 60 287 129 51 20 3 37 82 81 200 286 62 54 87 Total 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 47% 53% 70% 30% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 3% Don't know 40 21 20 16 8 6 11 19 35 3 1 12% 13% 11% 7% 7% 8% 14% 12% 12% 9% 11% 51% 49% 40% 19% 14% 27% 47% 86% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those without internet access at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 650 23 22 22 45 59 23 48 59 42 458 192 108 537 276 374 Effective Weighted Sample 397 19 21 21 41 54 22 42 54 39 336 69 66 336 160 246 Total 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Certain to 5 2 3 4 1 3 2 1% ** 1% 7% 5% % 2% 1% j m * 44% 56% 74% 19% 56% 44% Very likely 8 ** 8 * 3 5 3 5 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 95% 5% 42% 58% 34% 66% Likely 29 27 2 13 17 18 12 8% 9% 6% 17% 6% 11% 6% m 92% 8% 43% 57% 60% 40% TOTAL LIKELY 43 37 6 20 22 23 20 12% 12% 14% 26% 8% 14% 11% m 87% 13% 47% 52% 54% 46% Unlikely 37 33 4 11 26 19 17 11% 11% 10% 14% 10% 12% 9% 89% 11% 30% 70% 53% 47% Very unlikely 43 39 4 11 31 18 25 12% 13% 10% 15% 12% 11% 13% 91% 9% 26% 74% 42% 58% Certain not to 186 162 25 18 167 84 102 53% 52% 60% 24% 62% 51% 55% l 87% 13% 10% 90% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those without internet access at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 650 23 22 22 45 59 23 48 59 42 458 192 108 537 276 374 Effective Weighted Sample 397 19 21 21 41 54 22 42 54 39 336 69 66 336 160 246 Total 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% TOTAL UNLIKELY 266 233 33 40 224 121 145 76% 76% 80% 53% 83% 74% 78% l 88% 12% 15% 84% 46% 54% Don't know 40 38 2 16 24 19 21 12% 12% 6% 21% 9% 12% 12% m 94% 6% 40% 59% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% No need 175 80 95 156 47 37 38 77 141 66% 67% 65% 71% 56% 69% 67% 60% 67% 46% 54% 90% 27% 21% 22% 44% 81% Don't want a computer 78 35 43 71 28 14 19 40 61 30% 29% 30% 32% 33% 25% 34% 31% 29% 45% 55% 91% 35% 17% 24% 50% 77% Too old to use the internet 73 34 39 71 19 15 15 34 56 27% 28% 27% 32% 23% 28% 26% 27% 27% 47% 53% 98% 26% 21% 20% 47% 78% Don't know how you use computers 64 32 31 54 27 11 14 37 49 24% 27% 22% 24% 33% 19% 24% 29% 23% 51% 49% 84% 43% 17% 21% 59% 76% Too expensive to set up 35 16 20 18 16 5 5 23 25 13% 13% 14% 8% 19% 10% 8% 18% 12% 44% 56% 51% 46% 15% 13% 65% 71% Computer is too expensive to buy 18 9 9 15 10 3 4 10 15 7% 8% 6% 7% 11% 5% 7% 8% 7% 52% 48% 85% 53% 14% 22% 56% 84% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% Friends/ family member checks things on the internet for me 18 11 7 17 5 5 4 7 15 7% 10% 5% 8% 6% 10% 7% 6% 7% 63% 37% 97% 29% 30% 21% 41% 85% Don't have a phone line 12 5 7 6 4 4 1 6 8 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 7% 3% 5% 4% 43% 57% 47% 35% 34% 12% 54% 69% Charges are too expensive 12 5 7 8 5 2 3 7 8 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 4% 6% 5% 4% 42% 58% 68% 44% 18% 26% 55% 65% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 10 5 5 4 4 4 2 5 9 4% 5% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3% 4% 4% 54% 46% 44% 36% 37% 16% 48% 92% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 4 3 1 ** 3 * - 1 2 3 1% 2% 1% 1% % * -% 2% 2% 1% 70% 30% 68% 9% -% 30% 55% 78% Concerned about security/ fraud 4 4 * 4 - ** * 2 2 3 ** 1% 3% % * 2% -% % 3% 1% 1% * b 97% 3% 100% -% 2% 46% 49% 81% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% Health reasons - bad eyesight 2 2 * 2 - ** * 1 1 1 ** 1% 1% % * 1% -% % 2% 1% 1% * 82% 18% 100% -% 6% 50% 44% 50% Satisfied with using the internet at work 2 2 * ** * - 2 * - 1 ** 1% 1% % * % -% * 3% 1% -% 1% n 88% 12% 9% -% 81% 19% -% 78% My computer is out of date * - * ** * * * * - * ** % -% % ** % % 1% % -% % -% 100% 100% 11% 89% 11% -% 89% Other 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 1 1% 1% -% 1% 1% -% 2% -% 1% 100% -% 100% 67% -% 67% -% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 153 72 81 124 52 28 30 81 119 58% 61% 55% 56% 62% 52% 53% 63% 56% 47% 53% 81% 34% 18% 20% 53% 78% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 217 97 120 191 64 46 49 98 174 82% 81% 82% 86% 76% 85% 86% 77% 83% 45% 55% 88% 30% 21% 22% 45% 80% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 110 47 63 96 31 25 26 46 89 41% 39% 43% 43% 37% 47% 46% 36% 42% 42% 58% 87% 28% 23% 23% 42% 81% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% ** Don't know 2 * 2 1 1 ** 1 1 * 2 ** 1% % 1% * 1% 1% 1% 2% % 1% * 3% 97% 53% 53% 33% 47% 20% 97% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% No need 175 150 24 148 86 88 66% 65% 74% 66% 71% 61% 86% 14% 85% 50% 50% Don't want a computer 78 68 10 68 34 45 30% 29% 32% 30% 28% 31% 87% 13% 87% 43% 57% Too old to use the internet 73 62 10 70 32 41 27% 27% 32% 31% 27% 28% 86% 14% 97% 44% 56% Don't know how you use computers 64 60 4 56 27 37 24% 26% 11% 25% 22% 26% k 94% 6% 88% 42% 58% Too expensive to set up 35 33 2 30 16 20 13% 14% 7% 13% 13% 14% 94% 6% 84% 45% 55% Computer is too expensive to buy 18 17 1 17 11 7 7% 7% 4% 8% 9% 5% 93% 7% 95% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% Friends/ family member checks things on the internet for me 18 16 2 18 10 8 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 5% 87% 13% 100% 57% 43% Don't have a phone line 12 10 2 8 6 6 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 86% 14% 69% 48% 52% Charges are too expensive 12 10 2 9 7 5 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 3% 85% 15% 80% 62% 38% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 10 9 1 7 2 8 4% 4% 3% 3% 1% 6% 90% 10% 70% 18% 82% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 4 ** 4 * 3 1 3 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 94% 6% 75% 23% 77% Concerned about security/ fraud 4 4 * 3 1 3 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 94% 6% 82% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% Health reasons - bad eyesight 2 2 * 2 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 89% 11% 100% 53% 47% Satisfied with using the internet at work 2 2 * ** - * 2 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% * 90% 10% ** -% 19% 81% My computer is out of date * ** * * ** * * * % * % % ** % % % * 89% 11% 100% 89% 11% Other 1 1 - 1 - 1 1% 1% -% ** % -% 1% * 100% -% 67% -% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 153 137 16 135 66 87 58% 59% 49% 60% 55% 60% 90% 10% 88% 43% 57% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 217 189 28 183 101 116 82% 81% 86% 82% 84% 80% 87% 13% 84% 47% 53% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 110 93 17 88 55 55 41% 40% 51% 39% 45% 38% 85% 15% 80% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% Don't know 2 2 * 1 - 2 1% 1% % * 1% -% 2% 97% 3% 53% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% No need 120 54 66 108 30 28 24 50 97 45% 45% 45% 49% 36% 51% 42% 39% 46% 45% 55% 90% 25% 23% 20% 42% 82% Too old to use the internet 36 14 22 36 10 5 9 19 27 14% 12% 15% 16% 12% 10% 15% 15% 13% 40% 60% 100% 29% 15% 24% 53% 76% Don't want a computer 32 13 20 28 12 8 8 13 23 12% 10% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 11% 11% 39% 61% 88% 38% 24% 26% 42% 73% Don't know how you use computers 29 17 12 24 12 5 5 18 23 11% 14% 8% 11% 14% 9% 8% 14% 11% 57% 43% 83% 42% 18% 17% 61% 82% Too expensive to set up 19 6 13 7 10 3 4 12 13 7% 5% 9% 3% 12% 5% 6% 10% 6% 32% 68% 39% 51% 15% 19% 66% 71% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 8 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 7 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 7% 3% 2% 3% 50% 50% 39% 35% 48% 21% 31% 92% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% Friends/family member checks things on the internet for me 6 3 3 6 2 1 2 2 6 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 47% 53% 100% 30% 12% 32% 34% 89% Charges are too expensive 4 2 1 2 1 - 2 2 3 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% -% 3% 1% 1% 60% 40% 56% 24% -% 49% 51% 76% Computer is too expensive to buy 3 3 * 1 2 - - 3 2 1% 3% % * 1% 2% -% -% 3% 1% 91% 9% 43% 56% -% -% 100% 66% Don't have a phone line 3 2 1 1 1 - - 3 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 2% 1% 62% 38% 46% 42% -% -% 100% 79% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 2 1 1 1 * - 1 * 2 ** 1% 1% % * % % -% 2% % 1% * 60% 40% 43% 3% -% 61% 3% 93% Concerned about security/ fraud 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 1 % 1% -% * % -% * ** -% -% 1% % * 100% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% 83% 32% 20% 21% 48% 79% Health reasons - bad eyesight * * * ** * - * - * - ** % % % * % -% * ** % -% % -% 23% 77% 100% -% 52% -% 48% -% ** Satisfied with using the internet at work * - * - - ** * - - - ** % -% % -% -% ** % -% -% -% * -% 100% -% -% 100% -% -% -% Other 1 * 1 1 - - - 1 1 1% % 1% * 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 36% 64% 100% -% -% -% 64% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 96 46 50 74 36 13 20 58 74 36% 38% 35% 33% 43% 25% 35% 46% 35% l 48% 52% 77% 38% 14% 20% 61% 77% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 166 73 93 145 47 40 36 68 134 62% 61% 63% 66% 56% 74% 64% 53% 63% n 44% 56% 88% 28% 24% 22% 41% 81% ** Don't know 2 * 2 1 1 ** 1 1 * 2 ** 1% % 1% * 1% 1% 1% 2% % 1% * 3% 97% 53% 53% 33% 47% 20% 97% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% No need 120 101 18 99 65 55 45% 44% 56% 44% 53% 38% o 85% 15% 83% 54% 46% Too old to use the internet 36 34 3 35 12 24 14% 14% 8% 16% 10% 17% 93% 7% 96% 34% 66% Don't want a computer 32 28 4 29 15 17 12% 12% 13% 13% 13% 12% 86% 14% 90% 47% 53% Don't know how you use computers 29 26 2 23 12 17 11% 11% 7% 10% 10% 12% 92% 8% 79% 41% 59% Too expensive to set up 19 17 2 17 6 13 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 9% 92% 8% 88% 32% 68% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 8 7 1 5 2 6 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 88% 12% 61% 22% 78% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% 84% 46% 54% Friends/family member checks things on the internet for me 6 5 1 6 4 2 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 82% 18% 100% 63% 37% Charges are too expensive 4 ** 3 * 2 3 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 95% 5% 63% 70% 30% Computer is too expensive to buy 3 3 - 3 1 2 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 100% -% 100% 30% 70% Don't have a phone line 3 2 1 2 2 1 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 64% 36% 53% 58% 42% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 2 2 * 1 - 2 1% 1% % * % -% 1% * 93% 7% 43% -% 100% Concerned about security/ fraud 1 1 - ** 1 - 1 % * % -% * % -% 1% * 100% -% 100% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Health reasons - bad eyesight * ** - * ** * * * % * -% 1% ** % % % * -% 100% ** 100% 29% 71% Satisfied with using the internet at work * ** * - ** - - * % * % -% * -% -% % * 100% -% -% -% 100% Other 1 1 - 1 - 1 1% 1% -% ** % -% 1% * 100% -% 64% -% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 96 88 8 83 35 61 36% 38% 24% 37% 29% 42% k n 92% 8% 86% 37% 63% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 166 141 25 139 86 80 62% 61% 75% 62% 71% 55% j o 85% 15% 84% 52% 48% Don't know 2 2 * 1 - 2 1% 1% % * 1% -% 2% 97% 3% 53% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe34 (Qeni1). Explain Satellite Broadband Were You Aware That Satellite Broadband Is Available? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h ~i j k l m n ~o p q ~r Unweighted total 991 472 519 128 158 278 427 176 126 95 154 191 309 223 267 - 502 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 571 279 293 81 97 162 247 113 68 58 97 109 181 127 164 - 310 301 - Total 365 176 189 44 65 124 132 58 41 38 69 83 98 84 99 - 233 132 - 48% 52% 12% 18% 34% 36% 16% 11% 19% 23% 27% 23% 27% -% 64% 36% -% Yes 134 74 60 16 28 55 35 11 9 39 46 38 34 15 - 85 49 - 37% 42% 31% 37% 43% 44% 26% 19% 23% 56% 56% 39% 40% 16% -% 37% 37% -% b f f gh lmn n n 56% 44% 12% 21% 41% 26% 8% 7% 29% 35% 29% 25% 12% -% 64% 36% -% No 173 74 100 22 28 47 77 42 27 24 24 44 35 70 - 104 70 - 47% 42% 53% 49% 43% 38% 58% 72% 66% 35% 29% 45% 41% 70% -% 44% 53% -% a de j j k klm p 42% 58% 12% 16% 27% 44% 24% 16% 14% 14% 25% 20% 40% -% 60% 40% -% Don't know 58 28 30 6 9 23 21 5 5 6 12 16 16 14 - 44 14 - 16% 16% 16% 14% 14% 18% 16% 9% 11% 8% 15% 16% 19% 14% -% 19% 10% -% q 48% 52% 10% 15% 39% 36% 9% 8% 10% 21% 27% 27% 24% -% 76% 24% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe34 (Qeni1). Explain Satellite Broadband Were You Aware That Satellite Broadband Is Available? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 991 - - - - - - - - - 491 500 438 553 515 476 Effective Weighted Sample 571 - - - - - - - - - 397 440 273 326 259 317 Total 365 - - - - - - - - - 297 68 206 159 181 185 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 57% 43% 49% 51% Yes 134 - - - - - - - - - 114 20 91 42 65 68 37% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% 30% 44% 27% 36% 37% k m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 85% 15% 68% 32% 49% 51% No 173 - - - - - - - - - 132 41 82 91 73 100 47% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 44% 61% 40% 58% 40% 54% j l n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 47% 53% 42% 58% Don't know 58 - - - - - - - - - 52 6 33 25 42 16 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 17% 9% 16% 16% 23% 9% k o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 57% 43% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe35 (Qe29). Explain That Phone Calls Can Be Made Using The Internet Using Services Such As Skype. Before Now, Were You Aware That You Could Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Single Code) Base : All respondents \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 3737 \| 1790 \| 1947 \| 519 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2504 \| 1197 \| 1308 \| 343 \| \| Total \| 2675 \| 1301 \| 1374 \| 364 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 14% \| 18% \| 34% \| \| Yes \| 2333 \| 1128 \| 1204 \| 345 \| \| 87% \| 87% \| 88% \| 95% \| 96% \| \| f \| f \| f \| g \| gh \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 15% \| 19% \| 36% \| \| No \| 315 \| 157 \| 158 \| 17 \| \| 12% \| 12% \| 12% \| 5% \| 4% \| \| cde \| hij \| ij \| j \| k \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 5% \| 6% \| 19% \| \| Don't know \| 27 \| 15 \| 12 \| 2 \| \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| \| e \| ij \| \| \| \| \| 56% \| 44% \| 8% \| 9% \| 20% \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe35 (Qe29). Explain That Phone Calls Can Be Made Using The Internet Using Services Such As Skype. Before Now, Were You Aware That You Could Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 2333 314 309 199 149 201 221 198 99 268 2014 319 1453 873 1251 1082 87% 93% 86% 88% 79% 85% 90% 88% 87% 89% 87% 89% 94% 78% 87% 88% bdeh d d d d d d m 13% 13% 9% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 62% 37% 54% 46% No 315 21 49 28 30 34 23 26 13 34 280 35 88 225 177 138 12% 6% 14% 12% 16% 14% 10% 12% 11% 11% 12% 10% 6% 20% 12% 11% a a af a a l 7% 16% 9% 10% 11% 7% 8% 4% 11% 89% 11% 28% 71% 56% 44% Don't know 27 3 1 - 9 2 1 1 2 - 22 5 10 16 15 12 1% 1% % -% 5% 1% % 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% abcefgi ci 11% 3% -% 35% 8% 3% 5% 8% -% 81% 19% 39% 58% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe36 (Qe30). Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Ever Used One Of These Services To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet At Home? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes & currently using 1037 495 542 178 237 400 222 73 89 148 307 357 318 182 180 890 80 45 23 39% 38% 39% 49% 51% 44% 24% 23% 34% 41% 53% 50% 44% 31% 27% 40% 34% 34% 31% f ef f g g ghi lmn mn r 48% 52% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 9% 14% 30% 34% 31% 18% 17% 86% 8% 4% 2% Yes but stopped using 232 119 113 37 39 94 62 21 23 42 53 67 65 56 44 196 17 13 7 9% 9% 8% 10% 8% 10% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 9% 9% 10% 7% 9% 7% 10% 9% f f g 51% 49% 16% 17% 41% 27% 9% 10% 18% 23% 29% 28% 24% 19% 84% 7% 5% 3% TOTAL YES 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 47% 47% 48% 59% 59% 54% 31% 30% 43% 53% 62% 60% 53% 41% 34% 49% 42% 44% 40% f f f g gh ghi lmn mn n pr 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% No never used 1383 670 712 147 191 412 632 220 146 166 220 282 329 337 432 1133 134 72 44 52% 52% 52% 40% 41% 45% 68% 69% 56% 46% 38% 40% 46% 58% 65% 51% 57% 54% 59% cde hij ij j k kl klm o o 48% 52% 11% 14% 30% 46% 16% 11% 12% 16% 20% 24% 24% 31% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 23 16 7 2 2 9 11 3 2 1 3 6 8 5 4 18 2 3 1 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% b 70% 30% 10% 7% 37% 45% 11% 9% 5% 14% 25% 36% 20% 19% 75% 10% 11% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE36 (QE30). Have you or anyone in your household ever used one of these services to make voice calls using the internet at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes & currently using 1037 242 107 95 61 80 116 82 39 68 894 143 729 306 522 515 39% 72% 30% 42% 32% 34% 47% 36% 34% 23% 39% 40% 47% 27% 36% 42% bcdefghi bdi i i bdeghi i i m n 23% 10% 9% 6% 8% 11% 8% 4% 7% 86% 14% 70% 29% 50% 50% Yes but stopped using 232 12 36 21 16 14 31 17 10 38 196 35 151 81 126 106 9% 4% 10% 9% 9% 6% 13% 7% 9% 13% 8% 10% 10% 7% 9% 9% a a a ae a ae m 5% 15% 9% 7% 6% 13% 7% 4% 17% 85% 15% 65% 35% 54% 46% TOTAL YES 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 47% 75% 40% 51% 41% 40% 60% 44% 43% 35% 47% 50% 57% 35% 45% 50% bcdefghi bdei bdeghi m n 20% 11% 9% 6% 7% 12% 8% 4% 8% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% No never used 1383 79 212 110 107 142 98 127 64 194 1205 178 664 713 782 601 52% 23% 59% 49% 57% 60% 40% 56% 57% 64% 52% 50% 43% 64% 54% 49% acf a af acf a af af acf l o 6% 15% 8% 8% 10% 7% 9% 5% 14% 87% 13% 48% 52% 57% 43% Don't know 23 5 5 1 5 1 - - * 1 20 3 8 14 13 10 1% 2% 1% % 2% % -% -% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% fg 22% 19% 3% 20% 4% -% -% 2% 5% 87% 13% 34% 59% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Skype 984 484 501 157 203 388 236 64 83 150 299 343 300 172 170 852 66 45 22 78% 79% 76% 73% 74% 79% 83% 67% 74% 79% 83% 81% 78% 72% 76% 79% 68% 78% 74% cd g gh m p 49% 51% 16% 21% 39% 24% 6% 8% 15% 30% 35% 30% 17% 17% 87% 7% 5% 2% FaceTime 394 180 214 77 103 148 65 23 30 57 133 142 126 85 41 330 32 23 9 31% 29% 33% 36% 37% 30% 23% 24% 27% 30% 37% 33% 33% 36% 18% 30% 33% 41% 30% f f f g n n n o 46% 54% 20% 26% 38% 17% 6% 8% 14% 34% 36% 32% 22% 10% 84% 8% 6% 2% WhatsApp 278 135 143 62 78 105 32 11 27 48 83 89 93 49 47 235 25 11 7 22% 22% 22% 29% 28% 21% 11% 12% 24% 25% 23% 21% 24% 20% 21% 22% 26% 19% 24% ef ef f g g g 49% 51% 22% 28% 38% 12% 4% 10% 17% 30% 32% 33% 18% 17% 85% 9% 4% 3% Facebook 238 105 134 61 67 89 21 23 26 38 49 63 75 56 44 204 20 9 5 19% 17% 20% 28% 24% 18% 7% 25% 23% 20% 14% 15% 20% 23% 20% 19% 21% 16% 17% ef f f j j k 44% 56% 26% 28% 37% 9% 10% 11% 16% 21% 27% 31% 23% 19% 86% 9% 4% 2% BT Broadband voice/Home Hub 11 4 7 1 - 9 2 - 4 1 3 7 1 1 3 11 * * - 1% 1% 1% % -% 2% 1% -% 4% % 1% 2% % % 1% 1% % 1% -% d gij l 34% 66% 6% -% 76% 18% -% 39% 8% 25% 63% 6% 8% 23% 95% 1% 4% -% Vonage 8 8 - 1 - 6 1 - 2 - 2 3 2 2 1 8 - - - 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% % -% 2% -% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% -% -% -% b 100% -% 14% -% 73% 12% -% 24% -% 32% 40% 22% 24% 14% 100% -% -% -% Voipfone 5 5 - - - 3 2 1 1 - 2 1 1 2 1 4 - 1 - % 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% % % 1% 1% % -% 1% -% b 100% -% -% -% 62% 38% 25% 19% -% 39% 20% 19% 35% 25% 84% -% 16% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Plusnet (Plustalk) 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 - 1 - 1 2 2 1 - 4 - 1 - % % % 1% % % 1% -% 1% -% % 1% % % -% % -% 1% -% 51% 49% 30% 19% 13% 38% -% 19% -% 22% 52% 35% 13% -% 87% -% 13% -% BT Communicator 3 1 2 - - 1 2 - - 1 1 - - 3 - 3 - - - % % % -% -% % 1% -% -% 1% % -% -% 1% -% % -% -% -% kl 33% 67% -% -% 33% 67% -% -% 40% 33% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% Other 41 20 21 4 10 17 10 2 12 10 13 10 6 11 36 2 2 1 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% % 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% h 48% 52% 11% 23% 42% 24% 5% 1% 29% 25% 32% 25% 16% 28% 87% 5% 5% 2% Don't know 13 3 10 1 2 4 7 3 1 1 3 2 3 5 12 * 1 - 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 2% 1% % 1% -% j 25% 75% 5% 12% 29% 54% 26% 9% 11% 1% 21% 14% 27% 38% 91% 3% 6% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Skype 984 228 84 114 78 36 845 140 683 300 507 478 78% 90% 73% 77% 79% 73% 77% 78% 78% 78% 78% 77% cfgh 23% 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% FaceTime 394 40 47 52 29 18 338 56 297 96 221 172 31% 16% 41% 35% 29% 37% 31% 31% 34% 25% 34% 28% a a a a m o 10% 12% 13% 7% 5% 86% 14% 75% 24% 56% 44% WhatsApp 278 104 13 32 15 7 250 28 215 62 118 159 22% 41% 11% 22% 15% 15% 23% 16% 24% 16% 18% 26% cfgh c k m n 38% 5% 12% 5% 3% 90% 10% 78% 22% 43% 57% Facebook 238 65 14 27 10 8 213 25 176 61 105 134 19% 25% 12% 18% 10% 16% 20% 14% 20% 16% 16% 22% cg n 27% 6% 11% 4% 3% 89% 11% 74% 26% 44% 56% BT Broadband voice/Home Hub 11 3 - ** 2 1 * 10 1 7 4 7 4 1% 1% -% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 28% -% 22% 6% 4% 89% 11% 60% 40% 62% 38% Vonage 8 3 - 2 - - 8 - 7 1 3 5 1% 1% -% 2% -% -% ** 1% -% 1% % % 1% 34% -% 32% -% -% 100% -% 88% 12% 39% 61% Voipfone 5 - - - - - 3 2 3 2 2 3 % -% * -% -% -% -% ** % 1% % 1% % % -% -% -% -% -% 57% 43% 55% 45% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Plusnet (Plustalk) 5 1 - - - - 4 1 2 2 2 3 % 1% * -% -% -% -% ** % 1% % 1% % % 30% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 54% 46% 38% 62% BT Communicator 3 - 1 2 - - 2 1 2 1 2 1 % -% * 1% 2% -% -% ** % 1% % % % % -% * 27% 73% -% -% 67% 33% 73% 27% 67% 33% Other 41 3 3 11 5 1 35 6 27 14 19 22 3% 1% 3% 7% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% a 7% 7% 26% 12% 3% 86% 14% 67% 33% 47% 53% Don't know 13 - 2 2 1 * ** 12 * 6 6 3 10 1% -% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 2% % 2% -% 17% 15% 6% 3% 97% 3% 49% 51% 25% 75% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Smartphone 637 291 346 140 186 245 66 49 67 87 168 182 201 122 131 538 53 27 18 50% 47% 53% 65% 67% 50% 23% 52% 59% 45% 47% 43% 53% 51% 59% 50% 55% 46% 62% ef ef f ij k k oq 46% 54% 22% 29% 38% 10% 8% 10% 14% 26% 29% 32% 19% 21% 85% 8% 4% 3% Laptop 521 257 265 68 100 223 130 30 40 86 181 201 151 85 85 451 40 22 9 41% 42% 40% 32% 36% 45% 46% 31% 36% 45% 50% 47% 39% 35% 38% 42% 41% 38% 29% cd cd g gh lmn r r 49% 51% 13% 19% 43% 25% 6% 8% 17% 35% 39% 29% 16% 16% 87% 8% 4% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 426 196 230 58 87 180 101 27 30 64 138 159 133 84 51 363 31 23 9 34% 32% 35% 27% 32% 36% 36% 29% 27% 34% 38% 37% 35% 35% 23% 33% 32% 40% 31% c c h n n n 46% 54% 14% 20% 42% 24% 6% 7% 15% 32% 37% 31% 20% 12% 85% 7% 5% 2% Desktop PC 167 102 65 28 18 57 65 10 16 20 41 61 51 30 25 146 10 10 2 13% 17% 10% 13% 6% 12% 23% 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 13% 13% 11% 13% 10% 17% 7% b d d cde r r 61% 39% 17% 10% 34% 39% 6% 9% 12% 24% 36% 30% 18% 15% 87% 6% 6% 1% Netbook 10 4 7 - 4 2 5 1 1 1 6 5 4 - 1 10 - - * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% % 2% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% -% -% % 36% 64% -% 36% 18% 45% 8% 9% 5% 61% 51% 38% -% 11% 99% -% -% 1% TV set 9 4 4 2 2 4 - 1 - 2 4 2 2 3 2 7 - 2 - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% -% 3% -% o 48% 52% 25% 24% 51% -% 8% -% 23% 52% 25% 18% 34% 23% 82% -% 18% -% Standard landline phone 8 6 2 - 1 5 3 1 - 1 4 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 * 1% 1% % -% % 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 74% 26% -% 6% 61% 33% 15% -% 10% 42% 42% 28% 15% 15% 81% 11% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 4 2 2 2 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 1 3 1 - % % % 1% % % -% 1% -% % -% -% % 1% 1% % % 1% -% 39% 61% 55% 24% 21% -% 18% -% 24% -% -% 18% 45% 38% 79% 6% 15% -% Dedicated handset * - - - * - - - - * * - * - - - * * % % -% -% -% % -% -% -% -% % % -% % -% -% -% % 1% o 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 46% 46% -% 54% -% -% -% 54% 46% Other 8 6 1 2 2 2 2 - - 3 - 3 3 1 2 8 - - - 1% 1% % 1% 1% % 1% -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% % 1% 1% -% -% -% j 81% 19% 21% 21% 29% 29% -% -% 33% -% 37% 37% 7% 19% 100% -% -% -% Don't know 19 7 12 5 * 7 6 2 - 2 2 5 6 4 4 18 1 - * 2% 1% 2% 2% % 2% 2% 3% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% -% 1% d d 37% 63% 27% 1% 39% 33% 13% -% 11% 11% 26% 30% 21% 22% 94% 4% -% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% * 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Smartphone 637 186 53 61 42 24 567 69 472 162 266 370 50% 73% 46% 42% 43% 50% 52% 39% 54% 42% 41% 60% cfgh k m n 29% 8% 10% 7% 4% 89% 11% 74% 25% 42% 58% Laptop 521 133 47 70 32 16 455 67 369 151 270 251 41% 52% 41% 47% 32% 33% 42% 37% 42% 39% 42% 41% gh gh 25% 9% 13% 6% 3% 87% 13% 71% 29% 52% 48% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 426 52 45 54 34 18 357 70 295 131 242 184 34% 20% 39% 36% 34% 36% 33% 39% 33% 34% 37% 30% a a a a o 12% 11% 13% 8% 4% 84% 16% 69% 31% 57% 43% Desktop PC 167 23 23 18 19 6 136 31 105 62 95 72 13% 9% 20% 12% 19% 13% 12% 18% 12% 16% 15% 12% a a l 13% 14% 11% 11% 4% 81% 19% 63% 37% 57% 43% Netbook 10 2 1 2 - 1 9 1 8 3 7 4 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 17% 12% 19% -% 9% 91% 9% 75% 25% 63% 37% TV set 9 - 1 2 - - 3 6 6 3 6 3 1% -% 1% 2% -% -% ** % 3% 1% 1% 1% % j -% 9% 27% -% -% 34% 66% 71% 29% 69% 31% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Standard landline phone 8 1 - 1 - 1 7 1 5 3 4 4 1% % * -% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10% -% 13% -% 6% 88% 12% 64% 36% 52% 48% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 4 1 - 1 - - ** 4 * 3 1 2 2 % % -% 1% -% -% % % % % % % 24% -% 38% -% -% 94% 6% 82% 18% 43% 57% Dedicated handset * - - - - - * * * - * * % -% * -% -% -% -% ** % % % -% % % -% * -% -% -% -% 46% 54% 100% -% 54% 46% Other 8 - 1 1 2 1 8 - 3 5 4 3 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 2% ** 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% a -% * 9% 12% 24% 14% 100% -% 38% 62% 57% 43% Don't know 19 - 4 4 - * 17 2 10 9 12 7 2% -% 3% 3% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% a a -% 19% 21% -% 3% 90% 10% 54% 46% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe39 (Qe34). Do You Pay For Any Elements Of Your Service To Make Calls Using The Internet? Perhaps Calls Made To Landline Or Mobile Phones, Or Any Equipment Or Software You Needed To Purchase Solely To Be Able To Make Calls Using The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 1623 \| 771 \| 852 \| 306 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1143 \| 546 \| 597 \| 201 \| \| Total \| 1269 \| 614 \| 655 \| 215 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 17% \| 22% \| 39% \| \| Yes, pay for any elements \| 55 \| 37 \| 17 \| 11 \| \| 4% \| 6% \| 3% \| 5% \| 5% \| \| b \| n \| \| \| \| \| 68% \| 32% \| 20% \| 25% \| 31% \| \| No, do not pay for any elements \| 1153 \| 551 \| 602 \| 185 \| \| 91% \| 90% \| 92% \| 86% \| 94% \| \| c \| c \| k \| \| \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 16% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 61 \| 25 \| 36 \| 19 \| 4 \| \| 5% \| 4% \| 5% \| 9% \| 1% \| \| de \| d \| d \| ij \| p \| \| 41% \| 59% \| 32% \| 7% \| 35% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe39 (Qe34). Do You Pay For Any Elements Of Your Service To Make Calls Using The Internet? Perhaps Calls Made To Landline Or Mobile Phones, Or Any Equipment Or Software You Needed To Purchase Solely To Be Able To Make Calls Using The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% 9% 12% 8% 4% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Yes, pay for any elements 55 6 8 8 4 2 43 12 42 13 33 21 4% 3% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 3% 5% 3% 12% 14% 15% 7% 4% 78% 22% 76% 24% 61% 39% No, do not pay for any elements 1153 242 104 132 91 45 994 159 803 347 588 566 91% 95% 90% 90% 92% 93% 91% 89% 91% 90% 91% 91% 21% 9% 11% 8% 4% 86% 14% 70% 30% 51% 49% Don't know 61 6 4 7 4 1 54 7 35 26 27 33 5% 2% 3% 5% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 5% l 10% 6% 11% 6% 2% ** 89% 11% 58% 42% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 36% 32% 8% 8% 11% 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Sky Satellite TV 965 452 513 139 187 390 248 78 102 136 239 264 258 229 213 786 75 66 37 36% 35% 37% 38% 40% 43% 27% 25% 39% 38% 41% 37% 36% 39% 32% 35% 32% 50% 50% f f f g g g n op op 47% 53% 14% 19% 40% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Freesat Satellite TV 120 71 49 15 9 45 51 7 12 17 30 45 33 25 18 106 7 7 1 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 5% 6% 2% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 5% 1% b d d g n r r 59% 41% 12% 8% 38% 42% 6% 10% 14% 25% 37% 28% 20% 15% 88% 6% 5% 1% Other Satellite TV 18 9 10 * 7 4 8 1 2 6 5 3 5 6 5 17 - 1 1 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% % 1% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% c 47% 53% 1% 37% 20% 41% 6% 9% 31% 28% 17% 26% 31% 27% 93% -% 4% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 1147 550 597 150 148 345 503 168 110 149 243 317 286 233 311 961 115 43 27 43% 42% 43% 41% 32% 38% 54% 53% 42% 42% 42% 45% 40% 40% 47% 43% 49% 33% 37% d d cde hij lm qr oqr 48% 52% 13% 13% 30% 44% 15% 10% 13% 21% 28% 25% 20% 27% 84% 10% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Top-up TV, Picturebox films 188 93 94 25 22 66 74 27 17 26 28 39 53 44 50 150 13 10 15 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 5% 8% 20% d j opq 50% 50% 13% 12% 35% 40% 14% 9% 14% 15% 21% 28% 24% 27% 80% 7% 6% 8% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 120 54 66 9 21 50 40 7 9 14 50 46 26 33 14 97 11 9 3 4% 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4% 9% 7% 4% 6% 2% 4% 5% 7% 4% c ghi ln n o 45% 55% 7% 17% 42% 34% 6% 7% 12% 42% 39% 22% 27% 12% 81% 9% 8% 2% TalkTalk TV 72 28 44 10 16 27 19 15 9 16 12 12 19 21 20 56 10 4 3 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% j k 39% 61% 13% 23% 37% 27% 20% 12% 22% 17% 17% 27% 29% 27% 77% 14% 5% 4% EE TV 8 3 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 - 8 1 - - % % % % 1% % % % % % % % 1% 1% -% % % -% -% ef n 37% 63% 13% 57% 12% 18% 15% 7% 21% 13% 11% 44% 45% -% 92% 8% -% -% No TV in household 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 4% 4% 3% 5% 9% 3% 1% 4% 6% 5% 1% 2% 6% 2% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% f cef f j j j km km p 57% 43% 19% 44% 28% 9% 13% 17% 17% 7% 12% 41% 12% 35% 90% 4% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 9 4 5 4 2 1 3 2 - - 1 3 2 2 2 8 * * % % % 1% % % % 1% -% -% % % % % % % % % % e 49% 51% 44% 18% 9% 29% 18% -% -% 16% 38% 18% 23% 21% 93% 2% 5% 1% MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 96% 95% 97% 94% 90% 97% 99% 95% 94% 95% 99% 98% 94% 98% 94% 96% 98% 97% 98% cd cde ghi ln ln o 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% FREEVIEW TOTAL 910 430 479 113 116 239 442 166 85 112 130 227 232 168 281 783 65 37 24 34% 33% 35% 31% 25% 26% 48% 52% 33% 31% 22% 32% 32% 29% 42% 35% 28% 28% 33% cde hij j j klm pq 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 25% 25% 18% 31% 86% 7% 4% 3% FREEVIEW ONLY 770 364 407 94 101 198 378 141 72 96 109 201 194 136 240 665 59 29 17 29% 28% 30% 26% 22% 22% 41% 45% 28% 27% 19% 28% 27% 23% 36% 30% 25% 22% 23% cde hij j j klm qr 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 26% 25% 18% 31% 86% 8% 4% 2% PAY DIGITAL 1626 779 846 231 297 626 472 148 150 222 434 441 444 389 350 1322 161 90 52 61% 60% 62% 63% 63% 68% 51% 47% 58% 62% 74% 62% 62% 67% 53% 59% 69% 68% 71% f f f g g ghi n n ln o o o 48% 52% 14% 18% 39% 29% 9% 9% 14% 27% 27% 27% 24% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% CABLE 427 222 205 64 70 156 137 35 34 47 125 119 120 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 37% 32% 8% 8% 11% 29% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 SATELLITE 1058 510 548 147 201 423 288 84 111 152 266 298 283 246 231 873 78 70 37 40% 39% 40% 40% 43% 46% 31% 27% 43% 42% 46% 42% 39% 42% 35% 39% 33% 53% 51% f f f g g g n n op op 48% 52% 14% 19% 40% 27% 8% 10% 14% 25% 28% 27% 23% 22% 82% 7% 7% 4% DSL LINE 172 77 95 18 37 69 48 17 14 30 53 51 44 49 28 133 22 12 6 6% 6% 7% 5% 8% 8% 5% 5% 5% 8% 9% 7% 6% 8% 4% 6% 10% 9% 7% f g n n o 45% 55% 11% 21% 40% 28% 10% 8% 18% 31% 30% 25% 29% 16% 77% 13% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Satellite TV 965 115 119 88 70 84 81 84 44 103 816 148 639 322 529 436 36% 34% 33% 39% 37% 35% 33% 37% 39% 34% 35% 41% 41% 29% 37% 35% j m 12% 12% 9% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 66% 33% 55% 45% Freesat Satellite TV 120 11 34 11 7 8 11 6 4 14 96 24 68 53 80 41 5% 3% 9% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 3% acdefghi j o 9% 28% 9% 6% 7% 9% 5% 3% 12% 80% 20% 56% 44% 66% 34% Other Satellite TV 18 2 2 1 1 1 10 - - 16 3 11 7 10 8 1% 1% % % 1% % 4% -% % -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% abcdeghi 13% 9% 4% 8% 4% 53% -% 2% -% 86% 14% 61% 39% 56% 44% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 1147 93 98 116 88 113 114 154 38 146 971 176 579 564 686 461 43% 28% 27% 51% 46% 48% 46% 68% 33% 49% 42% 49% 37% 51% 48% 37% abh abh abh abh abcdefhi abh j l o 8% 9% 10% 8% 10% 10% 13% 3% 13% 85% 15% 50% 49% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Topup TV, Picturebox films 188 23 40 11 6 17 13 13 8 18 159 29 99 88 111 77 7% 7% 11% 5% 3% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 8% 6% 8% 8% 6% cdfgi d 12% 21% 6% 3% 9% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 53% 47% 59% 41% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 120 14 19 12 9 6 13 11 4 9 98 22 78 42 79 41 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% o 11% 16% 10% 7% 5% 11% 9% 3% 7% 82% 18% 65% 35% 66% 34% TalkTalk TV 72 10 2 5 2 4 4 7 3 18 65 8 47 25 35 38 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% b bcdefh 14% 3% 6% 3% 6% 6% 10% 4% 25% 89% 11% 65% 35% 48% 52% EE TV 8 2 1 2 1 - 1 - - 1 7 1 6 3 4 5 % 1% % 1% 1% -% % -% -% % % % % % % % 21% 11% 23% 13% -% 11% -% -% 13% 88% 12% 69% 31% 46% 54% No TV in household 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 4% 13% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% % 4% 3% 4% 3% 1% 6% bcdefghi i ci i m n 45% 9% 3% 4% 9% 11% 7% 2% 1% 90% 10% 69% 30% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 9 1 3 - 1 1 - 3 - - 7 2 2 6 7 2 % % 1% -% 1% % -% 1% -% -% % 1% % 1% % % 7% 29% -% 12% 11% -% 34% -% -% 76% 24% 28% 72% 74% 26% MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 96% 87% 97% 99% 97% 96% 96% 95% 98% 100% 96% 97% 95% 97% 98% 93% a aefg a a a a a abefg o 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% FREEVIEW TOTAL 910 85 123 87 69 88 84 91 37 119 762 148 404 502 532 378 34% 25% 34% 38% 37% 37% 34% 40% 33% 39% 33% 41% 26% 45% 37% 31% a a a a a a a j l o 9% 13% 10% 8% 10% 9% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 44% 55% 58% 42% FREEVIEW ONLY 770 65 85 80 64 77 75 81 31 107 643 127 336 431 448 323 29% 19% 24% 35% 34% 33% 31% 36% 28% 35% 28% 35% 22% 39% 31% 26% ab ab ab a ab a ab j l o 8% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 11% 4% 14% 84% 16% 44% 56% 58% 42% PAY DIGITAL 1626 203 221 129 111 140 142 123 74 180 1432 194 1049 570 873 752 61% 60% 62% 57% 59% 59% 58% 55% 65% 59% 62% 54% 68% 51% 61% 61% g k m 12% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 5% 11% 88% 12% 65% 35% 54% 46% CABLE 427 56 53 26 33 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 197 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 SATELLITE 1058 128 151 95 73 85 95 86 47 112 894 165 691 364 589 470 40% 38% 42% 42% 39% 36% 39% 38% 41% 37% 39% 46% 45% 33% 41% 38% j m 12% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 84% 16% 65% 34% 56% 44% DSL LINE 172 24 21 16 9 8 14 11 5 25 150 22 113 59 99 73 6% 7% 6% 7% 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 8% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% e m 14% 12% 9% 5% 5% 8% 6% 3% 15% 87% 13% 66% 34% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 427 222 205 64 70 156 137 35 34 47 125 119 120 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 37% 32% 8% 8% 11% 29% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Sky Satellite TV 954 446 508 136 187 387 244 77 102 133 239 260 254 226 213 777 74 66 36 36% 34% 37% 37% 40% 42% 26% 24% 39% 37% 41% 37% 35% 39% 32% 35% 32% 50% 49% f f f g g g n op op 47% 53% 14% 20% 41% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Freesat Satellite TV 90 57 32 10 7 34 38 6 8 14 22 35 26 16 14 81 3 5 1 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% b d d n pr r 64% 36% 12% 8% 38% 42% 7% 9% 16% 24% 39% 28% 18% 15% 91% 4% 5% 1% Other Satellite TV 15 7 8 * 7 2 6 1 1 4 5 3 3 4 5 14 - * * 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% % % 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% ce 46% 54% 2% 44% 16% 39% 8% 7% 29% 35% 20% 21% 25% 33% 95% -% 2% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 770 364 407 94 101 198 378 141 72 96 109 201 194 136 240 665 59 29 17 29% 28% 30% 26% 22% 22% 41% 45% 28% 27% 19% 28% 27% 23% 36% 30% 25% 22% 23% cde hij j j klm qr 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 26% 25% 18% 31% 86% 8% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Top-up TV, Picturebox films 139 66 73 19 15 41 64 25 13 16 21 26 38 32 41 118 6 9 7 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 7% 8% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 5% 2% 6% 10% de j k p p op 48% 52% 14% 11% 29% 46% 18% 9% 12% 15% 19% 27% 23% 29% 85% 4% 6% 5% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 100 47 53 9 19 41 31 5 5 13 43 39 22 26 12 77 11 8 3 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 5% 3% 2% 2% 4% 7% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 5% 6% 4% ghi ln n o 47% 53% 9% 19% 41% 31% 5% 5% 13% 43% 39% 22% 27% 12% 78% 11% 8% 3% TalkTalk TV 64 27 37 9 13 27 16 11 8 16 10 11 18 19 16 48 10 3 3 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 4% j o 42% 58% 14% 20% 42% 25% 17% 13% 24% 15% 18% 27% 30% 25% 74% 16% 5% 4% EE TV 8 3 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 - 8 1 - - % % % % 1% % % % % % % % 1% 1% -% % % -% -% ef n 37% 63% 13% 57% 12% 18% 15% 7% 21% 13% 11% 44% 45% -% 92% 8% -% -% No TV in household 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 4% 4% 3% 5% 9% 3% 1% 4% 6% 5% 1% 2% 6% 2% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% f cef f j j j km km p 57% 43% 19% 44% 28% 9% 13% 17% 17% 7% 12% 41% 12% 35% 90% 4% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 9 4 5 4 2 1 3 2 - - 1 3 2 2 2 8 * * * % % % 1% % % % 1% -% -% % % % % % % % % % e 49% 51% 44% 18% 9% 29% 18% -% -% 16% 38% 18% 23% 21% 93% 2% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 427 56 53 26 33 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 197 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Satellite TV 954 115 119 84 70 83 80 81 44 103 808 146 635 315 521 433 36% 34% 33% 37% 37% 35% 33% 36% 39% 34% 35% 41% 41% 28% 36% 35% j m 12% 12% 9% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 67% 33% 55% 45% Freesat Satellite TV 90 11 30 10 3 3 6 5 3 10 73 17 47 43 59 31 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% adefghi e o 13% 34% 11% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 11% 82% 18% 52% 48% 65% 35% Other Satellite TV 15 2 2 1 - 9 - * - 13 3 9 6 9 6 1% 1% % % % -% 4% -% % -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % abcdeghi 16% 11% 5% 2% -% 58% -% 3% -% 83% 17% 58% 42% 60% 40% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 770 65 85 80 64 77 75 81 31 107 643 127 336 431 448 323 29% 19% 24% 35% 34% 33% 31% 36% 28% 35% 28% 35% 22% 39% 31% 26% ab ab ab a ab a ab j l o 8% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 11% 4% 14% 84% 16% 44% 56% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Topup TV, Picturebox films 139 20 38 8 5 10 9 10 6 12 118 21 68 71 84 55 5% 6% 10% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 6% 6% 4% cdefghi l 14% 27% 5% 4% 7% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 49% 51% 60% 40% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 100 12 18 9 6 6 11 8 2 6 85 15 66 34 64 36 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 5% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% o 12% 18% 9% 6% 6% 11% 8% 2% 6% 85% 15% 66% 34% 64% 36% TalkTalk TV 64 10 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 18 58 6 42 22 31 33 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% bcdefgh 16% 4% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 28% 91% 9% 65% 35% 49% 51% EE TV 8 2 1 2 1 - 1 - - 1 7 1 6 3 4 5 % 1% % 1% 1% -% % -% -% % % % % % % % 21% 11% 23% 13% -% 11% -% -% 13% 88% 12% 69% 31% 46% 54% No TV in household 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 4% 13% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% % 4% 3% 4% 3% 1% 6% bcdefghi i ci i m n 45% 9% 3% 4% 9% 11% 7% 2% 1% 90% 10% 69% 30% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 9 1 3 - 1 1 - 3 - - 7 2 2 6 7 2 % % 1% -% 1% % -% 1% -% -% % 1% % 1% % % 7% 29% -% 12% 11% -% 34% -% -% 76% 24% 28% 72% 74% 26% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 120 73 47 25 40 34 21 23 22 15 7 18 48 17 37 83 10 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 85 50 36 20 31 25 13 18 15 13 5 12 39 11 25 72 7 13 9 Total 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 * Not interested in watching TV 48 48% Busy with other interests 18 18% Watch online instead 16 16% Don't want to pay the TV Licence 11 11% Too expensive to buy and install 11 11% Recently moved home 10 10% Can't afford to replace broken TV set 3 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 120 73 47 25 40 34 21 23 22 15 7 18 48 17 37 83 10 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 85 50 36 20 31 25 13 18 15 13 5 12 39 11 25 72 7 13 9 Total 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 Can't afford to pay the TV LIcence 2 2% Don't know 10 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 120 31 8 3 6 11 11 8 4 1 96 24 71 46 38 82 Effective Weighted Sample 85 29 8 3 5 10 10 7 4 1 74 12 53 33 20 65 Total 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 Not interested in watching TV 48 48% Busy with other interests 18 18% Watch online instead 16 16% Don't want to pay the TV Licence 11 11% Too expensive to buy and install 11 11% Recently moved home 10 10% Can't afford to replace broken TV set 3 3% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 120 31 8 3 6 11 11 8 4 1 96 24 71 46 38 82 Effective Weighted Sample 85 29 8 3 5 10 10 7 4 1 74 12 53 33 20 65 Total 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 Can't afford to pay the TV LIcence 2 2% Don't know 10 10% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh3 (Qh53). Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Hdtv Set Or Hd Ready? (Single Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, the main TV in the household is an HDTV set or HD ready 1902 944 958 251 340 705 606 180 174 275 522 562 503 450 385 1585 175 93 49 74% 76% 72% 73% 80% 79% 66% 60% 71% 81% 91% 81% 74% 80% 62% 74% 76% 73% 68% b f cf cf g gh ghi ln n ln r r 50% 50% 13% 18% 37% 32% 9% 9% 14% 27% 30% 26% 24% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% No 496 229 267 68 69 137 222 90 55 53 42 108 132 82 173 419 37 25 14 19% 18% 20% 20% 16% 15% 24% 30% 22% 16% 7% 16% 19% 15% 28% 20% 16% 20% 20% de hij ij j m klm 46% 54% 14% 14% 28% 45% 18% 11% 11% 8% 22% 27% 17% 35% 85% 7% 5% 3% Don't know 170 67 103 23 14 45 87 32 16 13 11 26 43 34 66 135 17 9 9 7% 5% 8% 7% 3% 5% 10% 10% 6% 4% 2% 4% 6% 6% 11% 6% 7% 7% 13% a d de ij j k klm opq 39% 61% 14% 8% 27% 51% 19% 9% 7% 6% 15% 26% 20% 39% 79% 10% 5% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH3 (QH53). Is the MAIN TV in your household an HDTV set or HD ready? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes, the main TV in the household is an HDTV set or HD ready 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 74% 62% 73% 86% 78% 70% 77% 80% 78% 70% 74% 77% 81% 65% 77% 70% a abdefhi a a aei aei m o 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% No 496 87 74 18 29 55 38 33 17 69 443 53 234 262 242 253 19% 29% 21% 8% 16% 24% 16% 15% 15% 23% 20% 15% 16% 24% 17% 22% cdfgh c c cdfgh c c c cdgh k l n 17% 15% 4% 6% 11% 8% 7% 3% 14% 89% 11% 47% 53% 49% 51% Don't know 170 24 19 13 12 13 15 10 7 21 144 26 53 116 77 93 7% 8% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 4% 11% 5% 8% l n 14% 11% 7% 7% 8% 9% 6% 4% 12% 85% 15% 31% 68% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Qh54). Although You Have An Hdtv Ready Set, To Actually Watch Tv Channels And Programmes That Are Broadcast In High Definition, You Need An Hd Set Top Box Or A Tv With Built-In Hdtv Receiver. For The Main Tv Set, Does Your Household Have An Hdtv Service - From Either Sky, Virgin Media, Freesat Or Freeview? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 2585 \| 1266 \| 1319 \| 356 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1773 \| 869 \| 904 \| 237 \| \| Total \| 1902 \| 944 \| 958 \| 251 \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 13% \| 18% \| 37% \| \| Yes \| 1503 \| 764 \| 739 \| 205 \| \| 79% \| 81% \| 77% \| 81% \| 78% \| \| f \| f \| g \| g \| gh \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 14% \| 18% \| 38% \| \| No \| 337 \| 156 \| 181 \| 39 \| \| 18% \| 17% \| 19% \| 16% \| 20% \| \| e \| hij \| klm \| r \| r \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 12% \| 20% \| 32% \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 62 \| 24 \| 38 \| 8 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 4% \| 3% \| 2% \| \| d \| j \| o \| oq \| \| \| 39% \| 61% \| 12% \| 10% \| 32% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Qh54). Although You Have An Hdtv Ready Set, To Actually Watch Tv Channels And Programmes That Are Broadcast In High Definition, You Need An Hd Set Top Box Or A Tv With Built-In Hdtv Receiver. For The Main Tv Set, Does Your Household Have An Hdtv Service - From Either Sky, Virgin Media, Freesat Or Freeview? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2585 135 173 208 185 165 173 179 189 172 1889 696 1420 1157 1299 1286 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 119 164 199 173 153 165 170 176 156 1467 326 1005 799 917 890 Total 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% Yes 1503 149 196 169 101 108 145 139 62 185 1302 201 975 523 882 621 79% 81% 77% 87% 71% 68% 80% 80% 70% 88% 80% 75% 82% 75% 80% 77% deh bdeh deh deh bdeh m 10% 13% 11% 7% 7% 10% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 65% 35% 59% 41% No 337 34 51 21 39 46 27 30 22 19 282 55 189 145 186 151 18% 19% 20% 11% 27% 29% 15% 17% 26% 9% 17% 21% 16% 21% 17% 19% i ci cfgi cfgi i cfi l 10% 15% 6% 11% 14% 8% 9% 7% 6% 84% 16% 56% 43% 55% 45% Don't know 62 - 8 3 3 5 9 5 4 7 50 12 30 32 29 33 3% -% 3% 1% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% a a a l -% 13% 5% 5% 7% 14% 8% 6% 11% 81% 19% 48% 52% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh5 (Qh70). You Mentioned That You Have An Hd Ready Tv Or Hd Tv Service. Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Ultra High Definition (Known As Uhd) Tv Set Or Uhd Ready - Also Known As 4K? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2585 1266 1319 356 441 895 893 306 269 355 551 615 788 590 588 1579 345 342 319 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 869 904 237 299 619 628 215 180 256 418 455 534 411 394 1357 222 210 239 Total 1902 944 958 251 340 705 606 180 174 275 522 562 503 450 385 1585 175 93 49 50% 50% 13% 18% 37% 32% 9% 9% 14% 27% 30% 26% 24% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, the main TV in the household is an UHDTV set or UHD ready 579 298 281 89 107 231 153 38 44 88 133 176 157 141 105 480 49 29 21 30% 32% 29% 35% 31% 33% 25% 21% 25% 32% 25% 31% 31% 31% 27% 30% 28% 31% 42% f f f g opq 52% 48% 15% 18% 40% 26% 7% 8% 15% 23% 30% 27% 24% 18% 83% 8% 5% 4% No 1115 564 552 133 194 396 393 117 113 169 342 327 302 255 230 951 95 54 16 59% 60% 58% 53% 57% 56% 65% 65% 65% 61% 66% 58% 60% 57% 60% 60% 54% 58% 33% cde r r r 51% 49% 12% 17% 35% 35% 10% 10% 15% 31% 29% 27% 23% 21% 85% 8% 5% 1% Don't know 208 82 125 30 40 78 60 25 17 18 47 59 44 55 50 153 31 10 12 11% 9% 13% 12% 12% 11% 10% 14% 10% 7% 9% 10% 9% 12% 13% 10% 18% 11% 25% a i l oq oq 40% 60% 14% 19% 37% 29% 12% 8% 9% 22% 28% 21% 27% 24% 74% 15% 5% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh5 (Qh70). You Mentioned That You Have An Hd Ready Tv Or Hd Tv Service. Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Ultra High Definition (Known As Uhd) Tv Set Or Uhd Ready - Also Known As 4K? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2585 135 173 208 185 165 173 179 189 172 1889 696 1420 1157 1299 1286 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 119 164 199 173 153 165 170 176 156 1467 326 1005 799 917 890 Total 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% Yes, the main TV in the household is an UHDTV set or UHD ready 579 68 93 16 62 70 31 23 22 93 510 69 404 174 314 265 30% 37% 37% 8% 44% 44% 17% 13% 25% 44% 31% 26% 34% 25% 29% 33% cfgh cfgh cfgh cfgh c cg cfgh m 12% 16% 3% 11% 12% 5% 4% 4% 16% 88% 12% 70% 30% 54% 46% No 1115 107 146 154 63 63 130 132 58 98 952 163 661 449 665 451 59% 59% 57% 80% 44% 40% 72% 76% 66% 46% 58% 61% 55% 64% 61% 56% dei dei abdehi abdei abdehi dei l o 10% 13% 14% 6% 6% 12% 12% 5% 9% 85% 15% 59% 40% 60% 40% Don't know 208 7 15 24 18 25 19 18 7 20 172 36 129 77 118 89 11% 4% 6% 12% 12% 16% 11% 10% 8% 9% 11% 13% 11% 11% 11% 11% ab ab abh a 4% 7% 11% 8% 12% 9% 9% 3% 10% 83% 17% 62% 37% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh6 (Qh3). Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code) Base : Those with Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1566 743 823 228 283 570 485 160 166 210 307 369 483 356 356 878 184 254 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 483 537 144 178 383 323 103 112 148 219 253 317 237 225 759 109 158 188 Total 1086 524 562 153 203 431 299 86 112 157 272 309 293 249 235 895 80 72 38 48% 52% 14% 19% 40% 28% 8% 10% 14% 25% 28% 27% 23% 22% 82% 7% 7% 4% Sky satellite dish to receive subscription channels - you pay a monthly subscription fee 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 83% 81% 85% 87% 89% 84% 76% 85% 80% 85% 87% 80% 85% 84% 85% 82% 87% 86% 93% f f f oq 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - you pay no monthly subscription fee 56 27 29 7 6 26 17 7 8 8 8 17 9 15 14 48 2 4 1 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 3% 6% 3% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 3% j 49% 51% 12% 12% 46% 30% 13% 14% 14% 14% 31% 16% 27% 26% 86% 4% 8% 2% Freesat dish and set top box - you do not pay a subscription fee 83 46 37 8 9 32 34 3 8 13 20 30 25 14 14 74 4 4 1 8% 9% 7% 5% 4% 7% 12% 4% 7% 8% 7% 10% 9% 6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 2% cd r r 55% 45% 10% 11% 38% 41% 4% 10% 16% 24% 36% 30% 17% 17% 89% 5% 5% 1% Other satellite dish 14 9 6 1 5 4 5 1 1 1 8 6 2 2 4 12 2 1 * 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% % 59% 41% 6% 34% 29% 31% 9% 8% 7% 53% 43% 16% 15% 26% 81% 12% 6% 1% Don't know 34 20 14 5 2 11 17 1 5 3 1 10 9 11 4 30 2 1 1 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 2% 6% 2% 4% 2% % 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% de j 59% 41% 14% 6% 32% 49% 4% 14% 8% 4% 30% 27% 31% 12% 88% 7% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH6 (QH3). SHOWCARD Which of the following best describes your satellite TV service/s? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a b c ~d ~e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1566 97 107 108 98 85 93 96 101 93 1073 493 897 666 771 795 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 86 101 104 92 80 89 90 94 85 819 219 604 433 520 513 Total 1086 128 153 98 76 85 99 91 49 117 915 171 704 378 607 479 14% 9% 4% 84% 16% 65% 35% 56% 44% Sky satellite dish to receive subscription channels - you pay a monthly subscription fee 904 110 82 41 764 140 606 294 503 400 83% 72% 83% 84% 83% 82% 86% 78% 83% 84% m 12% 9% 5% 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - you pay no monthly subscription fee 56 8 5 1 47 8 28 27 32 23 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% 5% l 15% 10% 2% 85% 15% 51% 49% 58% 42% Freesat dish and set top box - you do not pay a subscription fee 83 25 6 4 67 16 46 37 51 32 8% 16% 6% 8% 7% 9% 7% 10% 8% 7% c 30% 7% 5% 81% 19% 56% 44% 61% 39% Other satellite dish 14 - 2 1 14 1 12 3 7 7 1% -% 2% 2% 2% % 2% 1% 1% 2% * -% 15% 8% 95% 5% 81% 19% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH6 (QH3). SHOWCARD Which of the following best describes your satellite TV service/s? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a b c ~d ~e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1566 97 107 108 98 85 93 96 101 93 1073 493 897 666 771 795 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 86 101 104 92 80 89 90 94 85 819 219 604 433 520 513 Total 1086 128 153 98 76 85 99 91 49 117 915 171 704 378 607 479 14% 9% 4% 84% 16% 65% 35% 56% 44% Don't know 34 9 3 2 27 7 16 18 18 16 3% 6% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 5% 3% 3% l 27% 8% 6% ** 78% 22% 48% 52% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky Sports 1 only 18 5 13 3 2 7 5 1 * 4 5 6 3 3 4 17 - * 1 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% % 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% % 2% 28% 72% 19% 14% 40% 28% 5% 1% 20% 27% 37% 20% 19% 25% 95% -% % 5% Sky Sports 2 only 3 2 1 - 2 1 - - * 2 2 1 * - 2 - - * % % % % -% % % -% -% % 1% 1% % % -% % -% -% % 79% 21% 17% -% 62% 21% -% -% 4% 58% 58% 38% 4% -% 96% -% -% 4% Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4) 326 184 142 57 59 116 94 17 25 50 100 111 93 76 47 272 32 12 9 36% 43% 30% 42% 33% 32% 41% 24% 28% 38% 42% 45% 37% 36% 23% 37% 46% 20% 25% b e e g gh n n n qr qr 56% 44% 17% 18% 36% 29% 5% 8% 15% 31% 34% 28% 23% 14% 84% 10% 4% 3% Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance) 58 21 37 14 12 19 14 5 6 6 17 23 12 15 8 51 3 3 1 6% 5% 8% 10% 7% 5% 6% 7% 7% 5% 7% 9% 5% 7% 4% 7% 4% 5% 4% n 36% 64% 23% 21% 32% 23% 9% 11% 10% 29% 39% 21% 26% 14% 87% 5% 6% 2% Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure) 15 5 10 2 2 7 4 - - 2 5 3 6 3 2 14 - 1 1 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% -% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% 2% 31% 69% 15% 11% 47% 27% -% -% 14% 32% 22% 41% 22% 15% 91% -% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky Movies Pack (All Sky Movies channels in Sky Movies 1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic) 245 121 124 41 58 102 44 9 24 40 84 72 74 61 39 208 20 12 6 27% 29% 26% 31% 32% 28% 19% 13% 26% 30% 35% 29% 30% 29% 20% 28% 28% 19% 16% f f f g g g n n n qr r 49% 51% 17% 24% 42% 18% 4% 10% 16% 34% 29% 30% 25% 16% 85% 8% 5% 2% Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box) 350 186 164 59 65 150 76 17 22 49 111 108 111 80 51 290 31 24 5 39% 44% 34% 44% 36% 41% 34% 23% 24% 37% 47% 43% 45% 38% 26% 39% 44% 38% 14% b g gh n n n r r r 53% 47% 17% 19% 43% 22% 5% 6% 14% 32% 31% 32% 23% 15% 83% 9% 7% 1% ANY SKY SPORTS 346 191 155 60 62 125 99 18 25 54 106 119 97 79 51 291 32 13 10 38% 45% 32% 45% 34% 34% 44% 25% 28% 40% 45% 48% 39% 38% 26% 40% 46% 20% 27% b e e g gh mn n n qr qr 55% 45% 17% 18% 36% 29% 5% 7% 15% 31% 34% 28% 23% 15% 84% 9% 4% 3% ANY SKY MOVIES 319 147 172 57 72 128 62 15 30 48 105 98 92 79 50 272 23 16 8 35% 35% 36% 43% 40% 35% 27% 20% 33% 36% 44% 39% 37% 38% 25% 37% 33% 25% 22% f f f g g g n n n qr 46% 54% 18% 23% 40% 19% 5% 9% 15% 33% 31% 29% 25% 16% 85% 7% 5% 2% SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES 203 104 99 39 46 78 40 7 12 33 75 75 59 47 22 177 16 6 4 22% 25% 21% 29% 26% 22% 18% 9% 13% 25% 31% 30% 24% 22% 11% 24% 22% 9% 12% f gh gh n n n qr qr 51% 49% 19% 23% 39% 20% 3% 6% 16% 37% 37% 29% 23% 11% 87% 8% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Basic package only 294 121 173 33 66 125 70 34 34 45 66 66 72 68 87 239 17 23 16 33% 29% 36% 25% 36% 35% 31% 47% 37% 34% 28% 27% 29% 33% 44% 32% 24% 37% 44% a c c j klm op 41% 59% 11% 22% 43% 24% 12% 11% 15% 22% 22% 25% 23% 30% 81% 6% 8% 5% None of these 10 3 6 2 3 1 4 2 1 3 - 2 4 1 3 7 1 2 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% % 2% 3% 1% 2% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% j j oq 35% 65% 24% 26% 9% 41% 19% 12% 30% -% 22% 40% 12% 26% 67% 9% 3% 21% Don't know 19 6 13 4 1 7 7 2 3 - 2 7 3 4 6 14 2 4 2% 1% 3% 3% % 2% 3% 3% 3% -% 1% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% % 3% 10% i opq 31% 69% 22% 4% 36% 39% 13% 13% -% 9% 35% 17% 19% 29% 71% 1% 9% 19% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH4 (Q5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these channels do you subscribe to through your Sky satellite service? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky Sports 1 only 18 15 3 14 3 8 10 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 85% 15% 82% 18% 44% 56% Sky Sports 2 only 3 ** 2 * 3 - 1 2 % * % % % -% % 1% 96% 4% 100% -% 21% 79% Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4) 326 276 50 211 114 184 142 36% 36% 36% 35% 39% 37% 35% 85% 15% 65% 35% 56% 44% Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance) 58 50 8 32 27 33 25 6% 7% 6% 5% 9% 7% 6% l 86% 14% 54% 46% 57% 43% Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure) 15 13 2 10 5 8 7 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 87% 13% 69% 31% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky Movies Pack (All Sky Movies channels in Sky Movies 1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic) 245 212 33 175 66 147 99 27% 28% 24% 29% 23% 29% 25% m 86% 14% 71% 27% 60% 40% Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box) 350 296 53 253 97 207 142 39% 39% 38% 42% 33% 41% 36% m 85% 15% 72% 28% 59% 41% ANY SKY SPORTS 346 294 52 228 117 192 154 38% 38% 37% 38% 40% 38% 38% 85% 15% 66% 34% 55% 45% ANY SKY MOVIES 319 275 43 217 98 188 131 35% 36% 31% 36% 33% 37% 33% 86% 14% 68% 31% 59% 41% SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES 203 177 26 141 61 111 92 22% 23% 19% 23% 21% 22% 23% 87% 13% 69% 30% 54% 46% Basic package only 294 254 40 197 97 156 139 33% 33% 29% 33% 33% 31% 35% 86% 14% 67% 33% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% None of these 10 7 3 5 5 6 4 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 70% 30% 48% 52% 57% 43% Don't know 19 16 3 12 7 9 10 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 84% 16% 63% 37% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh8 (Qh5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Cable Tv Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with Cable TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 486 242 244 72 79 157 178 53 44 54 111 110 158 105 113 358 77 27 24 Effective Weighted Sample 387 196 191 55 62 130 144 42 36 44 96 94 126 87 85 302 67 19 19 Total 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 52% 48% 36% 32% 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% Sky Sports channels 89 51 38 28 32 28 34 26 17 12 69 21% 23% 19% 18% 23% 22% 28% 22% 16% 14% 20% n 57% 43% 31% 36% 32% 38% 30% 19% 14% 78% Sky Movies channels 60 35 24 20 16 22 23 11 18 8 45 14% 16% 12% 13% 12% 17% 19% 9% 17% 9% 13% l 59% 41% 34% 27% 37% 38% 19% 30% 13% 76% High Definition channel through V+ HD box 145 86 59 53 44 49 46 45 35 18 107 34% 39% 29% 34% 32% 39% 39% 37% 34% 21% 31% b n n 59% 41% 37% 30% 34% 32% 31% 24% 12% 74% Basic package only 193 95 98 68 69 57 43 52 50 49 167 45% 43% 48% 44% 50% 45% 36% 43% 48% 58% 48% kl 49% 51% 35% 36% 29% 22% 27% 26% 25% 87% None of these 34 19 14 17 8 9 9 11 10 3 28 8% 9% 7% 11% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 4% 8% 57% 43% 52% 25% 27% 27% 33% 30% 10% 84% Don't know 19 6 13 6 3 2 2 3 4 9 15 4% 3% 6% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 11% 4% kl 32% 68% 31% 14% 9% 12% 18% 21% 49% 78% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH8 (QH5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these channels do you subscribe to through your Cable TV service? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Cable TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 486 39 34 27 45 51 42 31 49 40 458 28 267 216 185 301 Effective Weighted Sample 387 36 33 26 42 47 40 29 46 36 373 15 224 169 156 238 Total 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 97% 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Sports channels 89 87 61 28 44 45 21% 21% 22% 18% 22% 19% 99% 68% 32% 50% 50% Sky Movies channels 60 60 48 12 24 36 14% 14% 17% 8% 12% 16% m 100% 80% 20% 39% 61% High Definition channel through V+ HD box 145 144 97 48 77 67 34% 35% 35% 31% 39% 29% o 99% 67% 33% 54% 46% Basic package only 193 186 121 72 86 108 45% 45% 44% 47% 43% 47% 96% 62% 37% 44% 56% None of these 34 32 25 8 10 24 8% 8% 9% 5% 5% 10% 95% 73% 24% 29% 71% Don't know 19 17 8 10 7 12 4% 4% 3% 7% 4% 5% 92% 45% 55% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 548 261 287 65 77 200 206 77 49 72 97 114 164 130 138 282 66 81 119 Effective Weighted Sample 344 165 179 42 52 124 126 51 32 48 71 77 98 86 84 242 43 49 85 Total 372 173 199 43 57 140 132 47 32 56 89 97 97 93 82 296 34 22 20 47% 53% 38% 35% 26% 26% 25% 22% 80% 5% BT Sport channels 42 23 19 17 12 16 12 8 7 32 1 11% 13% 9% 12% 9% 16% 12% 9% 8% 11% 3% r 55% 45% 40% 29% 37% 27% 20% 16% 75% 1% High Definition channels through HD receiver/ box 32 19 13 14 4 10 7 7 8 24 * 9% 11% 6% 10% 3% 10% 8% 8% 9% 8% 2% f 60% 40% 43% 14% 31% 23% 22% 23% 75% 2% Sky Sports channels 12 5 7 1 6 2 6 2 2 8 2 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 2% 7% 2% 2% 3% 9% o 42% 58% 12% 46% 18% 54% 15% 14% 68% 15% Sky Movies channels 8 3 5 3 3 3 2 1 2 7 * 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 33% 67% 32% 37% 43% 20% 17% 20% 83% 5% Ultra High Definition channels (broadcast in more detail than HD channels) 6 3 3 3 - - 3 2 1 6 * 2% 1% 2% 2% -% -% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 43% 57% 51% -% -% 55% 32% 13% 97% 3% Basic package only 104 43 62 41 31 26 23 32 23 83 6 28% 25% 31% 30% 24% 27% 23% 34% 28% 28% 28% 41% 59% 40% 30% 25% 22% 31% 22% 80% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 548 261 287 65 77 200 206 77 49 72 97 114 164 130 138 282 66 81 119 Effective Weighted Sample 344 165 179 42 52 124 126 51 32 48 71 77 98 86 84 242 43 49 85 Total 372 173 199 43 57 140 132 47 32 56 89 97 97 93 82 296 34 22 20 47% 53% 38% 35% 26% 26% 25% 22% 80% 5% None of these 128 63 66 45 55 22 36 35 36 102 6 35% 36% 33% 33% 42% 22% 37% 37% 43% 34% 29% k k k 49% 51% 35% 43% 17% 28% 27% 28% 79% 5% Don't know 63 29 34 23 25 25 17 10 11 53 6 17% 17% 17% 16% 19% 25% 17% 10% 14% 18% 31% m o 46% 54% 36% 40% 39% 26% 16% 18% 83% 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 548 37 39 27 23 29 29 31 32 35 380 168 292 255 279 269 Effective Weighted Sample 344 32 37 26 22 26 27 30 30 32 278 73 187 160 180 173 Total 372 47 59 25 17 26 30 31 15 45 316 56 221 150 220 152 85% 15% 59% 40% 59% 41% BT Sport channels 42 36 6 27 15 22 20 11% 11% 11% 12% 10% 10% 13% 85% 15% 65% 35% 53% 47% High Definition channels through HD receiver/ box 32 29 3 22 10 16 16 9% 9% 5% 10% 7% 7% 11% 92% 8% 68% 32% 50% 50% Sky Sports channels 12 10 2 8 4 6 6 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 85% 15% 66% 34% 52% 48% Sky Movies channels 8 6 2 5 3 4 4 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 76% 24% 63% 37% 50% 50% Ultra High Definition channels (broadcast in more detail than HD channels) 6 6 - 5 1 3 3 2% 2% -% 2% 1% 1% 2% 100% -% 87% 13% 57% 43% Basic package only 104 90 14 66 39 51 53 28% 29% 25% 30% 26% 23% 35% n 86% 14% 63% 37% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 548 37 39 27 23 29 29 31 32 35 380 168 292 255 279 269 Effective Weighted Sample 344 32 37 26 22 26 27 30 30 32 278 73 187 160 180 173 Total 372 47 59 25 17 26 30 31 15 45 316 56 221 150 220 152 85% 15% 59% 40% 59% 41% None of these 128 111 17 66 62 80 48 35% 35% 30% 30% 41% 37% 32% l 87% 13% 52% 48% 63% 37% Don't know 63 48 15 38 25 45 18 17% 15% 26% 17% 16% 21% 12% j o 77% 23% 60% 39% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10A (Qr1A). Does Your Household Have Sky+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1414 661 753 212 259 525 418 143 149 186 278 326 429 327 330 774 169 228 243 Effective Weighted Sample 914 424 490 133 163 350 275 93 99 130 197 219 280 216 207 669 101 143 182 Total 965 452 513 139 187 390 248 78 102 136 239 264 258 229 213 786 75 66 37 47% 53% 14% 19% 40% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Yes 847 400 447 118 170 346 212 63 92 124 223 238 228 207 174 688 68 57 34 88% 88% 87% 85% 91% 89% 85% 80% 90% 91% 93% 90% 88% 91% 82% 88% 91% 85% 92% g g n n q 47% 53% 14% 20% 41% 25% 7% 11% 15% 26% 28% 27% 24% 21% 81% 8% 7% 4% No 105 49 56 20 13 41 31 14 10 11 14 23 27 20 35 89 6 8 2 11% 11% 11% 14% 7% 11% 12% 17% 10% 8% 6% 9% 11% 9% 16% 11% 8% 13% 5% d ij km r r 47% 53% 19% 12% 39% 29% 13% 10% 10% 13% 22% 26% 19% 33% 84% 6% 8% 2% Don't know 13 3 10 1 3 3 6 2 - 2 2 3 4 1 5 10 1 2 1 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 24% 76% 6% 26% 23% 45% 13% -% 13% 14% 26% 28% 10% 35% 74% 6% 12% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10A (Qr1A). Does Your Household Have Sky+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1414 82 83 96 88 83 77 89 93 83 970 444 829 582 686 728 Effective Weighted Sample 914 74 78 92 83 78 74 83 87 76 737 193 553 375 460 463 Total 965 115 119 88 70 84 81 84 44 103 816 148 639 322 529 436 85% 15% 66% 33% 55% 45% Yes 847 714 133 573 270 489 358 88% 87% 90% 90% 84% 92% 82% m o 84% 16% 68% 32% 58% 42% No 105 93 12 60 45 33 72 11% 11% 8% 9% 14% 6% 16% l n 89% 11% 57% 43% 32% 68% Don't know 13 10 3 6 7 7 6 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 74% 26% 43% 57% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10B (Qr1B). Does Your Household Have Virgin Tivo Or V+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Virgin Media (Cable TV) GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 486 242 244 72 79 157 178 53 44 54 111 110 158 105 113 358 77 27 24 Effective Weighted Sample 387 196 191 55 62 130 144 42 36 44 96 94 126 87 85 302 67 19 19 Total 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 52% 48% 36% 32% 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% Yes 323 170 153 129 88 103 92 94 83 53 262 76% 77% 74% 83% 64% 82% 77% 78% 81% 62% 75% f n n n 53% 47% 40% 27% 32% 29% 29% 26% 16% 81% No 87 43 45 24 40 21 23 25 16 23 73 20% 19% 22% 16% 29% 16% 19% 21% 16% 27% 21% e 49% 51% 28% 46% 23% 27% 29% 18% 26% 84% Don't know 17 10 8 2 9 3 4 2 3 9 15 4% 4% 4% 1% 7% 2% 3% 1% 3% 10% 4% e l 55% 45% 13% 54% 16% 21% 10% 19% 50% 88% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH10B (QR1B). Does your household have Virgin TiVo or V+? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with Virgin Media (Cable TV) ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 486 39 34 27 45 51 42 31 49 40 458 28 267 216 185 301 Effective Weighted Sample 387 36 33 26 42 47 40 29 46 36 373 15 224 169 156 238 Total 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 97% 64% 36% 46% 54% Yes 323 314 220 102 158 165 76% 76% 81% 67% 80% 72% m 97% 68% 31% 49% 51% No 87 85 45 41 34 54 20% 20% 16% 27% 17% 23% l 97% 51% 47% 39% 61% Don't know 17 16 8 9 6 12 4% 4% 3% 6% 3% 5% 93% 46% 54% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10C (Qr1C). Does Your Freesat Set Top Box Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freesat GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 150 83 67 16 14 48 72 14 18 22 27 44 52 31 23 101 17 27 5 Effective Weighted Sample 107 61 47 11 9 37 51 8 14 15 21 34 35 24 15 88 9 17 4 Total 120 71 49 15 9 45 51 7 12 17 30 45 33 25 18 106 7 7 1 88% Yes 56 52 46% 49% 92% No 62 53 51% 50% 86% Don't know 3 2 2% 2% 65% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10C (Qr1C). Does Your Freesat Set Top Box Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freesat ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 150 13 24 12 9 8 10 7 8 10 100 50 69 81 89 61 Effective Weighted Sample 107 12 22 11 9 7 10 7 7 10 81 27 54 55 63 48 Total 120 11 34 11 7 8 11 6 4 14 96 24 68 53 80 41 80% Yes 56 40 46% 41% 71% No 62 55 51% 57% 89% Don't know 3 2 2% 2% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10D (Qr1D). Does Your Freeview Box Or Freeview Tv Set Allow To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes (This Includes Freeview Playback And Freeview Plus Boxes)? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freeview GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1949 936 1013 256 241 550 902 347 209 231 291 407 552 401 586 1131 288 221 309 Effective Weighted Sample 1280 612 669 166 154 366 601 229 136 161 219 295 359 263 375 974 170 135 221 Total 1327 639 687 175 171 405 577 195 127 174 269 355 336 274 359 1103 128 53 42 48% 52% 13% 13% 31% 43% 15% 10% 13% 20% 27% 25% 21% 27% 83% 10% 4% 3% Yes 379 173 206 43 48 113 176 45 31 43 90 132 105 62 79 322 32 15 9 29% 27% 30% 25% 28% 28% 30% 23% 25% 25% 34% 37% 31% 23% 22% 29% 25% 29% 22% g mn mn r 46% 54% 11% 13% 30% 46% 12% 8% 11% 24% 35% 28% 16% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% No 889 442 447 125 115 278 371 140 91 127 169 214 214 200 261 739 84 35 32 67% 69% 65% 72% 67% 69% 64% 72% 72% 73% 63% 60% 64% 73% 73% 67% 66% 65% 75% j j kl kl o 50% 50% 14% 13% 31% 42% 16% 10% 14% 19% 24% 24% 22% 29% 83% 9% 4% 4% Don't know 59 24 35 7 8 14 30 9 4 4 10 9 17 12 19 42 12 3 2 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% 3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 9% 6% 4% or 41% 59% 11% 13% 24% 52% 16% 7% 6% 17% 16% 29% 21% 33% 71% 21% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10D (Qr1D). Does Your Freeview Box Or Freeview Tv Set Allow To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes (This Includes Freeview Playback And Freeview Plus Boxes)? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freeview ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1949 83 99 139 123 140 120 182 110 135 1354 595 851 1093 1018 931 Effective Weighted Sample 1280 73 94 133 115 128 114 168 102 125 1039 258 570 732 682 627 Total 1327 116 137 127 92 129 127 166 46 163 1123 204 673 649 791 536 10% 7% 10% 10% 13% 3% 12% 85% 15% 51% 49% 60% 40% Yes 379 36 30 32 47 41 12 40 315 63 199 178 246 132 29% 29% 33% 25% 37% 25% 27% 25% 28% 31% 30% 27% 31% 25% egi o 10% 8% 8% 12% 11% 3% 11% 83% 17% 52% 47% 65% 35% No 889 83 56 91 79 122 29 118 755 134 451 437 515 374 67% 65% 61% 71% 62% 74% 63% 73% 67% 66% 67% 67% 65% 70% df 9% 6% 10% 9% 14% 3% 13% 85% 15% 51% 49% 58% 42% Don't know 59 8 6 6 1 3 5 5 53 6 23 34 29 29 4% 6% 6% 5% 1% 2% 10% 3% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 6% fg fg fgi 14% 10% 11% 2% 5% 8% 8% 90% 10% 40% 59% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10E (Qr1E). Does Your Broadband Tv Service Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with BT TV or TalkTalk TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 253 114 139 26 43 97 87 30 27 35 66 64 75 64 50 144 37 41 31 Effective Weighted Sample 176 80 96 17 31 67 62 23 18 25 51 46 51 48 35 125 27 28 25 Total 192 83 110 18 37 77 60 22 18 30 62 59 46 54 34 152 22 13 6 43% 57% 79% Yes 155 68 88 124 81% 82% 80% 81% 44% 56% 80% No 26 13 13 19 13% 16% 12% 13% 51% 49% 74% Don't know 11 2 10 9 6% 2% 9% 6% 15% 85% 82% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10E (Qr1E). Does Your Broadband Tv Service Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with BT TV or TalkTalk TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 253 19 14 17 14 10 17 19 13 21 184 69 149 104 135 118 Effective Weighted Sample 176 16 13 17 13 9 16 18 12 19 142 36 104 75 92 88 Total 192 24 22 17 11 10 18 18 6 27 162 30 125 67 114 79 84% 65% 35% 59% 41% Yes 155 132 102 53 84 71 81% 81% 82% 78% 74% 90% n 85% 66% 34% 54% 46% No 26 22 13 13 20 6 13% 13% 11% 19% 18% 7% o 84% 51% 49% 78% 22% Don't know 11 9 9 2 9 2 6% 5% 7% 3% 8% 3% 76% 82% 18% 81% 19% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those who own a DVR GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2237 1060 1177 310 387 811 729 222 220 297 476 544 705 500 485 1340 291 309 297 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 728 805 201 258 563 520 155 151 212 359 400 479 350 318 1159 188 191 229 Total 1645 786 859 211 298 637 499 136 151 230 450 488 453 383 320 1358 152 90 45 48% 52% 13% 18% 39% 30% 8% 9% 14% 27% 30% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 367 162 205 41 66 146 114 31 39 53 110 106 100 95 66 312 26 25 3 22% 21% 24% 19% 22% 23% 23% 23% 26% 23% 25% 22% 22% 25% 21% 23% 17% 28% 7% r r pr 44% 56% 11% 18% 40% 31% 8% 11% 15% 30% 29% 27% 26% 18% 85% 7% 7% 1% A few times a week 486 231 255 57 83 197 150 33 40 67 134 136 121 133 96 390 54 28 14 30% 29% 30% 27% 28% 31% 30% 24% 26% 29% 30% 28% 27% 35% 30% 29% 36% 31% 32% kl 48% 52% 12% 17% 40% 31% 7% 8% 14% 28% 28% 25% 27% 20% 80% 11% 6% 3% Once a week 195 96 99 27 40 75 52 16 25 31 62 41 75 40 38 173 14 5 3 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 12% 17% 13% 14% 8% 17% 11% 12% 13% 9% 5% 6% km qr 49% 51% 14% 21% 39% 27% 8% 13% 16% 32% 21% 39% 21% 19% 89% 7% 2% 2% A few times a month 138 72 66 16 24 52 46 7 18 22 30 42 31 37 28 110 17 7 5 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 5% 12% 10% 7% 9% 7% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% gj 52% 48% 12% 17% 38% 33% 5% 13% 16% 21% 31% 22% 27% 21% 79% 12% 5% 3% Once a month 57 30 26 13 9 20 15 5 3 11 10 21 18 12 7 44 6 3 3 3% 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 7% o 54% 46% 22% 16% 35% 27% 8% 6% 19% 17% 37% 31% 21% 11% 77% 11% 6% 6% Less often 183 97 86 23 32 74 53 19 14 21 45 76 47 23 36 142 19 11 10 11% 12% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 14% 9% 9% 10% 16% 10% 6% 11% 10% 13% 12% 22% lm m m opq 53% 47% 13% 18% 41% 29% 10% 8% 12% 24% 42% 26% 13% 20% 78% 11% 6% 6% Never 138 62 76 25 21 43 49 21 8 13 31 39 32 27 40 122 9 5 3 8% 8% 9% 12% 7% 7% 10% 16% 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 12% 9% 6% 5% 7% e hij klm 45% 55% 18% 16% 31% 35% 15% 6% 10% 23% 28% 23% 19% 29% 88% 6% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those who own a DVR GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2237 1060 1177 310 387 811 729 222 220 297 476 544 705 500 485 1340 291 309 297 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 728 805 201 258 563 520 155 151 212 359 400 479 350 318 1159 188 191 229 Total 1645 786 859 211 298 637 499 136 151 230 450 488 453 383 320 1358 152 90 45 48% 52% 13% 18% 39% 30% 8% 9% 14% 27% 30% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 81 36 45 8 22 30 20 5 3 11 28 26 29 16 9 65 6 6 3 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 3% 5% 4% 7% 7% f h n 44% 56% 11% 27% 37% 25% 6% 4% 14% 35% 32% 36% 20% 12% 81% 8% 7% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH11 (QR5). SHOWCARD How often, if ever, do you use your DVR to watch recorded programmes? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who own a DVR ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2237 118 164 156 155 143 163 138 152 151 1630 607 1288 944 1117 1120 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 104 155 150 146 133 156 130 141 138 1271 281 901 657 790 770 Total 1645 156 239 146 121 139 169 132 72 184 1417 227 1060 578 944 701 9% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 57% 43% Every day 367 18 51 36 31 32 39 42 29 33 316 51 236 130 214 153 22% 12% 21% 25% 26% 23% 23% 32% 41% 18% 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% 22% a a a a a ai abcdefi 5% 14% 10% 9% 9% 11% 11% 8% 9% 86% 14% 64% 35% 58% 42% A few times a week 486 29 80 50 30 36 47 35 18 65 428 58 324 160 270 216 30% 19% 33% 34% 25% 26% 28% 26% 25% 35% 30% 25% 31% 28% 29% 31% a a a 6% 16% 10% 6% 7% 10% 7% 4% 13% 88% 12% 67% 33% 56% 44% Once a week 195 29 36 21 5 17 16 14 8 26 173 22 124 71 115 80 12% 19% 15% 14% 4% 12% 10% 11% 11% 14% 12% 10% 12% 12% 12% 11% df d d d d d d 15% 18% 11% 3% 8% 8% 7% 4% 13% 89% 11% 63% 37% 59% 41% A few times a month 138 18 23 9 14 14 8 8 3 13 123 15 88 49 76 63 8% 11% 10% 6% 11% 10% 5% 6% 4% 7% 9% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% fh fh h 13% 17% 6% 10% 10% 6% 6% 2% 9% 89% 11% 63% 35% 55% 45% Once a month 57 5 8 2 7 9 1 7 1 3 40 17 37 19 31 25 3% 3% 3% 2% 6% 7% 1% 5% 1% 2% 3% 7% 4% 3% 3% 4% cfh cfhi f j 9% 13% 4% 13% 17% 2% 12% 2% 6% 70% 30% 66% 34% 56% 44% Less often 183 30 17 8 13 15 19 11 1 29 161 22 122 59 105 77 11% 19% 7% 5% 11% 11% 11% 8% 1% 15% 11% 10% 12% 10% 11% 11% bcgh h h h h h bch 17% 9% 4% 7% 8% 10% 6% 1% 16% 88% 12% 67% 33% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH11 (QR5). SHOWCARD How often, if ever, do you use your DVR to watch recorded programmes? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who own a DVR ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2237 118 164 156 155 143 163 138 152 151 1630 607 1288 944 1117 1120 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 104 155 150 146 133 156 130 141 138 1271 281 901 657 790 770 Total 1645 156 239 146 121 139 169 132 72 184 1417 227 1060 578 944 701 9% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 57% 43% Never 138 10 18 18 12 9 16 15 10 15 116 22 77 61 83 55 8% 6% 7% 12% 10% 7% 9% 11% 14% 8% 8% 10% 7% 11% 9% 8% l 7% 13% 13% 9% 7% 11% 11% 7% 11% 84% 16% 56% 44% 60% 40% Don't know 81 17 7 2 8 6 23 - 2 1 60 21 52 28 49 32 5% 11% 3% 2% 6% 5% 14% -% 2% % 4% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% bcghi cgi gi bcdeghi j 21% 9% 3% 9% 8% 28% -% 2% 1% 74% 26% 65% 35% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, I watch Tv programmes/ films using the catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, Demand 5, YouView, Sky on Demand, Virgin on Demand) 876 421 455 139 171 349 217 60 64 146 283 294 254 201 126 728 91 39 18 34% 34% 34% 41% 40% 39% 24% 20% 26% 43% 49% 42% 37% 35% 20% 34% 40% 31% 25% f f f gh gh mn n n r qr 48% 52% 16% 19% 40% 25% 7% 7% 17% 32% 34% 29% 23% 14% 83% 10% 4% 2% Yes, I watch TV programmes/ films using the pay per view services (e.g. on Sky Box Office on Sky on Demand, Virgin Movies on Virgin Media) 438 216 223 73 89 206 70 26 30 60 140 125 119 110 84 375 28 20 15 17% 17% 17% 21% 21% 23% 8% 9% 12% 18% 24% 18% 18% 19% 13% 18% 12% 15% 21% f f f g ghi n n n p p 49% 51% 17% 20% 47% 16% 6% 7% 14% 32% 28% 27% 25% 19% 86% 6% 4% 3% Yes, I was TV programmes/ films using a 'standalone' subscription service such as Netflix (e.g. on Virgin TiVo) 400 189 212 86 93 171 50 25 25 63 146 130 117 87 66 325 44 17 14 16% 15% 16% 25% 22% 19% 5% 8% 10% 19% 25% 19% 17% 15% 11% 15% 19% 14% 19% ef f f gh ghi n n n 47% 53% 22% 23% 43% 13% 6% 6% 16% 37% 32% 29% 22% 17% 81% 11% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL 'YES' 1193 577 616 192 238 493 270 83 84 178 392 378 338 279 197 988 122 52 30 46% 47% 46% 56% 56% 56% 30% 27% 35% 52% 68% 54% 50% 49% 32% 46% 53% 41% 42% f f f gh ghi n n n oqr 48% 52% 16% 20% 41% 23% 7% 7% 15% 33% 32% 28% 23% 17% 83% 10% 4% 3% No 1320 639 681 145 178 372 626 216 155 156 172 300 325 277 417 1101 104 74 40 51% 52% 51% 42% 42% 42% 68% 71% 63% 46% 30% 43% 48% 49% 67% 51% 45% 58% 56% cde hij ij j klm p op p 48% 52% 11% 13% 28% 47% 16% 12% 12% 13% 23% 25% 21% 32% 83% 8% 6% 3% Don't know 55 25 30 5 8 23 19 3 5 8 10 18 16 10 10 49 3 2 1 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 45% 55% 9% 14% 41% 35% 6% 9% 14% 19% 32% 29% 19% 18% 90% 5% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes, I watch Tv programmes/ films using the catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, Demand 5, YouView, Sky on Demand, Virgin on Demand) 876 62 101 85 69 83 100 96 31 102 754 121 604 269 529 346 34% 21% 29% 38% 37% 37% 43% 45% 28% 34% 34% 35% 41% 25% 37% 30% abh ah ah abh abhi a m o 7% 12% 10% 8% 10% 11% 11% 4% 12% 86% 14% 69% 31% 60% 40% Yes, I watch TV programmes/ films using the pay per view services (e.g. on Sky Box Office on Sky on Demand, Virgin Movies on Virgin Media) 438 57 70 40 34 48 31 25 14 55 395 44 330 107 254 184 17% 19% 20% 18% 19% 21% 13% 12% 12% 18% 18% 13% 22% 10% 18% 16% gh gh g fgh g k m 13% 16% 9% 8% 11% 7% 6% 3% 13% 90% 10% 75% 24% 58% 42% Yes, I was TV programmes/ films using a 'standalone' subscription service such as Netflix (e.g. on Virgin TiVo) 400 51 41 36 24 40 41 35 15 44 354 46 310 89 190 211 16% 17% 12% 16% 13% 18% 17% 16% 14% 15% 16% 13% 21% 8% 13% 18% m n 13% 10% 9% 6% 10% 10% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 77% 22% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH12 (QH42A). SHOWCARD Do you ever watch TV programmes 'on demand' through your TV service? (READ EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY) (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% TOTAL 'YES' 1193 112 157 113 89 113 117 108 43 137 1040 152 842 346 707 486 46% 38% 45% 50% 48% 50% 50% 50% 38% 46% 47% 44% 57% 32% 50% 42% ah ah ah ah ah m o 9% 13% 9% 7% 10% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 59% 41% No 1320 169 179 110 86 113 113 106 68 157 1133 187 609 708 677 643 51% 57% 51% 49% 47% 50% 48% 49% 61% 52% 51% 54% 41% 66% 48% 56% d bcdefg l n 13% 14% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 5% 12% 86% 14% 46% 54% 51% 49% Don't know 55 13 12 1 9 1 4 2 1 7 47 8 30 24 32 23 2% 4% 3% % 5% % 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% cegh ceh cegh 24% 21% 2% 17% 1% 8% 3% 1% 13% 86% 14% 54% 43% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Games console 503 252 251 117 128 218 40 49 49 68 136 112 150 133 108 404 56 26 16 20% 20% 19% 34% 30% 25% 4% 16% 20% 20% 24% 16% 22% 24% 17% 19% 24% 21% 22% ef ef f g kn kn o 50% 50% 23% 25% 43% 8% 10% 10% 14% 27% 22% 30% 27% 21% 80% 11% 5% 3% Laptop/ desktop PC 302 146 156 65 61 127 49 19 23 44 124 93 89 65 55 255 21 19 7 12% 12% 12% 19% 14% 14% 5% 6% 9% 13% 22% 13% 13% 12% 9% 12% 9% 15% 9% f f f g ghi n n pr 48% 52% 22% 20% 42% 16% 6% 7% 15% 41% 31% 29% 22% 18% 84% 7% 6% 2% Set top box with access to digital or cable TV broadcasts (such as Sky+, Virgin TiVo, YouView) 299 155 144 48 65 117 70 17 31 47 106 91 85 76 47 241 39 15 3 12% 12% 11% 14% 15% 13% 8% 6% 13% 14% 18% 13% 13% 13% 7% 11% 17% 12% 4% f f f g g gh n n n r or r 52% 48% 16% 22% 39% 23% 6% 10% 16% 35% 31% 28% 25% 16% 81% 13% 5% 1% Internet-connected dongle or set-top box (such as NOW TV set-top box, Roku, Google Chrome, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV) 129 70 59 24 29 50 26 10 8 21 41 46 33 34 17 113 7 5 4 5% 6% 4% 7% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5% 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% f f f gh n n n 54% 46% 19% 22% 39% 20% 8% 6% 16% 32% 35% 26% 26% 13% 87% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% ANY DEVICES CONNECTING TV TO THE INTERNET 851 414 436 160 201 340 149 71 79 126 260 244 234 213 159 694 89 43 24 33% 33% 33% 47% 48% 38% 16% 23% 32% 37% 45% 35% 34% 38% 25% 32% 39% 34% 34% ef ef f g g ghi n n n o 49% 51% 19% 24% 40% 18% 8% 9% 15% 31% 29% 28% 25% 19% 82% 10% 5% 3% None of these 1613 781 832 170 208 506 729 224 161 203 296 422 421 327 441 1360 131 79 43 63% 63% 63% 50% 49% 57% 80% 74% 66% 59% 51% 61% 62% 58% 71% 64% 57% 62% 60% cd cde hij j j klm p 48% 52% 11% 13% 31% 45% 14% 10% 13% 18% 26% 26% 20% 27% 84% 8% 5% 3% Don't know 104 45 59 12 14 42 37 8 4 12 19 31 23 26 24 85 9 6 4 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 43% 57% 11% 14% 40% 35% 8% 4% 12% 18% 29% 23% 25% 23% 82% 9% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH13 (QH45). SHOWCARD have you or anyone in your household used any of these devices to connect your TV to the internet in the last 12 months? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Games console 503 25 64 53 44 61 56 27 26 48 437 66 357 143 285 218 20% 8% 18% 23% 24% 27% 24% 13% 23% 16% 20% 19% 24% 13% 20% 19% a agi agi abgi agi agi a m 5% 13% 10% 9% 12% 11% 5% 5% 10% 87% 13% 71% 28% 57% 43% Laptop/ desktop PC 302 72 17 38 22 22 29 18 8 29 262 40 224 78 150 152 12% 25% 5% 17% 12% 10% 12% 8% 7% 9% 12% 11% 15% 7% 11% 13% bcdefghi beghi b b m 24% 6% 12% 7% 7% 10% 6% 3% 9% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% Set top box with access to digital or cable TV broadcasts (such as Sky+, Virgin TiVo, YouView) 299 29 18 24 27 18 53 44 13 14 256 43 219 80 148 150 12% 10% 5% 11% 15% 8% 23% 20% 12% 5% 12% 12% 15% 7% 10% 13% i bi bei abcdehi abcehi bi m n 10% 6% 8% 9% 6% 18% 15% 4% 5% 86% 14% 73% 27% 50% 50% Internet-connected dongle or set-top box (such as NOW TV set-top box, Roku, Google Chrome, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV) 129 9 8 12 9 15 23 13 10 14 97 32 95 34 71 58 5% 3% 2% 5% 5% 6% 10% 6% 9% 5% 4% 9% 6% 3% 5% 5% b abdi abi j m 7% 6% 9% 7% 11% 18% 10% 8% 11% 75% 25% 74% 26% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH13 (QH45). SHOWCARD have you or anyone in your household used any of these devices to connect your TV to the internet in the last 12 months? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% ANY DEVICES CONNECTING TV TO THE INTERNET 851 87 85 81 72 78 101 71 41 78 729 122 608 239 458 393 33% 30% 25% 36% 39% 35% 43% 33% 37% 26% 33% 35% 41% 22% 32% 34% bi abi bi abgi bi m 10% 10% 10% 8% 9% 12% 8% 5% 9% 86% 14% 72% 28% 54% 46% None of these 1613 195 242 139 101 139 127 141 66 209 1403 210 811 797 897 715 63% 66% 70% 62% 55% 61% 54% 65% 59% 70% 63% 60% 55% 74% 63% 62% df dfh df dfh l 12% 15% 9% 6% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 87% 13% 50% 49% 56% 44% Don't know 104 12 20 4 12 9 7 4 4 14 88 16 61 42 61 43 4% 4% 6% 2% 6% 4% 3% 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% cg cg 11% 19% 4% 11% 9% 7% 4% 4% 13% 85% 15% 58% 40% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets "Smart Tvs"? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. Base : Those With A Tv In The Household \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 3606 \| 1713 \| 1893 \| 490 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2411 \| 1144 \| 1268 \| 320 \| \| Total \| 2567 \| 1240 \| 1328 \| 342 \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 13% \| 16% \| 35% \| \| Yes \| 718 \| 359 \| 359 \| 105 \| \| 28% \| 29% \| 27% \| 31% \| 33% \| \| f \| f \| f \| g \| g \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 15% \| 20% \| 41% \| \| No \| 1764 \| 847 \| 917 \| 222 \| \| 69% \| 68% \| 69% \| 65% \| 63% \| \| cde \| hij \| j \| j \| k \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 13% \| 15% \| 32% \| \| Don't know \| \| \| \| \| \| 85 \| 34 \| 51 \| 15 \| 15 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 4% \| 4% \| 4% \| \| q \| q \| \| \| \| \| 40% \| 60% \| 17% \| 18% \| 29% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets "Smart Tvs"? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes 718 106 73 70 51 69 58 57 29 102 607 111 521 194 392 326 28% 36% 21% 31% 28% 30% 25% 27% 26% 34% 27% 32% 35% 18% 28% 28% bfgh b b bf m 15% 10% 10% 7% 10% 8% 8% 4% 14% 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% No 1764 184 272 147 120 151 161 152 80 186 1543 221 919 839 979 786 69% 63% 78% 65% 65% 67% 69% 71% 71% 62% 70% 64% 62% 78% 69% 68% acdefi i k l 10% 15% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 11% 87% 13% 52% 48% 55% 45% Don't know 85 4 2 7 13 7 15 6 3 13 70 15 40 45 46 39 3% 1% 1% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% b abgh ab b l 4% 3% 9% 16% 9% 18% 8% 4% 15% 82% 18% 47% 53% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% * 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% Watching TV you've previously recorded 402 209 193 51 86 168 97 53 145 144 119 84 55 333 31 30 56% 58% 53% 48% 61% 57% 56% 51% 62% 59% 62% 56% 41% 54% 62% 71% n n n o 52% 48% 13% 21% 42% 24% 13% 36% 36% 30% 21% 14% 83% 8% 8% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5) 395 204 191 67 78 156 93 56 142 147 108 89 51 332 30 26 55% 57% 53% 63% 56% 53% 53% 54% 61% 61% 56% 59% 38% 54% 60% 62% n n n 52% 48% 17% 20% 40% 24% 14% 36% 37% 27% 23% 13% 84% 7% 7% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. PlayStation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Amazon Prime Instant, Netflix) 210 103 107 37 61 86 26 26 86 79 57 48 27 178 18 9 29% 29% 30% 35% 43% 29% 15% 25% 37% 32% 29% 32% 20% 29% 37% 21% f ef f n n q 49% 51% 18% 29% 41% 12% 12% 41% 37% 27% 23% 13% 84% 9% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube or Dailymotion or Vimeo) 197 108 89 42 47 85 23 22 87 65 63 41 28 172 9 14 27% 30% 25% 39% 33% 29% 13% 22% 37% 27% 33% 27% 21% 28% 18% 34% f f f i n p 55% 45% 21% 24% 43% 12% 11% 44% 33% 32% 21% 14% 87% 4% 7% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 187 95 93 36 45 86 20 27 70 55 55 48 30 157 15 12 26% 26% 26% 34% 32% 29% 11% 26% 30% 23% 28% 32% 22% 26% 31% 29% f f f 51% 49% 19% 24% 46% 11% 14% 37% 30% 29% 25% 16% 84% 8% 7% Browse the internet - e.g. online shopping, checking emails, social networking sites 120 69 51 29 24 55 12 15 43 30 37 36 17 97 12 8 17% 19% 14% 27% 17% 18% 7% 15% 18% 12% 19% 24% 13% 16% 24% 19% f f f kn 57% 43% 24% 20% 45% 10% 13% 35% 25% 31% 30% 14% 80% 10% 7% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% Applications that come with the TV that allow you to play games 62 38 23 15 20 25 2 9 23 13 20 19 10 55 4 2 9% 11% 6% 14% 14% 8% 1% 9% 10% 5% 10% 13% 7% 9% 8% 4% f f f k 62% 38% 23% 32% 41% 4% 15% 37% 20% 32% 31% 16% 89% 7% 3% ** Making voice calls using the internet 17 10 7 6 3 7 * 1 8 6 3 6 1 14 1 1 ** 2% 3% 2% 6% 2% 2% % * 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% f 60% 40% 38% 17% 42% 3% 4% 46% 38% 20% 34% 9% 83% 5% 8% None of these 133 64 69 19 19 53 43 22 31 37 31 24 42 123 4 4 19% 18% 19% 18% 13% 18% 25% 22% 13% 15% 16% 16% 31% 20% 8% 9% d klm pq 48% 52% 14% 14% 40% 32% 17% 23% 28% 23% 18% 31% 92% 3% 3% Don't know 12 3 9 - 4 5 3 1 2 6 1 3 1 11 * - 2% 1% 3% -% 3% 2% 2% ** 1% 1% 3% % 2% 1% 2% % -% 23% 77% -% 32% 42% 26% 4% 18% 53% 8% 28% 11% 95% 1% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Watching TV you've previously recorded 402 344 57 296 103 216 186 56% 57% 51% 57% 53% 55% 57% 86% 14% 74% 26% 54% 46% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5) 395 336 59 283 110 221 174 55% 55% 53% 54% 57% 56% 53% 85% 15% 72% 28% 56% 44% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. PlayStation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Amazon Prime Instant, Netflix) 210 178 33 165 44 100 110 29% 29% 30% 31% 23% 25% 34% m n 84% 16% 78% 21% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube or Dailymotion or Vimeo) 197 170 27 156 41 87 110 27% 28% 24% 30% 21% 22% 34% m n 86% 14% 79% 21% 44% 56% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 187 160 27 150 37 83 104 26% 26% 25% 29% 19% 21% 32% m n 85% 15% 80% 20% 45% 55% Browse the internet - e.g. online shopping, checking emails, social networking sites 120 102 18 96 25 50 71 17% 17% 17% 18% 13% 13% 22% n 85% 15% 80% 20% 41% 59% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Applications that come with the TV that allow you to play games 62 55 7 51 11 22 40 9% 9% 6% 10% 6% 6% 12% n 89% 11% 82% 18% 36% 64% Making voice calls using the internet 17 13 3 14 3 9 8 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 79% 21% 83% 17% 52% 48% None of these 133 111 22 88 46 76 57 19% 18% 20% 17% 24% 19% 18% l 83% 17% 66% 34% 57% 43% Don't know 12 8 4 11 1 10 2 2% 1% 3% 2% % 2% 1% * 70% 30% 93% 7% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 1361 662 700 222 266 537 337 93 109 208 435 450 388 298 225 1147 121 67 27 58% 58% 58% 63% 58% 62% 51% 43% 50% 62% 76% 67% 59% 60% 44% 59% 60% 59% 44% f f f gh ghi lmn n n r r r 49% 51% 16% 20% 39% 25% 7% 8% 15% 32% 33% 29% 22% 17% 84% 9% 5% 2% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 587 275 312 140 145 241 61 41 40 86 191 169 181 146 92 493 45 25 24 25% 24% 26% 40% 32% 28% 9% 19% 18% 26% 33% 25% 28% 29% 18% 25% 23% 22% 38% def f f h ghi n n n opq 47% 53% 24% 25% 41% 10% 7% 7% 15% 33% 29% 31% 25% 16% 84% 8% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 3100 \| 1471 \| 1629 \| 505 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2126 \| 1018 \| 1108 \| 332 \| \| Total \| 2332 \| 1134 \| 1197 \| 354 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 15% \| 20% \| 37% \| \| Watching other free professional TV \| \| \| \| \| \| programmes/ films or video \| \| \| \| \| \| channels online (e.g. on official \| \| \| \| \| \| YouTube channels such as Channel \| \| \| \| \| \| 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on \| \| \| \| \| \| other sites (e.g. on South Park \| \| \| \| \| \| Studios) \| 441 \| 233 \| 209 \| 108 \| \| 19% \| 21% \| 17% \| 30% \| 21% \| \| def \| f \| f \| g \| ghi \| \| 53% \| 47% \| 24% \| 22% \| 40% \| \| Watching TV programmes/ films you \| \| \| \| \| \| have paid for on online stores to \| \| \| \| \| \| rent or keep permanently (e.g. via \| \| \| \| \| \| iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) \| 193 \| 101 \| 92 \| 49 \| \| 8% \| 9% \| 8% \| 14% \| 11% \| \| ef \| f \| f \| ghi \| p \| \| 52% \| 48% \| 25% \| 26% \| 40% \| \| None of these \| 832 \| 408 \| 423 \| 101 \| \| 36% \| 36% \| 35% \| 28% \| 34% \| \| cde \| ij \| ij \| j \| klm \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 12% \| 18% \| 33% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|---------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| \| \| \| \| \| a \| b \| c \| d \| e \| \| Unweighted total \| 3100 \| 1471 \| 1629 \| 505 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 2126 \| 1018 \| 1108 \| 332 \| \| Total \| 2332 \| 1134 \| 1197 \| 354 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 15% \| 20% \| 37% \| \| Don't know \| 29 \| 15 \| 14 \| 6 \| \| 1% \| 1% \| 1% \| 2% \| 2% \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 19% \| 33% \| 25% \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 1361 128 207 143 84 114 134 119 60 159 1171 190 934 423 816 545 58% 40% 64% 71% 52% 58% 60% 63% 67% 61% 58% 60% 63% 50% 64% 52% ad adefi a a a ad ad a m o 9% 15% 11% 6% 8% 10% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 69% 31% 60% 40% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 587 80 74 52 33 49 71 43 25 65 509 79 444 142 295 292 25% 25% 23% 26% 20% 25% 32% 23% 28% 25% 25% 25% 30% 17% 23% 28% bdg m n 14% 13% 9% 6% 8% 12% 7% 4% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 441 75 47 50 24 50 44 31 15 41 395 46 319 122 234 207 19% 23% 15% 25% 15% 26% 20% 16% 17% 16% 20% 14% 21% 15% 18% 20% bd bdgi bdgi k m 17% 11% 11% 6% 11% 10% 7% 3% 9% 90% 10% 72% 28% 53% 47% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 193 27 24 18 9 26 28 12 8 19 164 29 138 55 96 97 8% 8% 7% 9% 5% 13% 13% 6% 8% 7% 8% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% dg dg m 14% 12% 9% 5% 13% 14% 6% 4% 10% 85% 15% 71% 29% 50% 50% None of these 832 155 102 51 71 71 62 63 22 96 727 104 460 369 396 435 36% 49% 32% 25% 44% 36% 28% 33% 25% 37% 36% 33% 31% 44% 31% 41% bcefghi bcfgh ch ch l n 19% 12% 6% 8% 9% 7% 8% 3% 12% 87% 13% 55% 44% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 29 11 2 - 4 2 6 - 1 - 22 7 19 10 23 6 1% 3% 1% -% 3% 1% 3% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% bcgi cgi cgi o 38% 7% -% 14% 7% 21% -% 2% -% 75% 25% 67% 33% 79% 21% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 966 460 506 146 188 388 243 66 68 147 324 343 267 206 150 816 90 41 18 41% 41% 42% 41% 41% 45% 37% 30% 31% 44% 56% 51% 41% 41% 30% 42% 45% 36% 29% f gh ghi lmn n n r qr 48% 52% 15% 19% 40% 25% 7% 7% 15% 34% 36% 28% 21% 16% 85% 9% 4% 2% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 382 174 207 93 102 151 36 32 25 62 122 111 119 81 70 321 29 16 16 16% 15% 17% 26% 22% 17% 6% 15% 12% 18% 21% 17% 18% 16% 14% 16% 15% 14% 25% ef ef f h gh n opq 46% 54% 24% 27% 40% 9% 8% 7% 16% 32% 29% 31% 21% 18% 84% 8% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 232 129 103 59 55 88 31 20 18 39 84 63 58 57 54 204 15 11 3 10% 11% 9% 17% 12% 10% 5% 9% 8% 12% 15% 9% 9% 11% 11% 10% 7% 10% 4% b ef f f gh r r 56% 44% 25% 24% 38% 13% 9% 8% 17% 36% 27% 25% 24% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 66 34 33 14 22 22 8 5 4 6 29 19 15 15 17 59 5 1 1 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% f f i 51% 49% 22% 32% 33% 13% 8% 7% 8% 44% 29% 23% 23% 26% 89% 8% 2% 1% None of these 1170 582 588 163 217 398 392 127 134 162 198 287 322 246 315 975 102 62 32 50% 51% 49% 46% 48% 46% 60% 59% 61% 48% 34% 43% 49% 49% 62% 50% 50% 54% 52% cde ij ij j k k klm 50% 50% 14% 19% 34% 33% 11% 11% 14% 17% 24% 27% 21% 27% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 33 16 16 7 10 7 7 4 1 2 8 9 12 7 3 28 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % 2% 2% e 50% 50% 23% 32% 22% 23% 12% 4% 6% 25% 29% 37% 22% 10% 87% 3% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 966 79 137 110 66 82 105 96 43 98 818 148 663 300 589 377 41% 25% 43% 55% 41% 42% 47% 51% 49% 38% 41% 47% 45% 36% 46% 36% a abdei a a a ai ai a j m o 8% 14% 11% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% 10% 85% 15% 69% 31% 61% 39% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 382 54 33 38 21 33 52 34 17 38 327 54 286 94 190 192 16% 17% 10% 19% 13% 17% 23% 18% 19% 15% 16% 17% 19% 11% 15% 18% b bdi b b m n 14% 9% 10% 5% 9% 14% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 75% 25% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 232 37 24 31 10 22 27 19 10 24 201 31 164 69 113 119 10% 12% 8% 16% 6% 11% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% 10% 11% 8% 9% 11% d bd d m 16% 11% 13% 4% 9% 12% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 70% 30% 49% 51% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 66 10 10 9 3 5 11 3 2 6 53 13 48 18 33 33 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 16% 16% 13% 4% 7% 17% 5% 2% 10% 80% 20% 72% 28% 50% 50% None of these 1170 189 172 78 86 95 86 85 38 146 1026 144 684 483 603 567 50% 59% 54% 39% 53% 48% 39% 45% 43% 56% 51% 45% 46% 58% 47% 54% cefgh cfh cfh cfgh k l n 16% 15% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 3% 12% 88% 12% 58% 41% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 33 13 2 1 4 2 6 - 1 - 25 8 23 10 24 9 1% 4% 1% % 3% 1% 3% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% bcghi gi cgi o 40% 6% 2% 12% 6% 19% -% 2% -% 77% 23% 70% 30% 73% 27% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18A (Qh65A). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Rté1? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% 35% 32% ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day 1 * * * * ** * * * - - - 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% -% -% -% 1% 58% 42% 33% 41% 39% 23% 38% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 11 5 6 5 5 3 4 3 - - - 11 16% 14% 17% 21% 21% 16% 22% 16% -% -% -% 16% 44% 56% 46% 41% 24% 33% 29% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 6 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 - - - 6 8% 8% 7% 6% 9% 7% 12% 5% -% -% -% 8% 51% 49% 26% 37% 22% 38% 21% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 11 6 6 5 3 3 2 2 - - - 11 16% 16% 15% 21% 13% 15% 9% 10% -% -% -% 16% 50% 50% 48% 27% 23% 15% 20% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 18 8 9 7 7 4 6 5 - - - 18 25% 24% 26% 28% 31% 24% 35% 22% -% -% -% 25% 47% 53% 39% 40% 24% 34% 27% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 29 14 15 12 10 7 8 7 - - - 29 40% 39% 41% 48% 44% 39% 44% 33% -% -% -% 40% 48% 52% 43% 35% 24% 27% 24% -% -% -% 100% Never 40 20 20 13 12 10 9 13 - - - 40 56% 57% 55% 49% 52% 59% 49% 63% -% -% -% 56% m 50% 50% 31% 30% 26% 21% 33% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 1 1 1 1 ** * 1 1 - - - 3 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 4% 44% 56% 24% 34% 15% 48% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18A (QH65A). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ1? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day 1 - - - - - - - - - * * 1 * * 1 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 52% 48% 73% 27% 37% 63% At least weekly 11 - - - - - - - - - 6 5 6 5 5 6 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 14% 19% 15% 16% 16% 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 53% 44% 45% 55% At least monthly 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 1 3 2 2 3 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 5% 8% 7% 7% 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 57% 43% 43% 57% Less often than monthly 11 - - - - - - - - - 7 4 7 4 4 7 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 15% 18% 12% 14% 17% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 64% 36% 64% 36% 40% 60% AT LEAST MONTHLY 18 - - - - - - - - - 11 7 10 8 8 10 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 25% 25% 25% 24% 24% 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 43% 44% 56% EVER WATCH 29 - - - - - - - - - 18 11 17 12 12 17 40% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 41% 40% 43% 36% 38% 42% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 59% 40% 42% 58% Never 40 - - - - - - - - - 25 15 21 19 19 21 56% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 57% 53% 60% 59% 53% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 52% 48% 47% 53% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 2 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 56% 44% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18B (Qh65B). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Rté2? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% 35% 32% ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day 1 * * * * ** * * * - - - 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% -% -% 1% 45% 55% 48% 19% 23% 29% 48% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 10 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 - - - 10 14% 14% 13% 16% 16% 15% 18% 13% -% -% -% 14% 51% 49% 43% 38% 27% 33% 27% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 6 2 4 2 3 1 2 2 - - - 6 9% 7% 11% 9% 11% 8% 12% 8% -% -% -% 9% 38% 62% 34% 41% 22% 34% 27% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 10 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 - - - 10 14% 14% 15% 19% 12% 15% 9% 11% -% -% -% 14% 48% 52% 48% 27% 26% 15% 22% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 17 8 9 7 6 4 6 5 - - - 17 24% 22% 25% 26% 28% 23% 32% 22% -% -% -% 24% 46% 54% 40% 38% 25% 33% 28% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 27 13 15 12 9 7 7 7 - - - 27 38% 36% 40% 46% 40% 38% 41% 33% -% -% -% 38% 47% 53% 43% 34% 25% 26% 26% -% -% -% 100% Never 42 21 21 13 13 11 9 13 - - - 42 59% 61% 57% 52% 56% 60% 53% 63% -% -% -% 59% 50% 50% 31% 30% 25% 22% 32% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 2 1 1 1 1 ** * 1 1 - - - 2 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 6% 4% -% -% -% 3% 51% 49% 24% 39% 13% 44% 34% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18B (QH65B). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ2? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day 1 - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 45% 55% 66% 34% 54% 46% At least weekly 10 - - - - - - - - - 6 4 6 4 4 5 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 15% 14% 12% 14% 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 59% 41% 56% 40% 45% 55% At least monthly 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 2 3 3 3 3 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 9% 8% 11% 9% 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 48% 52% 46% 54% Less often than monthly 10 - - - - - - - - - 8 3 7 3 3 7 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 17% 10% 18% 10% 10% 18% m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 73% 27% 68% 32% 32% 68% AT LEAST MONTHLY 17 - - - - - - - - - 10 7 9 7 8 9 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 23% 25% 23% 23% 24% 23% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 53% 44% 45% 55% EVER WATCH 27 - - - - - - - - - 18 10 16 11 11 16 38% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 35% 41% 34% 34% 41% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 65% 35% 59% 40% 40% 60% Never 42 - - - - - - - - - 26 17 22 20 20 22 59% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 57% 62% 56% 63% 64% 55% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 53% 47% 48% 52% Don't know 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 50% 50% 22% 78% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18C (Qh65C). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tv3? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% 35% 32% ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day * * * * * ** - * * - - - * % % 1% 1% % * -% 1% % -% -% -% % 20% 80% 80% 20% -% 80% 20% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 6 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 - - - 6 9% 9% 8% 12% 10% 11% 11% 8% -% -% -% 9% 51% 49% 48% 36% 32% 32% 27% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 5 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 - - - 5 7% 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% 10% 4% -% -% -% 7% 47% 53% 24% 50% 20% 37% 17% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 8 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 - - - 8 10% 9% 12% 13% 8% 9% 10% 8% -% -% -% 10% 41% 59% 44% 24% 22% 23% 24% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 11 6 6 4 5 3 4 3 - - - 11 16% 16% 16% 17% 20% 17% 23% 12% -% -% -% 16% n 49% 51% 38% 42% 26% 35% 22% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 19 9 10 8 7 5 6 4 - - - 19 26% 25% 28% 30% 28% 26% 33% 20% -% -% -% 26% n 46% 54% 41% 35% 25% 30% 23% -% -% -% 100% Never 50 25 25 17 15 13 11 16 - - - 50 69% 70% 68% 65% 66% 72% 60% 76% -% -% -% 69% m 50% 50% 34% 31% 26% 21% 32% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18C (Qh65C). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tv3? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% 35% 32% 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 2 2 1 1 ** * 1 1 - - - 3 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 5% 54% 46% 34% 36% 9% 37% 24% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day * - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % % 1% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 80% 20% 80% 20% At least weekly 6 - - - - - - - - - 3 3 4 2 2 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 10% 11% 6% 7% 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 67% 33% 36% 64% At least monthly 5 - - - - - - - - - 4 1 3 2 3 2 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 5% 6% 7% 9% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 74% 26% 53% 47% 58% 42% Less often than monthly 8 - - - - - - - - - 5 2 5 2 3 4 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 8% 13% 7% 10% 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 71% 29% 70% 30% 42% 58% AT LEAST MONTHLY 11 - - - - - - - - - 7 4 7 4 5 6 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 16% 18% 14% 16% 15% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 61% 39% 46% 54% EVER WATCH 19 - - - - - - - - - 12 6 12 7 8 10 26% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 28% 24% 31% 21% 26% 26% m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 66% 34% 65% 35% 45% 55% Never 50 - - - - - - - - - 30 20 25 24 23 27 69% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 72% 64% 75% 72% 67% l -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 61% 39% 51% 48% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 33% 57% 43% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18D (Qh65D). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tg4? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% 35% 32% ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day * * * * * ** - * * - - - * % % 1% 1% % * -% 1% % -% -% -% % 20% 80% 80% 20% -% 80% 20% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 - - - 5 7% 8% 6% 9% 8% 10% 10% 7% -% -% -% 7% 57% 43% 47% 37% 34% 34% 28% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 - - - 4 5% 4% 6% 4% 9% 5% 5% 4% -% -% -% 5% 40% 60% 28% 57% 22% 23% 21% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 8 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 - - - 8 11% 10% 13% 14% 9% 11% 13% 8% -% -% -% 11% 43% 57% 45% 24% 23% 28% 22% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 9 4 5 4 4 3 3 2 - - - 9 12% 12% 12% 14% 17% 14% 16% 10% -% -% -% 12% 49% 51% 40% 45% 28% 31% 25% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 17 8 9 7 6 4 5 4 - - - 17 24% 22% 25% 28% 26% 25% 29% 19% -% -% -% 24% 46% 54% 42% 35% 26% 29% 23% -% -% -% 100% Never 51 25 26 17 16 13 11 16 - - - 51 71% 72% 71% 67% 69% 74% 64% 77% -% -% -% 71% m 50% 50% 33% 31% 26% 22% 32% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 2 2 1 1 * 1 1 - - - 3 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 5% 54% 46% 34% 36% 9% 37% 24% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18D (QH65D). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TG4? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day * - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % % 1% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 80% 20% 80% 20% At least weekly 5 - - - - - - - - - 3 2 3 2 2 3 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 6% 8% 9% 5% 7% 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 68% 32% 42% 58% At least monthly 4 - - - - - - - - - 3 1 2 2 2 2 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 6% 4% 4% 6% 5% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 30% 47% 53% 47% 53% Less often than monthly 8 - - - - - - - - - 6 2 6 2 4 5 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 9% 14% 8% 11% 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 71% 29% 70% 30% 44% 56% AT LEAST MONTHLY 9 - - - - - - - - - 5 4 5 4 4 5 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 13% 13% 11% 13% 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 60% 40% 45% 55% EVER WATCH 17 - - - - - - - - - 11 6 11 6 8 9 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 25% 22% 28% 19% 24% 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 65% 35% 64% 36% 45% 55% Never 51 - - - - - - - - - 31 20 27 24 24 28 71% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 74% 67% 76% 74% 69% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 61% 39% 52% 47% 46% 54% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 33% 57% 43% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qcheck. Can I Just Check That You Have The Following Services? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 86% 85% 86% 73% 73% 89% 94% 70% 83% 86% 94% 94% 86% 88% 75% 86% 86% 85% 86% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 2495 1204 1291 361 456 895 783 278 241 341 578 669 687 550 588 2097 211 120 68 93% 93% 94% 99% 97% 98% 84% 88% 93% 95% 99% 94% 95% 95% 89% 94% 91% 91% 92% f f f g g ghi n n n pq 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Fixed broadband internet access 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 79% 79% 78% 82% 78% 88% 69% 52% 70% 85% 96% 90% 81% 80% 63% 79% 78% 77% 77% f f cdf g gh ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile broadband internet access 118 63 55 23 29 45 21 14 10 16 38 39 32 24 22 103 7 5 2 4% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% f f f 53% 47% 19% 24% 38% 18% 12% 8% 13% 33% 33% 27% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 2% Narrowband internet access 26 14 13 * 4 13 10 1 2 1 9 13 3 3 7 26 - * * 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 2% % % 1% 1% -% % 1% c lm 51% 49% % 14% 49% 37% 3% 9% 2% 33% 50% 12% 11% 27% 97% -% 1% 2% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1652 791 861 233 302 636 481 153 153 227 439 450 449 393 358 1347 162 90 53 62% 61% 63% 64% 65% 69% 52% 48% 59% 63% 75% 63% 62% 68% 54% 60% 69% 68% 72% f f f g g ghi n n ln o o o 48% 52% 14% 18% 38% 29% 9% 9% 14% 27% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 10% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% No, none of these 8 4 4 - 3 2 3 4 - - - 2 - 6 6 1 1 * % % % -% 1% % % 1% -% -% -% % -% % 1% % 1% 1% % ij l 53% 47% -% 38% 26% 36% 50% -% -% -% 23% -% 6% 71% 71% 16% 10% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Landline phone 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 86% 82% 93% 90% 88% 83% 86% 82% 80% 82% 85% 92% 86% 85% 90% 81% aefghi aeghi hi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Mobile phone 2495 318 337 212 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 341 1517 970 1343 1153 93% 94% 94% 93% 90% 94% 96% 94% 91% 95% 93% 95% 98% 87% 93% 94% dh m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Fixed broadband internet access 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 79% 75% 89% 85% 78% 71% 85% 75% 70% 75% 78% 84% 86% 69% 82% 74% adeghi aeghi aeghi j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Mobile broadband internet access 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 11% 4% 4% 6% 3% 5% 4% abdefgh m 12% 11% 12% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 27% 88% 12% 74% 25% 57% 43% Narrowband internet access 26 - - 1 5 1 4 - 1 14 20 6 18 8 22 4 1% -% -% 1% 2% % 2% -% % 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % abg bg abcegh o -% -% 5% 18% 4% 15% -% 2% 53% 77% 23% 69% 31% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1652 204 221 130 113 143 146 130 74 183 1451 201 1066 580 888 764 62% 60% 62% 57% 60% 60% 60% 58% 65% 61% 63% 56% 69% 52% 62% 62% k m 12% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 65% 35% 54% 46% No, none of these 8 2 - 1 - - - 3 * - 8 * 1 7 2 6 % 1% -% % -% -% -% 1% % -% % % % 1% % % l 23% -% 10% -% -% -% 34% 5% -% 99% 1% 13% 82% 27% 73% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 1996 982 1014 109 297 760 829 207 199 290 491 592 531 437 434 1657 185 101 53 75% 76% 74% 30% 63% 83% 89% 65% 77% 81% 84% 83% 74% 75% 66% 74% 79% 77% 72% c cd cde g g gh lmn n n or 49% 51% 5% 15% 38% 42% 10% 10% 15% 25% 30% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 2270 1112 1158 293 412 830 734 262 221 321 535 602 624 503 539 1903 197 108 62 85% 85% 84% 81% 88% 91% 79% 83% 85% 90% 92% 85% 87% 87% 82% 85% 85% 82% 84% cf cf g gh n n 49% 51% 13% 18% 37% 32% 12% 10% 14% 24% 27% 27% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% Fixed broadband internet access 1800 893 907 132 310 756 603 156 165 282 502 563 494 389 353 1496 166 92 46 67% 69% 66% 36% 66% 83% 65% 49% 63% 79% 86% 79% 69% 67% 53% 67% 71% 70% 63% c cdf c g gh ghi lmn n n r r 50% 50% 7% 17% 42% 33% 9% 9% 16% 28% 31% 27% 22% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Mobile broadband internet access 86 48 37 14 21 31 19 10 10 14 26 22 24 19 20 74 6 4 2 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% f 57% 43% 17% 24% 36% 23% 12% 11% 17% 30% 26% 28% 22% 23% 87% 7% 4% 2% Narrowband internet access 18 10 8 - 4 6 8 1 2 1 6 10 2 3 4 17 - * * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % % 1% 1% -% % 1% l 55% 45% -% 21% 35% 44% 5% 14% 3% 34% 54% 9% 16% 20% 96% -% 2% 2% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1386 675 711 96 258 585 447 143 139 208 387 382 372 332 298 1115 146 81 43 52% 52% 52% 26% 55% 64% 48% 45% 54% 58% 66% 54% 52% 57% 45% 50% 63% 62% 59% cf cdf c g g ghi n n ln o o o 49% 51% 7% 19% 42% 32% 10% 10% 15% 28% 28% 27% 24% 21% 80% 11% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None of these 163 61 102 65 26 40 32 20 7 11 19 43 40 34 46 139 10 8 6 6% 5% 7% 18% 6% 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 4% 6% 8% a def h p 37% 63% 40% 16% 24% 20% 12% 4% 7% 12% 26% 24% 21% 28% 85% 6% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Landline phone 1996 233 290 185 145 164 185 161 79 215 1694 302 1171 817 1143 853 75% 69% 81% 82% 77% 69% 75% 71% 70% 71% 73% 84% 75% 73% 79% 69% aeghi aeghi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 41% 57% 43% Mobile phone 2270 301 300 197 155 196 209 196 96 252 1953 317 1401 861 1219 1050 85% 89% 84% 87% 82% 83% 85% 87% 85% 84% 84% 88% 90% 77% 84% 85% d j m 13% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 62% 38% 54% 46% Fixed broadband internet access 1800 210 272 169 125 138 181 144 69 188 1528 272 1169 624 1023 778 67% 62% 76% 74% 66% 58% 74% 64% 61% 62% 66% 76% 75% 56% 71% 63% adeghi aeghi aeghi j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 65% 35% 57% 43% Mobile broadband internet access 86 14 6 10 5 2 5 3 3 26 76 9 63 22 42 43 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 8% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% e e bdefgh m 16% 7% 11% 6% 2% 6% 4% 4% 30% 89% 11% 74% 26% 50% 50% Narrowband internet access 18 - - 1 4 1 3 - 1 7 13 5 11 7 15 3 1% -% -% 1% 2% % 1% -% % 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % abg abg j o -% -% 7% 21% 5% 18% -% 3% 40% 70% 30% 63% 37% 81% 19% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1386 165 183 113 92 112 123 111 66 151 1208 177 916 463 743 643 52% 49% 51% 50% 49% 47% 50% 49% 58% 50% 52% 49% 59% 42% 51% 52% adeg m 12% 13% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 5% 11% 87% 13% 66% 33% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None of these 163 14 22 7 12 22 10 17 8 27 147 16 68 95 80 84 6% 4% 6% 3% 6% 9% 4% 7% 7% 9% 6% 5% 4% 9% 6% 7% acf c c acf l 9% 14% 4% 7% 13% 6% 10% 5% 17% 90% 10% 41% 58% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 68% 68% 67% 59% 67% 77% 62% 48% 67% 76% 85% 76% 70% 69% 55% 68% 69% 67% 64% c cdf g gh ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% No 783 377 406 115 140 192 335 162 83 82 79 151 190 163 278 648 70 41 24 29% 29% 30% 32% 30% 21% 36% 51% 32% 23% 14% 21% 26% 28% 42% 29% 30% 31% 32% e e de hij ij j k k klm 48% 52% 15% 18% 25% 43% 21% 11% 11% 10% 19% 24% 21% 36% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 80 35 45 36 14 17 14 4 2 4 9 18 25 18 18 72 3 2 3 3% 3% 3% 10% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 4% def p 44% 56% 44% 17% 21% 17% 5% 3% 5% 11% 23% 31% 22% 22% 90% 4% 3% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 68% 69% 74% 74% 61% 55% 75% 66% 61% 66% 67% 72% 74% 58% 71% 64% e deh deh deghi e e m o 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% No 783 97 85 53 61 91 60 70 41 91 695 88 349 431 377 406 29% 29% 24% 23% 32% 38% 25% 31% 36% 30% 30% 25% 22% 39% 26% 33% bc abcf bcf k l n 12% 11% 7% 8% 12% 8% 9% 5% 12% 89% 11% 45% 55% 48% 52% Don't know 80 9 8 7 13 15 1 6 3 11 66 14 49 32 44 37 3% 3% 2% 3% 7% 6% % 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% f f abfg bfg f f 12% 10% 8% 16% 19% 1% 7% 4% 13% 83% 17% 61% 39% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 1689 823 866 187 278 667 558 142 159 247 461 519 462 372 336 1411 151 83 44 93% 93% 94% 88% 89% 94% 96% 94% 91% 91% 93% 96% 92% 93% 92% 93% 95% 94% 93% cd cd ln 49% 51% 11% 16% 39% 33% 8% 9% 15% 27% 31% 27% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% One mobile phone 103 54 50 9 16 47 31 12 11 17 16 25 28 26 25 90 9 3 1 6% 6% 5% 4% 5% 7% 5% 8% 6% 6% 3% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 3% 2% j r r 52% 48% 9% 15% 46% 30% 12% 10% 16% 16% 24% 27% 25% 24% 87% 9% 3% 1% More than one mobile phone 50 29 20 5 12 18 15 2 7 5 12 18 16 7 8 39 6 4 1 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 59% 41% 10% 25% 36% 30% 3% 14% 11% 25% 37% 33% 14% 16% 78% 11% 9% 1% Internet - Fixed Broadband access 1721 841 880 203 289 682 545 137 163 264 476 522 483 381 334 1444 149 83 44 95% 95% 95% 95% 92% 97% 94% 91% 93% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 92% 95% 93% 94% 94% d gh g n n n 49% 51% 12% 17% 40% 32% 8% 9% 15% 28% 30% 28% 22% 19% 84% 9% 5% 3% Internet - Mobile Broadband access 22 13 8 4 9 6 3 1 5 5 7 6 8 3 5 20 1 1 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% % 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % ef 62% 38% 16% 43% 28% 13% 6% 24% 22% 33% 28% 37% 13% 22% 91% 4% 4% 1% Internet - not broadband access 3 3 - - * * 2 - 1 - - 1 1 * - 2 - - * % % -% -% % % % -% 1% -% -% % % % -% % -% -% 1% o 100% -% -% 7% 9% 84% -% 57% -% -% 47% 37% 16% -% 84% -% -% 16% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% TV service 937 458 479 132 185 376 244 84 90 139 273 246 256 233 202 763 107 44 23 52% 52% 52% 62% 59% 53% 42% 56% 51% 51% 55% 45% 51% 58% 55% 50% 67% 50% 48% ef f f kl k oqr 49% 51% 14% 20% 40% 26% 9% 10% 15% 29% 26% 27% 25% 22% 81% 11% 5% 2% Don't know 5 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 2 4 - 1 1 % % % 1% % % % 1% -% % -% % % % 1% % -% 1% 2% op 84% 16% 27% 30% 27% 16% 16% -% 9% -% 16% 19% 29% 36% 72% -% 10% 18% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Landline phone 1689 215 251 158 104 124 172 145 66 177 1448 241 1061 623 957 732 93% 92% 94% 94% 90% 95% 93% 97% 94% 88% 93% 94% 92% 96% 94% 93% i di l 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 63% 37% 57% 43% One mobile phone 103 19 8 5 8 11 8 7 3 22 94 9 60 42 45 58 6% 8% 3% 3% 7% 8% 5% 5% 4% 11% 6% 4% 5% 6% 4% 7% bc bc bcfh n 18% 7% 4% 8% 10% 8% 7% 3% 21% 91% 9% 58% 41% 44% 56% More than one mobile phone 50 4 - 9 5 4 5 1 1 9 44 5 37 13 32 17 3% 2% -% 6% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% bg bg b b bg 8% -% 19% 11% 9% 9% 2% 3% 18% 89% 11% 74% 26% 66% 34% Internet - Fixed Broadband access 1721 226 262 161 110 123 179 144 62 177 1472 249 1101 614 969 752 95% 97% 98% 96% 96% 94% 98% 96% 89% 88% 95% 97% 95% 94% 95% 95% hi ehi hi hi hi hi 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 10% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Internet - Mobile Broadband access 22 4 - 2 1 - - 1 - 12 21 1 18 4 13 8 1% 2% -% 1% 1% -% -% % -% 6% 1% % 2% 1% 1% 1% abcdefgh 17% -% 11% 4% -% -% 2% -% 56% 97% 3% 81% 19% 62% 38% Internet - not broadband access 3 - - - - - 2 - - - 1 1 2 2 * % -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% % 1% % % % % -% -% -% -% -% 84% -% -% -% 43% 57% 7% 93% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% TV service 937 114 139 66 65 70 89 70 48 102 865 72 631 304 467 469 52% 49% 52% 40% 57% 53% 48% 47% 69% 51% 56% 28% 55% 47% 46% 59% c c c abcdefgi c k m n 12% 15% 7% 7% 7% 9% 8% 5% 11% 92% 8% 67% 33% 50% 50% Don't know 5 - 3 - - - - - * - 2 4 3 2 5 * % -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% % 1% % % % % j -% 63% -% -% -% -% -% 9% -% 30% 70% 59% 41% 96% 4% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Sky 514 243 271 73 120 211 110 46 59 84 124 132 141 114 128 420 45 29 20 28% 27% 29% 34% 38% 30% 19% 30% 33% 31% 25% 24% 28% 29% 35% 28% 28% 33% 42% f ef f j kl op 47% 53% 14% 23% 41% 21% 9% 11% 16% 24% 26% 27% 22% 25% 82% 9% 6% 4% BT 495 241 254 42 51 213 189 27 48 68 153 195 123 102 76 414 34 31 16 27% 27% 28% 20% 16% 30% 33% 18% 27% 25% 31% 36% 24% 26% 21% 27% 21% 35% 35% cd cd g g lmn op op 49% 51% 9% 10% 43% 38% 6% 10% 14% 31% 39% 25% 21% 15% 84% 7% 6% 3% Virgin Media (previously NTL/ Telewest) 405 216 189 54 71 148 132 32 31 52 128 107 131 90 77 339 57 6 3 22% 24% 20% 25% 23% 21% 23% 21% 18% 19% 26% 20% 26% 22% 21% 22% 36% 7% 7% hi k qr oqr 53% 47% 13% 18% 37% 32% 8% 8% 13% 32% 26% 32% 22% 19% 84% 14% 1% 1% Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse 206 94 112 23 36 67 80 34 23 33 36 47 61 45 54 170 16 14 6 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 14% 22% 13% 12% 7% 9% 12% 11% 15% 11% 10% 16% 12% e hij j j k 46% 54% 11% 17% 33% 39% 16% 11% 16% 17% 23% 30% 22% 26% 82% 8% 7% 3% Plusnet 65 33 32 4 7 21 33 4 3 12 21 27 11 14 12 61 1 3 - 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 6% 3% 2% 5% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% 4% 1% 3% -% cde l pr r 51% 49% 6% 12% 32% 51% 7% 5% 19% 33% 42% 17% 22% 19% 94% 2% 4% -% EE 59 30 30 4 18 21 17 5 4 9 18 14 16 20 10 52 4 3 * 3% 3% 3% 2% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 4% % cef r r 50% 50% 7% 30% 35% 28% 8% 7% 15% 30% 24% 27% 33% 16% 88% 6% 6% % Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Vodafone 9 3 5 5 2 - 2 - - - 5 3 4 - 1 9 - * - % % 1% 2% 1% -% % -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% % 1% -% % -% ef 36% 64% 56% 23% -% 20% -% -% -% 59% 37% 46% -% 17% 99% -% 1% -% KComm 6 4 1 1 3 1 1 - 1 1 3 1 2 3 - 6 - - - % 1% % % 1% % % -% 1% % 1% % % 1% -% % -% -% -% 78% 22% 16% 44% 22% 17% -% 17% 20% 47% 17% 36% 47% -% 100% -% -% -% Post Office 4 2 2 - * 2 2 - 1 1 * 2 2 * * 3 * * 1 % % % -% % % % -% 1% % % % % % % % % 1% 2% o 53% 47% -% 10% 44% 47% -% 31% 22% 6% 38% 45% 11% 5% 59% 8% 11% 22% AOL 3 2 2 - - 2 1 - - - 2 1 2 1 - 3 - - - % % % -% -% % % -% -% -% % % % % -% % -% -% -% 50% 50% -% -% 74% 26% -% -% -% 53% 23% 50% 26% -% 100% -% -% -% Tesco 3 * 3 - 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - 2 * 1 2 1 * - % % % -% % % % -% -% % % -% % % % % % % -% 3% 97% -% 25% 46% 29% -% -% 25% 46% -% 52% 3% 46% 71% 27% 3% -% 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 2 * - - % % -% -% -% % % -% 1% % -% % % -% -% % % -% -% 100% -% -% -% 47% 53% -% 49% 47% -% 49% 51% -% -% 96% 4% -% -% Orange 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 - * * 1 - * - % -% % -% -% % -% -% % -% -% % -% % % % -% % -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% -% 9% -% -% 82% -% 8% 9% 82% -% 18% -% T-Mobile 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - % % % % % -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% % % -% -% -% 50% 50% 50% 50% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Other 32 13 19 5 2 15 10 2 2 10 4 13 7 9 3 30 1 1 * 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% % 1% 1% j 41% 59% 16% 6% 47% 31% 6% 7% 29% 13% 39% 23% 28% 10% 93% 2% 3% 1% Don't know 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 - - - - 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 % % % 1% 1% % % 1% -% -% -% -% % % % % % 1% 1% o 71% 29% 30% 35% 22% 13% 22% -% -% -% -% 36% 39% 25% 65% 13% 12% 11% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Sky 514 68 74 36 38 41 43 42 27 51 465 49 356 157 247 267 28% 29% 28% 22% 33% 31% 23% 28% 39% 25% 30% 19% 31% 24% 24% 34% c bcfgi k m n 13% 14% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 5% 10% 90% 10% 69% 31% 48% 52% BT 495 75 77 54 17 33 58 37 10 51 370 126 298 195 333 162 27% 32% 29% 32% 15% 26% 32% 25% 15% 25% 24% 49% 26% 30% 33% 21% dh dh dh dh dh dh dh j o 15% 16% 11% 3% 7% 12% 8% 2% 10% 75% 25% 60% 39% 67% 33% Virgin Media (previously NTL/ Telewest) 405 51 54 25 36 35 46 30 22 40 389 15 269 134 191 213 22% 22% 20% 15% 31% 27% 25% 20% 32% 20% 25% 6% 23% 21% 19% 27% bcgi c c bcgi k n 13% 13% 6% 9% 9% 11% 7% 5% 10% 96% 4% 66% 33% 47% 53% Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse 206 20 32 25 11 4 17 19 7 35 178 28 115 89 126 80 11% 9% 12% 15% 10% 3% 9% 13% 11% 17% 11% 11% 10% 14% 12% 10% e e e e e e aef l 10% 15% 12% 5% 2% 8% 9% 4% 17% 86% 14% 56% 43% 61% 39% Plusnet 65 - 19 12 5 9 3 7 4 46 19 35 29 50 15 4% -% 7% 7% 5% 7% 2% 5% % 2% 3% 7% 3% 5% 5% 2% afhi afhi ah afh ah j o -% 30% 19% 8% 14% 5% 11% % 7% 71% 29% 54% 46% 77% 23% EE 59 6 4 8 5 5 3 5 1 15 50 9 41 19 34 25 3% 3% 2% 5% 4% 4% 2% 3% 1% 8% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% h abfh 10% 7% 14% 8% 8% 6% 9% 1% 26% 85% 15% 68% 32% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Vodafone 9 7 - - - - - 1 - - 9 * 7 2 5 3 % 3% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% 1% % 1% % 1% % bcdfhi 82% -% -% -% -% -% 16% -% -% 99% 1% 82% 18% 64% 36% KComm 6 - - - - - - 6 - - 6 - 4 2 6 - % -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% -% -% % -% % % 1% -% abcdefhi o -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 67% 33% 100% -% Post Office 4 - - - - - 1 1 - 1 4 1 2 2 3 1 % -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% -% % % % % % % % -% -% -% -% -% 24% 22% -% 12% 82% 18% 46% 54% 72% 28% AOL 3 - - 2 1 1 - - - - 2 2 2 1 2 2 % -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% % 1% % % % % -% -% 53% 23% 24% -% -% -% -% 50% 50% 77% 23% 50% 50% Tesco 3 1 - - - - 1 - - - 3 * 3 * 1 2 % % -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % % 25% -% -% -% -% 46% -% -% -% 97% 3% 97% 3% 46% 54% '3' 2 - - - - - - - - 2 2 * 1 1 - 2 % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % % % % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 96% 96% 4% 47% 53% -% 100% Orange 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 * 1 - 1 * % -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% % % % -% % % -% -% 82% -% -% -% -% -% -% 82% 18% 100% -% 82% 18% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% T-Mobile 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% % -% -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other 32 4 6 4 2 3 8 1 1 - 25 7 17 15 20 12 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 1% 2% -% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% i gi 14% 17% 12% 6% 11% 26% 3% 4% -% 78% 22% 53% 47% 62% 38% Don't know 5 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 4 1 3 3 2 3 % -% % -% 1% -% 1% -% -% -% % 1% % % % % -% 22% -% 16% -% 26% -% -% -% 74% 26% 50% 50% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp1. Showcard During An Average Week, On How Many Days Do You Listen To The Radio (Including Listening At Home, In The Car, At Work, Via Mobile Phone, Personal Stereo)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 7 days a week (7.0) 1152 582 570 102 163 395 493 111 114 150 302 337 311 273 230 962 92 76 22 43% 45% 41% 28% 35% 43% 53% 35% 44% 42% 52% 47% 43% 47% 35% 43% 39% 57% 30% cd cde g ghi n n n r r opr 51% 49% 9% 14% 34% 43% 10% 10% 13% 26% 29% 27% 24% 20% 84% 8% 7% 2% 6 days a week (6.0) 82 45 37 3 11 36 32 5 7 10 20 24 21 20 17 65 10 4 3 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% c c 55% 45% 4% 14% 44% 38% 6% 8% 13% 24% 29% 26% 25% 21% 79% 12% 5% 4% 5 days a week (5.0) 225 113 112 33 40 97 55 15 17 40 67 60 65 48 51 183 26 7 9 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 11% 6% 5% 6% 11% 11% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 11% 5% 13% f f gh gh q oq 50% 50% 15% 18% 43% 24% 7% 7% 18% 30% 27% 29% 22% 23% 81% 12% 3% 4% 3 or 4 days a week (3.5) 222 95 127 46 39 76 61 22 17 28 49 66 57 49 50 187 18 7 10 8% 7% 9% 13% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 5% 13% ef q opq 43% 57% 21% 18% 34% 28% 10% 8% 12% 22% 30% 25% 22% 22% 84% 8% 3% 4% 1 or 2 days a week (1.5) 220 101 119 32 40 75 73 40 28 33 40 60 63 41 56 185 23 9 3 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 12% 11% 9% 7% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 10% 7% 4% j r r 46% 54% 14% 18% 34% 33% 18% 13% 15% 18% 27% 29% 19% 25% 84% 11% 4% 1% Less often (0.5) 141 67 74 19 28 49 45 19 10 16 26 38 37 32 34 116 14 6 5 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4% 7% 48% 52% 14% 20% 35% 32% 13% 7% 12% 18% 27% 26% 23% 24% 82% 10% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp1. Showcard During An Average Week, On How Many Days Do You Listen To The Radio (Including Listening At Home, In The Car, At Work, Via Mobile Phone, Personal Stereo)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Never/ do not listen to the radio (0.0) 630 297 333 129 146 187 168 104 67 81 80 127 165 116 222 536 50 24 21 24% 23% 24% 35% 31% 20% 18% 33% 26% 23% 14% 18% 23% 20% 34% 24% 21% 18% 28% ef ef ij j j k klm q pq 47% 53% 20% 23% 30% 27% 17% 11% 13% 13% 20% 26% 18% 35% 85% 8% 4% 3% Don't know 3 1 2 1 * 1 1 - * - - 1 * 1 2 * - * % % % % % % % % -% % -% -% % % % % % -% 1% o 18% 82% 4% 48% 11% 37% 45% -% 3% -% -% 48% 11% 41% 75% 8% -% 17% Mean number of days during an average week 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.3 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.8 3.6 cd cde g g ghi ln n n r r opr Standard deviation 3.01 3.00 3.01 2.95 3.06 2.93 2.94 3.09 3.07 2.96 2.73 2.89 3.00 2.95 3.09 3.01 2.94 2.95 2.94 Standard error .05 .07 .07 .13 .12 .09 .08 .13 .15 .14 .11 .10 .09 .10 .10 .06 .13 .13 .13 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 7 days a week (7.0) 1152 63 209 114 82 92 101 107 55 140 972 181 682 466 706 446 43% 19% 58% 50% 44% 39% 41% 47% 48% 46% 42% 50% 44% 42% 49% 36% adefghi ae a a a a ae a j o 5% 18% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 5% 12% 84% 16% 59% 40% 61% 39% 6 days a week (6.0) 82 10 6 18 3 11 8 2 3 4 63 19 44 38 58 25 3% 3% 2% 8% 2% 5% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% abdfghi gi j o 13% 7% 22% 4% 13% 9% 2% 3% 5% 77% 23% 53% 46% 70% 30% 5 days a week (5.0) 225 25 26 19 16 23 14 17 8 35 205 20 166 58 120 105 8% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 6% 8% 7% 11% 9% 5% 11% 5% 8% 9% f k m 11% 12% 8% 7% 10% 6% 8% 4% 15% 91% 9% 74% 26% 53% 47% 3 or 4 days a week (3.5) 222 29 32 10 22 26 21 22 9 15 196 26 133 88 111 111 8% 9% 9% 4% 12% 11% 9% 10% 8% 5% 8% 7% 9% 8% 8% 9% ci ci c 13% 15% 5% 10% 12% 10% 10% 4% 7% 88% 12% 60% 40% 50% 50% 1 or 2 days a week (1.5) 220 26 22 20 20 12 31 21 10 23 190 30 112 108 125 95 8% 8% 6% 9% 11% 5% 13% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 10% 9% 8% e be l 12% 10% 9% 9% 5% 14% 9% 5% 11% 87% 13% 51% 49% 57% 43% Less often (0.5) 141 32 15 13 8 12 12 13 1 9 119 22 77 63 74 66 5% 9% 4% 6% 4% 5% 5% 6% 1% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% bdhi h h h h h h 23% 11% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 1% 6% 84% 16% 54% 45% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Never/ do not listen to the radio (0.0) 630 153 48 33 36 61 57 44 27 75 569 61 337 291 247 383 24% 45% 13% 15% 19% 26% 23% 20% 24% 25% 25% 17% 22% 26% 17% 31% bcdefghi bc bc bc bc k l n 24% 8% 5% 6% 10% 9% 7% 4% 12% 90% 10% 53% 46% 39% 61% Don't know 3 - 1 - - - - - - 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 % -% % -% -% -% -% -% -% % % % % % % % -% 35% -% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 52% 48% 59% 41% 52% 48% Mean number of days during an average week 4.1 2.3 5.0 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.5 adefghi adef a a a a a a j m o Standard deviation 3.01 2.82 2.74 2.84 2.90 2.98 3.02 2.97 3.01 3.03 3.01 2.92 2.95 3.07 2.89 3.06 Standard error .05 .18 .17 .18 .18 .19 .20 .19 .19 .19 .06 .09 .07 .07 .07 .07 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2832 \| 1368 \| 1464 \| 326 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1922 \| 933 \| 990 \| 217 \| \| Total \| 2042 \| 1003 \| 1039 \| 236 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 12% \| 16% \| 36% \| \| Every day \| 163 \| 82 \| 81 \| 11 \| \| 8% \| 8% \| 8% \| 5% \| 3% \| \| cde \| ij \| l \| \| \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 7% \| 6% \| 26% \| \| At least weekly \| 141 \| 72 \| 69 \| 15 \| \| 7% \| 7% \| 7% \| 7% \| 6% \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 11% \| 14% \| 36% \| \| At least monthly \| 58 \| 34 \| 24 \| 6 \| \| 3% \| 3% \| 2% \| 2% \| 4% \| \| opq \| \| \| \| \| \| 58% \| 42% \| 10% \| 22% \| 30% \| \| Have tried it once \| 72 \| 34 \| 38 \| 5 \| \| 4% \| 3% \| 4% \| 2% \| 3% \| \| g \| g \| l \| opr \| \| \| 47% \| 53% \| 7% \| 15% \| 40% \| \| EVER \| 434 \| 221 \| 212 \| 37 \| \| 21% \| 22% \| 20% \| 16% \| 17% \| \| cde \| i \| i \| p \| p \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 9% \| 12% \| 32% \| \| Never \| 1172 \| 564 \| 607 \| 135 \| \| 57% \| 56% \| 58% \| 57% \| 57% \| \| f \| h \| oq \| oq \| \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 12% \| 16% \| 38% \| \| Do not have access to device \| 437 \| 218 \| 219 \| 63 \| \| 21% \| 22% \| 21% \| 27% \| 26% \| \| ef \| ef \| k \| pqr \| r \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 14% \| 19% \| 33% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 163 12 26 12 17 26 14 17 10 6 130 33 70 92 85 78 8% 6% 8% 6% 11% 15% 8% 10% 11% 3% 7% 11% 6% 11% 7% 9% i i abcfi i i i j l 7% 16% 7% 10% 16% 9% 11% 6% 4% 80% 20% 43% 57% 52% 48% At least weekly 141 41 18 13 8 13 8 15 5 3 122 19 92 48 81 60 7% 22% 6% 7% 5% 7% 4% 8% 6% 1% 7% 6% 8% 6% 7% 7% bcdefghi i i i i i 29% 13% 10% 5% 9% 6% 11% 4% 2% 86% 14% 66% 34% 57% 43% At least monthly 58 10 6 6 3 9 4 3 2 4 52 6 37 21 35 23 3% 6% 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 18% 11% 10% 5% 16% 7% 6% 3% 7% 89% 11% 64% 36% 60% 40% Have tried it once 72 11 7 8 5 5 1 7 14 63 10 42 30 49 23 4% 6% 2% 4% 3% 3% % 4% 1% 6% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% fh fh f fh fh 16% 10% 10% 7% 7% 1% 9% 1% 19% 87% 13% 58% 42% 68% 32% EVER 434 75 57 39 32 53 27 43 17 27 366 68 242 192 250 184 21% 40% 18% 20% 21% 30% 14% 24% 20% 12% 21% 23% 20% 23% 21% 22% bcdfghi i i bcdfhi fi i 17% 13% 9% 7% 12% 6% 10% 4% 6% 84% 16% 56% 44% 58% 42% Never 1172 70 198 125 87 98 102 74 56 129 967 205 704 460 691 480 57% 38% 64% 65% 57% 56% 54% 41% 65% 57% 55% 69% 58% 56% 58% 57% ag afg ag ag ag afg ag j 6% 17% 11% 7% 8% 9% 6% 5% 11% 83% 17% 60% 39% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 437 40 56 30 33 25 58 65 13 70 412 25 267 169 253 184 21% 21% 18% 16% 22% 14% 31% 36% 15% 31% 24% 8% 22% 21% 21% 22% bcdeh abcdeh bcdeh k 9% 13% 7% 8% 6% 13% 15% 3% 16% 94% 6% 61% 39% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio \| GENDER \| AGE GROUP \| HOUSEHOLD INCOME \| SOCIAL GROUP \| NATION \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------\|--------------------\|----------------\|----------\| \| UNDER \| £11.5K- \| £17.5K- \| ENG \| \| \| Total \| MALE \| FEMALE \| 16-24 \| 25-34 \| \| SCOT \| \| \| \| \| \| LAND \| WALES \| NI \| \| \| \| Significance Level: 95% \| a \| b \| c \| d \| \| Unweighted total \| 2832 \| 1368 \| 1464 \| 326 \| \| Effective Weighted Sample \| 1922 \| 933 \| 990 \| 217 \| \| Total \| 2042 \| 1003 \| 1039 \| 236 \| \| 49% \| 51% \| 12% \| 16% \| 36% \| \| Every day \| 478 \| 237 \| 241 \| 35 \| \| 23% \| 24% \| 23% \| 15% \| 17% \| \| cde \| hij \| j \| j \| kl \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 7% \| 11% \| 30% \| \| At least weekly \| 269 \| 136 \| 133 \| 28 \| \| 13% \| 14% \| 13% \| 12% \| 14% \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 10% \| 17% \| 36% \| \| At least monthly \| 99 \| 53 \| 46 \| 10 \| \| 5% \| 5% \| 4% \| 4% \| 6% \| \| o \| \| \| \| \| \| 54% \| 46% \| 10% \| 19% \| 30% \| \| Have tried it once \| 87 \| 40 \| 47 \| 8 \| \| 4% \| 4% \| 5% \| 3% \| 4% \| \| g \| n \| n \| p \| \| \| 46% \| 54% \| 9% \| 16% \| 39% \| \| EVER \| 933 \| 466 \| 468 \| 80 \| \| 46% \| 46% \| 45% \| 34% \| 41% \| \| c \| cde \| ij \| k \| p \| \| 50% \| 50% \| 9% \| 14% \| 33% \| \| Never \| 800 \| 381 \| 419 \| 98 \| \| 39% \| 38% \| 40% \| 42% \| 38% \| \| f \| f \| gh \| lmn \| oq \| \| 48% \| 52% \| 12% \| 15% \| 40% \| \| Do not have access to device \| 309 \| 157 \| 152 \| 57 \| \| 15% \| 16% \| 15% \| 24% \| 21% \| \| ef \| ef \| g \| k \| r \| \| 51% \| 49% \| 19% \| 22% \| 33% \| \| Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r \| \| \| \| \| All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 478 25 77 50 43 42 39 47 18 63 399 79 234 243 290 188 23% 14% 25% 26% 28% 24% 21% 26% 20% 28% 23% 26% 19% 30% 24% 22% a a a a a a l 5% 16% 11% 9% 9% 8% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 49% 51% 61% 39% At least weekly 269 39 30 24 15 24 20 26 17 31 235 34 163 105 138 131 13% 21% 10% 12% 10% 14% 11% 14% 19% 14% 13% 11% 13% 13% 12% 15% bcdf bdf n 15% 11% 9% 6% 9% 8% 9% 6% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 51% 49% At least monthly 99 19 10 11 6 8 11 4 2 9 92 7 57 42 62 37 5% 10% 3% 6% 4% 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 4% bdeghi k 19% 11% 12% 6% 8% 11% 4% 3% 9% 93% 7% 58% 42% 62% 38% Have tried it once 87 13 4 20 5 6 4 4 1 15 72 15 54 32 66 21 4% 7% 1% 10% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 7% 4% 5% 4% 4% 6% 2% bfgh bdefgh bfgh o 15% 5% 23% 5% 7% 4% 5% 1% 18% 83% 17% 62% 37% 76% 24% EVER 933 97 121 105 68 80 74 81 38 118 799 134 508 422 556 377 46% 53% 39% 54% 45% 45% 40% 45% 44% 53% 46% 45% 42% 51% 47% 44% bf bf bf l 10% 13% 11% 7% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 86% 14% 54% 45% 60% 40% Never 800 56 139 76 62 73 77 60 40 63 653 147 498 298 470 331 39% 30% 45% 39% 41% 42% 41% 33% 47% 28% 37% 49% 41% 36% 39% 39% agi i i ai i agi j m 7% 17% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 8% 82% 18% 62% 37% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 309 32 50 13 22 23 36 40 8 45 292 16 207 101 169 140 15% 17% 16% 7% 14% 13% 19% 22% 9% 20% 17% 5% 17% 12% 14% 16% ch c c c ch ceh ch k m 10% 16% 4% 7% 8% 12% 13% 3% 14% 95% 5% 67% 33% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Mobile Phone. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 59 33 26 15 9 30 5 6 6 3 19 16 14 13 16 53 3 2 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 4% 1% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% df f f r 56% 44% 26% 15% 51% 9% 10% 10% 6% 32% 27% 24% 22% 27% 90% 6% 4% % At least weekly 142 70 72 35 34 58 15 12 15 15 54 41 41 34 26 128 9 3 2 7% 7% 7% 15% 11% 8% 2% 6% 8% 5% 11% 7% 7% 7% 6% 8% 5% 3% 4% ef f f gi qr 49% 51% 25% 24% 41% 10% 8% 10% 10% 38% 29% 29% 24% 18% 90% 6% 2% 1% At least monthly 125 68 57 27 36 52 9 12 8 16 38 38 38 26 23 109 9 4 3 6% 7% 5% 11% 11% 7% 1% 6% 4% 6% 8% 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 3% 5% f ef f 54% 46% 21% 29% 42% 8% 10% 6% 13% 30% 30% 30% 21% 18% 88% 7% 3% 2% Have tried it once 107 65 42 22 25 45 15 5 2 8 44 36 34 22 15 93 7 3 3 5% 6% 4% 9% 8% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3% 9% 6% 6% 5% 3% 5% 4% 3% 6% b f f f ghi 61% 39% 21% 23% 42% 14% 5% 2% 7% 41% 34% 31% 21% 14% 87% 7% 3% 3% EVER 433 235 197 99 104 185 45 35 30 42 154 131 127 96 80 383 29 13 8 21% 23% 19% 42% 32% 25% 6% 16% 15% 15% 31% 22% 23% 21% 18% 23% 16% 12% 15% b def ef f ghi pqr 54% 46% 23% 24% 43% 10% 8% 7% 10% 36% 30% 29% 22% 18% 89% 7% 3% 2% Never 1413 666 746 131 202 496 584 147 134 208 331 412 379 322 298 1152 136 80 45 69% 66% 72% 55% 63% 68% 77% 70% 69% 75% 66% 70% 69% 69% 68% 68% 74% 74% 85% a c cde j o opq 47% 53% 9% 14% 35% 41% 10% 9% 15% 23% 29% 27% 23% 21% 82% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 197 102 95 6 16 47 129 30 30 27 18 43 48 47 60 163 18 16 10% 10% 9% 2% 5% 6% 17% 14% 15% 10% 4% 7% 9% 10% 14% 10% 10% 15% 1% c cde j j j kl r r or 52% 48% 3% 8% 24% 66% 15% 15% 14% 9% 22% 24% 24% 30% 83% 9% 8% % Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2C (QP11C). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Mobile phone. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 59 8 9 1 9 2 10 6 5 5 52 8 44 15 30 29 3% 4% 3% % 6% 1% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% c ce ce c ce m 13% 15% 2% 16% 3% 16% 10% 8% 8% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% At least weekly 142 38 15 14 11 5 16 15 3 10 130 12 102 40 75 67 7% 20% 5% 7% 7% 3% 9% 8% 4% 5% 7% 4% 8% 5% 6% 8% bcdefghi e e e e k m 27% 11% 10% 8% 3% 11% 11% 2% 7% 91% 9% 72% 28% 53% 47% At least monthly 125 29 15 10 13 8 13 6 3 13 110 14 92 32 76 48 6% 16% 5% 5% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 6% 6% 5% 8% 4% 6% 6% bcefghi gh m 23% 12% 8% 10% 7% 10% 5% 2% 10% 89% 11% 74% 26% 61% 39% Have tried it once 107 7 23 11 6 9 8 11 5 14 97 10 85 22 72 35 5% 4% 7% 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 3% 7% 3% 6% 4% m 6% 21% 10% 5% 9% 8% 10% 4% 13% 91% 9% 79% 21% 67% 33% EVER 433 81 61 36 39 24 47 38 15 42 389 44 322 110 252 180 21% 44% 20% 19% 25% 14% 25% 21% 18% 19% 22% 15% 27% 13% 21% 21% bcdefghi e e k m 19% 14% 8% 9% 6% 11% 9% 4% 10% 90% 10% 75% 25% 58% 42% Never 1413 96 218 143 102 126 132 112 64 158 1177 236 822 582 839 574 69% 52% 70% 74% 67% 72% 71% 62% 75% 70% 67% 79% 68% 71% 70% 68% a ag a a a ag a j 7% 15% 10% 7% 9% 9% 8% 5% 11% 83% 17% 58% 41% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Mobile Phone. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 197 7 31 15 12 26 8 31 7 25 180 18 68 129 103 94 10% 4% 10% 8% 8% 15% 4% 17% 8% 11% 10% 6% 6% 16% 9% 11% af acdfh abcdfh af k l 4% 16% 8% 6% 13% 4% 16% 3% 13% 91% 9% 35% 65% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2D (Qp11D). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through Tv. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 97 42 54 10 8 39 39 12 13 14 16 18 32 18 28 86 5 4 1 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 7% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 6% 5% 3% 3% 2% j k k r 44% 56% 11% 8% 41% 40% 13% 14% 15% 17% 18% 33% 18% 29% 89% 6% 4% 1% At least weekly 198 96 103 29 36 66 67 23 22 26 52 50 46 57 45 166 18 9 4 10% 10% 10% 12% 11% 9% 9% 11% 12% 9% 10% 9% 8% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% l 48% 52% 15% 18% 33% 34% 12% 11% 13% 26% 25% 23% 29% 23% 84% 9% 5% 2% At least monthly 151 78 72 22 23 57 49 9 20 17 52 51 46 40 15 133 11 5 1 7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 8% 6% 4% 10% 6% 10% 9% 8% 9% 3% 8% 6% 5% 2% g g n n n r r 52% 48% 15% 15% 38% 33% 6% 13% 11% 34% 34% 30% 26% 10% 88% 7% 3% 1% Have tried it once 173 97 76 20 28 62 64 8 6 12 73 62 50 37 24 161 6 6 1 8% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 8% 4% 3% 4% 14% 11% 9% 8% 6% 9% 3% 6% 2% ghi n n pqr r 56% 44% 11% 16% 36% 37% 4% 3% 7% 42% 36% 29% 21% 14% 93% 3% 3% % EVER 619 313 306 81 96 224 218 52 61 69 193 182 174 150 112 547 40 24 8 30% 31% 29% 35% 30% 31% 29% 25% 31% 25% 38% 31% 31% 32% 26% 32% 22% 22% 15% gi n n pqr r r 51% 49% 13% 15% 36% 35% 8% 10% 11% 31% 29% 28% 24% 18% 88% 7% 4% 1% Never 1254 599 655 140 203 451 461 137 110 180 296 371 335 276 272 1013 127 70 44 61% 60% 63% 59% 63% 62% 61% 65% 57% 65% 59% 63% 60% 59% 62% 60% 69% 65% 83% o opq 48% 52% 11% 16% 36% 37% 11% 9% 14% 24% 30% 27% 22% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 169 91 78 14 23 53 78 23 23 27 14 32 45 38 53 138 16 14 1 8% 9% 8% 6% 7% 7% 10% 11% 12% 10% 3% 6% 8% 8% 12% 8% 9% 13% 3% e j j j klm r r or 54% 46% 8% 14% 31% 46% 14% 13% 16% 9% 19% 27% 22% 32% 82% 9% 8% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2D (QP11D). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Digital radio through TV. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 97 3 17 14 7 10 9 4 7 15 79 18 52 45 50 47 5% 2% 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 2% 8% 7% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% ag ag ag 3% 17% 14% 7% 10% 9% 5% 7% 16% 82% 18% 54% 46% 52% 48% At least weekly 198 15 26 23 13 15 25 23 5 21 170 28 115 82 129 69 10% 8% 8% 12% 8% 9% 13% 12% 6% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 8% h o 8% 13% 12% 6% 8% 12% 11% 3% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 65% 35% At least monthly 151 20 26 11 9 15 17 16 5 14 129 22 93 58 93 58 7% 11% 8% 5% 6% 8% 9% 9% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 13% 17% 7% 6% 10% 12% 10% 3% 9% 86% 14% 61% 39% 62% 38% Have tried it once 173 21 38 29 12 20 11 6 7 18 147 26 117 56 115 58 8% 11% 12% 15% 8% 11% 6% 3% 8% 8% 8% 9% 10% 7% 10% 7% g fg dfgi g g m o 12% 22% 16% 7% 12% 6% 4% 4% 10% 85% 15% 68% 32% 66% 34% EVER 619 59 106 76 41 60 62 49 25 69 525 94 377 241 387 232 30% 32% 34% 39% 27% 34% 33% 27% 29% 30% 30% 32% 31% 29% 32% 27% dgh o 10% 17% 12% 7% 10% 10% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 61% 39% 63% 37% Never 1254 99 195 114 99 94 117 97 58 140 1063 191 750 497 727 527 61% 54% 63% 59% 65% 53% 63% 53% 68% 62% 61% 64% 62% 61% 61% 62% aeg aeg 8% 16% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 5% 11% 85% 15% 60% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 169 27 9 4 12 23 8 36 3 17 156 13 86 82 80 89 8% 14% 3% 2% 8% 13% 4% 20% 4% 7% 9% 4% 7% 10% 7% 10% bcfh bc bcfh bcdfhi c k l n 16% 5% 2% 7% 14% 5% 21% 2% 10% 92% 8% 51% 49% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 59 30 29 7 8 27 17 1 4 9 20 28 12 10 8 53 2 4 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% g g lmn r 51% 49% 11% 14% 47% 29% 2% 7% 16% 34% 48% 21% 17% 14% 90% 3% 6% 1% At least weekly 129 70 60 25 26 51 27 7 13 15 50 54 30 22 24 121 4 3 1 6% 7% 6% 10% 8% 7% 4% 3% 6% 6% 10% 9% 5% 5% 6% 7% 2% 3% 2% f f f g lmn pqr 54% 46% 19% 20% 39% 21% 5% 10% 12% 38% 42% 23% 17% 19% 93% 3% 2% 1% At least monthly 114 72 42 22 22 47 23 5 8 10 48 42 37 21 15 98 10 4 3 6% 7% 4% 9% 7% 6% 3% 2% 4% 4% 10% 7% 7% 4% 3% 6% 5% 3% 5% b f f f ghi n n 64% 36% 20% 19% 41% 20% 4% 7% 9% 43% 37% 32% 18% 13% 86% 8% 3% 2% Have tried it once 122 63 59 16 26 45 36 6 5 10 52 39 40 32 12 114 4 3 1 6% 6% 6% 7% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 3% 10% 7% 7% 7% 3% 7% 2% 3% 3% f ghi n n n pqr 52% 48% 13% 21% 37% 29% 5% 4% 8% 43% 31% 32% 27% 10% 93% 3% 3% 1% EVER 425 235 189 69 82 170 103 18 30 45 170 162 118 85 60 386 20 14 5 21% 23% 18% 29% 26% 23% 14% 9% 16% 16% 34% 28% 21% 18% 14% 23% 11% 13% 10% b f f f g g ghi lmn n pqr 55% 45% 16% 19% 40% 24% 4% 7% 11% 40% 38% 28% 20% 14% 91% 5% 3% 1% Never 1382 651 731 150 211 498 522 150 126 200 316 387 373 325 295 1115 141 80 45 68% 65% 70% 64% 66% 68% 69% 71% 65% 72% 63% 66% 67% 70% 67% 66% 77% 74% 85% a j j o o opq 47% 53% 11% 15% 36% 38% 11% 9% 14% 23% 28% 27% 24% 21% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 236 117 119 17 28 60 132 44 37 32 18 36 63 55 83 198 22 14 3 12% 12% 11% 7% 9% 8% 17% 21% 19% 12% 4% 6% 11% 12% 19% 12% 12% 13% 5% cde ij ij j k k klm r r r 49% 51% 7% 12% 25% 56% 19% 16% 14% 8% 15% 26% 23% 35% 84% 9% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 59 5 10 7 4 9 6 6 2 2 42 17 45 14 41 18 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 6% 4% 2% 3% 2% i j m 8% 18% 12% 7% 16% 11% 11% 3% 3% 71% 29% 76% 24% 70% 30% At least weekly 129 12 21 16 16 4 20 18 2 11 106 23 91 38 82 48 6% 6% 7% 8% 11% 2% 11% 10% 3% 5% 6% 8% 8% 5% 7% 6% eh ehi ehi eh m 9% 16% 13% 12% 3% 15% 14% 2% 8% 82% 18% 71% 29% 63% 37% At least monthly 114 20 19 12 8 6 11 10 3 9 98 16 75 39 70 44 6% 11% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 6% 3% 4% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% ehi 18% 17% 11% 7% 5% 9% 9% 2% 8% 86% 14% 66% 34% 61% 39% Have tried it once 122 17 30 16 10 14 6 6 3 12 110 13 88 35 87 36 6% 9% 10% 8% 6% 8% 3% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4% 7% 4% 7% 4% fg fgh fg m o 14% 24% 13% 8% 11% 5% 5% 3% 10% 90% 10% 72% 28% 71% 29% EVER 425 54 80 52 38 33 43 41 10 33 356 69 299 126 279 145 21% 29% 26% 27% 25% 19% 23% 23% 12% 15% 20% 23% 25% 15% 23% 17% ehi hi hi hi hi h m o 13% 19% 12% 9% 8% 10% 10% 2% 8% 84% 16% 70% 30% 66% 34% Never 1382 100 207 130 99 111 136 100 68 163 1166 215 817 557 799 583 68% 54% 67% 67% 65% 63% 73% 55% 79% 72% 67% 72% 67% 68% 67% 69% ag ag g ag abcdeg ag j 7% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 7% 5% 12% 84% 16% 59% 40% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 236 31 23 11 15 32 8 40 8 29 223 13 97 138 117 119 12% 17% 7% 6% 10% 18% 4% 22% 9% 13% 13% 4% 8% 17% 10% 14% bcf bcdfh bcdfhi cf k l n 13% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3% 17% 3% 12% 94% 6% 41% 59% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 504 258 246 37 67 165 235 34 46 66 154 177 128 121 78 442 27 33 3 25% 26% 24% 16% 21% 23% 31% 16% 24% 24% 31% 30% 23% 26% 18% 26% 15% 30% 5% c cde g g g ln n n pr r pr 51% 49% 7% 13% 33% 47% 7% 9% 13% 31% 35% 25% 24% 16% 88% 5% 6% 1% At least weekly 197 104 93 27 21 80 69 13 17 30 64 72 61 42 22 176 10 9 2 10% 10% 9% 12% 7% 11% 9% 6% 9% 11% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 10% 5% 9% 4% d g n n n pr 53% 47% 14% 11% 41% 35% 7% 9% 15% 32% 37% 31% 21% 11% 89% 5% 5% 1% At least monthly 44 27 18 9 9 13 13 3 3 1 11 16 13 11 5 37 5 1 1 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% % 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 60% 40% 20% 21% 29% 30% 8% 7% 3% 25% 35% 29% 25% 11% 84% 11% 2% 3% Have tried it once 39 18 21 2 5 16 16 3 4 3 9 22 9 6 2 36 1 2 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% % lmn 46% 54% 5% 12% 41% 41% 8% 11% 9% 24% 55% 23% 16% 6% 90% 4% 6% 1% EVER 785 407 378 75 103 274 334 54 70 101 239 286 210 180 108 690 43 45 7 38% 41% 36% 32% 32% 38% 44% 26% 36% 36% 47% 49% 38% 39% 25% 41% 24% 42% 13% cde g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 10% 13% 35% 43% 7% 9% 13% 30% 36% 27% 23% 14% 88% 5% 6% 1% Never 737 359 378 98 128 273 238 77 67 112 153 191 201 164 180 575 89 33 40 36% 36% 36% 42% 40% 37% 31% 36% 35% 41% 30% 33% 36% 35% 41% 34% 48% 31% 75% f f f j k oq opq 49% 51% 13% 17% 37% 32% 10% 9% 15% 21% 26% 27% 22% 24% 78% 12% 5% 5% Do not have access to device 520 237 283 62 90 181 186 81 56 64 112 107 143 120 150 432 51 30 7 25% 24% 27% 26% 28% 25% 25% 38% 29% 23% 22% 18% 26% 26% 34% 25% 28% 27% 12% hij k k klm r r r 46% 54% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 11% 12% 21% 21% 27% 23% 29% 83% 10% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2F (QP11F). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - DAB radio set. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 504 41 122 46 40 34 33 47 18 60 426 78 294 207 336 168 25% 22% 39% 24% 26% 19% 18% 26% 21% 27% 24% 26% 24% 25% 28% 20% acdefghi f o 8% 24% 9% 8% 7% 7% 9% 4% 12% 84% 16% 58% 41% 67% 33% At least weekly 197 38 20 12 20 16 17 27 7 18 172 26 126 71 118 80 10% 21% 6% 6% 13% 9% 9% 15% 8% 8% 10% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% bcefhi bc bchi 19% 10% 6% 10% 8% 9% 14% 4% 9% 87% 13% 64% 36% 60% 40% At least monthly 44 5 5 6 1 4 3 1 1 11 40 4 22 22 31 13 2% 3% 2% 3% % 2% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% d dgh 12% 12% 14% 1% 9% 6% 3% 2% 24% 90% 10% 50% 50% 71% 29% Have tried it once 39 4 6 4 3 4 8 - 1 5 31 8 26 13 27 13 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% -% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% g g g g g 11% 15% 11% 7% 10% 20% -% 2% 14% 79% 21% 66% 34% 67% 33% EVER 785 89 153 69 63 57 61 75 27 95 669 117 469 314 511 274 38% 48% 49% 36% 41% 32% 32% 42% 31% 42% 38% 39% 39% 38% 43% 32% cefh cefh h h h o 11% 20% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 3% 12% 85% 15% 60% 40% 65% 35% Never 737 61 94 87 65 55 83 42 27 61 607 130 450 283 410 327 36% 33% 30% 45% 43% 31% 44% 23% 32% 27% 35% 44% 37% 34% 34% 39% abeghi beghi beghi j n 8% 13% 12% 9% 8% 11% 6% 4% 8% 82% 18% 61% 38% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 520 34 63 38 24 64 44 64 32 70 469 51 295 224 274 246 25% 18% 20% 19% 16% 36% 23% 35% 37% 31% 27% 17% 24% 27% 23% 29% abcdf abcdf abcdf abcd k n 7% 12% 7% 5% 12% 8% 12% 6% 14% 90% 10% 57% 43% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 655 357 298 67 124 274 190 30 57 109 208 202 182 170 101 541 55 42 16 32% 36% 29% 28% 39% 38% 25% 14% 29% 39% 41% 34% 33% 37% 23% 32% 30% 39% 31% b cf cf g gh gh n n n op 54% 46% 10% 19% 42% 29% 5% 9% 17% 32% 31% 28% 26% 15% 83% 8% 6% 2% At least weekly 551 242 309 67 78 195 211 41 68 74 153 160 161 117 112 463 45 24 19 27% 24% 30% 28% 24% 27% 28% 19% 35% 27% 30% 27% 29% 25% 26% 27% 24% 22% 36% a gi g g opq 44% 56% 12% 14% 35% 38% 7% 12% 13% 28% 29% 29% 21% 20% 84% 8% 4% 3% At least monthly 90 48 41 11 19 27 32 9 3 8 19 34 20 21 15 76 5 6 3 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 6% 5% 54% 46% 13% 21% 30% 36% 10% 4% 9% 22% 38% 22% 23% 17% 84% 6% 7% 3% Have tried it once 40 20 20 3 4 15 18 2 4 6 11 16 11 7 6 35 1 3 1 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 51% 49% 8% 10% 38% 44% 6% 11% 16% 27% 40% 27% 17% 16% 88% 3% 8% 2% EVER 1335 668 668 148 225 511 451 81 133 198 392 412 374 315 236 1114 106 76 39 65% 67% 64% 63% 70% 70% 60% 38% 69% 71% 78% 70% 67% 68% 54% 66% 58% 70% 74% f cf g g gh n n n p p op 50% 50% 11% 17% 38% 34% 6% 10% 15% 29% 31% 28% 24% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% Never 465 225 240 57 57 157 194 77 32 48 87 130 108 117 109 384 48 21 12 23% 22% 23% 24% 18% 22% 26% 36% 17% 17% 17% 22% 19% 25% 25% 23% 26% 19% 23% d hij l l 48% 52% 12% 12% 34% 42% 16% 7% 10% 19% 28% 23% 25% 24% 83% 10% 4% 3% Do not have access to device 242 111 131 31 40 60 112 54 29 31 24 43 72 33 93 200 29 11 2 12% 11% 13% 13% 12% 8% 15% 26% 15% 11% 5% 7% 13% 7% 21% 12% 16% 11% 3% e e e hij j j km klm r r r 46% 54% 13% 16% 25% 46% 22% 12% 13% 10% 18% 30% 14% 38% 83% 12% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2G (QP11G) SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - A car radio (FM). (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 655 41 110 77 50 55 56 55 19 78 552 102 485 166 414 240 32% 22% 35% 40% 33% 31% 30% 30% 22% 35% 32% 34% 40% 20% 35% 28% ah ah ah ah m o 6% 17% 12% 8% 8% 9% 8% 3% 12% 84% 16% 74% 25% 63% 37% At least weekly 551 75 94 40 33 53 45 43 23 57 480 71 301 249 324 227 27% 40% 30% 20% 22% 30% 24% 24% 27% 25% 28% 24% 25% 30% 27% 27% cdfghi c c l 14% 17% 7% 6% 10% 8% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 55% 45% 59% 41% At least monthly 90 20 7 14 9 8 6 5 4 2 77 13 45 44 52 37 4% 11% 2% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% befghi bgi i i 22% 8% 16% 10% 9% 7% 5% 4% 3% 85% 15% 50% 49% 58% 42% Have tried it once 40 6 1 9 4 4 - 3 1 7 29 11 21 20 30 10 2% 3% % 4% 3% 2% -% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% bf bfh f bf j o 15% 3% 21% 10% 10% -% 8% 2% 19% 72% 28% 51% 49% 76% 24% EVER 1335 141 212 140 96 120 107 106 47 144 1138 198 852 479 821 514 65% 76% 68% 72% 63% 68% 57% 59% 54% 64% 65% 66% 70% 58% 69% 61% dfghi fh fgh fh m o 11% 16% 10% 7% 9% 8% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 64% 36% 61% 39% Never 465 29 69 44 44 32 55 45 29 37 383 82 260 201 267 198 23% 16% 22% 23% 29% 18% 29% 25% 34% 17% 22% 27% 21% 25% 22% 23% aei aei abcei j 6% 15% 9% 9% 7% 12% 10% 6% 8% 82% 18% 56% 43% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 242 15 29 10 13 24 26 30 10 44 224 18 101 141 107 135 12% 8% 9% 5% 8% 14% 14% 16% 11% 19% 13% 6% 8% 17% 9% 16% c c abcd c abcdh k l n 6% 12% 4% 5% 10% 11% 12% 4% 18% 92% 8% 42% 58% 44% 56% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 172 104 68 15 28 78 52 8 21 28 59 54 45 47 26 140 21 7 4 8% 10% 7% 6% 9% 11% 7% 4% 11% 10% 12% 9% 8% 10% 6% 8% 11% 7% 7% b f g g g n 61% 39% 9% 16% 45% 30% 5% 12% 16% 34% 31% 26% 27% 15% 82% 12% 4% 2% At least weekly 241 121 120 25 32 91 93 10 27 30 84 84 69 46 42 216 14 6 5 12% 12% 12% 11% 10% 13% 12% 5% 14% 11% 17% 14% 12% 10% 10% 13% 7% 6% 10% g g gi mn pq 50% 50% 10% 13% 38% 38% 4% 11% 12% 35% 35% 28% 19% 18% 90% 6% 3% 2% At least monthly 52 30 22 4 14 15 19 2 2 7 14 21 12 11 7 42 4 3 2 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 58% 42% 7% 27% 30% 36% 4% 5% 13% 27% 42% 24% 21% 14% 81% 9% 6% 5% Have tried it once 74 31 43 9 13 30 23 7 8 7 23 27 16 22 9 62 1 9 2 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 5% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1% 9% 3% n n p opr p 42% 58% 12% 18% 40% 31% 9% 11% 10% 31% 37% 22% 29% 12% 83% 2% 13% 2% EVER 539 286 252 52 87 214 186 26 58 72 180 186 143 126 84 460 40 26 13 26% 29% 24% 22% 27% 29% 24% 12% 30% 26% 36% 32% 26% 27% 19% 27% 22% 24% 25% b cf g g gi ln n n 53% 47% 10% 16% 40% 34% 5% 11% 13% 33% 35% 26% 23% 16% 85% 7% 5% 2% Never 1085 520 565 134 161 390 399 115 93 145 252 301 288 257 238 874 107 67 38 53% 52% 54% 57% 50% 54% 53% 54% 48% 52% 50% 51% 52% 55% 54% 51% 58% 62% 71% o o opq 48% 52% 12% 15% 36% 37% 11% 9% 13% 23% 28% 27% 24% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 418 197 221 49 73 124 173 71 42 60 71 98 123 82 116 365 36 15 2 20% 20% 21% 21% 23% 17% 23% 34% 22% 22% 14% 17% 22% 18% 26% 21% 20% 14% 4% e e hij j j k km qr r r 47% 53% 12% 17% 30% 41% 17% 10% 14% 17% 23% 29% 20% 28% 87% 9% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2H (QP11H) SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - A car radio (AM). (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 172 27 31 11 8 14 8 26 4 11 139 33 128 43 101 71 8% 15% 10% 6% 6% 8% 5% 14% 5% 5% 8% 11% 11% 5% 8% 8% cdfhi cdefhi m 16% 18% 7% 5% 8% 5% 15% 2% 6% 81% 19% 75% 25% 59% 41% At least weekly 241 69 44 11 12 21 3 24 8 24 222 19 142 100 128 113 12% 37% 14% 6% 8% 12% 2% 13% 9% 11% 13% 7% 12% 12% 11% 13% bcdefghi cf f f cf cf f f k 28% 18% 5% 5% 9% 1% 10% 3% 10% 92% 8% 59% 41% 53% 47% At least monthly 52 11 4 11 3 1 2 3 4 1 46 6 30 22 28 24 3% 6% 1% 6% 2% % 1% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% befi befi bei 22% 8% 21% 7% 2% 5% 7% 8% 2% 89% 11% 58% 42% 54% 46% Have tried it once 74 17 11 6 5 5 1 4 * 13 63 11 46 28 61 13 4% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3% % 2% % 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 2% bcdefgh fh fh fh o 23% 15% 8% 7% 7% 1% 5% % 18% 85% 15% 63% 37% 82% 18% EVER 539 124 89 39 29 40 15 57 17 49 469 69 346 192 317 222 26% 67% 29% 20% 19% 23% 8% 32% 19% 22% 27% 23% 29% 23% 27% 26% bcdefghi cdfh f f f cdfhi f f m 23% 17% 7% 5% 7% 3% 11% 3% 9% 87% 13% 64% 36% 59% 41% Never 1085 37 185 126 88 96 110 70 54 108 883 202 655 423 653 432 53% 20% 60% 65% 57% 54% 58% 39% 63% 48% 51% 68% 54% 52% 55% 51% agi aegi ag ag ag a agi a j 3% 17% 12% 8% 9% 10% 6% 5% 10% 81% 19% 60% 39% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 418 23 36 29 36 41 63 54 16 68 392 26 211 206 225 194 20% 13% 12% 15% 23% 23% 34% 30% 18% 30% 22% 9% 17% 25% 19% 23% abc abc abcdeh abch abch k l n 6% 9% 7% 9% 10% 15% 13% 4% 16% 94% 6% 50% 49% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 222 135 87 24 27 108 63 6 17 26 91 84 57 57 24 180 21 18 3 11% 13% 8% 10% 8% 15% 8% 3% 9% 9% 18% 14% 10% 12% 6% 11% 12% 17% 5% b df g g ghi n n n r r or 61% 39% 11% 12% 49% 28% 2% 8% 12% 41% 38% 26% 26% 11% 81% 10% 8% 1% At least weekly 119 60 59 13 14 50 41 4 10 22 32 49 30 26 14 94 13 8 4 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 7% 5% 2% 5% 8% 6% 8% 5% 6% 3% 6% 7% 8% 7% g g ln 50% 50% 11% 12% 43% 34% 3% 8% 19% 27% 42% 25% 22% 12% 79% 11% 7% 3% At least monthly 18 8 10 2 3 6 7 1 5 3 6 8 2 2 13 1 2 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% 2% 3% op 45% 55% 9% 18% 31% 41% 3% 6% 26% 14% 33% 44% 12% 12% 75% 6% 10% 9% Have tried it once 23 14 9 2 6 9 6 - 2 7 2 11 6 4 2 21 - 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 2% % 2% 1% 1% % 1% -% 2% % gj n 60% 40% 8% 27% 38% 27% -% 9% 29% 9% 48% 26% 19% 8% 92% -% 7% 1% EVER 382 216 165 40 51 173 117 10 30 59 127 150 101 89 42 309 35 30 8 19% 22% 16% 17% 16% 24% 15% 5% 16% 21% 25% 26% 18% 19% 10% 18% 19% 28% 15% b cdf g g gh lmn n n opr 57% 43% 11% 13% 45% 31% 3% 8% 15% 33% 39% 26% 23% 11% 81% 9% 8% 2% Never 837 398 439 98 129 283 326 97 72 111 163 220 221 198 196 679 86 37 35 41% 40% 42% 42% 40% 39% 43% 46% 37% 40% 32% 38% 40% 43% 45% 40% 47% 34% 66% j j k oq opq 48% 52% 12% 15% 34% 39% 12% 9% 13% 20% 26% 26% 24% 23% 81% 10% 4% 4% Do not have access to device 824 389 435 97 141 272 314 105 91 107 212 215 232 178 200 711 62 41 10 40% 39% 42% 41% 44% 37% 42% 50% 47% 39% 42% 37% 42% 38% 46% 42% 34% 38% 19% i km pr r r 47% 53% 12% 17% 33% 38% 13% 11% 13% 26% 26% 28% 22% 24% 86% 8% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 222 18 30 17 22 15 22 28 12 16 182 40 172 48 155 67 11% 10% 10% 9% 15% 8% 12% 16% 13% 7% 10% 14% 14% 6% 13% 8% i ei i m o 8% 14% 8% 10% 7% 10% 13% 5% 7% 82% 18% 77% 22% 70% 30% At least weekly 119 18 11 12 10 11 8 8 5 11 100 18 74 45 75 43 6% 10% 4% 6% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% b 15% 9% 10% 8% 9% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 62% 38% 63% 37% At least monthly 18 1 1 3 2 2 - 2 1 1 14 3 10 7 12 6 1% % % 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 6% 17% 11% 11% -% 11% 6% 8% 81% 19% 59% 41% 67% 33% Have tried it once 23 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 - 4 16 7 12 11 18 5 1% 4% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% bfh j o 28% 4% 7% 9% 10% 3% 11% -% 19% 70% 30% 54% 46% 78% 22% EVER 382 44 43 34 36 30 30 40 18 33 313 69 269 110 260 121 19% 24% 14% 18% 24% 17% 16% 22% 21% 14% 18% 23% 22% 13% 22% 14% bi bi b j m o 11% 11% 9% 10% 8% 8% 11% 5% 9% 82% 18% 71% 29% 68% 32% Never 837 62 131 98 72 70 88 47 29 82 696 140 485 347 460 376 41% 34% 42% 50% 47% 40% 47% 26% 33% 37% 40% 47% 40% 42% 39% 44% g aeghi aghi g agh g j n 7% 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 6% 3% 10% 83% 17% 58% 42% 55% 45% Do not have access to device 824 79 136 62 44 77 69 94 40 111 736 88 459 363 474 350 40% 43% 44% 32% 29% 43% 37% 52% 46% 49% 42% 30% 38% 44% 40% 41% cd cd cd cdf cd cdf k l 10% 17% 7% 5% 9% 8% 11% 5% 13% 89% 11% 56% 44% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% YES, EVER USED 1306 655 651 151 197 487 471 107 120 173 372 425 352 298 230 1123 96 68 18 64% 65% 63% 64% 61% 67% 62% 50% 62% 62% 74% 73% 64% 64% 52% 66% 53% 63% 34% g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 50% 50% 12% 15% 37% 36% 8% 9% 13% 29% 33% 27% 23% 18% 86% 7% 5% 1% YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY 1214 614 600 139 179 452 443 100 112 162 348 397 325 281 209 1044 91 62 17 59% 61% 58% 59% 56% 62% 59% 47% 58% 59% 69% 68% 59% 61% 48% 61% 49% 58% 33% g g ghi lmn n n pr r r 51% 49% 11% 15% 37% 37% 8% 9% 13% 29% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 7% 5% 1% YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY 1108 570 538 120 157 414 416 89 101 152 323 369 295 250 193 954 81 59 14 54% 57% 52% 51% 49% 57% 55% 42% 52% 55% 64% 63% 53% 54% 44% 56% 44% 55% 26% b d g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 51% 49% 11% 14% 37% 38% 8% 9% 14% 29% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% YES, EVER USED 1306 116 229 133 103 108 123 120 54 138 1110 196 803 498 821 484 64% 63% 74% 68% 68% 61% 66% 66% 62% 61% 64% 66% 66% 61% 69% 57% aehi m o 9% 18% 10% 8% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 62% 38% 63% 37% YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY 1214 110 219 117 96 92 119 116 49 126 1032 181 746 463 768 446 59% 60% 71% 60% 63% 52% 63% 64% 57% 56% 59% 61% 62% 56% 64% 53% acehi e e e m o 9% 18% 10% 8% 8% 10% 10% 4% 10% 85% 15% 61% 38% 63% 37% YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY 1108 101 200 104 89 84 101 110 47 118 939 169 680 423 705 403 54% 54% 65% 54% 58% 48% 54% 61% 54% 52% 54% 57% 56% 51% 59% 48% cefhi e e m o 9% 18% 9% 8% 8% 9% 10% 4% 11% 85% 15% 61% 38% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp3 (Qp16). Showcard In Which Of These Ways Do You Listen To Radio On Your Mobile Phone? (Multi Code) Base : Those who listen to radio via a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 500 268 232 128 114 197 61 52 42 50 137 133 161 101 105 354 50 49 47 Effective Weighted Sample 364 193 171 88 79 154 44 35 30 40 112 99 118 75 75 305 33 31 31 Total 433 235 197 99 104 185 45 35 30 42 154 131 127 96 80 383 29 13 8 54% 46% 23% 24% 43% * 36% 30% 29% 22% 18% 89% Live via a built in FM radio app 233 122 111 52 59 104 89 67 71 54 41 215 54% 52% 56% 52% 57% 56% 58% 51% 56% 57% 51% 56% 52% 48% 22% 25% 44% 38% 29% 30% 23% 18% 92% Live via a station website 172 89 84 40 47 69 69 53 48 41 31 157 40% 38% 42% 40% 45% 37% 45% 41% 38% 43% 39% 41% 52% 48% 23% 27% 40% 40% 31% 28% 24% 18% 91% Via a downloaded app such as RadioPlayer, BBC Radio iPlayer or Tunein 99 62 37 23 21 47 40 36 26 21 16 85 23% 26% 19% 23% 20% 25% 26% 28% 21% 22% 19% 22% 62% 38% 23% 21% 47% 41% 37% 27% 21% 16% 86% Via podcasts 26 18 8 7 4 13 12 15 4 4 3 24 6% 8% 4% 7% 3% 7% 8% 12% 3% 4% 4% 6% l 69% 31% 26% 14% 51% 46% 59% 15% 15% 11% 92% Other ways 2 - 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 2 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 1% -% 100% 58% -% 42% 58% 58% 42% -% -% 100% Don't know 27 20 7 4 7 10 7 9 8 7 4 22 6% 8% 4% 4% 7% 5% 5% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% 72% 28% 14% 26% 37% 27% 33% 28% 25% 14% 82% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp3 (Qp16). Showcard In Which Of These Ways Do You Listen To Radio On Your Mobile Phone? (Multi Code) Base : Those who listen to radio via a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 500 59 37 38 49 25 43 37 29 37 405 95 336 164 247 253 Effective Weighted Sample 364 51 35 37 46 24 41 35 27 33 318 49 254 116 188 186 Total 433 81 61 36 39 24 47 38 15 42 389 44 322 110 252 180 90% 75% 25% 58% 42% Live via a built in FM radio app 233 221 177 56 138 95 54% 57% 55% 51% 55% 53% 95% 76% 24% 59% 41% Live via a station website 172 161 131 42 89 83 40% 41% 41% 38% 35% 46% n 93% 76% 24% 52% 48% Via a downloaded app such as RadioPlayer, BBC Radio iPlayer or Tunein 99 86 77 22 51 48 23% 22% 24% 20% 20% 27% 87% 77% 23% 51% 49% Via podcasts 26 20 20 6 16 10 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 78% 78% 22% 62% 38% Other ways 2 2 2 - 1 1 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 100% 100% -% 58% 42% Don't know 27 21 18 9 16 11 6% 5% 5% 9% 6% 6% 76% 65% 35% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp4 (Qp2). Before Today, Had You Heard Of Digital Radios? Read Out Explanation If Necessary (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 2297 1152 1145 293 396 825 784 241 218 317 538 648 642 502 503 1923 200 111 64 86% 89% 83% 80% 84% 90% 85% 76% 84% 89% 92% 91% 89% 87% 76% 86% 86% 84% 87% b cdf g g gh mn n n 50% 50% 13% 17% 36% 34% 10% 9% 14% 23% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% No 347 133 213 65 65 85 132 70 40 38 44 60 70 70 147 288 31 19 9 13% 10% 16% 18% 14% 9% 14% 22% 15% 11% 8% 8% 10% 12% 22% 13% 13% 14% 12% a e e e hij j k klm 38% 62% 19% 19% 25% 38% 20% 11% 11% 13% 17% 20% 20% 42% 83% 9% 5% 3% Unsure 31 15 16 7 8 5 11 6 3 3 2 4 8 8 11 25 2 3 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% e j 47% 53% 22% 26% 16% 36% 19% 9% 10% 5% 13% 26% 25% 36% 81% 8% 9% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP4 (QP2). Before today, had you heard of digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 2297 247 320 200 160 205 214 199 98 280 1976 321 1378 910 1299 998 86% 73% 89% 88% 85% 86% 87% 88% 86% 93% 85% 89% 89% 82% 90% 81% a a a a a a a adeh j m o 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 60% 40% 57% 43% No 347 87 36 25 28 26 27 23 15 20 310 36 160 185 131 215 13% 26% 10% 11% 15% 11% 11% 10% 14% 7% 13% 10% 10% 17% 9% 17% bcdefghi i i l n 25% 10% 7% 8% 8% 8% 7% 4% 6% 90% 10% 46% 53% 38% 62% Unsure 31 4 3 1 1 6 4 4 2 29 2 13 19 13 18 1% 1% 1% 1% % 3% 2% 2% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% dh 12% 9% 4% 2% 20% 13% 14% 1% 6% 92% 8% 41% 59% 42% 58% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 1 (1.0) 825 424 401 91 116 295 323 76 78 124 198 276 203 188 158 711 63 39 12 31% 33% 29% 25% 25% 32% 35% 24% 30% 35% 34% 39% 28% 32% 24% 32% 27% 30% 16% cd cd g g lmn n r r r 51% 49% 11% 14% 36% 39% 9% 9% 15% 24% 33% 25% 23% 19% 86% 8% 5% 1% 2 (2.0) 180 96 84 19 19 71 71 6 15 28 71 63 64 39 15 161 6 11 2 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 8% 8% 2% 6% 8% 12% 9% 9% 7% 2% 7% 3% 8% 2% d d g g gh n n n pr pr 53% 47% 10% 11% 39% 40% 3% 8% 16% 39% 35% 35% 21% 8% 90% 3% 6% 1% 3 or more (3.0) 61 32 29 10 6 17 28 4 5 5 23 29 13 11 8 54 2 5 * 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% gi lmn r pr 53% 47% 17% 10% 27% 46% 7% 8% 8% 37% 48% 21% 17% 13% 89% 3% 7% 1% ANY DAB SETS 1067 553 514 120 141 382 423 86 97 158 291 368 280 237 181 926 71 55 14 40% 42% 37% 33% 30% 42% 46% 27% 37% 44% 50% 52% 39% 41% 27% 41% 31% 42% 19% b cd cd g g gh lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 11% 13% 36% 40% 8% 9% 15% 27% 35% 26% 22% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% None (0.0) 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 59% 56% 61% 64% 69% 57% 53% 72% 61% 55% 49% 47% 60% 57% 72% 57% 67% 56% 78% a f ef hij j k k klm oq opq 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% Don't know 39 18 21 12 6 8 12 2 4 3 4 10 11 11 7 29 5 3 3 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% ef o 46% 54% 32% 17% 20% 31% 6% 10% 7% 9% 26% 28% 28% 18% 74% 12% 7% 7% Mean score .5 .6 .5 .5 .4 .5 .6 .3 .5 .5 .7 .7 .5 .5 .3 .5 .4 .6 .2 b d cd g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr Standard deviation .72 .74 .71 .73 .63 .72 .76 .57 .69 .70 .83 .80 .73 .70 .58 .74 .58 .79 .51 Standard error .01 .02 .02 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .02 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP5 (QP9). How many DAB sets do you have in your household? Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 1 (1.0) 825 87 140 68 74 56 65 63 30 128 700 126 490 331 509 317 31% 26% 39% 30% 39% 23% 27% 28% 26% 42% 30% 35% 32% 30% 35% 26% acefgh acefgh acefgh o 11% 17% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 4% 15% 85% 15% 59% 40% 62% 38% 2 (2.0) 180 19 31 18 14 13 16 24 6 22 154 26 106 74 119 61 7% 6% 9% 8% 7% 5% 6% 11% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% aeh o 11% 17% 10% 8% 7% 9% 13% 3% 12% 86% 14% 59% 41% 66% 34% 3 or more (3.0) 61 1 13 11 4 5 4 6 3 7 47 14 37 24 39 22 2% % 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 2% a a a j 2% 22% 18% 6% 8% 7% 10% 4% 12% 77% 23% 60% 40% 64% 36% ANY DAB SETS 1067 107 184 96 92 73 85 93 38 158 901 166 633 430 667 399 40% 32% 51% 42% 49% 31% 35% 41% 34% 52% 39% 46% 41% 39% 46% 32% aefgh ae aefh ae acefgh j o 10% 17% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% 4% 15% 84% 16% 59% 40% 63% 37% None (0.0) 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 59% 68% 48% 57% 50% 65% 63% 57% 63% 47% 60% 52% 58% 60% 52% 66% bcdgi i bdi bdi i bdi k n 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% Don't know 39 - 2 2 2 9 4 3 3 3 33 6 18 19 25 14 1% -% % 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% abcdi a ab -% 4% 5% 5% 23% 11% 9% 9% 7% 85% 15% 46% 50% 64% 36% Mean score .5 .4 .7 .6 .6 .4 .5 .6 .4 .7 .5 .6 .5 .5 .6 .4 aefh aefh aefh ae aefh j o Standard deviation .72 .61 .78 .83 .71 .69 .70 .79 .71 .73 .71 .79 .73 .72 .76 .67 Standard error .01 .04 .05 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .05 .05 .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% 1 (1.0) 777 397 380 81 108 284 304 68 72 113 191 260 187 181 147 669 58 38 12 38% 40% 37% 34% 34% 39% 40% 32% 37% 41% 38% 45% 34% 39% 34% 39% 32% 35% 22% g ln pr r r 51% 49% 10% 14% 37% 39% 9% 9% 15% 25% 34% 24% 23% 19% 86% 7% 5% 1% 2 (2.0) 176 95 80 18 19 69 70 6 14 26 71 61 63 39 13 157 6 11 2 9% 10% 8% 7% 6% 9% 9% 3% 7% 9% 14% 10% 11% 8% 3% 9% 3% 10% 3% g g gh n n n pr pr 54% 46% 10% 11% 39% 40% 3% 8% 15% 40% 35% 36% 22% 7% 89% 4% 6% 1% 3 or more (3.0) 59 32 26 9 5 17 28 3 5 5 23 29 12 11 7 52 2 5 * 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% % g lmn r pr 55% 45% 16% 8% 28% 48% 5% 8% 8% 39% 50% 20% 18% 12% 89% 3% 8% % ANY DAB SETS 1011 525 487 108 132 369 402 76 91 144 284 351 262 230 167 878 66 54 13 50% 52% 47% 46% 41% 51% 53% 36% 47% 52% 57% 60% 47% 49% 38% 52% 36% 50% 25% b d d g g gh lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 11% 13% 36% 40% 8% 9% 14% 28% 35% 26% 23% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% None (0.0) 1007 468 539 121 186 352 348 133 100 130 216 227 284 227 269 804 113 53 37 49% 47% 52% 51% 58% 48% 46% 63% 52% 47% 43% 39% 51% 49% 61% 47% 62% 49% 71% a ef hij j k k klm oq opq 46% 54% 12% 18% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 21% 23% 28% 23% 27% 80% 11% 5% 4% Don't know 24 11 14 7 4 7 7 2 2 2 3 7 8 7 2 16 5 2 2 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% % 1% 2% 1% 4% ef o o 44% 56% 29% 15% 29% 28% 9% 8% 10% 14% 28% 33% 31% 8% 67% 19% 6% 8% Mean score .6 .7 .6 .6 .5 .7 .7 .4 .6 .7 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .7 .4 .7 .3 b d d g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr Standard deviation .76 .78 .74 .79 .68 .75 .79 .62 .74 .72 .85 .82 .77 .73 .64 .77 .62 .82 .55 Standard error .01 .02 .02 .04 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .03 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% 1 (1.0) 777 84 138 65 70 51 56 61 29 114 659 117 472 301 480 297 38% 46% 45% 33% 46% 29% 30% 34% 34% 51% 38% 39% 39% 37% 40% 35% cefgh cefgh cefgh cefgh o 11% 18% 8% 9% 7% 7% 8% 4% 15% 85% 15% 61% 39% 62% 38% 2 (2.0) 176 19 29 17 14 13 16 24 5 20 150 26 103 73 118 58 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 13% 6% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 10% 7% h o 11% 17% 10% 8% 7% 9% 14% 3% 12% 85% 15% 59% 41% 67% 33% 3 or more (3.0) 59 1 13 10 4 5 4 6 3 6 45 14 35 24 39 19 3% 1% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% a j 2% 22% 17% 6% 8% 7% 10% 4% 11% 76% 24% 59% 41% 67% 33% ANY DAB SETS 1011 105 181 92 87 68 77 91 37 141 854 157 609 398 637 374 50% 57% 58% 47% 57% 39% 41% 50% 43% 62% 49% 53% 50% 48% 53% 44% efh cefh cefh e cefgh o 10% 18% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% 4% 14% 84% 16% 60% 39% 63% 37% None (0.0) 1007 80 128 101 64 104 110 88 48 83 870 137 592 413 542 465 49% 43% 41% 52% 42% 59% 59% 48% 55% 37% 50% 46% 49% 50% 45% 55% bi abdgi abdi i abdi n 8% 13% 10% 6% 10% 11% 9% 5% 8% 86% 14% 59% 41% 54% 46% Don't know 24 - 2 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 21 3 12 10 16 8 1% -% % 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 6% 6% 4% 20% 4% 10% 7% 9% 89% 11% 51% 43% 67% 33% Mean score .6 .7 .8 .7 .7 .5 .5 .7 .6 .8 .6 .7 .7 .6 .7 .6 efh efh ef efh o Standard deviation .76 .68 .79 .84 .73 .75 .75 .83 .75 .73 .75 .82 .76 .77 .78 .72 Standard error .01 .06 .05 .06 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .02 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2341 1077 1264 354 436 707 844 433 258 263 307 380 691 492 775 1315 334 284 408 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 683 820 232 284 465 535 284 162 179 232 265 455 319 479 1109 211 171 300 Total 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% Certain to 10 7 3 * 1 7 2 2 - - 3 3 3 2 2 7 2 1 - 1% 1% % % % 1% % 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% -% 71% 29% 3% 15% 67% 16% 18% -% -% 28% 29% 28% 23% 21% 74% 21% 5% -% Very likely 32 14 18 7 14 10 3 3 7 1 6 8 9 9 28 2 1 1 2% 2% 2% % 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% c c j 44% 56% 1% 23% 44% 31% 10% 10% 22% 4% 19% 25% 28% 27% 88% 7% 3% 2% Likely 105 55 50 16 29 39 21 11 7 16 32 26 32 23 23 85 13 4 2 7% 8% 6% 7% 9% 7% 4% 5% 4% 8% 11% 8% 8% 7% 5% 7% 8% 6% 3% f f gh r r 53% 47% 15% 27% 37% 20% 10% 7% 16% 30% 25% 31% 22% 22% 81% 13% 4% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 147 77 70 17 37 60 33 16 10 23 36 35 43 34 34 121 18 6 2 9% 10% 8% 7% 12% 11% 7% 7% 6% 12% 13% 11% 10% 10% 7% 9% 11% 8% 4% f f gh r r 52% 48% 11% 25% 41% 22% 11% 7% 16% 25% 24% 30% 23% 23% 82% 12% 4% 2% Unlikely 276 137 139 37 55 111 74 36 28 35 71 85 66 57 69 218 30 19 9 18% 19% 17% 16% 17% 21% 15% 16% 18% 18% 24% 25% 15% 17% 15% 17% 19% 26% 16% f g lmn or 50% 50% 13% 20% 40% 27% 13% 10% 13% 26% 31% 24% 21% 25% 79% 11% 7% 3% Very unlikely 377 163 214 58 92 116 110 50 40 39 65 70 108 81 117 289 55 21 11 24% 22% 25% 25% 29% 22% 22% 22% 25% 20% 23% 21% 25% 24% 25% 23% 35% 28% 19% ef or r 43% 57% 16% 24% 31% 29% 13% 11% 10% 17% 18% 29% 21% 31% 77% 15% 6% 3% Certain not to 542 249 293 69 97 167 210 93 63 83 81 107 152 107 177 476 34 20 13 35% 34% 35% 30% 30% 32% 43% 40% 39% 42% 28% 32% 35% 32% 37% 37% 21% 27% 22% cde j j j pqr 46% 54% 13% 18% 31% 39% 17% 12% 15% 15% 20% 28% 20% 33% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2341 1077 1264 354 436 707 844 433 258 263 307 380 691 492 775 1315 334 284 408 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 683 820 232 284 465 535 284 162 179 232 265 455 319 479 1109 211 171 300 Total 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% TOTAL UNLIKELY 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 76% 75% 77% 71% 76% 75% 80% 78% 82% 79% 75% 78% 76% 74% 77% 77% 76% 81% 58% ce r r r 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 227 104 123 51 40 71 64 35 19 17 35 37 60 54 76 177 20 8 22 14% 14% 15% 22% 13% 14% 13% 15% 12% 9% 12% 11% 14% 16% 16% 14% 13% 11% 38% def i opq 46% 54% 23% 18% 31% 28% 15% 8% 8% 16% 16% 26% 24% 33% 78% 9% 4% 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP6 (QP12). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a DAB radio in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2341 166 121 142 133 167 150 154 164 118 1696 645 1121 1213 1003 1338 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 150 115 136 122 154 142 139 151 107 1272 255 755 787 647 873 Total 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% Certain to 10 - 4 - 2 1 - - 1 9 * 6 4 6 4 1% -% 2% -% 2% 1% -% -% % 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % -% 36% -% 16% 9% -% -% 2% 11% 96% 4% 60% 40% 60% 40% Very likely 32 4 1 5 4 5 5 - 2 2 27 5 21 11 15 17 2% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% -% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% g g g g g 12% 5% 14% 12% 16% 16% -% 7% 7% 83% 17% 64% 36% 47% 53% Likely 105 17 13 7 4 16 13 6 4 5 95 10 68 37 47 58 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 10% 9% 5% 5% 3% 7% 5% 8% 6% 6% 7% i 16% 12% 7% 4% 15% 13% 6% 4% 5% 90% 10% 65% 35% 45% 55% TOTAL LIKELY 147 21 18 12 10 22 18 6 6 8 131 16 95 52 68 79 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 14% 12% 5% 9% 6% 9% 9% 11% 8% 9% 10% gi g 14% 12% 8% 7% 15% 13% 4% 4% 5% 89% 11% 64% 36% 46% 54% Unlikely 276 49 31 25 12 17 35 13 6 30 248 29 169 106 160 116 18% 21% 18% 20% 13% 11% 23% 10% 8% 21% 18% 15% 19% 16% 21% 14% egh h egh degh egh o 18% 11% 9% 4% 6% 13% 5% 2% 11% 90% 10% 61% 38% 58% 42% Very unlikely 377 77 28 29 20 32 39 25 17 22 325 52 226 149 166 210 24% 33% 16% 23% 21% 21% 25% 19% 24% 16% 24% 27% 25% 22% 22% 26% bdegi 20% 7% 8% 5% 8% 10% 7% 5% 6% 86% 14% 60% 40% 44% 56% Certain not to 542 60 90 47 37 48 50 55 32 55 468 74 269 272 253 289 35% 26% 52% 37% 38% 31% 32% 43% 45% 39% 34% 40% 30% 41% 34% 35% acdef a ae aef a l 11% 17% 9% 7% 9% 9% 10% 6% 10% 86% 14% 50% 50% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP6 (QP12). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a DAB radio in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2341 166 121 142 133 167 150 154 164 118 1696 645 1121 1213 1003 1338 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 150 115 136 122 154 142 139 151 107 1272 255 755 787 647 873 Total 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% TOTAL UNLIKELY 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 76% 80% 86% 79% 72% 63% 80% 72% 77% 76% 75% 82% 74% 79% 77% 75% e degi e e e e j l 16% 12% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 5% 9% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Don't know 227 24 6 15 17 35 12 30 10 26 210 17 142 85 104 123 14% 11% 4% 12% 18% 23% 8% 23% 14% 18% 15% 9% 16% 13% 14% 15% b b bf abcfh abcfh b bf k 11% 3% 7% 7% 16% 5% 13% 4% 12% 92% 8% 62% 37% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1593 737 856 195 275 495 628 271 173 184 250 293 485 343 470 870 236 212 275 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 476 554 128 183 334 391 168 106 127 187 200 319 231 291 745 152 128 198 Total 1057 498 559 125 196 368 368 141 101 136 229 244 300 237 275 848 116 55 39 47% 53% 12% 19% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 22% 23% 28% 22% 26% 80% 11% 5% 4% Certain to 7 4 3 - 1 4 2 1 - - 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 1 - 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% % 1% -% -% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 62% 38% -% 20% 59% 21% 20% -% -% 7% 11% 31% 30% 28% 68% 25% 7% -% Very likely 31 16 15 1 7 12 10 3 2 8 2 4 9 9 8 28 2 1 * 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 6% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% j 51% 49% 4% 24% 38% 33% 9% 8% 26% 5% 13% 30% 30% 27% 91% 5% 3% 1% Likely 96 53 43 15 20 39 22 8 7 15 29 24 30 21 21 78 11 5 2 9% 11% 8% 12% 10% 11% 6% 6% 7% 11% 13% 10% 10% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% f f g r 55% 45% 16% 21% 41% 22% 8% 7% 16% 30% 25% 31% 22% 22% 81% 12% 5% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 134 73 61 16 29 55 33 12 9 23 31 29 41 32 31 111 15 6 2 13% 15% 11% 13% 15% 15% 9% 9% 9% 17% 14% 12% 14% 14% 11% 13% 13% 11% 6% f f g r r 55% 45% 12% 22% 41% 25% 9% 7% 17% 23% 22% 31% 24% 23% 83% 11% 4% 2% Unlikely 206 104 103 19 39 81 68 24 18 27 64 60 55 47 43 162 21 15 8 20% 21% 18% 15% 20% 22% 18% 17% 18% 20% 28% 25% 18% 20% 16% 19% 18% 28% 20% gh n op 50% 50% 9% 19% 39% 33% 12% 9% 13% 31% 29% 27% 23% 21% 79% 10% 7% 4% Very unlikely 229 99 130 31 48 80 71 32 26 29 47 42 72 53 62 163 43 15 8 22% 20% 23% 25% 24% 22% 19% 23% 26% 21% 21% 17% 24% 22% 22% 19% 37% 27% 22% or 43% 57% 13% 21% 35% 31% 14% 11% 13% 21% 18% 31% 23% 27% 71% 19% 6% 4% Certain not to 340 162 177 32 54 110 143 49 36 48 60 86 92 66 95 302 18 13 7 32% 33% 32% 25% 28% 30% 39% 35% 35% 35% 26% 35% 31% 28% 35% 36% 15% 24% 18% cde pqr 48% 52% 9% 16% 33% 42% 14% 10% 14% 18% 25% 27% 20% 28% 89% 5% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1593 737 856 195 275 495 628 271 173 184 250 293 485 343 470 870 236 212 275 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 476 554 128 183 334 391 168 106 127 187 200 319 231 291 745 152 128 198 Total 1057 498 559 125 196 368 368 141 101 136 229 244 300 237 275 848 116 55 39 47% 53% 12% 19% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 22% 23% 28% 22% 26% 80% 11% 5% 4% TOTAL UNLIKELY 775 365 410 81 141 271 282 105 80 104 172 188 219 167 201 627 82 43 23 73% 73% 73% 65% 72% 74% 77% 74% 79% 77% 75% 77% 73% 70% 73% 74% 71% 79% 60% c r r r 47% 53% 10% 18% 35% 36% 14% 10% 13% 22% 24% 28% 22% 26% 81% 11% 6% 3% Don't know 148 60 88 27 26 41 53 24 12 8 26 27 39 38 43 110 19 6 13 14% 12% 16% 22% 13% 11% 14% 17% 12% 6% 11% 11% 13% 16% 16% 13% 17% 10% 34% def i opq 41% 59% 19% 18% 28% 36% 16% 8% 6% 18% 18% 27% 26% 29% 74% 13% 4% 9% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1593 61 99 112 91 115 107 101 107 77 1134 459 794 795 764 829 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 54 94 107 85 106 102 93 99 70 859 185 547 504 496 558 Total 1057 80 146 102 69 108 113 90 48 91 915 142 627 427 577 480 10% 10% 11% 9% 5% 87% 13% 59% 40% 55% 45% Certain to 7 - ** 1 - - * ** 7 * 4 4 4 4 1% -% ** 1% -% -% % * 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% * -% 12% -% -% 3% 97% 3% 50% 50% 50% 50% Very likely 31 5 4 5 1 2 24 7 22 9 16 15 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 15% 13% 16% 3% 6% 78% 22% 71% 29% 53% 47% Likely 96 7 16 11 5 4 87 9 62 33 46 50 9% 7% 15% 10% 5% 8% 9% 7% 10% 8% 8% 10% g 7% 16% 12% 5% 4% 90% 10% 65% 35% 48% 52% TOTAL LIKELY 134 12 21 17 5 6 118 16 88 46 66 68 13% 11% 19% 15% 6% 13% 13% 11% 14% 11% 11% 14% g 9% 15% 12% 4% 5% 88% 12% 66% 34% 49% 51% Unlikely 206 22 12 25 13 5 182 24 128 78 130 76 20% 21% 11% 22% 14% 10% 20% 17% 20% 18% 23% 16% h eh o 10% 6% 12% 6% 2% 88% 12% 62% 38% 63% 37% Very unlikely 229 23 20 29 16 14 191 38 140 89 128 101 22% 23% 19% 25% 18% 28% 21% 27% 22% 21% 22% 21% 10% 9% 13% 7% 6% 83% 17% 61% 39% 56% 44% Certain not to 340 36 34 33 35 17 289 50 179 160 181 159 32% 36% 31% 29% 39% 36% 32% 36% 28% 37% 31% 33% l 11% 10% 10% 10% 5% 85% 15% 53% 47% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1593 61 99 112 91 115 107 101 107 77 1134 459 794 795 764 829 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 54 94 107 85 106 102 93 99 70 859 185 547 504 496 558 Total 1057 80 146 102 69 108 113 90 48 91 915 142 627 427 577 480 10% 10% 11% 9% 5% 87% 13% 59% 40% 55% 45% TOTAL UNLIKELY 775 81 66 87 64 35 663 112 446 327 439 336 73% 79% 62% 76% 71% 74% 72% 79% 71% 77% 76% 70% e e l o 10% 9% 11% 8% 5% 86% 14% 58% 42% 57% 43% Don't know 148 9 21 10 21 7 135 13 93 54 72 76 14% 9% 19% 9% 23% 14% 15% 9% 15% 13% 12% 16% cf cf 6% 14% 7% 14% 4% ** 91% 9% 63% 36% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% No need 800 377 424 116 181 263 240 109 68 110 154 183 232 155 230 660 80 38 23 67% 69% 66% 71% 74% 67% 61% 61% 52% 70% 71% 70% 71% 63% 63% 67% 67% 64% 68% f f h gh mn 47% 53% 14% 23% 33% 30% 14% 8% 14% 19% 23% 29% 19% 29% 82% 10% 5% 3% Happy to use existing service 221 104 117 25 30 67 98 37 33 29 29 37 53 59 71 176 20 17 7 18% 19% 18% 16% 12% 17% 25% 21% 25% 19% 13% 14% 16% 24% 20% 18% 17% 29% 22% cde j kl op 47% 53% 12% 14% 30% 45% 17% 15% 13% 13% 17% 24% 27% 32% 80% 9% 8% 3% Would never listen 196 96 100 25 47 51 72 38 29 26 31 36 50 35 75 165 15 11 4 16% 17% 15% 15% 19% 13% 18% 21% 23% 17% 14% 14% 15% 14% 21% 17% 13% 19% 13% e e 49% 51% 13% 24% 26% 37% 19% 15% 14% 16% 19% 25% 18% 38% 84% 8% 6% 2% Can receive through digital TV service 59 26 34 3 17 23 16 9 10 11 19 16 17 13 14 48 11 1 * 5% 5% 5% 2% 7% 6% 4% 5% 7% 7% 9% 6% 5% 5% 4% 5% 9% 1% 1% c qr oqr 43% 57% 6% 29% 38% 28% 15% 17% 18% 32% 27% 28% 22% 23% 81% 18% 1% % Can't afford it 25 8 17 4 8 8 5 9 1 2 1 7 3 2 12 19 3 1 1 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 1% 1% % 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% 4% j l 32% 68% 17% 31% 32% 20% 35% 6% 9% 3% 28% 14% 9% 48% 78% 14% 3% 5% Don't know why I should 21 13 8 1 6 6 9 4 * 5 4 5 7 2 7 18 1 * 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% % 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% % 5% h opq 61% 39% 4% 27% 28% 41% 21% 1% 26% 19% 22% 34% 8% 36% 88% 4% 1% 7% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Happy to use analogue radio service 19 10 9 2 3 7 7 4 2 2 5 2 3 6 8 16 * 1 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% % 2% 4% op 52% 48% 13% 14% 37% 36% 19% 11% 10% 24% 10% 16% 32% 42% 86% 2% 5% 7% Poor reception in our area 18 10 8 1 2 5 11 1 5 5 4 3 8 2 14 2 1 * 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% % 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% ln 56% 44% 5% 8% 25% 61% 6% 1% 28% 27% 24% 18% 46% 12% 78% 13% 6% 2% Too expensive generally 15 5 11 3 2 6 5 5 1 - - 3 2 11 13 1 1 1 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% % 1% -% -% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% j k 30% 70% 18% 16% 37% 30% 32% 2% 8% -% -% 21% 11% 68% 83% 5% 7% 5% Listen in the car/ on phone/ online/elsewhere 12 4 7 1 2 6 3 2 - 1 6 5 3 2 3 9 2 1 - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% h 38% 62% 10% 16% 52% 21% 16% -% 7% 47% 41% 24% 13% 22% 79% 15% 6% -% Haven't heard of it/ don't understand it 5 2 4 2 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 - 2 2 2 5 - - - % % 1% 1% % % % -% 1% 1% % -% 1% 1% % 1% -% -% -% 31% 69% 45% 14% 11% 31% -% 14% 40% 15% -% 41% 29% 30% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Will get it when I have to/ when switchover 5 3 2 - 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 - - * % 1% % -% % 1% % % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% -% -% % 58% 42% -% 15% 57% 28% 15% 14% 24% 24% 27% 43% 14% 15% 97% -% -% 3% Not available in our area 2 2 * - * * 2 - * * 2 1 - 1 * 1 - 1 - % % % -% % % % -% % % 1% % -% % % % -% 1% -% o 82% 18% -% 9% 17% 74% -% 9% 8% 74% 50% -% 41% 9% 64% -% 36% -% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 63 24 40 10 12 19 22 15 3 11 7 12 12 13 26 51 7 4 2 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 8% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4% 5% 7% 5% 6% 6% 7% hj l 38% 62% 16% 19% 30% 34% 23% 4% 17% 10% 18% 19% 21% 41% 80% 10% 6% 4% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1140 527 613 154 239 373 374 170 125 151 208 250 314 232 344 937 115 57 32 95% 96% 95% 94% 98% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 97% 95% 95% c 46% 54% 13% 21% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 28% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1118 521 597 151 231 366 369 162 123 146 208 247 310 227 332 919 112 56 31 93% 95% 92% 92% 95% 93% 94% 91% 94% 93% 96% 95% 95% 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 92% 47% 53% 13% 21% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 19% 22% 28% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 14 5 9 3 * 9 3 1 5 - 2 2 4 4 4 14 - * 1 1% 1% 1% 2% % 2% 1% 1% 4% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% % 2% d i 34% 66% 18% 1% 60% 21% 9% 33% -% 14% 15% 29% 26% 30% 95% -% 1% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 5% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% No need 800 168 98 64 56 76 60 31 712 89 463 335 366 434 67% 90% 66% 63% 58% 61% 65% 56% 68% 57% 70% 63% 63% 70% bcefgh k m n 21% 12% 8% 7% 10% 8% 4% 89% 11% 58% 42% 46% 54% Happy to use existing service 221 14 26 13 21 30 22 10 191 30 112 109 116 105 18% 7% 17% 13% 21% 24% 23% 18% 18% 19% 17% 21% 20% 17% a a ac ac a 6% 12% 6% 9% 14% 10% 4% 86% 14% 51% 49% 52% 48% Would never listen 196 10 23 11 27 20 22 15 173 23 103 93 97 99 16% 5% 15% 10% 28% 16% 23% 27% 17% 15% 15% 18% 17% 16% a abcf a ac abcf 5% 12% 5% 14% 10% 11% 8% 88% 12% 53% 47% 50% 50% Can receive through digital TV service 59 1 16 16 1 2 6 4 45 14 34 25 41 19 5% 1% 11% 16% 1% 2% 6% 7% 4% 9% 5% 5% 7% 3% aef aefgh a a j o 2% 27% 28% 2% 4% 10% 6% 77% 23% 58% 42% 69% 31% Can't afford it 25 6 - 1 3 3 - 1 22 3 11 14 14 11 2% 3% -% 1% 3% 2% -% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 25% -% 3% 12% 11% -% 4% 89% 11% 44% 56% 55% 45% Don't know why I should 21 6 4 2 - 2 - 1 17 4 10 11 12 8 2% 3% 2% 2% -% 2% -% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 29% 18% 7% -% 10% -% 4% 82% 18% 48% 52% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 5% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Happy to use analogue radio service 19 4 3 6 2 - 1 - 15 4 8 11 12 8 2% 2% 2% 6% 2% -% 1% -% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% fgh 23% 15% 31% 10% -% 3% -% 78% 22% 40% 60% 61% 39% Poor reception in our area 18 - 2 3 5 3 - - 8 10 9 9 10 8 2% -% 1% 3% 5% 3% -% -% 1% 7% 1% 2% 2% 1% agh j -% 8% 17% 26% 18% -% -% 44% 56% 49% 51% 57% 43% Too expensive generally 15 1 2 - 3 4 - 1 15 * 2 13 5 11 1% 1% 2% -% 4% 3% -% 1% 1% % % 2% 1% 2% l 8% 15% -% 22% 24% -% 4% 98% 2% 15% 85% 30% 70% Listen in the car/ on phone/ online/elsewhere 12 - 1 3 2 1 - 1 8 4 9 3 9 3 1% -% 1% 3% 2% 1% -% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% % j o -% 10% 23% * 19% 9% -% 10% 65% 35% 75% 25% 78% 22% Haven't heard of it/ don't understand it 5 1 - - - 2 - - ** 5 - 3 3 2 4 % % -% -% -% 1% -% -% 1% -% % % % 1% 14% -% -% * -% 31% -% -% 100% -% 54% 46% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 5% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Will get it when I have to/ when switchover 5 - - - 1 3 - 1 ** 5 1 4 2 3 2 % -% -% -% * 1% 2% -% 1% ** % 1% 1% % 1% % -% -% -% * 20% 54% -% 10% 84% 16% 71% 29% 54% 46% Not available in our area 2 - - 1 - - - - ** 1 1 1 1 1 1 % -% -% 1% * -% -% -% -% ** % % % % % % -% -% 64% -% -% -% -% 73% 27% 27% 73% 27% 73% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 63 8 4 4 11 11 - 2 51 13 26 38 30 33 5% 4% 3% 4% 11% 9% -% 3% 5% 8% 4% 7% 5% 5% g bcgh bgh l 13% 6% 6% 17% 18% -% 3% 80% 20% 41% 59% 48% 52% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1140 182 138 98 88 118 91 55 996 144 639 498 552 589 95% 98% 92% 96% 91% 95% 98% 99% 96% 93% 96% 94% 95% 96% e e bef 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 5% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1118 178 138 97 85 113 91 54 978 140 630 484 541 577 93% 96% 92% 95% 88% 91% 98% 97% 94% 91% 95% 92% 93% 94% e ef ef m 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 5% 87% 13% 56% 43% 48% 52% Don't know 14 - 8 1 1 - 2 - 13 2 9 6 9 6 1% -% 5% 1% 1% -% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% afh -% 53% 9% 7% -% 15% -% 88% 12% 61% 39% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz1. Showcard Could You Please Take A Look At The Options Shown On This Card And Let Me Know Which Applies To You? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Married/ civil partnership 1395 721 674 37 200 609 549 59 117 205 424 456 365 337 236 1183 107 68 37 52% 55% 49% 10% 43% 67% 59% 19% 45% 57% 73% 64% 51% 58% 36% 53% 46% 52% 50% b c cdf cd g gh ghi lmn n ln p 52% 48% 3% 14% 44% 39% 4% 8% 15% 30% 33% 26% 24% 17% 85% 8% 5% 3% Co-habiting 9 5 3 - 1 5 2 * 1 - 1 6 * - 2 8 * 1 * % % % -% % 1% % % 1% -% % 1% % -% % % % % 1% lm 63% 37% -% 17% 55% 28% 3% 16% -% 14% 69% 3% -% 28% 87% 2% 7% 4% Single 247 121 126 45 100 85 17 25 26 45 74 45 69 71 62 205 24 10 7 9% 9% 9% 12% 21% 9% 2% 8% 10% 13% 13% 6% 10% 12% 9% 9% 10% 8% 10% f cef f g g k k 49% 51% 18% 40% 34% 7% 10% 11% 18% 30% 18% 28% 29% 25% 83% 10% 4% 3% Widowed, divorced or separated 627 320 308 279 153 129 66 122 58 61 66 125 179 116 207 517 60 31 20 23% 25% 22% 76% 33% 14% 7% 39% 22% 17% 11% 18% 25% 20% 31% 23% 26% 23% 27% def ef f hij j j km klm 51% 49% 44% 24% 21% 11% 20% 9% 10% 10% 20% 28% 19% 33% 82% 10% 5% 3% Refused 397 133 263 4 13 87 292 110 58 47 18 80 107 56 154 323 42 22 9 15% 10% 19% 1% 3% 9% 32% 35% 22% 13% 3% 11% 15% 10% 23% 14% 18% 17% 12% a cd cde hij ij j m klm r 34% 66% 1% 3% 22% 74% 28% 15% 12% 5% 20% 27% 14% 39% 82% 11% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ1. SHOWCARD Could you please take a look at the options shown on this card and let me know which applies to you? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Married/ civil partnership 1395 206 191 139 103 119 126 118 50 132 1186 210 882 509 823 572 52% 61% 53% 61% 55% 50% 51% 52% 44% 44% 51% 58% 57% 46% 57% 46% efhi hi efhi hi j m o 15% 14% 10% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 9% 85% 15% 63% 36% 59% 41% Co-habiting 9 3 2 - - 1 1 1 - - 7 2 6 1 4 4 % 1% % -% -% % 1% 1% -% -% % % % % % % 30% 17% -% -% 10% 16% 14% -% -% 83% 17% 69% 14% 50% 50% Single 247 38 28 19 17 22 25 11 16 30 218 29 200 47 122 125 9% 11% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 5% 14% 10% 9% 8% 13% 4% 8% 10% g g bg g m 15% 11% 8% 7% 9% 10% 5% 6% 12% 88% 12% 81% 19% 49% 51% Widowed, divorced or separated 627 77 85 42 42 60 50 51 27 81 563 64 353 273 287 340 23% 23% 24% 19% 22% 25% 21% 23% 24% 27% 24% 18% 23% 25% 20% 28% c k n 12% 14% 7% 7% 10% 8% 8% 4% 13% 90% 10% 56% 44% 46% 54% Refused 397 15 53 27 26 36 43 44 22 58 341 56 111 283 206 191 15% 4% 15% 12% 14% 15% 17% 19% 19% 19% 15% 16% 7% 25% 14% 15% a a a a a ac ac ac l 4% 13% 7% 7% 9% 11% 11% 5% 15% 86% 14% 28% 71% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz2 (Qz10). Showcard How Would You Describe Your National Identity? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% English 1506 731 775 210 252 467 577 190 157 208 323 375 407 334 387 1480 5 19 2 56% 56% 56% 58% 54% 51% 62% 60% 60% 58% 55% 53% 57% 58% 59% 66% 2% 14% 2% e de k pqr pr 49% 51% 14% 17% 31% 38% 13% 10% 14% 21% 25% 27% 22% 26% 98% % 1% % Scottish 217 106 112 28 39 74 77 37 25 23 42 44 59 53 61 19 196 2 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12% 10% 6% 7% 6% 8% 9% 9% 1% 84% 1% % ij k oqr 49% 51% 13% 18% 34% 35% 17% 12% 10% 19% 20% 27% 24% 28% 9% 90% 1% % Welsh 91 43 47 10 17 27 37 13 8 12 18 23 25 20 23 9 - 81 - 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% % -% 62% -% opr 48% 52% 11% 19% 30% 41% 14% 9% 13% 19% 25% 27% 22% 25% 10% -% 90% -% Northern Irish 66 34 32 9 12 21 24 4 5 8 5 17 17 16 16 13 1 53 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% % % 71% opq 52% 48% 14% 18% 32% 36% 7% 8% 13% 7% 26% 25% 25% 24% 19% % 1% 79% British 586 285 301 84 84 230 187 55 51 74 134 200 146 113 127 522 22 26 16 22% 22% 22% 23% 18% 25% 20% 17% 20% 21% 23% 28% 20% 20% 19% 23% 9% 20% 21% df g lmn p p p 49% 51% 14% 14% 39% 32% 9% 9% 13% 23% 34% 25% 19% 22% 89% 4% 4% 3% Other 209 101 108 24 64 96 25 18 14 34 61 53 66 43 47 193 9 4 4 8% 8% 8% 7% 14% 10% 3% 6% 5% 10% 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 9% 4% 3% 5% f cf cf g gh pqr 48% 52% 12% 31% 46% 12% 9% 7% 16% 29% 25% 32% 21% 22% 92% 4% 2% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ2 (QZ10). SHOWCARD How would you describe your national identity? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% English 1506 122 231 169 150 197 126 152 89 244 1336 170 834 668 867 639 56% 36% 64% 75% 80% 83% 52% 67% 78% 81% 58% 47% 54% 60% 60% 52% af abf abfg abcfg a af abfg abfg k l o 8% 15% 11% 10% 13% 8% 10% 6% 16% 89% 11% 55% 44% 58% 42% Scottish 217 2 1 3 4 5 2 - - 2 185 33 120 97 96 122 8% 1% % 1% 2% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 8% 9% 8% 9% 7% 10% gh gh n 1% % 2% 2% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 85% 15% 55% 45% 44% 56% Welsh 91 - - 3 2 - 1 2 - 2 71 19 49 41 52 38 3% -% -% 1% 1% -% % 1% -% 1% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% j -% -% 3% 2% -% 1% 2% -% 2% 79% 21% 54% 45% 58% 42% Northern Irish 66 - 6 1 - 2 - 2 1 - 45 21 39 27 30 36 2% -% 2% 1% -% 1% -% 1% % -% 2% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% adfi j -% 10% 2% -% 3% -% 4% 1% -% 68% 32% 59% 40% 46% 54% British 586 144 94 38 25 25 74 61 23 39 483 103 359 225 339 247 22% 42% 26% 17% 13% 11% 30% 27% 20% 13% 21% 29% 23% 20% 23% 20% bcdefghi cdei cdehi cdei dei j o 25% 16% 6% 4% 4% 13% 10% 4% 7% 82% 18% 61% 38% 58% 42% Other 209 71 27 12 8 8 41 9 2 15 195 14 150 56 60 149 8% 21% 7% 5% 4% 3% 17% 4% 2% 5% 8% 4% 10% 5% 4% 12% bcdeghi eh h bcdeghi k m n 34% 13% 6% 4% 4% 20% 4% 1% 7% 93% 7% 72% 27% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% WHITE British 1300 614 686 166 227 431 475 158 114 188 274 349 364 277 309 1183 35 36 46 49% 47% 50% 46% 49% 47% 51% 50% 44% 52% 47% 49% 51% 48% 47% 53% 15% 27% 62% h pq p opq 47% 53% 13% 17% 33% 37% 12% 9% 14% 21% 27% 28% 21% 24% 91% 3% 3% 4% English 696 362 334 102 85 214 294 87 79 83 154 188 171 164 172 678 5 12 1 26% 28% 24% 28% 18% 23% 32% 27% 30% 23% 26% 26% 24% 28% 26% 30% 2% 9% 1% b d d de i pqr pr 52% 48% 15% 12% 31% 42% 12% 11% 12% 22% 27% 25% 24% 25% 97% 1% 2% % Scottish 198 95 104 24 36 68 70 34 25 19 36 38 53 49 58 13 182 2 - 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8% 11% 10% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8% 9% 1% 78% 2% -% ij i k k oqr or 48% 52% 12% 18% 34% 35% 17% 13% 9% 18% 19% 27% 25% 29% 7% 92% 1% -% Welsh 86 41 45 10 18 23 36 12 8 10 17 22 23 20 21 8 1 76 - 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% % 1% 58% -% opr 48% 52% 11% 21% 26% 42% 14% 10% 11% 20% 26% 27% 23% 24% 10% 2% 89% -% Irish 43 22 21 5 9 14 15 3 4 6 4 9 12 10 12 17 1 1 23 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 31% opq 51% 49% 11% 21% 33% 34% 8% 9% 15% 10% 21% 27% 23% 29% 41% 3% 3% 54% Any other white background 108 44 64 11 30 52 15 8 10 22 36 26 38 22 23 102 2 3 2 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 1% 2% 2% cf f g g pqr 41% 59% 10% 27% 48% 14% 7% 9% 20% 33% 24% 35% 20% 21% 94% 2% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL WHITE 2430 1178 1252 318 404 802 905 303 241 327 521 632 661 541 595 2002 227 131 71 91% 91% 91% 87% 86% 88% 98% 96% 93% 91% 89% 89% 92% 93% 90% 90% 97% 99% 96% cde ij k o or o 48% 52% 13% 17% 33% 37% 12% 10% 13% 21% 26% 27% 22% 24% 82% 9% 5% 3% MIXED White and Black Caribbean 7 4 3 2 3 2 - - 2 1 1 2 - 2 4 6 - 1 % % % 1% 1% % -% -% 1% % % % -% % 1% % -% % % f f l 61% 39% 33% 35% 32% -% -% 34% 19% 8% 23% -% 27% 50% 87% -% 8% 4% White and Black African 9 2 6 2 2 5 - 2 - - 5 6 - 2 - 9 - - - % % % 1% % % -% 1% -% -% 1% 1% -% % -% % -% -% -% f f ln 27% 73% 27% 21% 52% -% 27% -% -% 52% 73% -% 27% -% 100% -% -% -% White and Asian 9 1 8 1 3 5 - - - 1 2 5 2 - 2 9 - - - % % 1% % 1% 1% -% -% -% % % 1% % -% % % -% -% -% f f 15% 85% 12% 37% 51% -% -% -% 12% 26% 53% 24% -% 22% 100% -% -% -% Any other mixed/ multiple ethnic background 3 3 * * * 1 1 1 - 1 - - * 1 2 2 1 - - % % % % % % % % -% % -% -% % % % % % -% -% 93% 7% 9% 9% 38% 45% 17% -% 31% -% -% 15% 31% 54% 76% 24% -% -% TOTAL MIXED/ MULTIPLE 28 11 17 6 8 13 1 3 2 3 8 13 3 5 7 26 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% % 1% 1% 1% % % % f f f l 39% 61% 22% 28% 45% 5% 11% 9% 12% 27% 46% 9% 19% 26% 94% 3% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian 39 15 24 7 14 14 4 1 - 3 16 18 13 3 5 37 1 - 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% % % -% 1% 3% 3% 2% % 1% 2% % % -% f f f ghi mn m qr 38% 62% 18% 35% 36% 11% 4% -% 7% 40% 47% 33% 7% 13% 96% 3% 1% -% Pakistani 45 23 22 8 17 16 4 3 3 2 11 13 11 9 12 43 2 - - 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% % 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% -% -% f ef f qr 52% 48% 18% 38% 35% 9% 6% 8% 4% 25% 28% 23% 21% 27% 96% 4% -% -% Bangladeshi 37 20 17 4 8 22 3 - 6 7 - 8 7 5 18 37 - - - 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% % -% 2% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% -% -% -% f f gj gj klm pqr 53% 47% 12% 22% 58% 8% -% 15% 20% -% 21% 19% 12% 47% 100% -% -% -% Any other Asian background 15 12 3 4 2 9 - 1 - 2 7 4 3 2 5 15 - - - 1% 1% % 1% % 1% -% % -% 1% 1% 1% % % 1% 1% -% -% -% b f f f 78% 22% 24% 14% 62% -% 6% -% 14% 46% 30% 20% 15% 35% 100% -% -% -% TOTAL ASIAN/ BRITISH ASIAN 136 69 67 23 41 61 11 5 9 14 34 43 34 19 40 133 3 * - 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 1% 2% 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 6% 1% % -% f f f g m m pqr r 51% 49% 17% 30% 45% 8% 4% 7% 10% 25% 32% 25% 14% 30% 98% 2% % -% BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean 10 3 6 4 1 3 1 - * 3 3 1 4 2 2 10 - - - % % % 1% % % % -% % 1% % % 1% % % % -% -% -% f 36% 64% 45% 9% 36% 11% -% 4% 32% 27% 14% 41% 22% 24% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% African 37 18 18 7 6 24 1 1 4 5 11 11 14 5 6 37 - - - 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% % % 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% -% -% -% f f f g pqr 50% 50% 18% 15% 65% 2% 3% 10% 15% 31% 31% 38% 14% 17% 100% -% -% -% Any other black background 4 1 3 1 - 1 2 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 2 4 * - - % % % % -% % % % % -% % % % -% % % % -% -% 29% 71% 34% -% 19% 46% 18% 14% -% 34% 34% 14% -% 52% 94% 6% -% -% TOTAL BLACK/ BLACK BRITISH 51 23 28 12 6 28 4 2 5 9 16 14 18 7 11 50 * - - 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% % 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% % -% -% f f f g g pqr 46% 54% 24% 13% 55% 7% 4% 9% 17% 31% 28% 36% 15% 22% 100% % -% -% MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin 6 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 * 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 * % % % % % % % 1% % 1% % % % % % % % % % b 92% 8% 22% 21% 34% 24% 28% 16% 33% 9% 24% 25% 16% 36% 80% 9% 10% 1% Iranian 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 1 2 - - - % % % % -% % -% % -% -% -% -% -% % % % -% -% -% 66% 34% 66% -% 34% -% 34% -% -% -% -% -% 66% 34% 100% -% -% -% TOTAL MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN 8 7 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 * 1 1 2 3 7 1 1 * % 1% % 1% % % % 1% % 1% % % % % % % % % % b 85% 15% 33% 15% 34% 18% 30% 12% 24% 6% 18% 18% 29% 35% 85% 6% 8% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese 9 6 4 1 2 5 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 7 1 - 1 % % % % % % % % 1% 1% % % % 1% % % 1% -% 1% 59% 41% 14% 24% 48% 14% 11% 23% 23% 19% 33% 15% 34% 18% 79% 15% -% 6% Any other background 5 - 5 * 3 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 3 5 * - - % -% % % 1% % % % -% % % % % -% % % % -% -% a -% 100% 4% 54% 28% 14% 14% -% 17% 13% 14% 28% -% 58% 96% 4% -% -% TOTAL CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP 14 6 9 2 5 6 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 5 12 2 - 1 1% % 1% % 1% 1% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% f 39% 61% 10% 34% 41% 14% 12% 15% 21% 17% 26% 20% 23% 32% 85% 11% -% 4% Refused 8 7 1 1 2 3 2 * * - 2 5 * 2 1 6 * - 2 % 1% % % 1% % % % % -% % 1% % % % % % -% 3% b l opq 90% 10% 7% 31% 35% 27% 2% % -% 25% 59% 3% 32% 7% 73% 1% -% 26% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% WHITE British 1300 102 219 124 92 132 118 131 81 184 1126 174 744 551 776 524 49% 30% 61% 55% 49% 56% 48% 58% 71% 61% 49% 48% 48% 50% 54% 43% adf a a a a adf abcdefgi adf o 8% 17% 10% 7% 10% 9% 10% 6% 14% 87% 13% 57% 42% 60% 40% English 696 57 109 84 78 86 70 70 29 95 587 109 365 330 406 290 26% 17% 30% 37% 42% 36% 29% 31% 26% 31% 25% 30% 23% 30% 28% 24% a ah abfghi ah a a a a j l o 8% 16% 12% 11% 12% 10% 10% 4% 14% 84% 16% 52% 47% 58% 42% Scottish 198 2 - 1 3 4 2 - - 2 169 30 109 89 90 108 7% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 7% 8% 7% 8% 6% 9% n 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 85% 15% 55% 45% 45% 55% Welsh 86 - - 3 1 1 1 1 - 2 67 20 46 39 50 36 3% -% -% 1% % % % 1% -% 1% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% j -% -% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 2% 77% 23% 54% 45% 59% 41% Irish 43 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 - 33 10 26 17 20 23 2% 1% 1% % 2% 1% 1% 1% % -% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% i j 5% 7% 2% 7% 5% 8% 6% 1% -% 77% 23% 61% 39% 46% 54% Any other white background 108 40 12 10 1 3 28 2 1 5 99 8 89 18 34 74 4% 12% 3% 4% % 1% 11% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2% 6% 2% 2% 6% bcdeghi dg degh bcdeghi k m n 37% 12% 9% 1% 3% 26% 2% 1% 5% 92% 8% 82% 17% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL WHITE 2430 203 343 223 177 227 223 207 112 287 2081 350 1379 1044 1375 1055 91% 60% 96% 98% 94% 96% 91% 92% 99% 95% 90% 97% 89% 94% 95% 86% af adfgi a af a a abdefgi a j l o 8% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 86% 14% 57% 43% 57% 43% MIXED White and Black Caribbean 7 2 - - 1 - - 2 - 1 7 - 5 1 1 6 % % -% -% 1% -% -% 1% -% % % -% % % % % 23% -% -% 16% -% -% 29% -% 19% 100% -% 76% 8% 16% 84% White and Black African 9 9 - - - - - - - - 9 - 7 2 9 - % 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% % -% % % 1% -% bcdefghi o 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 79% 21% 100% -% White and Asian 9 4 1 - 1 - 2 1 - - 7 2 8 1 6 3 % 1% % -% 1% -% 1% % -% -% % 1% 1% % % % m 42% 10% -% 11% -% 24% 12% -% -% 78% 22% 90% 10% 64% 36% Any other mixed/ multiple ethnic background 3 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3 1 2 * 3 % % -% -% -% % -% -% -% -% % % % % % % 45% -% -% -% 31% -% -% -% -% 93% 7% 38% 62% 7% 93% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL MIXED/ MULTIPLE 28 16 1 - 2 1 2 3 - 1 26 2 22 5 16 12 1% 5% % -% 1% % 1% 1% -% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% 1% bcdefghi m 56% 3% -% 8% 3% 8% 11% -% 5% 92% 8% 77% 19% 57% 43% ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian 39 15 1 1 2 5 5 4 1 4 35 4 29 9 18 21 1% 4% % % 1% 2% 2% 2% % 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdh m 38% 3% 3% 5% 12% 14% 11% 1% 11% 90% 10% 76% 24% 47% 53% Pakistani 45 21 2 - 2 1 3 9 - 5 45 - 31 14 6 39 2% 6% 1% -% 1% % 1% 4% -% 2% 2% -% 2% 1% % 3% bcdefhi bcdefh k n 47% 5% -% 5% 2% 6% 21% -% 10% 100% -% 69% 31% 13% 87% Bangladeshi 37 35 - 1 - - 1 - - - 37 - 31 7 1 36 1% 10% -% 1% -% -% % -% -% -% 2% -% 2% 1% % 3% bcdefghi k m n 95% -% 3% -% -% 2% -% -% -% 100% -% 82% 18% 3% 97% Any other Asian background 15 5 5 2 1 - 2 1 - - 15 - 9 6 5 10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% % -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% % 1% 31% 32% 12% 9% -% 12% 5% -% -% 100% -% 59% 41% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL ASIAN/ BRITISH ASIAN 136 76 8 4 5 6 11 14 1 9 132 4 100 36 30 106 5% 22% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 6% % 3% 6% 1% 6% 3% 2% 9% bcdefghi h h bceh h k m n 56% 6% 3% 4% 4% 8% 10% % 6% 97% 3% 73% 27% 22% 78% BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean 10 5 - - * 2 3 - - - 10 - 9 1 2 7 % 1% -% -% % 1% 1% -% -% -% % -% 1% % % 1% m 52% -% -% 4% 18% 27% -% -% -% 100% -% 89% 11% 25% 75% African 37 27 1 - 2 - 2 2 - 3 36 1 28 8 8 29 1% 8% % -% 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 2% % 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdefghi k m n 72% 3% -% 5% -% 6% 5% -% 9% 97% 3% 77% 23% 21% 79% Any other black background 4 3 - - 1 - 1 - - - 4 1 3 * 4 % 1% -% -% % -% % -% -% -% % % % % % % 63% -% -% 14% -% 18% -% -% -% 94% 6% 19% 81% 6% 94% TOTAL BLACK/ BLACK BRITISH 51 34 1 - 3 2 6 2 - 3 49 1 38 13 10 41 2% 10% % -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 1% 2% % 2% 1% 1% 3% bcdefghi ch k m n 68% 2% -% 5% 3% 11% 4% -% 6% 97% 3% 74% 26% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin 6 3 - - - 2 - - - 6 * 3 3 1 5 % 1% -% -% % -% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % % 45% -% -% 7% -% 28% -% -% -% 99% 1% 47% 53% 17% 83% Iranian 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - 2 - 2 % 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% % -% -% % -% % 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% TOTAL MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN 8 5 - - * - 2 - - - 8 * 3 5 1 7 % 1% -% -% % -% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % 1% n 59% -% -% 5% -% 21% -% -% -% 99% 1% 34% 66% 13% 87% CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese 9 3 3 - - 1 - - - - 9 - 5 5 3 6 % 1% 1% -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% % -% % % % 1% 36% 28% -% -% 14% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 52% 48% 35% 65% Any other background 5 2 - - 1 - 2 - - - 5 * 2 3 1 4 % 1% -% -% % -% 1% -% -% -% % % % % % % 38% -% -% 13% -% 45% -% -% -% 96% 4% 41% 59% 17% 83% TOTAL CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP 14 5 3 - 1 1 2 - - - 14 * 7 7 4 10 1% 2% 1% -% % 1% 1% -% -% -% 1% % % 1% % 1% 37% 19% -% 5% 9% 16% -% -% -% 99% 1% 48% 52% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Refused 8 - 3 - - - - - 1 2 6 2 4 2 7 1 % -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% % 1% % % % % o -% 40% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 24% 74% 26% 53% 27% 90% 10% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Cannot walk far or manage stairs or can only do so with difficulty 160 77 83 2 5 31 123 48 24 15 8 33 30 36 61 128 16 12 3 6% 6% 6% % 1% 3% 13% 15% 9% 4% 1% 5% 4% 6% 9% 6% 7% 9% 5% cd cde hij ij j kl or 48% 52% 1% 3% 19% 77% 30% 15% 9% 5% 21% 19% 22% 38% 80% 10% 8% 2% Breathlessness or chest pains 97 54 43 3 5 16 73 32 13 6 6 17 15 25 41 79 6 9 2 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 8% 10% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 6% 4% 3% 7% 3% cde hij ij l kl opr 56% 44% 3% 5% 17% 75% 33% 14% 6% 6% 17% 15% 26% 42% 82% 6% 10% 3% Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 3% 3% 3% % % 1% 8% 7% 4% 4% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% 2% cde ij j j 51% 49% 2% 2% 10% 86% 28% 12% 16% 4% 19% 23% 26% 32% 84% 7% 7% 2% Mental health problems or difficulties 58 21 37 7 13 22 16 27 8 5 6 6 4 7 42 42 9 6 1 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 2% 4% 4% 2% hij klm o or 36% 64% 13% 22% 38% 28% 47% 14% 9% 11% 10% 6% 12% 72% 72% 16% 10% 2% Poor vision, partial sight or blindness 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% de ij ij klm 36% 64% 9% 9% 23% 58% 19% 16% 4% 13% 21% 18% 16% 45% 80% 10% 8% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Limited ability to reach 39 18 21 2 10 27 11 8 3 1 5 6 16 12 30 7 2 1 1% 1% 2% % % 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% % 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% cde ij j kl o 45% 55% 1% 6% 25% 69% 27% 19% 7% 3% 12% 16% 40% 32% 76% 17% 4% 3% Dyslexia 32 14 18 4 13 8 7 12 1 2 9 6 3 7 16 26 3 3 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 4% % 1% 1% 1% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % ef hij kl r 45% 55% 13% 41% 24% 22% 36% 4% 7% 27% 18% 9% 22% 50% 81% 9% 10% 1% Cannot walk at all / use a wheelchair 11 5 6 - 1 1 9 4 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 9 1 1 % % % -% % % 1% 1% 1% % % % % 1% % % 1% 1% % e 47% 53% -% 10% 10% 79% 37% 13% 9% 10% 22% 28% 31% 18% 81% 11% 7% 1% Difficulty in speaking or in communicating 10 2 8 2 3 3 2 4 * * 1 1 * 3 6 8 - 2 * % % 1% 1% 1% % % 1% % % % % % % 1% % -% 1% 1% l 18% 82% 18% 25% 34% 24% 39% 1% 1% 12% 14% 1% 27% 58% 81% -% 15% 4% Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do 128 77 51 4 9 40 75 36 22 15 12 22 22 24 61 106 8 13 2 5% 6% 4% 1% 2% 4% 8% 11% 9% 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 9% 5% 3% 10% 3% b cd cde ij ij klm opr 60% 40% 3% 7% 31% 58% 28% 17% 11% 9% 17% 17% 18% 47% 83% 6% 10% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None 2230 1073 1157 343 424 818 645 198 199 308 542 624 637 488 479 1872 192 101 66 83% 82% 84% 94% 90% 89% 70% 62% 76% 86% 93% 88% 89% 84% 73% 84% 82% 76% 89% ef f f g gh ghi n mn n q opq 48% 52% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 14% 24% 28% 29% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Cannot walk far or manage stairs or can only do so with difficulty 160 6 17 12 11 14 20 14 9 27 136 24 15 144 79 81 6% 2% 5% 5% 6% 6% 8% 6% 7% 9% 6% 7% 1% 13% 5% 7% a a a a a a a l 4% 11% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 5% 17% 85% 15% 9% 90% 49% 51% Breathlessness or chest pains 97 2 12 12 7 9 10 11 5 12 81 16 9 88 48 50 4% 1% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 1% 8% 3% 4% a a a a a a a a l 2% 12% 12% 8% 9% 10% 12% 5% 12% 84% 16% 10% 90% 49% 51% Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 3% % 2% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1% 6% 3% 3% a a a ab a a a l 1% 7% 11% 8% 12% 16% 9% 6% 14% 83% 17% 17% 83% 54% 46% Mental health problems or difficulties 58 - 5 5 6 3 8 5 5 6 47 11 10 48 25 33 2% -% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% a a a a a a l -% 8% 8% 10% 5% 14% 9% 8% 10% 81% 19% 16% 84% 43% 57% Poor vision, partial sight or blindness 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 3% l n 11% 7% 10% 4% 12% 3% 12% 5% 17% 85% 15% 19% 81% 36% 64% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Limited ability to reach 39 - 5 3 3 7 4 2 2 3 31 9 7 32 19 20 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % 3% 1% 2% a a a l -% 13% 7% 8% 19% 11% 4% 5% 8% 78% 22% 18% 82% 48% 52% Dyslexia 32 3 - 7 3 1 7 1 2 1 24 8 16 16 10 22 1% 1% -% 3% 2% 1% 3% % 1% % 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% begi b bgi n 10% -% 23% 11% 4% 22% 3% 5% 3% 75% 25% 49% 51% 32% 68% Cannot walk at all / use a wheelchair 11 - 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 11 1 2 9 5 6 % -% % 1% -% % 1% % % % % % % 1% % 1% l -% 13% 18% -% 7% 21% 9% 4% 9% 94% 6% 22% 78% 45% 55% Difficulty in speaking or in communicating 10 - - - 1 2 5 - * - 7 3 1 9 7 4 % -% -% -% % 1% 2% -% % -% % 1% % 1% % % abcgi l -% -% -% 8% 18% 51% -% 4% -% 69% 31% 14% 86% 64% 36% Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do 128 - 17 11 8 16 23 8 13 10 95 34 32 95 62 67 5% -% 5% 5% 4% 7% 9% 4% 11% 3% 4% 9% 2% 9% 4% 5% a a a a abdgi a abcdgi a j l -% 13% 9% 6% 13% 18% 6% 10% 8% 74% 26% 25% 74% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None 2230 322 310 182 156 192 192 185 85 248 1950 280 1459 762 1215 1015 83% 95% 86% 80% 83% 81% 78% 82% 75% 82% 84% 78% 94% 68% 84% 82% bcdefghi fh h k m 14% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 65% 34% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 85 32 53 6 3 16 60 15 12 4 8 15 20 13 36 47 12 18 8 Effective Weighted Sample 58 21 37 5 3 14 39 11 10 2 6 11 11 10 26 42 8 13 6 Total 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 * Cannot tell by the light where the windows are Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the room Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if he or she is at arm's length Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 85 32 53 6 3 16 60 15 12 4 8 15 20 13 36 47 12 18 8 Effective Weighted Sample 58 21 37 5 3 14 39 11 10 2 6 11 11 10 26 42 8 13 6 Total 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 Cannot see well enough to read a large print book Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a road Have difficulty seeing ordinary newspaper print Have no problems as long as I am wearing glasses/ contact lenses Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 85 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 63 22 11 74 30 55 Effective Weighted Sample 58 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 48 10 8 51 20 38 Total 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 Cannot tell by the light where the windows are Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the room Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if he or she is at arm's length Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 85 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 63 22 11 74 30 55 Effective Weighted Sample 58 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 48 10 8 51 20 38 Total 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 Cannot see well enough to read a large print book Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a road Have difficulty seeing ordinary newspaper print Have no problems as long as I am wearing glasses/ contact lenses Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 130 66 64 1 2 11 116 36 15 17 5 24 33 27 46 80 16 20 14 Effective Weighted Sample 90 43 48 1 1 8 81 23 12 15 4 18 23 21 28 70 9 14 9 Total 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 86% Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up 12 9 14% 12% 75% Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room 7 7 9% 11% 100% Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell 4 4 5% 6% 100% Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable 18 15 22% 21% 84% Difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room 5 4 7% 6% 81% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 130 66 64 1 2 11 116 36 15 17 5 24 33 27 46 80 16 20 14 Effective Weighted Sample 90 43 48 1 1 8 81 23 12 15 4 18 23 21 28 70 9 14 9 Total 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 86% Difficulty following a conversation against background noise 26 22 31% 31% 85% Have no problems as long as I am wearing my hearing aid 9 8 11% 11% 92% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l m ~n ~o Unweighted total 130 1 4 11 10 9 15 9 12 9 91 39 15 115 57 73 Effective Weighted Sample 90 1 4 11 10 9 14 9 11 9 73 18 13 79 42 52 Total 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 83% Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up 12 8 14% 11% 65% Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room 7 7 9% 11% 100% Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell 4 3 5% 4% 73% Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable 18 15 22% 22% 84% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l m ~n ~o Unweighted total 130 1 4 11 10 9 15 9 12 9 91 39 15 115 57 73 Effective Weighted Sample 90 1 4 11 10 9 14 9 11 9 73 18 13 79 42 52 Total 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 83% Difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room 5 4 7% 6% 81% Difficulty following a conversation against background noise 26 21 31% 31% 83% Have no problems as long as I am wearing my hearing aid 9 9 11% 13% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz8 (Sga). Do You Ever Work From Home? (Single Code) Base : Those working full or part time GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1861 925 936 225 428 880 328 96 155 307 503 445 640 466 309 1144 228 210 279 Effective Weighted Sample 1294 644 650 156 296 616 226 65 109 219 377 323 434 330 221 1002 152 135 219 Total 1552 783 768 190 369 734 258 67 117 258 492 438 449 393 272 1304 133 74 41 50% 50% 12% 24% 47% 17% 8% 17% 32% 28% 29% 25% 18% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 388 193 195 29 66 209 83 14 41 171 181 115 68 24 341 22 16 9 25% 25% 25% 15% 18% 28% 32% 12% 16% 35% 41% 26% 17% 9% 26% 17% 21% 22% cd cd hi lmn mn n p 50% 50% 8% 17% 54% 21% 4% 10% 44% 47% 30% 18% 6% 88% 6% 4% 2% No 1164 590 574 161 303 525 175 103 217 321 257 334 325 248 963 110 58 32 75% 75% 75% 85% 82% 72% 68% 88% 84% 65% 59% 74% 83% 91% 74% 83% 79% 78% ef ef j j k kl klm o 51% 49% 14% 26% 45% 15% 9% 19% 28% 22% 29% 28% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ8 (SGA). Do you ever work from home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those working full or part time ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l ~m n o Unweighted total 1861 179 123 126 117 128 121 114 111 125 1364 497 1861 - 924 937 Effective Weighted Sample 1294 159 117 123 111 121 116 108 105 117 1081 230 1294 - 649 659 Total 1552 256 195 130 100 136 140 119 58 171 1349 202 1552 - 853 699 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 100% -% 55% 45% Yes 388 52 50 43 30 37 48 29 14 37 319 69 388 - 251 136 25% 20% 26% 33% 30% 27% 34% 24% 25% 22% 24% 34% 25% -% 29% 20% a ai j o 13% 13% 11% 8% 9% 12% 8% 4% 10% 82% 18% 100% -% 65% 35% No 1164 203 144 87 70 99 92 90 44 134 1030 133 1164 - 601 562 75% 80% 74% 67% 70% 73% 66% 76% 75% 78% 76% 66% 75% -% 71% 80% cf f k n 17% 12% 7% 6% 9% 8% 8% 4% 11% 89% 11% 100% -% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ9 (SGB). Would you say that you work from home most of the time or just occasionally? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who ever work from home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 437 216 221 24 75 237 101 15 16 50 170 187 156 68 26 297 42 46 52 Effective Weighted Sample 317 154 163 18 52 175 74 8 11 35 131 137 112 53 18 261 26 30 41 Total 388 193 195 29 66 209 83 9 14 41 171 181 115 68 24 341 22 16 9 50% 50% 54% 21% 44% 47% 30% 88% Most of the time 136 65 71 74 45 55 66 38 121 35% 34% 36% 35% 54% 32% 36% 33% 35% e 48% 52% 54% 33% 40% 48% 28% 89% Just occasionally 247 126 121 134 38 115 113 76 217 64% 65% 62% 64% 46% 67% 62% 66% 64% f 51% 49% 54% 15% 46% 46% 31% 88% Don't know 4 2 2 1 - 2 2 1 3 1% 1% 1% ** % -% * 1% 1% 1% 1% 42% 58% 23% -% 42% 47% 28% 74% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ9 (SGB). Would you say that you work from home most of the time or just occasionally? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who ever work from home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l ~m n o Unweighted total 437 29 32 43 35 34 42 26 27 29 308 129 437 - 266 171 Effective Weighted Sample 317 28 30 42 34 33 40 25 26 27 248 73 317 - 192 127 Total 388 52 50 43 30 37 48 29 14 37 319 69 388 - 251 136 82% 18% 100% -% 65% 35% Most of the time 136 104 32 136 - 94 42 35% 33% 46% 35% -% 37% 31% j 77% 23% 100% -% 69% 31% Just occasionally 247 210 37 247 - 156 91 64% 66% 54% 64% -% 62% 67% 85% 15% 100% -% 63% 37% Don't know 4 4 - 4 - 1 3 1% 1% -% 1% -% % 2% * 100% -% 100% -% 28% 72% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz11 (Qz9A). Could You Please Tell Me If Your Total Household Income From All Sources Before Tax And Other Deductions Is Above Or Below £11,500 Per Year? Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Under £11,500 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% Above £11,500 1592 798 794 165 308 628 491 - 251 351 563 508 443 376 265 1346 139 77 30 60% 61% 58% 45% 66% 69% 53% -% 96% 98% 97% 71% 62% 65% 40% 60% 60% 58% 40% cf cf c g g g lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 10% 19% 39% 31% -% 16% 22% 35% 32% 28% 24% 17% 85% 9% 5% 2% Don't know 218 97 120 94 34 42 48 - 5 1 10 41 54 52 70 175 23 14 5 8% 7% 9% 26% 7% 5% 5% -% 2% % 2% 6% 8% 9% 11% 8% 10% 11% 7% def e gi g k k 45% 55% 43% 16% 19% 22% -% 3% 1% 5% 19% 25% 24% 32% 81% 11% 6% 2% Refused 548 272 276 59 76 166 247 - 4 6 10 149 167 114 117 464 33 21 30 20% 21% 20% 16% 16% 18% 27% -% 2% 2% 2% 21% 23% 20% 18% 21% 14% 16% 40% cde g g g n p opq 50% 50% 11% 14% 30% 45% -% 1% 1% 2% 27% 30% 21% 21% 85% 6% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ11 (QZ9A). Could you please tell me if your total household income from all sources before tax and other deductions is above or below £11,500 per year? Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Under £11,500 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% Above £11,500 1592 247 230 150 93 88 162 145 45 186 1371 221 1115 472 879 713 60% 73% 64% 66% 49% 37% 66% 64% 40% 62% 59% 61% 72% 42% 61% 58% bdeghi deh deh eh deh deh deh m 16% 14% 9% 6% 6% 10% 9% 3% 12% 86% 14% 70% 30% 55% 45% Don't know 218 33 26 14 12 26 14 17 11 21 188 30 86 132 110 108 8% 10% 7% 6% 7% 11% 6% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 6% 12% 8% 9% f l 15% 12% 7% 6% 12% 6% 8% 5% 10% 86% 14% 39% 61% 51% 49% Refused 548 47 76 41 55 103 34 21 35 54 476 72 284 261 329 220 20% 14% 21% 18% 29% 43% 14% 9% 31% 18% 21% 20% 18% 23% 23% 18% afg g abcfgi abcdfghi abcfgi g l o 9% 14% 7% 10% 19% 6% 4% 6% 10% 87% 13% 52% 48% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz12 (Qz9). Showcard Group In Which You Would Place Your Total Household Income From All Sources, Before Tax And Other Deductions? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Under £11,500 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% £11,500 - £17,499 260 117 143 26 45 72 117 - 260 - - 32 62 66 100 213 27 15 6 10% 9% 10% 7% 10% 8% 13% -% 100% -% -% 5% 9% 11% 15% 10% 12% 11% 8% ce gij k k kl 45% 55% 10% 17% 28% 45% -% 100% -% -% 12% 24% 25% 38% 82% 10% 6% 2% £17,500 - £29,999 358 184 174 33 67 146 112 - - 358 - 76 115 100 68 311 25 13 9 13% 14% 13% 9% 14% 16% 12% -% -% 100% -% 11% 16% 17% 10% 14% 11% 10% 12% c cf ghj kn kn 51% 49% 9% 19% 41% 31% -% -% 100% -% 21% 32% 28% 19% 87% 7% 4% 3% £30,000 - £49,999 350 175 175 29 83 163 75 - - - 350 133 98 83 36 303 26 17 4 13% 13% 13% 8% 18% 18% 8% -% -% -% 60% 19% 14% 14% 5% 14% 11% 13% 6% cf cf ghi lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 8% 24% 47% 21% -% -% -% 100% 38% 28% 24% 10% 87% 7% 5% 1% £50,000+ 233 116 117 26 44 119 45 - - - 233 134 54 37 9 206 20 7 1 9% 9% 9% 7% 9% 13% 5% -% -% -% 40% 19% 8% 6% 1% 9% 8% 5% 1% f cf ghi lmn n n qr r r 50% 50% 11% 19% 51% 19% -% -% -% 100% 57% 23% 16% 4% 88% 8% 3% % REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K 427 224 204 56 75 141 156 - - - - 145 123 97 63 346 42 29 11 16% 17% 15% 15% 16% 15% 17% -% -% -% -% 20% 17% 17% 9% 15% 18% 22% 14% n n n or 52% 48% 13% 17% 33% 36% -% -% -% -% 34% 29% 23% 15% 81% 10% 7% 2% DK/ Refused 729 352 377 149 104 195 281 - - - - 178 211 160 177 606 56 33 34 27% 27% 27% 41% 22% 21% 30% -% -% -% -% 25% 29% 28% 27% 27% 24% 25% 46% def de opq 48% 52% 20% 14% 27% 39% -% -% -% -% 24% 29% 22% 24% 83% 8% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% £11.5K- £17.5K 260 117 143 26 45 72 117 - 260 - - 32 62 66 100 213 27 15 6 10% 9% 10% 7% 10% 8% 13% -% 100% -% -% 5% 9% 11% 15% 10% 12% 11% 8% ce gij k k kl 45% 55% 10% 17% 28% 45% -% 100% -% -% 12% 24% 25% 38% 82% 10% 6% 2% £17.5K- £29.9K 358 184 174 33 67 146 112 - - 358 - 76 115 100 68 311 25 13 9 13% 14% 13% 9% 14% 16% 12% -% -% 100% -% 11% 16% 17% 10% 14% 11% 10% 12% c cf ghj kn kn 51% 49% 9% 19% 41% 31% -% -% 100% -% 21% 32% 28% 19% 87% 7% 4% 3% £30K+ 583 291 292 54 127 282 120 - - - 583 266 153 119 45 509 46 23 5 22% 22% 21% 15% 27% 31% 13% -% -% -% 100% 37% 21% 21% 7% 23% 20% 18% 7% cf cf ghi lmn n n qr r r 50% 50% 9% 22% 48% 20% -% -% -% 100% 46% 26% 20% 8% 87% 8% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Under £11,500 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% £11,500 - £17,499 260 37 34 17 16 15 28 29 10 27 227 33 117 141 108 152 10% 11% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 13% 9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 13% 8% 12% e l n 14% 13% 7% 6% 6% 11% 11% 4% 11% 87% 13% 45% 54% 42% 58% £17,500 - £29,999 358 43 37 24 25 13 47 44 14 64 310 48 258 99 187 171 13% 13% 10% 11% 13% 6% 19% 19% 12% 21% 13% 13% 17% 9% 13% 14% e e bceh bceh e abcdeh m 12% 10% 7% 7% 4% 13% 12% 4% 18% 87% 13% 72% 28% 52% 48% £30,000 - £49,999 350 51 59 41 28 11 32 27 10 45 305 45 298 51 218 132 13% 15% 17% 18% 15% 5% 13% 12% 9% 15% 13% 12% 19% 5% 15% 11% eh eh eh eh e e eh m o 15% 17% 12% 8% 3% 9% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 85% 14% 62% 38% £50,000+ 233 53 38 24 9 5 33 19 4 21 198 35 194 39 151 82 9% 16% 11% 10% 5% 2% 13% 8% 4% 7% 9% 10% 13% 3% 10% 7% deghi deh deh dehi eh e m o 23% 16% 10% 4% 2% 14% 8% 2% 9% 85% 15% 83% 17% 65% 35% REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K 427 64 69 46 18 51 28 29 8 32 362 65 271 155 238 190 16% 19% 19% 20% 9% 22% 11% 13% 7% 11% 16% 18% 17% 14% 16% 15% dfhi dfhi dfghi dfghi m 15% 16% 11% 4% 12% 6% 7% 2% 8% 85% 15% 64% 36% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% DK/ Refused 729 78 96 53 65 121 42 36 44 72 631 98 345 380 415 314 27% 23% 27% 23% 34% 51% 17% 16% 39% 24% 27% 27% 22% 34% 29% 25% g fg g acfgi abcdfghi abcfgi g l 11% 13% 7% 9% 17% 6% 5% 6% 10% 87% 13% 47% 52% 57% 43% HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% £11.5K- £17.5K 260 37 34 17 16 15 28 29 10 27 227 33 117 141 108 152 10% 11% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 13% 9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 13% 8% 12% e l n 14% 13% 7% 6% 6% 11% 11% 4% 11% 87% 13% 45% 54% 42% 58% £17.5K- £29.9K 358 43 37 24 25 13 47 44 14 64 310 48 258 99 187 171 13% 13% 10% 11% 13% 6% 19% 19% 12% 21% 13% 13% 17% 9% 13% 14% e e bceh bceh e abcdeh m 12% 10% 7% 7% 4% 13% 12% 4% 18% 87% 13% 72% 28% 52% 48% £30K+ 583 104 97 65 37 16 65 46 14 65 504 79 492 89 370 214 22% 31% 27% 28% 19% 7% 27% 20% 12% 22% 22% 22% 32% 8% 26% 17% deghi deh degh eh eh eh e eh m o 18% 17% 11% 6% 3% 11% 8% 2% 11% 86% 14% 84% 15% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz13 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 507 244 263 82 86 172 167 69 45 57 33 80 146 107 172 - - - 507 Effective Weighted Sample 376 173 203 56 68 136 117 49 36 44 23 61 112 83 131 - - - 376 Total 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 48% 52% 35% 32% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Roman Catholic 22 11 11 9 5 5 7 7 - - - 22 30% 32% 29% 34% 21% 27% 40% 32% -% -% -% 30% f 50% 50% 39% 22% 22% 32% 31% -% -% -% 100% Presbyterian Church of Ireland 19 10 9 6 9 5 4 5 - - - 19 25% 27% 23% 22% 38% 26% 23% 23% -% -% -% 25% e 52% 48% 31% 49% 26% 22% 27% -% -% -% 100% Church of Ireland 7 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 - - - 7 9% 8% 10% 7% 9% 10% 8% 10% -% -% -% 9% 45% 55% 29% 32% 28% 21% 32% -% -% -% 100% Methodist Church of Ireland 6 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 - - - 6 8% 7% 9% 10% 7% 5% 9% 7% -% -% -% 8% 43% 57% 41% 26% ** 15% 27% 26% -% -% -% 100% Other Christian (including Christian related) 1 * 1 1 * 1 - 1 - - - 1 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% -% 3% -% -% -% 2% 28% 72% 45% 35% 45% -% 55% -% -% -% 100% Other religions/ philosophies 1 1 1 ** 1 * ** * * * - - - 1 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% -% -% 2% 48% 52% 53% 27% 22% 23% 36% -% -% -% 100% No religion 8 4 4 3 1 2 2 2 - - - 8 11% 12% 9% 10% 4% 11% 11% 10% -% -% -% 11% 54% 46% 33% 12% 24% 25% 28% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz13 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 507 244 263 82 86 172 167 69 45 57 33 80 146 107 172 - - - 507 Effective Weighted Sample 376 173 203 56 68 136 117 49 36 44 23 61 112 83 131 - - - 376 Total 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 48% 52% 35% 32% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Refused 10 4 6 3 4 3 2 3 - - - 10 13% 11% 15% 13% 17% 16% 9% 13% -% -% -% 13% 41% 59% 33% 42% ** 29% 16% 28% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ13 (QZNI1). Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which religion, religious denomination or body do you belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 507 - - - - - - - - - 262 245 279 226 196 311 Effective Weighted Sample 376 - - - - - - - - - 202 196 219 157 146 238 Total 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Roman Catholic 22 - - - - - - - - - 11 11 13 10 9 14 30% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 24% 41% 31% 30% 25% 34% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 50% 50% 57% 43% 38% 62% Presbyterian Church of Ireland 19 - - - - - - - - - 11 7 10 8 10 8 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 24% 27% 25% 24% 30% 21% o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 56% 42% 54% 46% Church of Ireland 7 - - - - - - - - - 5 1 4 3 3 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 11% 5% 9% 9% 8% 9% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 42% 58% Methodist Church of Ireland 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 2 4 2 2 4 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 8% 9% 8% 6% 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 64% 36% 59% 41% 36% 64% Other Christian (including Christian related) 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 * 1 1 1 1 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 84% 16% 52% 48% 53% 47% Other religions/ philosophies 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 * 1 1 * 1 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 48% 52% 25% 75% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ13 (QZNI1). Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which religion, religious denomination or body do you belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 507 - - - - - - - - - 262 245 279 226 196 311 Effective Weighted Sample 376 - - - - - - - - - 202 196 219 157 146 238 Total 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% No religion 8 - - - - - - - - - 5 2 5 3 3 5 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 9% 13% 8% 10% 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 30% 65% 35% 41% 59% Refused 10 - - - - - - - - - 8 2 4 6 6 4 13% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 8% 10% 17% 17% 10% k l o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 77% 23% 42% 57% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o	en
4199-pdf	## Privacy Impact Assessment: Releasing Family Food Survey Data (1974 - 2000) As Open Data This assessment follows the template provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in their publication Conducting Privacy Impact Assessments: Code of Practice. Why are we undertaking a PIA? Our information flows Our consultation process Our key privacy, compliance and corporate risks Step five: Identify privacy solutions Step six: sign off Step seven: integrate PIA outcomes back into the project plan ## Why Are We Undertaking A Pia? Defra is planning to publish its archive of Family Food Survey data (1974 - 2000) as open data. It wants to do this in a way that ensures the privacy of individuals who have been surveyed throughout that time period is protected and respected. Defra needs to take care that data published as open data (a) does not contain any personal data and (b) cannot be reidentified. This Privacy Impact Assessment forms part of Defra's approach to managing risks associated with the publication of this archive. Defra has committed to publishing 8,000 datasets as open data by June 2016 (#OpenDefra). While stimulating external and new uses of Defra data is a key goal of this project, it is also designed to kickstart cultural change across Defra and the transition to becoming a more collaborative, open organisation. Since the launch of #OpenDefra, Defra has begun publishing a significant array of environmental and observational data, predominantly through its arms-length bodies. It has developed an open data risk assessment (ODRA) process for working through risks associated with open data publication. To date, most data published could be described as 'low risk', with minimal issues relating to third party IP, personal data or commercial sensitivity. The publication of Defra's archive of its National Food Survey data (1974 - 2000) as open data marks the first significant release of data that is derived from data provided by individuals. Since 2000, the National Food Survey has been retitled as the 'Family Food Survey' and is still administered by Defra in partnership with ONS. 'Family Food Survey' is used as an umbrella term for the data throughout this PIA. Since its origins, the Survey has captured a sample of households annually (approximately 7,000 from across the UK) and asks them to maintain a one week diary about what they eat and drink inside and outside the home. It's a fascinating snapshot of how British eating habits at home have changed over the years. While this PIA relates only to the publication of its data archive from 1974 - 2000, Defra has been collecting data as part of the Family Food Survey since 1940. What are the goals from the publication of this data? The publication of Defra's archive of Family Food Survey data has benefits for people and organisations both inside and outside the department. The richness of information it provides about eating and drinking habits throughout Britain over decades could be useful for: - analysing dietary and nutritional trends across Britain (for example, by combining it with nutritional data collected by the Food Standards Agency) - understanding the relationship between dietary trends and other social forces that shape UK communities (employment, industrialisation) - contributing to topical debates about obesity and sugar - informing new teaching aides and visualisations in schools - an exciting way for students to engage with British eating habits over time. Publishing its archive of Family Food Survey data also has benefits to Defra as a department: - it's an engaging, easy to comprehend data source - a useful way to explore the possibilities of data, and how it reflects changes over time, with staff without specialist data backgrounds - it encourages new approaches to publishing data within existing Defra professions - as part of this process, the statistics profession in Defra will develop valuable experience drafting privacy impact assessments, assessing disclosure control risks, documenting disclosure control mechanisms, working with data users, and developing anonymization skills. The Family Food Survey has historically collected information not only about household eating and drinking habits across the UK, but also information about things like household numbers, ages of occupants, their gross income and type of employment. The need for a privacy impact assessment has been identified as part of the process preparing a version of the Family Food Survey data archive that is safe for release as open data. It will help Defra weigh the risks associated with the publication of this data in a way that balances the potential impacts of reidentification of individuals in the survey, as well as the public benefit in making this data more accessible. The task was to produce a treated dataset which was both valuable in its content to end users and which safeguards respondents' privacy to an acceptable level (both to Defra and them). ## Our Information Flows How has this data been collected? Contributions to the Family Food Survey have been collected per household, via paper-based surveys, since 1939. Copies of the survey are distributed to a number of households across the UK. On average, approximately 7,000 households from across the UK are surveyed each year. Households are sampled at random, and linking food diary entries to particular households over time is not possible. Some mechanisms around collection of the data have changed over the decades. In the 1970s, for example, surveys were typically supplied to the 'housewife' for completion, as person assumed in the household to have greatest understanding of what that household consumed over a two week period. By the late 1980's, the designation 'housewife' was removed from the survey and it could be filled in by any household occupant. Food and drink consumed outside the home over a two week period were added as questions to the survey. This survey, like all household surveys, would have been accompanied by a commitment to respondent confidentiality. The exact wording is now lost, but we continue to give this the highest priority in preparing the data archive for open publication. Because this is a historic archive, information related to the original administration of the surveys has also been lost. The data Defra has access to may already have been cleansed of all direct identifiers, and had some disclosure control guidance applied. We do not know what other personal information may have been collected, and subsequently deleted, as part of data processing. We have commenced this PIA, and made changes to the data archive to reduce the risk of re-identification of individuals, based on the data that Defra has access to. What does this data look like? The 'unprocessed' data archive available within Defra does not include any direct identifiers like name of survey recipient, address or national insurance number. However, the data does include a number of variables that may make reidentification of individuals and households in the data possible. The survey captures information including: - Age of household occupants - Gross income - Employment type - Whether any occupants were pregnant at the time of completion of the survey - Whether occupants had certain benefits - Sex The data archive is currently accessible via the UK Data Archive to users who register and agree to the terms & conditions of its End User Licence (EUL). Due to the age of the data, it's unclear what disclosure control may have taken place prior to the uploading of Family Food Survey data to the UK Data Archive. Defra would like to publish a version of the data archive more widely as open data. It's likely that some disclosure control will need to be undertaken prior to publication, to make the risk of re-identification of individuals contributing to the survey as remote as possible. ## Our Consultation Process Defra has set up an internal project group to manage the publication of Family Food Survey data as open data, spanning representatives from the Food & Farming statistics unit, the Defra Data Programme and Communications Directorate. The data archive doesn't include any contact details or direct identifiers for households who were involved in the survey. As such, contacting survey respondents individually to seek their feedback on the project is impossible. As part of its preparation, the project group consulted: - inside Defra, with the Information Rights Management team to understand the relationship between the Data Protection Act and anonymization of data. - outside Defra, with the Office of National Statistics, to understand disclosure control guidance that is available and existing case studies of reuse of historic survey data, and with the UK Data Archive, to understand how the Family Food Survey data is managed via that platform. The project group set up an external group of trusted testers, to explore five years of unprocessed test data (1974 - 1978) and provide feedback on variables that they would find most useful, as well as share their thoughts on potential privacy risks associated with the project. Feedback from testers has helped to shape Defra's own disclosure control testing. A draft of this privacy impact assessment was also shared with the external testers, as well as the information rights team in Defra, to provide feedback on how it could be improved. ## Our Key Privacy, Compliance And Corporate Risks Risk One: Individuals can be re-identified using the Family Food Survey data The Information Commissioner's Office has made clear that data protection law does not apply to data that has been anonymised; that is, changed in such a way that the data subject is longer identifiable. Defra is following ONS disclosure control guidance and the ICO Anonymization Code of Practice to reduce the likelihood as much as possible that this data could be re-identified. Nonetheless, we need to think through the impacts to individuals, and to Defra, were re-identification to occur. In some circumstances, even if identification of an individual from the data is possible, there may be no negative impact. An individual might recognise their own household from a diary entry. A neighbour or associate might make an educated guess about the identity of a household in the data. The food diary results do not divulge anything sensitive or unusual, and/or the recognition may occur privately. We can foresee instances where even if identification occurs, there's no impact on individuals or government. There is still a risk that, even in the event no harm is experienced as a result of reidentification, Defra may be found to have breached its obligations under the Data Protection Act. The ICO may launch an investigation into the circumstances which resulted in the re-identification of individuals. A finding by the ICO that Defra has negligently disclosed personal data about individuals could result in civil penalties and a fine of up to £500 000. The ICO has stated that 'where there is evidence of re-identification taking place, with a risk of harm to individuals, the Information Commissioner will be likely to take regulatory action' (20, Anonymization Code of Practice). Finally, there is a risk that a household or households is identified from the Family Food Survey data, with negative outcomes. A combination of certain unique household information is found to be that of a well-known household - e.g. a Minister, an MP, a celebrity, a public intellectual, athlete etc. The details of these food diaries form the basis of media stories revealing the eating habits of these public figures. These eating habits may not be unusual, or they may reveal details that are embarrassing to the figures. Alternatively, a food diary entry may be so unusual as to incentivise re-identification of the household surveyed, and - if achieved - result in a public focus on that household's eating habits. Solution Defra has taken steps to ensure that the likelihood of identification is as remote as possible1. In order to assess the likelihood of identification, the team: - ran a range of count queries, looking for unique and low combinations of results in the data. Due to the sample nature of the survey, a large return of unique and low combinations did not necessarily mean the nature of the household information captured was unique (i.e. that only one household of four, with two children and two adults, from Bath, was captured by the survey does not mean that such a household is rare in Bath); - applied Skinner and Elliot's data intruder simulation (DIS) method2 on a variety of combinations of variables to assess potential disclosure risk; and - spoke with external testers about their experiences of the data, and combinations of variables they considered to be unique. To reduce the risk of identification as much as possible, Defra has decided to: - Remove data records for households with more than 10 members - Where ages are recorded, band them into 7 age groups - Delete the gross income of head of household - Band the net family income into equivalised deciles (within the dataset, not national equivalised decile income points) - Merge the variables recording receipt of various benefits (Family Credit, Income Support, Housing Benefit, Working Family Tax Credit) into a single binary variable - Delete variables on religion (these were only recorded in Northern Ireland) - Not publish the 'person' table which recorded a number of details on each member of the household (age, sex occupation etc). A new person table will contain two binary variables identifying whether the household contains a) a pregnancy and b) any children under 3. As part of the data release, Defra will provide a mechanism for people to alert the team to any instances of identification or other privacy-related issues in the data. Text will be added to the data release pages with a contact email address (familyfood@defra.gsi.gov.uk) asking data users to alert the team to any issues. If a privacy-related issue is raised and found to be valid, the data will be removed from data.gov.uk and any other locations until the issue is resolved. Risk Two: Regardless of any actual identification of individuals from the Family Food Survey data, the public perceives it to be a breach of their trust in government. There are increasing sensitivities around how government collects, accesses and uses our personal data. There may be a general perceived risk that Defra has not been managing its Family Food Survey data properly and securely (absent of any incidents, or based on identification of households). Participants in future surveys may, as part of the fallout from such a risk, refuse to participate in the Family Food Survey/other government surveys. Defra is heavily reliant on the continuance of surveys to collect data. As such, maintenance of the response rate into the future needs to be taken into account. Care must be taken to not only protect privacy, but be perceived as protecting privacy, in a way that also shows that the data is being used for the benefit of the nation, while respecting those who volunteered their time and data to DEFRA and its predecessors in the past. The ongoing administration of the Family Food Survey is the responsibility of the Defra statistics profession, who are bound by the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice. The Code of Practice in its current form didn't exist at the time this historic data was collected (1974). The statistics profession inside Defra could be found to be in breach of the existing Code of Practice. Solution We will publish our privacy impact assessment alongside the publication of this data archive, to show people the steps taken prior to publishing this data as open data. Demonstrating a rigorous risk process, and being open and transparent about internal consultation, changes to the data and risks considered, can be powerful mechanisms for engendering trust in government. We will also work with the Defra communications directorate to prepare a set of reactive messages in the event concerns are raised about Defra's collection and publication of the survey results. Importantly, this release should be positioned as a positive, people-friendly data publication - an opportunity to explore food and drink trends around Britain from the 1970s - 2000. ## Step Six: Sign Off Who approves the privacy risks involved in the project? For this project, a data governance group has been assembled comprising: - the senior responsible officer for data within Defra - the Head of the Statistics Profession in Defra - The Director for Food & Farming and ## - The Director General For Evidence This group must review the PIA, discuss it with the Family Food Survey team and approve publication of the data archive as it recommends. Defra will look to establish a permanent sub-committee of the Data Governance Board - an internal board helping to implement the wider Defra Data Programme - to review future releases that may involve some personal data or other risk. ## Step Seven: Integrate Pia Outcomes Back Into The Project Plan The Food and Trade statistics team owns this data and the Food and Trade Statistician is the current asset owner. The Food and Trade Statistician has responsibility to ensure publication conforms with the recommendations of the overall assessment as signed off by the data governance group. ## Preparing The Next Tranche Of Data (2001 - Present) For Release This PIA concerns the preparation of Family Food data from 1974 - 2000 for release. Following the 18th February, the project team will begin preparing for the release of data to the present day, collected as part of the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Living Costs & Food Survey. As the data from 2001 to present is jointly administered by ONS and Defra, a different governance process will be required to approve sign off of the data for publication. Defra expects that the more recent data may require additional disclosure control, due to its age and the increasing availability of public information sources (e.g. social media) that may increase the risk of identification. Defra will begin with the data specification agreed on for its 1974 - 2000 release, and conduct a penetration test of the more recent data after it has been processed according to this specification. Defra will also continue to engage with external users and provide updates to changes to the data set for publication as a result of this process.	en
0901-pdf	## Arts Council England And The National Archives Memorandum Of Understanding 2016-19 This refreshed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) builds on the framework for cooperation outlined in the 2012-15 MoU between Arts Council England and The National Archives. This refreshed MoU sets out the role of each organisation and describes how they will work together to achieve their separate and common goals. ## 1. Background 1.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries. 1.2 The National Archives leads the archives sector for England and performs the Historical Manuscripts Commission's functions in relation to independent archives. Its support and advice helps archives across the UK to develop and enhance their services, facilities and collections. Over the next four years, its strategic plans include tackling the challenges and opportunities digital technologies present for the creation and preservation of archival collections of all kinds. 1.3 The MoU recognises that while both organisations have distinct roles, their strategic visions and aims reflect their areas of shared interest. ## 2. The National Archives 2.1 The National Archives is a non-ministerial government department sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is the official archive and publisher for the UK government, and for England and Wales. It is the guardian of some of the most iconic national documents dating back more than 1,000 years. 2.2 The National Archives works to bring together and secure the future of the record, both digital and physical, for future generations, nationally and internationally. 2.3 Archives Inspire, The National Archives' strategic plans for 2015-19, sets out its ambitions to meet the needs of its major audiences - government, the public, academia and the archive sector - and to face the biggest challenge, digital. ## 3. Arts Council England 3.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England. It is a non-departmental public body attached to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 3.2 Arts Council England's mission is 'Great art and culture for everyone'. It works hard to achieve this by championing, developing and investing in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives. 3.3 Arts Council England has a ten-year strategic framework, running from 2010-20 - 'Great art and culture for everyone' ## 4. Aim 4.1 This refreshed MoU outlines how both organisations will continue to work together. 4.2 The aim of the refreshed MoU is to ensure that there is a comprehensive cultural offer for the public, which includes the rich diversity of arts, museums, libraries and archives. ## 5. Shared Objectives Through collaboration, Arts Council England and The National Archives will: 5.1 Act strategically and practically across the full range of cultural and heritage sectors to help communities and people across England to benefit from opportunities to engage with culture. 5.2 Develop and enhance the existing connections between the arts, museums, libraries and archives - particularly where opportunities exist to better utilise collections and develop collaborative working. 5.3 Continue to recognise archives as part of the wider cultural landscape, often within the context of a museum or library offer. 5.4 Share research and intelligence to support a richer cultural offer locally. 5.5 Champion and support the development, protection and engagement with the diversity of collections across England for long-term public benefit. 5.6 Work together more effectively in other partnerships and networks. 5.7 Promote better understanding and support for the cultural ecology, as it exists and develops locally. 5.8 Explore shared approaches to sector sustainability, workforce development and resilience. The delivery of these objectives is outlined in an agreed action plan in a separate annex. ## 6. Statement Of Intent 6.1 Arts Council England and The National Archives recognise that they have complementary expertise and overlapping interests. 6.2 Arts Council England and The National Archives will endeavour to cooperate and work together in so far as their separate interests, legal constraints and corporate aims permit. 6.3 They will share knowledge (so far as they are legally permitted to do so), expertise and best practice in relation to matters of mutual interest, and if there is an overlap or mutual interest in a particular area, they will consult as appropriate. 6.4 Both parties are committed to the principle of good communication with each other, especially when one organisation's work may have some bearing on the responsibilities or remit of the other organisation. 6.5 Both Arts Council England and The National Archives will seek to alert each other as soon as is practically possible to relevant developments within their respective sectors. 6.6 The refreshed MoU is to be published on both organisations websites. ## 7. Frequency Of Contact 7.1 Senior members of staff from Arts Council England and The National Archives will meet on an annual basis, to discuss matters of mutual interest and the operation of this MoU. These meetings will be underpinned by regular liaison between their officials on a quarterly basis, or as and when required. 7.2 The organisations will ensure that it is clear who are the appropriate contacts, for particular matters, and that contact details are kept up-todate. 7.3 At the time of writing, the key contacts are: - Dr Valerie Johnson, Director Of Research and Collections, The National Archives - Isobel Hunter, Head of Archives Sector Development, The National Archives - Paul Bristow, Director, Strategic Partnerships, Arts Council England - Scott Furlong, Director, Collections and Cultural Property, Arts Council England ## 8. Frequency Of Review 8.1 This MoU will be reviewed at least every three years and more frequently, if required, by developments in either organisation. 8.2 The MoU is not legally binding. It is a non-contractual agreement between the two organisations. ##	en
3792-pdf	\| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| Transaction Reference \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|------------\|-------------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| AAH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD \| 853477 \| 43943.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| AAH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD \| 857291 \| 43771.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 833120 \| 40839.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 833120 \| 71.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 836761 \| 25235.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 839769 \| 28702.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 839769 \| 71.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 851281 \| 42690.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 MEDICAL DIRECTOR'S OFFICE \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| ALLOCATE SOFTWARE PLC \| 858584 \| 38400 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 07/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| ARJOHUNTLEIGH GETINGE GROUP \| 851336 \| 839412 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| ARJOHUNTLEIGH GETINGE GROUP \| 851682 \| 115207 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| ATHRODAX HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL LTD \| 850036 \| 83170.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 853549 \| 52440 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 860302 \| 52440 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 860303 \| 52440 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 851642 \| 70800 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 860317 \| 73160 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| CONSUMABLES INVENTORY \| CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD \| 851301 \| 44820 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| CONSUMABLES INVENTORY \| CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD \| 852949 \| 39240 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| CARESTREAM HEALTH UK LIMITED \| 849417 \| 38400 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| AUC PFI BLDG LEASE ADDS PURCH \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 855861 \| 386906 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 861482 \| 3.62249e+06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| AUC PFI BLDG LEASE ADDS PURCH \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 863051 \| 222571 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 854614 \| 40097.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 863805 \| 30185.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| CSL BEHRING UK LTD \| 853048 \| 41850 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| IT ADDITIONS \| DELL CORPORATION LTD \| 859159 \| 93387 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 855326 \| 82261.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 855326 \| 33.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 860109 \| 62633.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 860109 \| 34.47 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 860110 \| 38474.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 862201 \| -38474.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 863477 \| 39735.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 863833 \| 87717.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 863833 \| 71.36 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 EDMS PROJECT \| EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS \| EDM GROUP LTD \| 861508 \| 22542.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ELI LILLY & CO LTD \| 858290 \| 48000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| ELLIOTT GROUP LTD \| 856971 \| 201888 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD \| 853735 \| 149034 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD \| 853742 \| 94867.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 MICROBIOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| GENMED.ME LIMITED \| 844700 \| 49167.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| HAAG STREIT UK LTD \| 850415 \| 194112 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 857688 \| 144888 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 860329 \| 136242 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 861674 \| 130019 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 863903 \| 138136 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 855403 \| 87154.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 855403 \| 7446.73 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| IMS HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED \| 856362 \| 35534.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| INTEGRATED RADIOLOGICAL SERVICES LTD \| 856367 \| 56090.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| FM COMPUTER CONTRACTS \| KCOM \| 864761 \| 387175 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| KIRKLEES COUNCIL \| 865198 \| 50072 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33825 \| 25947.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33831 \| 46702.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33916 \| 45260.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33980 \| 446 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33980 \| 37457.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 33980 \| 2379.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34223 \| 446 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34223 \| 37457.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34223 \| 2379.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34414 \| 42625 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI \| SENIOR LECTURER \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34558 \| 45000 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------\|---------\|------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 34883 \| -42625 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 852450 \| 245847 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 852451 \| 150691 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS \| PACEMAKERS \| MEDTRONIC LTD \| 851081 \| 79920 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 PACEMAKERS \| PACEMAKERS \| MEDTRONIC LTD \| 851085 \| 373980 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 GENERAL OFFICE PGH \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| NEOPOST FINANCE LTD \| 865722 \| 30000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 34662 \| 120257 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 34664 \| 40642.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| OTH PROVN UTILISATION >1YR \| NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY \| 34610 \| 29094.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 34918 \| 1.57563e+06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 14/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 34919 \| 38232 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 852023 \| 77474.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 852807 \| 212237 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 853667 \| 35188.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 853668 \| 118528 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 855809 \| 109394 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 855810 \| 159913 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866756 \| 90126.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866756 \| 7271.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866758 \| 93325.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866758 \| 95929 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866759 \| 17091.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866759 \| 28540.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866760 \| 85167.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 866760 \| 9566.34 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34791 \| 50593 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34792 \| 144425 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34855 \| 44055.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34856 \| 88816.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34926 \| 54622 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34927 \| 124681 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34989 \| 65616.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 34990 \| 167607 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 CSU SUPPORT \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| NHS YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER COMMISSIONING SUPP \| 34182 \| 47113.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 851426 \| 81076.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 856796 \| 28854.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 859216 \| 83718 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| PHOENIX PARTNERSHIP \| 860306 \| 38998.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| PMK DESIGN ASSOCIATES \| 857824 \| 28671 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 A&E PGH & PGI \| GENERAL PRACTITIONERS \| PRIMECARE \| 861094 \| 36042.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 853833 \| 157167 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 858987 \| 133807 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 861923 \| 30788.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 CQC \| TRAINING EXPENSES \| SALFORD ROYAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 34704 \| 40000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL \| 861285 \| 27150.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 ORTHOPAEDICS TRUSTWIDE \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL \| 861286 \| 71016.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS \| 852751 \| 39631.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 LAUNDRY DDH \| EXT CONTR LAUNDRY \| SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD \| 850041 \| 41540.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| PERSONAL INJURY \| THOMPSONS SOLICITORS \| 35464 \| 32000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| TRUSTMARQUE SOLUTIONS LTD \| 859190 \| 396542 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 01/05/2015 MYH TELECOMS \| DATA LINES \| VIRGIN MEDIA BUSINESS \| 853584 \| 48286.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/05/2015 FACILITIES - HEALTH CENTRES \| RENT \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 853647 \| 25314.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 865175 \| 241570 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 865176 \| 51765 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 861633 \| 34541.3 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 861633 \| 450 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| EDENRED \| 40310 \| 44407.1 \|	en
0172-pdf	## Dcms Business Costs 1 July - 30 September 2012 ## 1 July - 31 September 2012 I) Business Costs DCMS - Jonathan Stephens, Permanent Secretary Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Total Cost DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including £ Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi / Car/ Bus Accommodation / Meals 04/07/12 Reception £251.67 27/07/12 Lunch £55.80 DCMS - Jeremy Beeton, Director General, Government Olympic Executive Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Total Cost DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including £ Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi / Car/ Bus Accommodation / Meals NIL ## Ii) Hospitality Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received DCMS - Jonathan Stephens, Permanent Secretary Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Date 13/07/12 BBC Ticket to First night of Proms 23/07/12 International Olympic Committee Reception & Performance 12/09/12 Royal Shakespeare Company Reception & Performance Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received DCMS - Jeremy Beeton, Director General, Government Olympic Executive Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Date NIL	en
2829-pdf	## Freight Customer Panel 7 October 2019 The Freight Customer Panel is part of ORR's wider commitment to engage directly with freight customers. The panel provides a structured forum for engagement and helps to ensure our policies and regulatory decisions take into account the commercial environment that freight customers work within. The panel members assist us by contributing views, expressing opinions and advising us on freight issues. This note summarises the main themes and issues discussed at the seventh meeting of the Freight Customer Panel. Freight Customer Panel delegates: Chris Swan (Tarmac), David Turner (WH Malcolm), Maggie Simpson (RFG), Martin Woor (HPUK), Simon Blake (Aggregate Industries), Ian Shaw (VTG Rail) Alex Veitch (FTA). ORR delegates: Esther Sumner, Patrick Talbot, Catherine Williams, Steve Jones, Gordon Herbert. Apologies: Paul Garnham (MSC). The panel focused on the following themes: ## - Health And Safety Update (Patrick Talbot) Patrick provided an update on the ORR Annual Health and Safety Report, Infrastructure maintenance at off-network sites and the Risk Management Maturity Model. Feedback included a discussion over the enforcement of health and safety legislation at offnetwork sites. It was noted a NR led event is being organised for November 2019. ## - Network Rail Route Regulation There was a wide ranging discussion about NR route devolution and associated issues. Also mentioned was the Williams Review. The Scottish rail freight plan was mentioned as a good example. ## - Service Facility Access (Gordon Herbert) Gordon explained that ORR guidance had been revised. Useful feedback was provided on Service Facility Descriptions, track access contracts and there were contributions on performance regimes. ## - Orr Consultations A short discussion on how ORR should engage with the wider rail freight community. ## - Freight Customer Event 2019 The next ORR freight customer event will be in Manchester on 13 November 2019 and suggestions were made about topics to cover including capacity planning. ## - Next Panel It was agreed to hold another Freight Customer Panel by Spring 2020, details to be confirmed. ## Annual Health And Safety Report m Published 16 July 2019- covers 2018-19 health and safety performance m Key Headlines - Britain's railways remain one of the safest in Europe - However... this rate of improvement is slowing - Two worker's tragically lost their lives on Britain's railways ## @ Link Annual Health And Safety Report m Harm on the mainline to passengers rose—seven of the 13 passenger fatalities were at platform-train interface m Underlying SPAD risk has increased since Autumn 2018-—Increase in the number of SPADs given a "potentially severe" ranking \| \| \| \| Objects \| on \| the \| line \| \|----------------\|-----------\|-----\|------------\|--------\|--------\|----------------\| \| Infrastructure \| operation \| and \| signalling \| errors \| and \| irregularities \| \| Trespass \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Industry Challenges m Responding to increased pressure on the system arising from disruption across the network, more trains and ageing assets m@ Managing the effective introduction of new technology while taking human interactions into account @ Supporting our people who are often the last line of defence in preventing a major failure ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites m 2019-20 Inspection programme @ Aims - Toensure adequate track inspection and maintenance procedures are in place on 3rd party rail infrastructure where derailment could impinge upon network rail infrastructure. m Scope - Limited to sites where ORR has vires (predominantly intermodal terminals) - Focus is on sites in the West Midlands and North West ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites M Objectives - Determine if the third party duty holder has in place ¢ Adequate track maintenance and inspection regimes, including the frequency and type of inspections. * Aprocess to review, assess and address the risk from faults identified through the inspection regime Decision making processes in place for track renewals, specifically when track renewals are deferred. * Arrangements to ensure the competence of the staff responsible for overseeing track inspection and maintenance. - Take relevant action with the duty holder to correct any deficiencies in their arrangements. ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites M@ Inspections Currently Underway M Emerging Issues - Inspections tend to be based around basic visual inspection regime- is this sufficient for S&C? - Important for duty holders to clarify responsibilities where different organisations manage, inspect and maintain track assets - When faults are identified, duty holders need to ensure that they are acted upon and addressed- limited evidence of risk assessment being used @ ORR Long- term objective that duty holders demonstrate excellence in health and safety risk control @ But... - What is excellence? - How do duty holders demonstrate it? m The Risk Management Maturity Model m Everything informs management system picture. m@ Management Maturity Model makes sense of all the information. m@ Model is based on known good practice: - 5 stage development of maturity ("capability") - 26 elements of management m@ RM3 adopts the "Plan, Do, Check, Act" framework as well as; - SMS Good Practice - Emerging learning from incident reviews, including; * Texas City Explosion; * Nimrod * Walker Report m@ RM3 is compatible with other management system standards (e.g. ISO) @ RMS divides "Plan. Do, Check, Act" into 26 different components; @ For Example- Criteria SP: Health and Safety Policy, Governance and Leadership - SP1: Leadership - SP2: Health and safety policy (not including written health and safety management systems) - SP3: Board governance - SP4: Written health and safety management system @ Defines what excellence looks like for each criteria ## Risk Management Maturity Model M 5 Stages: Excellent * Proactive/Continual Improvement Predictable * Delivery can be predicted by management system * Variation and change is controlled ## Standardised * Good practice synthesised into standard processes ## Managed * Local groups are managed to ensure repeatable performance BUT * Each work group performs similar tasks differently ## Initial - Ad Hoc * Adhoc and uncoordinated ## Risk Management Maturity Model Aie Management Maturity Model ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, OR value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future \| OFFICE OF RAILAND ROAD ## Oom Freight Customer panel Esther Sumner, Catherine Williams, Maggie Simpson Network Rail route regulation ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, OR value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future OFFICE OF RAILAND ROAD ## Neo Emm Freight Customer Panel Gordon Herbert Service facility access ## Service Facility Access @ Context - Railways Act 1993 - Recast package and EC directive - The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 \| * \| Built \| on \| 2005 \| regime. \| \|------\|-------------\|-------\|---------\|------------\| \| * \| Amended \| in \| 2019. \| \| \| * \| Presumption \| of \| access. \| \| \| * \| Monitoring \| of \| the \| market. \| - Implementing Regulation on Service Facilities - Competition law	en
2126-pdf	## 2011 The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) took part in the Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme run by The National Archives (TNA) in May 2011. The assessment covered DECC's offices in London and Aberdeen and the findings and recommendations were presented to DECC in September 2012. The report and DECC's action plan to address the recommendations are being published today. The entire IMA process was extremely helpful to DECC, from identifying and providing evidence prior to the assessment, to discussing initial findings with the team immediately after the assessment, and finally the report and recommendations, including advice on how to act on them. At the time of the assessment DECC was a relatively new department, still developing a long-term vision and strategy for Knowledge and Information Management. It was extremely useful to us to have external validation of the areas which needed to be addressed, as well as identifying other issues for consideration. We were very pleased to see that two areas of best practice were identified, and that we were assessed as good or satisfactory for the majority of areas. However we acknowledge that there is still much to be done, and I'm pleased to say that a number of recommendations have already been addressed. We will continue to work with The National Archives to make progress against the remaining recommendations, as detailed in our action plan. At a more strategic level we will focus on embedding a knowledge sharing culture and the tools and processes to support this; on ensuring that effective information management practices are in place and followed; and addressing the risks of digital continuity. DECC recognises the value that effective knowledge and information management and exploitation provides in delivering operational efficiency, evidence based policy making, and in supporting the Transparency agenda. We are committed to continue to improve KIM in DECC and welcome the support of TNA in doing this. Wendy Barnes	en
1148-pdf	## During the month of November 2013, the following exceptions to the recruitment and consultancy freeze have been considered by the Chief Executive, in his capacity as Accounting Officer: Decision Approval date Ref: No. & directorate Summary of application Consultancy/ recruitment Recruitment Approved 26/11/2013 326 RME Exemption to Recruitment - Director, Railway Markets and Economics Consultancy Approved 27/11/2013 321 RPP Origin destination matrix 2013-14 to 2016-17, £160,000 Requests for consultancy valued at <£20,000 considered by the Director of Corporate Operations: Consultancy Approved 07/11/2013 316 Legal Scottish legal advice in relation to PR13 implementation, £2,000 12/11/2013 319 Legal Competition Case Advice, £3,000 Consultancy Approved Consultancy Approved 26/11/2013 322 RME Scarcity charging - indicative numerical analysis,	en
2984-pdf	## Guide To Template Agreements For Undertaking Railway Projects Introduction This guide is intended to assist all parties interested in taking forward projects which will enhance the railway network, consistent with the Office of Rail and Road's (ORR) Policy Framework for Investments. The ORR is the rail industry regulator and as such determines Network Rail's funding framework and the rules governing such funding. We, Network Rail have established a suite of Template Agreements, approved by the ORR, for the delivery of enhancements funded by third parties. The purpose of this guide is to: 1. Summarise project governance principles; 2. Summarise risk allocation principles built into the Template Agreements; 3. Describe the individual Template Agreements in general terms, and help explain how to choose which form of Template Agreement to use for the appropriate contractual framework; 4. Set out how railway environment specific risks are managed; 5. Describe service level obligations so that customers know what to expect from us; Note that parties who enter into contracts with us are referred to in the Template Agreements and in this document as "Customers". 1. Project Governance Project governance is central to any agreement. To avoid ambiguity or conflict, and to facilitate efficient delivery, the Template Agreements set out: a. Roles and Responsibilities The roles, responsibilities and obligations of the parties should be agreed. This enables the risks inherent in the agreement to be allocated to the party best qualified to manage them. b. Project Requirements (Scope / Cost / Time) Our joint requirements for the project need to be clearly articulated and understood by both parties. Any specific emphasis placed on these project requirements is suitably defined and recorded in the agreement. The parties' combined requirements will dictate what services we will provide, and the level of resources required to meet the project timescales. ## c. Monitoring The Template Agreements allow monitoring mechanisms to be put in place to check that the parties fulfil their obligations. Understanding how the project is progressing against the project requirements, and any issues arising affecting your business case or other objectives (such as risks to cost, programme or scope), are critical and are managed through the meeting and reporting requirements. d. Controls The Template Agreements allow control mechanisms to be put in place to check that the parties fulfil their obligations. Whilst we are the infrastructure manager and asset owner, the business case for the project rests with you. Therefore, decisions which could have a material impact on the business case and/or the project's outputs, or outcomes need to be agreed by us both. Procedures are set out to manage changes and variations effectively and fairly. e. Risk Allocation We should both have a clear and common understanding of the risks inherent in the project. The Template Agreements provide the framework for allocating risks to the parties, and the incentive framework for managing and funding such risk allocation. They provide means for redress, where appropriate, if a party fails to fulfil its obligations. Further information on risk is contained in Section 2 (Risk Allocation Principles) and Section 4 (Managing Railway Environment Risks) below. The Template Agreements provide for caps on both parties' level of liabilities. ## 2. Risk Allocation Principles The following high-level principles have been used to underpin and determine the financial allocation of risk within the Template Agreements: - We are not funded to assume liabilities arising from risks related to enhancement projects. The ORR therefore approved the establishment of Risk Funds to enable us to assume liability for our breach or negligence (within Network Rail's liability cap) and "industry risks", i.e. those specific to the railway1. You pay fees, approved by the ORR, proportionate to the project cost to us which contribute to the Risk Funds, namely the Network Rail Fee Fund and Industry Risk Fund. This enables us to fund your liabilities under the Template Agreements (see Section 4 and Appendix A below for further details); - You fund the direct incremental costs of the scheme, including non-Rail Industry Risk, generally on an emerging cost basis, but a fixed price (subject to any agreed assumptions) arrangement may be considered when concluding an Implementation Agreement; - Where you are responsible for delivery, an Asset Protection Agreement is used and you should transfer design construction risks to your Contractors, or manage those risks yourself where you cannot transfer them; - Where we are delivering under a Development Services Agreement or an Implementation Agreement, we will assume any risks in the contracts with our own Contractors; - Your liability for breach and negligence is capped at an appropriate level; - Our liability for contractual breach and negligence is capped at the level of the value of the Works and/or Services being provided - Liability for death, personal injury and fraud is uncapped for us both, in accordance with the law; - We are entitled to charge: o Costs reasonably and properly incurred by us (or a fixed amount if an Implementation Agreement (Fixed Price) is used subject to any agreed assumptions); o A Network Rail Fee to contribute towards funding normal contractual liabilities; o An Industry Risk Fee to contribute towards funding generic rail industry risks; and o Additional Expense to be incurred in connection with incremental maintenance and operational costs, etc. arising from the project in excess of £50,000 per annum; - Liquidated Damages, we will seek to agree an acceptable and deliverable programme with you and have resources and processes in place to manage this programme. However, slippage may still occur, with potential "knock-on" losses to you. Where you can demonstrate at the time the agreement is being negotiated that a genuine loss would result from a delay caused by us. We may agree to include liquidated damages in the agreement. These would reflect a pre-estimate of your loss, agreed by the us both acting reasonably and stated in the Agreement. In the event of a delay to the programme caused by us, then we would pay the agreed amount of liquidated damages to you. Then we would also agree the date from which liquidated damages would be payable and this would normally reflect the date at which you start to incur the loss. - Relief Events - These are events where you are entitled to relief from costs and liabilities as the risks involved are outside your control. These are risks specific to the rail industry and include operational emergencies and safety critical events as well as changes in law specific to the Railway, directions of competent authorities such as the ORR, cancelled possessions and changes in our Network Licence requirements which affect your project. (See Section 4 for more information). ## 3. Template Agreements & Explanatory Notes A brief summary of the purpose of each of the Template Agreements is given below. These Template Agreements set out the obligations of us both in respect of the services provided, and/or works to be delivered, and reflect the principles in the "Investment Framework Consolidated Policy and Guidelines" published by the ORR in October 2010. The ORR has approved these templates and expects us both to use them when engaging in enhancement schemes. These templates are designed for projects generally with a total cost of circa £50 million or less. We have provided detailed explanatory notes for each agreement along with the Template Agreements, these can be found under Downloads for Third Parties on our website. The rationale for this is to explain the purpose of and link the project governance principles to each clause so that their intent can be more clearly understood by you. These explanatory notes are designed for you to use at the beginning of the process, when we may not have yet appointed a representative (usually a "Sponsor") to your project. It is not possible to cater for every question or possible situation. However, once appointed, the Sponsor will be able to assist you with any questions relating to your project. There are 8 templates covering the main types of enhancement projects. These are summarised in the notes below, and a simplified diagram to help you understand the Template Agreement structure and identify the appropriate agreement for the type and stage2 of a project are shown in Appendix B. Network Rail delivering services: i. Basic Services Agreement (BSA) usually less than £5m This is a simple agreement aimed at quickly putting in place a contractual relationship following an initial approach from you, to cover pre-feasibility works to scope the scheme and develop the business case. Typically, up to the value of £5 million, the tasks it covers can include the provision of asset information to you, attendance at meetings and workshops, and where appropriate for small schemes, review of any initial scoping work undertaken by you. The agreement also permits, within constraints, you or your representative to undertake visual inspection of the network. It will generally be used during GRIP Stages 1-2 but could be used to the end of GRIP Stage 3. ii. Development Services Agreement (DSA) This agreement covers development and design work undertaken by us on your behalf, potentially including detailed design. The agreement also permits you, or your representative, to undertake surveys and investigations of the network where there is a mix of Network Rail and Contractors providing services for more complex schemes. Such actions would be subject to our usual access requirements and processes. The DSA covers GRIP Stages 1-4 inclusive with the potential to cover GRIP Stage 5, recognising that it can be put in place after GRIP 2 or 3 where a BSA has already been used for the early development stages. Network Rail implementing works for low risk projects: iii. Basic Implementation Agreement (BIA), Emerging Cost (EC) A simple emerging cost agreement for minor, straightforward, low risk works up to a typical value of £5 million, where we act as the Construction Manager, on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. The agreement usually covers GRIP Stages 5-8 inclusive, but the starting stage may be flexible. iv. Basic Implementation Agreement (BIA), Fixed Price (FP) This is a simple agreement for minor straightforward low risk works up to a typical value of £5 million, where we act as the Construction Manager, on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. It envisages that our Works Contractor will have provided a tendered fixed price based on the scope and timescales agreed between us both. You pay a fixed price subject to any reasonable assumptions and exclusions. Usually covering GRIP Stages 6-8 inclusive but, it can provide for detailed design of the Customer-funded scheme from GRIP Stage 5, if we can reasonably provide a fixed price based on information available. This would generally be restricted to projects where we are able to agree a fixed price with our Contractor for detailed design and implementation. Customer designing and/or delivering the Works: v. Basic Asset Protection Agreement (BAPA) A simple agreement for straightforward, low risk Customer-led work on the controlled railway infrastructure, where we facilitate your project through asset protection. The works should present low risks to the network, and so may, for example, take place on secondary routes, with few or no possessions required. Our services will include attendance at meetings, oversight of interfaces on the network and, where they are necessary, booking possessions. The agreement can cover up to GRIP Stage 8 but may require variations as the project progresses and the scope is developed through the various GRIP stages. This agreement includes service level obligations so that you can hold us to account. By having service levels in place, when undertaking projects on the railway you know what to expect from us and when to expect it by. More details can be found in Appendix B vi. Asset Protection Agreement (APA) An agreement for Customer-led works on the controlled railway infrastructure, where we facilitate your enhancement scheme through asset protection and managing interfaces with our operating, maintenance and renewal obligations. You pay the costs of our services that include engineering safety management approvals, provision of asset information, booking of possessions, applying for consents, as well as attendance at meetings and oversight of interfaces on the network or with other projects. The agreement typically covers up to GRIP Stage 8 but may require variations as the project progresses and the scope is developed through the various GRIP stages. This agreement also includes service level obligations, as detailed in the previous paragraph. Network Rail implementing works: vii. Implementation Agreement (IA), Emerging Cost This is an emerging cost agreement with us acting as a Construction Manager. It is designed for use on larger projects, typically with a value in excess of £5 million, or where the project is especially complex. It establishes the commercial terms for enhancement work on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. It allows for detailed design and implementation of the Customer-funded scheme, with the contracting strategy agreed by the parties. The agreement covers GRIP Stages 5-8 inclusive, but the starting stage may be flexible. viii. Implementation Agreement (IA), Fixed Price (FP) below £10m This agreement is intended to cover implementation of works up to a value of £10 million. It envisages that our Works Contractor will have provided a tendered fixed price based on the scope and timescales agreed by us both. It establishes the commercial terms for enhancement work on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. You pay a fixed price subject to any reasonable assumptions and exclusions. It can provide for detailed design and implementation of the Customer-funded scheme, usually covering GRIP Stages 6-8 inclusive, but, it can provide for detailed design of the Customer-funded scheme from GRIP Stage 5, if we can reasonably provide a fixed price based on information available. This would generally be restricted to projects where we are able to agree a fixed price with our Works Contractor for detailed design and implementation. 4. Managing Railway Environment Risks We want to actively encourage third-party investment in Britain's railways and to remove barriers to you in doing so. We are not funded by government to take on liabilities in relation to third-party funded enhancement projects, but to ask funders to accept uncapped liabilities in relation to thirdparty enhancements would be a significant barrier to investment. The Template Agreements described above frame the balance of risk and responsibility between us both with our liabilities funded by the Risk Funds described above. The key benefit of the Risk Funds is to provide a dedicated pooled funding source for certain events within liability caps approved by the ORR. In return you make a proportionate contribution towards the Risk Funds in the form of fees as part of each enhancement project. These are paid as part of the first invoice and are non-refundable. For each investment proposal we will provide you with a breakdown which sets out the level of the fees and liability caps and how they are calculated. The ORR expects us to regularly monitor the operation of the Risk Fund mechanism. Incoming funds (your contributions) are tracked against the outgoing funds (substantiated claims) and reported to the ORR at least once a year. We also regularly review with the ORR the risk profile and contribution levels to make sure they remain in balance and offer value for money for you. ## I. Network Rail Fee (Nrf) The NRF funds our potential contractual liabilities to you in respect of qualifying events under our direct control. All NRFs are pooled to meet substantiated claims for contractual breach and negligence by us. ## Ii. Industry Risk Fee (Irf) The IRF funds our potential contractual liabilities to you in respect of qualifying events outside our direct control. Typically, these are the low-probability, high-impact risks specific to rail industry conditions that would not normally occur in a high street environment. All IRFs are pooled to meet substantiated claims for industry risk events. The IRF covers two broad categories of risk for you: 1. Risks which are typically regarded as 'employer' or 'government' risks (for example, mandatory changes resulting from a change in the law peculiar to the rail industry, or changes to railway safety standards); and 2. Risks relating to events arising elsewhere on the network which have an impact on the project which results in disruption to the works (for example, a disruption caused by a safety critical event. We would be liable for costs and losses arising from such risks, where the amounts are more than £10,0003, and would be funded from the Industry Risk Fund. ## Iii. Relief Events The Contractor, whether they are appointed by us or by you, will be reimbursed for the increased costs (excluding indirect costs) reasonably and properly incurred as a result of a Relief Event which causes delay or disruption to a project. The categories of Relief Event are: - Network operation issues; - Cancellation and alteration of possessions due to events outside the control of us or you; and - The impact of interfacing projects. All parties, including the Contractor, have the usual duty to mitigate such costs or losses, but Network Rail will be liable for them and will recover any amounts incurred from the Industry Risk Fund. This assumes in each case that neither of us, you or the Contractor is at fault. The ORR required this to avoid a "claims culture". ## Iv. Mandatory Variations After approval of the works at GRIP Stage 4, if the works need to be varied as a result of any change in law or legal requirement expressly applying to the railway industry or the railway works, or as a result of changes to railway safety standards, such costs would fall to us to recover any costs or losses from the Industry Risk Fund. ## V. Network, Station Or Depot Change You will need to pay for industry compensation costs associated with any network, station or depot change, or any closure processes. This cost can be uncertain, and an estimate of the value may be made, and a cap agreed. If so, your liability for costs above this limit would be treated as an industry risk. ## Vi. Land And Noise Claims These are claims made against us under common law or pursuant to the Land Compensation Act 1973 or any other relevant regulations which relate to the operation or existence of any works which become a Network Rail asset. These claims are in respect of nuisance and the diminution of property values due to the implementation of the scheme. Whilst this is a Customer risk, where an estimate of the value has been made and a cap agreed, liability for costs above this limit would be treated as an industry risk. However, it should be noted that land and noise claims made during delivery of the works would not be covered under these provisions as these would have been addressed during any planning consent process and/or the licence to deliver the works. ## Vii. Bankruptcy/Insolvency Of The Customer Irrespective of the diligence applied to assess your creditworthiness and steps taken to obtain surety in the form of guarantees or bonds, there is always a possibility of insolvency or bankruptcy. In this event, particularly where the scheme is under way, the cost of termination or completion may require some additional funding. Given that the you would be unable to pay such costs in full, and that such funding was not part of the original cost forecast, the funding shortfall would be funded through the Industry Risk Fund. ## Viii. How The Funds Are Accessed The Risk Funds were established to cover the costs of any variations or events for which Network Rail is liable. Should you have a claim, you should lodge it against us and not against the Risk Funds themselves. If a claim is substantiated as valid, and you have incurred costs or losses, it will be reimbursed by us, we will then seek compensation internally from the Risk Funds. If your claim is substantiated as valid, but it relates to an amount invoiced by us and therefore not paid, we will seek compensation internally for the non-payment from the Risk Funds. ## Diagram: Risk Funds Claim Process 5. Service Level Obligations Our Service Level Obligations Summarised Below Apply Where You Are Promoting And Funding A Project And We Are Carrying Out Asset Protection Activities. The Service Level Obligations Reflect What You Can Expect From Us When Entering Into Either A Basic Asset Protection Agreement Or An Asset Protection Agreement. We Monitor Our Performance Against These Service Levels By Regularly Asking You To Complete An Online Survey And Publishing The Results On The Network Rail Website. The Service Level Obligations Are A Contractual Commitment That Require A Strong And Ongoing Dialogue With You From The Inception Of A Project To Handover And Completion. Measure of success Our commitment Service level Response to initial contact Within five working days of initial contact Respond to initial contact in writing within five working days with a relevant contact to support the work Secondary contact date Within 15 working days of initial contact Secondary contact within 15 working days of initial contact. We will engage with you to commence exploration of your requirements at an appropriate level of expertise Design submission date ASPRO response Within 25 working days of receipt Return any design data identified as being on the critical path within 25 working days of receipt ASPRO final response to programme received Within 10 working days of receipt of implementation programme or information Review implementation programme and provide comments to you Date ASPRO informed customer of possession(s) Within 20 working days of completion of consultation on proposed possession plan Confirm in writing that the relevant possessions have been obtained or not, together with details within 20 working days of completion of consultation on proposed possession plan ## Network Rail Fee And Industry Risk Fee \| Type of agreement \| \|-----------------------------------------\| \| Basic Services \| \| Agreement (BSA) \| \| Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs and personnel costs, \| \| as estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Development \| \| services agreement \| \| Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs and personnel costs, \| \| as estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Basic \| \| implementation \| \| agreement \| \| (emerging cost) \| \| Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs and personnel costs, \| \| as estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Implementation \| \| agreement \| \| (emerging cost) \| \| Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs and personnel costs, \| \| as estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Basic \| \| implementation \| \| agreement (fixed \| \| price) \| \| Fee is equal to 13% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs, personnel costs and \| \| QRA (risk assessment for any variation \| \| undertaken at a P50 probability in \| \| respect of the risks owned by Network \| \| Rail or capped to the customer), as \| \| estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Implementation \| \| agreement (fixed \| \| price) \| \| Fee is equal to 13% of the aggregate of \| \| the agency costs, consultants' and \| \| contractors' costs, personnel costs and \| \| QRA (risk assessment for any variation \| \| undertaken at a P50 probability in \| \| respect of the risks owned by Network \| \| Rail or capped to the customer), as \| \| estimated at the scheme \| \| commencement date. \| \| Asset protection \| \| agreement \| \| (including basic) \| \| Fee is equal to 10% of the aggregate \| \| agency costs, contractors' costs and \| \| personnel costs, as estimated at the \| \| scheme commencement date. \| Not Applicable Fee is equal to 2% of the project cost, which is the estimated total cost of the project up to the completion of the current stage of development contracted for. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultant's and contractors' costs and personnel costs. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultant's and contractors' costs and personnel costs. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultants' and contractors' costs, personnel costs and QRA (risk assessment for any variation undertaken at a P50 probability in respect of the risks owned by Network Rail or capped to the customer). Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultants' and contractors' costs, personnel costs and QRA (risk assessment for any variation undertaken at a P50 probability in respect of the risks owned by Network Rail or capped to the customer). Fee is 2% of the total estimated costs of the project up to its completion, including construction costs, contractors' costs, regulated change costs and Network Rail costs.	en
1040-pdf	# Annual Rail Consumer Report Findings By Train Company 2019-2020 ## Contents \| Guidance \| 1 \| \|------------------------------\|-----\| \| Avanti West Coast \| 4 \| \| c2c \| 7 \| \| Caledonian Sleeper \| 10 \| \| Chiltern Railways \| 13 \| \| CrossCountry \| 16 \| \| East Midlands Railway \| 19 \| \| Govia Thameslink Railway \| 22 \| \| Grand Central \| 25 \| \| Great Western Railway \| 28 \| \| Greater Anglia \| 31 \| \| Heathrow Express \| 34 \| \| Hull Trains \| 37 \| \| London North Eastern Railway \| 40 \| \| London Overground \| 43 \| \| Merseyrail \| 46 \| \| Northern Trains \| 49 \| \| ScotRail \| 52 \| \| South Western Railway \| 55 \| \| Southeastern \| 58 \| \| TfL Rail \| 61 \| \| TfW Rail \| 64 \| \| Transpennine Express \| 67 \| \| West Midlands Trains \| 70 \| ## Key Facts Owner group: This is the parent company which owns the train operating company. Operator: Train operating company. Franchise: Name of the franchise the train operating company operates. Franchise period: Period of time for which the train operating company has been contracted to run the franchise. Sector: Long distance, Regional, London and South East and Scotland. Operated stations 2019-20: Number of stations the train company operates. Employees 2019-20: Number of employees the train operating company has. Passenger journeys 2019-20: Number of annual passenger journeys on the train operating company. ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information provided to passengers when delays occur, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Passenger satisfaction with the information provided to passengers during the journey, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes The number of assists booked by passengers through the National Passenger Assistance Booking System, known as Passenger Assist, managed by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). Please note, the data does not include unbooked assistance, often called 'Turn Up and Go'. The number of booked assistance requests are shown for each company that manages a station, and therefore not necessarily against the train company which the passenger travels with. For example, if a passenger books assistance at Darlington station to board a CrossCountry train, the assist will be recorded against the station operator, which in this case would be LNER. This is why we do not have any data for those train companies who do not manage any stations. Source: Rail Delivery Group (RDG) Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 ## Passenger Experience Of Booked Assistance In 2019-20 Passenger experience of booked assistance throughout 2019-20. Based on research by Breaking Blue (commissioned by ORR) consisting of interviews with 4,079 Passenger Assist users in 2019-20. This research is a repeat of the 2018-19 study which means the results are directly comparable. The graphs are based on the following survey questions: 1) Passenger outcome for assistance that was booked: Question D5 - did you actually receive the following assistance? 2) Satisfaction with assistance at the station: Question D7 - how satisfied were you with the overall assistance at the station? 3). Satisfaction with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station: Question D17a - how satisfied were you with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station? 4) Overall satisfaction with the whole process from booking assistance to assistance received: Question D21 - how satisfied are you with the whole process from booking the assistance to the assistance received. The sample size is shown due to varying sample sizes between operators. Operators with a sample size below 70 are not shown due to issues with the robustness of the data. Data not available for those operators who do not operate any stations, a note will indicate where this is the case. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 This box shows the volume of claims received for redress due to booked assistance failure in 2019-20, and the percentage of claims approved by the train operator. The graph shows this by 'rail period' where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies ## Guidance On Interpreting The Data Alternative Accessible Transport The number of instances where the train company provided Alternative Accessible Transport (AAT) in 2019- 20. All operators must provide free alternative transport to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances, including: - When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; - When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or - When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers. The volume of AAT a train company provides can be influenced by a number of factors which means volumes can often vary significantly from year to year. Source: Train Operating Companies Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of accessibility complaints for the train operator in 2019-20. The table also shows the proportion (as a percentage) of accessibility complaints each of these issues accounted for. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Guidance On Interpreting The Data Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter The percentage of complaints which are answered by the train operator within 20 working days. Our regulatory requirement is to close 95% of complaints within 20 working days. The volume of complaint correspondence closed per 100,000 journeys. Complaints are normalised by passenger journeys to allow effective comparison of data between time periods and train operating companies. Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019- 20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods. Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019- 20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods. Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9 PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2 Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of complaints for the train operator in 2019- 20. The table also shows what proportion of complaints each of the top five complaints issues accounted for and the percentage point change for each complaint category versus 2018-19. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Passenger Satisfaction With Complaint Handling 2019-20 Satisfaction with complaints handling process The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the complaints handling process. This data is generated from our complaint handling satisfaction survey administered by Critical Research on behalf of ORR. The 2019-20 survey wave generated just over 54,000 passenger responses. The number of responses per train company is also provided. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18 Satisfaction with outcome of complaint The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint. ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 The left-hand side of this box displays the volume of delay compensation claims closed by the train operator in 2019-20. The graph shows this by 'rail period' where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. The top-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which were approved by the train operator. The bottom-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which have been answered by the train operator within 20 working days. ## Key Facts Avanti West Coast \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 16 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 3,383 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited Operator: Avanti West Coast Franchise: InterCity West Coast Franchise period: December 2019 - 2031 Sector: Long distance Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Avanti West Coast received 98,913 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=855) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Avanti West Coast received 386 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 40.4% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Avanti West Coast Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 39% TOC accessibility policy 10% Assistance booking process 9% The ease of being able to get on and off 6% Booked assistance not provided on train 6% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Avanti West Coast closed 584,426 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 35% higher than the previous year. Avanti West Coast switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P10. ## Avanti West Coast Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 25 \| \|---------------------------------\|------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 643 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Trenitalia Operator: c2c Franchise: Essex Thameside Franchise period: 9 November 2014 - 10 November 2029 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes c2c received 822 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Overall 0.7% (n=110) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 c2c received 28 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 21.4% were approved. Unable to hear announcements at station/on train 11% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 5% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 31% Booked assistance not provided at station 17% Booked assistance not provided on train 8% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 c2c closed 20,097 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 55% lower than the previous year. c2c operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Caledonian Sleeper \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 0 \| \|---------------------------------\|-----\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 195 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Serco Operator: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise period: 31 March 2015 - 31 March 2030 Sector: Scotland Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. ## Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Caledonian Sleeper passenger satisfaction Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 for Caledonian Sleeper as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=18) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. assistance failure in 2019-20 Caledonian Sleeper received 2 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. [No other accessibility categories reported] - [No other accessibility categories reported] - Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Caledonian Sleeper Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 94% Disabled parking 6% in 2019-2020. This is 81% higher than the previous year. ## Caledonian Sleeper complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Chiltern Railways \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 35 \| \|---------------------------------\|------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 850 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Chiltern Railways Franchise: Chiltern Railways Franchise period: 21 July 1996 - 11 December 2021 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Chiltern Railways received 16,926 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Chiltern Railways received 39 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 84.6% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Chiltern Railways Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 26% Other accessibility 17% Assistance booking process 16% Assistance staff 10% 8% Chiltern Railways closed 24,561 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 17% higher than the previous year. ## Chiltern Railways complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Crosscountry \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 0 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 1,978 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: CrossCountry Franchise: New CrossCountry Franchise period: September 2016 - October 2020 Sector: Long distance Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for CrossCountry as they do not manage any stations. Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=215) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 CrossCountry received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Unbooked assistance not provided at station 9% Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Crosscountry Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 23% Assistance booking process 17% Disabled toilets at station/on train 11% Assistance staff 9% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 in 2019-2020. This is 20% higher than the previous year. CrossCountry operate the Delay Repay 30 compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Crosscountry Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts East Midlands Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 90 Employees 2019-20: 2,441 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 25.4 million % change compared to last year: -5.0 Owner group: Stagecoach Operator: East Midlands Trains Franchise: East Midlands Franchise period: August 2019 - August 2027 Sector: Long distance / Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes East Midlands Railway received 62,945 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 2.7% (n=427) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 East Midlands Railway received 114 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 46.5% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 5% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## East Midlands Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 46% Other accessibility 27% Assistance booking process 7% Booked assistance not provided on train 4% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 \| East Midlands Railway Sample Size: 1,394 Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 East Midlands Railway closed 175,939 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 156% higher than the previous year. ## East Midlands Railway complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Govia Thameslink Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 235 Employees 2019-20: 7,427 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 348.9 million % change compared to last year: +2.2 Owner group: Govia Operator: Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Franchise: Southern / Thameslink / Great Northern / Gatwick Express Franchise period: 14 September 2014 - 01 September 2021 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 15.8 PP Southern 100% Thameslink National 51% 7.0 PP 75% 49% 50% 6.3 PP 48% 8.3 PP 45% 39% A \| A \| \|--------\| \| 6.7 PP \| 2016 2017 2019 Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 18.3 PP Southern Thameslink National 100% 3.7 PP 75% 57% 41% 6.1 PP 38% 10.1 PP 39% 7.3 PP Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 0.7 PP 83% Southern 100% Thameslink National 21.7 PP 75% 77% 77% 76% -1.1 PP 76% 4.5 PP PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Govia Thameslink Railway received 52,307 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.3% (n=651) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Govia Thameslink Railway received 230 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 57.4% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 14% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 9% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Govia Thameslink Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking experiences of Passenger Assists % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 34% Other accessibility 11% Assistance staff 10% This is 27% lower than the previous year. ## Govia Thameslink Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Grand Central Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Grand Central Track access agreement: 18 December 2007 - 01 December 2026 Sector: Long distance \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 0 \| \|---------------------------------\|-----\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 222 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes received in each rail period is available for each is therefore not available for Grand Central because they do not manage any stations. Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Grand Central as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=21) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Grand Central received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Grand Central Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Assistance booking process 43% Assistance staff 14% Booked assistance not provided at station 14% Booked assistance not provided on train 14% The ease of being able to get on and off 10% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Grand Central operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Grand Central Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Great Western Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 197 Employees 2019-20: 6,452 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 97 million % change compared to last year: -3.0 Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Great Western Railway Franchise: Greater Western Franchise period: March 2015 - March 2023 Sector: Long distance / London and South East /Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Great Western Railway received 154,195 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 12.6% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=919) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Great Western Railway received 382 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 24.6% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 4% ## P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Great Western Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking experiences of Passenger Assists Complaint type % of accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 47% The ease of being able to get on and off 34% Assistance booking process 10% TOC accessibility policy 3% Great Western Railway closed 381,130 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 135% higher than the previous year. ## Great Western Railway Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Greater Anglia \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 133 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 2,913 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui Operator: Abellio Franchise: East Anglia Franchise period: 16 October 2016 - 11 October 2025 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Greater Anglia received 36,766 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=366) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Greater Anglia received 96 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 85.4% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 7% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Greater Anglia Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 23% Assistance booking process 20% Assistance staff 17% Booked assistance not provided on train 7% Greater Anglia closed 593,721 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 39% higher than the previous year. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Greater Anglia Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Heathrow Express \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 3 \| \|---------------------------------\|-----\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 188 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Heathrow Airport Holdings Operator: Heathrow Express Operation start date: 28 June 1998 Sector: Provides an airport rail link between London Heathrow Airport and Paddington Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Heathrow Express received 430 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for less than 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. Heathrow Express did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Heathrow Express received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Heathrow Express Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - Heathrow Express operate a delay compensation scheme of Delays of 15+ mins. \| Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Heathrow Express Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Hull Trains Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Hull Trains Track access agreement end date: December 2029 Sector: Long distance \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 0 \| \|---------------------------------\|-----\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 129 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Hull Trains as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Overall 0.7% (n=9) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, which was approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Hull Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints 33% \| Assistance staff \| 22% \| \|-------------------------------------------------\|-------\| \| Assistance booking process \| 11% \| \| Booked assistance not provided at station \| 11% \| \| Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train \| 11% \| ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 \| Hull Trains Sample Size: 295 Hull Trains Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts London North Eastern Railway \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 11 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 3,055 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: DfT OLR Holdings Limited Operator: London North Eastern Railway Franchise: InterCity East Coast Franchise period: 24 June 2018 - * Sector: Long distance *Under the OLR there is currently no set end date to the franchise period Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes London North Eastern Railway received 104,010 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.9% (n=633) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 London North Eastern Railway received 439 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 30.3% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## London North Eastern Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 52% Assistance staff 12% Other accessibility 11% Assistance booking process 5% Booked assistance not provided on train 5% London North Eastern Railway closed 453,020 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 9% higher than the previous year. ## London North Eastern Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts London Overground Operated stations 2019-20: 81 Employees 2019-20: 1,502 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 186 million % change compared to last year: -1.1 Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Arriva Rail London (ARL) TfL concession: London Overground Concession period: 13 November 2016 - 01 May 2024 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes London Overground received 1,209 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.4% (n=10) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 100% London Overgound received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. [No other accessibility categories reported] - [No other accessibility categories reported] - Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies \| [No other accessibility categories reported] \| - \| \|------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| [No other accessibility categories reported] \| - \| Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## London Overground Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 London Overground operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## London Overground complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Merseyrail Operated stations 2019-20: 66 Employees 2019-20: 1,168 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 42.6 million % change compared to last year: +1.1 Owner group: Serco / Abellio Operator: Merseyrail Franchise: Merseyrail Franchise period: 20 July 2003 - 22 July 2028 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Merseyrail received 5,043 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 4.0% (n=114) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Merseyrail received 8 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 37.5% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 19% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 11% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Merseyrail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers Note: 2019-20 data includes partial data only. Merseyrail could supply P1- 11 only due to their supplier being closed due the coronavirus pandemic. Source: Train Operating Companies % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 32% Assistance staff 11% Booked assistance not provided at station 10% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 \| Merseyrail Sample Size: 57 Note: Due to a low sample size, the results for Merseyrail have not been shown within this report. ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Merseyrail operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Merseyrail Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Northern Trains \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 477 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 6,351 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Northern Franchise: Northern Franchise period: 01 April 2016 - 31 March 2025 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Northern Trains received 46,692 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3.8% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.3% (n=532) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Northern Trains received 128 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Northern Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 20% TOC accessibility policy 17% The ease of being able to get on and off 10% Other accessibility 9% Assistance staff 9% Northern Trains closed 364,689 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 48% higher than the previous year. Northern Trains switched from DR 30 to DR 15 from 2018-19 P10 ## Northern Trains claims within 20 working Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Scotrail \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 354 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 5,162 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Abellio Operator: Abellio ScotRail Franchise: ScotRail Franchise period: 1 April 2015 - 21 March 2025 Sector: Scotland Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes ScotRail received 64,011 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.1% (n=281) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 ScotRail received 290 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 17.2% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Scotrail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 31% Other accessibility 23% Assistance booking process 14% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 12% Assistance staff 5% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 2019-2020. This is 18% lower than the previous year. ## Scotrail Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 claims within 20 working Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts South Western Railway \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 184 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 5,308 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: FirstGroup & MTR Operator: South Western Railway Franchise: South Western Franchise period: August 2017 - August 2024 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes South Western Railway received 56,956 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.7% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.1% (n=604) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 South Western Railway received 246 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 45.5% were approved. \| Unbooked assistance not provided at station \| 6% \| \|-------------------------------------------------\|------\| \| Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train \| 6% \| Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## South Western Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 35% Other accessibility 32% Booked assistance not provided on train 6% Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## South Western Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Southeastern \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 164 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 4,511 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Govia Operator: Southeastern Franchise: South Eastern Franchise period: 01 April 2006 - 10 November 2019 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Southeastern received 28,528 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 2.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.5% (n=511) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Southeastern received 94 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 8% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Southeastern Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Assistance staff 49% Booked assistance not provided at station 17% Disabled toilets at station/on train 6% Other accessibility 4% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Southeastern switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P6 Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Southeastern Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 24 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 1,515 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: MTR Corporation Operator: MTR Crossrail TfL concession: TfL Rail Concession period: 31 May 2015 - 30 May 2023 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TfL Rail received 2,023 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. TfL Rail did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20. ## Claims For Redress Following Booked Assistance Failure In 2019-20 TfL Rail received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Tfl Rail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type \| Satisfaction with complaints handling process \| \|--------------------------------------------------------\| \| Note: TfL Rail were unable to supply this information \| \| in time for publication due to exceptional operational \| \| constraints caused by the impact of Covid-19. \| ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 TfL Rail closed 9,713 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 50% higher than the previous year. TfL Rail operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 247 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 2,495 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Keolis Amey Ltd Operator: Transport for Wales Rail (TfWR) Franchise: Wales & Borders Franchise period: 13 October 2018 - 13 October 2033 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TfW Rail received 55,492 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.4% (n=507) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TfW Rail received 181 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 74% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 7% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Tfw Rail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) TfW Rail results based on a sample of 166 respondents. Please see the full report for detail on the margin of error for each train operator. The report is available here: Research into passenger % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 26% Assistance staff 17% Other accessibility 15% Booked assistance not provided on train 8% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 TfW Rail closed 73,421 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 221% higher than the previous year. Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Transpennine Express \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 19 \| \|--------------------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2018-19 (2019-20 not available): \| 1,258 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: TransPennine Express Franchise: TransPennine Express Franchise period: 01 April 2016 - 21 March 2023 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TransPennine Express received 23,242 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.9% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=224) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TransPennine Express received 73 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 23.3% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Transpennine Express Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 34% Assistance booking process 25% The ease of being able to get on and off 19% Booked assistance not provided on train 9% TOC accessibility policy 8% TransPennine Express closed 247,507 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 57% higher than the previous year. ## Transpennine Express Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts West Midlands Trains \| Operated stations 2019-20: \| 149 \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\| \| Employees 2019-20: \| 2,915 \| \| Passenger journeys 2019-20: \| \| \| % change compared to last year: \| \| Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui / East Japan Railway Company Operator: West Midlands Trains Franchise: West Midlands Franchise period: 10 December 2017 - 01 April 2026 Sector: London and South East / Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) \| Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change \| The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes West Midlands Trains received 48,809 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.3% (n=100) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 West Midlands Trains received 9 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 36% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## West Midlands Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers experiences of Passenger Assists % of Complaint type accessibility complaints The ease of being able to get on and off 26% Wheelchair space on train 14% Disabled toilets at station/on train 9% Disabled parking 7% This is 140% higher than the previous year. ## West Midlands Trains Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk/contact-us	en
2341-pdf	Academic excellence for business and the professions ## The Disproportionality Project: Addressing issues relating to the disproportionately high representation of Islington's and Haringey's BAME young people in the Criminal Justice System An Evaluation Report by the Centre for City Criminology, City, University of London May 2020 Co-funded by the Youth Justice Board and the School of Arts and Social Sciences, City, University of London. # The Disproportionality Project: Addressing Issues Relating To The Disproportionately High Representation Of Islington'S And Haringey'S Bame Young People In The Criminal Justice System A Evaluation Report by the Centre for City Criminology, City, University of London Greer, C., Rosbrook-Thompson, J., Armstrong, G. (2020) The Disproportionality Project: Addressing issues relating to the disproportionately high representation of Islington's and Haringey's BAME young people in the Criminal Justice System, Centre for City Criminology: City, University of London. Foreword by Curtis Ashton Acting Director, Youth and Community, London Borough of Islington May 2020 ## Executive Summary This report presents the findings and recommendations from the second partnership project involving Islington Borough Council and criminologists at City, University of London. The first project, Enhancing the work of the Islington Integrated Gangs Team, was published in 2019. This second project involved evaluating a programme designed to tackle key issues and outcomes relating to the disproportionate representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) young people in the Criminal Justice System and beyond. The programme was attended by multiple agencies from two London Boroughs - Islington and Haringey - and sought to strengthen the multi-agency approach to addressing disproportionality. Attendees from Islington included Youth Services, Youth Offending Services and the Integrated Gangs Team. Attendees from Haringey included Youth Justice Service, Early Help and Youth Service. Police and Probation officers also attended sessions. Members of the research team attended all of the practitioner workshops, which took place between August and November 2019. Interviews with a cross-section of the frontline practitioners who attended workshops were conducted at YOS sites in Islington and Haringey, respectively, in late 2019. A number of parents' workshops, which took place at neutral venues, were voice recorded for the purposes of evaluating the project and identifying parents' lived experiences with regard to disproportionality. Finally, young people engaged in the Criminal Justice System were interviewed at YOS sites with a view to capturing their experiences of criminal offending and victimisation, discrimination and disproportionality. The research team evaluated the delivery, outputs and, where possible, outcomes of the Disproportionality Project. The recommendations are listed below. 1. Structure and Approach In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, consider using full-day rather than half-day sessions, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. 2. Dissemination Disseminate this project's key findings regarding the challenges and obstacles faced by young people and parents to relevant staff members, including senior leaders, and beyond. 3. Use of academic research Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 4. Young People's and Parental engagement Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality and consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions moderated by a third party. 5. Being responsive to local factors Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. 6. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/ protocols may increase risk of harm. 7. Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. 8. Replicating an action-orientated training focus Priortise the identification and dissemination of good practice, which can have an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work, in future iterations of the programme. 9. Boosting parental trust and engagement Consider strengthening whole-family working practices and models, including the creation of parenting worker roles where these do not already exist. 10. Increasing accountability for school exclusions Consider identifying and collating longer-term outcomes for excluded BAME young people, and disseminating this information on a school-by-school basis. 11. Police relations with young people Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people. ## Issues For Future Research Future research should: 1. Engage with young people and their families / carers in greater depth to understand better the complex interdependencies of serious youth violence (SYV) and enhance the local multi-agency approach to addressing it. 2. Examine the role of 'county lines' as a contributor to gang affiliation and SYV in Islington and Haringey. 3. Co-produce with Islington, Haringey and community partners an inclusive, sustainable and citizencentric research agenda to address disproportionality and wider inequalities, and contribute value to people's lives. ## Foreword All children and young people in our society are equally important. They need to be valued, nutured and provided with the support that they need to thrive and achieve their fullest potential. However, we know that some cohorts of children and young people are more likely to be disadvantaged and to experience poorer short-term and long-term outcomes. These inequalities, which exist in various areas and systems, have been well-documented for some time. This report explores inequalities in relation to the youth and criminal justice arena and interdependent systems where Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) young people are overrepresented. In Islington and Haringey, this is particularly applicable to Black groups and to Black males in particular. With support from the Youth Justice Board, both Boroughs decided to develop a project which would help to identify, address and tackle the reasons why this disproportionality is so prevalent. One of the main areas where young BAME are over-represented is the secure estate. This is particuarly worrying as outcomes for children who have been sentenced to custody are significantly worsened. At the beginning of the unprecendented pandemic in March 2020, when we were devising arrangements to ensure that we could continue to support our children during 'lockdown', one of my YOS caseworkers mentioned that one of her young people (K) had shared some very frank thoughts about being a young Black man in today's society. His words and feelings, which he has given permission to use here, are so powerful that they say all that needs to be said about the need to tackle disproportionality and discrimination. ## K - My Thoughts Of Being In Custody I feel like I'm another Black male in the system. Also known as a statistic. Being Black and in custody, I feel like my voice is less heard because there are so many Black males in the system, and we're all judged and looked at the same. This is having an impact on my emotional and mental well-being. I feel angry, and then I'm viewed as an angry Black male in the system (statistic). I feel my opinion is disregarded when my charge and colour of skin is taken into consideration. The reason why I believe this is because there are so many Black males of similar backgrounds and of similar charges. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are Black males who are guilty of their crimes. However, this should not have an impact on all Black males because some of us are caught in this unjust system. Thanks to Chris Greer, James Rosbrook-Thompson and Gary Armstrong for producing this report. In Islington, thanks to Angela Wilson, Marcus Miller and Valejia Komar for helping to develop ideas for this project, and to Councillor Kaya Comer Schwartz, Catherine Briody and Karolina Bober. Thanks to Linzi Roberts-Egan and Carmel Littleton for pushing equalities matters. In Haringey, thanks to Matthew Knights for helping coordinate, and to Ann Graham and Councillor Mark Blake. Thanks to Anthony Scott, Rebecca Smith and Donna Murray-Turner from AIM High. Thanks to Liz Westlund, Charlie Taylor, Natasha Richards, Dominic Daley, Harriet Casey, Sarah Brimelow and Colin Allars at the Youth Justice Board. And a huge thank you to K for allowing his YOS caseworker L to write up his thoughts and share them with us for this Foreword. Curtis Ashton, Acting Director, Youth and Community, London Borough of Islington. ## Introduction This evaluation is the second project from an ongoing partnership between Islington Borough Council and criminologists at City, University of London. In late 2017, Criminologists at the Centre for City Criminology invited Islington practitioners, mostly attached to the Integrated Gangs Team (IGT) and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), to the University to discuss existing research on serious youth violence (SYV), the current situation in Islington, and the practices of and challenges faced by the IGT. This initial event resulted in a series of discussions around how City Criminologists might add value to the work of the IGT by conducting a short research project. The resulting report, Enhancing the work of the Islington Integrated Gangs Team, was published in 2019.1 In the summer of 2019, City Criminologists were approached by the same Islington Borough Council partners with an invitation to engage in further partnership working. This second project involved evaluating a programme designed to tackle key issues and outcomes relating to the disproportionate representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) young people in the Criminal Justice System and beyond. Geographically focussed in Islington and Haringey, the programme sought specifically to: …improve awareness and the capacity of staff working with young people in Islington to address the issues around the disproportionately high numbers of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) offenders and the poor outcomes they face in the Criminal Justice System that have been drawn to the attention of successive governments, voluntary and public sector agencies for decades. This will be achieved by training for staff working with young people in Islington and a capacity building and engagement programme to parents and carers in local communities from BAME backgrounds. A set of four service aims were defined accordingly. These were: 1. To provide training around Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities. Training for staff will highlight cultural and community competence, staff conscious and unconscious bias and a return to an understanding of institutional racism and how it impacts on individuals and communities. 2. Setting up an initiative whereby parents from BAME backgrounds have a safe space to discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour and the structural and societal pressures they face. These support forums, 'safe spaces' with no Local Authority Staff present, will be utilised to raise and resolve issues as they experience them. 3. It is hoped the service covered by this specification will help to better support young people and their families from the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which unfortunately, is more prevalent in BAME individuals and families. 4. This intervention ultimately is about strengthening communities who have been marginalized. This intervention will look at disproportionality at a local level. Supporting the community from a cultural approach, where experiences are shared, will strengthen the community. It will also influence Islington and Haringey to shape and improve the services provided, so that young people and their families are supported to (improve outcomes and opportunities so they can) 'live their best life'. The programme was delivered by Anthony Scott, Rebecca Smith and Donna Murray-Turner of the charity AIM High following a formal procurement and commissioning process which was led by Islington Council. Anthony Scott, Project Lead, is a qualified counsellor/psychotherapist with 17 years' experience of face-to-face work with young people, families, communities in both statutory and voluntary services. He has extensive experience of working with young people at risk of offending, serious youth violence, and in the design and delivery of training which is respectful, truthful and challenging. Anthony is also an Assistant Trainer for the Anna Freud Centre's AMBIT programme and an experienced trainer in the Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities parenting programme. Rebecca Smith qualified as a Probation Officer in 2001 and has since worked with adults and more recently young people in the criminal justice system. For the last five years, she has coordinated the Ending Gang & Youth Violence (EGYV) Team for Wandsworth Youth Offending Team. The EGYV Team targets gang-affected young men up to the age of 25. During her career Rebecca has also specialised in developing interventions and training packages. She is currently employed by the Anna Freud Centre as a Lead Trainer in the Ambit approach - a psychologically informed model that supports work with the most complex and hard-to-reach young people and families. Donna Murray-Turner is a qualified social worker who has extensive experience of community engagement. Donna founded Another Night Of Sisterhood (ANOS), a Croydon-based community interest company that specialises in community engagement through creating safe spaces for communities to come together, express their voices and access support. They have a specific focus on supporting marginalised communities to change negative narratives. Donna has recently featured on a number of high-profile campaigns highlighting the importance of community engagement.. ## The Evaluation And Report Structure This report is based on visits to key sites related to the Disproportionality Programme and the lives/ needs of its user groups, observing work, conducting in-depth interviews with identified individuals and/or groups, and reviewing relevant documentation. The semi-structured nature of the interview process created a flexible space from which a range of salient topics emerged. The report contains the following elements: - A review of the relevant literature on disproportionality, including academic studies and landmark policy documents at national and local level. - A brief quantitative analysis of Participant Evaluation Sheets and an online survey completed by Haringey and Islington practitioners. - Analysis based on observation of practitioner workshops. - Analysis based on observation of parents' sessions. - A brief assessment of the programme in relation to the Service Aims identified in the Grant Agreement and Specification document. - An assessment of the programme in relation to the expected Service Outcomes identified in the Grant Agreement and Specification document. - Analysis based on interviews with practitioners, parents and young people. - A series of recommendations based on the report's findings and analysis. ## Literature Review Though the issue of disproportionality along ethno-racial lines has only recently entered mainstream political debate in the UK - largely as a result of 2017's Lammy Review (see below) - systematic studies of disproportionality have been conducted in the United States for forty years. In 1982, American criminologist Alfred Blumstein lamented what he called 'grossly disproportionate race-specific incarceration rates', seeking an explanation for the fact that while Black Americans comprised roughly one-eighth of the US population, they represented about one-half of the country's prison population. 'This disproportionality has been a source of major concern', Blumstein remarked, 'largely because it suggests the possibility of gross injustice in the criminal justice system (1982: 1259).2 Statistics on the ethnic background of UK prisoners began to be collected in the mid 1980s, with disproportionality being identified at that stage and becoming more pronounced over time. This led researchers to focus on disproportionality at all stages of the criminal justice process, including searches, crime reports and arrests, and develop explanations for the over-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people across these stages. For example, in 2004 Marian FitzGerald, along with colleagues Chris Hale and Jan Stockdale, constructed a model which sought to account for longstanding ethnic differences in criminal statistics.3 The resulting model focused on street crime in a number of London boroughs, identifying two overriding explanations for area differences: deprivation and population turnover. In elaborating this model, the researchers stressed the need to be vigilant regarding possible amplification of pre-existing disadvantages via the criminal justice system (CJS) and, more specifically, the unequal exercising of discretion by those working within the CJS. Disproportionality is widespread and is not restricted to young Black men. Though 'Gypsies', Roma and Irish Travellers represent just 0.1% of the population, they account for around 5% of the male prison population, while Muslims are represented in the prison population at three times their proportion of the general population. As Jolliffe and Haque (2017) point out, 'ethnic and cultural characteristics' aren't a feasible explanation for the dramatic increase in the number of Muslim prisoners, from 5,500 in 2002 to 13,200 in 2016. As they point out, 'the rise in prison numbers (128% increase of Muslims) does not reflect the rise in the general population (74% increase of Muslims from 2001)' (2017: 3).4 After being commissioned by the then incumbent prime minister David Cameron to investigate racial discrimination in the CJS, Tottenham MP David Lammy's subsequent review was published in 2017.5 Though the report and its findings pertained to the over-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals in the CJS, in presenting his review Lammy stressed that understanding the roots of such disproportionality required wider consideration of the complex intersections between racial and ethnic background and other forms of social division and structural disadvantage. As he put it (2017): 'poverty, lone-parent families, school exclusions, and growing up in the care system. And what more is there left to say about stop and search?' The review itself contained a litany of damning statistics: - 41% of young offenders in custody in 2016 were from BAME backgrounds (up from 25% in 2006). - Despite only 3% of the general population being Black, 12% of adult prisoners and 24% of children in custody are Black. - 41% of BAME defendants plead not guilty in Crown Court, versus 31% of white defendants. - BAME people comprise 25% of the prison population. - 19% of young people offending for the first time in 2016 were from BAME backgrounds, up from 11% in 2006. - The estimated cost of the over-representation of BAME people in the CJS is £309m per year. In seeking explanations for these statistics and ways to address disproportionality in the CJS, Lammy outlined three principles. Firstly, since fairer treatment is achieved through transparency, decision-making procedures must be subject to external scrutiny. Second (and relatedly), work must be done to improve trust in the CJS among BAME communities. As things stand, a trust deficit partly accounts for the disproportionate number of BAME defendants pleading not guilty (and thereby foreclosing the possibility of reduced sentences and any intervention strategies which are contingent on a guilty plea), plus higher reoffending rates (with research showing that prisoners who believe they are being treated fairly are more likely to respect rules in custody and less likely to reoffend on release [Beijersbergen et al. 20166]). Finally, people and agencies outside the CJS - including parents and local communities - have a responsibility to support those who have entered the CJS. These principles informed a set of 35 recommendations, including: - If CJS agencies cannot provide an evidence-based explanation for apparent disparities between ethnic groups, then reforms should be introduced to address those disparities. This principle of 'explain or reform' should apply to every CJS institution. - A 'deferred prosecution' model should be adopted which provides interventions before pleas are entered rather than after. - The system for sealing criminal records employed in many US states should be adopted. Individuals should be able to have their case heard either by a judge or a body like the Parole Board, which would then decide whether to seal their record. There should be a presumption to look favourably on those who committed crimes either as children or young adults, but who can demonstrate that they have changed since their conviction. - The MoJ and Department of Health (DH) should work together to develop a method to assess the maturity of offenders entering the justice system up to the age of 21. The results of this assessment should inform the interventions applied to any offender in this cohort, including extending the support structures of the youth justice system for offenders over the age of 18 who are judged to have low levels of maturity. There have been various statutory responses to the report. In 2018 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published fresh statistics on race and the CJS.7 These statistics reinforced the picture painted in the Lammy Review, with BAME groups being over-represented at many stages throughout the CJS.8 The greatest disparity was evident for stop and search, arrests, custodial sentencing and the prison population, with Black people being over-represented most acutely. Another update was published by the MoJ in early 2020. Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: 2020 Update sought to address the principles and recommendations of the Lammy Review directly. It reported on the formation of a trust working group within the Home Office and the Cabinet Office Race Disparity Unit (RDU). This group commissioned the Cabinet Office's Open Innovation Team, which promotes closer relationships between policy and academia across government, to survey the existing evidence on trust. Furthermore, Edward Argar, the Minister with responsibility for race disparity, held a two-part roundtable with external stakeholders from BAME-led and -focused organisations, including those with lived experience of the CJS, to listen and record any examples of best practice in restoring confidence. The working group found that trust in the ability and intentions of CJS staff and representatives was key, though sounded a slightly defensive note in contending that, however well-intended or progressive a set of processes may be, many people will still be unhappy about their experiences in the CJS because of their association with negative outcomes. Strategies for boosting levels of trust included 'explaining in simple terms what is happening, why, and what to expect next' (2020: 10), and increasing the number of human interactions (including a greater number of restorative 'human behaviours' such as apologising and admitting fault). Islington Borough Council has designed and implemented a number of programmes with a view to addressing the disproportionate representation of the Borough's BAME young people in the criminal justice system. Its overarching strategy for a 'Fairer Islington' focuses 'on creating a place where everyone, whatever their background, has the opportunity to reach their potential and enjoy a good quality of life'. This approach is consistent with the local authority's commitment to make Islington one of the safest boroughs in London, where children become neither victims nor perpetrators of crime. The borough's Children and Families Strategy 2015-25, Giving Children the Best Start in Life, centres on the commitment to "better identify and address risk and vulnerability, and provide timely and targeted youth support to reduce offending and reoffending".9 This is part of a wider strategy, the Stronger Families Programme, geared to finding and assisting families who have multiple problems. The rationale for this programme is that 'families with multiple problems achieve better outcomes when their needs are addressed collectively', with 'all professionals working with children and families with multiple problems ... expected to use the Stronger Families approach'. Islington's Youth Safety strategy, Working Together for a Safer Islington (2017), also focuses heavily on the need to keep young people and the community safe.10 Haringey Borough Council has also made attempts to address racial disproportionality in its Youth Justice System. Recognising that 47% of the caseload for its Youth Justice Service come from the Black community, despite this group representing only 28% of the population in the borough, members of Haringey's Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel were asked to conduct a review which sought to identify the reasons for the overrepresentation of specific minority groups in the Youth Justice System. The Review's aims were aligned with Haringey Borough Council's Corporate Plan and, more specifically, Priority 1 ("Enable every child and young person to have the best start in life, with high quality education") and Objective 5 ("To work with partners to prevent and reduce more serious crime, in particular youth crime and gang activity"). The subsequent report, Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel's 2016/17: Scrutiny Review on Disproportionality within the Youth Justice System,11 made 12 recommendations, including: increased partnership working; a review of processes to ensure that all duties are being performed in accordance with the Equalities Act; extra efforts to work with headteachers and school governors on the issue of school exclusions; and the introduction of a reverse mentoring scheme, whereby police officers who are new to the area are mentored by a local young person. It is in the context of these strategies that the objectives of the disproportionality programme were agreed. These were to: provide training in relation to Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities; provide a forum wherein parents from BAME backgrounds can discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour plus the structural and societal pressures they face; and help staff to better support young people and their families through the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which, unfortunately, are more prevalent in BAME families. The various practitioner sessions offered as part of the programme are summarised in the table below. \| Session Title \| Content/structure \| \|------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\| \| Participants \| \| \| Disproportionality \| \| \| and Implicit Bias \| \| \| - Racial disparity in the UK \| \| \| - \| Institutional racism and unconscious bias \| \| - \| Blocked trust - what might contribute? \| \| - The Lammy Review \| \| \| - Trust exercise \| \| \| - \| Stereotyping - a human condition \| \| - \| The psychology of stereotyping \| \| - \| Implicit stereotypes and unconscious bias \| \| - \| How to overcome our biases \| \| - \| Privilege \| \| - \| So what can we do? \| \| - \| Intergenerational trauma \| \| - \| Mechanisms of transmission \| \| - \| Recovery / resilience \| \| Adverse Childhood \| \| \| Experiences and \| \| \| Trauma from a BAME \| \| \| Perspective \| \| \| - \| Adverse Childhood Experiences \| \| - \| Adverse Community Environments \| \| - \| ACEs: A BAME perspective \| \| - \| IMPACT \| \| - \| Final reflections \| \| - \| Relationships \| \| - \| Epistemic trust \| \| Working with BAME \| \| \| Clients to Develop a \| \| \| Therapeutic Alliance \| \| \| - \| Carl Rogers \| \| - \| What young people say… \| \| - \| Five planning groups (five tasks) \| \| - \| Empowerment intervention \| \| - \| Task \| \| - \| Feedback from planning groups \| \| - \| Next steps \| \| - \| Final reflections \| George Meehan House, N22 8YX 16/09/19 - 9.00am 17 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 16/09/19 - 1.30pm 21 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 19/09/19 - 9.00am 25 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 19/09/19 - 1.30pm 16 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 21/10/19 - 9.00am 9 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 21/10/19 - 1.30pm 25 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 24/10/19 - 9.00am 31 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 24/10/19 - 1.30pm 25 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 18/11/19 - 9.00am 19 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 18/11/19 - 1.30pm 20 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 28/11/19 - 9.00am 20 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 28/11/19 - 1.30pm 16 The kitchen-table sessions offered to parents took place between 6.00pm and 9.00pm. Three sessions were offered in each Borough, with session themes mirroring those covered in the practitioner workshops. For example, in the first session, parents were asked what disproportionality meant and what it looked like in the context of their own lived experiences. Subsequent sessions addressed themes such as Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adverse Community Environments and intergenerational trauma. On average, five parents attended each session. While sessions were oriented around the themes listed above, parents were given the space to discuss and explore their experiences. The issues they raised included their children's treatment in prison and other custodial institutions, the approach of particular case workers, learning difficulties, stop and search, social media, and school exclusion. AIM High's three facilitators drew on their own experiences as professionals and parents in unpacking the parents' stories, pointing to commonalities and (where appropriate) possible solutions. After 75 minutes, each session broke for dinner. After dinner, the sessions followed a less structured format, with breakout discussions initiated according to parents' shared experiences. At the end of each session, the lead facilitator summed up by revisiting core themes and gathering up the various threads of discussion developed by parents throughout the evening. ## Analysis Of Participant Evaluations And Survey Data At the end of each session with frontline practitioners and their line managers, participants were asked to complete an evaluation which asked questions about their perceived level of inclusion in the session, the standard of facilitation, the extent to which the session enabled participants to learn knowledge, skills or ways of thinking, and the extent to which participants felt they would be able to use the knowledge, skills or ways of thinking from this session in their everyday practice. Responses to these questions have been collated and are presented in graphical form (by session) below. ## Participant Evaluations: Session One (%) Participant Evaluations: Session One (%) Participant Evaluations: Session Tw0 (%) Participant Evaluations: Session Three (%) Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree ## Commentary On Participant Evaluations - There was broad consensus among participants that all three sessions were well facilitated (with a slight dip for Session Two). - Free-text comments were relatively consistent in requesting more material that could impact on everyday practice. Facilitators were responsive to this feedback, with participant evaluations recording a general uplift from session to session with regard to impact on everyday practice. - This upward trend peaked in Session Three, which scored highly for knowledge and skill exchange. The final session also scored highest for perceived level of inclusion, implying that pooling and drawing on practitioner experience and expertise - and thereby sharing best practice - works effectively in impacting everyday practice. - Free-text comments ranged across a number of issues, with many remarks and suggestions being reinforced during interviews with practitioners. These issues included the number, length and timing of sessions, and omissions in terms of who was invited to participate. In addition to participant evaluation forms, practitioners were asked to complete an online survey - also created by Aim-High - containing questions on a range of issues relating to disproportionality. The results of the survey, completed by 66 practitioners across the two boroughs, are summarised below. - 86% of practitioners felt that young people of different races are treated unequally in the criminal justice system. - 87% of practitioners felt that difficulties regarding racial issues are not 'a thing of the past' in the local community. - 70% of practitioners felt that racial issues create conflict in the local community. - 83% of practitioners either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: 'At work I find it challenging to build trusting relationships with Black and minority ethnic service users'. ## Outline Of Practitioner Workshops All of the practitioner workshops which took place between August and November 2019 were attended by a member of the research team. They both observed and fully participated in these sessions, paying particular attention to issues relating to timing, attendance, delivery, content, and participant engagement. This section of the evaluation addresses these issues while identifying particular 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. - All sessions were delivered in a timely manner, with members of AIM High arriving early to set up the room, distribute any learning materials and lay out refreshments. Sessions began and ended on time (though there was confusion over start times in more than one instance), with the facilitators acknowledging the arrival of latecomers without disrupting the flow of the workshops. An appropriate number of breaks was incorporated into each session. - Timing issues during the workshops pertained to discussion segments, particularly where practitioners were asked to reflect on their own experiences. These exploratory discussions were sometimes challenging to manage, especially when it came to drawing discussion to a close. That said, these segments were crucial in ensuring the sessions were inclusive and dynamic, and effective in bringing the experiences of participants to bear on workshop content, and vice-versa. The facilitators exercised good discretion in allowing some of these segments to overrun so that all participants who wanted to contribute were given time to do so. - The AIM High team members present at each session varied with availability. While this variation did not compromise the quality of delivery, having all three members present made for a richer dynamic plus more variety in the mode and tenor of delivery. Any absences were clearly explained to all participants, with members of the team able to make clear contributions consistent with their particular areas of expertise. The project lead was present at every session, which provide an important element of consistency in the delivery of the programme as a whole. - Levels and rates of attendance were relatively stable across the three sessions. There was a slight dip in Haringey for session two - particularly in the morning delivery - with some practitioners being unable to attend because of childcare commitments (this session took place during half-term). - Levels of attendance were slightly higher in Islington than in Haringey. - Attendees were more likely to arrive late for morning sessions, with facilitators making a clear effort to inform any latecomers of material they had missed and to integrate them into ongoing groupwork and discussion. - Each session was delivered at an appropriate pace, with introductory principles given sufficient attention and more time allocated to the discussion of complex issues and concepts, like implicit bias and institutional racism. In some sessions it was necessary to accelerate the speed of delivery to ensure all of the content was covered. In most cases, this was due (as noted above) to some discussion segments being allowed to overrun to accommodate the wide range of participant accounts and contributions. - As per the service specification, there was an ethnic mix and diversity within the staff group and this seemed important in terms of eliciting honest accounts and opinions from practitioners during the course of the sessions. - Each session was structured logically and thoughtfully. Ice-breaker activities were very effective in putting people at ease and both introducing and involving the various teams who attended the workshops. - The content of each session had been carefully designed so that it aligned clearly with the central aims of the participating services and was divided appropriately across the three sessions. - The facilitators made very effective use of their past experiences in bringing materials to life. These accounts spanned a number of areas including trust, inter-generational trauma and adverse childhood experiences, grounding discussion in concrete detail and inviting practitioners to reflect critically on their own experiences. This method was also used effectively in concretising more abstract concepts like implicit bias. - The breadth of methods and material used across the workshops was impressive. The range of materials used included slides, worksheets and videos, and in many cases these underpinned or corresponded with varied methods including small- and large-group discussion, breakout activities and group tasks. This combination catered well to a range of preferred modes of learning. - Ice-breaker activities were effective not just in generating discussion but in encouraging people to think outside their own organisational structures and teams. - All group discussions were thoughtfully set up and expertly moderated. - In many cases subject matter was personal, emotive and potentially divisive, and the facilitators' experience and expertise was evident in how they guided the dicussion across what was often difficult terrain. All issues were treated with the necessary gravity and sensitivity, with an open, enabling environment being created and sustained. - All discussions were kept on track, with the purpose of an activity being revisited and underlined where necessary. This was achieved while making each participant feel they had made an important and valuable contribution. - Participants operated at different speeds in terms of knowledge and experience. Many had attended similar training before, and were vocal in their preference for identifying and discussing concrete examples of best practice. A clear statement about how each session would build on the content of preceding session(s) in the Disproportionality Programme, underlining the cumulative nature of the programme, would have been helpful in this respect. - In relation to the previous point about identifying connections between sessions and stressing the cumulative nature of content across sessions, some tweaks in terms of structure could be made. For example, delivering the ice-breakers after the session outline would set tasks in a clearer context, giving narrower boundaries for discussion and thereby helping to contain the activity in terms of time and topicality. - Much of the session content was underpinned by the findings of relevant academic research, including theoretical models and more purely empirical work. This research was presented clearly alongside a full exploration of its relevance for the issues being discussed. Obviously the nature of the research incorporated reflected the academic specialisms of the facilitators, with research around trauma and ACEs being especially well explained and explored, while the social scientific research on institutional racism could have been more contemporary. Structure and Approach: In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. ## Outline Of Parents' Sessions Sessions for the parents of young people engaged in the CJS were held on the same day as practitioner workshops in each borough, and followed a semi-structured, kitchen-table format. Each round of sessions was attended by a member of the research team. Our observations and analysis are presented below, while again we have identified particular 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Improvement'. - Holding sessions at neutral venues rather than, for example, in Youth Offending Services buildlings, created a more relaxed atmosphere for the parent participants. - Serving food at the sessions worked well in terms of bringing parents and facilitators together and putting parents at ease. This mode of delivery struck up and sustained an informal tone that parents obviously found enabling. - While the kitchen-table format gave the sessions an informal tone, facilitators ensured that the discussion was structured around a series of questions listed on a flipchart at the centre of the room. This also allowed any parents arriving late to apprise themselves of the session's key aims. - As with the sessions for frontline practitioners, the neutrality of AIM High staff was important in eliciting honest accounts from parents. Many of these accounts were critical of various state agencies and procedures, and the same level of honesty may not have been achievable had sessions been facilitated by representatives of the two respective boroughs. Should this element of the programme be rolled out, using a third-party to facilitate discussion may again prove advantageous. - Parents appeared to feel comfortable sharing accounts of their own and their children's experiences of engagement with the CJS, including discrimination. These accounts were moving and emotive, and facilitators moderated the discussions with sensitivity and skill. As far as possible, facilitators framed these stories in terms of a set of key questions around disproportionality that shaped the service specification. - Only a small proportion of the parents invited to the sessions attended. The limited engagement by parents was despite the best efforts of practitioners and members of AIM High, who reached out to them via telephone and email. With parents bearing various responsibilities including work and childcare, attending evening sessions may have been challenging. - Most of the parents who attended workshops faced significant challenges in raising their children and in interfacing with the CJS and local authority services. These included poverty, family breakdown, domestic abuse, school exclusions, mental health problems, drug misuse, and lack of childcare provision. Their accounts provided significant insight into the ACEs faced by young people and, as noted elsewhere in the report, encompassed structural and systemic issues. The facilitators made a clear effort to identify connections between these issues and (where appropriate) their disproportionate impact on BAME communities. Dissemination: Disseminate this project's key findings regarding challenges and obstacles faced by parents to relevant members of staff, including seinor leaders, and beyond. ## Service Aims The Grant Agreement and Specification document, co-signed by AIM High and London Borough of Islington's Youth and Community Service (on behalf of Islington and Haringey), identifies four service aims. Below we address each of these in turn, again identifying key 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. 1. To provide training around Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities. Training for staff will highlight cultural and community competence, conscious and unconscious bias and a return to an understanding of institutional racism and how it impacts on individuals and communities. - Session two centred on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and trauma from a BAME perspective. Topics covered included intergenerational trauma and how to recognise signs of trauma in BAME clients. The section on intergenerational trauma incorporated video material and covered the key mechanisms of this trauma. Crucially, the workshop covered both Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adverse Community Environments and, using the research of Ellis and Dietz (2017), explored the dynamic between the two. The issue of cultural/community competence was covered in the context of Adverse Community Environments and led to rich group discussion on some of the shortcomings of existing community environments, how these might exacerbate trauma for young people and their families, as well as the more positive elements of community life that could be built on and supplemented. The first session included an engaging, comprehensive section on implicit stereotypes and unconscious bias, including the Implicit Associations Test and the relationship between unconscious bias, institutional racism and trust. The activities incorporated in this section of the workshop were effective in prompting reflection on participants' implicit biases and how these figured in their day-to-day lives. The first session included a detailed and informative section on institutional racism, its impact, and its connections with implicit bias. The section covered the Scarman and Macpherson Reports, connections with persistent forms of racial disparity and issues of blocked trust. - The multi-agency training sessions were attended by a diversity of services - Children and Adolescent Mental Health, Police, Probation, Youth Offending Services, among others. This diversity encouraged exchange, debate and a good degree of healthy challenge as systemic cultures and operational mindsets - and the tensions between them - were outlined and explored. - In addition to using hypothetical scenarios to tease out connections between biases and the (re) production of unequal outcomes, in future the facilitators may wish to refer to the GEMM Project's (2019) research on discrimination against ethnic minorities by employers (based on 3200 fictitious job applications).12 - Future iterations of this workshop may be enhanced by considering various forms of institutional racism/discrimination and their transmission as outlined by Robert Reiner (2010).13 Contemporary issues such as the mistreatment of 'Windrush-generation' migrants could also be used to illustrate the operation and effects of structural racism. Use of academic research: Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 2. Setting up an initiative whereby parents from BAME backgrounds have a safe space to discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour and the structural and societal pressures they face. These support forums will be utilised to raise and resolve issues as they experience them. - As noted elsewhere in the report, the parents' workshops were effective in providing a forum wherein people felt comfortable discussing their experiences in an honest, exploratory manner. Parents identified a number of pressures relating to their children's involvement in ASB and/ or offending behaviour. Many of these pressures concerned issues covered in the practitioner workshops, including intergenerational trauma and a lack of trust in statutory processes, systems and representatives. The other issues identified by parents included structural and societal pressures relating to racism, poverty, substance misuse, family breakdown, mental health issues, unemployment and/or low-paid, precarious employment in the service sector, procedural and interpersonal issues with local authority services, the care system and the prison service. The facilitators struck a fine balance between listening, sympathising and pointing to possible resolutions in relation to the issues raised. In some instances this was extremely difficult, as parents seemed to want others to acknowledge the intractable nature of the problems they faced. However, as noted elsewhere in the report, facilitators were consistent in framing conversations according to session themes, pointing to possible sources of support and working towards solutions wherever possible. - Although the workshop had clear benefits for those parents who participated, levels of attendance were low. Obviously there are many competing claims on parents' time, and it is difficult to determine a time/location for workshops that is suitable for the majority. This challenge underlines the desirability of more regular parents' forums. These would widen and deepen engagement with parents, offer a more varied range of times/locations, and allow for the tracking of issues over time (as opposed to getting a 'snapshot' via discrete accounts). Parental engagement: Consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions, ideally moderated by a third party. 3. It is hoped the service covered by this specification will help to better support young people and their families from the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which unfortunately, is more prevalent among BAME individuals and families. - Although it is too early to determine the extent to which the services in Islington and Haringey will enhance support for BAME young people and their families, there are grounds for optimism. Participant evaluations from the practitioner workshops show that a clear majority of participants felt that they had learned lessons which could have an immediate impact on their everyday practice, with levels of engagement remaining high across the three sessions. - With so many of the poor outcomes identified and explored during practitioner and parent workshops being underpinned by persistent structural inequalities, interventions such as this do not represent a 'magic bullet'. 4. This intervention ultimately is about strengthening communities who have been marginalized. This intervention will look at disproportionality at a local level. Supporting the community from a cultural approach, where experiences are shared, will strengthen the community. It will also influence Islington and Haringey to shape and improve the services provided, so that young people and their families are supported to (improve outcomes and opportunities so they can) 'live their best life'. - The hallmarks of a cultural approach were evident in the way that parents' sessions were designed and conducted. In some cases, parents had taken their own initiative in organising neighbourhood forums, with these instances highlighted and explored by facilitators. Parental accounts were grounded in local conditions, including territorial enmities between young people and the particularities of local services.14 - The centrality of local factors and conditions in parents' accounts points to a need for local authorities to be proactive and reflexive in organising forums and other initiatives in response to events at a local level. - More generally, it might be helpful to include details of each Borough's cultural/ethnic breakdown as part of the wider Local Authority training programme, so staff can develop a deeper understanding of the Borough they are working in from the start. Being responsive to local factors: Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. ## Service Outcomes The Grant Agreement and Specification document, co-signed by AIM High and London Borough of Islington's Youth and Community Services, identifies five service aims. Below we address each of these in turn, while again identifying key 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. 1. Islington Targeted Youth Support/YOS/Integrated Gangs Team and Haringey Youth Justice Service/ Early Help/Youth Service to have factual insight and awareness of BAME communities and issues that marginalize them and how to respond supportively to the young people they are working with. - Evidence from observations and participant evaluations indicate a clear attempt to impart factual insight and awareness of the issues that affect and marginalise BAME communities and individuals. The practitioner workshops were effective in pooling and exploring participants' experiences and expertise around these issues. While these were not always distilled into instances of 'good practice', in most cases because responses needed to be carefully tailored to the specificities of a particular young person or family, each response demonstrated a sensitivity to the challenges faced by BAME communities. That said, many practitioners identified blockages at institutional level which, in their opinion, limited their ability to offer truly effective responses. - As noted above with regard to parents' forums, it would be helpful to disseminate the findings of interviews with young people (in addition to this evaluation report) to a wide range of local authority staff. The lines of questioning pursued in these interviews led to issues being raised that may not be addressed in young people's routine engagements with local authority services. Dissemination: Disseminate this project's key findings regarding challenges and obstacles faced by young people to relevant members of staff, including senior leaders, and beyond. ## 2. Improved Engagement With Local Parents And Young People. Strengths - The parents' sessions and interviews certainly facilitated improved engagement with local parents and young people. Improved engagement over a prolonged period of time would likely require the delivery of a wider range of sessions at a range of times and locations, in order to boost attendance. Another possibility would be to support and perhaps supplement existing parent initiatives. As with the other sessions offered as part of the programme, the neutral status of AIM High staff was important in eliciting honest accounts including the identification and exploration of challenges faced by BAME families. Any rolling out of the programme (or elements of it) would benefit from the continued presence of a third-party in a broker/facilitator role. - The virtues of this position were underlined during parents' and practitioner sessions, as well as interviews with practitioners and young people, when it came to identifying frustrations and challenges - especially those that were procedural or systemic. Additionally, with persistent problems such as school exclusion, poverty and childcare arrangements being identified by many participants and interviewees, perhaps greater acknowledgement of the connection between underlying structural inequalities and forms of racial disadvantage in routine dealings with local families and young people would be beneficial. 3. Young people and families will be more willing to engage with support services to prevent poor outcomes, and will have greater confidence that they will be treated fairly by services and that staff have an awareness of their cultural needs. - It is too early to make any meaningful judgement in relation to this outcome. However, providing a forum for families and young people to discuss the challenges they face is certainly a step in the right direction, and the initial signs are positive. - On the issue of awareness of cultural needs, while some of the points raised by parents regarded shortcomings on this issue, young people were wary of (potentially clumsy) attempts to profile them and their needs and/or lifestyles. 4. Reduction in breaches instigated by the YOS (in Islington and Haringey) indicating impact of project on engagement - Again, it is too early to make any meaningful judgement with regard to breaches instigated by YOS in Islington and Haringey. However, every young person interviewed expressed a desire to avoid breaches and make positive changes to their lives. - One particularly powerful interview with a young person underlined the importance of seeking to improve engagement with young people within appropriate forums. This young person's account raised the possibility that the procedures and routines of some services may put particular young people at risk and also increase the likelihood of breaches occurring. In this instance, a 16-year-old who was required to visit the YOS office regularly was attacked en route by a rival group who were aware of his daily movements. He therefore travelled to and from the YOS building with his own entourage, increasing the likelihood of subsequent altercations between the two groups. Naturally the young person was anxious and feared for his own safety, which adversely affected his levels of engagement. Demonstrating a greater awareness of these issues may improve engagement and, more specifically, encourage young people to engage with the aims and objectives connected with a particular procedure, as well as the procedure itself. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures: Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/protocols may increase risk of harm. 5. Islington and Haringey to explore alternative ways of maintaining and increasing young people's engagement. - The programme's interviews with young people provided some encouraging signs with respect to engagement. Young people seemed encouraged by the open-ended exploration of the issues they faced which took place during interviews. - It bears repeating that choosing the right forum for engagement is important. During some interviews with young people, it became clear that some were effectively carrying out their own risk assessments, weighing risk of failure to attend appointments against risk of harm at the hands of other young people. Once again, the fact discussions were facilitated by a third party, with young people's responses indicating that facilitators were perceived as neutral, was important in exploring the challenges and frustrations they face. ## Interviews Interviews with a cross-section of the frontline practitioners who attended workshops were conducted at YOS sites in Islington and Haringey, respectively, in late 2019. A number of parents' workshops were also voice recorded for the purposes of evaluating the project and identifying parents' lived experiences with regard to disproportionality. Finally, young people engaged in the CJS were also interviewed at YOS sites with a view to capturing their experiences pertaining to offending histories and any issues around disproportionality. Our analysis of these interviews/discussions is presented below and addresses issues raised by practitioners, parents and young people, in turn. ## Practitioners Police Attitudes Some practitioners described having to challenge the police's 'set view' of particular families and individuals in a multi-agency context: The young person that I'm working with just now … if you speak to my colleague - police colleagues - they say, he's no good, he's no good, he needs to be locked up, he needs to be locked up. That's the only thing they knew about him. (I12: 2) ## Sentencing Practices An important question for practitioners concerned racially disproportionate outcomes in some courts and, more specifically, how to translate acknowledgement into action without further exacerbating outcomes: It's how we challenge that around remands, which is one of the biggest areas. Because it's quite something to go into a court and take on a Judge and essentially kind of highlight that specifically that court has been giving negative outcomes for young people, with the only clearly defining aspect the fact of their background. So that is not a comfortable conversation and one that I think is going to require some prep, both for the court and for staff about how we kind of do deliver that challenge. Because otherwise you run the risk of alienating the court even more and getting worse outcomes for young people. (I2: 3) The need to communicate effectively with the courts in order to foreground issues pertaining to disproportionality was underlined by another practitioner: … in terms of things like sentencing I think it's really important - young BAME people are more likely to be remanded and all those kind of things. So I think, thinking about how we communicate that with the courts and get it in the forefront of their minds when they're making those decisions. (I3: 6) Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes: Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. ## School Exclusions A similar frustration about acknowledgement and action was expressed with regard to school exclusions: … we're not being ballsy enough in [that] we're not going up to schools and saying, you need to sign up to zero exclusions. You know, I feel that we in a room acknowledge what the issues are but I think perhaps we - I don't know whether or not I'm low - I'm down here, so I'm not aware enough of the strategic conversations that are happening to try and make some changes for these young men. (I5: 8) This desire for action is borne out by research on school exclusions. A recent report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime (APPG 2019) noted a significant increase in the number of permanent and fixed term exclusions (70% and 54%, respectively, across all state-funded primary, secondary and special schools) between 2012/3 and 2019 and underlined the possible links between school exclusion and serious youth violence. Citing research by the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC), the report noted that pupils in alternative provision are more likely to know someone who carries a knife than those in mainstream educational settings. Other research shows that exclusions are racially disproportionate, with children (especially males) from African-Caribbean, Irish Traveller and Gypsy/Roma backgrounds three to four times more likely to be excluded than other groups (Timpson 2019). ## Creating A Space For Critical Discussion While practitioners described issues relating to disproportionality being alluded to in their day-to-day work, especially in the context of team-based work, the Disproportionality Programme workshops allowed for detailed, exploratory discussion of these: I think what was good was like it was - you know, space to have a certain conversation. Because I feel like all organisations should continuously have those conversations because these issues aren't going anywhere for now. (I8: 1) So it was valuable in the sense that there's not many times you're going to have a whole workforce really have to sit and think about discrimination and really look at it and really think about it in a way that that training forced colleagues to. So I found that very, very helpful. But the first and second allowed a dialogue to be opened. So it really allowed us to talk about things that people don't like to talk about generally. (I4: 1-2) I think a lot of the things we talked about were like - it was all really interesting and I think it just brought a lot of it back to the forefront of like all of our minds, like having those conversations. (I3: 1) Furthermore, practitioners appreciated learning about their colleagues' experiences (in both a personal and professional capacity) and were encouraged that the sessions had not been prompted by a particular flashpoint (i.e. they were motivated by an ongoing concern about disproportionality and the adverse impact on children and young people being worked with). While talking to everybody else, their experiences were really awful from the start. So having those discussions with you about the people's perceptions and experiences, it opens kind of really the mind of other people's experiences. (I10: 3) What I've found - what it did really bring to focus for me was how many of my colleagues are carrying around so much from their own experiences. And it's not something I guess I don't know, but something that very much brought into focus that, which wasn't particularly comfortable I don't suppose, but quite healthy as well. (I2: 2) Yeah. I think it's made me like think about and sort of feel more confident in like having the conversations with young people about their experiences as well. (I3: 5) Whereas this way was a balanced, controlled - no-one was in trouble, no-one was being accused of being a racist, so it wasn't off the back of something. Whereas society I find as a whole generally only really acts in a big way, in a reactive way. (I4: 2) ## Differing Levels Of Experience And Expertise Among Practitioners Whereas all practitioners identified at least one element of the workshops that they found helpful, many pointed to areas where there was some repetition of content covered in training sessions they had attended previously. In light of this, some would have appreciated the option of attending sessions selectively (based on self-assessment of knowledge/skills). Not all staff participants attended all three workshops, for a variety of reasons, though this would have been preferred in order to benefit from the cumulative nature of the learning. Participants offered suggestions about how the structure and content of workshops could be refined. … it's very difficult if you have not grown up around diversity, to then be in a position where you are forced to be able to deal with diversity and then be able to just hit the ground running and understand the families and understand the young people and understand all the little nuances and be able to build these brilliant relationships … if anything I think two-thirds of the training was done from a very theory point of view and I would have liked maybe one training theory and two of the trainings very practical.(I4: 4-6). I almost found it, are you saying that I don't know how to work with this cohort? Are you saying that I'm struggling to engage this cohort? Are you saying that I'm not quite appreciating the traumatic, you know, trans, you know; are you saying that I'm - that's not coming through in my work hence why I'm here? And I almost - it was a bit like I was looking around for some - yeah, some sort of validation about why I'm (here) (I5: 8). But what I felt is that we kind of skimmed a lot of different subjects. We got a basic introduction to lots of different areas, some of them which we've all had lots of training on. So I felt that it would have been more beneficial. … it probably would have been helpful … to have a conversation, not in terms of where the service is at, prior to actually designing the training. You know, the discussions that I've had with other sort of managers and also with other practitioners is that they felt they could have been pushed a bit more. Maybe for it to be a little bit more controversial. (I6: 4 & 7) Other suggestions included delivering the workshops over two full days (partly on the basis that practitioners who attended afternoon workshops were less fresh and carried the mental baggage of a full morning's work) and to spend more time focusing on workers' intergenerational trauma. ## Recommendations Format Of Programmes: Consider Using Full-Day Rather Than Half-Day Sessions. Issues With Content Though all practitioners were in broad agreement about the need for the workshops, a small number took issue with session content and/or the way it was presented. It was suggested that workshops should cover manifestations of institutional racism across society (to balance the focus on police through Macpherson, etc.), while there was also some scepticism in relation to intergenerational trauma. (No quotations have been included here in order to preserve the anonymity of practitioners.) ## Disproportionality As An Issue In Upper Echelons Of Local Authorities Some practitioners talked about racial disproportionality within many local authorities, and particularly at management level, which in their view necessitated an 'inside-out' approach to addressing the problem. This observation was related to suggestions that workshops should be attended by as many employees as possible, including those in senior management positions, and that procedures (as well as attitudes/approaches) should be examined with a view to reform: It's then, kind of undermined by the fact that obviously it's systemic and process-driven as well … So it's a real - it misses, especially these days I think, because there has been a distinct movement in the last five years or so to a more therapeutic, strengths based approach. But the legislation and things like inspection criteria obviously always lags behind by a few years. (I2: 5) … actually it's an internal issue, what am I doing about what's going on internally from my colleagues and how they feel. And then in challenging things that are a bit closer to you I think you become better equipped at challenging those things that are outside of you, you know. (I8: 6) ## The Strongest Session - Best Practice-Based And Action-Orientated Many practitioners thought the final workshop was especially helpful and productive: But it was that kind of practical, healthy discussion about what we can actually do was something that I really enjoyed in that last session without a doubt. (I2: 3) The most helpful thing I found was maybe the last session, in being able to develop some agency around kind of collective responsibility in the room and us all thinking about what we could all be doing differently, tangibly, you know, realistically, in terms of trying to make a change. (I5: 2) ## Recommendations Replicating An Action-Orientated Training Focus: Priortise The Identification And Dissemination Of Good Practice, Which Can Have An Immediate Impact On Practitioners' Day-To-Day Work, In Future Iterations Of The Programme. Parents Trust, Communication And Use Of Information Parents were confident in describing their engagement with local authority services, but some identified issues regarding trust. In one case this concerned communication, information sharing (in a multi-agency setting) and the possibility of being judged: I have in the past had phone calls and they're saying, oh have you heard from your daughter, have you heard this, or, do you know this, and you may know what the information - you may have the answer to what they're looking for, and then… but when it flips the other way they said, yeah we've seen her. So I said, well are they okay, yeah she's okay. Oh well what are you working on at the moment? What are you doing? Or, I've emailed you. Oh yeah well yeah we've seen her, but it's very, very generic; they're not really - whereas you want to talk, you want to have that dialogue with them, but it's just not happening … And the other thing is, when you're giving this information, you also feel that you're being judged … You feel that you're being judged and because they're not feeding back to you, it makes it even worse. What are they hiding? Why aren't they communicating with you in a way to make, you know what, it's actually quite good that you're engaging with us, or, we can see that you want to work with us and it's not you, it's just how the situation - they don't give you any form of encouragement. Yes which I think for me, it's not something that parents are even aware of. I think naively, yes, we know they must record it somewhere, but I think, as a parent, if we're working with any sort of like, professionals in that way and they're recording personal information and they're sharing that kind of information, they need to tell us, because we're not told that (I1: 2-3, 5) This was an important concern, given it could colour parents' view of working in partnership with local authority services: I was quite an avid supporter of working in partnership and working in partnership again but looking back at it, it just feels like hold on a second, now I'm thinking, somewhere in this system you've got all this information about me and people close to me, and what's that about? What have you done with it? How has it been used? Where's it been passed to? Does it then - do you understand what I mean? (I1: 6) At its most acute, this perception could lead to partnership working being understood according to a 'them against you' dynamic: … there can be at times so many interventions all going on at the same time … And you think well, what's going on? Why are we here? What's the progress and to get that interaction and get an update when there's an intervention here, there's a psychologist, there's nurses, there's case workers, there's all kinds of different people involved and it's just them against you. (I1: 3) ## The Role Of Parent Co-Ordinators A possible remedy for this was the 'Parent Co-ordinator' role - at present only available in Islington - through which parents could be empowered, and levels of engagement and communication could be boosted.The forums created via this role may also help to combat the feeling of loneliness that some parents felt with respect to the challenges of parenthood. As one parent commented: … from my own personal experience, I think if the YOS team engage well with the parents it will hopefully produce better results. But how we do that, but in a constructive way, I think we need to just focus on like the case workers, working with the parents and I'm sure a lot of them do. But I think just like you're doing parent support, I think the YOS workers needs to adapt some of that as well where they're working with the parents. I don't know, I didn't get that, I personally didn't get that and I think just like what you're doing years later, I think that that's something that they should be thinking about, working - I don't know if they have something like that now. (I1: 7) ## The Limitations Of Individualised Interventions Another observation concerned the locus of intervention, with some parents feeling that familyfocused interventions failed to attend to wider societal issues: Because I know from personal experience it's very, very distressful when you've got a young person that's been arrested, going to court and all the rest of it, and it's not you, a lot of parents it's not them; it's the society that we live in. (I1: 8) ## Recommendations Boosting Parental Trust And Engagement: Consider Strengthening Whole-Family Working Practices And Models, Including The Creation Of Parenting Worker Roles Where These Do Not Already Exist. Young People School Exclusion The majority of the young people interviewed had been excluded from mainstream education, with the remainder having voluntarily withdrawn from further education (sixth form colleges). The reasons for permanent exclusion were varied, and included violence against teachers and knifecarrying in school. In the latter instance, the young person described being bullied by older pupils for three years (between the ages of 12 and 15) - and recalled having expressed a desire to move to another school - with a knife eventually being carried into school for protection: … some kid in my year threatened me and I got really angry and it was one of those things where when I get angry it's one of those things where I don't remember what I did or what happened, in that sense. Apparently I brought it in, didn't use it on anyone, it was just in my possession to keep me safe. (I9: 9) Another young person had been permanently excluded twice: So like my schooling history was like - from Year 6, I got into situations in school, so I'm arguing with my head teacher, being physical and I ended up breaking an elbow and then I got sentenced to a unit in primary school. They sent me back to mainstream in Year 6. I then got kicked out again and I got sent to the unit and I've been in the unit since about Year 10. (I13: 2) ## Recommendations Increasing Accountability For School Exclusions: Consider Identifying And Collating Longerterm Outcomes For Excluded Bame Young People, And Disseminating This Information On A School-By-School Basis. Treatment By Police And The Criminal Justice System While one young person described being treated fairly during arrest, others thought the process was unfair. One young person recalled the circumstances around their arrest: … they were mugging me off … taking the mick. (I14: 4) It should be noted, however, that this young person felt they had been treated fairly after arriving at the police station. There was a lack of consensus among young people as to whether they had been treated fairly by representatives of the CJS. Whereas some BAME young people thought their background had not resulted in any unfair treatment, others spoke of unequal outcomes with an air of resignation. Indeed, some young people deemed their treatment had been fair when measured against their knowledge and previous experience of prevailing standards rather than against more abstract, theoretical standards of fairness and equality. This was evident in young people's reflections on sentencing: (In response to a question about the possibility of being treated more harshly as a young BAME male): No. How I've been treated or how I am treated, it doesn't change anything. It's just I guess what happens. (I9: 7) ## Another Young Person Recalled Their Treatment With Similar Resignation: I wouldn't say fair, but it (my treatment) was - it wasn't too bad, but because of my role, I don't think I should have got as long … (In response to a question about whether being a BAME male contributed to his sentence): Possibly. Because that's mostly what happens in the justice system … You can't say everyone in the justice system (is prejudiced), because like everyone's the same, but the majority of the people, like police and stuff … It seemed like she (the judge) didn't really take in what we were saying, what I was saying anyway. It's like from the beginning she decided towards the victim. (I15: 5-6) ## Discussion Of Pre-Sentence Reports Also Prompted Some Interesting Reflections: Yeah (I contributed to the Pre-Sentence Report) … (It was) a true representation … It helped me not go to jail, yeah … but what am I doing for a whole year coming here?... But it's punishment. That's it. If you was to give someone a punishment, you'd give them a punishment, that's like at least they learn something … (I would have respected a punishment) if it was shorter and I actually learnt something. (I14: 6-7) Police relations with young people: Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people. ## Yos Processes/Procedures Young people offered a number of insights on YOS processes and procedures. One young person described the YOS building representing authority and, more specifically, the Police. As alluded to earlier in the report, some young people raised issues with some YOS processes and, more specifically, were concerned that these may be heightening risk of breaches and/or putting them in possible danger: Yeah it's been nuts. But I think even today - but I think it's like the fourth time today I've had a situation on the way to come to the YOT… it's only when I come here I get into an issue. I've got to come every day, so it's like yeah they try to help me here but they also set me up as well in the same instance … I know, but I've become accustomed to it. It's like obviously the first couple of times it happens you panic, your heartbeat's - all of these things but then all you do is get yourself in a worse predicament. But if you're panicking, nothing's going to get done. You can't accept the situation, you can't safeguard yourself, you've just got to - it happens. (I13: 4) The same interviewee expressed frustration that practitioners could not admit the impossibility of his situation, with this frustration leading to a lack of meaningful engagement with services: In my position, we've only got two options. We've got to go to jail - more likely you go to jail or you die, because you either don't carry your shank and you get backed into some sort of rivals and then you've got no means to defend yourself, you're dead. Or you carry a shank and you get stopped and searched and you might go to jail. But I would rather be alive in jail than be dead on the road, yeah. So I'd rather have my shank … They know, but they don't understand what we go through. It's the fact that this building exists. So we come here for them to say to us… well, they're trying to steer us right onto a greater life. So we come here for them to say to us, like, well it's about time you made a change. What do you mean it's about time I made a change? I've been trying to live - that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to stay alive. What, am I not meant to try and stay alive? … I've always asked them, so what do you want me to do because I'm carrying my weapon, I get arrested, but I don't carry my weapon and I die. You tell me what I should do? They won't answer my question. They just talk quickly; say something and I've got to go. They never want - they can never give you an answer because it's a sticky situation and you have no answer. What are you going to tell me? You're telling me to die. No one wants to tell me what to do. So they do their job and they let me do what I need to do and that's it. Nobody cares about the ins and outs of the situation. (I13: 5-6, 10) ## Case Workers Young people were divided on the credentials of an 'ideal case worker'. While one young person insisted this should be 'someone that's been involved', others were less prescriptive. Indeed, for one mixed-race young man, a white female case worker had assumed the role of father: She's just like one of the - she's one of those staff people that like they don't - how can I explain it, they don't, like, discriminate against you in any shape or form … I would say she's like my dad. I don't get along with my mum like I used to. Even though I live with her. I don't speak to her properly, I don't respect her. She don't respect me. We just don't have that type of connection … Race, colour, sexuality, it doesn't mean anything. She's still a human being and we've just got to treat everyone the same. (I9: 5) Some young people were wary of attempts to engage with them that involved undue profiling: … they (case workers) get aspects of me. But as I said earlier, they get certain things like people - I don't know, it's a push and go thing because like - it's like yeah cool, they understand something, but because they understand a little part, like they've understood - … they understood the first part, they can connect with the second part, they automatically believe that they know you now. So now they've made that small connection on - ah they play basketball, you play basketball too, now they believe they know your whole story. Everything that you do is around basketball and they believe that they know you too much. They end up f***ing up and the whole situation - now you don't have a relationship with them, you just see them as annoying.(I13: 8) ## Involvement In Crime And Maturational Reform On their offences, while some young people spoke of carrying weapons for protection, others described getting involved in county lines drug distribution through peer groups. One young man was convinced of the power of what criminologists call maturational reform, stating 'Everyone falls away, everyone' (I7: 19). Conversely, this underlines the importance of protecting younger people by limiting their exposure to forms of trauma and exploitation which have a proven association with factors such as school exclusion. Young People's engagement: Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality. The recommendations which appear throughout the report are collated below. The aim is to help Islington and Haringey further improve the work they are leading on to tackle disproportionality and the over-representation of BAME young people in the CJS: 1. Structure and Approach In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, consider using full-day rather than half-day sessions, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. 2. Dissemination Disseminate this project's key findings regarding the challenges and obstacles faced by young people and parents to relevant staff members, including senior leaders, and beyond. 3. Use of academic research Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 4. Young People's and Parental engagement Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality and consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions moderated by a third party. 5. Being responsive to local factors Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. 6. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/ protocols may increase risk of harm. 7. Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. 8. Replicating an action-orientated training focus Priortise the identification and dissemination of good practice, which can have an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work, in future iterations of the programme. 9. Boosting parental trust and engagement Consider strengthening whole-family working practices and models, including the creation of parenting worker roles where these do not already exist. 10. Increasing accountability for school exclusions Consider identifying and collating longer-term outcomes for excluded BAME young people, and disseminating this information on a school-by-school basis. 11. Police relations with young people Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people.	en
0814-pdf	The English Indices of Deprivation 2007 www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity # The English Indices Of Deprivation 2007 Michael Noble, David mcLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth and Helen Barnes Social Disadvantage Research Centre, University of Oxford Chris Dibben University of St Andrews March 2008 Communities and Local Government: London Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce, 2008 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and the title of the publication specifi ed. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Offi ce of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: HMSOlicensing@opsi.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 Email: communities@capita.co.uk or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk March 2008 ## Preface Indices of Deprivation are an important tool for identifying the most disadvantaged areas in England so that resources could be appropriately targeted. Signifi cant changes were made to the Indices in 2004 which allowed us to measure deprivation at a smaller spatial scale through the introduction of Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). We also introduced new domains and indicators to capture other dimensions of deprivation, for example crime and the living environment. Following fundamental changes in the measurement of deprivation in both the 2000 and 2004 Indices, we have listened to requests from key stakeholders and users of the Index to provide a consistent measure to allow change over time to be measured. The Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007) therefore updates the Indices of Deprivation 2004, retaining the same methodology, domains and indicators. This report rehearses the conceptualisation underpinning the model of multiple deprivation used and outlines the indicators and domains that make up the ID 2007. The datasets underpinning the ID 2007 can be accessed at: www.communities.gov. uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/ We would like to thank all those who assisted in the production of the ID 2007. In particular we thank all those who responded to the consultation, Professor Pete Alcock who peer reviewed the work of SDRC, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Dr Chris Dibben and Dr Ben Anderson who undertook specifi c analysis to support the Indices and the inter-departmental advisory group for their many helpful suggestions. ## Contents \| \| Introduction \| 7 \| \|------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| Acknowledgements \| 8 \| \| Chapter 1: \| Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the small area level: \| \| \| The conceptual framework \| 9 \| \| \| Chapter 2: Domains and Indicators \| 13 \| \| \| \| Section 1: An Introduction to the Domains and Indicators \| 13 \| \| \| Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain \| 16 \| \| \| Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain \| 20 \| \| \| Section 4: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain \| 22 \| \| \| Section 5: Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain \| 24 \| \| \| Section 6: Barriers to Housing and Services Domain \| 26 \| \| \| Section 7: Crime Domain \| 28 \| \| \| Section 8: The Living Environment Domain \| 30 \| \| Chapter 3: Combining the Domains into an Index of Multiple \| \| \| \| \| Deprivation \| 32 \| \| Chapter 4: Presentation of results and interpretation \| 34 \| \| \| \| Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) Level Results \| 34 \| \| \| District Level Presentations \| 36 \| \| \| County Council Level Presentations \| 38 \| \| Chapter 5: The geography of deprivation \| 39 \| \| \| \| Section 1: \| An overview of the patterns of multiple deprivation in \| \| England and Regional maps of LSOA level IMD 2007 \| 40 \| \| \| \| Section 2: \| The most deprived and the least deprived 20% of \| \| LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007 \| 60 \| \| \| \| Section 3: \| The Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting \| \| Children Index, the Income Deprivation Affecting Older \| \| \| \| People Index and the IMD 2007 \| 64 \| \| \| \| Section 4: \| District level summary measures \| \| \| Section 5: \| The reasons for changes in the geography of \| \| deprivation between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007 \| 90 \| \| \| Annex A: \| Consultation \| 91 \| \|----------------------\|---------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Annex B: \| Indicator Details \| 92 \| \| Annex C: \| Data Sources \| 98 \| \| Annex D: \| The Shrinkage Technique \| 101 \| \| Annex E: \| Factor Analysis \| 103 \| \| Annex F: \| \| The 'Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety \| \| disorders' indicator \| 104 \| \| \| Annex G: \| Categories of Recorded Crime Included in the Crime Domain 108 \| \| \| Annex H: \| Exponential Transformation \| 110 \| \| Annex I: \| Components of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 \| 111 \| \| Annex J: \| \| The 100 most deprived SOAs on the Index of Multiple \| \| Deprivation 2007 \| 112 \| \| \| Annex K: \| \| District level summaries of the LSOA level Index of Multiple \| \| Deprivation \| 115 \| \| \| \| References \| 127 \| ## Introduction Communities and Local Government commissioned the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford to update the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) for England. Following an extensive public consultation (see Annex A), an independent academic peer review and a signifi cant programme of work, the new Indices of Deprivation 2007 were produced in December 2007. The new Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level measure of multiple deprivation, and is made up of seven LSOA level domain indices. There are also two supplementary indices (Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People). Summary measures of the IMD 2007 are presented at local authority district level and county council level. The LSOA level Domain Indices and IMD 2007, together with the local authority district and county summaries are referred to as the Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007). The ID 2007 are based on the approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2004. The ID 2007 updates the ID 2004 using more upto-date data. The new IMD 2007 contains seven domains which relate to income deprivation, employment deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training deprivation, barriers to housing and services, living environment deprivation, and crime. This report presents the conceptual framework of the new ID 2007; the component indicators and domains; the methodology for creating the domains and the overall IMD; the LSOA level results and the LA level summaries. ## Acknowledgements The ID 2007 was constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford. The team comprised: Michael Noble, David McLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth, Sonia Exley, and Helen Barnes. In addition, the Health Domain was constructed by Chris Dibben from the University of St Andrews; the 'air quality' indicator by Jon Fairburn at Staffordshire University; the 'housing affordability' indicator by Professor Glen Bramley at Heriot-Watt University; and GIS work was undertaken by SDRC's GIS consultant David Avenell. The population denominators were kindly provided by the Small Area Population Estimation Unit at the Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS). The team would like to thank Communities and Local Government's Advisory Group, the academic peer reviewer Professor Pete Alcock from the University of Birmingham, and the many respondents to the consultation, for all their helpful contributions. The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. CLG Licence No: 100018986. 2007 ## Chapter 1: Measuring Multiple Deprivation At The Small Area Level: The Conceptual Framework The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level. The model of multiple deprivation which underpins the IMD 2007 is the same as that which underpinned its predecessor - the IMD 2004 (Noble et al., 2004) and is based on the idea of distinct dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted as deprived in one or more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall IMD is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specifi c dimensions of deprivation. This chapter, which draws from the ID 2004 Report, elaborates on the model of multiple deprivation that has been used and addresses issues relating to it. ## Background We must fi rst know what poverty is before we can identify where and when it is occurring or attempt to measure it; and before we can begin to do anything to alleviate it' (Alcock, 1997, p.57) In his 1979 account of Poverty in the United Kingdom Townsend sets out the case for defi ning poverty in terms of relative deprivation. Thus his defi nition of poverty is: 'Individuals, families and groups can be said to be in poverty if they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved in the societies to which they belong' (Townsend, 1979, p.31). Though 'poverty' and 'deprivation' have often been used interchangeably, many have argued that a clear distinction should be made between them (see for example the discussion in Nolan and Whelan, 1996). It could be argued that the condition of poverty means not having enough fi nancial resources to meet needs. Deprivation on the other hand refers to unmet need, which is caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just fi nancial. In a similar vein, Atkinson (1998) notes that in recent debates on 'Social Europe', the terms 'poverty' and 'social exclusion' have been used on occasions interchangeably, but he defi nes poverty as a 'lack of money or material possessions'. Townsend himself concurs. In his article 'Deprivation' Townsend argues that 'people can be said to be deprived if they lack the types of diet, clothing, housing, household facilities and fuel and environmental, educational, working and social conditions, activities and facilities which are customary …' [our italics]. People are in poverty if they lack the resources to escape deprivation (Townsend, 1987, p131 and 140). In his 1987 article Townsend elaborates on the distinctions between social and material deprivation. The former - which he acknowledges is more diffi cult to measure - he describes as 'providing a useful means of generalising the condition of those who do not or cannot enter into ordinary forms of family or other relationships'. The more easily measured material deprivation relates to diet, health, clothing, housing, household facilities, environment and work (Townsend, 1987, p136). By identifying both social and material deprivation, he is anticipating some aspects of what one might now call 'social exclusion'. In this study Townsend also lays down the foundation for articulating multiple deprivation as an accumulation of several types of deprivation. Townsend's formulation of multiple deprivation is the starting point for the model of small area deprivation which is presented here in respect of the design of new measures of deprivation for England. ## Area Based Measures Though Townsend's work mainly (though not entirely) referred to individuals experiencing deprivation - single or multiple - the arguments can, in modifi ed form, extend to area based measures. However, limitations of data availability inevitably cause some of the sophistication of his original concept to be lost in practice. At an area level it is very diffi cult to measure the percentage of the population experiencing deprivation on one, two or more dimensions. It is possible to look at single forms of deprivation at an area level and state that a certain proportion of the population experiences that deprivation or a proportion experiences some other forms of deprivation etc. and describe at an area level the combination of single deprivations as area level multiple deprivation. The approach used here conceptualises multiple deprivation as a composite of different dimensions or domains of deprivation. It, however, says little about the individual experience of multiple deprivation. The area itself can be characterised as deprived relative to other areas, in a particular dimension of deprivation, on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, but the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect - this is still measured by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Once the specifi c dimensions of deprivation have been measured, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. ## Dimensions Of Deprivation The approach allows the separate measurement of different dimensions of deprivation, such as education deprivation and health deprivation. There is a question as to whether there should be an additional domain for low income or one that measures the lack of socially perceived necessities (Gordon et al., 2000) (e.g. adequate diet, consumer durables, ability to afford social activities etc.). To follow Townsend, within a multiple deprivation measure only the deprivations resulting from a low income would be included so low income itself would not be a component, but lack of socially perceived necessities would. However, there are no readily available small area data on the lack of socially perceived necessities and therefore low income is an important indicator for these aspects of material deprivation. Moreover, it could be argued that measures of consumption are themselves problematic as lack of certain items may be by choice rather than inability to pay for them. Therefore, it is appropriate to measure low income itself rather than the possession of certain items. Despite recognising income deprivation in its own right, it should not be the only measure of area deprivation. Other dimensions of deprivation contribute crucial further information about an area. However, low income remains a central component of the defi nition of multiple deprivation for the ID 2007. As Townsend writes 'while people experiencing some forms of deprivation may not all have low income, people experiencing multiple or single but very severe forms of deprivation are in almost every instance likely to have very little income and little or no other resources' (Townsend, 1987, p131). 'Multiple deprivation' is thus not some separate form of deprivation. It is simply a combination of more specifi c forms of deprivation, which themselves can be more or less directly measurable. It is an empirical question whether combinations of these different forms of deprivation are more than the sum of their parts, that is, whether they are not simply additive but interact and may have greater impact, if found in certain combinations. Measuring different aspects of deprivation and combining these into an overall multiple deprivation measure raises a number of questions. Perhaps the most important one is the extent to which area deprivation in one dimension can be cancelled out by lack of deprivation in another dimension. Thus if an area is found to have high levels of income deprivation but relatively low levels of education deprivation, should the latter cancel out the former and if so to what extent? The IMD 2007 is essentially based on a weighted cumulative model and the argument for limited cancellation effects is presented. Another question concerns the extent to which the same people or households are represented in more than one of the dimensions of deprivation. In previous Indices based on Census data no explicit information is available on this aspect of the conceptual framework. The 'households with no access to a car' may well have been the same households who 'live in overcrowded accommodation'. The combination in earlier Indices takes no account of possible double counting nor do the published accounts address the potential problem. The position taken in the IMD 2007 is that if a family or area experiences more than one form of deprivation this is 'worse' than experiencing only one form of deprivation. The aim is not to eliminate double counting between domains - indeed it is desirable and appropriate to measure situations where deprivation occurs on more than one dimension. To summarise, the model which emerges from this theoretical framework is of a series of uni-dimensional domains of deprivation which may be combined, with appropriate weighting, into a single measure of multiple deprivation. ## The Concept Of Multiple Deprivation The IMD 2007 is therefore underpinned by a coherent conceptual model of multiple deprivation at the small area level. To reiterate, the model of multiple deprivation is underpinned by the idea of separate dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. The area itself can be characterised as deprived, relative to other areas, in a particular dimension of deprivation on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, though the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect, but this is still measured by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Having measured specifi c dimensions of deprivation, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. ## Chapter 2: Domains And Indicators Section 1: An Introduction To The Domains And Indicators Domains The IMD 2007 contains seven Domains of deprivation: - Income deprivation - Employment deprivation - Health deprivation and disability - Education, skills and training deprivation - Barriers to housing and services - Living environment deprivation - Crime ## Indicators There are a total of 38 indicators, distributed across the seven domains. Where possible, the indicators relate to 2005. The criteria for inclusion of these indicators were that they should be:- - 'Domain specifi c' and appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures of that form of deprivation); - measuring major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small number of people or areas); - up-to-date; - capable of being updated on a regular basis; - statistically robust; - available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form. The aim for each domain was to include a parsimonious (i.e. economical in number) collection of indicators that comprehensively captured the deprivation for each domain, within the constraints of data availability and the criteria listed above. Annex B lists the indicators on a domain by domain basis, and Annex C lists the data sources. ## Data Where Indicators Have Changed Or Ceased To Exist Since The Id2004 For the most part, the same indicators (updated where possible) have been used for the ID 2007 as were used for the ID 2004. This has, however, not been possible for the Income Domain where as a result of major changes to the social security system - particularly in the area of tax credits –indicators have ceased to exist. Where possible indicators have been selected in that domain which map as closely as possible to their predecessors. ## Census Data As with the ID 2004, the ID 2007 only uses Census data when alternative data from administrative sources are not available. Three such indicators were derived from the 2001 Census - adult skill levels in the Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'overcrowded households' in the Wider Barriers Sub Domain of the Barriers to Housing and Services Domain and 'households without central heating' in the Living Environment Domain. ## Data Time Point, Spatial Scale And Denominators Where possible the indicators relate to 2005 and, as has been indicated, the IMD 2007 and component domains are presented at LSOA level. Summaries of the IMD 2007 are presented at district and county council levels. Denominators at LSOA level for 2005 were provided by the ONS Small Area Population Estimation Unit. For the few indicators where numerators were derived from the 2001 Census, the denominators were also drawn from the Census. ## Preparing The Indicators For Combination: Dealing With Small Numbers The shrinkage estimation methodology has been used, where necessary, to improve the reliability of an indicator where it is based on small numbers. The effect of shrinkage is to move such a score towards the district average for that indicator. The extent of movement depends on both the reliability of the indicator and the heterogeneity of the district. If scores are not unreliable, the movement is negligible as the amount of shrinkage is related to the standard error. A further advantage of the shrinkage technique is that movement is less in heterogeneous districts. The shrinkage technique does not mean that the score necessarily gets smaller, i.e. less deprived. Where LSOAs do move this may be in the direction of more deprivation if the 'unreliable' score shows less deprivation than the district mean. For further details about the shrinkage technique, see Annex D. ## Combining Indicators To Create A Domain For each domain of deprivation the aim is to obtain a single summary measure whose interpretation is straightforward in that it is, if possible, expressed in meaningful units (e.g. proportions of people or of households experiencing that form of deprivation). In two domains (i.e. the Income and Employment domains) where the underlying metric is the same and where the indicators are non-overlapping, the indicators can be simply summed and divided by the population at risk to create an area rate. In several of the domains where a simple rate is not possible, Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis has been used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators. This has been applied to the following domains or sub-domains: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain; Children/Young People sub-domain in the Education, skills and training deprivation Domain; and the Crime Domain. For further details about the factor analysis technique, see Annex E. ## Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this domain is to capture the proportions of the population experiencing income deprivation in an area. This has been achieved in previous versions of the Index (ID 2000 and ID2004) by reference to the percentage of the population reliant on various means tested benefi ts (see e.g. Noble et al., 2004). It has been the long term goal to move the Income Domain from proxy indicators based on benefi t receipt to a measure more similar to the national income poverty measure - i.e. proportion of the population of an LSOA living in households below 60% of equivalent median income. Since the publication of the ID 2004, research has been undertaken by the University of Essex to create synthetic income estimates at small area level (See Communities and Local Government Website for a note on the methodology adopted). However, following a careful consideration of the results of that research and after taking into account the views expressed during the consultation, it was decided not to implement a domain based on synthetic estimates of income at this time. ## The Indicators: - Adults and children in Income Support Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in Income-Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in those Working Tax Credit households where there are children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs (Source: HMRC 2005) - Adults and children in Child Tax Credit Households (who are not eligible for IS, Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs (Source: HMRC 2005) - National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both (Source: NASS 2005) Shrinkage estimation (see Annexe D) was applied to the combined indicators. ## Issues Adjustments Arising From The Introduction Of Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit And Working Tax Credit As in the ID 2004, the Income Domain includes comprehensive, non-overlapping counts of both in-work and out-of-work means-tested benefi ts. However, some adjustments were required in order to refl ect recent changes to the structure of benefi ts and tax credits. In October 2003 Income Support (IS) for those aged 60 and over was replaced by a new benefi t for those with no income/ an income below the Minimum Income Guarantee. This benefi t is known as the Pension Credit (PC) and it comprises two component parts: Guarantee Credit (available to those aged 60 and over) and Savings Credit (available to those aged 65 and over). In order to capture income deprivation within this age group (thus rendering the ID 2007 comparable with the ID 2004 which captured this age group through IS receipt), it was necessary for PC to be included as an indicator within the current income domain. Following DWP advice only those receiving the 'Guarantee Credit' element of PC are counted as income deprived. This is because the low-income status of those receiving only the 'Savings Credit' element of PC is less clear-cut given the different nature of this benefi t and its differing eligibility rules. However, PC recipients receiving 'Savings Credit' in addition to 'Guarantee Credit' are included. Since April 2003 most Income Support (IS) and income-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA-IB) claimants who have children have received Child Tax Credit (CTC) in respect of their children rather than an IS/JSA-IB allowance for them. This means that data on children in IS/JSA-IB data are no longer reliable. The same holds true for the relatively small number of adults receiving Pension Credit who have dependent children. However, the children in such households can now be identifi ed by 'patching in' data from Child Benefi t records and this was undertaken by DWP. Tax credit data used in the ID 2004 comprised data for Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and data for the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC). In April 2003, WFTC and DPTC were replaced with a single Working Tax Credit (WTC). It should also be noted that, in addition to replacing dependent allowances within IS and JSA-IB, CTC also replaced provisions for dependent children within these tax credits. Thus, in order that the ID 2007 income domain remains comparable with the ID 2004 income domain, it was necessary to include families (WTC+CTC cases or CTC cases only) within counts of those who are income deprived (subject to the threshold described below). In addition it would theoretically be possible to include WTC only cases. However this was not undertaken for two reasons. First HMRC does not have reliable address data for them and second they were not, in the main, included in the ID2004 so there would be a loss of 'backwards' compatibility. It was also necessary to ensure there was no 'double counting' where families are in receipt of both CTC and one of IS/ JSA-IB/ PC. ## Selecting Wtc/Ctc Cases Below An Income Threshold Eligibility for WTC and CTC reaches reasonably far up the income scale, and will include some households that would not be described as 'income deprived' under any of the defi nitions currently in operation in England. An income threshold was therefore defi ned to designate certain recipients of WTC/ CTC 'income deprived'. This threshold was not applied to those in receipt of 'out of work' means tested benefi ts (IS/JSA-IB/PC). The headline income poverty measure used in the Government's poverty and social exclusion report 'Opportunity for All' is households below 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income. This measure has been adopted by Eurostat and is widely used by academics. A version of this measure - 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income (before housing costs and excluding housing benefi t and maintenance) - was used as a threshold for income deprivation and applied to families in receipt of WFTC and DPTC in the ID2004. This approach was adopted in the ID 2007 and applied to WTC/CTC1. ## Asylum Seekers During construction of the ID2004 there was strong support for the inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers within the Income Domain as groups at high risk of income deprivation. Asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) are entitled to Income Support and so are included in the domain in this way. Prior to this, asylum seekers receive either IS or voucher assistance via the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The ID 2004 included information on NASS voucher recipients which was made available by the Home Offi ce and this has also been included in the ID 2007. ## Take-Up Of Benefi Ts As this domain refl ects recipients of means tested benefi ts, the issue of take up and the extent to which this varies by benefi t type, claimant type and geographical area is of crucial importance. As recommended in the ID 2004 Report further research has been undertaken by the University of York to investigate spatial variations in benefi t take up using the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The results of the research are contained in a Report which is available from the Communities and Local Government website. The Report found that there were spatial variations in take up but there was also underreporting of benefi t receipt in the FRS. DWP had conducted an exercise with Pension Credit (but not other benefi ts) linking actual receipt to the FRS data and this produced higher estimates of take-up and resulted in different spatial variations in take-up. The Report concludes that "In the light of this we conclude that it would be unsafe to re-weight area based receipt data to take account of non take-up estimates based on reported receipt in the FRS. It is possible to re-weight Pension Credit receipt to take account of non take-up using our model based on actual take-up for 2004/5. But ideally we would want to ensure that such a model was robust over more than one year. Even then the most robust model explains only 19 per cent of the variance in non take-up. Until a matching exercise is undertaken to establish actual take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA in the Family Resources survey, the models that we have derived using estimated take-up are suspect. If the receipt fi gures in the income domain were adjusted using our coeffi cients derived from actual take-up for Pension Credit but not adjusted at all or adjusted by estimated take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA then it might damage the balance in the ID2007. Those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming pensioners would benefi t but not those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming families with children or childless unemployed. On balance we conclude that it would be the best course to leave well alone for the ID 2007. Meanwhile HMRC should be encouraged to match administrative data on tax credit claiming data in the FRS and DWP to continue to match Pension Credit data and extend the exercise to IS/JSA. There remains an anxiety that area variation in take-up undermines the validity of the Income Domain." In the light of these conclusions and taking into account the responses received from the consultation, it was decided not to adjust the numerator of this domain to take into account non-take up. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index As in the ID2004, a supplementary index - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) - has been produced alongside the ID 2007. This covers only children aged 0–15 living in income deprived households - defi ned as either households receiving IS/ JSA-IB/ PC or those not in receipt of these benefi ts but in receipt of WTC/ CTC with an equivalised income below 60 per cent of the national median before housing costs. The IDACI is the proportion of children 0–15 living in such households as a proportion of all children 0–15. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index A second supplementary index also produced in 2004 was that for Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). This index has also been produced alongside the ID 2007, and represents income deprivation affecting older people defi ned as those adults 60 or over living in pension credit (guarantee) households as a proportion of all those 60 or over. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the whole population. ## Changes From The Id 2004 The introduction of Pension Credit, Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have meant that there are signifi cant and inevitable changes from the indicators in the ID 2004 and these changes are described in detail above. The aim has been, in spite of these changes, to maximise comparability. ## Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working-age population from the world of work. ## The Indicators - Recipients of Jobseekers Allowance (both contribution-based and income-based) for men aged 18–64 and women aged 18–59 (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for the 18–24s who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for 25+ who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for Lone Parents (after initial interview) (Source: DWP 2005) - Incapacity Benefi t recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) (Source: DWP 2005) - Severe Disablement Allowance recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) (Source: DWP 2005) Shrinkage estimation (see Annex D) was applied to the combined indicators. ## Issues For this domain, unemployment claimant counts, as used in previous indices, are replaced by counts of those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance (both contributionbased and income-based) derived from the DWP Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS). This is now the principal indicator for unemployment used in other work on deprivation at the small area level and, in effect, such a change makes no real difference to numbers because previously used claimant counts were derived from JSA data. Using JSA data from WPLS has a clear methodological advantage in that this database also includes information on the New Deals and other workless benefi ts, hence 'double counting' of claimants can be consistently avoided. For the purposes of consistency with the ID 2004, comprehensive and nonoverlapping counts of those on compulsory New Deal programmes and the 'hidden unemployed' (i.e. those claiming work-limiting illness and disability benefi ts) are included in the numerator, as are counts of lone parents who have signalled involuntary labour market exclusion through their participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents beyond an initial work-focused interview. In order to improve consistency across all the indicators of employment deprivation, all indicators (rather than just unemployment as in the ID 2004) are averaged across four quarter time points around the index data point, to account for seasonal variations. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the relevant population (the whole population aged 18–59 plus men aged 60–64). ## Changes From The Id 2004 There are no substantive changes in respect of the indicators but a small methodological shift. ## Section 4: Health Deprivation And Disability Domain Purpose Of The Domain This domain identifi es areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who are disabled across the whole population. This domain measures morbidity, disability and premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of forthcoming health deprivation. ## The Indicators - Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) - Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (CIDR) (2005, Source: DWP) - Measures of acute morbidity, derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (April 2003 to March 2005, Source: Department of Health) - The proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders based on prescribing (2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), suicide mortality rate (2001 to 2005, source: ONS), hospital episode (ICD-10 F3–F4) (April 2003 to March 2005, Source: Department of Health) and health benefi ts data (ICD-10 F3–F4) (2005, Source: DWP) ## Issues The YPLL is a directly age and sex standardised measure of premature death (i.e. under the age of 75). It is measured at the LSOA level, using a combination of 5 years of data. The shrinkage method is applied to the individual age/sex death rates in order to reduce the impact of small number problems on the YPLL. The CIDR is a directly age and sex standardised morbidity/disability rate. It is derived from a count of individuals receiving any of the following benefi ts: Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA), Incapacity Benefi t (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), and the disability premium of Income Support. Hospital episodes that begin as an emergency admission are used to construct a measure of acute health problems. All emergency admissions, greater than one day in length are included and the resulting measure is expressed as a directly age and sex standardised ratio. Prescription data, deaths due to suicide, hospital episode data and health benefi ts data are used as the sources of information to estimate the number of people suffering from anxiety and depression. The hospital episode, mortality and health benefi ts data are directly attributed to LSOAs. However, prescription data can only be used to create rates at a practice level and are therefore assigned indirectly to LSOAs through the practice list. None of these datasets is a perfect measure of anxiety and depression and so they are used in combination. The potential indicator is therefore a weighted combination of all three sources of data (See Annex F for more details). The weights are generated using Factor Analysis (See Annex E). ## Combining The Indicators Factor analysis (maximum likelihood) is used to generate weights for the combination of indicators within this domain. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 5: Education, Skills And Training Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain The Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain measures deprivation in educational attainment, skills and training for children, young people and the working age population in a local area. ## The Indicators Sub Domain: Children / Young People - Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 2 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC), National Pupil Database (NPD) - Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 3 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: PLASC, NPD - Best of 8 average capped points score at Key Stage 4 (this includes results of GCSEs, GNVQs and other vocational equivalents) (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: PLASC, NPD - Proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-advanced education above the age of 16 (2005), Source: HMRC Child Benefi t (CB) data - Secondary school absence rate (2 year average 2004–2005), Source: DCSF absence data, PLASC - Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering higher education (4 year average, 2002–2005), Source: Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS), Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) ## Sub Domain: Skills - Proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi cations (2001) Source: Census 2001 ## Issues Indicators In The Children / Young People Sub Domain Key Stage test score indicators are a direct measure of children's attainment at ages 11, 14 and 16. Although the defi nition of the indicator remains the same as in the ID 2004, the availability of a time-series of the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) and the National Pupil Database (NPD) data has made it possible to reduce volatility in results caused by small numbers of cases by combining several years of data. In addition, the Key Stage 2 and 3 indicators are based on the actual test scores rather than level achieved (as in ID 2004) and thus allow fi ner differentiation between areas. Staying on rates are calculated using Child Benefi t (CB) counts as CB can only be claimed after 16 if the child remains in full-time education. In the ID 2004 this indicator was defi ned as the proportion of children receiving CB aged 17, 18 and 19 divided by the proportion aged 13, 14 and 15. Rather than comparing different age cohorts from the same year, this indicator now uses CB counts from the same age cohort from different years. For example, those aged 17 in 2006 will have been 15 in 2004 so the indicator will include 17 year olds in 2006 in the numerator and 15 year olds in 2004 in the denominator. This method is now possible because a time series of CB is available and is preferable as it reduces the occurrence of staying on rates over 100%. The secondary absence rate and rate of not entering higher education maintain the same data sources and methodology used in the ID 2004. The secondary absence rate is derived from school level data and each pupil is assigned their school's average absence rate. The proportion not entering higher education indicator is produced using UCAS data on successful admissions as a numerator and a population denominator drawn from the 2001 Census. ## Indicators In The Skills Sub Domain The Skills Sub Domain contains only a single indicator which measures the proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi cations The English Indices 2004 included an indicator of adults with no or low qualifi cations taken from the 2001 Census. As an update to the census data is not available two possible ways of producing a similar indicator for the 2007 update were considered. These were either to use the 2001 Census data or create a modelled indicator from a combined dataset of the Labour Force Survey and the Annual Population Survey (APS). The consultation overwhelmingly supported retention of the Census indicator as used in the ID 2004 and the Skill Sub Domain is thus identical to that in the ID 2004. ## Combining The Indicators As for the ID 2004 shrinkage techniques are applied to all indicators. In the Children / Young People Sub Domain Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis (see Annex E) is used to generate weights to combine the indicators. The Skills Sub Domain comprises just one indicator. The fi nal domain was constructed by combining the two sub domain scores with equal weights after they had been standardised and exponentially transformed. ## Changes From The Id 2004 The change to the Key Stage test score indicators is described above. The methodology used to produce the Key Stage indicators has been improved due to a longer time series of data being available. ## Section 6: Barriers To Housing And Services Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this Domain is to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: 'geographical barriers' and 'wider barriers' which includes issues relating to access to housing such as affordability. ## The Indicators Sub Domain: Wider Barriers - Household overcrowding (Source: 2001 Census) - District level rate of acceptances under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act, assigned to the constituent LSOAs (Source: Communities and Local Government, 2005) - Diffi culty of Access to owner-occupation (Source: modelled estimates produced by Heriot-Watt University, 2005) ## Sub Domain: Geographical Barriers - Road distance to a GP surgery (Source: National Health Service Information Authority, 2005) - Road distance to a general store or supermarket (Source: MapInfo Ltd, 2005) - Road distance to a primary school (Source: DfES, 2004–05) - Road distance to a Post Offi ce or sub post offi ce (Source: Post Offi ce Ltd, 2005) ## Issues Indicators In The Wider Barriers Sub Domain In the ID 2004 the Wider Barriers Sub Domain consisted of three indicators related to access to housing. These three indicators are retained in the ID 2007. The two indicators relating to district level homelessness and diffi cultly of accessing owner-occupation are retained and updated. A direct update will not, however, be possible for the overcrowding indicator and, as in the ID 2004, this indicator is based on data from the 2001 Census. ## Indicators In The Geographical Barriers Sub Domain The four indicators included in the Geographical Barriers Sub Domain of the ID 2004 represent distance to access points for four key services. These four indicators are updated and included in the ID 2007. ## Combining The Indicators The relevant indicators within each of the sub-domains are standardised and combined using equal weights. The shrinkage technique is applied to the overcrowding indicator. The two sub-domains are standardised, exponentially transformed and combined with equal weights to create the overall Domain score. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 7: Crime Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this domain is to measure the rate of recorded crime for four major volume crime types - burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence - representing the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level. ## The Indicators - Burglary (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level) - Theft (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level) - Criminal damage (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level) - Violence (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). ## Issues The Crime Domain of the ID 2007 is a direct update of the domain in the ID 2004, consisting of four broad composite indicators representing the risk of victimisation of four key volume crime types that have major effects on individuals and communities. The data used within the Crime Domain of the updated index is subjected to the same processing steps as applied within the ID 2004. First the four composite indicators are created by summing the constituent notifi able offence types to LSOA level. The aggregation method involves an element of geographical 'smoothing' of crimes to account for variations in police geocoding practice. To ensure all data are controlled to a common base, LSOA level counts are then constrained to Home Offi ce totals for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) areas. Each composite indicator is then constructed as a rate using the appropriate denominator. The denominator for the burglary composite indicator is total dwellings from the 2001 Census plus total business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point. For the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators, the denominator is the total resident population (including communal establishment population but excluding prison population) plus total non-resident workplace population (as in the ID 2004). While the resident population has been updated to relate to mid 2005, the workplace population is again taken directly from the 2001 Census as no subsequent updates have been produced at small area level. The purpose of the 'infl ated' population denominator for the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators is to take into account the large 'at risk' non-resident population in town and city centres. It was not possible to take into account other potential victims such as 'passers by'. ## Combining The Indicators As in the ID 2004 the four composite indicators are standardised and combined using weights generated by maximum likelihood factor analysis (see Annex E). ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 8: The Living Environment Domain Purpose Of The Domain The Living Environment domain aims to identify deprivation in the quality of the local environment both within and beyond the home. The domain consists of two subdomains which focus, respectively, on deprivations in the 'indoors' and the 'outdoors' living environment. ## The Indicators Sub-Domain: The 'Indoors' Living Environment - Social and private housing in poor condition (2003 - 2005 average, Source BRE and Communities and Local Government, modelled EHCS) - Houses without central heating (2001, Source: ONS, Census) ## Sub-Domain: The 'Outdoors' Living Environment - Air quality (2005, Source: Geography Department at Staffordshire University and NAEI modelled at LSOA level) - Road traffi c accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists (2004–2006 average, Source: DfT, STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to LSOA level) ## Issues Deprivation In The 'Indoors' Living Environment The indicator of social and private housing in poor condition looks at deprivation in a key area of life - the home. Housing in poor condition is modelled by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for all tenures to postcode level using the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) to give an up-to-date set of stock profi les at the national level. The resulting model is applied to details of the housing stock at small area level using a range of data sources including RESIDATA. The most recent data is used which relates to 2005. The indicator of the percentage of houses without central heating identifi es those areas where residents are deprived of this core household amenity, and a lack of central heating suggests a strong likelihood of diffi culty in heating one's home. The Census 2001 provides the only suitable data source for this indicator and thus the indicator is used in the ID 2007. Given the slow rate of change which could be expected of this indicator at small area level, it remains a useful indicator of deprivation of this key household amenity. ## Deprivation In The 'Outdoors' Living Environment The indicator of air quality provides a valuable measure of environmental pollution at small area level. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) maintains estimates of emissions for small areas (modelled to one kilometre grid squares) in the UK. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the World Health Authority have defi ned guidelines or standard values which represent 'safe' maximum concentrations. Members of the Geography Department at the University of Staffordshire have allocated emissions data to LSOA level for which there are reliable small area levels and clearly defi ned standard values, namely benzene, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates (PM10). The level of each pollutant in an LSOA is divided by the standard value for that pollutant and then all four values are summed to create an overall air quality score for the LSOA. The indicator of road traffi c accidents involving injury to pedestrians or cyclists is a measure of the risk of injury for non-motorised road users in the living environment. This data is available through the Department for Transport's STATS19 (Road Accident) database which records details of all reported traffi c accidents involving death or personal injury. Each incident is plotted according to a ten-digit grid reference which plots its location accurate to ten metres. Where an incident occurs within ten metres of an LSOA boundary the incident has been applied equally to both LSOAs. The denominator for this indicator is the total resident population, the communal establishment population and the non-resident workplace population and excludes the prison population. STATS19 distinguishes between three severity types - slight, serious and fatal - and these are weighted 1, 2, and 3 respectively as was the case in the ID 2004. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators within each sub-domain are standardised by ranking the rates and then transforming to a normal distribution and combined with equal weights. The two sub-domains are then ranked and transformed to an exponential distribution. The two sub-domains are weighted according to patterns of 'indoors' and 'outdoors' time use within the UK 2000 Time Use Survey so that the 'indoors' living environment sub-domain is given two thirds of the domain's weight and the 'outdoors' living environment is given one third of the domain's weight. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Chapter 3: Combining The Domains Into An Index Of Multiple Deprivation In the conceptual model presented, domains are conceived as independent dimensions of multiple deprivation, each with their own additive impact on multiple deprivation. As in the ID 2004, to allow for this type of combination, the following method was used: - Rank the Domain scores and then transform the ranks to an exponential distribution. - Construct weights with which to combine these new scores. ## Standardising And Transforming The Domain Indices Having obtained a set of Domain Indices these needed to be combined into an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation. In order to combine Domain Indices which are each based on very different units of measurement there needed to be some way to standardise the scores before any combination could take place. A form of standardisation and transformation is required that met the following criteria. First, it must ensure that each Domain has a common distribution; second, it must not be scale dependent (i.e. confl ate size with level of deprivation); third, it must have an appropriate degree of cancellation built into it (discussed below); and fourth, it must facilitate the identifi cation of the most deprived LSOAs. The exponential transformation of the ranks best met these criteria and was used in the ID 2007. A more extensive account of the rationale and properties of the exponential transformation procedure is set out in the ID 2004 Report (Noble et al., 2004). Annex H sets out the formula for the transformation. ## Weighting The Domains In the ID 2004 the overall IMD was constructed by combining the individual domain indices into an overall IMD using explicit weights. There has been continued support for this approach. In the ID2004 Report fi ve possible approaches to weighting were identifi ed and considered, and the overall conclusion was that the weights selected should be driven by theoretical considerations (Noble et al. 2004 pp. 45–46). The independent peer review of the ID 2004 proposals indicated that there was a strong case to undertake research to determine empirically driven weights. This research was subsequently commissioned and undertaken by the University of St Andrews. The report of that research is available from the Communities and Local Government website. (www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/323211) Although the research did suggest a small adjustment in weights - the swapping of the weights for the Employment and Health Domains - the sensitivity testing undertaken suggested that "the likely impact of this change on the overall position of Local Authority Districts is slight". In the light of this, and in the context that the ID 2007 was to be constructed in such a way as to replicate (with updated indicators) the ID 2004, weights adopted for the ID 2007 are the same as those used in the ID 2004. Domain Weight Income deprivation 22.5 % Employment deprivation 22.5% Health deprivation and disability 13.5% Education, skills and training deprivation 13.5% Barriers to housing and services 9.3% Crime 9.3% Living Environment deprivation 9.3% This approach to weighting was overwhelmingly supported in the responses to the formal consultation. ## Chapter 4: Presentation Of Results And Interpretation Lower Layer Super Output Area (Lsoa) Level Results At the Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level there are ten Indices for each LSOA in England: - seven Domain Indices (which are combined to make the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation); - an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation; - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index; and - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index. These ten Indices are each assigned a national rank. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. The most deprived LSOA for each Index is given a rank of 1 and the least deprived LSOA is given a rank of 32,482, for presentation. The ranks show how an LSOA compares to all other LSOAs in the country and are easily interpretable. However, the scores indicate the distances between each rank position, as these will vary. It should be noted that the Indices comprising the ID 2007 are measures of deprivation and are designed to be more discriminating of deprivation than of 'non-deprivation'. The LSOA level Indices and their ranks can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. ## The Seven Domain Indices And Ranks Each Domain Index consists of a score which is then ranked. These Domain Indices can be used to describe each type of deprivation in an area. This is important as it allows users of the Index to focus on particular types of deprivation and to compare this across LSOAs. There may be great variation within a district or larger area and the LSOA level Domain Indices allow for a sophisticated analysis of deprivation information. The scores for the Income Deprivation Domain and the Employment Deprivation Domain are rates. So, for example, if an LSOA scores 0.72 in the Income Deprivation Domain, this means that 72% of the LSOA's population is Income deprived. The same applies to the Employment Deprivation Domain. The scores for the remaining fi ve domains are not rates. Within a domain, the higher the score the more deprived an LSOA is. However, the scores should not be compared between domains as they have different minimum and maximum values and ranges. To compare between domains only the ranks should be used. ## The Overall Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (Imd 2007) The overall IMD 2007 describes the LSOA by combining information from all seven Domains: Income Deprivation, Employment Deprivation, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education Skills and Training Deprivation, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment Deprivation, and Crime. These were combined in two stages; fi rst each Domain rank was transformed to a standard distribution - the exponential distribution. Then the Domains were combined using the explicit Domain weights chosen. The overall LSOA level IMD 2007 is then ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices. The IMD 2007 score is the combined sum of the weighted, exponentially transformed domain rank of the domain score. Again, the bigger the IMD 2007 score, the more deprived the LSOA. However, because of the exponential distribution, it is not possible to say, for example, that an LSOA with a score of 40 is twice as deprived as an LSOA with a score of 20. In order to make comparisons between LSOAs it is recommended that ranks should be used. The IMD 2007 is ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices, that is, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index(IDACI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain and shows the percentage of children in each LSOA that live in families that are income deprived (i.e. in receipt of IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC below a given threshold). The IDACI is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as the children are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. An IDAC Index score of e.g. 0.246 means that 24.6% of children aged less than 16 in that LSOA are living in families that are income deprived. As with other measures in the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain. This comprises the percentage of an LSOA's population aged 60 and over who are IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC claimants aged 60 and over and their partners (if also aged 60 or over). The IDAOP Index is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as these income deprived older people are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. As with the IDACI, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## District Level Presentations Six summary measures of the overall IMD 2007 have been produced at district level to describe differences between districts. The following section describes the creation of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007. The district level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. The summary measures at district level focus on different aspects of multiple deprivation in the area. No single summary measure is favoured over another, as there is no single best way of describing or comparing districts. Districts are complex to describe as a whole or to compare for several reasons. First, districts can vary enormously in population size. Further, some districts may have a more 'mixed' population, containing more variation in deprivation and in some places deprivation may be concentrated in severe pockets rather than being more evenly spread. This makes an 'overall picture' more diffi cult to establish. Six measures have been devised which take account of these issues and which describe the district in different ways: looking at the most deprived populations, the most deprived LSOAs, as well as the average of the LSOAs, to get six meaningful descriptions of deprivation at district level. More subtle descriptions of deprivation across a district can be established by a close analysis of the LSOAs within that district, as the LSOA level Index contains the most detailed account of local deprivation. At the LSOA level much more information is retained than with the district level summaries. These measures are discussed individually below. For each measure each district is given a rank and score (with the exception of Extent, as explained below). For presentation, a rank of 1 indicates that the district is the most deprived according to the measure and 354 is the least deprived. The meaning of the scores for each of the measures is detailed as follows. ## Average Of Lsoa Ranks Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Ranks For The Lsoas In A District This measure is useful because it summarises the district taken as a whole, including both deprived and less deprived LSOAs. All the LSOAs in a district need to be included to obtain such an average, as each LSOA contributes to the character of that district. This measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each district. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. ## Average Of Lsoa Scores Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Scores For The Lsoas In A District This measure also describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of LSOA scores across a district. The advantage of the Average of LSOA Score measure is that it describes the LSOA by retaining the fact that the more deprived LSOA may have more 'extreme' scores, which is not revealed to the same extent if the ranks are used. This measure is calculated by averaging the LSOA scores in each district after they have been population weighted. ## Local Concentration Local Concentration Is The Population Weighted Average Of The Ranks Of A District'S Most Deprived Lsoas That Contain Exactly 10% Of The District'S Population. Local Concentration is an important way of identifying districts' 'hot spots' of deprivation. The Local Concentration measure defi nes the 'hot spots' by reference to a percentage of the district's population. This involves taking the mean of the population weighted rank of a district's most deprived LSOAs that capture exactly 10% of the district's population. In many cases this was not always a whole number of LSOAs. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. However, when the districts are ranked on this measure the standard presentational method of assigning rank 1 to the most deprived district is used. ## Extent Proportion Of A District'S Population Living In The Most Deprived Lsoas In The Country. In this measure, 100% of the people living in the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England are captured in the numerator, plus a proportion of the population of those LSOAs in the next two deciles on a sliding scale - that is 95% of the population of the LSOA at the 11th percentile, and 5% of the population of the LSOA at the 29th percentile. This makes the cut-off point less abrupt for this measure than that adopted in the ID 2000. The aim of this measure is to portray how widespread high levels of deprivation are in a district. It only includes districts which contain LSOAs which fall within the most deprived 30% of LSOAs in England. Therefore some districts do not have an overall score for this measure and they are given a joint rank of 309. ## Scale (Two Measures) Income Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Income Deprived; Employment Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Employment Deprived These two measures are designed to give an indication of the sheer numbers of people experiencing Income deprivation and Employment deprivation at district level. The Income Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. The Employment Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. It is useful to present both measures as they are real counts of the individuals experiencing these deprivations. ## County Council Level Presentations In addition to creating six district level summaries of the IMD 2004, these six summaries have also been produced for County Councils. The methodologies used were identical to those described for the districts above. The County level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. ## Chapter 5: The Geography Of Deprivation Introduction This chapter presents some key fi ndings detailing the geography of deprivation across England. - Section 1 presents the maps of the IMD 2007 for each Region, with an overview of multiple deprivation in England. - Section 2 consists of a breakdown of the most deprived and least deprived 20% of LSOAs on the IMD 2007. - Section 3 presents key fi ndings about each of the Domains, focusing in detail on the Income and Employment Domains and the supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). - Section 4 examines the district level summary measures of the IMD 2007 and includes maps of each of the measures. - Section 5 indicates the reasons for changes in the geography of deprivation between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007. The patterns of deprivation across England are complex. The most deprived LSOAs are spread throughout all the regions of England. Moreover, every region also contains LSOAs which fall within the least deprived ten percent of LSOAs in England. Furthermore, even the least deprived LSOAs may contain deprived people within them and the most deprived LSOAs may contain less deprived people. Identifying LSOAs as being among the least deprived does not however mean that these LSOAs necessarily contain large numbers of, for example, very rich people. ## Section 1: An Overview Of The Patterns Of Multiple Deprivation In England And Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Imd 2007 As previously indicated, the IMD is made up of seven domain Indices. The most highly deprived LSOAs score as deprived on several of the domains. In fact, if one takes LSOAs that are ranked overall in the most deprived 10% of the IMD, the following can be said: - 99.2% of these LSOAs score in the most deprived 10% on two or more domains - 88.4% are in the most deprived 10% on three or more domains - 182 LSOAs feature in the most deprived 10% on six of the seven domains. No LSOA is ranked within the most deprived 10% on all seven of the domains. - 25 LSOAs (0.8%) score in the most deprived 10% on only one domain. Each of the LSOAs in the most deprived 10% on the IMD 2007 scored in the most deprived 10% on one or more of the seven component domains. The following maps show the LSOA level IMD 2007 for each Government Offi ce Region (GORs) in England. The LSOAs have been divided into ten equal groups ('deciles'). LSOAs shaded dark blue are the most deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, and LSOAs shaded bright yellow are the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. Maps showing the district boundaries and district names are also included for each Region. ## Annex K Lists The Most Deprived 100 Lsoas On The Imd 2007. As was the case for the ID 2000 and ID 2004, most urban centres contain areas with high levels of multiple deprivation. The conurbations of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle together with neighbouring metropolitan areas contain many highly deprived LSOAs and demonstrate a degree of uniformity in the deprivation. The same is the case for the large metropolitan areas in Yorkshire and the Humber and the West Midlands. The north east quarter of London remains particularly deprived with Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets continuing to exhibit very high levels of deprivation. There are almost no LSOAs in these districts which fall among the 50% least deprived, showing a high overall level of deprivation in these areas. The four local authorities of Liverpool, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Manchester, all located in either the North West or London GORs, each have over half of their LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally. Areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool in the North East Region have very high levels of multiple deprivation. This pattern of multiple deprivation applies in the former coalfi eld areas and former tin mining areas such as Penwith in Cornwall. Seaside resort towns such as Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate, and Hastings continue to show high levels of deprivation as do the ports of Kingston upon Hull and Barrow-in-Furness. Many of the very deprived LSOAs are in close proximity to less deprived LSOAs - leading to heterogeneous districts with a wide range of multiple deprivation within them. The South East, however, remains more uniformly less deprived than any other Region, despite having some pockets of deprivation, principally in the larger urban areas such as Southampton and Portsmouth but also including some former resort towns such as Margate and Hastings. The pattern of multiple deprivation in the South West remains as with the ID 2000 and ID 2004. There is only one LSOA in Cornwall in the least deprived decile of LSOAs in England. In both the North East and London GORs, less than 10% of LSOAs fall into the least deprived 20% of LSOAs nationally. A total of 180 local authorities in England have one or more LSOA in the most deprived 10% of LSOAs nationally. This compares to 263 local authorities that have one or more LSOA in the 10% least deprived of LSOAs nationally, indicating that the more deprived neighbourhoods are more geographically concentrated within local authorities than the least deprived. Some cities experience extremes of high and low levels of deprivation. For example: - Solihull contains 133 LSOAs. Of these, ten LSOAs are in the most deprived 10% of LSOAs and 36 LSOAs are in the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. - In Bradford, almost 30% of the LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived while over 6% of LSOAs in Bradford are among the 10% least deprived in England. - In Sheffi eld there are 81 LSOAs which are among the 10% most deprived and 20 LSOAs that are among the 10% least deprived in England. ## Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Multiple Deprivation East Region The East Region has in total 3550 LSOAs of which just 83 LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived on the IMD 2007. The East Region has approximately two thirds of all its LSOAs in the 50% least deprived on the IMD 2007. The largest concentrations of deprived LSOAs within the East Region are within the larger urban areas of Luton, Norwich and Ipswich and some of the smaller urban areas, primarily located on or close to the coast, such as Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Clacton-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea. ## East Midlands The East Midlands has 198 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 2732 LSOAs in total so just over 7% of all its LSOAs are within these 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD 2007. The deprived LSOAs of the East Midlands are concentrated around the population centres of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham. The former Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coal fi eld districts of Mansfi eld, Ashfi eld, Bassetlaw, Chesterfi eld and Bolsover all contain concentrations of LSOAs suffering severe deprivation. ## London London contains 482 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. London has 4765 LSOAs in total so just over 10% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived nationally. It also has 416 LSOAs (8.7%) that fall among the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. As has been indicated, London's share of the 10% most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in inner London Boroughs particularly (though not exclusively) to the 'inner' north east, such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney. ## North East 294 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD in England are located in this Region. The North East has 1656 LSOAs in total so nearly 18% of all its LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived in England. Just under half of all its LSOAs (784) are in the 30% most deprived LSOAs in England and there are only 53 LSOAs in this Region which are within the least deprived 10%. The pattern of severe multiple deprivation remains similar to the ID 2000 and ID 2004, with the former steel, shipbuilding and mining areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees containing many of the most deprived LSOAs. There are also concentrations of very deprived LSOAs in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead. ## North West The North West has 911 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 4459 LSOAs in total in the North West, therefore over a fi fth (20.4%) of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived. The North West has a greater proportion of its LSOAs in the most deprived 10% than any other Region. Severe deprivation is evident in most of the districts across the North West. Concentrations of LSOAs showing deprivation in the most deprived decile are found in the urban areas in and around Liverpool and Manchester. As with the ID 2000 and ID 2004 the Merseyside districts of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, and St Helens, along with the area of Birkenhead on the Wirral stand out as containing large concentrations of LSOAs with high levels of deprivation, as do many of the local authorities in Greater Manchester including Manchester, Wigan, Bolton, Salford and Oldham. Further concentrations of deprived areas can be seen in the coastal resort town of Blackpool and also in the series of towns running from the head of the Ribble Valley at Preston through Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle. ## South East The South East has 95 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. The South East has 5319 LSOAs in total so under 2% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. Over a fi fth (1252) of the South East LSOAs are in the 10% least deprived group. The most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in some of the coastal resorts of the South East, such as Brighton and Hove, Thanet and Hastings. Elsewhere there are isolated LSOAs within the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. ## South West The South West has 113 LSOAs which are amongst the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. In total this Region has 3226 LSOAs, so 3.5% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. The South West has over twice as many LSOAs in the 20% least deprived decile than it does in the 20% most deprived decile. A total of 659 (20.4%) of its LSOAs are in the 20% least deprived whereas 300 (9.3%) are in the 20% most deprived. Severe deprivation is concentrated in the urban areas of Plymouth and the City of Bristol as well as in parts of Cornwall especially in Penwith. ## West Midlands The West Midlands has 521 LSOAs in the 10% most deprived LSOAs. The Region has 3482 LSOAs in total so this represents 15% of all its LSOAs being in the 10% most deprived. The metropolitan area of Birmingham has very high levels of severe multiple deprivation. The districts of Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell all have severely deprived LSOAs. Further concentrations of these severely deprived LSOAs are to be found in Coventry and Stoke-on-Trent. ## Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire and the Humber contains 551 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. Yorkshire and the Humber has 3293 LSOAs in total, so almost 17% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived in England. Much of Yorkshire and the Humber's severe deprivation is concentrated within towns and cities such as Kingston upon Hull, Sheffi eld, Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees (Huddersfi eld, Dewsbury) and Rotherham. Severe deprivation is also to be found around the former coalfi elds of the Region, in the districts of Doncaster, Wakefi eld and Barnsley. # Section 2: The Most Deprived And The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007 The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007 - There are 6496 LSOAs that are amongst the 20% most deprived in England - These LSOAs are concentrated in cities, 'one-industry' towns and coalmining areas - Over 10 million people live in these LSOAs - this represents almost exactly 20% of the population of England. However, it is important to remember that not all people living in these LSOAs will be deprived - On average, just over a third (35.4%) of people living in these LSOAs are Income Deprived - One in fi ve (20.3%) of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) in these LSOAs are employment deprived - Just under half (48.8%) of children in these LSOAs live in families that are income deprived - Over 37% of older people in these LSOAs are income deprived ## The Regional Picture Chart 5.1 shows the percentage of LSOAs in a Region that fall within the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007, and the percentage of LSOAs which fall within the least deprived 20%. - The most deprived 20% of LSOAs are clustered in the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, London and the West Midlands. Number of LSOAs in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England East 223 3550 6.3 East Midlands 460 2732 16.8 London 1351 4765 28.4 North East 566 1656 34.2 North West 1420 4459 31.8 South East (excluding London) 318 5319 6.0 South West 300 3226 9.3 West Midlands 951 3482 27.3 Yorkshire & the Humber 907 3293 27.5 Total 6,496 32,482 20.0 Number of LSOAs in the Region % of LSOAs in each Region falling in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England - The North East has the greatest percentage of its LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (34.2%). The North West is the Region with the next highest percentage of LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (31.8%). The North West has the greatest number of LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (1420), followed by London with 1351. - However, it is also signifi cant to note that less deprived Regions - the South East, South West and East Regions each have between 6% and 9% of their LSOAs falling in the 20% most deprived in England Regional Population (thousands) % of England population living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England Population in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England (thousands) Proportion of people living in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England, by Region % of Regional population living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England East Midlands 717 4,322 16.6 1.4 7.2 East of England 345 5,559 6.2 0.7 3.4 London 2,128 7,455 28.5 4.2 21.2 North East 858 2,547 33.7 1.7 8.6 North West 2,170 6,834 31.8 4.3 21.6 South East 485 8,178 5.9 1.0 4.8 South West 468 5,083 9.2 0.9 4.7 West Midlands 1,464 5,347 27.4 2.9 14.6 Yorkshire and The Humber 1,389 5,103 27.2 2.8 13.9 Total 10,023 50,428 – 19.9 100.0 - The North East has the largest percentage of its population (33.7%) living in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. - The North West has the largest number of people living in one of the 20% most deprived LSOAs (2.17 million), followed by London which has 2.13 million people living in one of these LSOAs. - 4.3% of people in England live in LSOAs in the North West which fall in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. This is followed by London which has 4.2% of the England population which live in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. - Of those who live in the 20% most deprived LSOAs in England, over a fi fth (21.6%) live in the North West, and over a fi fth (21.2%) live in London. - The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England are spread across 255 local authority districts, though 38 of these districts only have a single LSOA in this grouping. ## The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007 The 20% least deprived LSOAs in England have the following characteristics: - 10.19 million people live in these LSOAs - this is 20.2% of the population of England - Over one-third of these least deprived LSOAs are in the South East - 4.5% of people in these LSOAs are income deprived - 3.8% of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) are employment deprived - On average 4.9% of children live in families that are income deprived - On average 7.4% of older people are income deprived No. of LSOAs in the Region % of least deprived LSOAs by Region No. of LSOAs in least deprived 20% East Midlands 619 2,732 22.7 East of England 1,039 3,550 29.3 London 416 4,765 8.7 North East 165 1,656 10.0 North West 600 4,459 13.5 South East 2,037 5,319 38.3 South West 659 3,226 20.4 West Midlands 486 3,482 14.0 Yorkshire and The Humber 475 3,293 14.4 Total 6,496 32,482 20.0 - The South East has the largest number of LSOAs (2037) falling in the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. It also has the highest percentage of its LSOAs falling in this category (38.3%). The percentage for this Region is far greater than for the other regions, and also the number of LSOAs is just over double the number of LSOAs in the East Region (the Region closest to the South East in this category). - In contrast, London and the North East each have 10% or less of their LSOAs falling in the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. # Section 3: The Domain Indices, The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index And The Imd 2007 In this section an analysis of the Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI), and the IMD are presented. Throughout the analysis, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and the rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA. ## Income Domain this measure. In the most income deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, an average 43% of the population are income deprived. - There are 548 LSOAs in England where more than half of all people live in income deprivation - And 3,382 LSOAs where more than one third of people live in income deprivation At the other end of the spectrum: - there are 5,006 LSOAs where less than one in 20 people live in income deprivation - 14,314 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 live in income deprivation Chart 5.3 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Income Domain. It shows that all Regions contain LSOAs that are highly income deprived and that are not highly income deprived. However, the mean ranks of LSOAs in each Region differ and show substantial variation within England. London has on average the most income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 12,143, whilst the South East Region is the least Income deprived with a population weighted mean rank of 20,225. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Children (Supplementary Index) Chart 5.4 shows the range of the IDAC rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of over 99% of children aged under 16 living in income deprived households down to 0% of children in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. Chart 5.5 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAC have on average 59% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households. Within this decile the range is from over 99% to 48%, showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDACI have on average only 2% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households. In England there are: - 557 LSOAs where more than two thirds of children live in income deprived households; - 2,787 LSOAs where more than half of all children are in this situation; and - 7,272 LSOAs where more than one third of children live in income deprived households. On the other hand there are: - 4,535 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of children live in income deprived households; and - 11,561 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 children live in income deprived households. The region with the highest percentage and numbers of children in income deprived households is London. The North East has the lowest number of children living in income deprived households but it has the second highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of children living in income deprived households, followed by the South West and East of England Regions. Chart 5.8 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDACI. As with all the Domain Indices and the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. For example, East Region's most deprived LSOA has a rank of 50; its least deprived LSOA has a rank of 32,482, and the mean of the LSOA ranks is 18,030. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. London has the highest levels of children living in households affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 10,103 and also has the highest ranked LSOA overall. The South East Region has on average the lowest levels of children in households affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 19,161. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (Supplementary Index) Chart 5.9 shows the range of the IDAOP rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of 97% of older people affected by income deprivation down to just 1% of older people, in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. Chart 5.10 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAOPI has on average 47% of older people affected by income deprivation. Within this decile, the range is from 97% to 38%, again showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDAOPI have on average only 4% of older people affected by income deprivation. In England there are: - 168 LSOAs where more than two thirds of older people are affected by income deprivation; - 850 LSOAs where more than half of all older people are in this situation; and - 4,940 LSOAs where more than one third of older people are affected by income deprivation. On the other hand there are: - 1,310 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of older people are affected by income deprivation; and - 7,703 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 older people are affected by income deprivation. by income deprivation. Chart 5.12 shows the numbers of older people affected by income deprivation. The North East has the highest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation and the North West has highest number. The North East has the lowest number of older people affected by income deprivation but it has the highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation. Chart 5.13 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDAOPI. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart also shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The North East has the highest levels of older people affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 13,288, while the South East Region has on average the lowest levels of older people affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,794. Every Region contains at least one LSOA that falls within the 2% most deprived LSOAs in England on this measure and at least one LSOA that falls within the 1% least deprived LSOAs in England on this measure. ## Employment Domain Chart 5.14 shows employment deprivation in England by decile. In the most employment deprived decile of LSOAs, an average of about 25% of the relevant group of adults (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) are employment deprived. This compares with approximately 3% in the least employment deprived decile of LSOAs in England. In England there are 1,198 LSOAs where more than one quarter of adults experience employment deprivation. There are also 6.906 LSOAs where less than 5% of all adults are employment deprived and 20 LSOAs where less than 1% of adults are employment deprived. Chart 5.15 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Employment Domain. The North East Region is on average the most employment deprived Region with a mean LSOA rank of 9,870. This is signifi cantly more deprived compared with the other regions. The South East Region is the least deprived Region on average on the Employment Domain with a mean LSOA rank of 22,038, followed by the East Region with a population weighted mean rank for LSOAs of 20,235. ## Health Deprivation And Disability Domain Chart 5.16 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Health Domain. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA, and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. The North East and the North West Regions show much higher average levels of health deprivation, compared with other regions, with respective mean ranks of 8,682 and 9,734. The North East has a smaller range of LSOA ranks than other regions, with no LSOA ranked over 28,718, i.e. no LSOA at the 'least deprived' end of the deprivation scale. On average, the least health deprived region is the South East with a population weighted mean rank of 22,821, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 21,274. ## Education Skills And Training Domain Chart 5.17 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Education Domain. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but there is a more evenly distributed pattern of average education deprivation across the regions. The most education deprived regions are the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber, with mean ranks of 12,769 and 13,318 respectively. The least education deprived Regions on average are the South East, with a population weighted mean rank of 19,271, and London with a population weighted mean rank of 19,366. ## Living Environment Domain Chart 5.18 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Living Environment Domain. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but that the North East Region is considerably less deprived on the Living Environment Domain, compared with the other regions with an average LSOA rank of 23,278. The most deprived region on average on the Living Environment Domain is London, with a mean rank of 8,832. ## Barriers To Housing And Services Domain Chart 5.19 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region for the Housing and Services Domain. The London Region is the most deprived with a mean LSOA rank of 7,951. The North West Region is the least barriers deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,273. ## Crime Domain Chart 5.20 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Crime Domain. The London Region is the most deprived region in terms of crime with a mean LSOA rank of 12,220. The South West Region is the least crime deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 20,449. ## Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 Chart 5.21 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The region with LSOAs with the highest levels of multiple deprivation on average is the North East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 12,480, followed by London with a mean LSOA rank of 12,650 and the North West with a mean rank of 13,446. The least multiply deprived regions are the South East, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,390, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 20,008. ## Section 4: District Level Summary Measures The LSOA level IMD is summarised at district level using six different measures. For an explanation of these district level summaries please see Chapter 4. This allows local authority districts to be ranked according to how deprived they are relative to other districts. The maps in this section present the six district level summaries. In the maps, the districts have been divided into ten equal groups, and dark blue is used for the 10% most deprived districts for each measure. - The local concentration measure shows the severity of multiple deprivation in each authority, measuring 'hot spots' of deprivation - The extent measure is the proportion of a district's population that lives in the most deprived LSOAs in England - The 'average scores' and 'average ranks' measures are two ways of depicting the average level of deprivation across the entire district. - The income scale and employment scale measures show the number of people experiencing income and employment deprivation respectively. ## Local Concentration Districts in the most deprived 10% of districts on this measure are concentrated in the North East - 26% of its districts (6 districts) and the North West - 40% (17 districts) of its districts. On the other hand, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile. The South East has no districts in the most deprived decile on this measure. ## Extent Because this measure captures only districts with people living in the most deprived LSOAs, there will be some districts with no score on this measure. London (10 districts - 30% of its districts) and the North West (10 Districts - 23% of its districts) are the Regions which have the highest numbers of districts in the top decile on this measure. As with local concentration, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile on this measure. The East Region, the South East and the South West do not have any districts in the most deprived decile on this measure. ## Average Score And Average Rank London, the North East and North West have the largest numbers (and percentages) of their districts in the most deprived decile on Average Score. The picture is similar for average rank except that here London stands out with over a third of its districts (12) in the worst decile. The East and South West Regions have no district in the most deprived decile for average score and the East Region has no district in the most deprived decile for average rank. ## Income Scale London (with 13 or 39% of its districts) followed by Yorkshire and the Humber (with 6 or 29% of its districts) have the highest percentages of districts in the top decile on this measure. Only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. ## Employment Scale Yorkshire and the Humber (with 8 or 38% of its districts) is the Region with the largest proportion of its districts in the most deprived decile of districts on this measure. This is followed by London (with 8 or 24% of its districts) and the West Midlands (with 7 or 21% of its districts). As with Income Scale only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. The following table summarises the districts which are the 50 most deprived on each of the six district level measures. The district level summaries for all local authority districts can be found in Annex L. Table 5.4 The 50 most deprived districts, for each of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007 Rank Local Concentration Extent Average Score Average Rank Income Scale Employment Scale 1 Liverpool Hackney Liverpool Hackney Birmingham Birmingham 2 Knowsley Newham Hackney Newham Manchester Liverpool 3 Blackpool Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Liverpool Manchester 4 Manchester Liverpool Manchester Manchester Bradford Leeds 5 Burnley Manchester Knowsley Liverpool Leeds Sheffi eld 6 Middlesbrough Islington Newham Islington Sheffi eld Bradford 7 Salford Easington Easington Easington Newham Sunderland 8 Kingston upon Hull, City of Knowsley Islington Knowsley Tower Hamlets Wirral 9 Blackburn with Darwen Middlesbrough Middlesbrough Lambeth Leicester Wigan 10 Rochdale Sandwell Birmingham Sandwell Hackney Bristol, City of 11 Bradford Nottingham Kingston upon Hull, City of Barking and Dagenham Sandwell Wakefi eld 12 Redcar and Cleveland Birmingham Blackpool Nottingham Kirklees Nottingham 13 Newcastle upon Tyne Haringey Nottingham Haringey Nottingham Leicester 14 Wirral Kingston upon Hull, City of Sandwell Birmingham Haringey Sandwell 15 Birmingham Blackburn with Darwen Salford Waltham Forest Bristol, City of Kirklees 16 Hyndburn Stoke-on-Trent Stoke-on-Trent Kingston upon Hull, City of Lambeth Lambeth 17 Barrow-in-Furness Lambeth Blackburn with Darwen Greenwich Enfi eld Stoke-on-Trent 18 Hartlepool Southwark Haringey Blackpool Southwark Newcastle upon Tyne 19 Leicester Hartlepool Lambeth Southwark Brent Doncaster 20 Preston Salford Leicester Stoke-on-Trent Kingston upon Hull, City of Kingston upon Hull, City of 21 Tower Hamlets Barking and Dagenham Burnley Penwith Wirral Coventry 22 Stoke-on-Trent Wolverhampton Barking and Dagenham Lewisham Ealing Southwark 23 Oldham Leicester Hartlepool Leicester Coventry Sefton 24 Bolton Blackpool Greenwich Salford Sunderland Hackney ## Table 5.4 The 50 Most Deprived Districts, For Each Of The District Level Summaries Of The Imd 2007 \| 25 \| North East \| \|----------------\|------------------\| \| Lincolnshire \| \| \| Halton \| Rochdale \| \| 26 \| Nottingham \| \| Tyne \| \| \| Newham \| \| \| 27 \| Halton \| \| Darwen \| \| \| Walsall \| Bolton \| \| 28 \| Mansfi \| \| 29 \| Pendle \| \| Furness \| \| \| Hastings \| Wolverhampton \| \| 30 \| Sheffi \| \| 31 \| Hastings \| \| 32 \| Great Yarmouth \| \| Furness \| \| \| Doncaster \| Brent \| \| 33 \| Stockton-on-Tees \| \| 34 \| St. Helens \| \| 35 \| Easington \| \| 36 \| Gateshead \| \| Furness \| \| \| Penwith \| Hartlepool \| \| 37 \| Thanet \| \| Tyne \| \| \| Newcastle upon \| \| \| Tyne \| \| \| South Tyneside \| Wakefi \| \| 38 \| Bristol, City of \| \| and Fulham \| \| \| Barnet \| Rotherham \| \| 39 \| Hackney \| \| 40 \| Coventry \| \| 41 \| Barnsley \| \| 42 \| Wear Valley \| \| 43 \| Sunderland \| \| 44 \| Wolverhampton \| \| Lincolnshire \| \| \| Pendle \| Sedgefi \| \| 45 \| Doncaster \| \| 46 \| Sefton \| \| Hove \| \| \| 47 \| Sandwell \| \| Dagenham \| \| \| Gateshead \| \| \| 48 \| Leeds \| \| 49 \| Derby \| \| Lincolnshire \| \| \| St. Helens \| Wandsworth \| \| 50 \| Wansbeck \| \| Cleveland \| \| \| Gateshead \| Knowsley \| ## Changes In District Level Summaries Between Id 2004 And The Id 2007 If we compare local authorities on the various district level summaries on the ID 2007 with the ID 2004 we fi nd that changes have been relatively modest. The following table shows the correlations between the various measures for the ID 2004 and ID 2007 (Spearman's Rho, p<.001) \| Average Score \| 0.990 \| \|---------------------\|---------\| \| Average Rank \| 0.988 \| \| Extent \| 0.99 \| \| Local Concentration \| 0.992 \| \| Employment Scale \| 0.994 \| \| Income Scale \| 0.996 \| Comparing the top 50 Local authorities on these measures on the ID 2007 with the equivalent measures on the ID 2004 the following picture emerges. On the ID 2007 82 local authorities are in the top 50 on one of the six district level summaries while on the ID 2004 80 were so placed. Six authorities join the top 50 on any measure in the ID 2007: the London Borough of Redbridge, the London Borough of Wandsworth, Thanet, Hyndburn and Pendle; while 3 authorities Westminster, North Tyneside and Derwentside are no longer in the top 50. A more detailed analysis of change between 1999 and 2005 at LSOA level is currently being undertaken and a report and supporting data will be released by summer 2008. ## Section 5: The Reasons For Changes In The Geography Of Deprivation Between The Id 2004 And The Id 2007 As has been indicated, the ID 2007 was designed to be as similar as possible to the ID 2004 in terms of geographical scale, domains, indicators and methodology. This was to maximise backwards comparability and help identify 'real' relative change. This has, to a large extent, been achieved and each section of Chapter 2 indicates where this has not been possible. The domain where consistency has been most diffi cult to achieve has been the income domain where substantial changes to the benefi ts system occurred between April 2001 (the time point for the ID 2004) and mid-2005 (the time point for the ID 2007). Though steps were taken to make the income domain as comparable as possible, a small amount of change will be a product of this shift in indicators. One other factor will have had a small impact. This relates to denominators. In 2007 ONS revised their population estimates for the years 2001 - 2005 and this adjustment could not have been foreseen in 2001 but will have made a small difference. ## Annex A: Consultation Communities and Local Government published a public consultation document - 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Stage Two 'Blueprint' Consultation Report'. One hundred and three responses were received as part of the consultation which ran from 22nd May 2006 to 17th August 2006. The responses represent the views of local and central government, voluntary organisations and other interested parties and are summarised in the report 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 Stage Two 'Blueprint Consultation Report' Summary of Responses available on the Communities and Local Government website. In addition a peer review was undertaken during Spring 2006 by Professor Peter Alcock of the University of Birmingham: 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 - Stage Two 'Blueprint' Peer Review' also available on the Communities and Local Government website. Professor Alcock gave overall support to the proposal to update the ID 2004 and gave general approval to the approach adopted. ## Annex B: Indicator Details This Annex provides further numerator and denominator details for each of the 38 indicators that were used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007. 1. Adults and children in Income Support households (LSOA level) Numerator: IS August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 2. Adults And Children In Income Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Lsoa Level) Numerator: JSA-IB August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 3. Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) households (LSOA level) Numerator: Pension Credit (Guarantee) August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 4. Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households where there are children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60% of median before housing costs (LSOA level) Numerator: Certain WTC cases for August 2005 as described Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 5. Adults and children in Child Tax Credit households (who are not eligible for IS, Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60% of median before housing costs (LSOA level) Numerator: Certain CTC cases for August 2005 as described Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 6. Adults And Children In Households In Receipt Of National Asylum Support Service (Nass) Vouchers (Lsoa Level) Numerator: NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence only and accommodation support for end September 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 7. Job Seekers Allowance Claimants (Both Contributory And Income Based) Of Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 8. Incapacity Benefi T Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 9. Severe Disablement Allowance Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 10. Participants In New Deal For The 18–24S Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 11. Participants In New Deal For 25+ Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 12. Participants In New Deal For Lone Parents Aged 18 And Over Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 13. Years Of Potential Life Lost (Ypll) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Mortality data in fi ve year age sex bands, for 2001–2005 Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Blane and Drever (1998) (with shrinkage applied to age-sex rates and an upper age of 75). ## 14. Comparative Illness And Disability Ratio (Cidr) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Non-overlapping counts of people in receipt of IS Disability Premium, AA, DLA, SDA, IB, for mid 2005 in fi ve year age sex bands. Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex rates). ## 15. Measures Of Emergency Admissions To Hospital, Derived From Hospital Episode Statistics (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Hospital spells starting with admission in an emergency in fi ve year age sex bands, for April 2003 to March 2005. Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex rates). ## 16. Measure Of Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders (Lsoa Level) Modelled measure of adults under 60 suffering from mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (i.e. International Classifi cation of Disease 10th revision ICD-10, F3 and F4). Based on prescribing (2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), hospital episode (2004/2005, Source: Department of Health), deaths attributed to suicide (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) and health benefi ts data (2005, Source: IB and SDA from DWP). ## 17. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 2 (End Of Primary) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS2 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: Total population in KS2 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005. ## 18. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 3 (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS3 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: Total population in KS3 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005. ## 19. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 4 (Gcse/Gnvq - Best Of Eight Results) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS4 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: All pupils in their fi nal year of compulsory schooling in maintained schools for 2004 and 2005 from PLASC. ## 20. Proportion Of Young People Not Staying On In School Or School Level Education Above 16 (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Those aged 17 still receiving Child Benefi t in 2006 Denominator: Those aged 15 receiving Child Benefi t in 2004. The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not staying in education. ## 21. Proportion Of Those Aged Under 21 Not Entering Higher Education (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Successful entrants under 21 in UCAS data, for 2002–2005 Denominator: Census population 14–17. The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not entering higher education. ## 22. Secondary School Absence Rate (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Average number of authorised and unauthorised absences from secondary school for 2004 and 2005, from the school level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences. Denominator: total number of possible sessions. Method: The rates were attributed to all children in a school and assigned to LSOAs using the pupil's home postcode from PLASC. ## 23. Proportions Of Working Age Adults (Aged 25–54) In The Area With No Or Low Qualifi Cations (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Adults aged 25–54 in the area with no qualifi cations or with qualifi cations below NVQ Level 2, for 2001. Denominator: All adults aged 25–54. ## 24. Household Overcrowding (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Overcrowded households (as defi ned in Census 2001 Classifi cations page 15), for April 2001. Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001. ## 25. Percentage Of Households For Whom A Decision On Their Application For Assistance Under The Homeless Provisions Of Housing Legislation Has Been Made (La Level) Numerator: as described, for 2005/6. Denominator: ODPM Household estimates, for 2004. ## 26. Diffi Culty Of Access To Owner-Occupation (La Level) Numerator: modelled proportion of households (under 35s) unable to afford to enter owner occupation on the basis of their income. Denominator: n/a ## 27. Road Distance To Gp Premises (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the population weighted OA centroid to nearest GP premises, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 28. Road Distance To A Supermarket Or Convenience Store (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest supermarket or convenience store, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 29. Road Distance To A Primary School (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest primary school, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 30. Road Distance To A Post Offi Ce (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest open post offi ce, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 31. Burglary (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level). Denominator: total dwellings from the Census plus business addresses from Address Point ## 32. Theft (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 33. Criminal Damage (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 34. Violence (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 35. Social And Private Housing In Poor Condition (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Estimate of the probability that any given dwelling in the SOA fails to meet the decent standard. Modelled primarily from the EHCS by BRE, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 36. Houses Without Central Heating (Lsoa Level) Numerator: as described, for 2001. Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001 ## 37. Air Quality (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Modelled measure of the concentration of four pollutants (Nitrogen Dioxide, Benzene, Sulphur Dioxide and Particulates), by the Geography Department at Staffordshire University and NAEI, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 38. Road Traffi C Accidents (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Injuries to pedestrians and cyclists caused by road traffi c accidents from STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to SOA level, for 2004–2006. Denominator: Total resident population, communal establishments population and non-resident workplace population minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) , mid-2005 estimates provided by ONS ## Annex C: Data Sources 2001 Census, Small Area Statistics Package Version 7 (October 2003 Release) Working age adults (aged 25–59) with no or low qualifi cations (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain). Household overcrowding (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Houses without central heating (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) Census populations and residential dwellings (denominators) ## Department For Children, Schools And Families Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) National Pupil Database (NPD) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) School level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) Location of primary schools (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Department For Transport Road Accident Data STATS19 ## Department For Work And Pensions Income Support recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain) Income Based Job Seekers Allowance recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain) Incapacity Benefi t claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Severe Disablement Allowance claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for the 18–24s who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (Employment Deprivation Domain) Recipients of IS Disability Premium, AA, DLA, SDA and IB (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, CIDR) Recipients of IB and SDA (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Department Of Health Hospital Episode Statistics (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'emergency admissions to hospital' and 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Heriot-Watt University Diffi culty of Access to owner-occupation indicator (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Home Offi Ce Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level recorded crime data (Crime Domain) Police force and CDRP boundary fi les (Crime Domain) ## Home Offi Ce And National Asylum Support Service NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence and accommodation support (Income Deprivation Domain) ## Hm Revenue And Customs Adults and children in Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit households (Income Deprivation Domain) Child Benefi t data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'not staying on in school') ## Mapinfo Ltd Location of general stores or supermarkets (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## National Health Service Information Authority Location of GP premises (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Communities And Local Government LA level number of households for whom a decision on their application for assistance under the homeless provisions of housing legislation has been made (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) LA level household estimates (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Social and private housing in poor condition, modelled primarily from the English House Condition Survey by the Building Research Establishment and ODPM (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) ## Offi Ce Of National Statistics Mortality data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain) LSOA and mid-year population estimates 2005. ## Post Offi Ce Ltd Location of open post offi ces (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Prescription Pricing Authority Prescribing data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Staffordshire University Air quality indicator (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) ## Universities And Colleges Admissions Service University Admissions data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) ## 39 Regional Police Forces In England Recorded crime data (Crime Domain) ## Annex D: The Shrinkage Technique2 The 'shrunken' estimate of a LSOA-level proportion (or ratio) is a weighted average of the two 'raw' proportions for the LSOA and for the corresponding District.3 The weights used are determined by the relative magnitudes of within-LSOA and between-LSOA variability. If the rate for a particular indicator in LSOA j is rj events out of a population of nj, the empirical logit for each LSOA is: $$m_{\rm j}\ =\ \log\left[\ \frac{(r_{\rm j}+0.5)}{(r_{\rm j}-r_{\rm j}+0.5)}\ \right]\tag{1}$$ whose estimated standard error (sj) is the square root of: (nj + 1) (nj + 2) [2] nj (rj + 1)(nj - rj + 1) sj 2 = The corresponding counts r out of n for the district, LSOA j lies within gives the district-level logit: $$M=\log\left[\frac{(r+0.5)}{(n-r+0.5)}\right]$$ [3] The 'shrunken' LSOA-level logit is then the weighted average: $$m_{j}^{}=w_{j}m_{j}+(1-w_{j})M\tag{4}$$ where wj is the weight given to the 'raw' LSOA - j data and (1 - wj) the weight given to the overall rate for the district. The formula used to determine wj is: $$W_{\rm j}\,=\,\frac{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}}{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}\,+\,1/t^{2}}\tag{5}$$ where t2 is the inter-LSOA variance for the k LSOAs in the district, calculated as: $$t^{2}\ =\ \frac{1}{k-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k}(m_{j}-M)^{2}\tag{6}$$ Thus large LSOAs, where precision 1/s2 j is relatively large, have weight wj close to 1 and so shrinkage has little effect. The shrinkage effect is greatest for small LSOAs in relatively homogeneous districts. The fi nal step is to back-transform the shrunken logit mj using the 'anti-logit', to obtain the shrunken LSOA level proportion: $$Z_{j}=\frac{\exp(m^{}_{j})}{1+\exp(m^{}_{j})}\tag{7}$$ for each LSOA. ## Annex E: Factor Analysis In a number of the domains, factor analysis is used as a method for combining indicators. Factor analysis is used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators4. This technique was applied to the following domains: Education, Skills and Training; Health Deprivation and Disability, and Crime. Factor Analysis is only used in domains where 'latent variables' are hypothesised to exist and where the indicator variables are 'effect indicators'. ## Method The combination process comprises the following stages: 1. All variables were converted to the standard normal distribution based on their ranks. 2. These new standardised scores were factor analysed (using the Maximum Likelihood method), deriving a set of weights. The variables were then combined using these weights. # Annex F: The 'Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders' Indicator ## Introduction Mental ill health is a condition that can severely impact on the quality of life of those suffering from it and those immediately around them. It may also lead to other forms of deprivation such as unemployment or homelessness; potentially individuals may fi nd themselves in a downward spiral that may be diffi cult to break out of. This makes it an important component of overall health which should be included in a small area measure of health deprivation. Creating a small area measure of mental health is not straightforward. There are no standard small area measures covering England that are ready to use. Survey approaches, using standard measures, would require very large sample sizes and do not yet exist. This suggests an approach using information that is already collected in support of administrative processes. However there are problems with the use of administrative records. These datasets are likely to lead to defi nitions of mental illness which are particular to the administrative process they are drawn from. These will not necessarily fi t exactly what is required for an index of deprivation. From Hospital records, for example, it is possible to identify individuals whose in patient spell is related to mental ill health. However this represents people who have probably reached a fairly critical state. It might be of greater interest to also take into account individuals who are in a less acute more chronic state and being treated, if at all, within primary care. A further problem when using administrative data to measure mental health is the way the organisation of local services and different practices within and between organisations affect the type of treatment an individual receives. This may lead to groups of individuals, identical in terms of their mental health, coming in contact with some services in some areas and not in others. Some General Practitioners, for example, may be less eager to use drugs in the treatment of depression than others. A count therefore of those receiving a prescription for the treatment of depression may differ between areas with identical numbers of people suffering from depression. The biases that result from the problems discussed above can be reduced through a careful choice of methodology. ## Methodology Given the problems outlined above it is clear that single mental health indicators that are derived from administrative data should be used with caution: each indicator is likely to vary around what might be thought of as the 'true' state of mental health in a small area. There is however a fairly simple method to reduce this bias. This is achieved by combining a number of indicators that are believed to measure the same underlying 'true' state. As the number of indicators is increased, the infl uence of under or over-recording bias should be reduced. This will be true as long as the bias does not result from an area effect that infl uences all the different administrative systems, leading to biases in the same direction. By choosing indicators from independent administrative data sources this problem should be minimised. The bias in the overall indicator, therefore, should be lower than that in any single indicator. Although it would be possible to simply combine the different measures after standardising them with equal weights, more sophisticated methods are available. These take into account the extent to which individual indicators are more or less precise in their measure of the underlying 'true' rate over the whole population. The most suitable method in this instance is Factor Analysis. The datasets that were used are from prescribing data; secondary care data; and health related benefi t administrative data. Because each of the datasets covers a slightly different group of psychiatric conditions, it was only possible to produce an estimate for a sub-group of these conditions. The sub-group chosen was people aged under 60 suffering mood (affective) disorders and neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders. Together these represent a large proportion of all those suffering mental ill health. ## Prescription Data This indicator uses information on drug prescribing to estimate levels of mental health. Because information on the conditions for which various types of drugs are prescribed as well as the typical dosages are known, it is possible to estimate the number of patients within a particular General Practitioner's (GP) practice who are suffering from mental health problems. The mental health problems examined here are depression and anxiety5. Unfortunately prescription data is not held at individual level and therefore a two-stage methodology must be adopted to calculate area rates. This method assumes that those with mental ill health take the national Average Daily Quantity (Prescribing Support Unit) of a specifi c drug on everyday of the year. While these assumptions may not fi t very well in individual cases, they are more likely to hold across the 'average' for the practice population. The practice rates are then distributed to geographical areas through knowledge of practice population distribution. This process will tend to 'spatially smooth' the area rates where practice populations are heterogeneous. In effect the small area rate will move towards a larger area 'moving average'. However although this does mean high or low rates will tend to move towards the local average, it also reduces the impact of individual GP prescribing behaviour that might be introducing bias because the small area rate will be a combination of a number of different practices. ## Secondary Care Data This indicator uses hospital inpatient data to estimate the proportion of the population suffering severe mental health problems relating to depression and anxiety. A count is made of all those who have had at least one in-stay spell in any one year coded within International Classifi cation of Disease version 10 (ICD- 10) chapter 'F' (the coding for mental ill health): the precise grouping of disorders included can be seen in table 1. The indicator is therefore an annual count of those suffering at least one severe mental health episode in a year, an "annual incidence of hospitalisation"6. These individuals are then geocoded to their residential address and a standardised rate is calculated using the residential population in the small area as a denominator. \| ICD10 \| Categories of disorder \| \|---------\|---------------------------------------------------\| \| F30–F39 \| Mood (affective) disorders \| \| F40–F48 \| Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders \| There are two signifi cant issues with this indicator as a measure of an underlying rate of mental health. Firstly, the admission of an individual into hospital may be infl uenced not only by the severity of their condition but also by factors arising from an interaction between primary, social and secondary care. If for example there has been a failure of adequate primary care in an area, individuals who might have remained within primary care in another area, may be admitted into secondary care. The second problem with this indicator is small numbers. This means that the estimate of the underlying risk of admission in some small areas has low precision. Combining a number of years together can reduce the small number problem. In this case 2 years of data were combined. The problem of organisational bias can be reduced through combining different indicators of mental health as outlined above. ## Health Related Benefi Ts The rate of sickness and disability in an area can be measured using information on receipt of particular benefi ts. Incapacity Benefi t (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) are benefi ts paid to individuals of working age who are unable to work because of ill health. IB is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work due to ill health and who have paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions. SDA is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work through illness and have not paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions to qualify for IB. Both of these benefi t datasets are coded for medical conditions. This coding can be converted to an ICD-10 classifi cation and then a count of individuals with a condition within chapter 'F' made: the precise ICD-10 codes used were F3 and F4 as for the hospital data. Using the working age population as a denominator, a standardised rate of mental ill health amongst those aged 16 to 59 can then be calculated. ## Suicide Although suicide is not a direct measure of mental ill health, it is highly associated with depression where it is implicated in a majority of cases. Unlike the other measures it is more independent of organisational practices; therefore it may suffer less from biases relating to local practice. However numbers are small and so the precision of the measure may be poor. The actual measure used was deaths that occurred between 2001 and 2005 which had ICD-10 codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending. ## Combining The Data To Create A Composite Indicator The three indicators were combined using weights derived from Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis. The use of Factor Analysis here is based on the proposition that in any small area there is an unmeasured 'true' rate of mental health (a latent factor) that manifests itself through various mental health related administrative processes and events as a set of indicators. The variance in these administrative indicators will be either related to the 'true' rate of mental health or to some other factors unique to them and unrelated to the other indicators. The covariance between the indicators is therefore 'caused' by the 'true' rate of mental health. Indicators that have a lower correlation with all the other indicators are therefore a poorer measure of the 'true' rate than those with a high overall correlation and are given a lower weight to be combined with. The combined indicators should be a more precise measure of the underlying 'true' rate of mental health than any single indicator on its own. ## Annex G: Categories Of Recorded Crime Included In The Crime Domain The Crime Domain consists of 33 categories of recorded crime (notifi able offences) which have been grouped to form four composite indicators: violence; burglary; theft; and criminal damage. \| Home Offi \| ce offence code \| \|-----------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Violence \| \| \| 1 \| Murder \| \| } \| \| \| Homicide \| \| \| 4.1 \| Manslaughter \| \| 4.2 \| Infanticide \| \| 2 \| Attempted murder \| \| 37.1 \| Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking \| \| 5 \| Wounding or other act endangering life \| \| 8A \| Other wounding \| \| 8C \| Harassment \| \| 8D \| Racially-aggravated other wounding \| \| 8E \| Racially-aggravated harassment \| \| 105A \| Common assault \| \| 105B \| Racially-aggravated common assault \| \| 34A \| Robbery of business property \| \| 34B \| Robbery of personal property \| \| Burglary \| \| \| 28 \| Burglary in a dwelling \| \| 29 \| Aggravated burglary in a dwelling \| \| 30 \| Burglary in a building other than a dwelling \| \| 31 \| Aggravated burglary in a building other than a dwelling \| \| Theft \| \| \| 37.2 \| Aggravated vehicle taking \| \| 39 \| Theft from the person of another \| \| 45 \| Theft from a vehicle \| \| 48 \| Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle \| \| 126 \| Vehicle interference and tampering \| \| Criminal damage \| \| \| 56 \| Arson \| \| 58A \| Criminal damage to a dwelling \| \| 58B \| Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling \| \| 58C \| Criminal damage to a vehicle \| \| 58D \| Other criminal damage \| \| 58E \| Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a dwelling \| \| 58F \| Racially aggravated criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling \| \| 58G \| Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle \| \| 58H \| Racially-aggravated other criminal damage \| \| 59 \| Threat etc. to commit criminal damage \| Within the four composite indicators, each notifi able offence type has been assigned equal weight. Therefore, the numerator for the 'violence' rate is the sum of the fourteen notifi able offence categories listed above. In order to account for variability in recording practices between police forces, the SOA-level counts of crime have been constrained to Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) totals provided by the Home Offi ce. The denominator for the 'burglary' indicator is the number of dwellings from the 2001 Census plus the number of business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point, while the denominator for the 'violence', 'theft' and 'criminal damage' indicators is total resident population plus non-resident workplace population, also from the 2001 Census. As an example, the 'theft' indicator can be formulated as follows: Theft = (Aggravated vehicle taking + Theft from the person of another + Theft from a vehicle + Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle + Vehicle interference and tampering) (Resident population + Non-resident workplace population) ## Annex H: Exponential Transformation The transformation used is as follows. For any SOA, denote its rank on the Domain, scaled to the range [0,1], by R (with R=1/N for the least deprived, and R=N/N, i.e. R=1, for the most deprived, where N=the number of SOAs in England). The transformed Domain, X say, is X = –23log{1 - R[1 - exp(–100/23)]} where log denotes natural logarithm and exp the exponential or antilog transformation. ## Annex J: The 100 Most Deprived Soas On The Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 \| SOA \| LA \| \|------------\|-----------------\| \| CODE \| \| \| LA NAME \| GOR \| \| CODE \| \| \| GOR NAME \| IMD \| \| SCORE \| \| \| E01006755 \| 00BY \| \| E01005204 \| 00BN \| \| E01021988 \| 22UN \| \| E01012721 \| 00EY \| \| E01006778 \| 00BY \| \| E01006467 \| 00BX \| \| E01006559 \| 00BY \| \| E01006561 \| 00BY \| \| E01006468 \| 00BX \| \| E01012673 \| 00EY \| \| E01005484 \| 00BQ \| \| E01006676 \| 00BY \| \| E01024858 \| 30UD \| \| E01008836 \| 00CM Sunderland \| \| E01005482 \| 00BQ \| \| E01009585 \| 00CQ \| \| E01005466 \| 00BQ \| \| E01009365 \| 00CN \| \| E01006647 \| 00BY \| \| E01006469 \| 00BX \| \| E01013137 \| 00FC \| \| E01007532 \| 00CE \| \| E01012070 \| 00EC \| \| E01006599 \| 00BY \| \| E01006703 \| 00BY \| \| E01007122 \| 00CB \| \| E01006740 \| 00BY \| \| E01008380 \| 00CJ \| \| E01006646 \| 00BY \| \| E01012720 \| 00EY \| \| E01012041 \| 00EC \| \| E01006699 \| 00BY \| \| E01006563 \| 00BY \| \| E01006560 \| 00BY \| \| E01012655 \| 00EX \| \| E01013818 \| 00FY \| \| E01006756 \| 00BY \| \| E01010606 \| 00CX \| \| E01005067 \| 00BN \| \| E01005658 \| 00BR \| \| RANK OF \| \| \| IMD (where \| \| \| 1 is most \| \| \| deprived) \| \| \| SOA \| LA \| \|-----------\|--------------------\| \| CODE \| \| \| LA NAME \| GOR \| \| CODE \| \| \| GOR NAME \| IMD \| \| SCORE \| \| \| E01012875 \| 00FA \| \| E01006442 \| 00BX \| \| E01007127 \| 00CB \| \| E01012678 \| 00EY \| \| E01006674 \| 00BY \| \| E01006630 \| 00BY \| \| E01005568 \| 00BQ \| \| E01024908 \| 30UD \| \| E01006777 \| 00BY \| \| E01005256 \| 00BN \| \| E01006732 \| 00BY \| \| E01005655 \| 00BR \| \| E01006679 \| 00BY \| \| E01028276 \| 37UF \| \| E01006704 \| 00BY \| \| E01005350 \| 00BP \| \| E01005196 \| 00BN \| \| E01006540 \| 00BY \| \| E01013139 \| 00FC \| \| E01010485 \| 00CW Wolverhampton \| \| E01013136 \| 00FC \| \| E01024877 \| 30UD \| \| E01005228 \| 00BN \| \| E01006515 \| 00BY \| \| E01010617 \| 00CX \| \| E01009488 \| 00CN \| \| E01025041 \| 30UG \| \| E01008291 \| 00CJ \| \| E01012266 \| 00EF \| \| E01020909 \| 20UJ \| \| E01012069 \| 00EC \| \| E01010823 \| 00CX \| \| E01012114 \| 00EE \| \| E01005096 \| 00BN \| \| E01009358 \| 00CN \| \| E01006779 \| 00BY \| \| E01006677 \| 00BY \| \| E01009476 \| 00CN \| \| E01006558 \| 00BY \| \| E01012897 \| 00FA \| \| E01008011 \| 00CG \| \| E01006598 \| 00BY \| \| E01005099 \| 00BN \| \| E01005203 \| 00BN \| \| E01006760 \| 00BY \| \| E01009379 \| 00CN \| \| E01025286 \| 30UK \| \| E01006417 \| 00BX \| \| E01005667 \| 00BR \| \| E01005612 \| 00BR \| RANK OF IMD (where 1 is most deprived) \| SOA \| LA \| \|------------\|-------\| \| CODE \| \| \| LA NAME \| GOR \| \| CODE \| \| \| GOR NAME \| IMD \| \| SCORE \| \| \| E01007132 \| 00CB \| \| E01008214 \| 00CH \| \| E01015842 \| 00KF \| \| E01005205 \| 00BN \| \| E01007133 \| 00CB \| \| E01006470 \| 00BX \| \| E01007128 \| 00CB \| \| E01015155 \| 00HG \| \| E01006746 \| 00BY \| \| E01005613 \| 00BR \| \| RANK OF \| \| \| IMD (where \| \| \| 1 is most \| \| \| deprived) \| \| Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 34.49 22 25388.65 11 0.48 21 30564.03 74 44806 47 13085.25 64 11.47 272 9357.59 279 0.03 230 23274.23 242 16650 136 6209.25 149 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 45UB Adur 20.55 138 17520.60 122 0.11 156 26643.52 180 7372 300 2594.75 309 16UB Allerdale 21.63 119 17011.62 132 0.17 116 30532.75 76 13487 171 6256.50 147 35UB Alnwick 15.57 206 13753.48 191 0.03 221 24442.12 221 3741 347 1676.50 342 17UB Amber Valley 18.12 159 15290.74 164 0.09 170 27304.55 171 14794 154 6593.50 137 45UC Arun 16.64 187 14078.33 186 0.07 181 26824.11 177 17063 134 6070.50 153 37UB Ashfi eld 25.26 81 20192.07 72 0.22 97 29619.83 115 17925 124 8360.75 111 29UB Ashford 14.37 227 12191.70 227 0.05 195 25784.01 194 12880 184 4377.50 220 11UB Aylesbury Vale 8.76 319 6604.62 325 0.01 273 21986.76 267 13306 177 4745.75 206 42UB Babergh 11.30 277 9656.41 271 0.00 301 21354.72 282 7919 287 2779.25 305 00AB Barking and Dagenham 00AC Barnet 21.16 128 17960.16 112 0.12 146 28268.82 149 51407 38 16068.25 53 00CC Barnsley 30.48 43 22090.43 41 0.37 46 31544.77 41 41091 52 21650.75 25 16UC Barrow-in-Furness 32.69 29 22647.17 32 0.40 36 32021.80 17 13183 179 7460.75 124 22UB Basildon 20.58 136 16050.90 151 0.17 114 28973.10 134 27179 87 9219.50 100 24UB Basingstoke and Deane 9.84 304 7916.06 306 0.00 308 21428.78 278 12575 188 4773.50 204 37UC Bassetlaw 24.11 94 18715.40 101 0.22 90 30525.75 77 15723 146 7887.00 114 00HA Bath and North East Somerset 09UD Bedford 16.87 183 13558.58 198 0.10 157 28243.89 150 21071 107 7583.50 122 35UC Berwick-upon-Tweed 20.79 133 18658.15 104 0.02 232 24169.84 227 3723 348 1521.25 347 00AD Bexley 16.21 194 13482.18 199 0.07 177 26723.04 178 27351 86 9728.75 92 00CN Birmingham 38.67 10 24907.94 14 0.55 12 32053.06 15 287890 1 89139.50 1 31UB Blaby 8.41 326 6613.16 324 0.00 309 14808.89 345 6444 314 2949.50 295 00EX Blackburn with Darwen 35.83 17 23048.41 27 0.52 15 32194.02 9 38543 60 12422.25 73 00EY Blackpool 37.66 12 24609.06 18 0.46 24 32384.54 3 32997 72 14368.00 61 ## Annex K: District Level Summaries Of The Lsoa Level Index Of Multiple Deprivation Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 35UD Blyth Valley 25.36 80 18934.11 93 0.27 73 31042.45 63 13614 168 6986.25 133 17UC Bolsover 28.93 55 22115.83 40 0.32 58 30325.46 82 12945 183 6465.00 142 00BL Bolton 29.67 51 20413.22 65 0.37 42 31902.90 24 53365 31 20971.50 27 32UB Boston 22.75 109 18825.00 96 0.15 128 28531.67 141 9074 266 3539.75 266 00HN Bournemouth 22.99 108 18320.01 108 0.18 111 30118.13 91 24957 91 10881.00 81 00MA Bracknell Forest 8.75 320 7010.21 316 0.00 309 18878.49 315 8669 273 3432.25 274 00CX Bradford 32.00 32 21029.26 52 0.42 31 32122.55 11 118426 4 35256.00 6 22UC Braintree 13.61 239 11974.84 232 0.01 265 22580.12 252 14753 156 5470.25 179 33UB Breckland 15.30 213 13438.54 201 0.03 225 24513.64 218 14455 159 5482.25 178 00AE Brent 29.22 53 22753.28 30 0.27 74 30624.17 72 63767 19 20175.75 32 22UD Brentwood 9.18 315 7326.36 312 0.00 295 20590.63 293 5721 320 2225.75 321 39UB Bridgnorth 13.32 243 11836.68 236 0.00 309 21293.73 283 4892 332 1923.50 334 00ML Brighton and Hove 25.56 79 19933.03 77 0.22 95 30761.45 70 41180 51 17761.50 46 00HB Bristol, City of 27.76 64 20310.98 68 0.30 64 31581.27 38 67656 15 26520.50 10 33UC Broadland 10.09 301 8572.81 295 0.00 309 16824.91 334 10204 237 4462.00 214 00AF Bromley 14.36 228 11555.61 241 0.07 179 27132.38 173 34511 66 12602.00 70 47UB Bromsgrove 10.20 299 8441.66 299 0.01 288 20881.35 287 7108 303 3347.25 279 26UB Broxbourne 16.22 193 13853.44 189 0.06 190 25744.69 196 10876 220 3731.75 254 37UD Broxtowe 14.41 226 12461.43 219 0.03 219 24455.60 220 11006 217 5272.00 183 30UD Burnley 34.61 21 22712.28 31 0.43 27 32308.13 5 19891 113 8012.00 113 00BM Bury 21.42 122 16722.66 136 0.17 113 30160.02 88 27479 84 12081.00 75 00CY Calderdale 23.01 107 17618.98 119 0.22 98 30745.37 71 32674 73 12347.00 74 12UB Cambridge 13.87 236 11951.46 234 0.02 245 23862.49 231 11373 210 4671.00 207 00AG Camden 28.62 57 22069.20 42 0.33 57 29711.51 108 48865 42 17819.50 43 41UB Cannock Chase 20.64 135 17211.04 129 0.12 143 27309.39 170 13135 180 5839.75 164 29UC Canterbury 16.17 198 14053.01 187 0.05 197 25683.01 199 17679 125 6537.25 141 15UB Caradon 18.76 156 16600.09 139 0.04 206 25346.74 205 10401 231 4063.50 232 16UD Carlisle 22.70 110 17931.51 113 0.19 106 29760.18 105 13392 175 6552.50 139 15UC Carrick 21.61 120 18732.69 100 0.09 171 27644.65 160 12073 199 4847.75 198 35UE Castle Morpeth 14.61 223 11769.41 238 0.08 173 27412.59 169 4863 333 2831.75 302 22UE Castle Point 12.90 249 11166.14 246 0.01 263 22247.94 261 9828 244 3604.50 261 31UC Charnwood 11.95 264 9627.63 272 0.04 210 24913.12 209 15374 148 5860.75 163 22UF Chelmsford 9.26 312 7265.32 314 0.01 270 21474.18 276 13911 163 5298.50 182 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 23UB Cheltenham 15.92 202 12398.06 221 0.11 151 28587.84 140 12516 189 5178.75 186 38UB Cherwell 11.30 276 9083.14 284 0.03 213 24616.64 215 11203 213 4156.50 227 13UB Chester 16.86 184 13102.13 210 0.11 150 29199.89 129 14186 160 6286.25 146 17UD Chesterfi eld 25.75 77 19650.24 81 0.28 68 30181.65 85 17467 128 8386.50 109 20UB Chester-le-Street 20.44 140 16530.37 141 0.13 132 28202.17 151 7455 297 3953.75 238 45UD Chichester 12.08 259 10662.78 254 0.00 290 20006.51 302 9885 241 3327.25 280 11UC Chiltern 7.02 345 5207.86 342 0.00 309 18116.48 324 6286 317 2370.50 316 30UE Chorley 16.56 188 13227.35 208 0.11 153 28280.61 147 11150 214 5680.75 170 19UC Christchurch 14.68 220 12736.57 216 0.05 201 25510.35 202 5198 329 1868.75 337 00AA City of London 12.84 252 10691.91 253 0.04 209 24321.00 223 687 353 323.75 353 22UG Colchester 14.59 224 12337.15 224 0.05 202 25652.71 200 17948 122 7179.00 130 13UC Congleton 9.86 303 7773.83 307 0.01 255 22462.02 255 7703 290 3747.50 251 16UE Copeland 25.73 78 19880.68 79 0.24 88 30488.07 78 11033 216 5648.75 171 34UB Corby 26.16 75 20403.29 66 0.25 83 30159.43 89 8504 279 3861.50 243 23UC Cotswold 10.22 298 8739.32 289 0.00 302 16486.80 338 6427 315 2230.75 320 00CQ Coventry 27.85 61 20200.31 71 0.31 61 31562.67 40 59718 23 22244.25 21 36UB Craven 11.59 270 9842.93 267 0.02 248 22285.30 260 4381 342 1914.25 336 45UE Crawley 15.55 207 13683.70 194 0.02 244 23829.04 232 11810 204 4188.25 225 13UD Crewe and Nantwich 17.45 174 13741.11 192 0.13 137 29031.51 133 13464 172 5785.50 165 00AH Croydon 21.31 125 17449.64 123 0.15 129 28358.35 144 58450 25 18428.75 41 26UC Dacorum 10.73 288 8906.19 287 0.00 299 21481.37 275 13600 169 4962.00 192 00EH Darlington 24.10 95 17639.46 118 0.25 82 31329.63 52 17130 133 7484.50 123 29UD Dartford 16.65 186 14152.42 180 0.06 188 26192.78 189 9843 242 3866.75 242 34UC Daventry 10.61 292 8464.62 298 0.02 234 23181.71 245 6315 316 2370.00 317 00FK Derby 26.64 69 18926.39 94 0.31 60 31421.47 49 44015 48 16102.25 52 17UF Derbyshire Dales 12.53 254 11055.72 247 0.01 258 19987.31 303 5551 322 2404.50 313 20UD Derwentside 26.19 73 20740.85 58 0.25 81 29308.43 126 16182 140 7803.50 115 00CE Doncaster 30.84 41 22002.18 43 0.38 41 31511.74 45 53348 32 23464.75 19 29UE Dover 19.12 153 16374.06 148 0.09 166 26931.95 176 15107 151 6370.25 144 00CR Dudley 23.68 100 17968.59 111 0.24 87 30355.67 81 52513 35 19638.75 33 20UE Durham 17.12 180 13434.55 203 0.12 145 28699.29 138 10430 229 5964.75 159 00AJ Ealing 25.10 84 20068.05 75 0.22 91 29601.13 116 60225 22 19527.75 35 20UF Easington 39.46 7 26336.30 7 0.62 7 31630.05 35 20972 108 12673.50 68 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 14.17 232 11361.49 245 0.07 180 27421.96 168 35490 63 15142.00 56 19.92 147 14901.41 167 0.21 99 29193.45 130 10649 226 4850.25 197 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 12UC East Cambridgeshire 10.84 285 9369.93 278 0.00 309 17948.06 326 6858 306 2396.75 314 18UB East Devon 13.69 238 12172.75 228 0.01 266 21994.58 266 12797 185 4763.75 205 19UD East Dorset 8.46 325 6545.06 327 0.00 305 19094.89 314 6700 309 2373.00 315 24UC East Hampshire 8.06 332 6187.91 332 0.00 309 16832.07 333 8412 283 3008.00 292 26UD East Hertfordshire 7.41 336 5478.45 336 0.00 309 17600.57 327 9070 267 3485.75 269 32UC East Lindsey 24.61 88 19635.21 82 0.20 103 29943.87 102 21844 104 9501.00 97 34UD East Northamptonshire 11.78 266 9744.29 269 0.01 268 23241.53 244 7875 288 3025.50 291 00FB East Riding of Yorkshire 41UC East Staffordshire 18.44 158 14454.65 176 0.16 120 28815.24 136 13792 165 4937.00 194 21UC Eastbourne 23.36 104 19248.40 88 0.16 121 28620.93 139 14736 158 5486.25 176 24UD Eastleigh 9.24 313 7272.58 313 0.01 289 21769.49 273 9181 262 3738.00 253 16UF Eden 14.64 221 13460.32 200 0.00 309 20136.96 299 3926 345 1809.75 338 13UE Ellesmere Port & Neston 43UB Elmbridge 7.12 343 5107.63 345 0.00 309 18072.04 325 8971 270 2934.50 297 00AK Enfi eld 26.19 74 20267.50 70 0.26 76 29967.28 100 66630 17 19354.50 37 22UH Epping Forest 14.33 229 12451.49 220 0.02 247 23119.58 246 13452 173 4575.75 211 43UC Epsom and Ewell 7.43 335 5385.25 338 0.00 309 19478.93 311 4629 339 2014.00 330 17UG Erewash 17.98 164 14712.78 170 0.10 158 27455.71 167 13509 170 5894.50 161 18UC Exeter 20.27 145 16687.58 137 0.13 133 28762.42 137 13661 166 5965.50 158 24UE Fareham 7.28 338 5198.83 343 0.01 276 18602.05 317 7237 302 3094.25 288 12UD Fenland 20.50 139 17441.57 125 0.10 163 27793.51 159 13021 182 4817.50 199 42UC Forest Heath 11.90 265 10529.23 256 0.00 309 19205.27 313 4835 334 1698.75 340 23UD Forest of Dean 16.00 201 14594.09 174 0.01 264 23099.27 247 9376 254 3895.25 241 30UF Fylde 12.86 251 10828.55 249 0.03 227 23695.78 236 7460 296 3609.75 260 00CH Gateshead 29.52 52 21085.90 50 0.36 48 31612.06 36 39485 58 17720.50 47 37UE Gedling 15.54 208 13339.82 205 0.03 216 24690.87 214 12250 194 5535.25 175 23UE Gloucester 21.64 118 16373.67 149 0.22 96 30018.01 99 16097 142 6399.25 143 24UF Gosport 17.80 167 14895.85 168 0.09 168 27537.56 165 9240 260 3294.00 283 29UG Gravesham 20.37 142 16421.64 143 0.15 125 29087.37 132 13402 174 5142.25 188 33UD Great Yarmouth 28.35 58 20862.23 55 0.28 66 31698.66 32 18998 119 7773.50 116 00AL Greenwich 33.94 24 24613.26 17 0.44 26 31050.05 61 53224 33 17437.50 48 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 28.07 59 22177.95 38 0.28 72 29631.20 113 34512 65 12572.50 72 17.58 171 15565.66 158 0.05 198 25945.02 192 20680 109 7689.50 117 23.51 101 18776.37 98 0.22 94 29665.13 110 23665 95 9236.50 99 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 43UD Guildford 8.20 329 6288.95 331 0.00 292 19948.72 304 8941 271 3579.25 263 00AM Hackney 46.10 2 28960.78 1 0.84 1 31566.72 39 76242 10 21765.25 24 00ET Halton 32.61 30 22126.72 39 0.46 25 31815.38 27 24830 92 11537.25 77 36UC Hambleton 9.84 305 8147.09 304 0.00 306 19841.45 306 6500 313 2819.00 303 00AN Hammersmith and Fulham 31UD Harborough 7.08 344 5169.47 344 0.00 309 14776.87 346 5242 326 2109.75 325 00AP Haringey 35.73 18 24932.79 13 0.53 13 31237.87 57 68291 14 20885.50 29 22UJ Harlow 21.44 121 18606.31 105 0.06 186 25205.25 207 12252 193 4333.75 222 36UD Harrogate 9.49 310 7707.51 309 0.01 262 19608.51 309 11445 209 5010.00 190 00AQ Harrow 15.59 205 13647.84 196 0.03 218 24709.26 211 33675 69 10358.25 85 24UG Hart 4.13 354 2153.76 354 0.00 309 9590.48 354 4068 344 1631.50 344 00EB Hartlepool 34.10 23 22484.62 36 0.48 19 32018.88 18 21869 102 9956.75 90 21UD Hastings 32.21 31 22917.71 29 0.39 38 31702.21 31 18610 121 7367.25 127 24UH Havant 21.28 126 16515.27 142 0.22 93 29132.39 131 17170 132 5765.75 167 00AR Havering 16.07 200 13578.55 197 0.06 187 26255.82 186 28169 79 10446.75 83 00GA Herefordshire, County of 26UE Hertsmere 12.86 250 10817.04 250 0.02 242 23733.96 234 9762 247 3512.75 267 17UH High Peak 15.34 211 12906.60 214 0.05 193 26253.20 187 9782 246 4436.75 216 00AS Hillingdon 18.56 157 15916.43 153 0.07 183 26252.18 188 38574 59 12592.75 71 31UE Hinckley and Bosworth 10.90 283 9071.96 286 0.01 269 21467.00 277 8606 277 3793.50 248 45UF Horsham 7.38 337 5636.64 334 0.00 309 14445.08 348 8575 278 3263.00 284 00AT Hounslow 23.20 105 19567.05 83 0.13 136 28012.47 155 41050 53 12621.00 69 12UE Huntingdonshire 9.31 311 7417.00 311 0.01 281 20258.48 296 12605 187 5002.00 191 30UG Hyndburn 30.91 40 21517.05 45 0.37 43 32038.43 16 17244 130 6897.50 135 42UD Ipswich 23.75 99 18270.48 109 0.24 84 30050.97 97 19670 114 7135.75 132 00MW Isle of Wight 20.67 134 18002.35 110 0.07 178 26345.30 184 21468 105 8369.50 110 15UH Isles of Scilly 19.72 149 18360.00 106 0.00 309 18360.00 320 144 354 36.00 354 00AU Islington 38.96 8 26885.05 6 0.62 6 31263.30 56 52467 36 19129.75 39 46UB Kennet 10.27 296 8664.92 291 0.00 309 18634.43 316 6507 312 2242.50 319 00AW Kensington and Chelsea Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 20.58 137 16900.49 134 0.11 152 29960.93 101 19501 116 7670.50 119 38.31 11 24629.41 16 0.52 14 32218.24 8 62603 20 23183.00 20 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 15UD Kerrier 25.05 86 20622.95 61 0.15 127 29445.75 119 16051 143 6211.25 148 34UE Kettering 15.09 214 12223.99 226 0.08 175 27224.47 172 9469 253 3914.25 240 33UE King's Lynn and West Norfolk 00FA Kingston upon Hull, City of 00AX Kingston upon Thames 13.10 245 11442.01 244 0.01 261 22542.17 254 14773 155 5235.25 184 00CZ Kirklees 25.23 82 18666.58 102 0.27 75 31143.79 59 70714 12 24369.50 15 00BX Knowsley 43.20 5 26109.76 8 0.59 8 32401.63 2 42673 50 17774.25 45 00AY Lambeth 34.94 19 25558.07 9 0.50 17 30113.35 93 66903 16 24294.50 16 30UH Lancaster 21.94 117 16787.92 135 0.18 109 31046.89 62 19670 114 8762.75 103 00DA Leeds 25.07 85 17879.46 114 0.28 67 31468.75 48 113962 5 45232.25 4 00FN Leicester 34.68 20 23944.37 23 0.46 23 31979.49 19 78758 9 24891.75 13 21UF Lewes 14.79 218 13008.87 211 0.02 249 23701.62 235 10416 230 3805.75 246 00AZ Lewisham 31.04 39 23978.26 22 0.36 47 29359.82 122 58128 28 20401.75 31 41UD Lichfi eld 12.12 258 10259.31 260 0.02 241 23346.99 241 9288 258 3957.50 237 32UD Lincoln 26.56 70 19922.13 78 0.28 69 31191.58 58 15937 144 6184.25 150 00BY Liverpool 46.97 1 27055.41 5 0.67 4 32434.42 1 127365 3 56926.50 2 00KA Luton 24.73 87 19438.92 86 0.24 85 29421.42 120 40375 55 11492.75 78 13UG Macclesfi eld 10.67 290 8405.77 301 0.03 217 24560.98 216 12301 191 5636.50 172 29UH Maidstone 12.99 248 10633.45 255 0.05 203 25684.77 198 14742 157 5396.25 181 22UK Maldon 12.26 255 10736.04 252 0.00 309 21178.98 284 6178 318 2186.00 322 47UC Malvern Hills 13.59 240 11893.33 235 0.03 228 23650.00 237 7478 295 2883.00 300 00BN Manchester 44.50 4 27146.21 4 0.66 5 32329.78 4 132867 2 48398.25 3 37UF Mansfi eld 31.80 34 22528.50 34 0.40 35 31805.75 28 17943 123 8627.25 105 00LC Medway 19.55 150 16066.15 150 0.11 154 28040.78 154 37230 61 13031.25 65 31UG Melton 10.43 294 8705.71 290 0.00 309 20279.30 295 3807 346 1361.75 350 40UB Mendip 14.83 217 13142.63 209 0.02 233 23773.06 233 11879 203 4535.50 212 00BA Merton 14.62 222 12340.37 223 0.03 215 24692.94 213 25651 89 8400.75 108 09UC Mid Bedfordshire 7.23 340 5237.43 341 0.00 309 16193.14 339 9339 256 3497.00 268 18UD Mid Devon 17.34 177 15447.42 162 0.03 226 24413.15 222 8206 285 2977.50 293 42UE Mid Suffolk 9.79 306 8217.20 303 0.00 304 15517.33 341 7242 301 2651.00 308 45UG Mid Sussex 6.94 346 5035.93 346 0.00 307 17037.17 331 8616 276 3357.50 278 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 14.73 219 12610.03 217 0.04 208 25143.93 208 9274 259 4040.75 233 22.41 112 17720.68 117 0.18 110 29795.84 103 17216 131 7347.25 128 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 00EC Middlesbrough 38.94 9 23638.11 25 0.56 9 32296.66 6 36603 62 14790.25 58 00MG Milton Keynes 15.32 212 12109.92 229 0.10 162 28352.01 145 29144 78 10391.00 84 43UE Mole Valley 7.25 339 5448.58 337 0.00 309 16740.40 336 5076 331 1938.75 333 24UJ New Forest 10.16 300 8280.95 302 0.01 267 20829.07 289 15796 145 5685.50 169 37UG Newark and Sherwood 18.03 163 14575.38 175 0.12 144 28439.04 143 13874 164 6022.00 155 00CJ Newcastle upon Tyne 31.36 37 20810.21 56 0.40 37 32102.57 13 58433 26 24001.50 18 41UE Newcastle-under-Lyme 19.27 152 15683.61 157 0.13 138 28351.87 146 15350 149 7671.75 118 00BB Newham 42.95 6 28285.86 2 0.79 2 31337.84 51 88945 7 21025.50 26 15UE North Cornwall 24.07 96 20877.01 54 0.06 185 26112.73 190 12134 197 4413.75 219 18UE North Devon 19.97 146 16974.55 133 0.10 164 28174.87 152 13063 181 4787.50 202 19UE North Dorset 13.02 247 11767.87 239 0.00 309 19565.91 310 5557 321 1996.00 331 17UJ North East Derbyshire 17.37 176 14311.56 178 0.09 169 27556.41 163 12435 190 5886.75 162 00FC North East Lincolnshire 29.73 49 20309.70 69 0.37 44 31857.47 25 31804 74 11084.50 80 26UF North Hertfordshire 10.69 289 8844.96 288 0.01 280 21854.31 271 11347 211 3983.25 236 32UE North Kesteven 10.26 297 8599.00 294 0.00 309 19627.79 308 9139 265 3780.50 249 00FD North Lincolnshire 20.88 132 16418.68 146 0.16 119 30461.50 79 23382 96 9029.50 101 33UF North Norfolk 18.06 160 16420.06 145 0.01 272 22734.96 250 12759 186 4958.50 193 39UC North Shropshire 17.43 175 15788.54 154 0.01 252 23258.17 243 6720 308 2534.00 312 00HC North Somerset 15.01 215 11542.21 242 0.09 167 29358.66 123 21902 101 9250.50 98 00CK North Tyneside 23.51 102 17833.10 115 0.24 86 30159.33 90 33233 70 15048.00 57 44UB North Warwickshire 16.18 197 14356.77 177 0.03 223 24495.88 219 6668 310 2971.00 294 31UH North West Leicestershire 46UC North Wiltshire 8.82 318 6931.67 319 0.00 300 20064.47 301 10708 222 3840.75 245 34UF Northampton 21.15 129 16553.87 140 0.18 112 29527.37 118 27967 82 10286.00 86 33UG Norwich 27.84 62 20729.13 59 0.36 49 30054.00 96 24239 94 9539.25 96 00FY Nottingham 37.46 13 25184.19 12 0.56 11 31845.38 26 68470 13 24899.75 12 44UC Nuneaton and Bedworth 31UJ Oadby and Wigston 10.51 293 8479.47 297 0.00 309 21376.59 281 5225 327 2025.00 329 00BP Oldham 30.82 42 20996.83 53 0.40 34 31904.08 23 50682 39 17216.00 49 39UD Oswestry 17.48 173 15556.07 160 0.03 231 24297.14 224 4788 337 2098.00 326 38UC Oxford 18.80 155 15763.63 155 0.11 155 27592.70 162 17401 129 6075.75 152 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 9.55 309 7585.08 310 0.01 271 20755.55 291 15269 150 5764.75 168 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 30UJ Pendle 30.24 44 21036.96 51 0.38 40 31786.15 29 19005 118 6931.75 134 15UF Penwith 31.61 36 24240.66 21 0.35 53 30095.91 94 12102 198 4592.75 209 00JA Peterborough 24.49 90 18741.09 99 0.26 78 30055.81 95 30136 76 9740.25 91 00HG Plymouth 26.11 76 19539.71 84 0.28 70 30921.14 65 40643 54 18189.50 42 00HP Poole 14.93 216 12532.42 218 0.05 196 25854.49 193 16203 139 5774.75 166 00MR Portsmouth 24.21 93 18953.15 92 0.20 105 30911.43 66 29616 77 10457.25 82 30UK Preston 29.78 48 20181.32 73 0.39 39 31979.03 20 25328 90 10150.25 89 19UG Purbeck 13.49 241 12385.76 222 0.00 309 18237.56 321 4403 341 1516.75 348 00MC Reading 19.30 151 15924.32 152 0.12 142 27643.46 161 19339 117 6733.25 136 00BC Redbridge 20.36 143 17541.50 121 0.08 172 26960.05 175 46236 46 13507.50 63 00EE Redcar and Cleveland 29.69 50 20513.16 63 0.33 55 32115.96 12 27866 83 12686.75 67 47UD Redditch 21.05 131 16421.43 144 0.21 100 28868.87 135 11532 208 4590.00 210 43UF Reigate and Banstead 8.59 322 6632.77 323 0.00 293 20382.37 294 9739 248 3746.50 252 15UG Restormel 24.51 89 20711.43 60 0.13 135 27979.27 156 14955 153 6028.25 154 30UL Ribble Valley 10.07 302 8524.88 296 0.00 309 16990.16 332 3635 349 2158.50 323 00BD Richmond upon Thames 36UE Richmondshire 10.94 282 9407.63 276 0.00 309 18218.94 322 3593 350 1578.75 346 00BQ Rochdale 33.89 25 22524.40 35 0.43 28 32177.92 10 48122 44 18475.75 40 22UL Rochford 9.22 314 7250.35 315 0.01 285 19879.50 305 7078 304 2678.75 306 30UM Rossendale 24.23 92 19492.57 85 0.20 104 29357.65 124 10526 228 4811.75 200 21UG Rother 17.85 166 15409.20 163 0.07 184 26471.63 182 10880 219 3934.00 239 00CF Rotherham 26.71 68 20007.43 76 0.29 65 31084.82 60 46488 45 19322.75 38 44UD Rugby 13.08 246 11000.58 248 0.03 229 24261.43 225 9038 268 3558.75 264 43UG Runnymede 8.33 328 6495.35 328 0.00 309 18384.19 319 5738 319 2050.75 328 37UJ Rushcliffe 8.13 331 6301.40 330 0.00 309 18122.32 323 7448 298 3315.75 281 24UL Rushmoor 11.62 268 9452.41 275 0.04 211 23908.88 230 8501 280 3049.75 290 00FP Rutland 7.49 334 5596.63 335 0.00 309 13134.66 351 2175 352 810.50 352 36UF Ryedale 14.49 225 13270.33 207 0.00 309 19784.17 307 5211 328 1693.25 341 00BR Salford 36.51 15 23830.96 24 0.48 20 32248.59 7 50545 40 20901.75 28 46UD Salisbury 11.32 275 9477.64 274 0.02 243 22020.47 265 9684 251 3592.75 262 00CS Sandwell 37.03 14 25478.69 10 0.56 10 31470.23 47 74920 11 24766.50 14 36UG Scarborough 24.06 97 18659.59 103 0.20 101 30906.08 67 17544 126 7298.00 129 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 6.46 351 4450.02 351 0.00 309 11859.18 353 4796 336 1942.50 332 16.46 190 14147.94 183 0.05 192 26355.19 183 10660 225 4457.75 215 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 20UG Sedgefi eld 29.05 54 21890.41 44 0.35 52 30045.62 98 16887 135 8609.00 106 40UC Sedgemoor 17.76 169 14771.41 169 0.10 160 27552.70 164 13938 162 5609.25 174 00CA Sefton 25.13 83 18335.77 107 0.25 80 31506.26 46 48123 43 22028.00 23 36UH Selby 12.17 257 10159.06 263 0.02 238 23934.59 229 6745 307 3245.00 285 29UK Sevenoaks 10.34 295 8416.03 300 0.02 246 22287.05 259 9829 243 3305.00 282 00CG Sheffi eld 27.84 63 19229.66 89 0.34 54 31763.75 30 96205 6 36459.25 5 29UL Shepway 21.35 123 17375.19 126 0.13 140 29280.32 128 15677 147 6308.00 145 39UE Shrewsbury and Atcham 00MD Slough 22.31 115 19094.64 90 0.10 161 26499.29 181 21863 103 6552.25 140 00CT Solihull 16.16 199 12030.92 231 0.15 124 29663.08 111 23375 97 9552.75 95 09UE South Bedfordshire 11.95 263 9889.80 265 0.02 235 24077.40 228 11966 202 4419.00 218 11UE South Bucks 8.35 327 6671.96 321 0.00 309 15472.55 342 4189 343 1502.75 349 12UG South Cambridgeshire 6.55 350 4704.58 350 0.00 309 13654.91 350 8618 275 3421.50 276 17UK South Derbyshire 13.93 235 11952.09 233 0.03 224 24525.38 217 8649 274 4069.50 231 00HD South Gloucestershire 9.58 308 7768.17 308 0.01 286 20198.60 298 20528 111 8322.25 112 18UG South Hams 14.31 230 12819.20 215 0.01 275 21746.61 274 9366 255 3438.75 273 32UF South Holland 16.21 195 14699.80 172 0.01 277 22092.61 263 9330 257 3665.25 257 32UG South Kesteven 11.49 271 9381.26 277 0.03 220 23622.90 238 12271 192 4781.75 203 16UG South Lakeland 11.67 267 10183.01 262 0.00 297 20222.63 297 8265 284 3846.00 244 33UH South Norfolk 10.84 286 9352.37 280 0.00 309 18502.57 318 10388 232 4157.25 226 34UG South Northamptonshire 38UD South Oxfordshire 7.75 333 5850.56 333 0.00 309 17067.50 329 8472 282 3091.00 289 30UN South Ribble 14.10 233 11804.85 237 0.04 207 25249.01 206 9985 240 5176.50 187 39UF South Shropshire 16.50 189 14961.08 166 0.01 260 22230.91 262 4553 340 1644.00 343 40UD South Somerset 13.86 237 12048.24 230 0.03 222 24176.23 226 16242 138 5943.25 160 41UF South Staffordshire 11.62 269 9869.63 266 0.01 278 22353.92 258 10336 233 4100.50 229 00CL South Tyneside 31.16 38 22435.26 37 0.43 29 30997.06 64 34062 68 15254.50 55 00MS Southampton 24.31 91 19336.65 87 0.22 92 29622.83 114 35415 64 13024.00 66 00KF Southend-on-Sea 22.47 111 17445.49 124 0.19 107 30293.89 83 28036 81 10170.25 88 00BE Southwark 33.33 26 24569.19 19 0.48 18 29766.51 104 65034 18 22177.75 22 43UH Spelthorne 12.18 256 10416.15 259 0.01 284 22451.11 256 7969 286 2904.25 299 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 16.36 192 14144.73 184 0.05 194 26044.88 191 9176 263 5189.50 185 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 26UG St Albans 8.88 317 6981.34 318 0.00 291 20871.63 288 10165 238 3764.75 250 42UF St. Edmundsbury 12.06 260 10433.51 258 0.00 303 21408.49 279 9143 264 3545.25 265 00BZ St. Helens 29.82 47 21207.01 49 0.36 51 31686.05 34 33192 71 16273.50 51 41UG Stafford 12.71 253 10524.43 257 0.04 204 25542.46 201 11061 215 5467.00 180 41UH Staffordshire Moorlands 26UH Stevenage 16.42 191 14711.74 171 0.02 237 22642.54 251 11244 212 3683.50 256 00BS Stockport 18.06 161 13804.45 190 0.13 141 30207.26 84 34177 67 14775.50 59 00EF Stockton-on-Tees 23.80 98 16641.31 138 0.26 77 31698.47 33 31630 75 14077.50 62 00GL Stoke-on-Trent 36.03 16 24285.51 20 0.51 16 31932.91 22 53082 34 24155.50 17 44UE Stratford-on-Avon 9.63 307 8026.87 305 0.00 309 17041.02 330 9184 261 3484.00 270 23UF Stroud 11.14 280 9532.01 273 0.00 309 20781.19 290 10231 235 4109.50 228 42UG Suffolk Coastal 11.33 274 9663.96 270 0.01 283 20743.38 292 10902 218 3800.00 247 00CM Sunderland 31.79 35 22638.75 33 0.41 33 31524.87 43 59628 24 27844.75 7 43UJ Surrey Heath 5.75 352 3862.34 352 0.00 309 16738.21 337 4825 335 1720.25 339 00BF Sutton 13.98 234 11683.94 240 0.05 199 25722.50 197 20650 110 7410.75 126 29UM Swale 22.10 116 17549.83 120 0.18 108 30172.37 87 19948 112 7164.50 131 00HX Swindon 16.94 182 12980.64 212 0.14 131 29759.11 106 22571 98 9005.75 102 00BT Tameside 28.78 56 21294.65 47 0.33 56 31322.74 54 39905 56 17794.75 44 41UK Tamworth 19.76 148 16390.59 147 0.11 148 27912.35 157 10229 236 4202.75 224 43UK Tandridge 8.49 324 6777.92 320 0.00 309 14723.89 347 5333 325 2126.00 324 40UE Taunton Deane 15.65 204 13310.66 206 0.06 189 26286.85 185 11998 201 4868.75 195 20UH Teesdale 15.52 209 13680.15 195 0.03 214 24826.50 210 2802 351 1324.50 351 18UH Teignbridge 17.29 179 15152.79 165 0.05 200 25767.91 195 15022 152 5625.00 173 00GF Telford and Wrekin 22.35 113 17372.14 127 0.20 102 29637.37 112 27425 85 10201.50 87 22UN Tendring 23.45 103 18983.26 91 0.15 126 29677.20 109 22496 99 8697.50 104 24UN Test Valley 8.88 316 6990.43 317 0.01 287 20136.35 300 8483 281 3130.25 287 23UG Tewkesbury 11.23 279 9329.90 281 0.01 254 21974.34 268 7071 305 2582.50 310 29UN Thanet 27.61 65 20520.94 62 0.28 71 31582.30 37 25905 88 9726.25 93 26UJ Three Rivers 10.74 287 8611.00 293 0.02 236 22928.10 248 7388 299 2538.00 311 00KG Thurrock 21.31 124 17014.84 131 0.15 123 29742.54 107 21441 106 8422.25 107 29UP Tonbridge and Malling 10.95 281 9158.22 283 0.01 274 21392.20 280 9719 250 3463.25 271 00HH Torbay 26.42 71 20764.24 57 0.23 89 30559.54 75 24387 93 9663.50 94 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 21.19 127 17089.75 130 0.17 115 29309.92 125 9027 269 4093.25 230 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 18UK Torridge 21.13 130 18789.44 97 0.04 205 25464.20 204 8752 272 3366.25 277 00BG Tower Hamlets 44.64 3 27770.27 3 0.75 3 31933.09 21 86022 8 19439.75 36 00BU Trafford 17.33 178 13415.18 204 0.13 134 29307.57 127 28112 80 12062.25 76 29UQ Tunbridge Wells 11.45 273 9749.93 268 0.01 279 21966.79 269 10529 227 3445.00 272 35UF Tynedale 13.13 244 11541.94 243 0.01 282 22039.30 264 5450 324 2806.75 304 22UQ Uttlesford 6.94 347 4984.24 347 0.00 309 11999.67 352 4662 338 1586.00 345 38UE Vale of White Horse 7.23 341 5299.09 339 0.00 294 14920.27 344 7789 289 2871.50 301 13UH Vale Royal 16.18 196 12925.29 213 0.10 165 28449.99 142 14037 161 6583.75 138 00DB Wakefi eld 27.07 66 20157.98 74 0.30 62 30866.56 68 51675 37 25352.00 11 00CU Walsall 30.14 45 21220.49 48 0.41 32 31276.60 55 58327 27 19553.50 34 00BH Waltham Forest 33.19 27 24706.47 15 0.42 30 30582.32 73 55713 30 16603.50 50 00BJ Wandsworth 20.34 144 17276.67 128 0.10 159 27534.08 166 43071 49 15727.00 54 35UG Wansbeck 29.89 46 21445.70 46 0.37 45 31380.75 50 11637 205 6155.50 151 00EU Warrington 17.89 165 13434.78 202 0.15 122 30114.82 92 22205 100 11088.75 79 44UF Warwick 11.97 262 10115.22 264 0.01 256 22555.00 253 11602 206 4804.00 201 26UK Watford 15.81 203 13732.03 193 0.03 212 24706.19 212 9637 252 3424.50 275 42UH Waveney 22.32 114 17809.36 116 0.16 118 30179.41 86 18876 120 7591.25 121 43UL Waverley 6.86 348 4981.59 348 0.00 309 15886.12 340 7697 291 2911.50 298 21UH Wealden 10.86 284 9078.73 285 0.01 257 21082.37 285 12205 195 4249.00 223 20UJ Wear Valley 31.85 33 23059.45 26 0.36 50 31542.11 42 13311 176 6021.00 156 34UH Wellingborough 17.79 168 14311.41 179 0.11 149 28080.27 153 9788 245 3639.50 258 26UL Welwyn Hatfi eld 14.18 231 12319.19 225 0.02 239 23592.86 239 10695 223 3984.25 235 00MB West Berkshire 8.19 330 6344.10 329 0.00 298 17139.94 328 10796 221 4036.75 234 18UL West Devon 17.08 181 15557.44 159 0.00 296 21923.41 270 5520 323 2093.75 327 19UH West Dorset 15.51 210 14149.52 181 0.01 253 22383.79 257 9736 249 3628.00 259 30UP West Lancashire 20.40 141 15715.05 156 0.16 117 30389.21 80 16180 141 7452.25 125 32UH West Lindsey 16.75 185 13911.35 188 0.08 176 27900.52 158 10128 239 4420.50 217 38UF West Oxfordshire 6.67 349 4711.77 349 0.00 309 14045.85 349 6520 311 2250.00 318 40UF West Somerset 23.16 106 20421.79 64 0.05 191 25493.74 203 5181 330 1916.00 335 46UF West Wiltshire 11.24 278 9179.56 282 0.02 240 23542.68 240 12177 196 4465.25 213 00BK Westminster 26.30 72 20349.68 67 0.26 79 30765.52 69 39703 57 14743.25 60 19UJ Weymouth and Portland Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 8.51 323 6651.45 322 0.00 309 19476.82 312 10263 234 3721.00 255 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 00BW Wigan 26.91 67 19870.36 80 0.30 63 31323.19 53 48880 41 27295.75 9 24UP Winchester 7.16 342 5292.87 340 0.00 309 16786.62 335 7564 293 2936.00 296 00ME Windsor and Maidenhead 00CB Wirral 27.90 60 18899.92 95 0.32 59 32088.94 14 60481 21 27359.25 8 43UM Woking 8.70 321 6577.86 326 0.02 250 21047.45 286 7533 294 2673.00 307 00MF Wokingham 5.36 353 3385.03 353 0.00 309 15139.78 343 7676 292 3241.75 286 00CW Wolverhampton 33.02 28 23007.18 28 0.47 22 31514.19 44 57550 29 20747.50 30 47UE Worcester 18.03 162 14079.68 185 0.14 130 29374.08 121 12061 200 4861.25 196 45UH Worthing 17.48 172 14683.96 173 0.08 174 27037.80 174 11577 207 4666.50 208 47UF Wychavon 11.99 261 10234.70 261 0.01 259 21830.71 272 10692 224 4366.75 221 11UF Wycombe 10.65 291 8656.70 292 0.01 251 22838.29 249 16526 137 5105.75 189 30UQ Wyre 17.70 170 14149.00 182 0.13 139 29598.48 117 13633 167 5973.50 157 47UG Wyre Forest 19.09 154 15481.01 161 0.12 147 28275.13 148 13215 178 5483.50 177 00FF York 13.40 242 10758.70 251 0.07 182 26679.74 179 17485 127 7661.25 120 ## References Alcock, P. (1997), Understanding Poverty (Macmillan, Basingstoke). Atkinson, A. B., (1998), 'Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment', in A. B. Atkinson and J. Hills (eds.) Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity (London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion), pp1–20. Blane, D. and Drever, F. (1998), 'Inequality among men in standardised years of potential life lost, 1970–93.' BMJ 317 (7153) pp255–260. Gordon, D. et al, (2000), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York). Noble, M., Smith, G.A.N., Penhale, B., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Owen, T. and Lloyd, M. (2000b), Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the Small Area Level: The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (DETR, Regeneration Research Summary, Number 37, 2000). Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Smith, G.A.N., McLennan, D., Anttila, C., Barnes, H., Mokhtar, C., Noble, S., Gardner, J., Braswell, S., Covizzi, I. and Lloyd, M. (2004), The English Indices of Deprivation 2004, Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. Nolan, B. and Whelan, C. (1996), Resources, Deprivation and Poverty (Clarendon Press, Oxford). Townsend, P. (1987), 'Deprivation', Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16, Part 2, pp125–146. Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom (Penguin).	en
0038-pdf	Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report to: Cultural Engagement Task and Finish Group - 15 August 2012 Subject: What are cultural organisations in the city doing? What work is Manchester Art Gallery doing to directly engage residents of the city in arts and culture? Report of: Fran Toms, Head of Culture Summary: This report responds to the purpose detailed for meeting three in the work programme for the Cultural Engagement Task and Finish Group; To investigate the work which organisations in Manchester undertake to engage residents in their work, including but not limited to museums, theatres and art galleries. To consider the different ways in which the Council influences external organisations that the Council contributes funds to directly as well those which it does not fund. To focus on how well the organisations engage hard to reach groups, including young people and people from deprived or isolated communities and explore what measures are already in place or could be implemented to support the engagement more fully. To invite representatives from various arts organisations to give their views on the work they do to engage with members of the public, how the Council fulfils its role in this and ways in which they would improve this work. Recommendations 1. That the Committee note the contents of the report and are invited to lead a discussion to examine the detail of the work. Wards Affected: All Contact Officers: Name: Fran Toms Position: Head of Culture Telephone: 0161 234 4256 E-mail: f.toms@manchester.gov.uk Name: Jo Johnston Position: Team Leader, Cultural Partnership Telephone: 0161 234 4267 E-mail: j.johnston3@manchester.gov.uk Name: Zoe Williams Position: Team Leader, Cultural Regeneration Telephone: 0161 234 4260 E-mail: z.williams@manchester.gov.uk Background documents (available for public inspection): The following documents disclose important facts on which the report is based and have been relied upon in preparing the report. Copies of the background documents are available up to 4 years after the date of the meeting. If you would like a copy please contact one of the officers above. Appendices Appendix 1: Overview of local cultural organisations (not exhaustive) Appendix 2: Additional information Manchester Music Hub Appendix 3: Case studies cultural delivery 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Manchester has a thriving, diverse and high quality cultural offer that attracts international attention, as well as providing an accessible, high quality offer for our local communities and residents. The cultural and creative sector helps residents to understand their collective history and defines what it means to be part of Manchester. Working with education culture helps build aspiration and increase attainment, whilst also contributing a richness to other services to improve health and well being, skills and opportunities for employment. 1.2 The local cultural sector comprises a broad range of organisations varied in terms of workforce, turnover, art form, target audience and engagement practice. Attached in appendix 1 is an overview of some of the organisations which the City Council works with; this ranges from the small community arts group working with adults with mental health issues, the innovative creative and digital organisations, the medium sized youth theatres and art centres through to the large scale organisations of international significance. This is not intended to be exhaustive but only to provide an illustration of the diverse offer available to our communities. 1.3 The City Council has supported the cultural sector for many years, providing information, advice and guidance on a range of sector specific issues to over 70 local cultural organisations. Working with such a diverse sector Manchester City Council has developed a broad range of interventions and support processes to enable the growth and long term sustainability of the sector, in addition to the continuous improvement of local resident engagement. 2.0 Strategic Support to Local Organisations 2.1 In order to establish comprehensive support the Culture Team works closely with strategic funders and policy shapers, including AGMA, ACE and Heritage Lottery Fund. Together, the Cultural Ambition for the city was developed and launched in 2010 outlining five themes of future development; Culturally Distinctive, Community Inspired, Creative Investor, Talent City and Culturally Connected. Each of these themes touches on the quality of life of our local communities; however the strongest connections are made through the aims of Community Inspired and Talent City:  To make the people of Manchester proud participants and architects of the city's cultural life  To provide communities with real opportunities to develop the cultural offer and build an enhanced sense of neighbourhood, identity and place  To ensure that culture makes the fullest possible contribution to the health, wealth and cohesion of Manchester's many communities.  To open up pathways to employment and channelling the skills and creativity of Manchester's residents towards education and work opportunities 2.2 The Ambition was a call to action which was answered, in part, through a cultural leaders group which developed the Manchester Culture Model; a collaborative response outlining four priority areas which have the most significant and immediate impact on achieving the city's ambition; Digital Content Development, Collaborative Arts Programming, Engaging and developing Talent, Strategic Marketing and Cultural Tourism. 2.3 The Engaging and Developing Talent Strand aims to map a creative learning journey from 0 - 19 for a young Manchester person, with appropriate signposts, support, interconnections for both young people and their schools and parents. This should give the best possible experience to young people and also ensure the best possible return on public investment in creative education. 2.4 To support the sector to collectively respond to the Ambition and drive its growth and sustainability the Cultural Partnership has been refreshed. The Board now comprises strategic funders in the region and focuses its agenda on both attracting and best use of investment and coordinated and collaborative delivery. The Board is complemented by a sub group structure and an annual event, which address key issues for the sector; both have open invitations to any interested organisations. The cultural Partnership also host a website (www.manchesterculturalpartnerhsip.org) which provides regular news updates regarding national policy development, sign posting to funding, events and training for the sector. In order to support regular real time information for the sector the Cultural Partnership also uses twitter (@ManchesterCP) to promote any time limited opportunities. 3.0 Joint work; Pilots and Best Practice 3.1 As discussed in previous reports (Report 1, Report 2 and supplementary information for meeting 2), the Culture Team also develop and support pilot initiatives exploring better ways to engage certain groups of people in culture and the arts. For example;  Developing the Valuing Older People Cultural Offer initiative in partnership with the Joint Health Unit's Valuing Older People Team.  Embedding Cultural Activity Project as part of the Ardwick City Region Pilot, which sought to integrate cultural organisations in to the new ways of working being piloted, in particular connecting with work to improve mental health and well being and tackle worklessness.  Cultural Attendance and Well-being Pilot will offer cultural attendance opportunities to Health Trainer clients as an intervention intended to improve well being and, in the long term, life expectancy.  Working proactively with cultural employers, the Manchester College and the National Apprenticeship Service to develop new entry routes into employment in the sector for local young people through initiatives such as the Future Jobs Fund and Creative Apprenticeships.  Supporting volunteer training and development programmes such as In Touch, led by Manchester Museum and Imperial War Museum  Previously commissioned the Sharp Project to deliver a series of 'Digital Summit' discussion events during 2011/12, supported by Arts Council England. These events brought together key digital businesses to debate how the sector could best develop and take forward their collective ambitions to ensure Manchester distinguishes itself as a highly competitive creative and digital hub. 3.2 Other work developed by the Culture Team to target resident engagement is outlined below. 3.3 The newly formed Manchester Music Hub aims to build further cohesion between informal and formal education music offers, development pathways and performance opportunities within accessible geography for young residents. Music Hubs were introduced by DfE following Darren Henley's review of music education provision and the guidance is published in 'The Importance of Music: A National Plan for Music Education'. A cornerstone of future provision is that music education funds will not be allocated directly to Local Authority's music education services, but to the lead organisation of a 'Music Education Hub', comprising of partners engaged in the delivery of music to children and young people. The Culture Team is represented on Manchester Music Hub's Strategic Board to support its integration into the wider cultural landscape and collaborative opportunities in the city. 3.4 The culture team supported a consortium application to the AGMA Grant Funding Programme; this was phase five of a partnership between the ten Greater Manchester Authorities arts and culture departments, AGMA and the Arts Council England. Since it was first developed in 2004 this partnership, unique in the country, has led the way nationally in local authority partnerships in the arts. This application has secured over £1m investment in 2012-15 across Greater Manchester to develop local arts infrastructure and activity in addition to cross-borough joint working on high impact interventions including:  The Arts Room provides advice and support to emerging and established artists to improve employability through platforms to market their work and signpost to training opportunities and networks  Bringing high quality opportunities for digital engagement and training to priority communities  Collaborative and joint working  Developing an innovative new methodology for monitoring and evaluating arts services and activities, creating a toolkit for project management, evaluation and advocacy. 4.0 MCC Funded Organisations 4.1 The Culture Team manages a portfolio of strategic investments, which are made with organisations that the City Council has a strategic interest in, for example where we own a related property such as Z-Arts (formerly Zion Arts Centre), enabling the Halle to perform at the Bridgewater Hall, National Football Museum at Urbis or the newly merged Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company being housed in the new First Street Cultural Facility. This portfolio also includes the regular support provided to Manchester International Festival. These agreements are long standing and subject to annual review at full Council budget setting. Each agreement has a bespoke performance management agreement; these are currently under review. 4.2 To complement the Strategic Investments, the Culture Team also have a portfolio of 15 Partnership Agreements which provide three year funding to Local Cultural Organisations delivering against the Cultural Ambition and demonstrating impact in our neighbourhoods and working with communities. As part of the decision making process in awarding the Partnership Agreements some consideration was given to programme fit to ensure we funded a comprehensive mix of organisations that delivered across the city, to a variety of audience through varied artform/medium. This funding is intended to provide support for mainstream provision and build up capacity within the organisations. These investments, along with snapshot summaries of over 40 cultural organisations operating in Manchester, are highlighted in Appendix 1. 4.3 Other funding to engage residents in arts and culture is allocated through the Neighbourhood Arts Funding, working with Community Cultural Services Area teams to develop local arts projects which meet the aims of the Cultural Ambition, Neighbourhood Focus Strategy and Arts Council priorities. 5.0 Manchester Cultural Organisations Mainstream delivery 5.1 In addition to appendix 1, appendix 3 explores in more detail the type of offer available to local communities and residents. Included here are a range of case studies highlighting specific impacts of work with hard to reach communities:  HMF Community Theatre, Library Theatre Company  The Storybox Project, Library Theatre Company  Give Get GO! Lime Arts  Manchester City South Housing Association, People's History Museum  Horace, Venture Arts  Karen, Venture Arts  Olympic Swimming Screen/Art Competition, Victoria Baths  Sat'dy Allsorts, Z-Arts 5.2 To discuss specific work, its impact and potential improvement of the local cultural community provision the following organisations have been invited to join the meeting.  Katy Archer, Director, Peoples History Museum  Debra King, Director, Brightersound  Janine Waters, Artistic Director, Waters Edge Arts 5.3 For Member's interest a number of visits to cultural are also being arranged. All About Audiences Contact name: Gareth Davies Address: All About Audiences. Green Fish Resource Centre. 46 - 50 Oldham Street. Manchester. M4 1LE. Tel: 0161 234 2955 Email: hello@allaboutaudiences.com Website: www.allaboutaudiences.com What we do All About Audiences is the audience development agency for the North West region. Their role is to support arts, culture and heritage organisations to help better understand and grow their audiences. The organisation does this by providing professional expertise in audience development, community engagement, market research, marketing planning. They also provide tactical marketing services, which include print distribution and digital services. Band on the Wall Contact name: Gavin Sharp Address: 25 Swan Street, Manchester, M4 5JZ Tel: 0161 830 3885 Email: gavin.sharp@bandonthewall.org Website: What we do Band on the Wall is a not-for-profit venue run by registered charity Inner City Music. We exist to present the best music from around the world and support our main stage events with a dynamic education programme which operates throughout the year - both in the venue and in the community and at local schools. Band on the Wall's Learning and Participation Programme offers a range of inspiring, interesting and challenging opportunities for non-formal, hands-on learning. Some of our programmes are aimed at experienced music makers, some are open to everyone, some are for younger and for older people. All will be inspiring, supportive and give opportunities to learn perform and practice in Manchester's best live music venue. Band on the Wall in partnership with Brighter Sound are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding NBAA (Black Arts Alliance) Contact name: SuAndi Address: PO Box 86, Manchester. M21 7BA. UK. Tel: 0161 832 7622 / 07757278188 Email: baa@blackartists.org.uk Website: www.blackartists.org.uk What we do NBAA is the North West's only dedicated Black Arts & Culture Library. NBAA works across art forms to create productions that challenge perceptions of Black culture and that celebrate the many dimensions of Black heritages. The organisation employs the arts as a learning vehicle to assist disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals particularly where they run the risk of civil law infringement. Using the wide ranging creative skills and social experiences of the company, NBAA offers: Education & Community Workshops, Teachers CPD, Exhibitions, Performances, Community Cohesion, Seminars, Conferences, Public Art Leadership Creative Participation, Empowering Collective Unity Training and much more. Brighter Sound Contact name: Deborah King Address: Picturehouse Building, 29 Swan Street, Manchester M4 5JZ Tel: 0161 830 3899 Email: info@brightersound.com Website: www.brightersound.com What we do Brighter Sound : Providing the best in music education workshops in Greater Manchester. Since 2000, we have worked with over 10,000 young people aged 0 - 19, leading to amazing performances at The Bridgewater Hall, The Lowry, Contact Theatre & Band on the Wall. Working with young people from all backgrounds and circumstances, we provide opportunities to create, share and develop under the leadership of experienced music professionals. As experts in the field, we are Matrixaccredited to deliver advice and guidance to small arts organisations and community projects. We also deliver training in leading workshops to volunteers and youth workers. Brighter Sound in partnership with Band on the Wall are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Castlefield Gallery Contact name: Kwong Lee Address: 2 Hewitt Street, Manchester, M15 4GB Tel: 0161 832 8034 Email: info@castlefieldgallery.co.uk Website: www.castlefieldgallery.co.uk What we do Since its formation by artists in 1984, arts charity Castlefield Gallery has been at the forefront of developing emerging contemporary artists, and a venue for audiences to see new art. It runs an exhibitions programme that has included subsequent Turner Prize winners and national and international exhibitors, e.g. in the British Art Shows, Tate Triennials and the Venice Biennale. It has also mentored artists who have gone on to win major commissions, e.g. Manchester collective Owl Project who has just launched their Cultural Olympiad Artists Taking the Lead project in the North East. Castlefield are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Chinese Arts Centre Contact name: Sally Lai Address: Market Buildings, 13 Thomas Street, Manchester Tel: 0161 832 7271 Email: sally.lai@chinese-arts-centre.org Website: www.chinese-arts-centre.org What we do Chinese Arts Centre is the leading organisation for the promotion of contemporary Chinese art in the UK. Our aim is to advance the education of the public in all forms of Chinese culture. CAC believes in the importance of ongoing dialogue and exchange and the need for a diversity of perspectives in contemporary visual arts. We create meaningful encounters between artists, audiences, cultures and ideas that make contemporary art and culture relevant to diverse audiences. Working with the best creative talent we run a lively programme of exhibitions, residencies, engagement projects, festivals, international projects and events which support innovation and reflect the dynamism of contemporary Chinese art. Comma Press Contact name: Ra Page Address: 36-40 Edge Street, Manchester, M4 1HN Tel: Email: admin@manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk Website: www.manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk What we do Comma press is a not for profit publishing initiative dedicated to promoting new fiction and poetry with an emphasis on the short story. It is committed to a spirit of risk taking and challenging publishing, free of the commercial pressures on mainstream houses. From the outset Comma has published a biannual new writers showcase as a way of bringing in new talent alongside collections by already established writers. Community Arts North West Contact name: Angela Bezer Address: Green Fish Resource Centre, Oldham Street, Manchester, M4 1LE Tel: 0161 234 2975 Email: angela@can.uk.com Website: www.can.uk.com What we do Community Arts North West (CAN) is a Manchester based, arts development organisation who since 1978, have worked in partnership with communities, artists and agencies to encourage, create, and produce cultural programmes of work. CAN's main priority is to create access to cultural production for people that are excluded or on the fringes of mainstream cultural resources. Our work gives voice and visibility to the complex and diverse communities that make up Greater Manchester. Community Arts North West recently became an Arts Council England - National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) client recognising CAN's strong track record of producing excellent quality art. Community Arts NW are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Contact Contact name: Suzie Henderson Address: Contact, Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6JA Tel: 0161 274 0659 Email: suziehenderson@contactmcr.com Website: http://contactmcr.com What we do Contact is a dynamic charity based in Manchester with young people at the heart of everything we do. We work locally, nationally, and internationally to provide life changing opportunities for the next generation of creative leaders, artists, and audiences.Contact redefine theatre for the 21st Century, presenting and producing a diverse artistic programme in our building, surprising places, and virtual spaces. Contact are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company (GMAC) Contact name: Afroditi Barmparousi Address: Cornerhouse, 70 Oxford Street, Manchester. M1 5NH. Tel: 0161 228 7621 Email: Afroditi.barmparousi@cornerhouse.org Website: www.cornerhouse.org What we do Cornerhouse is Manchester's international centre for contemporary visual arts and culturally diverse independent film. Cornerhouse has three floors of contemporary art galleries, three screens showing the best in independent cinema, a bar, café and a bookshop. We also operate an international distribution service for contemporary visual arts books and catalogues. Founded in 1952, the Library Theatre Company has produced consistently high quality seasons of drama, musical theatre, plays for families, and comedies. It has both helped to develop, and adapted to, Manchester's changing theatre landscape. A key feature of its current work is a flourishing Education and Community programme. The norfox Young People's Theatre Company is now an integral part of the theatre. In April 2012 Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company merged to become GMAC. The merger is the first step in the creation of a dynamic, vibrant new producing arts organisation. GMAC is a strategic delivery partner of the council. Creative Times Contact name: Andy Lovatt Address: 165 E Burton Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 2LN Tel: 0161 4462 991 Email: info@creativetimes.co.uk Website: www.creativetimes.co.uk What we do Creative Times is an online community and magazine for the creative sector. It mixes high-quality editorial from a team of respected and up-and-coming industry contributors, with news, views and events posted by members of the free-to-join Creative Times Directory. Creative Times originally launched in October 2005 as a paper-based journal for Manchester's Creative Industries sector - distributed to over 5,000 contacts and published by the Creative Industries Development Agency. The original Creative Times website launched in 2008, winning both Fresh and Manchester Digital awards for its design and functionality. The site was relaunched in 2010 through a partnership between Cornerhouse and The White Room and covers all sectors in the creative, cultural and digital industries including art, performance and technology, ensuring a diverse readership of over 9000, with over 4000 followers on Twitter. Dance Initiative Greater Manchester Contact name: Miriam Wild Address: Dance Initiative Greater Manchester, Zion Arts Centre, Stretford Road. Manchester. M15 5ZA Tel: 0161 232 7179 Email: miriam@digm.org.uk / info@digm.org.uk Website: www.digm.org/dev/ What we do Dance Initiative Greater Manchester a.k.a DIGM (pronounced Dime!) is Greater Manchester's central dance organisation, providing a whole range of opportunities for dance. Specialising in sited and outdoor dance, we provide a whole range of opportunities, run caretive projects throughout the region & offer advice and information. We are a charity working to increase access to high quality activity to underrepresented communities, working throughout the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester in partnership with local authorities, communities, educators and artists. Dance Initiative Greater Manchester are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Feelgood Theatre Productions Contact name: Caroline Clegg Address: Production House, 21 Lindum Avenue, Manchester, M16 9NQ Tel: Email: thefolks@feelgoodtheatre.co.uk Website: www.feelgoodtheatre.co.uk What we do Feelgood have been creating award winning theatre for 17 years. Since it was founded in 1994, the company has designed a range of accessible workshops and educational experiences for participants of all ages from a range of backgrounds. We believe that by giving people the opportunity to work alongside theatre professionals that they can acquire skills, have fun and take part in opportunities that can both enhance their lives and enrich local communities. Full Circle Arts Contact name: Chris Hammond Address: Full Circle Arts, 7 Schoolhouse, Second Avenue, Trafford Park Village, Manchester, M17 1DZ Tel: 0161 872 0326 Email: chris@fullcirclearts.co.uk Website: www.fullcirclearts.co.uk What we do Full Circle Arts, a user led arts organisation, are a resource for the sector by providing practical resources and services that help others work inclusively, more collaboratively, more effectively and more coherently. They offer partnerships and online support for arts organisations and artists to take inclusion in the arts forward within the landscape of emerging technologies, developing digital practice, social media and corresponding cultural shifts creating lasting social change. They believe in great art WITH everyone, encouraging inclusive participation to give people the capacity, inspiration and tools to be part of the cultural conversation. Full Circle Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Gorton Visual Arts Contact name: Ian Mackay Address: The Angels Centre, Endcott Close, Gorton, M18 8BR Tel: 0161 830 3885 Email: info@gortonvisualarts.co.uk Website: www.gortonvisualarts.co.uk What we do Gorton Visual Arts has been creating artwork in and around Gorton and Manchester since 2006. We meet once a week at the Angels Centre opposite Gorton Monastery. The group is made up of 18 local residents and Lead Artist Ian McKay.By involving elderly residents, vulnerable adults and residents with learning difficulties, in a safe studio environment our projects are created to contain a strong element of outreach session delivered to a wide range of communities. The objective of Gorton Visual Arts is to develop new artistic skills for all group members who are encouraged to share these new skills with individuals and groups within the community. These opportunities for all residents take place at the studio and at external venues such as Gorton Monastery and Gorton Market. Habarts Limited Contact name: Tamsin Drury Address: Tamsin Drury, hÅb, c/o Zion Arts Centre, 335 Stretford Road, Manchester, M15 5ZA Tel: 0161 232 6086 / (0)781 369 3862 Email: tamsin@habarts.org Website: www.wordofwarning.org / www.habarts.org What we do hÅb is a Manchester production and development organisation, specialising in contemporary performance, live art and sited intervention, with a focus on developing Manchester and North West emergent artists through projects like emergency, Turn, Hazard and Works Ahead. hÅb also produces Word of Warning, a new regular public programme of events in Manchester and a weekly e-mailer: Word of Warning is a one-stop shop for the bonkers, the beautiful and the bizarre of live performance; an attempt to keep alive the best of the 25 year greenroom legacy and to introduce new people to the possibilities of seeing live work. Habarts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Halle Contact name: John Summers Address: Halle Concerts Society, The Bridgewater Hall. Manchester. M1 5HA. Tel: 0161 237 7000 / 0161 237 7023 Email: development@halle.co.uk Website: www.halle.co.uk What we do Now in its 154th season, the Hallé ranks among the UK's top symphonic ensembles, with a distinguished history of acclaimed performances in this country and around the world; award-winning recordings, radio broadcasts and educational outreach programmes; and a visionary commitment to building audiences and developing orchestral repertoire. The Halle is one of the Council's strategic delivery partners. Lime Arts Contact name: Brian Chapman Address: High Elms, Upper Park Road, Manchester, M14 5RU Tel: 0161 256 4389 Email: lime@limearts.org Website: www.limearts.org What we do Lime develops, co-ordinates and delivers a wide range of creative projects within healthcare. The aim is to show how the arts can play an important part in enhancing quality of life and quality of care. It is an award-winning arts charity within the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We work to: Improve Health Care Environments through working with architects and commissioners, staff and patient groups adding new dimensions to public spaces and clinical settings. Show how the arts can play an important role in public health - exploring issues through different creative languages to find new solutions to health inequalities and health promotion. Engage with Communities - delivering projects that connect, involve and consult with local people, hospital populations, schools, student groups, voluntary sector agencies, other cultural organisations. Manchester Camerata Contact name: Bob Riley Address: Manchester Camerata, RNCM, 124 Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9RD Tel: 0161 226 8696 Email: briley@manchestercamerata.com Website: www.manchestercamerata.co.uk What we do Manchester Camerata, perform high quality chamber music to the people of Manchester, the North West of England and Cumbria. Creativity and energy are the hallmarks of Camerata's work and reflect the spirit of its home city, Manchester, where the orchestra is in residence at the Royal Northern College of Music, and The Bridgewater Hall. Manchester Camerata performs regularly in Ulverston, Colne, Stafford and Doncaster, with major education projects in Chester. Manchester Camerata are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Cathedral Contact name: The Reverend Canon Shanks Address: Manchester Cathedral, Victoria Street, Manchester. M3 1SX. Tel: 0161 833 2220 Email: canon.shanks@manchestercathedral.org Website: www.manchestercathedral.org What we do Manchester Cathedral is the medieval 'mother church' of the Diocese of Manchester (Church of England). It is open every day, for people to come and pray; to admire the architecture, carvings, paintings and stained glass; or to learn about the often somewhat quirky history of the place. Regular guided tours are offered. The Cathedral is home to a fine choir. And, besides all sorts of religious events, it hosts a variety of concerts, ranging from classical to rock; also drama, art exhibitions, displays relating both to history and current affairs, lectures and other educational and cultural events. Manchester Community Radio: All FM, North Manchester FM, Wythenshawe FM, Unity Radio, Radion Regen, Peace and Gaydio What we do Community radio stations are not-for-profit stations with a social purpose, and work to involve the target community in running the service. The 7 community radio stations currently operating in Manchester serve a wide range of community groups and geographic areas. As well as programming targeted towards a wide range of community groups, the radio stations also take part in community engagement opportunities including training opportunities for young people and community events. All FM in partnership with North Manchester FM are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Craft and Design Centre Contact name: Kate Day Address: 17 Oak Street, Manchester, M4 5JD Tel: 0161 832 4274 Email: info@craftanddesign.com Website: www.craftanddesign.com What we do In the heart of the city's creative Northern Quarter, Manchester Craft & Design Centre is home to some of the finest designer makers in the region. Shop for original and bespoke contemporary items including textiles, jewellery, furniture, ceramics, lighting, cards and paintings. Take a look around the 19 studio boutiques housed over two floors within the unique surroundings of our Victorian market building. Watch the designers at work, commission a piece designed specifically for you or browse the latest exhibition. Foodies can also grab a bite to eat at the new Oak St. Cafe, which serves delicious homemade food and great coffee. You can also learn a new skill at one of our artist-led workshops or Creative Business Development events. Manchester Digital Laboratory (MadLab) Contact name: Dave Mee Address: 36-40 Edge Street, Manchester, M4 1HN Tel: Email: dave@madlab.org.uk Website: www.madlab.org.uk What we do A 1000 sq. ft. former shop in the Northern Quarter, it's a space you can get together with like-minded individuals and work on your urban gardening, crochet, hacking, programming, media arts, filmmaking, animating project without worrying that you're in a library, coffee shop, pub or other unsuitable venue. We know hackers and craftspeople need work space and may need to get down and dirty - we also know sometimes you need a quiet area to present and show works to your peers. We support both activities. And we hope there will be a rich mix of individuals who'll get out of the usual zones, the knitter talking to the software architect, the cupcake maker scheming with the laser etching builder. To confirm Manchester's rightful place as the home of technical and creative innovation and invention in the North West and beyond; to bring together the various communities of doers and thinkers that make this city brilliant and see what comes of it; to build interesting things that inspire others; and most important of all, because it's fun. Manchester International Festival Contact name: Alex Poots Address: Blackfriars House, Manchester, M3 2JA Tel: 0161 238 7300 Email: info@mif.co.uk Website: www.mif.co.uk What we do Manchester International Festival is the world's first festival of original, new work and special events, and takes place biennially in Manchester, UK. The Festival launched in 2007 as an artist-led, commissioning festival presenting new works from across the spectrum of performing arts, visual arts and popular culture. Highlights from the past three festivals - 2007, 2009 and 2011 have included group shows Il Tempo del Postino and 11 Rooms, Damon Albarn and Jamie Hewlett's Monkey: Journey to the West, Punchdrunk's immersive Dr Who experience The Crash of The Elysium, Music Boxes, a wonderful commission for children aged 6 months-7 years, Victoria Wood's That Day We Sang and the premieres of special gigs from Bjork to Snoop Dogg and Sinead O'Connor. The festival also encompasses MIF Creative, the community and learning focused arm of the festival, bringing MIF to the people and communities of Manchester and learning from them in its turn. Manchester International Festival is a strategic delivery partner of the Council. Manchester Jazz Festival Contact name: Steve Mead Address: Manchester Jazz Festival, 223 Ducie House, Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JW Tel: 0161 228 0662 Email: festival@manchesterjazz.com Website: www.manchesterjazz.com What we do MJF present 9 days of live music each July; typically showcasing 400 musicians across 7-10 venues over 70-80 events. They present free gigs and concerts round the clock, day and night, indoors and out, bringing the best contemporary jazz to Manchester from the region, the UK and abroad. MJF joins forces with all Manchester's leading music venues and promoters such as RNCM, Band on the Wall, Matt & Phred's Jazz Club, Bridgewater Hall and Midland Hotel. They encourage multiple genres of contemporary jazz and break down musical boundaries run, as well as commissioning new work from talented regional artists with the mjf originals and mjf introduces schemes. Manchester Jewish Museum Contact name: Max Dunbar Address: 190 Cheetham Hill Road, Manchester, M8 8LW Tel: 0161 834 9879 Email: admin@manchesterjewishmuseum.com Website: www.manchesterjewishmuseum.com What we do Manchester Jewish Museum (MJM) is for Jewish and non-Jewish people offering a unique experience as both a social history museum and as a resource for learning. Housed in Manchester's oldest surviving synagogue building, MJM's displays tell the diverse story of Manchester's Jewish heritage. MJM's exhibition and events programme has covered issues ranging from the Holocaust, Jewish family history, sport, kosher food tasting and has hosted concerts by the Manchester Halle. MJM's award-winning learning and outreach programme reaches schools from across the UK, covering subjects such as Judaism, Jewish Festivals and the Holocaust. Manchester Jewish Musuem are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Literature Festival Contact name: Cathy Bolton Address: Beehive Mill, Jersey Street, Ancoats, Manchester, M4 6JG Tel: 0161 236 5555 Email: admin@manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk Website: www.manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk What we do Manchester Literature Festival (MLF) provides unique and imaginative opportunities for audiences to experience high quality live literature via an annual festival format and associated project activities. Our main objectives are: to showcase the very best in contemporary writing from across the world, to commission innovative literature from established and emerging writers, to provide opportunities for writers to experiment with new media in the production and presentation of their work, to promote Manchester as a hub for international cultural exchange, and to provide inspirational opportunities for children and young people to engage in creative writing and reading activities. The Manchester Museum Contact name: Esme Ward Address: The Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL Tel: 0161 275 2650 Email: esme.ward@manchester.ac.uk Website: www.manchester.ac.uk/museum What we do The Manchester Museum, at The University of Manchester, hosts an array of treasures from the natural world and the many cultures it is home to. Highlights include a T-rex and fossils of other pre-historic creatures, ancient Egyptian artefacts, the new Living Worlds gallery and live amphibians and reptiles. The Museum's events programme includes handling objects from the collection, hands-on activities or exploring the latest ideas in science, culture and the arts. The engagement team deliver sessions in schools and community venues throughout the year. MOSI Contact name: Rebecca Leese Address: Museum of Science & Industry, Liverpool Road, Castlefield. Manchester. M3 4FP Tel: 0161 833 0027 Email: education@mosi.org.uk / r.leese@mosi.org.uk Website: www.mosi.org.uk What we do MOSI is a fascinating and fun day out for everyone. Located on the historic site of the world's oldest surviving passenger railway station, and housed in five listed buildings, MOSI's inspirational galleries, daily demonstrations, and exciting events and activities tell the story of Manchester's scientific and industrial past, present and future. Music Stuff Contact name: Lenny Portersmith Address: Units 3-4 The Cuthbert Centre, 877 Ashton Old Road, Manchester, M11 2NA Tel: 0161 223 8700 Email: music.stuff@virgin.net Website: www.musicstuff.org.uk What we do Music Stuff work across Manchester and with a number of specifically targeted groups including, NEET young people, young people at risk of becoming NEET, vulnerable young people, young people at risk of exclusion, recovering substance abusers, young Parents, young Offenders, care leavers, asylum seekers & refugees, looked after children, homeless young people, adult learners, young people with an interest in music and media, ,children with a disability and their families, elderly people with dementia, people with mental health issues etc. We have been particularly successful at achieving certain outcomes such as engaging challenging and hard to reach young people, achieving accredited outcomes, achieving positive progressions for young people, working effectively within community settings and building partnerships around the client. Within often challenging environments Music Stuff have delivered a range of successful arts provision that is focused on participation. These include writing and performing plays, song writing, performances from bands and individuals, writing poetry, dance, drama groups, story telling, visual art exhibitions, learning about music technology, learning to play instruments etc. The National Football Museum Contact name: Kevin Moore Address: Urbis Building, Cathedral Gardens, Manchester, M4 3BG Tel: 0161 605 8200 Email: info@nationalfootballmuseum.com Website: www.nationalfootballmuseum.com What we do The National Football Museum exists to explain how and why football has become 'the people's game', a key part of England's heritage and way of life. It also aims to explain why England is the home of football, the birthplace of the world's most popular sport. The Museum is for everyone regardless of age, gender, disability, sexuality, religion or any other factor. Is not just for those who are interested in or passionate about the sport. NFM aims to be the first point of contact with football for non-fans and an introduction to wider aspects of culture and history for football fans. NFM has a particular focus on those sections of the community that do not usually visit museums and galleries. In the coming months, resources will be available for formal and informal learning groups with learning activities taking place around the museum and in our dedicated Learning Suite. The Museum has a long-term mission, a responsibility to protect football's heritage and culture for future generations as well as current audiences. The National Football Museum are a strategic delivery partner of the Council. Noise Festival Contact name: Denise Proctor Address: NOISE Festival Ltd., P.O. Box 4106, Manchester, M60 1WW Tel: 0161 237 9009 Email: communications@NOISEfestival.com Website: www.NOISEfestival.com What we do The award-winning NOISE charity provides opportunities for those with talent to kickstart a debt-free, creative industries career. From Summer 2012, NOISE re-launches www.NOISEfestival.com to offer enhanced portfolios, e-learning and mentoring. Designed to support the transition from amateur to professional-level. NOISE pioneers enterprise and employability skills opportunities via innovative, industry-led projects and endorsements from globally recognised creatives (Zaha Hadid, Wayne Hemingway...). We showcase young people's talents professionally via international media partnerships (MTV, BBC), online and high-profile, national-career events, to promote them to their full potential. We also work with educational and community organisations, to enhance their offering. Pankhurst Centre Contact name: Yvonne Edge Address: 60-62 Nelson Street, Manchester, M13 9W Tel: 0161 273 5673 Email: admin@thepankhurstcentre.org.uk Website: www.thepankhurstcentre.org.uk What we do The birthplace of the Suffragette movement is now the Pankhurst Centre, a women's community centre. This historically significant building was the home of Emmeline Pankhurst and family who led the Suffragette campaign for Votes for Women. Within the Centre there is a small heritage area with information about the Pankhursts and the Suffragette movement. This is open to the general public. As a women's community centre it provides and offers space for activities and events run by women for women. It offers a unique place in which women can learn together, work on projects and socialise. This vibrant centre plays host to a number of women's organisations and projects that support women. The Pankhurst Centre in partnership with Victoria Baths are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. People's History Museum Contact name: Kirsty Mairs Address: People's History Museum, Left Bank, Spinningfields, Manchester. M3 3ER. United Kingdom Tel: 0161 838 9190 Email: learning@phm.org.uk Website: www.phm.org.uk What we do The People's History Museum is the only museum which tells the story of the development of democracy in Britain. They engage, inspire and inform all audiences that 'there have always been ideas worth fighting for'. PHM interprets the museum's collections through permanent galleries, exhibitions and events; engaging children, young people, families and adults with the development of democracy and citizenship through our learning programmes. PHM enable world class research using their archive. They promote the textile conservation studio as the international centre of excellence for banners conservation. The People's History Museum are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Performing Arts Network & Development Agency (PANDA) Contact name: Anne-Marie Crowther Address: PANDA, Black Lion, 65 Chapel Street, Salford. M3 5BZ Tel: 0161 274 0629 Email: anne-marie@panda-arts.org.uk Website: www.panda-arts.org.uk What we do PANDA, supports the generation of innovative creativity in performing arts. PANDA's mission is to proactively support a vibrant enterprise culture by nurturing talent, creating connections and providing an authoritative voice for the performing arts sector. PANDA supports anyone working, or aspiring to work, within the performing arts sector within the North-West and neighbouring regions. PANDA are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Reclaim Contact name: Ruth Ibegbuna Address: Reclaim, Suite 3B2, Portland Buildings, Portland Street, Manchester. M1 4PZ. Tel: 0161 233 4090 Email: r.ibegbuna@reclaimproject.org.uk Website: www.reclaimproject.org.uk What we do RECLAIM is a charity working in the most disadvantaged communities of Greater Manchester, providing positive pathways young people. RECLAIM identifies young leaders (aged 12 and 13) who have influence among their peers but who face real (and imagined) barriers to success. The RECLAIM ethos is one of targeted-support and close-mentoring, leading to self-reliance and success. We guide our young people towards exciting leadership opportunities, supported by a safe network of caring adults. We work to raise aspirations within our participants and link them with the decision-makers in their community in order to affect positive change. Redeye Contact name: Alex Hodby Address: Redeye, Chinese Arts Centre, Market Buildings, Thomas St, Manchester M4 1EU, UK Tel: 0845 456 0260 Email: alex@redeye.org.uk Website: www.redeye.org.uk What we do Redeye, is a not-for-profit organisation set up to support photographers at every level, and improve the health of photography generally. It is based in Manchester, UK, and has subscribers and users across the UK and globally. It aims to form a clear picture of the ways photographers and photographic artists are working now, and give them access to events, opportunities, advice and information that are relevant to their work and difficult to find elsewhere. Alongside this it works to bring photographic and other organisations together, to encourage ethical and best practice, and to build a voice for photography. Royal Exchange Contact name: Ben Turner Address: St Anns Square, Manchester, M2 7DH Tel: 0161 615 6697 Email: education@royalexchange.co.uk Website: www.royalexchange.co.uk What we do The theatre's Education Department offers people of all ages, backgrounds and experiences the chance to explore every aspect of theatre, to get involved in creative projects, take part in tours, discussions, play readings and talks, and to make the Royal Exchange their own. In all of our work we seek to develop partnership links - with schools, practitioners, other agencies and arts organisations across Greater Manchester and beyond. The Royal Exchange Theatre is one of seven organizations across Britain working in partnership with the Co-operative Foundation to deliver their major new initiative, Truth about Youth, which challenges and changes negative perceptions about young people by supporting projects which enable them to work with adults, the media and the wider community. The Truth About Youth Festival (TaY:Festival), which takes place over 14 days in July 2012, has been created by 958 young people and 211 adults from Manchester. The Sharp Project Contact name: Tom Clarke Address: The Sharp Project, Thorp Road. Manchester. M40 5BJ. Tel: 0161 205 5508 Email: Tom.Clarke@thesharpproject.co.uk Website: www.thesharpproject.co.uk / www.thesharpproject.co.uk/thecampus What we do The Sharp Project, home to digital entrepreneurs and production companies, is where Space, Power, Connectivity and People converge. Occupants at The Sharp Project make, manipulate or move around the world, digital content. The Sharp Project is based in a 200,000 sq ft refurbished warehouse previously occupied by electronics company Sharp; it offers flexible office, production and event space at affordable prices. Streetwise Opera Contact name: Bridget Rennie Address: Booth Centre, Manchester Cathedral, Manchester, M3 1SX Tel: 020 7730 9551 Email: br@streetwiseopera.org Website: www.streetwiseopera.org What we do Streetwise Opera's mission is to give homeless and formerly homeless people opportunities to further their personal development through participation in music making of the highest professional quality and to promote more positive attitudes towards homeless people It aims to: produce musical work of a professional standard so that participants benefit from being involved in something of quality, to develop the creativity, self-esteem, confidence, social networks, enjoyment and skills of homeless and formerly homeless people through regular music workshops and related activities that provide a welcoming, safe and non-judgmental environment, to demonstrate through the development of these qualities and skills, positive changes in the lives of participants, to help create positive attitudes and understanding of homelessness amongst the general public and policy makers and to mitigate the social exclusion felt by participants. Venture Arts Contact name: Amanda Sutton Address: 43 Old Birley St, Manchester, Greater Manchester M15 5RF Tel: 0161 232 1223 Email: info@venturearts.org Website: www.venturearts.org What we do Venture Arts works with people from across Manchester, young and old who have a learning disability. Their focus is to provide a light, bright, creative environment where people can learn about and produce fantastic visual artworks and showcase them to large audiences. Venture Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Victoria Baths Contact name: Gill Wright Address: Hathersgate Road, Manchester, M13 0FE Tel: 0161 224 2020 Email: gill.wright@victoriabaths.org.uk Website: www.victoriabaths.org.uk What we do Victoria Baths provides an inspirational setting for educational activities in many curriculum areas, particularly history and creative arts. We can provide tours of the building to suit any age group from primary up to further education and are happy to tailor tours for specialist learners. We can also provide space for a range of activities from one-off visits to longer projects. We believe that Victoria Baths has made a distinctive contribution to the arts in Manchester by providing a unique and changing setting for arts activities with links to a variety of audiences. Victoria Baths in partnership with the Pankhurst Centre are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Waters Edge Arts Contact name: Janine Waters Address: The Edge Theatre and Arts Centre, Manchester Road, Chorlton, M21 9JG Tel: 0161 615 6697 Email: janine@watersedgearts.com Website: www.royalexchange.co.uk What we do The Edge provides opportunities for all ages and backgrounds to be involved in the arts as participant and spectator. It is housed within a beautiful Victorian building and has excellent transport links. The Edge's productions, in-house/visiting, participatory/amateur/professional, bring high-quality theatre to Chorlton. Two workshop/rehearsal studios, 70-seat theatre, writers' room, music room. Arts Café (scheduled January 2013): part-funded by MCC learning-disability unit, this café gives learning-disabled adults volunteer/ employment opportunities, exhibition space and performance platform. Our activities develop confidence, self-esteem, group working skills, communication, presentation skills. They address community cohesion, conflict resolution, and give people a voice. Our projects include JUMP (unemployed people); Expressive Edge (learning disabled adults); Young Expressive (children with Downs) opens 2013; two new projects for newly-released prisoners and hard-to-reach young people from Barlow-Moor Community-Centre. Waters Edge Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Whitworth Art Gallery Contact name: Ed Watts Address: Oxford Road, Manchester. M15 6ER Tel: 0161 275 7450 Email: ed.watts@manchester.ac.uk Website: www.whitworth.manchester.ac.uk What we do Whitworth Art Gallery is part of The University of Manchester. It is home to internationally renowned collections of modern art, textiles, watercolours, prints, drawings and sculpture. Created in 1908 as the first English gallery in a park, the Whitworth is today developing a new vision for the role of a university gallery, and is forging stronger connections between park, community and landscape through its development and extension opening in 2014. www.manchester.ac.uk/whitworth Z - Arts Contact name: Liz O'Neill Address: Z-Arts, 335 Stretford Road, Hulme. M15 5ZA. Tel: 0161 232 6076 Email: liz@zionarts.com Website: www.z-arts.org What we do Z-arts mission is to inspire and enable generations of young people from across Manchester and beyond to use creativity to reach their potential. We believe that being engaged in creative activity can have a lasting and transforming effect on the lives of young people so we work with both formal and informal education to provide creative learning opportunities. We have recently announced our ambition to become Manchester's dedicated venue for children and families, aiming to build a theatre and arts programme that reflects our values of being welcoming and vibrant forwardthinking as much as our participatory work does. Z-Arts (formerly Zion Arts) are the Council's Strategic Delivery Partner for children and young people. Appendix 2 Manchester Music Hub In November 2011 DfE published its arrangements for the future funding of music provision in a document entitled 'The Importance of Music; A National Plan for Music'. A cornerstone of future provision is that Music funds will not be directly to LA's music education services but to the lead organisation of a 'Music Education Hub'. 'Music education hubs will ensure that every child aged 5-18 has the opportunity to sing and learn a musical instrument, as well as perform. It will also allow young people to take their talent further - this might be through local ensembles, choirs, partnerships with nationally funded music organisations, including (Arts Council) National Portfolio Organisations or through involvement in the Music and Dance Scheme. It is intended that Music Education Hubs build on existing music services through a collection of organisations working together in a local area, to create joined up music education provision for children and young people, both in and out of school. Arts Council England were charged with leading on the Music Hub funding process and in May 2012 Manchester was awarded £2,345,777 over 3 years; 2012 -15. It should be noted that although Manchester was successful in securing the full allocation for the city, it is a considerable reduction in grant compared to previous years. In addition to a national cut to funding for music education, the area allocation process was changed from historic amounts based on out of date formulas to a more equitable apportionment based on pupil numbers. The formation of the music hub is intended to encourage deliverers to look at new ways of attracting funding and providing value for money; including making better use of additional resources achieved through effective partnerships. Manchester Music Hub's lead organisation is the City Council's, Children's Services and it is supported by a Strategic Board comprising of Manchester schools, MCC Culture Team, the Royal Northern College of Music, Brighter Sound and One Education (formerly Manchester Music Service). Delivery partners include organisations such as Drake Music, the Halle, Manchester Jazz Festival, Manchester Camerata, Z-Arts, Chethams School of Music, Royal Northern College of Music and Brighter Sound. A Quality Assurance Group comprising of Primary and Secondary school Head Teachers will form an important part of the governance of the Hub providing feedback on services to schools and contributing to the future development of the Hub. The Manchester Hub is based on strong foundations and will create opportunities to support the achievement of the Manchester Cultural Ambition and the City's Neighbourhood Focus Strategy. With the diversity and quality of music organisations and practitioners based in the city, a Manchester Hub has the opportunity to build further cohesion between informal and formal education music offers, development pathways and performance opportunities within accessible geography for young residents. Within the city boundaries there is access to a wealth of talent and expertise, including world class orchestras and the largest pool of freelance musicians outside of London. The Manchester Hub will devolve a large proportion of the funding (73%) directly to schools. This is a tried and tested approach, begun in Manchester in 2008 to ensure effective provision of first access music tuition. This model provides several key benefits; presently Manchester schools spend in excess of £500,000 from their own resources to augment core and extension work, it is envisaged they will continue to do so; schools make the decision what to offer - often based on continuation activities available both in school or in the local community, increasing sustainability; the One Education Music senior leadership team have strong links with all Manchester schools and will continue to provide professional guidance. One Education have been commissioned through the remainder of the funding (27%) to provide out of school ensembles ,exciting performance opportunities, a vocal strategy, training and CPD for teachers in schools / academies, capacity building in music technology and Special Education Needs music, data collection and quality assurance. The Manchester Hub is committed to developing ensembles and providing regular performance opportunities for students. These take the form of school based ensembles e.g. class band / choir, school band / orchestra / choir or through One Education Music's Activities Programme. There are presently 65 ensembles delivered in Music Centres and a further 60 that are delivered in schools. Approx 4500 pupils attend these ensembles weekly. The Junior Royal Northern College of Music, Chetham's School of Music and the Halle also offer ensemble programmes for gifted and talented pupils and it is an ambition of the Hub, through closer partnership working, to increase the number of pupils from the City of Manchester in these programmes. The hub also has the potential to identify and support hard to reach pupils who may not be attending school, for example Brighter Sound's strategic and delivery focus in relation to the Hub will be children in challenging circumstances. The monitoring required by Arts Council England regarding data capture of children and young people accessing hub activity is detailed and will provide challenges, however it should also be helpful in providing a more comprehensive picture of how children and young people are accessing music across the city and their progression routes. Manchester Music Education Hub will officially begin operating in September 2012 although the media launch was held at the Bridgewater Hall on July 5th at the annual "Big Sing" event when over 1500 pupils celebrated the culture of Manchester Music. The communications strategy for the Music Hub includes the development of a new website aimed at young people and families - 'MY HUB'. The site is currently under development and aims to be operational in September 2012. Case Studies Library Theatre Company HMF Community Theatre HMF Theatre is the Library Theatre Company's community theatre company for people living in the city of Manchester. It's the opportunity for anybody aged over 18 to get involved in theatre, to develop their skills and create their own performances with the support of the team at the LTC. The group was set up in 2011 and originally engaged with adults living in Hulme, Moss Side and Fallowfield. More recently we have opened the group up to include people from across Manchester City Centre. The group meets weekly at Cornerhouse and takes part in performance skills workshop. The participants have the opportunity to work with different theatre practitioners allowing them to experience varying theatre techniques. HMF Community Theatre Company makes theatre that is reflective on their own lives and their place with in the rich history of Manchester. They devise and write their own work, which we aim to perform in local community spaces. The company performed a play on a stall on King's Street at the Christmas Market. The show received coverage form the MEN newspaper and BBC Manchester radio and drew in large crowds each evening. It was a challenging but rewarding experience for all involved.  I can't tell you how much confidence I have gained from being part of HMF. I still can't believe I stood on a market stall at Christmas and performed to people in the street. I never would have been able to do something like that before joining the company. - Pamela  It is great to mix with such a diverse group of people. It is such a warm and welcoming group, I don't suppose I would normally meet people like this in my everyday live. And the fact we all get on and support each other is such a nice feeling. - Liam  I look forward to coming every week! I'm getting on a bit now and there's not much else that is this interesting in my life. I love seeing everyone each week and have really grown in confidence with my performing. - Shamza The Storybox Project The project delivers creative storytelling workshops for older people with Alzheimer's and dementia, as well as offering training for artists and carers. The Library Theatre Company and Manchester University will then evidence the impact of creative activity on the participants' wellbeing. The project is being delivered over three years with funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. The idea is to use music, props and costume to support make-believe worlds for stories to be told in and acted out. Artists Sara Cocker and Lowri Evans chose themes that were accessible, evocative and with filmic qualities; such as 'A Hollywood Premiere', 'A Seaside Pier' or 'A Western Saloon'. These archetypal themes were easy for participants to relate to; as well as play in. The emphasis of the sessions is on the present. Whilst naturally the stimulus evokes memories and there is space to share these: Storybox is not a reminiscence project. Working with personal memories can be frustrating or confusing to people with dementia, so the sessions were designed to be a celebration of the moment. This has a fun, freeing effect on the participants where there is no right and wrong, and each participant is made to feel valued and valid. Over three years of running the project 30 art practitioners have been specially trained and over 300 people have participated. Older people are showing improvement in their well being and as well as reduced isolation. The project has increased arts activities for older people at LTC, which has increased the number of carers who believe in the benefits of cultural activities. Leaving a legacy of practical activities, creative ideas and a person-centred approach is an essential part of the project. Later in the year there will be training events for artists and carers offering specific skills and advice for working with the arts and older people. Lime Arts Give Get GO! - Volunteering Campaign for Manchester's Joint Health Unit. In April 2010, Lime was approached by the Joint Health Unit to run workshops across the city to create art for a print media campaign on the mental well-being benefits of volunteering. There were 34 workshops conducted by five artists working in different disciples. The workshops included several day long workshops at a project cost of £16,800 (plus printing costs, which were covered via the council JHU), which attracted a total of 60 participants. The event was able to produced 60 bus stop poster; postcards. 1000 z-cards; 1000 A3 posters; 1000 A4 posters; a short film by Shawe Thing; a series of 6 sculptures at City Centre Project and a series of self portraits at Manchester Foyer. The body of works produced from the project was exhibited on 30th October 2010 at 2 events in Manchester. People's History Museum Manchester City South Housing Association The tour was designed in collaboration with Niall Power Head of Regeneration at City South. The Housing Association have been working with a number of cultural venues in Manchester including the Royal Exchange, Library Theatre, Whitworth Art gallery and Contact, so it seemed apt to connect with them as a provider to promote PHM's wellbeing programme. After attending a regeneration meeting and presenting an overview of the museum; its activities, programmes and exhibition spaces, the team expressed an interest in developing a programme that supports their more active residents in promoting the museum to other residents living in the community with a view to improving neighbourhood relations and community cohesion. The Group City South recruited 17 people to attend the day who came from the following wards:-  Hulme  Fallowfield  Mosside  Salford The group was made up of young people and adults many of whom had not visited the museum for a long time and the majority were visiting for the first time. It was also the first time they'd met as a group. The Activity The tour was designed as a taster session to sample and experience the Living History performance, a tour of the galleries and hands on session in the Learning Studio. It ended with a discussion about what they enjoyed and ideas for future sessions. Watching the performance of, No Bed of Roses, after a welcome and introduction, worked really well as a lead into the galleries and displays. The Living History session provoked emotion and curiosity in the group and helped to illustrate citizenship and themes explored in the gallery in an active way. Some people did not get past the Revolution section of the gallery they were so absorbed, whilst a few were happier to look around alone to take in the story. The hands on session - making clay parts inspired by the ceramics on display - was wonderfully received and helped the group to really gel. There was lots of laughter, joking and friendly banter. When asked if this bonding formed because they were in the PHM doing these activities as opposed to somewhere else the response was mixed. One person felt it could have taken place anywhere, more of the group said there was something about doing the activities in the People's History Museum, which is about ordinary people's history - 'people like me' and Manchester's history that helped the connections to be made in the group. Venture Arts Horace Horace does not access any support from the community or from services. Up until 3 years ago he was looking after his mother who was suffering from dementia - the responsibilities for him were enormous and life was not easy. His mother died 3 years ago. This was an incredibly difficult time for him and he always came to Venture Arts, but he didn't seem to get any other help along the way; no grief counselling or support. He now lives with his elderly father and they look after each other to a certain extent but, for Horace, life at home has been difficult for many years. He has been attending Venture Arts for over twenty years and this really has been a life line for him. Without us he would undoubtedly have spent much of his life behind closed doors. In his time at Venture Arts he has been involved in a huge variety of arts projects. He is very creative and hugely talented. He likes to express ideas that are important to him through his art work. More recently he trained to become a Venture Arts 'learning mentor, helping to teach art to young people in schools. This was a milestone for him as a person as he has never had any sort of a job before. In his words: 'My life would have been nothing without Venture Arts.' 'There are over 1.5 million adults with learning disabilities in England, around 10% of who are currently known to social services' Thanks to coming to Venture Arts every day and living in his local community Horace is well known and loved by many around him. We feel that we can provide long term support for some who are not in care. Karen Karen has not had an easy time in life. She has a learning disability and physical disabilities. Karen was brought up by her parents but moved from her parent's house over 25 years ago. From that time her life was unsettled and she was moved from home to home. Having suffered all her adult life with people not understanding her needs or giving her appropriate services, things hit breaking point about two years ago when people in charge of her care accused her of being 'wicked and attention seeking'. Her sister eventually stepped in and moved Karen into her home. Karen has been attending Venture Arts for the past eight years. For her, through this time we have been the only 'constant' in her life ', a place where she can express herself and feels she is doing something useful, where she feels proud of her achievements, where she feels that she is not different from everybody else. Despite what others have accused her of, we have always got on with Karen like a house on fire - she is funny and charming, will most likely be found chatting away and making every one feel at home. As her sister has said 'Karen reacts badly when she is being treated badly'. At Venture Arts Karen has been involved in many arts projects and has exhibited her work professionally in 3 major exhibitions. She is extremely proud of this. She has also helped us to design our new leaflet and always plays an important role in steering group meetings. Now that Karen is living with her sister, she is over the moon, she absolutely loves it and it seems, at last, that she has love, consistency and stimulation in her life. We find that when people are having a hard time in their lives, (which comes with the territory if you happen to have been born with a learning disability) we are proud to be the friendly faces - the people who aren't involved in the 'services', the getaway where people can learn and develop as they wish and meet up with their friends in a supportive environment. Victoria Baths Olympic Swimming Screen / Swimming Art Competition Victoria Baths hosted the Olympic Swimming Screen to bring people together to celebrate Olympic Swimming past, present and future, engaging local families and the community. We put up a big screen in our Females Pool and screened the first evening of Olympic Swimming (28th July) - an open, free event targeted particularly at local residents and Manchester's swimming community. People were invited to explore the building and/or take a guided tour before the screening (tours for Tung Sing tenants were translated into Chinese). Your Housing, who own Grove Village and Tung Sing, sponsored the event and advertised it directly to their tenants. The local schools were invited to take part in a Swimming Art competition in the run up to the event. Entries were displayed on the night and prizes were presented. Jess Lloyd (one of Team GB's youngest swimmers) also visited and met Yr 5 children from Plymouth Grove School, and did a Q&A session. It was a great evening resulting in a mixed audience with positive numbers from the target groups, with a great atmosphere and with positive feedback. Z-Arts Sat'dy Allsorts Sat'dy Allsorts is a music-making project that has been running for 3 years and is very well known within the community. The young people targeted are 10-18 year olds who are interested in music-making from all across Greater Manchester but principally from the Hulme/Moss Side area. The project encourages musical talent and potential in young people encompassing those in challenging circumstances by delivering weekly workshops in music making; focusing on songwriting and performance. It offers free creative activity and raises aspirations to flourish creative talent. The activities take place at Z-arts; during regular Saturday morning weekly workshops, as well as outside touring to other youth-centred venues and festivals. Each session is 2 hours long with increased activity during festival periods and running up to performances. This gives participants a sense of continuity and support. Young people in these areas are too used to having projects stop when funding runs out, which they report as leaving them with a sense of being "forgotten" and "left behind". Sat'dy Allsorts also have access to the Z-arts recording studio and equipment so they can record tracks, as well as access to computers and production software so they can produce their tracks and access to PA equipment, microphones and rehearsal space so they can practice. The Mac Suite at Zion is equipped with six AppleMacs, with Logic, Garageband, Final Cut Express and the iLife suite. Access to this, alongside instruction in the different programmes is an essential part of this project. Sat'dy Allsorts has improved the quality and standards of music delivery for children and young people and the provision for young people's musical opportunities has increased as a result of creative collaborations.	en
1119-pdf	# Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables For The 2012/2013 Academic Year ## Guidance Notes Date of issue 16 April 2014 Publication intent NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Contents Section 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of this document ................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Apprenticeships national success rates tables ............................................ 2 Location of national success rates tables for 2012/2013 ..................................................... 2 Changes to the Apprenticeships national success rates tables ........................................... 2 Section 2 - Apprenticeships national success rates tables worksheets .................................. 3 Contents of the tables ......................................................................................................... 3 Format of the Apprenticeships national success rates tables .............................................. 3 Overall report .................................................................................................................. 3 Sector subject area and framework report ...................................................................... 4 Institution report for overall measure and timely measure ............................................... 4 Excluded framework report for overall and timely measure ............................................. 4 Section 3 - Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files ............................. 5 Format of Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files ........................ 5 Overall report .................................................................................................................. 5 Sector subject and framework report .............................................................................. 6 Institution report .............................................................................................................. 6 Excluded frameworks report ........................................................................................... 6 Section 4 - Contents of national success rates tables ............................................................ 7 Report columns .................................................................................................................. 7 Institution type ................................................................................................................ 7 Age group ....................................................................................................................... 7 Apprenticeship level and type ......................................................................................... 7 Framework name and framework code ........................................................................... 7 Sector subject area tier 1 and tier 2 ................................................................................ 8 Overall leavers and timely leavers .................................................................................. 8 Report measures ................................................................................................................ 8 Overall success rate ....................................................................................................... 8 Timely success rate ........................................................................................................ 8 Success rates percentiles ............................................................................................... 9 Section 5 - Exclusions from the national success rates tables ............................................. 10 Section 6 - Choosing information on the national success rates tables ................................ 11 Further information and help ................................................................................................. 12 ## Section 1 - Introduction Purpose of this document 1. This document provides information about the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for the 2012/2013 academic year. ## Purpose Of The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 2. The national success rates tables for Apprenticeships set out levels of success in Apprenticeships provision in England for the 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 academic years. We publish national success rates tables every year. 3. The information in the tables is consistent with the Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports for 2012/2013 published in January 2013. It expands upon the success-rate information made available in the January statistical first release (see www.gov.uk/government/publications/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-ofhighest-qualification-held). 4. Apprenticeships national success rates tables help providers to raise the standard of their work. It allows providers to assess their performance, and helps them plan action programmes to improve their apprentices' success rates. 5. Throughout this guidance we refer to 'national success rates tables' rather than 'benchmarking data'. National success rates tables allow for comparison, and are not a standard of best practice. ## Location Of National Success Rates Tables For 2012/2013 6. The national success rates tables for 2012/2013 are on the data.gov.uk website at [enter URL for website]. ## Changes To The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 7. The changes made to the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for 2011/2012 are as follows. - The information from the 2012/2013 Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports has been added to the national success rates tables for 2012/2013. - The information from the 2009/2010 Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports has been removed from the national success rates tables for 2012/2013. - For the first time we are publishing qualification success rates reports for providers, to help them measure their success. - Only funded framework aims are included in the success rates tables. ## Section 2 - Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Worksheets Contents Of The Tables 8. Our aim in publishing the Apprenticeships national success rates tables is to provide a useful but manageable amount of information, drawing on existing statistics. 9. The information for the Apprenticeships national success rates tables has been created from providers' Individualised Learner Record (ILR) returns, and they provide a range of national-level and provider-level statistics for success. The method of calculating success rates is available on the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-success-rates-2012- to-2013. 10. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables contain information on success rates for three academic years (2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013). The information for each academic year comes from the success rates dataset produced for that year, calculated using the method that applied to that year. 11. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are calculated using the 'overall' success rate and 'timely' success rate. The timely success rate is only shown on the provider-level report. ## Format Of The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 12. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are published as four compressed files. Each compressed file holds a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that contains a number of worksheets. The separate spreadsheets are: - Overall report; - Sector subject area and framework report; - Institution report for overall measure and timely measure; and - Excluded framework report for overall and timely measure. The contents of the spreadsheets are shown below. ## Overall Report 13. The overall report contains separate worksheets that show national success rates at headline level, which is an overview of all national success rates. This report also presents the success rates by: - sex; - learning difficulty or disability; - ethnic background; - apprentices' local authority (based on the apprentices' home postcodes); and - the local authority for where the learning is delivered (based on the postcode of the providers' delivery locations). 14. The overall report also shows success rates percentiles on a separate worksheet. For a further explanation of success rates percentiles and how they are calculated, see paragraphs 47 to 52. The report shows percentiles at headline level and by: - ethnic background; - sex; and - learning difficulty or disability. 15. Percentile sheets for apprentices' and delivery locations' local authorities have not been included in the overall report as the dataset contains many small groupings (cohorts), which would have a significant effect on the rates presented. ## Sector Subject Area And Framework Report 16. The sector subject area and framework report contains worksheets that show the national success rates by: - sector subject area tier 1 and 2; and - framework. ## Institution Report For Overall Measure And Timely Measure 17. The institution report contains worksheets that show the success rates of each institution at headline level, which is a high-level overview of the overall success rates for each provider, by: - sex; - ethnic background; - learning difficulty or disability; - sector subject area; and - framework. 18. The hybrid end date (which is the actual end date or the planned end date, whichever is later) is shown for the overall success rate and the planned end date is shown for the timely success rate. 19. The sector subject area and framework reports could be split by year over separate worksheets if you go over the row limit of 65,536 in Excel 2003. 20. A timely success rate report is published for the first time in 2012/2013. This shows timely national success rates for providers in the same worksheet format as the institutions' overall national success rates reports. ## Excluded Framework Report For Overall And Timely Measure 21. Due to the rules described in section 5, the full coverage of frameworks delivered nationally, and at institution level, is not available in the national- and institution-level framework spreadsheets for the overall success rates. 22. The excluded frameworks are published in the excluded framework worksheets to allow the full scope of frameworks delivery to be seen. The report indicates the reasons for the particular frameworks being excluded. It is split into four worksheets: - Excluded Apprenticeship frameworks at national level for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013; - 2010/2011 overall excluded frameworks for institutions; - 2011/2012 overall excluded frameworks for institutions; and - 2012/2013 overall excluded frameworks for institutions. 23. As the timely success rate is only being published for the institution report, excluded frameworks at institution level will be shown in the timely excluded frameworks report along with the reasons for the exclusions. The report is split into three worksheets: - 2010/2011 timely excluded frameworks for institutions; - 2011/2012 timely excluded frameworks for institutions; and - 2012/2013 timely excluded frameworks for institutions. 24. The excluded frameworks for institutions are displayed by year on separate worksheets as the volume of data goes over the Excel 2003 row limit of 65,536. ## Section 3 - Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Open Data Files Format Of Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Open Data Files 25. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are also published in a non-proprietary format to make sure they meet the 'three-star open data standard'. The comma-separated variable (CSV) file is our preferred non-proprietary format. For more information on open data, see the published white paper written by the Cabinet Office. This is on the website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-white-paperunleashing-the-potential. 26. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files are published as 27 separate compressed files. The contents of each file, and where the information comes from, are listed below. ## Overall Report 27. There are 10 files containing data from the overall report worksheets explained in paragraphs 13 and 14. - NSRT201 - headline success rates - NSRT202 - headline percentiles - NSRT203 - success rates by gender - NSRT204 - percentiles by gender - NSRT205 - success rates by ethnic background - NSRT206 - percentiles by ethnic background - NSRT207 - success rates by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT208 - percentiles by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT209 - success rates by apprentices' local authority - NSRT210 - success rates by delivery locations' local authority. ## Sector Subject And Framework Report 28. The sector subject area and framework report worksheets explained in paragraph 16 is published as two files listed below. - NSRT211 - sector subject area and framework success rate - NSRT212 - sector subject area success rates. (All the sector subject area worksheets are in this file.) ## Institution Report 29. There are 12 files containing the institution report worksheets explained in paragraphs 1 to 20. - NSRT213 - overall headline success rates for the institution - NSRT214 - overall success rates for the institution by gender - NSRT215 - overall success rates for the institution by ethnic background - NSRT216 - overall success rates for the institution by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT217 - overall sector subject area success rates for the institution - NSRT218 - overall framework success rates for the institution - NSRT222 - timely headline success rates for the institution - NSRT223 - timely success rates for the institution by gender - NSRT224 - timely success rates for the institution by ethnic background - NSRT225 - timely success rates for the institution by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT226 - timely sector subject area success rates for the institution - NSRT227 - timely framework success rates for the institution ## Excluded Frameworks Report 30. There are three files containing excluded frameworks report worksheets as explained in paragraphs 21 and 24. - NSRT219 - overall excluded national frameworks - NSRT220 - overall excluded institution frameworks - NSRT221 - timely excluded institution frameworks 31. All the excluded institution framework worksheets are in a single file. ## Section 4 - Contents Of National Success Rates Tables 32. This section explains the columns in the Apprenticeships national success rates tables worksheets. ## Report Columns Institution Type 33. Providers are classified into one of six institution types. The institution types reported on are as follows. - General further-education or tertiary college - Other publicly funded institution - Private-sector publicly funded institution - School - Sixth-form college - Specialist college 34. The 'specialist college' category includes agriculture and horticulture colleges, and art, design and performing arts colleges. An 'all institution type' category is also available on some of the worksheets. ## Age Group 35. The age group of a cohort is based on an apprentice's age on the start date of the framework aim. Apprentices of unknown age are included in the 25 and over age group. Apprentices under 16 are included in the 16 to 18 age group. All tables show information divided into the following age groups. - 16 to 18 - 19 to 24 - 25 and over - All ages ## Apprenticeship Level And Type 36. Apprenticeships are grouped according to their level and type. The Apprenticeship levels and types reported on are as follows. - Level 2 - intermediate Apprenticeship - Level 3 - advanced-level Apprenticeship - level 4 + - higher-level Apprenticeships (this includes level-4 and level-5 Apprenticeships) - All levels and types ## Framework Name And Framework Code 37. The framework name and framework code of an Apprenticeship is in the learning aim reference application (LARA). ## Sector Subject Area Tier 1 And Tier 2 38. The sector subject area tier 1 and sector subject area tier 2 for an Apprenticeship framework are in the data lookup used in the October 2013 statistical first release and qualification success rate reports. ## Overall Leavers And Timely Leavers 39. The 'overall leavers' column shows the number of Apprenticeships that are planned to be completed, or have actually completed, within a given academic year. 40. The 'timely leavers' column shows the number of Apprenticeships that are expected to be completed by the planned end date, or within 90 days of the planned end date, within a given academic year. 41. A 'leaver' is defined as an apprentice who: - has not transferred to a different programme with the same provider; - has not transferred to another provider due to intervention by us or the Education Funding Agency; - is not on a planned break; and - has not withdrawn within the first six weeks of study. 42. The number of leavers in a sub-cohort (a distinct group of apprentices within a cohort) may not add up to the total number of apprentices in the cohort because: - the number of leavers is rounded to the nearest 10 at all levels; and - small cohorts of leavers (fewer than five) are not included in the published tables. ## Report Measures 43. The overall and timely success rates are calculated in line with our Apprenticeship qualifications success rates business rules and methods. These are on the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-successrates-2012-to-2013. ## Overall Success Rate 44. The overall success rate measures the percentage of Apprenticeship frameworks achieved against the overall number of Apprenticeship frameworks completed. The overall success rate is based on the hybrid end year. The hybrid end year is the actual learning end year or the planned learning end year, whichever is later. 45. The definition of 'leaver' in paragraph 41 is also used to exclude Apprenticeship frameworks from the calculation of the overall success rate. ## Timely Success Rate 46. For the first time, the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for 2012/2013 provide a limited set of information for providers using the timely success rate. The timely success rate measures the percentage of Apprenticeship frameworks that were achieved by their planned end date, or within 90 days after their planned end date, against the number of frameworks that were expected to be completed. The exclusions for the overall success rate also apply to the timely success rate. ## Success Rates Percentiles 47. Success rates percentiles allow providers to compare their results against the range for their sector or particular types of provider. One way of interpreting percentiles is as follows. - Providers with a success rate on or above the 90th percentile are in the top 10% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate on or above the 75 percentile are in the top 25% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate on or above the 50 percentile are in the top 50% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate below or on the 25 percentile are in the bottom 25% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate below or on the 10 percentile are in the bottom 10% of providers. 48. This is illustrated by the following table. A provider with a success rate of 45% would be in the bottom 10% of providers, whereas a provider with a success rate of 76% would be in the top 25% of providers. \| Percentile \| Example overall \| \|----------------\|--------------------\| \| success rate \| \| \| 10 \| 46.5% \| \| 25 \| 59.4% \| \| 50 \| 68.6% \| \| 75 \| 74.5% \| \| 90 \| 81.3% \| 49. An alternative way of looking at this for provider types is that: - the top 10% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 90th percentile; th - the top 25% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 75 percentile; th - the top 50% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 50 percentile; th - the bottom 25% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate below or on the 25 percentile; and th - the bottom 10% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate below or on the 10 percentile. 50. Percentiles are calculated at provider level in order to display the differences between providers. This is different from the mean success rates, which are calculated as the mean rate for all the relevant leavers, averaging each leaver equally. 51. When calculating percentiles, the success rate for each provider is used to create an average. This means that apprentices with smaller providers have a greater bearing on results than those from larger providers. The results for small groupings, such as Apprenticeships being studied in sixth-form colleges, will be affected by the average. 52. Both the mean success rate and the percentiles are valid and useful measures, depending on whether you are interested in the overall performance of the sector (consider mean success rates) or the differences between providers (consider percentiles). ## Section 5 - Exclusions From The National Success Rates Tables 53. The rules on excluding small cohorts, suppressing figures and rounding figures in the success rates worksheets are listed below. - Cohorts with fewer than five 'overall leavers' are not shown on any worksheets. - Cohorts with five or more 'overall leavers' but fewer than 30 have the number of leavers replaced with a dash (–). - The number of overall leavers is rounded to the nearest 10. This prevents the possibility of individual apprentices being identified. 54. The rules on exclusions, suppressions and rounded figures on the percentiles worksheet are listed below. - If there are 20 or more providers, the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles are shown on the worksheet. th - If there are between 11 and 19 providers, only the 50 percentile is shown on the worksheet. - If there are 10 or fewer providers, no percentiles are shown on the worksheet. 55. Where individual framework success rates are reported, if a framework is only delivered at a single institution, the framework is not included in the report. This affects the overall report (framework success rate worksheet) and the institution report (success rates for institutions by framework) worksheet for both the overall success rates and timely success rates. Any frameworks that are excluded are listed in the excluded frameworks report worksheets, together with the reasons why they are excluded. 56. As rows on the framework spreadsheet are excluded, the total of the leavers for the individual institution types may be less than the number of leavers for the 'all institution type' row. The excluded institution types are shown in the excluded frameworks report spreadsheets, together with the reason for them being excluded. ## Section 6 - Choosing Information On The National Success Rates Tables 57. The success rate data is presented as a series of rows in Excel worksheets. Each row shows the success rate of a specific cohort of apprentices. Summary information is shown at many levels (for example, all ages, all Apprenticeship levels, all institution types). All the columns in the worksheets contain drop-down menus that allow you to choose the information you want. 58. The screenshot below shows an example of how the information will appear in the headline success rate worksheet of the overall report. 59. The drop-down menus are used to choose the level of information. The screenshot below shows the effect of using the drop-down menus to choose success rates broken down by age for all Apprenticeship levels for 2012/2013. ## Further Information And Help 60. If you would like any more information about the Apprenticeship national success rates tables, phone our service desk on 0870 267 0001 or email servicedesk@sfa.bis.gov.uk. 61. We produce Apprenticeships national success rates tables in line with our Apprenticeship qualifications success rates business rules. The business rules and technical specifications are on the success rate pages of the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-success-rates-2012- to-2013. 62. If you need more help, give our service desk a detailed explanation of your query. Published by: Skills Funding Agency Version: 1.0 Date: 16 April 2014	en
1407-pdf	## Office Of Rail Regulation # Minutes Of The First Session Of The 93Rd Board Meeting On 29 April 20131 ## (14:00 - 18:30) In Room 1, Orr Offices, One Kemble Street, London Board present: Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Peter Bucks, Mark Fairbairn Mike Lloyd, Stephen Nelson, Ray O'Toole, and Steve Walker. Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Michael Beswick (Director, Rail Policy), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Alan Price (Director, Railway Planning and Performance), and Cathryn Ross (Director of Railway Markets and Economics) In attendance, all items: Dan Brown (Director, Strategy), Richard Emmott (Interim Director, External Affairs), Carl Hetherington (Deputy Director, RME), John Larkinson (PR13 programme Director, Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), and Gary Taylor (Assistant. Board Secretary). In attendance, specific items: Richard Gusanie (PR13 project manager), Andrew Wallace (Head of Planning and Operations), Sue Johnston (Deputy Director, RSD), Chris Fieldsend (Industry Planning manager), Jonathan Hulme (Financial analyst), Richard Fitter (Financial Analyst) ## Item 1: Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies for absence. ## Item 2: Declarations Of Interest 2. There were no declarations of interest. ## Item 3: Pr13 - Decisions Relating To The Content Of The Draft Determination 3. Richard Price introduced the item. The Board had spent a great deal of time discussing and debating elements of the CP5 package both in Board meetings and through the PR13 Committee (PRC). The executive had listened carefully to all of those discussions and held extensive debates internally. They believed that the package presented met the Board's intentions and struck a good balance between setting tough targets and allowing sufficient flexibility for Network Rail (NR) to manage its business and to deliver additional benefits through good management. The proposal still included a number of scoped options where the Board's judgement would be sought and applied. In particular the Board would be clearly shown areas where the evidence was not good enough to support a strong recommendation or where the executive had not reached consensus on a recommendation, and they would be asked to reach judgements. There was a day and a half of meetings scheduled and it was important that decisions were reached so that the timetable for publication could be met. Overall it was a robust, well developed package and he commended it to the Board. ## 4. John Larkinson explained how he would take the Board through the agenda. He had confidence that the overall package would stand up well to scrutiny but it was important that the Board took this opportunity to test and challenge the proposals as this would be the last chance to do so before the final run of the financial model which would populate the draft determination document. To that end, all the project leads would be available to answer any questions from the Board on the detail of the proposal or the process that had led to a particular recommendation. 5. The Section 4 duties and the guidance from the Secretary of State and the Scottish Minister had been circulated with the Board papers as a refresher for Board members. At each significant point John would explain how the Executive had applied the duties and guidance in reaching their recommendations. 6. Cathryn Ross reminded the Board that they were required to consider the framework of ministerial guidance and S4 duties, but that they were constrained in some other areas - such as by the Access and Management Regulations. [The rest of this section has been redacted from the published minutes because it relates to the formulation of policy] ## Evening Session Item 8 Of The Board Agenda From 30 April Network Rail Performance And Remco Letter 71. Alan Price explained that ORR wrote each year to NRs Remuneration committee with our initial assessment of NRs performance for the year so they could take this into account when considering management performance. A draft had been circulated with the Board papers. Paragraphs 72-75 to be redacted as they contain sensitive information Redaction ends 76. The Chair and Chief Executive should agree a revised draft and the Chair should sign the letter. It should be copied to the Board. ## Board 29.04.2013 Action Ii: Revised Letter To Nr Chair To Be Circulated To The Board After Sending. Anna Walker Chair Minutes approved by the Board on 21 May 2013	en
4583-pdf	## Department Of Health Permanent Secretaries Meetings With External Organisations 1 October - 31 December 2011 Meetings With External Organisations (Including Meetings With Newspaper And Other Media Proprietors, Editors And Senior Executives)1 Permanent Secretary Department of Health, Una O'Brien Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 McKinsey Catch up October 2011 Macmillan Cancer Care Catch up October 2011 Edward Troup Catch up October 2011 McKinsey To discuss Monitor To discuss DH and service user voice November 2011 Royal National Institute for the Blind, MacMillan, Carers UK, Marie Curie, National Association of LINKs members, National Voices, NCH, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, MIND, Age UK, Men's Health Forum November 2011 Odgers Berntson appointments November 2011 NHS Confederation Catch up December 2011 Royal College of Surgeons Catch up NHS Chief Executive, David Nicholson Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 Diabetes UK Update Discussion Discussion of NHS Innovation Review November 2011 Higher Education Funding Council for England & Oxford University Update Discussion November 2011 National Association of Primary Care (NAPC) November 2011 NAPC & NHS Alliance Update Discussion December 2011 NHS Confederation Update Discussion Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies DBE Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 Medical Research Council Update October 2011 The Welcome Trust and Glaxo SmithKline Informal Dinner discussion Development of the South-East Biosciences Cluster October 2011 Faculty of Public Health (FPH) Regular Catch Up November 2011 The Wellcome Trust Update on Research Matters Update Meeting November 2011 University College London Institute of Health Equity November 2011 McKinsey Update on Life Sciences November 2011 FPH, Royal Society of Public Update on Public Health and Public Health England Health (RSPH) and Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) Update on Public Health November 2011 London Assembly Advisor on Health November 2011 Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Regular update discussion meeting items covered the new system, education and Public Health December 2011 Medical Schools Council Discussion with speakers wide ranging Agenda, including research, education and public health December 2011 FPH, RSPH and ADPH Update on Public Health England December 2011 UK Network of Health Promotion Academics, Open University and Anglia Ruskin University. Meeting to discuss importance of Health Promotion professional education and expertise in research and the evidence base December 2011 Age Exchange Update meeting on their work December 2011 General Medical Council Regular Update Meeting Regular Update Meeting December 2011 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Update Meeting December 2011 Advisory Committee for the Regius Professorship of Physic	en
4511-pdf	\| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| Transaction Reference \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\|------------\|-------------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| ATHRODAX HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL LTD \| 1111678 \| 30,712.50 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 1118272 \| 78,660.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BAYER PLC \| 1123219 \| 78,660.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| BIGHAND LTD \| 1124202 \| 33,543.54 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| BIGHAND LTD \| 1124359 \| (33,543.54) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| BIGHAND LTD \| 1124360 \| 31,547.48 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 1126146 \| 4,052,101.92 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 1126010 \| 1,059.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 1126010 \| 32,033.08 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| CSL BEHRING UK LTD \| 1116954 \| 34,125.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 EDMS PROJECT \| EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS \| EDM GROUP LTD \| 1124910 \| 35,557.47 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1122089 \| 10,708.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1122089 \| 64,770.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1124200 \| 8,244.05 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1124200 \| 78,644.22 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1126006 \| 5,398.10 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1126006 \| 72,875.03 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1127940 \| 9,102.65 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| HCL DOCTORS \| 1127940 \| 116,411.70 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HEALTHCARE AT HOME LTD \| 1119774 \| 54,240.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 1123122 \| 74,460.90 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 1123122 \| 13,503.98 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| AUC ADDITIONS \| JCP CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD \| 1117634 \| 62,658.30 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 MYH TELECOMS \| DATA LINES \| KCOM \| 1101239 \| 37,611.94 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| BUSINESS RATES \| KIRKLEES COUNCIL \| 1126478 \| 70,892.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD \| 1116467 \| 513,747.07 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 GASTROENTEROLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| MEDINET CLINICAL SERVICES LTD \| 1112144 \| 26,093.08 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS \| PACEMAKERS \| MEDTRONIC LTD \| 1115682 \| 51,120.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| MERZ PHARMA UK LTD \| 1115983 \| 48,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| MINDRAY (UK) LTD \| 1117754 \| 63,451.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 GENERAL OFFICE PGH \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| NEOPOST LTD \| 1126307 \| 30,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 MYH TELECOMS \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| NETCALL TELECOM LIMITED \| 1121441 \| 68,061.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 45312 \| 125,927.58 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 45313 \| 40,305.83 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR \| NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY \| 44826 \| 102,575.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/12/2017 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 45630 \| 47,351.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/12/2017 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 45631 \| 2,287,821.36 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1119461 \| 111,307.18 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1119461 \| 6,544.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1121583 \| 104,269.76 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1121583 \| 3,125.52 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1121594 \| 148,027.12 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1122086 \| 148,668.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1122326 \| 37,526.20 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1122498 \| 31,719.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1122499 \| 31,249.43 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1124189 \| 149,476.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125237 \| 99,345.18 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125237 \| 4,219.24 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125336 \| 105,409.56 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125336 \| 3,512.17 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125338 \| 93,285.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1125994 \| 243,202.56 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1127310 \| 118,962.17 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD \| 1127310 \| 3,207.96 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45099 \| 34,638.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45100 \| 174,783.77 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45156 \| 33,914.66 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45160 \| 155,483.38 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45266 \| 174,817.68 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45269 \| 36,387.75 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45335 \| 40,420.13 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45336 \| 173,238.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45445 \| 38,905.43 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45446 \| 151,145.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45497 \| 174,407.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 45499 \| 30,661.06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 A&E PGH & PGI \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| NORTHERN HEALTH LTD \| 1115003 \| 26,928.00 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\|-----------\|-------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 1114460 \| 80,193.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 1116885 \| 80,302.78 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| OLYMPUS KEYMED GROUP \| 1113820 \| 26,379.94 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| OLYMPUS KEYMED GROUP \| 1117825 \| (26,379.94) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 SLEEP SERVICE \| MED & SURG EQUIP \| PHILIPS RESPIRONICS \| 1123332 \| 33,585.67 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 07/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| QX LIMITED \| 1124400 \| 67,372.47 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| QX LIMITED \| 1126801 \| 110,324.06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| QX LIMITED \| 1128759 \| 89,525.54 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE \| AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL \| QX LIMITED \| 1130260 \| 93,425.01 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 1117402 \| 65,453.52 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 1119752 \| 64,400.64 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 1121800 \| 28,290.24 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| STRYKER UK LTD \| 1113659 \| 41,820.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 FACILITIES DDH \| EXT CONTR LAUNDRY \| SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD \| 1115290 \| 25,322.47 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/12/2017 BLOOD SCIENCES NON PAY \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| SYSMEX UK LTD \| 1115440 \| 167,928.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BLOOD SCIENCES NON PAY \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| SYSMEX UK LTD \| 1123595 \| 184,601.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 SPEC NURSES - NEUROLOGY \| NURSE BAND 6 \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 43689 \| 38,158.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 44404 \| 36,778.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW \| CONSULTANT \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 44404 \| 2,141.42 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 44837 \| 36,591.83 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 45240 \| 36,591.83 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 STRATEGY & PLANNING \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 45256 \| 178,909.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/12/2017 RADIOLOGY MEDICAL STAFFING \| SPECIALIST REGISTRAR \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 45525 \| 45,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 45560 \| (38,614.59) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| UNISON \| 44259 \| 62,696.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| BUSINESS RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 1126492 \| 32,054.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/12/2017 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| BUSINESS RATES \| WAKEFIELD COUNCIL \| 1126493 \| 180,375.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD \| 1121596 \| 38,991.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD \| 1121597 \| 41,740.69 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 29/12/2017 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| AUDIT FEES: INTERNAL \| YORK TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 45583 \| 34,375.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 19/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S < 1YR \| EDEN RED \| 64910 \| 44,844.57 \|	en
2766-pdf	## Food Hygiene Rating Scheme The scheme helps you choose where to eat out or shop for food by giving you clear information about the businesses' hygiene standards. We run the scheme in partnership with local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The scheme gives businesses a rating from 5 to 0 which is displayed at their premises and online so you can make more informed choices about where to buy and eat food. 5 - hygiene standards are very good 4 - hygiene standards are good 3 - hygiene standards are generally satisfactory 2 - some improvement is necessary 1 - major improvement is necessary 0 - urgent improvement is required ## Search For Food Hygiene Ratings The scheme is set out in law in Wales and Northern Ireland but display of the rating sticker is voluntary in England. Food Hygiene Rating Sticker with a rating of five ## What The Rating Covers Ratings are a snapshot of the standards of food hygiene found at the time of inspection. It is the responsibility of the business to comply with food hygiene law at all times. This includes: handling of food how food is stored how food is prepared cleanliness of facilities how food safety is managed The food hygiene rating scheme does not provide information on the following factors: quality of the food customer service culinary skill presentation comfort For suspected food poisoning, seek medical advice from your GP and contact your local environmental health or food safety team. ## Understanding Ratings The rating shows how well the business is doing overall, based on standards found at the time of inspection. The ratings can be found online and on stickers which are displayed at business premises. The back of the sticker and the online rating will also show the date of the inspection by the local authority's food safety officer. Ratings are typically given to places where food is supplied, sold or consumed, such as: restaurants, pubs and cafes takeaways, food vans and stalls canteens and hotels supermarkets and other food shops schools, hospitals and care homes A food safety officer from the local authority inspects a business to check that it follows food hygiene law so that the food is safe to eat. At the inspection, the officer will check the following three elements: how hygienically the food is handled - how it is prepared, cooked, re-heated, cooled and stored the physical condition of the business –including cleanliness, layout, lighting, ventilation, pest control and other facilities how the business manages ways of keeping food safe, looking at processes, training and systems to ensure good hygiene is maintained. The officer can then assess the level of confidence in standards being maintained in the future ## Exemptions There are two groups of exempt businesses which are inspected by the local authority food safety officer but are not given a food hygiene rating: businesses that are low-risk to public health, for example, newsagents, chemist shops or visitor centres selling pre-wrapped goods that do not require refrigeration childminders and businesses that offer caring services at home ## The Rating Scale The hygiene standards found at the time of inspection are then rated on a scale: 5 is top of the scale, this means the hygiene standards are very good and fully comply with the law 0 is at the bottom of the scale, this means urgent improvement is necessary To get the top rating, businesses must do well in all three elements which are referenced above. If the top rating is not given, the officer will explain to the business the necessary actions they can take to improve their hygiene rating. A breakdown of the three elements making up the food hygiene rating for business is also provided with the online rating. This information is available for businesses inspected since April 2016 in England and Northern Ireland and for businesses inspected in Wales since November 2014. Detailed information is included in the food safety officer's inspection report. If you want to see this you could make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the local authority that carried out the inspection. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business. The local authority will consider your FOI request and will usually send you a copy of the report. In some cases, the local authority may decide that they cannot do so but will let you know this and explain why. Any concerns relating to a business's food safety can be reported to the local food safety team who are responsible for the business. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business. ## Finding A Rating Browse our ratings online. Ratings can be displayed in an obvious location within the business' window or door. You can also ask a member of staff what rating was given at the last inspection. Putting a hygiene rating on show is a good advertisement for businesses that meet the requirements of food hygiene law. If the rating is low you can then choose to buy your food or meal from a place with a higher rating. Businesses in England do not have to display their rating at their premises but are encouraged to do so. Businesses in Wales are legally required to display their ratings in a prominent place, like the front door, entrance or window of the business. All businesses in Wales must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone. The scheme applies to businesses who sell to businesses including food manufacturers and wholesalers. Takeaways must include a bilingual statement on menu leaflets and flyers which tells consumers how to find details of the rating on our website. Businesses in Northern Ireland are legally required to display their ratings at or near each customer entrance like the front door, entrance or window of the business. Stickers must be displayed in a location where they can be readily seen and easily read by customers before they enter the establishment when it is open for business. All businesses in Northern Ireland must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone. ## Differences Between Online Ratings And Rating Sticker Displayed There may be temporary differences between the rating displayed at a business and online rating for which there are valid reasons, such as: the business has appealed its latest rating and is awaiting the result the local authority is in the process of uploading the new rating to our website Even if a business achieves the top rating there can be a short delay while the local authority updates the website. Local authorities upload ratings at least every 28 days. If you cannot find a rating for business then you will need to contact the local authority responsible for inspecting the business. You should also contact the local authority if you are concerned that a business is deliberately displaying a higher rating to the one on the website to suggest it has higher hygiene standards than it actually does. Find your local authority food safety team. ## Businesses With Poor Ratings Businesses which are given low ratings must make urgent or major improvements to hygiene standards. The local authority food safety officer has several enforcement options available as well as giving advice and guidance to make sure these improvements are made. The food safety officer will also tell the business how quickly these improvements must be made and this will depend on the type of issue that needs to be addressed. If the officer finds that a business's hygiene standards are very poor and there is an imminent risk to public health, when food may be unsafe to eat, the officer must act to ensure consumers are protected. This could result in stopping part of the business or closing it down completely until it is safe to recommence. ## Frequency Of Inspections A new rating is given each time a business is inspected by a food safety officer from the business's local authority. Each local authority plans a programme of inspections every year. The frequency of inspections depends on the potential risk to public health. The assessment takes account of the following factors: type of food that is handled the number and type of customers, for example vulnerable groups types of processes carried out before the food is sold or served hygiene standards seen on the day of the last inspection Businesses that pose a higher risk are inspected more often than businesses that pose a lower risk, for example a small retailer selling a range of prepacked foods that only need to be refrigerated. The time between inspections varies from six months for the highest risk businesses to two years for lower risk businesses. For some very low risk businesses, the interval between inspections may be longer than two years, however there may be some exceptions to this. In between inspections, local authorities may also monitor businesses in other ways to ensure they are maintaining hygiene standards. If these checks reveal anything that might indicate that hygiene standards have deteriorated, the officer will carry out an inspection and the business will get a new rating. If the local authority receives a complaint or new information about a business that they are not due to inspect, and this suggests hygiene standards are not being maintained, the local authority will investigate and may inspect the business and give it a new hygiene rating.	en
0233-pdf	\| Organisation Name \| Purchase_Order_Number \| Order_Date \| Total_Value \| Supplier_Name \| Account_Name \| \|--------------------------\|-------------------------\|--------------\|------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057409 \| 01/04/2016 \| £13,975.00 JMHA \| PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057410 \| 01/04/2016 \| £5,350.00 TLC GARDEN SERVICES \| SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020358 \| 01/04/2016 \| £8,533.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020360 \| 01/04/2016 \| £12,253.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020361 \| 01/04/2016 \| £11,483.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020362 \| 01/04/2016 \| £11,044.67 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020363 \| 01/04/2016 \| £12,659.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020364 \| 01/04/2016 \| £12,210.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020365 \| 01/04/2016 \| £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020366 \| 01/04/2016 \| £31,848.00 WINGS SCHOOL EDUCATION LTD \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020368 \| 01/04/2016 \| £6,007.46 ROCHDALE SIXTH FORM COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020369 \| 01/04/2016 \| £12,294.62 HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020370 \| 01/04/2016 \| £21,675.00 ROSSENDALE SCHOOL PRIORY \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020371 \| 01/04/2016 \| £16,281.65 BRIGHT FUTURES SCHOOL LTD \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004594 \| 01/04/2016 \| £40,000.00 MERITEC LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057422 \| 04/04/2016 \| £10,363.00 ORCHARD RECYCLING SERVICE LTD \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057424 \| 04/04/2016 \| £21,048.25 THE RIVERSIDE GROUP LIMITED \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057431 \| 04/04/2016 \| £217,557.28 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD \| NEW CONSTRUCTION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057457 \| 04/04/2016 \| £9,143.54 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057468 \| 04/04/2016 \| £6,380.00 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD \| ROOF WORK/REPLACEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057469 \| 04/04/2016 \| £5,187.45 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER \| BASIC SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020375 \| 04/04/2016 \| £16,720.00 ARC SCHOOL \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020376 \| 04/04/2016 \| £11,344.66 BEECHKEYS CARE AND EDUCATION \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020377 \| 04/04/2016 \| £26,393.00 CEDAR HOUSE SCHOOL \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020378 \| 04/04/2016 \| £15,969.00 CUMBERLAND SCHOOL \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020379 \| 04/04/2016 \| £16,149.00 CUMBERLAND SCHOOL \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020380 \| 04/04/2016 \| £32,470.00 PONTVILLE SCHOOL \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020381 \| 04/04/2016 \| £12,139.34 ROYAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF DERBY \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020382 \| 04/04/2016 \| £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020383 \| 04/04/2016 \| £8,828.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020384 \| 04/04/2016 \| £16,038.83 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020385 \| 04/04/2016 \| £13,495.14 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020386 \| 04/04/2016 \| £8,745.88 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020387 \| 04/04/2016 \| £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020388 \| 04/04/2016 \| £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020389 \| 04/04/2016 \| £14,827.66 THE TOGETHER TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020390 \| 04/04/2016 \| £11,197.29 WATERLOO LODGE SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020393 \| 04/04/2016 \| £7,500.00 NORTH WEST EMPLOYERS \| CONSULTANT FEES \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004601 \| 04/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 G4S CASH SOLUTIONS UK LIMITED \| SECURITY \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020203 \| 04/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD \| ADAPTATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057482 \| 05/04/2016 \| £6,930.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGH SHOPMOBILITY \| GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057501 \| 05/04/2016 \| £24,042.15 SPRINGFIELD CITROEN GATESHEAD \| PURCHASE OF VEHICLES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057506 \| 05/04/2016 \| £14,000.00 PETRUS \| ACTIVITIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057507 \| 05/04/2016 \| £41,250.72 ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE \| CONDITION SURVEYS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057509 \| 05/04/2016 \| £5,500.00 THE SANCTUARY TRUST \| GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057521 \| 05/04/2016 \| £7,000.00 ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE \| FEES / COMMISSION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020395 \| 05/04/2016 \| £319,218.72 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020398 \| 05/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 MEG BOUSTEAD LTD \| CONSULTANT FEES \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020403 \| 05/04/2016 \| £6,622.00 BOLTON COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020404 \| 05/04/2016 \| £6,622.00 BOLTON COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020405 \| 05/04/2016 \| £8,769.48 BURY MBC \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006760 \| 05/04/2016 \| £10,103.00 EXQUIP NETWORK SERVICES LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006761 \| 05/04/2016 \| £10,066.50 SOFTCAT LTD \| PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001372 \| 05/04/2016 \| £11,261.00 ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED \| SUPPORT ASIAN CARERS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001373 \| 05/04/2016 \| £9,458.00 ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED \| SUPPORT ASIAN CARERS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057546 \| 06/04/2016 \| £8,500.00 REDFOX COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057549 \| 06/04/2016 \| £12,000.00 EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY TRUST LTD \| CONSULTANT FEES \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057557 \| 06/04/2016 \| £5,623.00 GLENDALE HORTICULTURE LTD \| TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020407 \| 06/04/2016 \| £13,200.00 PERMANENT FUTURES LTD \| AGENCY STAFF \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020409 \| 06/04/2016 \| £405,410.82 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006775 \| 06/04/2016 \| £30,000.00 P AND MM EMPLOYEE BENEFITS \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006776 \| 06/04/2016 \| £75,000.00 TUSKERDIRECT LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020212 \| 06/04/2016 \| £8,680.00 MICK TAYLOR LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020214 \| 06/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020215 \| 06/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD \| REMOVAL EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020216 \| 06/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 ADASS \| SUBSCRIPTIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001376 \| 06/04/2016 \| £23,893.00 MAKING SPACE \| VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001377 \| 06/04/2016 \| £29,459.00 MAKING SPACE \| VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001378 \| 06/04/2016 \| £21,419.00 FRIENDS OF OLDER PARENT CARERS \| VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057565 \| 07/04/2016 \| £10,386.88 BURNT TREE GROUP \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057566 \| 07/04/2016 \| £14,488.00 GLENDALE HORTICULTURE LTD \| TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020434 \| 07/04/2016 \| £10,800.00 ME LEARNING LIMITED \| IT MAINTENANCE \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020435 \| 07/04/2016 \| £107,465.16 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020436 \| 07/04/2016 \| £95,783.76 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057632 \| 08/04/2016 \| £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020229 \| 08/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD \| ADAPTATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020230 \| 08/04/2016 \| £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020459 \| 11/04/2016 \| £10,032.00 INTRAQUEST TRAINING \| TRAINING \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020474 \| 11/04/2016 \| £727,648.87 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004607 \| 11/04/2016 \| £9,000.00 NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) LTD \| EXTERNAL CONTRACTED PRINTING \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006805 \| 11/04/2016 \| £40,913.88 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION \| SUBSCRIPTIONS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006806 \| 11/04/2016 \| £5,750.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006807 \| 11/04/2016 \| £82,000.00 HEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED \| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006808 \| 11/04/2016 \| £17,160.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006809 \| 11/04/2016 \| £6,176.25 JGM AGENCY \| MARKETING EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001379 \| 11/04/2016 \| £8,100.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER \| ALCOHOL & DRUGS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057676 \| 12/04/2016 \| £9,000.00 D AND M DEMOLITION AND RECYCLING LTD \| SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057679 \| 12/04/2016 \| £29,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057681 \| 12/04/2016 \| £18,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057692 \| 12/04/2016 \| £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPI \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057693 \| 12/04/2016 \| £6,940.00 POWERMASTER SERVICE LTD \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057698 \| 12/04/2016 \| £8,358.56 OTIS LTD \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057702 \| 12/04/2016 \| £16,176.00 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LIMITED \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057706 \| 12/04/2016 \| £12,230.40 GELPACK EXCELSIOR LTD \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020508 \| 12/04/2016 \| £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020509 \| 12/04/2016 \| £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020510 \| 12/04/2016 \| £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020512 \| 12/04/2016 \| £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006815 \| 12/04/2016 \| £9,900.00 ENCRIPTION LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020237 \| 12/04/2016 \| £11,135.00 NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001380 \| 12/04/2016 \| £15,628.00 PM PROPERTIES \| RENTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057740 \| 13/04/2016 \| £6,000.00 A & W DAWSON \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057743 \| 13/04/2016 \| £14,430.00 A & W DAWSON \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020521 \| 13/04/2016 \| £28,729.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101278 \| 13/04/2016 \| £138,408.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES \| PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006819 \| 13/04/2016 \| £13,680.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006820 \| 13/04/2016 \| £26,000.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006822 \| 13/04/2016 \| £21,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006823 \| 13/04/2016 \| £22,750.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006824 \| 13/04/2016 \| £40,000.00 FORBES SOLICITORS \| INPUT VAT - ADJUSTMENTS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057768 \| 14/04/2016 \| £6,240.00 J AND S TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057770 \| 14/04/2016 \| £7,150.00 J AND S TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057771 \| 14/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 J AND S TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057782 \| 14/04/2016 \| £50,000.00 CLYDE & CO \| LEGAL SERVICES EXTERNAL \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020534 \| 14/04/2016 \| £1,020,969.96 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020535 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,104.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020537 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,658.00 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020538 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020539 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,871.16 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020540 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020541 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020542 \| 14/04/2016 \| £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020543 \| 14/04/2016 \| £11,197.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020544 \| 14/04/2016 \| £11,197.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006834 \| 14/04/2016 \| £7,200.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006835 \| 14/04/2016 \| £15,600.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006838 \| 15/04/2016 \| £8,950.02 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006839 \| 15/04/2016 \| £9,961.09 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057826 \| 18/04/2016 \| £5,350.00 TLC GARDEN SERVICES \| SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057827 \| 18/04/2016 \| £6,563.58 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD \| OTHER SURVEYS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057833 \| 18/04/2016 \| £17,000.00 GMCA \| LEGAL SERVICES INTERNAL \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020560 \| 18/04/2016 \| £28,755.90 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| MEALS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101286 \| 18/04/2016 \| £13,480.00 LGBT FOUNDATION \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101287 \| 18/04/2016 \| £15,750.00 CENTRAL MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101288 \| 18/04/2016 \| £34,678.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES \| ACTIVITIES \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006845 \| 18/04/2016 \| £22,750.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012434 \| 18/04/2016 \| £9,000.00 NUGENT CARE \| ADOPTION PAYMENTS \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012435 \| 18/04/2016 \| £9,000.00 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL \| ADOPTION PAYMENTS \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057861 \| 19/04/2016 \| £30,000.00 N G BAILEY \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057862 \| 19/04/2016 \| £71,262.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| CONSULTANT FEES \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020565 \| 19/04/2016 \| £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020566 \| 19/04/2016 \| £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020572 \| 19/04/2016 \| £12,294.62 HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101292 \| 19/04/2016 \| £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006852 \| 19/04/2016 \| £21,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006858 \| 19/04/2016 \| £8,205.90 WEIGHTMANS LLP \| PROFESSIONAL FEES \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020268 \| 19/04/2016 \| £182,000.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED \| SP BLOCK PAYMENTS - EXTERNAL \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057888 \| 20/04/2016 \| £53,748.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|-----------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020586 \| 20/04/2016 \| £78,105.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101294 \| 20/04/2016 \| £67,223.05 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD \| RENTS \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006863 \| 20/04/2016 \| £44,038.11 XEROX UK LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001487 \| 20/04/2016 \| £7,989.80 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD \| AGENCY STAFF \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020589 \| 21/04/2016 \| £79,718.38 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101295 \| 21/04/2016 \| £12,856.00 NHS GREATER MANCHESTER CSU \| PROFESSIONAL FEES \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006880 \| 21/04/2016 \| £17,000.00 DAISY COMMUNICATIONS LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006881 \| 21/04/2016 \| £20,904.00 DAISY COMMUNICATIONS LTD \| IT MAINTENANCE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020280 \| 21/04/2016 \| £7,000.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057932 \| 22/04/2016 \| £14,920.05 ISAAC BUTTERWORTH (IRONFOUNDERS) LIMITED \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004627 \| 22/04/2016 \| £264,713.96 LIFE FITNESS UK LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004628 \| 22/04/2016 \| £18,610.00 LIFE FITNESS UK LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006887 \| 22/04/2016 \| £22,924.35 LIQUIDLOGIC LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006888 \| 22/04/2016 \| £21,819.26 IDOX SOFTWARE LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006891 \| 22/04/2016 \| £6,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED \| PRINTING \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006893 \| 22/04/2016 \| £32,826.00 GAMMA BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS \| TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020284 \| 22/04/2016 \| £24,978.58 ROSS CARE \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020288 \| 22/04/2016 \| £200,000.00 ROSS CARE \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057958 \| 25/04/2016 \| £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057986 \| 25/04/2016 \| £5,890.00 JMHA \| PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1057990 \| 25/04/2016 \| £7,490.00 STEPHEN BURKE \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020636 \| 25/04/2016 \| £94,500.00 POSITIVE STEPS \| EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101298 \| 25/04/2016 \| £19,216.50 ROCHDALE & DISTRICT MIND \| PH BUSINESS CASES \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006913 \| 25/04/2016 \| £43,566.00 PHS RECORDSMANAGEMENT \| DATA COLLECTION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006916 \| 25/04/2016 \| £96,180.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006917 \| 25/04/2016 \| £12,000.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058000 \| 26/04/2016 \| £6,484.00 GPD TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058001 \| 26/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 ANDYS MINIBUS \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058002 \| 26/04/2016 \| £6,214.00 ALCO MINI TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058003 \| 26/04/2016 \| £7,638.00 GPD TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058006 \| 26/04/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058007 \| 26/04/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006920 \| 26/04/2016 \| £32,380.57 LIQUIDLOGIC LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020293 \| 26/04/2016 \| £5,035.00 HANDICARE \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020296 \| 26/04/2016 \| £5,665.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020304 \| 26/04/2016 \| £7,895.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020311 \| 26/04/2016 \| £10,034.00 TERRY GROUP LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020313 \| 26/04/2016 \| £7,440.00 KINGKRAFT LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058030 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058031 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058032 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058033 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058035 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058057 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,540.00 ANDY HARROP \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058058 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058059 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058060 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058061 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058062 \| 27/04/2016 \| £8,450.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058063 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058064 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058065 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058066 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058067 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058068 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058069 \| 27/04/2016 \| £8,320.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058070 \| 27/04/2016 \| £10,320.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058071 \| 27/04/2016 \| £12,960.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058072 \| 27/04/2016 \| £10,720.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058073 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,215.00 CONNECT CARS MIDDLETON LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058075 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,980.00 WHEELDON BROTHERS WASTE LIMITED \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058104 \| 27/04/2016 \| £15,850.00 GROUNDWORK LANDSCAPES LIMITED \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058105 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 S P EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058106 \| 27/04/2016 \| £6,370.00 COACH OPTIONS LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058107 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,800.00 COACH OPTIONS LIMITED \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058108 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 CASTLEROYLE PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058109 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 CASTLEROYLE PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058110 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,070.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058111 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058112 \| 27/04/2016 \| £5,200.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058113 \| 27/04/2016 \| £7,000.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058114 \| 27/04/2016 \| £6,110.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058115 \| 27/04/2016 \| £6,460.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020659 \| 27/04/2016 \| £83,774.32 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|---------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004635 \| 27/04/2016 \| £36,908.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED \| POSTAGE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006933 \| 28/04/2016 \| £48,000.00 UPDATA INFRASTRUCTURE UK LTD \| TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006939 \| 28/04/2016 \| £94,708.00 AGILISYS LIMITED \| AGILISYS CONTRACT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006940 \| 28/04/2016 \| £917,514.00 AGILISYS LIMITED \| AGILISYS CONTRACT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006941 \| 28/04/2016 \| £563,111.00 AGILISYS LIMITED \| AGILISYS CONTRACT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006942 \| 28/04/2016 \| £6,780.00 ALONGSIDE \| BUDGET TO BE ALLOCATED \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058155 \| 29/04/2016 \| £399,140.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058173 \| 29/04/2016 \| £22,045.30 N G BAILEY \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020676 \| 29/04/2016 \| £83,984.32 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020683 \| 29/04/2016 \| £11,408.57 SEASHELL TRUST \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058202 \| 03/05/2016 \| £6,078.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058203 \| 03/05/2016 \| £7,443.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058204 \| 03/05/2016 \| £6,175.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058205 \| 03/05/2016 \| £6,450.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058206 \| 03/05/2016 \| £8,744.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058233 \| 03/05/2016 \| £7,224.00 GLOBECAR LTD \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004643 \| 03/05/2016 \| £31,465.11 ANYTIME LEISURE LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020325 \| 03/05/2016 \| £7,350.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020327 \| 03/05/2016 \| £43,546.84 ROSS CARE \| OTHER AGENCIES \| BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020328 \| 03/05/2016 \| £25,000.00 PETRUS \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058260 \| 04/05/2016 \| £300,000.00 A E YATES LTD \| DRAINAGE AND SEWERS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058262 \| 04/05/2016 \| £7,000.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058265 \| 04/05/2016 \| £9,100.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058266 \| 04/05/2016 \| £6,000.00 CARLTON MINIBUSES \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058268 \| 04/05/2016 \| £8,531.96 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020707 \| 04/05/2016 \| £16,788.50 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| WATER CHARGES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020712 \| 04/05/2016 \| £321,383.95 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020713 \| 04/05/2016 \| £400,752.96 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004645 \| 04/05/2016 \| £16,835.00 MERITEC LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020331 \| 04/05/2016 \| £33,000.00 CARNALL FARRAR LTD \| EXPENSES - GENERAL \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058274 \| 05/05/2016 \| £10,000.00 GTM ELECTRICAL SERVICES LIMITED \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058292 \| 05/05/2016 \| £10,560.00 YOTTA LIMITED \| ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058293 \| 05/05/2016 \| £16,672.50 VAISALA LIMITED \| MAINTENANCE \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058294 \| 05/05/2016 \| £10,338.50 YOTTA LIMITED \| ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020725 \| 05/05/2016 \| £10,250.00 THE DARTINGTON HALL TRUST \| SUBSCRIPTIONS \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020728 \| 05/05/2016 \| £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS \| ACTIVITIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101308 \| 05/05/2016 \| £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101310 \| 05/05/2016 \| £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058304 \| 06/05/2016 \| £130,402.45 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058319 \| 06/05/2016 \| £8,491.74 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| CONSULTANTS FEES \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058321 \| 06/05/2016 \| £6,302.00 ATI CREMATORS \| SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058326 \| 06/05/2016 \| £54,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058327 \| 06/05/2016 \| £75,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058334 \| 06/05/2016 \| £60,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020736 \| 06/05/2016 \| £9,800.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020738 \| 06/05/2016 \| £8,247.90 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020739 \| 06/05/2016 \| £11,550.00 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020341 \| 06/05/2016 \| £9,800.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020342 \| 06/05/2016 \| £15,000.00 HOURGLASS ENVIRONMENT LTD \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058337 \| 09/05/2016 \| £75,534.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058338 \| 09/05/2016 \| £54,868.45 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058339 \| 09/05/2016 \| £25,450.00 JEREMY BENN ASSOCIATES LTD \| OTHER SURVEYS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058344 \| 09/05/2016 \| £7,785.00 NORDEN AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTORS \| MAINTENANCE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058356 \| 09/05/2016 \| £8,407.90 SPUR INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED \| IT EQUIPMENT \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058358 \| 09/05/2016 \| £68,742.38 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP \| PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058359 \| 09/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058360 \| 09/05/2016 \| £13,237.50 ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT CO \| GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020754 \| 09/05/2016 \| £38,068.70 TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER \| STUDENT TRAVEL \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006986 \| 09/05/2016 \| £23,843.00 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD \| ELECTION MATERIALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006987 \| 09/05/2016 \| £8,654.71 ROYAL MAIL GROUP PLC \| POSTAGE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006988 \| 09/05/2016 \| £10,225.60 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD \| ELECTION MATERIALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058379 \| 10/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058380 \| 10/05/2016 \| £8,968.58 PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED \| SECURITY \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020795 \| 10/05/2016 \| £22,891.18 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| MEALS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004654 \| 10/05/2016 \| £6,547.44 CO-OP PAYPOINT \| BANK CHARGES \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1006997 \| 10/05/2016 \| £271,402.00 MUNICIPAL MUTUAL INSURANCE LTD \| PROVISIONS UTILISED IN YEAR \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058429 \| 11/05/2016 \| £138,262.20 RIVERSIDE TRUCK RENTAL \| LONG TERM CONTRACTED EXTERNAL HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058434 \| 11/05/2016 \| £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058464 \| 11/05/2016 \| £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPI \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020808 \| 11/05/2016 \| £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS \| ACTIVITIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101319 \| 11/05/2016 \| £151,095.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007004 \| 11/05/2016 \| £16,983.00 CIVICA UK LIMITED \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007011 \| 11/05/2016 \| £15,789.38 MAYRISE LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020356 \| 11/05/2016 \| £63,000.00 PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058478 \| 12/05/2016 \| £962,627.17 N G BAILEY \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058478 \| 12/05/2016 \| £962,627.17 N G BAILEY \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058486 \| 12/05/2016 \| £5,278.00 EARLEY ORNAMENTALS LTD \| TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058488 \| 12/05/2016 \| £6,178.05 BALMERS GM LTD \| VEHICLE MAINTENANCE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058489 \| 12/05/2016 \| £8,601.46 BURNT TREE GROUP \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001499 \| 12/05/2016 \| £320,620.61 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD \| NEW CONSTRUCTION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020359 \| 12/05/2016 \| £7,620.00 TERRY GROUP LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020360 \| 12/05/2016 \| £9,553.17 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058520 \| 13/05/2016 \| £14,266.00 GROUNDWORK LANDSCAPES LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020826 \| 13/05/2016 \| £94,500.00 POSITIVE STEPS \| EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020832 \| 13/05/2016 \| £673,175.20 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007023 \| 13/05/2016 \| £6,000.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LTD \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007026 \| 13/05/2016 \| £5,021.00 AGILISYS LIMITED \| AGILISYS CONTRACT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020362 \| 13/05/2016 \| £84,000.00 ELDERCARE UK LTD \| TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020840 \| 16/05/2016 \| £6,333.27 ROC NORTHWEST LTD \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020841 \| 16/05/2016 \| £12,537.00 BOLTON IMPACT TRUST \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004661 \| 16/05/2016 \| £50,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED \| PRINTING & STATIONERY \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007032 \| 16/05/2016 \| £21,785.48 AGILE APPLICATIONS LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007045 \| 16/05/2016 \| £64,499.20 PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED \| SOFTWARE LICENSES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020381 \| 16/05/2016 \| £5,440.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER \| TRAINING \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058555 \| 17/05/2016 \| £12,073.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058556 \| 17/05/2016 \| £8,425.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058563 \| 17/05/2016 \| £10,498.50 PERMASTEELISA UK LTD \| PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058565 \| 17/05/2016 \| £65,700.00 BRENTWOOD \| GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007048 \| 17/05/2016 \| £7,010.00 MODERN MINDSET LTD \| BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058579 \| 18/05/2016 \| £29,865.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| ROADWORKS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058586 \| 18/05/2016 \| £35,000.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| ROADWORKS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058594 \| 18/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058595 \| 18/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058596 \| 18/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058597 \| 18/05/2016 \| £6,180.00 KAPPA LAMBDA SQUARED LTD \| ICT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058604 \| 18/05/2016 \| £14,468.50 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058610 \| 18/05/2016 \| £348,084.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101328 \| 18/05/2016 \| £249,149.16 BIG LIFE CENTRES \| PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007065 \| 18/05/2016 \| £7,030.00 I BRANDED LTD \| EVENTS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007075 \| 19/05/2016 \| £353,766.00 PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED \| SOFTWARE LICENSES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020399 \| 19/05/2016 \| £26,000.00 CAREWATCH CARE SERVICES LTD \| HOME CARE - ADULT SERVICES \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020400 \| 19/05/2016 \| £37,000.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| RENTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020401 \| 19/05/2016 \| £5,950.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020870 \| 20/05/2016 \| £15,319.35 FAMILY ACTION \| GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007078 \| 20/05/2016 \| £23,002.00 OPTEVIA LTD \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007079 \| 20/05/2016 \| £26,474.00 GAMMA BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS \| TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012548 \| 20/05/2016 \| £18,000.00 STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL \| ADOPTION PAYMENTS \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058694 \| 23/05/2016 \| £5,860.68 TYRE FORCE NW LTD \| TYRES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020875 \| 23/05/2016 \| £9,500.00 PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE \| BASIC SALARIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101332 \| 23/05/2016 \| £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007097 \| 23/05/2016 \| £44,951.11 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020897 \| 24/05/2016 \| £141,303.00 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020899 \| 24/05/2016 \| £24,406.17 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020903 \| 24/05/2016 \| £57,081.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| HEALTH AUTH - SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020409 \| 24/05/2016 \| £7,200.00 MACK4 LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001475 \| 24/05/2016 \| £108,000.00 POSSABILITIES CIC TRADING \| CONTRACTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058772 \| 25/05/2016 \| £70,200.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| CONSULTANT FEES \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007116 \| 25/05/2016 \| £5,768.00 THALES UK LIMITED \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020413 \| 25/05/2016 \| £23,250.00 PETRUS \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058793 \| 26/05/2016 \| £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058794 \| 26/05/2016 \| £9,500.00 BARTEC AUTO ID LTD \| MAINTENANCE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020921 \| 26/05/2016 \| £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020922 \| 26/05/2016 \| £15,319.36 FAMILY ACTION \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004677 \| 26/05/2016 \| £10,725.78 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED \| PRINTING & STATIONERY \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001502 \| 26/05/2016 \| £7,311.57 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD \| AGENCY STAFF \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058811 \| 27/05/2016 \| £14,238.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058813 \| 27/05/2016 \| £14,238.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058814 \| 27/05/2016 \| £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED \| PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020926 \| 27/05/2016 \| £100,373.66 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101337 \| 27/05/2016 \| £355,416.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101338 \| 27/05/2016 \| £355,416.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058844 \| 31/05/2016 \| £10,560.00 MEASURE 2 IMPROVE \| ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058845 \| 31/05/2016 \| £5,306.40 YOTTA LIMITED \| ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007134 \| 31/05/2016 \| £20,000.00 KEOGHS LLP \| INPUT VAT - ADJUSTMENTS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020936 \| 01/06/2016 \| £5,900.00 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| CONSULTANTS FEES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020943 \| 01/06/2016 \| £7,000.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020944 \| 01/06/2016 \| £7,000.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020945 \| 01/06/2016 \| £14,853.80 ROSS CARE \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|-------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007137 \| 01/06/2016 \| £14,562.00 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD \| ELECTION MATERIALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058884 \| 02/06/2016 \| £8,642.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING \| ROADWORKS \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020946 \| 02/06/2016 \| £320,836.15 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020947 \| 02/06/2016 \| £392,211.27 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020955 \| 02/06/2016 \| £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS \| ACTIVITIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007153 \| 02/06/2016 \| £11,658.52 ZURICH INSURANCE PLC \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007154 \| 02/06/2016 \| £71,589.44 ZURICH INSURANCE PLC \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001504 \| 02/06/2016 \| £14,000.00 HALCROW GROUP LTD \| ACTIVITIES \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020441 \| 02/06/2016 \| £90,000.00 MANCHESTER WORKING LIMITED \| MAINTENANCE STAIRLIFTS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020957 \| 03/06/2016 \| £36,096.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| TEACHERS - BASIC \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020958 \| 03/06/2016 \| £8,448.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| TEACHERS - BASIC \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020964 \| 03/06/2016 \| £17,196.67 NUGENT CARE \| OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020967 \| 03/06/2016 \| £6,333.27 ROC NORTHWEST LTD \| OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001484 \| 03/06/2016 \| £7,304.50 HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CIRCLE \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058944 \| 06/06/2016 \| £9,000.00 KASHMIR YOUTH PROJECT \| ACTIVITIES \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020974 \| 06/06/2016 \| £5,689.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020975 \| 06/06/2016 \| £336,256.32 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020978 \| 06/06/2016 \| £7,373.00 ONESTAGE LIMITED \| ACTIVITIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020983 \| 06/06/2016 \| £7,220.78 DIOCESE OF SALFORD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1020984 \| 06/06/2016 \| £47,000.00 ROCHDALE PIONEERS TRUST \| COURIER SERVICE \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004692 \| 06/06/2016 \| £6,050.00 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES LTD \| SUBSCRIPTIONS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101349 \| 06/06/2016 \| £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS \| PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020445 \| 06/06/2016 \| £7,350.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058948 \| 07/06/2016 \| £109,200.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058949 \| 07/06/2016 \| £17,640.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007176 \| 07/06/2016 \| £9,635.34 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD \| ELECTION MATERIALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007177 \| 07/06/2016 \| £70,829.60 WEIGHTMANS LLP \| PROFESSIONAL FEES \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020454 \| 07/06/2016 \| £38,400.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| AGENCY STAFF \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058988 \| 08/06/2016 \| £5,000.00 STREAMLINE TAXIS \| TAXI HIRE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1058997 \| 08/06/2016 \| £5,776.00 ENTERPRISE MANCHESTER PARTNERSHIP LTD \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059002 \| 08/06/2016 \| £5,660.00 D H WELTON & COMPANY (BUILDERS) LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059010 \| 08/06/2016 \| £10,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD \| ADVERTISING \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059013 \| 08/06/2016 \| £18,000.00 PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED \| SECURITY \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007189 \| 08/06/2016 \| £51,908.53 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007190 \| 08/06/2016 \| £5,512.02 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007191 \| 08/06/2016 \| £26,280.00 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007194 \| 08/06/2016 \| £15,573.09 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007195 \| 08/06/2016 \| £5,953.38 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007196 \| 08/06/2016 \| £12,213.78 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007197 \| 08/06/2016 \| £73,912.50 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007200 \| 08/06/2016 \| £6,477.80 THOMSON REUTERS \| REFERENCE BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020456 \| 08/06/2016 \| £32,500.00 COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE ROCHDALE \| VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059024 \| 09/06/2016 \| £18,000.00 TYRE FORCE NW LTD \| TYRES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059025 \| 09/06/2016 \| £17,185.00 BRIT TIPP LTD \| PURCHASE OF VEHICLES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059047 \| 09/06/2016 \| £5,800.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD \| GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021023 \| 09/06/2016 \| £29,072.12 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| MEALS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021026 \| 09/06/2016 \| £674,309.11 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004697 \| 09/06/2016 \| £5,968.00 NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) LTD \| EXTERNAL CONTRACTED PRINTING \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101354 \| 09/06/2016 \| £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED \| VIRGIN CARE \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007213 \| 09/06/2016 \| £20,630.00 NORTH WEST EMPLOYERS \| SUBSCRIPTIONS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059071 \| 10/06/2016 \| £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059077 \| 10/06/2016 \| £14,254.70 DOBSON UK LTD \| EQUIPMENT - GENERAL \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021035 \| 10/06/2016 \| £6,800.00 MEG BOUSTEAD LTD \| CONSULTANT FEES \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001487 \| 10/06/2016 \| £136,799.00 ALTERNATIVE FUTURES GROUP LTD \| SUPPORTED LIVING \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059087 \| 13/06/2016 \| £47,769.60 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004700 \| 13/06/2016 \| £6,786.45 CO-OP PAYPOINT \| BANK CHARGES \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101355 \| 13/06/2016 \| £40,517.43 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG \| ACTIVITIES \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101356 \| 13/06/2016 \| £373,723.50 BIG LIFE CENTRES \| PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007219 \| 13/06/2016 \| £9,660.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007220 \| 13/06/2016 \| £5,980.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED \| CONTRACTED SERVICES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007224 \| 13/06/2016 \| £11,578.37 ROYAL MAIL GROUP PLC \| POSTAGE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020465 \| 13/06/2016 \| £9,450.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012625 \| 13/06/2016 \| £27,000.00 BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BC \| ADOPTION PAYMENTS \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012626 \| 13/06/2016 \| £9,016.00 THE FOSTERING NETWORK \| FEES / COMMISSION \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059119 \| 14/06/2016 \| £144,720.00 PETRUS \| GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059130 \| 14/06/2016 \| £5,880.64 TYRE FORCE NW LTD \| TYRES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059131 \| 14/06/2016 \| £8,508.15 TYRE FORCE NW LTD \| TYRES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| x1012641 \| 14/06/2016 \| £5,504.00 ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST \| ACTIVITIES \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021087 \| 15/06/2016 \| £14,500.00 RESPECT \| ACTIVITIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007241 \| 15/06/2016 \| £5,760.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP \| CAPITAL SALARIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020471 \| 15/06/2016 \| £17,219.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED \| IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004706 \| 16/06/2016 \| £19,240.00 MERITEC LIMITED \| AGENCY STAFF \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001491 \| 16/06/2016 \| £136,799.00 FUTURE DIRECTIONS CIC \| SUPPORTED LIVING \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059203 \| 17/06/2016 \| £51,943.07 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \|----------------------------\|------------\|--------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007280 \| 17/06/2016 \| £24,157.40 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007281 \| 17/06/2016 \| £467,981.26 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001511 \| 17/06/2016 \| £8,477.02 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD \| AGENCY STAFF \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059227 \| 20/06/2016 \| £10,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD \| ADVERTISING \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059228 \| 20/06/2016 \| £9,000.00 PIPER MUSIC MANAGEMENT LTD \| EVENTS \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059232 \| 20/06/2016 \| £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPI \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059241 \| 20/06/2016 \| £7,671.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021155 \| 20/06/2016 \| £5,225.00 PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE \| BASIC SALARIES \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| ph101366 \| 20/06/2016 \| £54,797.00 TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL \| PH NETWORK COSTS \| PUBLIC HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001515 \| 20/06/2016 \| £145,143.24 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD \| NEW CONSTRUCTION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020487 \| 20/06/2016 \| £7,700.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021157 \| 21/06/2016 \| £285,835.72 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021158 \| 21/06/2016 \| £5,689.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD \| IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007295 \| 22/06/2016 \| £5,800.00 VODAFONE LTD \| TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059359 \| 23/06/2016 \| £5,160.00 DAVID OGILVIE ENGINEERING LTD \| ACTIVITIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059365 \| 23/06/2016 \| £8,601.46 ENTERPRISE FLEX-E-RENT \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021175 \| 23/06/2016 \| £44,100.00 POSITIVE STEPS \| EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007307 \| 23/06/2016 \| £7,200.00 SCOPED SOLUTIONS LIMITED \| SOFTWARE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007314 \| 23/06/2016 \| £12,850.25 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD \| ELECTION MATERIALS \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007320 \| 23/06/2016 \| £8,250.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD \| TRAINING \| \| \| CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059396 \| 24/06/2016 \| £15,350.00 F S MOULT & SON \| PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059399 \| 24/06/2016 \| £13,500.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY \| FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059408 \| 27/06/2016 \| £44,168.49 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD \| CONSULTANTS FEES \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059436 \| 27/06/2016 \| £11,240.00 F S MOULT & SON \| DEMOLITION \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059437 \| 27/06/2016 \| £70,000.00 THE BOND BOARD LIMITED \| GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007331 \| 27/06/2016 \| £10,000.00 AON LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| FINANCE SERVICES \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| q1007334 \| 27/06/2016 \| £28,359.00 XMA LIMITED \| IT EQUIPMENT \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020507 \| 27/06/2016 \| £5,600.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD \| FEES / COMMISSION \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| s1020508 \| 27/06/2016 \| £45,250.69 ROSS CARE \| OTHER AGENCIES \| BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001496 \| 27/06/2016 \| £111,835.00 POSSABILITIES CIC TRADING \| CONTRACTS \| LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| r1001527 \| 28/06/2016 \| £9,000.00 PENNINE PROSPECTS \| GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR \| ECONOMY DIRECTORATE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001497 \| 28/06/2016 \| £61,000.00 CAREWATCH CARE SERVICES LTD \| HOME CARE - ADULT SERVICES \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| w1001498 \| 28/06/2016 \| £26,000.00 ROYAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE \| SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS \| PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059474 \| 29/06/2016 \| £31,500.00 EMO OIL LIMITED \| TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| e1021209 \| 29/06/2016 \| £5,175.00 CATHERINE HOW SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS PARTNER SERVICE \| CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT \| EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| f1004732 \| 29/06/2016 \| £14,436.65 NORDEN COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL \| RENTS \| NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT \| \| Rochdale Borough Council \| d1059526 \| 30/06/2016 \| £322,169.51 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD \| PFI SCHEMES RPIX \| PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS \|	en
4387-pdf	# Annual Assessment Of Highways England End Of Road Period 1 2015-2020 Annual Assessment Of Highways England End Of Road Period 1 2015-2020 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2020 ## © Crown Copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at 25 Cabot Square, London, E14 4QZ. ISBN 978-1-5286-1995-0 CCS0520654868 07/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office ## Contents \| Foreword \| 1 \| \|---------------------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| 1. Executive summary \| 3 \| \| Introduction \| 3 \| \| Key messages for Road Period 1 \| 3 \| \| 2. Operational performance \| 9 \| \| 3. Investment delivery \| 27 \| \| 4. Efficiency \| 47 \| \| 5. Priorities for our monitoring of RIS2 \| 58 \| \| Annex A: Performance against outcome areas \| 60 \| \| Outcome: Making the network safer \| 60 \| \| Outcome: Improving user satisfaction \| 65 \| \| Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic \| 69 \| \| Outcome: Encouraging economic growth \| 72 \| \| Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes \| 74 \| \| Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users \| 77 \| \| Outcome: Achieving efficient delivery \| 78 \| \| Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition \| 82 \| \| Annex B: Financial performance \| 86 \| \| Annex C: Network investment delivery \| 99 \| \| Glossary \| 122 \| ## Foreword This assessment of Highways England is different from our previous annual publications. This year provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the first road period and assess Highways England's performance for the whole five years. Highways England is still relatively new, formed in 2015 as a result of the UK government's programme for roads reform. At the same time, the Roads Monitor (the role we undertake) and the Watchdog (Transport Focus) were created. Roads reform brought an unprecedented level of investment planning and government's promise of the funding security to deliver it. This has necessitated a fundamental change in the way in which our motorways and major A-roads are constructed, maintained and operated. We have seen Highways England changing the way it works and several key successes have come from its approach; an enhanced focus on improving safety on the strategic road network, an increased focus on what is important to road users' experience and communities, the supply chain more engaged and able to plan their work better and improvements in the transparency around the company's financial performance. It has also responded positively to issues we have investigated. At the same time, there have been challenges; too many people still die on our road network despite it being one of the safest in the world, the capital programme for major improvements proved to be overly optimistic needing to be substantially changed from 112 schemes due to have started construction to 73, and Highways England has not quite achieved all of its KPIs. The coronavirus pandemic, which has changed so much of our daily lives, only began to affect the country in the last few weeks of the road period, and as such has not materially affected the company's performance. The first road period has also been a time of growth and learning for the Office of Rail and Road. We have embraced our new role as Highways England's monitor and I take pride that we have incentivised Highways England to deliver for road users. We have ensured that there have been increases in the transparency and quality of Highways England's financial reporting, and improvements to road surface condition. We have also pursued an overdue backlog of structures inspections, as well as relentlessly monitoring Highways England's work to improve road users' experience following aspects of poor performance. So, Highways England has made very good progress in its first five years, but now that it is an established company, more is expected of it in the second road period. It must continue to improve safety for all on the network, further integrate its customers in its planning and decision making, and needs to work even more efficiently to deliver a larger programme of works. We are going to provide greater transparency against a backdrop of an investment plan and performance specification that has been developed having learned lessons from the first road period, and broaden our role, e.g. through monitoring and reporting of the company in its delivery of the Department for Transport's Smart Motorway safety action plan and the delivery of environmental commitments. We are also uniquely placed to look at a wider transport context, due to our role on rail. I am keen that there is further coordination between Highways England and Network Rail on delivery of their respective capital programmes; something we wish to measure in the future and I believe that Highways England can learn lessons from Network Rail on the potential benefits of regional transparency and accountability. I can confidently say that we are seeing the intended benefit of roads reform. This is important: most of the public use motorways and main A-roads and much of commerce and industry depends on them. A high-performing, safer, network has been vital in supporting the economy and will continue to be so in the future. ## 1. Executive Summary Introduction 1.1 Highways England was set up as a government owned company in 2015, tasked with managing the strategic road network - the motorways and main A-roads of England. In the first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1), government specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England was required to deliver over Road Period 1 (RP1), from April 2015 to March 2020. 1.2 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England's delivery of these outcomes and investments. In monitoring the company we have proactively investigated a number of issues during the five year period to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network for the benefit of road users and the wider public. 1.3 This report sets out our assessment of Highways England's performance in RP1. Our key messages are largely unaffected by coronavirus (COVID-19), which emerged at the very end of the five year period. Where there is an impact on performance, this is discussed within the report. ## Key Messages For Road Period 1 Key message 1. In the first road period, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network, but must continue to work hard to meet its challenging target. In response to ORR's probing, the company has taken action to improve road user satisfaction and shown an increased focus on meeting the needs of those users. It has met most of its performance targets. 1.4 In RP1, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network. The company has delivered an extensive programme of actions aimed at improving safety. In this area, the strategic road network in England compares well to other road networks, both nationally and internationally. 1.5 However, further hard work is required if Highways England is to meet its safety target. The company's performance against its RP1 safety target will not be known until summer 2021, when the Department for Transport publishes road casualty statistics for 2020. In 2018, a total of 2,152 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network. This represents a 30% reduction from the baseline period (2005-09); if this rate of improvement were to be sustained by Highways England it would not meet its target of a 40% reduction by the end of 2020, therefore further work is required to achieve this. Provisional data for the first six months of the year indicates that further reductions may have been achieved in 2019, but we must wait for the publication of the data by DfT before drawing conclusions. 1.6 Highways England has met its targets for smooth flow of traffic - keeping 98.2% of the network open to traffic, against a target of 97%, and clearing 89.1% of incidents within an hour, against a target of 85%. However, congestion slightly increased in RP1 - from 8.9 seconds delay per vehicle mile at the start of the road period to 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile in 2019-20 - as traffic levels and the amount of improvement work being undertaken on the network increased. 1.7 During RP1, ORR challenged Highways England to improve road user satisfaction, following a decline in its customer satisfaction score. The company subsequently developed and delivered a series of annual customer service plans which demonstrated an increased focus on meeting the needs of road users. Overall satisfaction subsequently increased, and ended RP1 at 89.2% - just below the company's target of 90%. 1.8 Highways England met its target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas in RP1 - it mitigated 1,174 by the end of the road period. It has also delivered the actions set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan it published at the start of RP1. Against its commitment to support vulnerable users, Highways England has delivered 211 new and 227 upgraded crossings in RP1. Key message 2. Highways England has successfully achieved 95% of its commitments for delivery of major improvement schemes in Road Period 1. The actual number of commitments delivered is lower than originally set out in 2015, but is in line with the revised plan it agreed with Government. Addressing concerns raised by ORR, the revised plan also reduces disruption to road users. The accuracy of Highways England's planning of renewals delivery has improved through the road period, reflecting an increased maturity in asset management capability. Highways England has largely exceeded its planned delivery of renewals across Road Period 1. 1.9 Highways England's delivery of its investment plan matured over RP1. The company has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital improvement delivery plan. Originally 112 schemes were planned to start work by the end of the first road period, which was revised to 73 schemes. It has substantially agreed these changes with the Department for Transport. 1.10 The company has predominantly delivered its major improvement schemes to the latest agreed plan. Of the 73 RIS1 schemes, Highways England started work on 67, provided funds on two schemes for a third party to start work, and missed its commitment on four schemes. There are two additional schemes, which have been deferred to RP2, that have their commitment status under review. It successfully opened for traffic 36 schemes and missed its commitment on one scheme. 1.11 Highways England's planning of asset renewals has improved through RP1. Whilst it delivered more renewals than planned across the majority of its asset types, delivery was much closer to the plan in the last two years of the road period. This reflects the company's maturing approach to asset management and gives us more confidence that it is managing a safe and serviceable network. 1.12 Highways England met its target for keeping the network in good condition. At the end of RP1 pavement condition was 95.5%, above the target of 95%. This is significant progress from when the target was missed in the first two years of the road period. Following our investigation, Highways England put plans in place to improve its processes for reporting and managing the condition of the road that has led to improved performance in this area. 1.13 The company spent 4% less on renewals than it was funded for across RP1 (£3.494bn spent, against funding of £3.637bn). 1.14 Whilst Highways England improved its reporting of renewals delivery in the latter half of the road period, the nature of reporting does not provide complete assurance that the right assets have been treated, at the appropriate time. This is particularly the case for assets where the condition metrics provides a weak line of sight between renewals plans and delivery of work. 1.15 Highways England's increased maturity in asset management is underpinned by processes and procedures set out in new strategic documentation. This includes its published asset management policy and strategy. The company's knowledge of its asset base has been strengthened by improvements in data collection and management through its operational transition to new ways of working, known within the company as Asset Delivery. This has included addressing inspection backlogs across key assets such as structures, prompted by our enhanced monitoring, and migration of historic data to a new central management system. Key message 3. Highways England has met its KPI target to deliver more efficiently in Road Period 1. The company has responded positively to ORR's constant challenge to improve the evidence used to support reported efficiency. 1.16 In RP1, Highways England was set a key performance indicator to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies, and was required to provide evidence of its progress against this target. This initially proved challenging to the new company in part because the rapid development of the RIS led to several changes to scheme scope and funding assumptions during RP1. However, Highways England has developed its capability in this area, and by the end of RP1 had provided a stronger evidence base to support its increased efficiency. 1.17 Highways England has reported £1.4bn of efficiency in RP1 against the KPI to achieve £1.2bn capital efficiency savings. This is supported by good evidence of the actions taken to manage expenditure and deliver within its funding. 1.18 Throughout the road period we have constantly challenged the quality of other types of evidence of efficiency - specifically unit cost movement and delivery of the RIS. This remains less robust but has improved and we now agree that it provides reasonably sufficient evidence of the KPI having been achieved. 1.19 To demonstrate achievement of the KPI Highways England is required to provide evidence in the three different ways: a) Primary evidence from efficiency case-studies 1.20 The company provided 200 case studies of management action taken to deliver more efficiently during the road period. The majority of the efficiency has come from renewals (54%) and major improvement schemes (43%). 1.21 The case studies have been assured internally by Highways England and reviewed by the ORR. We found this evidence to be of good quality. b) Unit costs 1.22 Highways England has developed unit cost models to verify the value reported through case studies. This proved challenging and the company's own assurance found sources of uncertainty with some models. However, after adjustments for some efficiencies, which are excluded from the models, they provide a reasonable quality of evidence above the KPI target. ## C) Delivery Of The Ris 1.23 Highways England has also provided supporting evidence by demonstrating that it has delivered most of the RIS1 outputs for its post-efficient funding. This was not straightforward as the cost of schemes that were deferred or cancelled was more than expected within RIS1, and the company has benefited from lower than expected inflation. However, it delivered greater scope on some schemes and did not receive sufficient funding for some business costs. This evidence was developed by Highways England late in the road period in response to our challenge and we have disagreed in some areas. Ultimately, our review found that there was reasonable evidence of efficiency exceeding the KPI target. ## Impact Of Coronavirus (Covid-19) 1.24 The coronavirus pandemic emerged in the final weeks of RP1. This resulted in significantly reduced traffic on the strategic road network towards the end of March 2020. Highways England's performance in RP1 is largely unaffected because most performance indicators are measured on an annual basis, and cover a full year up to the end of March 2020. The main exception is safety, where Highways England's RP1 target runs to December 2020. The impact of this is discussed in more detail in chapter 2. We will continue to take a pragmatic approach to reporting performance which is affected by the coronavirus pandemic, including using Highways England's actions to provide wider context where appropriate1. ## Summary Of Performance 1.25 We measure Highways England's performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcome areas, each with one or more key performance indicators, as well as a number of performance indicators2. Our assessment of delivery against each key performance indicator in RP1 is summarised in the table below. \| Outcome \| KPI and target \| \|---------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------\| \| Performance in \| \| \| Road Period 1 (RP1) \| \| \| Rating \| \| \| Making the \| \| \| network safer \| \| \| Killed or seriously \| \| \| injured \| \| \| Target: 40% reduction \| \| \| by end of 2020 \| \| \| Data for the end of RP1 will not \| \| \| be published until summer \| \| \| 2021. The latest figures show \| \| \| 2,152 KSIs in 2018 - a 30% \| \| \| reduction from the baseline. \| \| \| 89.2% satisfaction at the end of \| \| \| RP1 - below the target of 90%. \| \| \| A \| \| \| Target \| \| \| missed \| \| \| Improving \| \| \| user \| \| \| satisfaction \| \| \| Road user satisfaction \| \| \| Target: 90% by March \| \| \| 2017 \| \| \| 98.2% availability - above the \| \| \| RP1 target of 97%. \| \| \| G \| \| \| Target \| \| \| met \| \| \| Network availability \| \| \| Target: 97% lane \| \| \| availability \| \| \| Supporting \| \| \| the smooth \| \| \| Incident clearance \| \| \| flow of traffic \| \| \| Target: 85% of \| \| \| 89.1% cleared within one hour \| \| \| motorway incidents \| \| \| - above the RP1 target of 85%. \| \| \| G \| \| \| \| Target \| \| met \| \| \| cleared within one hour \| \| \| Encouraging \| Average delay (secs per \| \| 9.3 seconds delay per vehicle \| No \| \| economic \| \| \| vehicle mile) \| \| \| mile. An increase of 0.4 seconds A \| \| \| Target \| \| \| growth \| \| \| Target: No target set \| from 2015-16. \| \| Noise important areas \| \| \| 1,174 noise important areas \| \| \| Target: Mitigate at least mitigated in RP1 - the target \| \| \| 1,150 noise important \| \| \| Delivering \| \| \| of 1,150 was met. \| \| \| areas by 2020 \| \| \| better \| \| \| environmental \| \| \| Highways England has \| \| \| Improved biodiversity \| \| \| outcomes \| \| \| delivered the actions set out \| \| \| Target: Publish \| \| \| the biodiversity action plan it \| \| \| biodiversity action plan \| \| \| published in 2015. \| \| \| Helping cyclists, \| \| \| Number of new and \| \| \| 211 new and 227 upgraded \| \| \| walkers and \| \| \| upgraded crossings \| \| \| crossings completed by \| \| \| other vulnerable \| \| \| Target: No target set \| \| \| Highways England in RP1. \| \| \| users \| \| \| Capital expenditure \| \| \| savings \| £1.4bn of capital efficiencies \| \| Target: Savings of at \| reported in RP1 - exceeding the \| \| least £1.212 billion on \| \| \| target of £1.212bn. \| \| \| Achieving real \| \| \| capital expenditure \| \| \| efficiency \| \| \| Progress of work, \| \| \| Highways England achieved \| \| \| No \| \| \| relative to delivery plan \| \| \| 95% of its capital delivery \| \| \| Target: No target set \| \| \| milestones in RP1. \| \| \| Pavement condition \| \| \| 95.5% requires no further \| \| \| Keeping the \| \| \| Target: 95% of \| \| \| investigation for maintenance \| \| \| network in \| \| \| pavement requiring no \| \| \| - above the target of 95% for \| \| \| good condition \| \| \| further investigation for RP1. \| \| \| possible maintenance \| \| A Provisional: data not yet available G Target met G Target met G No target set G Target met G target set G Target met ## 2. Operational Performance In the first road period, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network, but must continue to work hard to meet its challenging target. In response to ORR's probing, the company has taken action to improve road user satisfaction and shown an increased focus on meeting the needs of those users. It has met most of its performance targets. The number of people killed or seriously injured each year on the strategic road network has reduced since the start of Road Period 1, but Highways England must continue to focus on safety, and deliver further safety improvements. The company has met its targets to deliver better environmental outcomes, and to minimise the disruption caused by incidents and roadworks. However, road user delays have increased in Road Period 1 as traffic levels, and the amount of improvement work being undertaken, has increased. It narrowly missed its target for road user satisfaction, but has demonstrated an increased focus on meeting the needs of road users. ## Safety 2.1 The first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) set a key objective for Highways England to improve safety for all road users and workers on the strategic road network. Over the past five years, the company has shown a strong commitment to achieving this. It has consistently identified safety as its top priority, and has delivered a range of interventions aimed at improving safety. 2.2 Highways England's key performance indicator for safety in Road Period 1 (RP1) is to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. The final outcome against this target will not be known until summer 2021, when the 2020 road casualty statistics are published. 2.3 The most recent road casualty data show that 2,1523 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 20184. This represents a 30% reduction from the baseline period (2005- 09); if this rate of improvement were to be sustained by Highways England it would not meet its target of a 40% reduction by the end of 2020, therefore further work is required to achieve this. Provisional data for the first six months of the year indicate that further reductions may have been achieved in 2019 but we must wait for the publication of the data by DfT before drawing conclusions. 2.4 In 2018, there were 250 deaths on the strategic road network, which is 14 (6%) higher than in 2017. Of these, 85 deaths were on motorways - a reduction of six (7%) from the previous year. However, rates of fatalities and serious injuries are lower on the strategic road network than on other roads in England. In 2018, the strategic road network carried 34% of all traffic in England, but accounted for 16% of all road deaths. 2.5 Since 2010, the trend for the number of fatalities on the strategic road network has been broadly flat, which is in-line with the trend on all roads in Great Britain. to achieve the target in 2020. Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network (adjusted data), 2005-2018 2.6 Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, traffic on the strategic road network is expected to be significantly lower in 2020 than in previous years5. Early indications are that road traffic casualties have also declined, which increases the likelihood that the company will meet its safety key performance indicator for RP1. However, any significant reduction in casualties in 2020 is likely to be temporary. Highways England should therefore continue to focus on its longer term goal of zero casualties by 2040, and explore every avenue to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads. 2.7 Early in RP1, Highways England set out its approach to safety in its 5-year Health and Safety Action Plan, which set out 130 actions that the company then completed over the course of the road period. In June 2019, Highways England launched its current safety strategy: Home Safe and Well6. This sets out the company's approach to achieving its longer term goal that by 2040 nobody is harmed when travelling or working on the strategic road network. This is an important long term goal for Highways England, and we will monitor the company's progress in delivering this strategy in RP2. 2.8 In RP1, Highways England and ORR have worked together to identify opportunities to share best practice in areas such as risk management. For example, ORR has shared its experience of managing health and safety risks through the Risk Management Maturity Model (RM3) that it developed for the rail industry. We will continue to look for opportunities to share knowledge and experience in RP2 and beyond. 2.9 The actions taken by Highways England to improve safety in RP1 have covered the company's three areas of focus: safer roads, safer people and safer vehicles. Projects delivered by the company in RP1 have included: z Using ring-fenced funds to deliver small scale safety interventions. In RP1, Highways England delivered 109 small scale safety schemes aimed at improving safety on higher risk sections of the strategic road network. z Information campaigns which have focussed on improving the driver behaviours which contribute to a high proportion of KSIs on the network. This has included the 'Space Invaders' campaign which targeted tailgating (close following) - a factor in one in eight casualties on the strategic road. Other campaigns have targeted winter driving, drink/drug driving, and users of commercial vehicles. z Funding three unmarked heavy goods vehicle (HGV) tractor units to support police in capturing evidence of driving offences. Known as Operation Tramline, this has involved cooperation with over 30 police forces, and identified over 10,000 offences, mainly around mobile phone use, seatbelt use, and the driver not being in proper control of their vehicle. The unmarked HGVs have also been used to support specific campaigns, such as the M1 safety week, when all three vehicles were deployed on the M1 from 13 to 19 of May 2019. This resulted in fewer collisions than average on the M1 that week, with the police recording almost 200 driving offences. z Driving for better business campaign. Highways England partnered with other safety organisations to deliver a campaign aimed at improving awareness of work-related road safety. It aims to help employers make better decisions to improve the safety of their vehicles and drivers. By the end of RP1, businesses representing almost 900,000 drivers had signed up to the programme. This is discussed in more detail in the case study below. 2.10 Other actions taken by the company include interventions to support improved post-collision response, and better use of research and analysis to ensure its plans are informed by a strong evidence base. Each year Highways England publishes detailed statistical breakdown of all collisions on the network that resulted in serious or fatal injuries. This provides a valuable evidence base to support Highways England's work to reduce road casualties, but also demonstrates a wider commitment to transparency by enabling wider use of the data by road safety professionals. ## Safety Case Study - Driving For Better Business In RP1, Highways England delivered the Driving for Better Business (DfBB) campaign with the aim of reducing the risks for commercial and business users of the strategic road network. This is also an area of particular interest for ORR under its wider safety remit in the rail sector. Developed in partnership between Highways England and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), DfBB provides information and resources to help employers make effective interventions with their drivers and vehicles to improve safety. It is designed to benefit both employers - through a reduction in incident rates for their staff, fuel use, carbon emissions, insurance claims and costs - and Highways England - by supporting a safer, free-flowing network. Since the programme began in April 2017, employers responsible for almost 900,000 drivers, and 500,000 vehicles have signed up. DfBB supports employers in achieving compliance with legislation, guidance and good practice through a seven-step process including an online assessment of work related road risks with guidance and resources. The programme also includes advice and guidance on the next steps to maintain, and improve, driving standards amongst employees. Employers that d t' ir have signed up to the programme have reporte significant reductions in the number of 'at faul incidents and improved the fuel efficiency of the fleets. e n h g a The safety of people driving for work is an exampl of an area where ORR and Highways England ca work together on issues that are relevant to bot rail and road to deliver benefits to the travellin public. In 2020, ORR successfully prosecuted rail contractor over the deaths of two workers in a traffic accident on the strategic road network. Renown Consultants Ltd were found to have failed to follow both its own fatigue management policies and the working time limits on safety critical work, and were fined £450,000. This case will provide a greater incentive for employers to ensure the safety of their workforce when driving for business, as Highways England continues to expand its DfBB programme in RP2. 2.11 In RP1 Highways England surveyed its roads to provide a safety star rating assessment of the strategic road network. Star ratings use road inspection data to provide an objective measure of the level of safety of a road based on the systems used for the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). RIS1 set Highways England a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, by 2020. The company met its target, with an estimated 95% of travel on roads rated as at least 3-star in 2019. 2.12 Highways England has not met its commitment to improve the majority of 1-star and 2-star roads to 3-star or more by 2020. In response to this, the company has explained to ORR that it takes account of both the star rating, and statistical risk of death or serious injury, of a road when prioritising safety interventions. We recognise that targeting its finite resources in this way can help the company achieve a greater reduction in casualties than if it focused on improving starratings alone. 2.13 The company is currently surveying the network to provide an updated star rating for 2020, and forecast for 2025. This work has been delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, with results now expected by summer 2021. 2.14 In 2019, the Office of Rail and Road commissioned the Road Safety Foundation to review how Highways England prioritises its expenditure on safety to ensure it delivers the maximum possible benefit for road users. Key findings include: z A recognition that Highways England's commitment to safety, and its performance framework for monitoring and measuring safety outcomes, is world class. z Highways England has made real progress since it was established in 2015, and the company should further develop how it uses safety performance metrics to guide investments to achieve its goals and targets. z Further action is required if Highways England is to meet its safety target for 2020; and further investment is required to meet its longer term goal that nobody should be harmed on the network by 20407. z A recommendation that the company can make more use of data within the star-rating system to inform its investment programmes. 2.15 The full report is published on ORR's website8. We will work closely with Highways England in RP2 to address the recommendations to drive further safety improvements in the second road period, and beyond. ## Road Worker Safety 2.16 Highways England has two performance indicators, measuring accident frequency rates of the workforce. This is measured by the number of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation) accidents per 100,000 hours worked, reported separately for Highways England's supply chain, and for the company's own staff working in the operations directorate, which includes its Traffic Officer Service function. 2.17 For both measures, Highways England has achieved significant improvements over RP1. At the end of March 2020: z The accident frequency rate for the supply chain was 0.07. This is an improvement on the score of 0.15 reported at the end of the 2015-16, the first year of the road period. z The accident frequency rate for Highways England's operations directorate was 0.02. This was down from a score of 0.77 at the end of 2015-16. 2.18 Highways England has delivered a number of interventions over RP1 specifically aimed at improving safety for the workforce and reducing the accident frequency rates. These have included: z Creating regional safety performance teams, to address regional priorities for improvement and co-ordinate with national and local improvement teams. z Delivering workshops and information campaigns to increase awareness of near-miss and accident reporting. z Improving how it collects and uses workforce accident data to help develop preventative and corrective action plans. z Rolling out a health and safety leadership programme for Highways England and supply chain staff. ## Smart Motorways 2.19 In RP1 Highways England has built, and operated, a number of sections of smart motorway. The term 'smart motorway' can be used to describe three different designs: z Controlled motorways, which retain a permanent hard shoulder, and have overhead electronic signs which can be used to set variable speed limits and display messages to drivers, such as warning of an incident ahead. z All lane running motorways, which deploy the technology used on controlled motorways. In addition, the hard shoulder is permanently converted to a running lane, with refuge areas available for drivers to use in an emergency. The distance between emergency refuge areas varies from 0.3 miles to 1.6 miles. z Dynamic hard shoulder running motorways also use the technology deployed on controlled motorways. Here, the hard shoulder is used as a live running lane at peak times to mitigate congestion. Electronic signs inform drivers when the hard shoulder is in use as a running lane. Emergency refuge areas are installed in the same way as on all lane running motorways. 2.20 There has been considerable public debate on the safety of smart motorways in recent years - particularly relating to those designs where the hard shoulder has been permanently removed. This follows a number of incidents where road users have been killed or seriously injured in collisions, after coming to a stop in a live running lane. 2.21 Highways England has engaged closely, and shared evidence, with ORR and the Department for Transport in relation to smart motorway safety. This culminated in the Department commissioning a smart motorway evidence stocktake in late 2019, which was published in March 20209. 2.22 Based on analysis of road casualty data from 2015 to 2018, the stocktake concluded that, in most ways, smart motorways are as safe as, or safer than, conventional ones. It also recognised that, while some risks are reduced on smart motorways, other risks (in particular the risk of collision between a stationary and moving vehicle) are increased. 2.23 Alongside the stocktake, the Department for Transport set out an action plan for improving safety on smart motorways. This listed 18 separate actions, including speeding up the deployment of stopped vehicle detection technology, reducing the distance between emergency refuge areas, and increasing funding for public awareness campaigns on using smart motorways. 2.24 ORR will monitor Highways England's delivery of the actions it is responsible for in the Department for Transport's action plan in RP2. We also believe that it is vital that Highways England continues to review and assess any evidence relating to smart motorway safety as more data becomes available. ## Satisfaction 2.25 Highways England must deliver a service that meets road users' needs and maintain a high level of satisfaction. Satisfaction over the first road period was measured by the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS), which is conducted by Transport Focus. Highways England was set a target to achieve a score of 90% overall user satisfaction by the end of 2016-17, which it then had to at least maintain for the remainder of the road period. 2.26 At the end of RP1, overall satisfaction score was 89.2%, 0.8 percentage points below the 90% target. This is slightly below the score at the beginning of the road period (89.3%), but above the previous year's score (88.4%). Highways England has developed and delivered a series of annual customer service plans which we consider demonstrates an increased intent and focus on meeting the needs of road users. 2.27 In response to Highways England missing its performance target in 2016-17, ORR began a period of enhanced monitoring and required the company to produce a recovery plan. The company achieved this in the form of its annual customer service plans. ORR met with the company's Customer Service Directors every quarter to discuss the progress and impact of customer service schemes, ensuring it maintained improvement regionally and across the components of its satisfaction score. 2.28 As part of its customer service strategy, Highways England worked effectively with Transport Focus to gather insight from road users and to identify improvements. Many of those improvements focused on roadworks and signage, two of the five components that make up NRUSS overall satisfaction. The other three are safety, general upkeep and journey time. satisfaction increased over the road period. Roadworks satisfaction scores increased from 65.1% to 75.5% by the end of the road period while satisfaction with safety was below 90% for the first time in 2019-20. User satisfaction score by component in RP1. 2.29 Although overall satisfaction was below the 90% target across the road period, there have been improvements in some of the performance indicators. Figure 2.3 shows that satisfaction scores increased across all components, except safety, in the final year of the road period. Satisfaction with roadworks management, signage and journey time improved when compared to the start of the road period. As discussed above, in response to our enhanced monitoring, Highways England has focused on actions to improve roadworks management and signage as part of its customer service action plan. 2.30 The signage satisfaction score was above 90% throughout the period, reaching a peak of 93.3% in 2019-20. Satisfaction with journey time also recorded the highest score (88.8%) in the final year of RP1. 2.31 Customer satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other four components, but increased substantially from 65.1% at the start of the road period to 75.5% in 2019-20. The case study below highlights Highways England's approach to increasing satisfaction with roadworks. ## Case Study - Improving Road User Satisfaction With Roadworks Road user satisfaction with roadworks management consistently ranked lower than other a e s. s components of Highways England's overall satisfaction score. In 2016, ORR commissioned study to explore Highways England's approach to roadworks planning and communications. Th report examined ways to improve road user satisfaction and made actionable recommendation In response, Highways England reviewed its approach to roadworks management and ha subsequently increased roadworks satisfaction scores towards the end of RP1. Three innovative customer led approaches resulted in a significant rise in roadworks management satisfaction, especially in the last two years of the road period. 1 Understanding customers: Highways England undertook extensive research in RP1 during roadwork schemes. It also developed customer insight tools including a Customer Panel. 2 Implementation: Highways England produced a 'customer view' toolkit to capture road users' needs and best practice. Embedding the toolkit in its project governance gives project managers and suppliers a clear path to improving delivery quality. 3 Innovation: Highways England introduced specific initiatives to address areas of concerns for road users, including: z Improving journey time: Highways England carried out various trials for increasing speed limits during roadworks. Before each trial, a risk assessment was conducted to ensure safety was maintained. To evaluate the effect, drivers' behaviour in differing speed limits was logged using biometric data. Highways England also received feedback from customers and stakeholders which was implemented into its approach. The introduction of increased 60mph speed limits in roadworks, where safe to do so, reduced journey time through roadworks by an average of 10%. It also led to better speed compliance, reduction in close following and an overall improvement in driver behaviour. z Clear messaging: Active communication with road users using electronic billboards and roadside information. Highways England explained what work it was undertaking, and displayed expected construction completion dates. z Visibility of temporary road barriers: Installation of reflective studs and white lining alongside the barrier to better delineate the edge of the carriageway lane. The project received positive feedback from road users, including comments that it improved their perception of safety. Highways England identified 20 principles for improving customer experiences. The company is consolidating its understanding from these trials and will roll out best practices across its major improvement projects. We will ensure that Highways England continues its collaboration with ORR and Transport Focus for an improved customer approach in RP2. 2.32 This customer-centric approach is reflected in the improvement in signage and road management satisfaction scores which created a boost to the overall satisfaction score in 2019-20. 2.33 However, the improvements from signage and roadworks were offset by declining safety satisfaction across the road period. Highways England is working to understand how safe road users feel on their journey and addressing other accessibility issues. 2.34 Although Highways England missed its satisfaction target, we consider the actions it has identified and carried out have generally been the right ones. The latest data also indicates that these were having a positive impact on the key performance indicator by the end of the period. 2.35 At the end of the road period, user satisfaction was highest in the Yorkshire & the North East region (92.6%). The North West (85.2%) trailed other regions throughout RP1 but improved from its 2015-16 user satisfaction score of 83.5% to 85.2% in 2019-20. 2.36 Highways England has highlighted steps it has taken in RP1 and will continue its customer service action plan in RP2, building on improvement areas. These include: z Understanding satisfaction on roadworks management; z Creating an operational culture of 'every second counts'; z Improving maintenance planning to focus on making a difference to customer satisfaction and; z Developing plans to help road users feel safer. 2.37 In RP2, customer satisfaction will be measured by the Strategic Roads User Survey (SRUS). This replaces the NRUSS and will again be administered by Transport Focus. Surveying is currently suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic, but during the period of dual-running both surveys, Transport Focus was already reporting that SRUS provides a more reliable and richer measure of road user satisfaction. 2.38 We expect Highways England to build on work from the first road period and develop clearer links between the actions it takes and the resulting impact on user satisfaction. The company must ensure that best practice and lessons learnt are shared across its regions to drive up performance across England. It should also achieve a consistent level of performance across all elements of satisfaction to create a better overall experience for road users. We will continue to monitor the delivery of its customer service plans to ensure that the progress made at the end of RP1 is built upon in RP2. ## Supporting The Smooth Flow Of Traffic 2.39 Highways England has met its RP1 targets to support the smooth flow of traffic on the network. The company's performance was measured by two key performance indicators in this area - network availability and incident clearance. 2.40 Highways England's target for network availability measured disruption caused to road users by planned events on the network, such as roadworks. At the end of the road period, 98.2% of the network was available to traffic - above the target of 97%. The company has performed well against this target throughout the road period, taking actions such as using narrow lanes during roadworks to maximise network availability. 2.41 Highways England's target for incident clearance captured disruption caused to road users by unplanned events on the motorways network, such as breakdowns or collisions. At the end of RP1, 89.1% of motorway incidents were cleared within one hour - above the target of 85%. The company consistently met its target throughout RP1, and increased performance by three percentage points since 2015-16 (the first year of RP1). Figure 2.5: Highways England has consistently met its target of clearing 85% of incident within 1 hour in RP1. 2.42 Actions taken by Highways England to support performance against this target in RP1 include: z Providing better coverage for incident management on the network by increasing the number of traffic officers trained to work as a single-crew. z Enabling control centre staff to request vehicle recovery before a traffic officer is at scene - it is estimated that this can reduce incident duration by approximately 20 minutes. z Learning lessons from incidents which were not cleared within the one hour target through holding post-incident debriefs. z Setting internal 'stretch' targets for regions, which has improved understanding of the measure, and also created additional motivation for regions to improve performance. 2.43 Despite taking these actions, average delay has increased on the strategic road network over RP1 - as discussed below. In RP2 we will monitor Highways England against the new, and more stretching, targets it has been for both network availability and incident clearance. ## Supporting Economic Growth 2.44 A smooth flowing strategic road network, which enables the safe and timely movement of people and goods, is vital to the economic health of the country. Highways England's contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by a key performance indicator for average delay on the network. The company was not set a target for average delay in RP1. 2.45 Average delay on the strategic road network was 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of RP1. This is a small increase in delay from 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of 2015-16, but down slightly from a delay of 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of 2018-19. The slight reduction in the last year is possibly a result of lower levels of traffic in March 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Average delay in the rolling year to February 2020 (before travel restrictions were introduced) was 9.5 seconds per vehicle mile. Average delay on the strategic road network in RP1 2.46 The increase in average delay over RP1 has coincided with increased traffic - the network carried 94.7bn vehicle miles in 2018, an increase of 6% compared to 2015. There were also more major road improvement schemes in construction at the end of the road period - 32 at the end of March 2020, compared to 16 at the start of the RP1. 2.47 By meeting its targets to maximise lane availability, and clear incidents quickly, Highways England has helped mitigate increases in delay in RP1. Actions the company has taken to improve user satisfaction, such as increasing speed limits to 60mph through roadworks, have also supported performance in this area. 2.48 In RP2, we will monitor Highways England against an ambition that average delay will be no worse at the end of the second road period than it is at the end of RP1. The longer term impact of coronavirus on traffic levels - and therefore delay - is still unclear, but ORR will continue to challenge the company to seek new ways to mitigate delays in RP2. ## Delivering Better Environmental Outcomes 2.49 An important area for Highways England in RP1 was to deliver better environmental outcomes. The company has performed well in this area, delivering its two key performance indicators, covering noise and biodiversity. 2.50 Highways England met its target to mitigate noise at 1,150 noise important areas in RP1. At the end of the road period, the company had mitigated 1,174 noise important areas - exceeding the target by 24. 2.51 Of the 1,174 noise important areas mitigated, the majority (772) were delivered through Highways England's noise insulation programme to fit double glazing to noise affected properties. The remainder were delivered through low-noise surfacing (288), noise barriers (29), bypasses (25) and a combination of these measures (60). Noise important areas mitigated in RP1 by mitigation type 2.52 In total, 914 properties had double glazing installed as part of the noise insulation programme. A further 1,016 properties were counted as mitigated where the homeowner either refused the offer of double-glazing, or did not respond to at least three attempts to contact them. In this situation, the offer from Highways England remains open, and these properties will continue to have the option of double glazing installation in RP2. 2.53 Highways England originally expected a higher proportion of noise important areas to be mitigated through resurfacing. However, as the company developed its resurfacing plans during RP1, it became clear that this would deliver fewer mitigations than initially thought. Therefore, the noise insulation programme was expanded to support delivery of this target. Highways England has a new key performance indicator to mitigate noise for 7,500 households in RP2. 2.54 Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in the first year of RP1. The company subsequently delivered the majority of commitments set out in the plan, and published annual updates of its progress. In RP1, the company: z Met its commitment to deliver 40 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. It has also increased the number of SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition. z Developed and trialled a new biodiversity metric, which will be used to measure progress against its new biodiversity target, to deliver no net biodiversity loss in RP2. z Published annual updates of its progress against the Biodiversity Action Plan. 2.55 The company also delivered 575 hectares of species rich grassland. However, the area of grassland delivered is less than the 3,500 hectares originally set out in the delivery plan at the start of the road period. ## Environment Case Study - Catterick Flood Alleviation Scheme The A1 at Catterick was one of the worst flooding hotspots on the strategic road network. In 2012, a major flood closed the A1, and affected 130 homes. The cost to the local economy was estimated to be £2m. Working in partnership with the Environment Agency, and North Yorkshire County Council, Highways England used designated funds to deliver a £6.2m flood attenuation reservoir which would deliver a wide range of benefits to the local area. Opened in 2018, the reservoir was built using spoil from an adjacent A1 Leeming to Barton major e n g e a y m improvement scheme, therefore avoiding th use of landfill. It is capable of holding 91millio gallons of water, which will help alleviate floodin during severe weather. Since opening, the schem has worked well. The reservoir partially filled number of times in 2018 and 2019 following heav rainfall, protecting Catternick, and the A1, fro flooding. s, d d s g It provides five hectares of new habitat including wetland, bat habitats, owl nesting an meadowland, while rerouting the river provide increased fish habitat. The new area also provide a better amenity for the local population, usin bridleways and footpaths in the area. 2.56 Highways England has worked with DfT and the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) to support the government's air quality policies. In RP1 the company reviewed 101 links on the strategic road network, highlighted by the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model, to assess compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the end of the road period, work was ongoing to identify the number of links that required intervention. 2.57 Highways England has assessed which of these 101 road links are potentially non-compliant, and expects to publish details of this in the next year. Based on this assessment, the company has developed mitigation measures (where possible) for how it can address air quality on road links where nitrogen dioxide levels are above legal limits. Potential measures include lower speed limits, traffic management solutions and barriers. In 2019-20, ORR worked with DfT, and JAQU to review Highways England's delivery of the actions to improve air quality. By the end of RP1, the company had put reduced speed limits in place on four PCM links to address air quality. However, a number of other proposed mitigations are currently paused, primarily due the decreased levels of traffic, and pollution, due to the coronavirus pandemic, meaning that further monitoring and analysis is required to better understand when measures will be delivered to achieve compliance in the shortest time possible. 2.58 ORR will take a more formal role in monitoring Highways England's progress in this area in RP2, as the company has been set a key performance indicator to bring the remaining road links into compliance in as short a time as possible. 2.59 Highways England has taken action to address litter on the strategic road network in RP1. Actions taken by the company include: z Collecting 39,000 bags of litter in RP1 as part of Keep Britain Tidy's annual 'British Spring Clean' initiative. The company was unable to provide data for the total amount of litter collected in the road period. It must develop better information relating to its litter picking activities in RP2. z Working with local authorities to arrange litter picking on A-roads to coincide with lane closures for other maintenance work. z Installing car and lorry-height funnel bins at motorway service areas to make it easier to dispose of litter. The initial trial in 2016 demonstrated a significant reduction in littering on the slip road immediately after the service area. Service area operators have subsequently installed 41 of these bins, across three sites, with more planned in the future. 2.60 Despite this, Highways England has more to do to achieve the vision set out in its litter strategy of "a network predominately free from litter without compromising safety and delivered affordably". In RP2, we will report on Highways England's performance in clearing litter as a new formal performance indicator. ## Vulnerable Users 2.61 As part of RIS1, Highways England was required to help cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users using the strategic road network. This was measured by a key performance indicator for the company to report the number of new and upgraded crossings for vulnerable road users. 2.62 In RP1, Highways England delivered 211 new and 227 upgraded crossings on the strategic road network. Over a third (166) of these crossings were delivered in 2019-20 - more than any other year of the road period. 2.63 ORR identified this as an area where Highways England could produce clearer plans for delivery, and improve the accuracy and timeliness of the information it reports. The company subsequently took steps to address this, including rolling out training within the business to improve the quality of reporting. 2.64 Highways England completed construction on 59 cycling schemes in 2019-20, bringing the total delivered in RP1 to 160. This is 10 more than the company had committed to at the start of the road period. ## 3. Investment Delivery Highways England has successfully achieved 95% of its commitments for delivery of major improvement schemes in Road Period 1. The actual number of commitments delivered is lower than originally set out in 2015, but is in line with the revised plan it agreed with Government. Addressing concerns raised by ORR, the revised plan also reduces disruption to road users. The accuracy of Highways England's planning of renewals delivery has improved through the Road Period, reflecting an increased maturity in asset management capability. Highways England has largely exceeded its planned delivery of renewals across Road Period 1 (RP1). Highways England's delivery of its investment plan matured over RP1. The company has predominantly delivered its major improvement schemes to the latest agreed plan. It has substantially agreed changes to the programme of improvements that means it had a revised commitment to start 73 schemes by the end of RP1, compared to 112 set out in the initial RIS1. ## Development Of Highways England'S Capital Plan 3.1 Highways England's original delivery plan (2015-16) included the start of work on all 112 RIS1 major improvement schemes by the end of the first road period. 3.2 The original commitment to progress 112 major improvement schemes during the first road period was reviewed and optimised, following observations we made on the delivery risk of a back-ended programme. 3.3 During RP1, Highways England continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan. It reviewed its major improvement schemes with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. As a result of the review, the company improved how it scheduled major improvement schemes, which impact on the same routes or geographical locations, in order to reduce expected road user disruption. 3.4 In 2017-18, the company introduced an optimisation of the capital programme as follows: z Paused or stopped - schemes that did not demonstrate value for money; and z Scheme schedule change - based on a corridor approach, a number of schemes started work earlier than originally planned, with others starting later. 3.5 ORR supported the company's approach to improved scheduling of RIS1. We will monitor that Highways England has embedded the lessons learnt from this in RP2 and future road periods. 3.6 During 2019-20, the company also re-evaluated some schemes in the pre-options phase. It concluded further work was required to ensure that these schemes represented value and delivered the necessary outcomes for road users and communities. Therefore these schemes reverted back to the options development phase, to be included in RIS2 as part of the RIS3 pipeline package for potential delivery in future road periods. ## Image Courtesy Of Highways England 3.7 Changes to the programme reduced the original 112 RIS1 scheme commitment by: z 8 schemes - paused or stopped due to low value for money; z 2 schemes - stopped due to lack of stakeholder support; and z 2 schemes - moved to the RIS3 pipeline. Further schemes were deferred to RP2, as follows: z 15 schemes - to minimise expected road user disruption; z 10 schemes - due to other external factors, for example an outcome of judicial/statutory process or a need for further work; and z 2 schemes - decision as to whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change is to be confirmed by DfT. This reduced the number of major improvement schemes due to start of works by the end of RP1 to 73. Figure 3.1 illustrates the changes to the RIS1 portfolio. The map below (figure 3.2) shows the status of RIS1 schemes at the end of RP1. 3.8 Highways England substantially agreed the changes to its RIS1 portfolio and delivery plan with government, through the Department for Transport's formal change control process. The company revised its baseline plan which then reflected the changes made to schemes through its optimisation exercise. 3.9 The changes to portfolio described above and other changes to individual project scope have not resulted in a change to the company's funding. This is because the funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. As was common practice with the company's predecessor (the Highways Agency), at the start of RP1 more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding. This was in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping poor value for money schemes. The value of the reduced scope in RP1 for these changes exceeds the anticipated 'overprogramming' in RIS1. However, the company reports that it has delivered additional scope on some of the remaining 67 schemes. This is discussed further in paragraph 4.35 and Annex C. ## Major Investment Delivery - Start Of Work 3.10 As part of its revised plan, Highways England was committed to start work on 40 schemes by the end of the first four years of RP1. It successfully started work on 44 schemes. 3.11 The delivery programme for 2019-20 represented the largest number of schemes required to start work, compared with any other year in the road period (figure 3.4). Highways England's plan was to start construction of 27 schemes in-year, of which 21 were in the final quarter of the year. 3.12 In addition to the back-end loaded programme, the company faced a number of other in-year delivery challenges: Brexit uncertainty, an unplanned general election, adverse weather events and the coronavirus pandemic in the last weeks of RP1. 3.13 The company put in place mitigation plans to successfully manage these risks to start of work. We have closely monitored the company's approach to these risks and, where appropriate, challenged some of its mitigation plans while they were in development. ## 2019-20 Commitments 3.14 The company had a commitment to start work on 27 RIS1 schemes in 2019-20, of which: z 23 schemes - started construction in year; z 2 schemes - Highways England met its commitment to contribute to the overall funding for a third party to start work; and z 2 schemes (M2 junction 5 Improvements and A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling) - Start of work has been deferred to RP2. Both schemes have been submitted to the Department for Transport's formal change control process, on which final decisions will be made following the completion of the statutory planning processes for both schemes. Highways England also started work on the A27 East of Lewes scheme, in the final quarter of the year. This scheme was funded for feasibility study in RIS1, but did not appear in the company's published delivery plans during RP1, and is not one of the defined 112 RIS1 major improvement schemes. It has, however, been funded and work has started. This has happened outside of the governance process for changes to the RIS1 plan agreed between Highways England and DfT. ## Ris1 Commitments 3.15 For the overall RIS1 portfolio, comprising of a revised 73 schemes, Highways England started construction on 67 RIS1 schemes as follows: z 16 schemes - started work prior to RP1 and the creation of Highways England; and z 51 schemes - started work during RP1. For the remaining six schemes: z 2 schemes - the company met its commitment by providing funds for a third party to start work; and z 4 schemes - missed the stated delivery commitment. Through carrying out work, or providing funding, Highways England met its commitment on 69 of the 73 RIS1 schemes. These numbers are subject to change, if the status of the M2 J5 improvements and/or the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling schemes are altered by DfT. Figure 3.3 summarises Highways England's delivery of its RIS1 portfolio delivery. 3.16 Highways England made good progress in starting work on schemes during RP1 and has generally had success in the construction phase of projects, once started on site. The case study below - for the A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme - provides an example of the company's focus on delivery. ## Case Study - A14 Cambridge To Huntington Major Scheme z The A14 Cambridge to Huntington Project is Highways England's biggest ever improvement project, costing £1.5bn. It will improve the economic links between the Midlands and the East of the UK and upgrade a vital link to Europe, via the east coast ports. The project has created the opportunity to open up new land to the development of over 10,000 new homes and associated infrastructure. z The project includes a 12 mile bypass, 8 new junctions, 34 new bridges and structures, the demolition of old structures and the upgrading of local roads. It also includes 24 miles of new routes for cyclists, walkers, and horse riders to improve the integration with local roads and existing routes as well as converting the spoil pits into amenity areas. The project will also allow the original road to be "downgraded" to a more lightly trafficked local road. z The project started work in November 2016 and was scheduled to open for traffic in RP2. However, Highways England was able to complete the offline bypass in December 2019 and allow its customers to fully use it. z This project was one of the biggest and most complex archaeological projects ever undertaken in the UK, resulting in significant finds including 18 settlements, 15,000 objects, 500 human burials and cremations, six tonnes of pottery and five tonnes of animal bone. z Highways England was challenged to deliver an improved road link that is sympathetic to the environment and wildlife. It has met the challenge by delivering 18 new habitat areas and facilitated safe crossing for animals through the provision of 24 wildlife tunnels. z ORR visited the site in October 2017 and February 2019 and witnessed a number of good practices, including pre-fabrication of structures and locating concrete and asphalt plants on site that reduced transportation requirements. z Highways England and its suppliers have won 20 awards and been shortlisted for a further 32. In 2019 it was awarded the Considerate Constructors Scheme "ultra award site of the year", which recognises the role that the project team played and the manner in which the large number of suppliers have become integrated. z It is good project management practice to share the lessons learned and good practice when developing and delivering future projects. Highways England recognises this and intends to use the people, and their experience, from this project when delivering other complex projects during RP2. ## Major Investment Delivery - Open For Traffic (Oft) 3.17 Highways England was originally committed to open for traffic 28 schemes during RP1, as listed in its 2015-16 delivery plan. 3.18 During RP1, Highways England faced a number of challenges and has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan. This resulted in changes to the number of schemes opening for traffic. 3.19 The company put in place mitigation plans to manage challenges to opening for traffic and successfully achieved this in the majority of cases. We have worked closely with the company to monitor these risks and challenged its mitigation plans. 3.20 Highways England had a commitment to open for traffic seven schemes during 2019-20, in addition to opening one scheme that was delayed from 2018-19. The company missed its commitment on the M271/A35 Redbridge roundabout upgrade, but did open the M20 Junction 10a, which was delayed from 2018-19. Therefore, Highways England has opened for traffic seven schemes (including the delayed 2018-19 scheme) and missed its commitment on one scheme. Figure 3.5 shows the number of schemes that opened for traffic in RP1. 3.21 In RP1 as a whole, Highways England has opened 36 schemes for traffic and missed its commitment on one scheme. These schemes added 343 lane miles to the capacity of the network. Figure 3.5 gives a breakdown of open for traffic schemes. 3.22 At the end of RP1, there were 31 schemes in construction that are due to open for traffic in RP2. There is also the A27 East of Lewes scheme that also started construction in RP1 (see 3.14 above). We will continue to monitor Highways England's delivery of these projects in RP2. ## Highways England'S Programme Management 3.23 Highways England has delivered the majority of its improvement scheme commitments during RP1 on time. It has met its delivery plan commitments to start construction on planned schemes, but missed its RIS1 commitment on four schemes as discussed earlier. For the open for traffic commitments, the company has missed a number of its delivery plan commitments, with one scheme also missing its commitment to open in RP1 and had its open for traffic date deferred to RP2. 3.24 By the end of RP1, Highways England met its commitment to start work on 69 schemes and open for traffic 36 schemes. Figure 3.6 summarises the delivery of the RIS1 major schemes portfolio. The charts do not include the four scheme classified as missed start of works commitments in the RIS1 portfolio that are not covered in a delivery plan. Awaiting decision on whether status is categorised as deferral or missed 3.25 The company has taken steps during RP1 to proactively manage its programme and to smooth the profile of RIS1 projects. However, the plan to start construction on a significant number of schemes in the final quarter of the final year of RP1 was a considerable increase compared with a typical quarter during the road period. This raised concerns on the approach to programme management. Although the company strengthened its capital portfolio management capability, its programme and portfolio planning capability needs to develop further during the second road period if it is to meet its commitments. 3.26 Highways England's cost estimation processes are well developed. However, during RP1 the company has been managing a significant funding pressure as the forecast cost of the portfolio increased above the original baseline estimate. This has been managed through changes to the portfolio discussed above, rescheduling work within milestone commitments and other capital savings. This resulted in a net underspend of 1% as the final RP1 position for major improvement schemes. At programme level, the cost pressure was largely driven by the Smart Motorway Programme (see figure 3.7). 3.27 Over the first road period, Highways England's data matured and its reporting progressively improved. It has robust processes for developing and managing delivery of individual schemes. However, there are still areas for improvement in reporting progress that will provide us with greater confidence in its programme management capability. For example, the company has found it challenging to provide accurate, robust data on its earned value management reporting. 3.28 In RP1, we commissioned consultants to review the reasons for changes in schedule and cost. This review found that the main reason was immature scope definition (in lifecycle development terms) at its starting point, with consequential delivery and cost risk emerging during scheme development, so plans have inevitably changed. There is also some evidence of over-delivery, i.e. enhanced scope delivery with no additional funding arrangement which offsets this to a degree. The review's report is published on ORR's website10. 3.29 ORR identified concerns around Highways England's ability to identify best practice, and apply lessons learnt, to future projects. We therefore commissioned consultants to review the company's processes for evaluating and assessing the benefits realised from its major improvement investment, and how it implements these processes. This included reviewing Highways England's approach to publishing post-opening project evaluation (POPE) reports. 3.30 The review found that Highways England has a well-established approach to evaluating the benefits delivered by major schemes through the POPE process and compares well with other organisations. It also recommended that Highways England should publish POPE reports in a timely manner in order to maximise their value, improve transparency and benefit interested stakeholders. We will work with the company to monitor the evaluation and publication of future POPE reports. The review's report is published on ORR's website, alongside this assessment11. ## Renewals Planning And Delivery 3.31 Highways England delivered more renewals than planned in RP1 across the majority of asset types. Only two asset types, bridge bearings and network resilience schemes, saw marginal under-delivery. 3.32 The company created annual delivery plans for its asset renewals, detailing the exact interventions required to keep the network safe and serviceable. Whilst it over-delivered against those plans, it has improved its planning in RP1 and delivery was much closer to plan in the last two years of the road period, compared with performance in the first three years. 3.33 This improvement has been due to its increased maturity as an asset manager during RP1. A key factor supporting this development has been a refresh of its asset management governance. Highways England published its asset management policy and strategy, as required under its Licence, but also took key steps to improve its practice through its asset management plans. 3.34 During RP1, the company has brought in changes in how it operates with its service providers which has enabled it to align itself operationally to the approach required by its asset management framework. This way of working, known as Asset Delivery (AD), has allowed the transfer of responsibilities such as asset inspections, data management and maintenance decision making from suppliers directly to Highways England. This has enabled improvements to asset management processes where decision-making sits directly with Highways England, rather than with external suppliers. 3.35 As a result of these changes, Highways England was able to respond well to challenges from ORR on its significant structures inspection backlog, and the reporting of road defects and maintenance performance, particularly in regions where the company has transitioned to AD. Greater direct ownership of asset data has supported the migration of historic data systems to new central asset management systems. 3.36 We have also requested that the company provide more comprehensive reporting of operations, maintenance and renewals activity through regular quarterly review and challenge sessions between company specialists and ORR. These sessions will be vital to our monitoring of RIS2. 3.37 Improving its understanding of its asset base allowed Highways England to increase its renewals planning horizon from annual plans to three year and then five year plans. This improvement to the planning process contributed to the reduced delivery variance to plan seen in the last two years of RP1. Figure 3.8 shows that the assets with the highest over-delivery for the road period, such as lighting and bridge joints, saw the biggest variance from plan early in RP1, with the variance broadly improving for the last two years. 3.38 Highways England recognises that further improvements can be made to its planning processes. Two key challenges to renewals planning during RP1 have been planning for additional renewalss a result of efficient delivery, and planning other asset type renewals, such as road markings, to occur whilst the carriageway surface is renewed. These challenges have contributed to Highways England's over-delivery of renewals in RP1 and we will monitor performance improvements in the next road period. 3.39 Early in RP1, we expressed concern at the proportion of renewals delivered in the final quarter of the year (January to March) and the associated peak in spend. Roads reform provided Highways England with the opportunity to move away from annualised funding cycles, which typically leads to delivery of high output volumes to meet budget by year end. In addition to inefficiency concerns when peak delivery is in January to March, winter weather conditions may drive higher work delivery costs and reduce the quality of the work, thereby increasing whole-life costs. 3.40 As well as delivering renewals closer to plan in the latter years of RP1, Highways England improved its delivery of a smoother profile of renewals in-year. This is shown in figure 3.9 where the company has reduced the proportion of pavement renewals delivered in Q4 of each year, from a peak in the second of year RP1. Quarterly volumes of pavement renewals delivered in each year of RP1 ## Network Condition 3.41 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator, which measures the percentage of the road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. Highways England met the target and returned the network in a better condition than it was at the start of the road period. At the end of RP1, 95.5% of the network did not require further investigation. This is above the KPI target of 95%, and an improvement on the 92.3% recorded in the first year of RP1. 3.42 During the first two years of RP1, Highways England's performance against pavement condition was below target. This led us to review the company's compliance with its requirements against the RIS and Licence. We found areas for improvement in Highways England's reporting of road condition. We concluded that the company recognised the issues that we raised and had put in place plans to improve performance. ORR implemented a programme of additional monitoring to ensure that Highways England delivered improved performance. Subsequently, the company reached acceptable performance in 2017-18 and has maintained it above target since. 3.43 The performance of Highways England's other main assets (structures, geotechnical, drainage and technology) has been either broadly stable or marginally improved over RP1 as defined through the range of performance indicators. 3.44 The metrics used to define the performance of the non-pavement assets do not all report the condition of each asset type. Instead, they report a range of other performance measures including asset data availability, data coverage and asset functionality. It was recognised that for some assets, incomplete datasets meant that the focus on performance would be on expanding data inventory or on asset availability. 3.45 Whilst it is not possible to provide a definitive assessment of the condition of all non-pavement assets, the stable or marginally improved performance of those metrics provide assurance of Highways England effectively carrying out its role as a custodian of its assets and therefore represents a good outcome. ## Renewals Expenditure 3.46 In RP1, Highways England spent £3,494m on renewals, £143m less than its funding of £3,637m. This was mainly due to a decision for this part of the business to help manage the funding pressure the company was facing on major improvement schemes and other capital expenditure. As such, in the final three years of the road period, renewals was allocated a smaller budget than the level of funding anticipated within the RIS1 package. 3.47 The improvement in planning and then delivering volumes to plan, can also be seen in the company's monthly expenditure on renewals during the road period. The chart below (figure 3.11) shows an improvement in the monthly expenditure profile in the last two years of RP1, with delivery closer to plan and a reduction in the size of the year-end peak in expenditure (and associated delivery). ## Renewals Assurance 3.48 Highways England has delivered more renewals than planned over RP1, across the majority of its assets with less expenditure than funded. However, a significant challenge has been generating the confidence that the right assets have been treated at the right time. Unlike the delivery of defined major improvement projects, reporting of renewals plans and outturn delivery is not done against schemes or associated risks and needs. The impact of not renewing the right assets at the right time is not usually felt immediately but can lead to a deterioration of asset condition over time, which could then impact users, and ultimately increase costs in the longer term. Whilst some of the performance metrics provide an indicator that the delivery of renewals has led to improved asset condition, this is not the case for the majority of assets. This has limited our assessment of the impact of over-delivery of renewals, or more-for-less, on the performance or value of the asset. 3.49 We have challenged Highways England robustly to develop its reporting of renewals and undertaken in-depth reviews to improve assurance and the quality of our monitoring assessment. The company has engaged well with our reviews and improved its reporting throughout the road period. 3.50 The company has also developed metrics that improve the relationship between renewals activity and asset performance for use in RP2. Whilst not all of the metrics are ready in time for formal use, we look forward to shadow reporting during the second road period to improve reliability. 3.51 Highways England's maturing approach to asset management seen during RP1 gives us confidence that it is managing a safe and serviceable network. We will continue to challenge Highways England to provide assurance that it is efficiently sustaining the condition and value of its asset base. ## Ring-Fenced Funds 3.52 The RIS1 investment plan included a series of ring-fenced funds (also known as designated funds) with a value of £675m. The purpose of these funds was to specifically address a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of road investment. They were split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing. 3.53 On the whole, Highways England has performed well in delivering schemes through these funds. Earlier in RP1, ORR raised concerns that the company's plans for delivery were heavily loaded towards the end of the road period, which risked the funds not being fully utilised. Highways England subsequently addressed this by strengthening its leadership and resources for managing the programme. At the end of RP1, Highways England had spent £652m of the allocated £675m, and delivered a wide range of projects across the portfolio. 3.54 Each fund delivered close to, or slightly above, its budget - except the air quality fund, where the company spent £38.7m of the available £75m. The underspend on air quality reflects that Highways England was unable to identify effective solutions on which to spend the funds during RP1, despite putting in significant effort. Due to the lack of effective solutions, the company has moved its focus to reducing emissions at source. The resulting underspend of £36.1m was balanced by overspends on other budget lines. Highways England has asked the Department for Transport to consider if it can spend £21.2m in 2020-21 to deliver some of the air quality measures that could not be delivered in the previous year - the outcome of this request is pending at the time of publication. That money would come from the Major Projects budget and the spending would be additional to the RIS2 designated funds. 3.55 The overspends reported for the innovation, environment, and cycling, safety and integration funds reflect where Highways England has identified opportunities to begin delivering RP2 priorities ahead of schedule or have enabled some exceedance of environmental and cycling performance metrics for RP1. 3.56 A summary of the projects delivered through ring-fenced funds is provided in figure 3.12, below. Figure 3.12. Highways England spent close to its budget for all ring-fenced funds, except air quality. Funding Spent Budget Fund (£m) in RP1 spent Delivery in RP1 (£m) (%) Projects delivered through the air quality fund in RP1 include: - A scheme to encourage businesses to switch to electric Air quality 75 38.7 52 vans (initially in partnership with Leeds City Council). - Trials of air quality barriers. - Rolling out a network of 60 automatic air quality monitoring stations. In RP1, Highways England delivered: - 109 safety schemes, which focussed on single carriageway Cycling, routes with a higher accident rate or lower star rating. 175 180.1 103 safety and - 160 cycling schemes, against a commitment to delivery integration 150. - 62 integration schemes aimed at making the network more accessible and safer for vulnerable users. Highways England used environmental ring-fenced funds to support delivery of its environment key performance indicators in RP1, including: - 914 properties fitted with noise insulation. Environment 225 230.3 102 - 83 biodiversity schemes. - 45 flooding and water quality mitigations. - 92 landscape schemes. - 39 carbon schemes. - 14 cultural heritage and three legacy schemes. Over 170 innovation schemes funded in RP1, including: - Trialling 60mph speed limits through roadworks on the M1. Innovation 120 123.8 103 - Installing renewable low power infrastructure on the network to reduce carbon emissions. - Trialling mobile safety cameras to protect roadworkers from dangerous driving. Highways England has delivered 18 growth and housing schemes, and supported a further 28, through the growth Growth and and housing fund in RP1. This has supported delivery of up housing 80 79.5 99 to: - 44,000 homes. - 45,000 jobs. - 1.74 million m2 of commercial floor space. ## Congestion Relief Programme 3.57 In the 2016 Autumn Statement, government announced a £220 million fund to help motorists beat congestion by making junction upgrades, roundabout improvements and better traffic signalling for traffic hotspots on the SRN. The Congestion Relief Programme (CRP) announcement included: z £14m contribution to Essex County Council for delivery of a new junction at M11 J7a; z £30m for the A69 Northern Transpennine Programme; and z £176m towards 25 named schemes across the country to tackle congestion hotspots and to fund small schemes to further tackle road safety and congestion hotspots. 3.60 At the end of RP1: z 21 named schemes were open for traffic; z 3 named schemes are in construction and due to complete in early RP2, missing its commitment to open for traffic z 1 named scheme is in development and due to complete in early RP2, missed its commitment to open for traffic; z 90 small schemes were open for traffic; and z The A69 Northern Transpennine Programme originally included improvements to its junctions with the A6079 at Hexham and the A68 at Corbridge. The Corbridge junction improvement was decoupled from the overall project and is subject to ongoing review. The Hexham part of the scheme has started construction but is delayed and will continue into RP2. 3.58 Highways England has completed 21 out of 25 planned named schemes, but delivered 90 small schemes resulting in 111 road safety and congestion hotspot schemes open for traffic in RP1. 3.59 The four schemes yet to be completed are associated with technological and capacity improvements on the M5 (J17-18; J19; J24-J23; and J24-J25). Highways England reports that progress with these schemes has been affected by the transition to AD in the South West region and poor weather, but also the early stage of design the schemes were in when the programme was developed. ## 4. Efficiency Highways England has met its KPI target to deliver more efficiently in Road Period 1. The company has responded positively to ORR's constant challenge to improve the evidence used to support reported efficiency. Highways England has reported £1.4bn of efficiency in the road period supported by good evidence of actions taken. We had previously challenged the quality of the company's top-down evidence of efficiency from unit cost movement and delivery of the RIS. This remains less robust but has improved and provides reasonable evidence of the KPI having been achieved. 4.1 RIS1 required Highways England to deliver the outcome 'Achieving efficient delivery' as part of its performance specification. One of the KPIs we use to monitor Highways England's performance in delivering this outcome is the Efficiency KPI: Total savings of at least £1.212bn over Road Period 1 (RP1) on capital expenditure. Importantly RIS1 also required Highways England to demonstrate how these efficiencies have been achieved. 4.2 This chapter initially discusses the efficiency reported by Highways England and then the broader evidence presented by the company for meeting the KPI. ## Highways England Reported Efficiency 4.3 Highways England has reported that during RP1 it has delivered (gross) capital efficiency savings of £1.448bn. It is important to note that this figure does not reflect the impact of any inefficiency or other overspend positon against budgets. This does form part of the evidence for achievement of the KPI and is discussed later in this chapter. 4.4 In the first road period, 54% of efficiency has come from renewals and 46% from road improvements (major projects). This includes 18% from the Smart Motorway Programme, 16% from the company's Complex Infrastructure Programme and 9% from the Regional Investment Programme. Figure 4.1 shows the breakdown of contributions from across the business. 4.5 Highways England's Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan12 separated the initial KPI target of £1,212m to a programme level. Figure 4.2 shows that the intention was for the total efficiencies to be split with 54.8% relating to renewals, 43.6% to major projects and 1.6% to other capital. Each programme has exceeded its target and the proportions of the final reported efficiencies are very close to the original plan with differences of less than 1% against renewals and major projects. Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan (£m) % share Final efficiencies reported (£m) % share Renewals 664 54.8% 783 54.0% Major projects 528 43.6% 624 43.1% Other capital expenditure 20 1.6% 42 2.9% Total 1,212 100% 1,448 100% 4.6 Figure 4.3 shows the cumulative reported efficiency by each programme type through RP1. This figure is based upon the year in RP1 that an efficiency relates to, which may differ from the year it was submitted for review. It shows that most of the efficiency identified related to the middle years of the road period. This likely reflects new efficiency approaches being rolled out across the business, the shape of the company's capital expenditure profile during RP1 and potentially a time lag in identifying and reporting efficiency meaning some potential under-reporting in the final two years. 4.7 In the first three years of RP1 the majority of efficiencies related to asset renewals. As the road period progressed, the value of efficiency claims related to major projects increased, especially in 2018-19 and 2019-20. This reflects that major improvement schemes made up an increasingly large part of the company's capital programme13. 4.8 Figure 4.4 shows that the majority of efficiency in RP1 has been derived from improved scheduling of major improvement schemes, adopting Lean management approaches and changes in contracts and design. 4.9 The scheduling of schemes category accounts for 31% of the total, captures efficiencies relating to the way schemes are scheduled and delivered. This covers both a reduction in the duration of a single scheme, or improvements to ensure tasks are carried out at an appropriate time. A good example of this is where Highways England introduced a Programme Mapping App tool, which allowed for the visualisation of operations and major projects forward programmes. This results in a focused approach on the works that will deliver the greatest benefits for a particular route, allowing for the cancellation of obsolete proposals. 4.10 Lean techniques, which account for 17% of the total, identify issues within the design and production process of schemes. This allows more efficient ways of working to be implemented. 4.11 Contractual changes, which account for 15% of the total, captures all efficiencies related to improved procurement methods, creating economies of scale or gaining access to better procurement rates. 4.12 The introduction of new design methods, including standardised products, regional traffic modelling, off-site production, value engineering and process improvement has generated 12% of the total efficiencies in RP1. ## Case Study - Impact Of Roads Reform On The Efficiency Of The Spending Profile z One of the drivers for roads reform, which saw the creation of Highways England, was increased long-term certainty of investment on the network and a five year funding allocation. z The largely annual allocations that were provided to Highways Agency impaired the organisation's ability to plan long term, provide certainty to the supply chain and operate in the most efficient way. z Figure 4.5 shows the difference in annual average spend profile from 2007-2013, pre-roads reform, and 2015-2020 (RP1). Source: DfT's roads reform impact assessment; Figure 5 z Prior to roads reform there was a clear trend where higher levels of expenditure occurred in the final months of the financial year. This was mainly due to uncertain annualised funding creating a culture of asset renewals and many improvement schemes being planned in the first half of the financial year and delivered in the second. This meant that more works were being completed in the winter months where adverse weather can often cause cost increases. This could also have led to inefficient delivery as scheme development may have to be rushed to ensure delivery before year end. z In comparison, the RP1 spend profile shows a significant improvement, where the spend profile is mostly consistent across the whole year. There is still a small peak in spend for March, however this is no longer to the same extent as was seen before roads reform. ## Evidencing Efficiency In Rp1 4.13 In September 2015, Highways England published its Efficiency & Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM). It set out how efficiency would be reported and monitored during RP1. ORR and DfT contributed to the development of the EIMM and gave agreement to the final document. 4.14 The EIMM set out that Highways England should provide evidence from three different sources: z Primary evidence - Bottom-up: detailed register of efficiency measures and their quantified benefits, z Supporting evidence - Top-down: movement in unit costs, z Supporting evidence - Top-down: assessment of performance against the RIS (delivering the RIS1 outcomes/outputs for the post-efficient funding). 4.15 In general during RP1, Highways England has provided good primary evidence of efficiency. However, until recently the quality of supporting evidence has lagged behind. We have continually challenged the company on this, and highlighted it in previous Annual Assessments. In our 2018- 19 Annual Assessment, one of our key messages was that "Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels". 4.16 We recognise that the application of the methodology described in the EIMM has been difficult, in part because of how the EIMM was set-up. There were also challenges because of: significant overspends due to scope change on some schemes; reported underfunding; and changes to RIS1. In addition, Highways England had to develop new data, required for efficiency unit cost models. These factors have informed the development of RIS2 and changes to the EIMM for RP2. 4.17 In September 2019, we appointed consultants to assist us in reviewing supporting evidence (particularly unit cost and 'performance against the RIS' evidence relating to inflation). The findings are reflected in parts of the following sections. ## Primary Evidence: Bottom-Up Description Of Efficiency Measures 4.18 The primary evidence of efficiency against the KPI comes from a bottom-up description of measures taken to deliver more efficiently. Highways England has provided evidence of £1.448bn of efficiency from this source in RP1, 19% ahead of the KPI target of £1.212bn. 4.19 At the beginning of the road period, Highways England developed a Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan. This plan identified milestones for reported efficiencies each year. Figure 4.6 shows the efficiency reported each year by the company against these milestones. We can see that in each year of RP1 the milestone for efficiency was exceeded. Given the sharp increase in efficiencies required in the final two years of RP1, Highways England made a conscious decision to focus on over-delivery earlier in RP1 to help mitigate any potential risk. Cumulatively, the five year £1,212m target was exceeded by £236m against primary evidence. 4.20 Highways England completes case studies describing what has been done to deliver efficiently and the quantified benefit of those actions. For each case study Highways England undertakes several layers of internal assurance, including internal audit, prior to them being shared with us for final review. The value of efficiency derived from this process is recorded against the KPI, however this is verified using the top-down supporting evidence described in the following two sections. This helps protect against the risk of selecting examples of good practice and ignoring areas of inefficiency. 4.21 During RP1, Highways England has produced over 200 case studies ranging in value from £0.75m (de-minimus threshold) to £40m. We review each case study and via quarterly sessions with the company we sought further clarity and provided challenge on more than half of them. 4.22 When considering the depth of internal assurance applied, in addition to our external scrutiny, we found that Highways England has provided good primary evidence from this source for achievement of the KPI. ## Top-Down Movement Of Unit Costs 4.23 As supporting evidence to the bottom-up evidence from its efficiency register, Highways England has developed unit cost models for its major programmes of capital expenditure. The company has presented evidence of £1,578m of efficiency from this source in RP1. This includes £1,107m as the output from unit cost modelling and £471m of adjustments for items excluded from the models to ensure comparability with the other sources of evidence. 4.24 Whilst the approaches to modelling unit costs have been quite similar across the programmes, renewals and major improvement schemes have presented different challenges. 4.25 For asset renewals, Highways England has produced a model that provides evidence of £556m efficiency in RP1. The company changed its approach to the modelling of unit costs during the road period to address limitations in the approach used in early years which relied heavily on the correct classification of costs/activities by the company's supply chain. The new approach takes into account variances in high-level unit costs by using probability distribution curves. However, it still has limitations and Highways England's internal analytical assurance process found that there were a number of sources of uncertainty with the model and provided an overall amber assurance rating. Therefore we could not have complete confidence in the company's ability to provide a fully accurate picture using this method. 4.26 Within the major improvements portfolio, all programmes use a similar unit cost model to provide evidence of efficiency. This involved analysing the cost of elements of pre-2015 baseline schemes to build an expected pre-efficient cost for each major improvement scheme, based on the composition of those elements and adjusting for scheme type. The project cost is compared to the pre-efficient baseline to determine the efficiency of the scheme. This approach was established and used early in the road period for the Smart Motorway Programme and identified efficiency of £260m. However, it took several years to develop further for modelling unit costs of the more diverse schemes in the Complex Infrastructure Programme (£208m) and the Regional Investment Programme (£84m). 4.27 Highways England's internal analytical assurance process found the approach to be fit for purpose and gave it a green/amber assurance rating. This gave us greater confidence in the suitability of this approach for evidencing efficiency. 4.28 Highways England has done some detailed work in attempting to address the challenges that they have encountered whilst modelling unit costs. However, development of high-quality unit cost data takes time and is built on the experience of the actual costs of completed projects. This has been recognised by the company to the extent that unit cost models will not be used to provide evidence of efficiency in the early years of RP2. We support deferring the use of unit costs for efficiency evidence until there is greater maturity and granularity in the data used. 4.29 In addition to the unit cost models, we have reviewed the £471m of adjustments Highways England has made to ensure comparability with other types of efficiency evidence. These can be split between; z Renewals (£338m): z Whole-life costs (£203m). This results in a reduction of maintenance costs for the asset in future road periods and therefore does not result in a comparable change in unit costs. z Oldbury viaduct (£62m). Excluded from the model due to its abnormal scale as a renewals scheme and data not being available until completion. z Avoidance of work/reduced outputs (£42m). Either unit costs are not generated, the value is unchanged or the post and pre-efficient costs are not comparable. z Change in delivery method (£31m). There is a reduction in the number of units being delivered, but no change to the unit cost. z Major projects (£91m): Schemes to which unit cost model could not be applied. z Central & IT (£42m): A combination of whole-life costs not impacting on unit costs and a claim that does impact unit costs, but where no unit cost data was produced. 4.30 Our consultants reviewed Highways England's approach to unit cost modelling and found that it was sensible and that the models provided good coverage. In addition, they reviewed the adjustments made for comparability with the other evidence sources and concluded that it was appropriate that such schemes were excluded. 4.31 On balance, particularly taking into account the internal assurance of the models used and the consultant's findings, we conclude that in this area Highways England has provided reasonable evidence for achievement of the KPI. ## Top-Down Assessment Of Performance Against The Ris1 4.32 The second area of supporting evidence is based on whether Highways England has delivered the requirements of RIS1 for its post-efficient funding. Highways England has presented evidence for delivering £1.349bn of efficiency using this source of evidence. 4.33 As Highways England has delivered most of the requirements in the performance specification and investment plan, our focus in this area of evidence has been on considering whether the company has spent within its capital funding settlement. 4.34 Throughout RP1, Highways England has forecast total capital spending in excess of its funding. As the following chart shows, this reduced considerably to £18m by the end of RP1. 4.35 A net overspend of £18m initially suggests underperformance of this value against the KPI, therefore demonstrating achievement of £1,194m (£1,212m - £18m) efficiency in RP1. However, as we reviewed this area of evidence with Highways England, it was clear that there were a number of factors which either aided or hindered the company's ability to deliver within its funding that had to be taken into consideration. These are discussed in more detail below: z Over-programming & major scheme scope reduction (deferral/cancellation) The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. In common with practice adopted by the Highways Agency, more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding. This was in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping poor value for money schemes. The value of over-programming for RP1 was reported by the National Audit Office (NAO)14 in 2017 to be £652m. Our monitoring suggests that there has been £781m of costs removed due to schemes that have been deferred or stopped through formal change control. This exceeds the value of over-programming by £129m. This indicates that Highways England has been funded at a greater level than intended, for the portfolio of schemes that were delivered. z Inflation Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower actual inflation than was forecast and built into RIS1 funding levels. Our initial assessment was that the benefit was in excess of £600m. Highways England then made a case for a number of adjustments, giving a benefit value of £275m. Following our challenge, Highways England then modified this to £358m. Our conclusion, having reviewed further evidence from the company and the findings of our consultant (Rebel Group), is that the inflation benefit value is £407m. z Scope change Highways England have argued that they have delivered additional scope beyond the level funded on a number of major improvement schemes. This included £109m for Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs (ROTTMS) to improve road worker safety on Smart Motorways and a further £125m attributable to external factors, including stakeholder conditions and client requirements. In total the company requested £342m of adjustments for taking into consideration. Our review found there was reasonable evidence for £291m of adjustments. z Unfunded business costs Highways England has made a strong case that it was not funded for some essential expenditure incurred during RP1. This included upgrades to IT systems for monitoring traffic flows and increasing process and system capacity for new portfolio, programme and customer service functions required with the scaling up of the business. This is supported by both the findings of the NAO review in 2017 and in our recognition of the future need for this expenditure as part of our review of Highways England's RIS2 draft Strategic Business Plan. We challenged the company's initial claim for £545m of unfunded business costs and found that there was reasonable evidence for £320m. 4.36 The scale of the adjustments made in this category of evidence are clearly significant and we have spent considerable time assessing their validity. We have also drawn on information from an external study by the NAO, ORR commissioned studies from Ankura and from Rebel Group looking specifically at this evidence. We have given weight to Highways England's relative immaturity as a company and the rapid development of RIS1, e.g. impacting the (then) Highways Agency's ability to predict future costs for the new company. 4.37 Our review of this area of evidence has identified circa £500m of underfunding or other mitigation claimed by the company which is not fully supported by the evidence provided, in our view. We have taken this into account and balanced underfunding which is supported by evidence against the 'windfall' inflation benefit and major scheme scope reduction in RIS1 (beyond the over-programming level). We conclude that Highways England has provided reasonable evidence of achievement of the KPI in this area. ## Conclusion: Balanced View Of Efficiency Evidence In Ris1 4.38 Highways England has demonstrated that it has achieved the efficiency KPI through bottomup evidence of efficiency initiatives and top-down evidence from movement in unit costs and delivery of the RIS1. 4.39 The quality of evidence across the three areas varies. The strongest area of evidence (on which Highways England's reported efficiency is based) comes from the bottom-up case-studies. Whilst there is some uncertainty in the supporting top-down evidence, our view is that the quality is sufficient to support the achievement of the KPI. ## 5. Priorities For Our Monitoring Of Ris2 5.1 Road Period 2 started in April 2020, and ORR will now monitor Highways England's performance against the new set of targets set out for RIS2. It is a more mature organisation than at the start of RP1, so more will be expected of it. However, we are also mindful that the new road period has begun in extraordinary circumstances, due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. 5.2 Our approach to monitoring Highways England during the pandemic is set out in more detail in a letter that we sent to the company, and shared with DfT. In summary, our approach will be pragmatic and flexible, and take account of the changing circumstances, while still holding Highways England to account for delivering efficiently and effectively. 5.3 Across RP1, we have worked with the company to identify a number of areas which we require Highways England to develop and improve, in order to provide us with better monitoring outputs. Highways England has produced several key documents that demonstrate its approach to delivering RIS2. 5.4 We scrutinised Highways England's plans for RIS2 through a robust process of detailed review, challenge workshops, written questions / responses and deep-dive sampling of the company's plans. We complemented this with a programme of benchmarking and by assessing the efficiency improvements the company might realise through increased capability in areas such as procurement, asset management and portfolio management. 5.5 Highways England's plans had good supporting evidence and represented a step-change in quality compared to plans produced for the first road period. This reflects the company's growing maturity, increasing safety and customer focus, and improving portfolio management capability. 5.6 On safety, our monitoring of Highways England's key performance indicator is likely to be affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Reduced levels of traffic at the end of RP1, and beginning of RP2, will make it difficult to evaluate trends for the number of people killed or seriously injured. It is therefore important that the company continues to focus on its longer term goal that, by 2040, nobody is harmed while travelling or working on the strategic road network. In RP2, we will also monitor Highways England's delivery of the actions set out in DfT's action plan to improve safety on smart motorways. 5.7 The company should also build on the progress it has already made to develop its customer service capability - for example, showing that it is acting on results from the new Strategic Road User Survey. 5.8 The RIS2 enhancement portfolio has a number of challenges including: the development and delivery of 46 projects; inclusive of three nationally important complex projects; and 32 schemes already in construction at the end of RP1. The projects being undertaken should be less affected by the issues faced in RP1 as a result of lessons learnt and Highways England's improved capability. Over the next five years, we expect an evenly distributed delivery profile and a much more stable portfolio with limited changes occurring, given the greater opportunity Highways England has had to develop and plan this work. Highways England should ensure that the enhancement programme is sustainable in delivery terms and that disruption to the traveling public is mitigated. ORR will closely monitor Highways England to ensure that it is doing everything it reasonably can to deliver in an efficient manner. 5.9 During RP1, volumes of planned asset renewals within Highways England's annual delivery plans did not indicate which assets were at the highest risk of failure and therefore where renewal need was greatest. Year-end reporting provided limited visibility of the relationship between those assets renewed and those assets included within plans. In RP2, we will be looking for improved assurance that assets renewed, at a regional level, were the right ones and therefore those included within the original plans. It is important that the pursuit of short-term performance goals are not disproportionately prioritised over maintaining the long-term condition of the asset base. 5.10 Towards the end of RP1, Highway England developed a statement for reporting inspections and maintenance activity. This includes reporting performance for fixing defects like potholes and for keeping the network clear of litter. The improved reporting has been enabled in-part by the company updating the risk-based approach to its regular safety inspections and assessment of defect priority. In RP2, we are keen to gain assurance that the approach to, and appreciation of, risk is consistent across the entire network. This will ensure that robust comparisons in performance between regions can be made. 5.11 Regarding efficiency performance, we have worked with Highways England and DfT to develop and agree a revised Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual. It reflects a new approach for reporting and monitoring against the efficiency KPI in RP2. This recognises both the growing maturity of Highways England and that the major enhancement portfolio contains schemes at a more advanced project lifecycle stage, when compared to the start of RP1. The approach places greater emphasis on top-down efficiency evidence, in contrast to RP1 where bottom-up evidence provided the primary evidence. 5.12 Early in RP2, we plan to set out how we will approach our role in the RIS3 planning process. The core aspects of our role are likely to stay the same. We will advise government on the levels of challenge, deliverability and efficiency in RIS3 plans; and monitor how Highways England meets its licence obligations that relate to setting a new RIS. We will also make sure that we learn the lessons from the RIS2 process and continue to evolve our approach to our role as appropriate. ## Annex A: Performance Against Outcome Areas Outcome: Making The Network Safer Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Achieve An Ongoing Reduction In Network Ksi (Killed Or Seriously Injured) To Support A 40%+ Decrease By The End Of 2020 Against The 2005-09 Average Baseline Rp1 Assessment: Final Data Not Yet Available Since 2018, the Department for Transport has published adjusted road safety statistics that take account of changes in how police forces record road casualty data. Highways England's performance against its key performance indicator is measured using this adjusted series. Further details relating to the adjusted casualty statistics can be found on the Department for Transport website15. At the time of publication, the latest available road casualty figures are for 2018. The Department for Transport expects to publish 2019 figures later in 2020; the casualty figures for 2020 are expected to be published in summer 2021. Figure A1 compares adjusted and unadjusted KSIs on the strategic road network up to 2018. The adjusted figures show that 2,152 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2018, which is 165 higher than the 1,987 reported in the unadjusted data. Reported KSIs for each year between 2005 and 2018 have increased as a result of the adjustment. The baseline period for the RIS1 target (2005 to 2009) is subject to larger increases than more recent years. This is because, as more police forces move to new systems for recording road casualty data, less adjustment to the series is required. The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the adjustment. In 2018 there were 250 deaths on the strategic road network. This is 12% higher than in 2015 (the year Highways England was created), when there were 224 fatalities. Since 2010, the trend for fatalities occurring on the strategic road network has been broadly flat, which is in-line with the trend on all roads in Great Britain. ## Performance Indicators Safety Star Rating Safety star ratings for the strategic road network use road inspection data to provide an objective measure of the level of safety of a road, based on the systems used for the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). Highways England was set a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, by the end of 2020. It achieved this, with an estimated 95% of travel on roads rated at least 3-star in 2019. In RP2, Highways England will set a new baseline for the safety star rating of the network in 2020, using a new 5-star model. Work to set the baseline is due to complete by summer 2021. ## Casualty Number For All-Purpose Trunk Roads The Department for Transport's road casualty statistics are also used to monitor the total number of casualties, of all severity, on Highways England's A-road network (all-purpose trunk roads). Unlike KSIs, these figures are unaffected by revisions made to road casualty data by the Department for Transport. This is because the adjustment picks up changes in the relative proportion of minor and serious injuries over time. In 2018, there were 6,873 casualties on Highways England's all-purpose trunk roads. This is 18% less than recorded in 2015 (the year Highways England was created). ## Incident Number On Motorways In 2019-20, there were 64,408 incidents recorded on Highways England's motorway network. The number of incidents has increased each year of RP1, in 2019-20 there were 38% more than in 2015-16. ## Incidents On The Motorway Network, Rp1 The increase in incidents coincides with a 19% decrease in the number of casualties on the motorway network between 2015 and 2018 (shown in figure A3). The three most common contributory factors to casualties on the motorway network in 2018 were 'loss of control', 'failure to look properly', and 'failure to judge other person's path or speed'. This is consistent with the most common contributory factors on the all- purpose trunk road network. ## Accident Frequency Rates Highways England reports accident frequency rates for workers in its supply chain, as well as internal staff working in the operations directorate - which includes the traffic officer service. This is measured as the ratio of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation) accidents per 100,000 hours worked. Both measures have shown significant improvement over RP1. At the end of 2019-20, the accident frequency rate for staff in the operations directorate was 0.02 (compared to 0.77 in 2015-16), and for the supply chain it was 0.07 (compared to 0.15 in 2015-16). This improvement follows significant focus from Highways England on delivering safety improvements for workers, which were set out in the company's 5-year health and safety action plan. ## Outcome: Improving User Satisfaction Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it RP1 assessment: Target missed Satisfaction improved in the last year of the road period, narrowly missing the 90% target Highways England's satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS), which is run by Transport Focus. The overall satisfaction measure was 89.2% in 2019-20, below the target of 90% but higher than the 88.4% recorded in 2018-19. ## Performance Indicators Overall Satisfaction With Motorways Was Lower Than For All-Purpose Trunk Roads Throughout Rp1 Satisfaction on motorways decreased by 0.8 percentage points when compared to the start of RP1, but increased by 0.5 percentage points to 88.3% when compared with 2018-19. Satisfaction with allpurpose trunk roads at the end of RP1 was 90.2%, this is 0.7 percentage points higher than the start of RP1 and 1.2 percentage points higher than 2018-19. Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network: journey times; roadworks management; general upkeep; signage; and safety. Highways England's focus on road user satisfaction with roadworks appears to have been effective in increasing satisfaction scores. Satisfaction with roadworks continued to improve into the last year of RP1, increasing by 10.4 percentage points to 75.5% when compared to 2015-16. In contrast, satisfaction with safety decreased by 2.9 percentage points to 89.5% in the same period. ## Satisfaction With Different Components Of The Journey In Rp1 Yorkshire & the North East, the North West and the Midlands had higher levels of satisfaction at the end of the road period, when compared to 2015-16. All other regions saw satisfaction levels decrease. Overall satisfaction in the Yorkshire & the North East region rose from 86.1% at the start of the road period to 92.6% in 2019-20, the highest score of all regions in 2019-20. The North West region consistently underperformed against other regions but ended the road period at 85.2%, 1.7 percentage points above its 2015-16 score of 83.5%. while scores declined in the South West and East regions. ## Outcome: Supporting The Smooth Flow Of Traffic Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year RP1 assessment: Target met Figure A9: Highways England achieved its target of maintaining lane availability above 97% throughout RP1. Lane availability in 2019-20, and for individual years in RP1 Network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year. Highways England has consistently met its target of achieving at least 97% availability throughout RP1. In 2019-20, lane availability was 98.2%. ## Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Clear At Least 85% Of Incidents On Motorways Within One Hour Incident clearance in 2019-20, and for individual years in RP1 Highways England's RP1 incident clearance target was to clear at least 85% of motorway incidents within one hour. The company met this target throughout the road period, and in 2019-20 it cleared 89.1% of motorway incidents within one hour. ## Performance Indicators Traffic On The Strategic Road Network Traffic estimates for the strategic road network are produced by the Department for Transport. The latest available figures16 show that 94.7bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network in 2018. This is the highest volume recorded to date, and 5.6% more than in 2015, at the start of RP1. Traffic growth on the strategic road network has slowed to under 1% in recent years. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, it is possible that significant reductions in traffic will be recorded in 2020. This will have a relatively minor impact on RP1, and is expected to mainly affect the network during RP2. ## Planning Time Index The planning time index is designed to provide an indication of the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time 19 times out of 20. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free flow journey time. In 2019-20, the planning time index was 1.66, which is the same as reported at the start of RP1. ## Acceptable Journeys Acceptable journeys are measured by the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of the free flow speed. In 2019-20, 82.6% of journeys were above this threshold. This is one percentage point lower than in 2015-16, when 83.6% of journeys were above 75% of the free flow speed. ## Average Speed In 2019-20, the average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 58.9mph. This is 0.4mph lower than in 2015-16, when it was 59.3mph. ## Outcome: Encouraging Economic Growth Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Report On Average Delay - Time Lost Per Vehicle Mile Highways England's contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by average delay on the strategic road network. At the end of RP1, average delay was 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile This has increased throughout the road period, up from 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16. This has coincided with increased traffic on the network and Highways England undertaking more improvement work as part of its investment programme. The small reduction in average delay between 2018-19 and 2019-20 is probably a result of lower levels of traffic in March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Average delay in the rolling year to February 2020 (before travel restrictions were introduced) was 9.5 seconds per vehicle mile. ## Performance Indicators Average Delay For Gateway Routes Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking cities and industry with the busiest ports, airports, and rail freight services. Average delay on these routes at the end of RP1 was 8.6 seconds per vehicle mile. This measure has increased over the road period (from 8.1 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16), which is in-line with average delay on the full network. It also records a reduction in average delay between 2018-19 (9 seconds per vehicle mile) and 2019-20, which is probably a result of coronavirus pandemic related travel restrictions. ## Responding To Formal Planning Applications In 2019-20, Highways England responded to 99.9% of planning applications within 21 days. The company has consistently met this target throughout RP1. ## Spend On Small And Medium Sized Enterprises (Smes) Highways England is required to support the government target to achieve 25% spend through SMEs. In 2019-20, Highways England estimates that the proportion of its expenditure on goods and services from SMEs was 29.9%. ## Outcome: Delivering Better Environmental Outcomes Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas Highways England mitigated 1,174 noise important areas in RP1. This is 24 more than its target of 1,150. The majority of mitigations were delivered through Highways England's noise insulation programme, which offers to install double glazing to noise affected properties at no additional cost to the homeowner. ## Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Publish A Biodiversity Action Plan By 30 June 2015 And Report Annually On How It Has Delivered Against The Plan Rp1 Assessment: Target Met Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in the first year of RP1, and has subsequently delivered the majority of commitments set out in the plan. Key achievements in the road period have included: z Met its commitment to deliver 40 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. z Increased the number of SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition. z Developed and trialled a new biodiversity metric which will be used to measure the company's performance in RP2. ## Performance Indicators Air Quality Pilot Studies Highways England completed 10 air quality studies in RP1, and published the conclusions from these studies on its website. ## Carbon Dioxide (Highways England'S Activities) Highways England reported emissions of 66,046 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents from the company's activities in 2019-20. This is a 31% reduction from 2015-16, the first year of RP1. ## Carbon Dioxide (Highways England'S Supply Chain) In 2019-20, Highways England reported 563,847 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by the company's supply chain. This is 38% higher than reported in 2015-16. The large increase is a result of Highways England collecting more complete emission data from its supply chain at the end of RP1 than it has done previously. ## Number Of Flooding Hotspots And Culverts Mitigated In RP1, Highways England mitigated 248 flooding hotspots, and 12 culverts considered to be at risk of flooding. ## Number Of Outfalls And Soakaways Mitigated In RP1, Highways England mitigated 30 outfalls that posed a risk to pollution of surface water. No soakaways were reported as mitigated during the road period. ## Outcome: Helping Cyclists, Walkers And Other Vulnerable Users Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings RP1 assessment: No target set Highways England has delivered 211 new, and 227 upgraded, crossings for walkers, cyclists and other vulnerable users in RP1. ## Performance Indicators Identification And Delivery Of The Annual Cycling Programme Highways England delivered 160 cycling schemes in RP1. This is 10 more than the 150 that the company originally committed to deliver in the road period. ## Vulnerable User Casualties The latest available road casualty data is for 2018. Figures for 2015 to 2018 are shown below. These show a reduction in the number of casualties across all categories of vulnerable user. \| 2015 \| 2016 \| 2017 \| 2018 \| \|----------------\|--------\|--------\|--------\| \| 849 \| 864 \| 760 \| 785 \| \| Motorcyclists \| \| \| \| \| Pedal cyclists \| 153 \| 152 \| 137 \| \| 148 \| \| \| \| \| Pedestrians \| 158 \| 154 \| 153 \| \| Equestrians \| 0 \| \| \| \| 0 \| 0 \| \| \| \| 0 \| \| \| \| ## Outcome: Achieving Efficient Delivery Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Deliver Capital Expenditure Savings Of At Least £1.2Bn Over The First Road Period. Rp1 Assessment: Target Met In 2019-20 Highways England reported £600.1m of new achieved efficiencies, bringing the cumulative reported efficiency for Road Period 1 (RP1) to £1,448m. This value exceeds the KPI target of £1,212m by £236m. The £600.1m reported this year is also £111m (23%) ahead of the company's internal capital efficiency delivery milestone for 2019-20. Highways England's Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM) sets out how efficiency is reported and monitored in RP1. There are three components to our assessment of Highways England's efficiency performance. These are: z Primary evidence from efficiency case-studies; z Supporting evidence from unit cost modelling; and z Supporting evidence from delivery of the RIS (for post-efficient funding). The evidence presented by the company in each of these areas supports achievement of the KPI. Detail about our full assessment of these three areas of evidence can be found in Chapter 4 of this report. ## Performance Indicators We monitor Highways England's performance in the construction phase of major improvement scheme delivery using two commonly used earned value measures: Cost performance index (CPI) - is a ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to date against actual cost to date. Schedule performance index (SPI) - measures the relationship between the actual progress of work to date and planned (or scheduled) progress. In 2018-19, Highways England reviewed how it collects CPI and SPI data. This work continued in 2019- 20 with the goal of reporting more robust earned value data, at a scheme level, for the end of the road period. However, the company reported that it had encountered difficulty in quality assuring the CPI and SPI data for all relevant schemes and was not able to report on all of the schemes in construction. This is an area of concern and we are working with Highways England to ensure that there is improvement in the quality and breadth of data reported on these indicators in RP2. The chart below shows reported aggregated CPI and SPI performance information for schemes in construction as at the end of 2015-16 to 2018-19. In these years, the reported values were close to 1 which indicated that on average projects were progressing close to target cost and schedule. The data reported to us at the end of 2019-20 for schemes in construction shows some significant variability, in particular for SPI, with schemes ranging from 0.69 and 2.23. We are engaging closely with Highways England to understand the reasons for the reported performance on these schemes, whether there will be impacts on users or funding, and what lessons can be learnt for the cost and schedule performance of future schemes. \| Scheme \| SPI \| CPI \| \|---------------------------------\|-------\|-------\| \| 1.00 \| 0.87 \| \| \| A1 (M) Junctions 6-8 \| \| \| \| M1 Junctions 13-16 \| 0.72 \| 0.88 \| \| M3 Junctions 9-14 \| 0.98 \| 0.85 \| \| M6 Junctions 13-15 \| 0.71 \| 0.84 \| \| M20 Junctions 3-5 \| 0.94 \| 1.01 \| \| M23 Junctions 8-10 \| 1 \| 1.02 \| \| M27 Junctions 4-11 \| 0.69 \| 0.89 \| \| M62 Junctions 10-12 \| 0.92 \| 0.98 \| \| A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon \| 0.97 \| 1.01 \| \| M6 Junctions 2-4 \| 0.98 \| 1 \| \| A19 Norton to Wynyard \| 0.73 \| 0.85 \| \| A1 Scotswood to North Brunton \| 2.12 \| 1.18 \| \| 1.11 \| \| \| \| M621 Junctions 1-7 Improvements \| 0.93 \| \| \| 0.76 \| 0.91 \| \| \| A500 Etruria Valley \| \| \| \| 1.29 \| \| \| \| M6 Junction 10 improvement \| 2.23 \| \| \| 0.93 \| \| \| \| M40/M42 Interchange \| 0.91 \| \| \| M62 Junctions 20-25 \| 1 \| 1.06 \| \| A52 Nottingham Junctions \| 1.36 \| 0.99 \| Highways England started work on 67 schemes, provided funds on two schemes for a third party to start work, and missed its commitment on four schemes. Additionally, there are two schemes, which have been deferred to RP2, that have their commitment status under review by government. It successfully opened for traffic 36 schemes and missed its commitment on one scheme. Figure 3.6 (section 3) summarises the delivery of the RIS1 major schemes portfolio. The map below illustrates progress of improvement works on the strategic road network in relation to Highways England's delivery plans. ## Outcome: Keeping The Network In Good Condition Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance RP1 assessment: Target met At the end of 2019-20, Highways England reported that 95.5% of its pavement (road surface) asset did not require further investigation for possible maintenance. This is above the target of 95% and is the same as the score recorded in 2018-19. Highways England has therefore returned the asset in a better condition than it started the road period with, as defined by the metric. ## Performance Indicators Structures assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.57% complete. This is an improvement of 0.27 percentage points from 2018-19. The score represents an improvement of 0.77 percentage points since 2015-16, the first year of the road period. The condition of Highways England's structures is measured by three performance indicators. The first two - the average condition of the stock (SCav), and the condition of the assets' most critical elements (SCcrit) - show a slight decrease in 2019-20, compared to 2018-19. However, both these scores have improved over the road period. The third indicator - the percentage of structures which have been inspected and rated as 'good' (SCI) - shows a slight improvement in 2019-20, compared to 2018-19, and across the road period. Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.3% of its geotechnical assets did not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2019-20. This is a slight improvement compared to the position reported at the end of 2018-19. The score represents an improvement of 0.7 percentage points since 2015-16, the first year of the road period. Drainage assets: Highways England reports that it has drainage inventory data for 90% of its network, which is a decrease of 1 percentage point from its 2018-19 position. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data is 36% in 2019-20, up from 33% in 2018-19. Both indicators have improved over the road period. Technology asset availability: The availability of operational technology assets is measured by the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2019-20, performance has been reported as above Highways England's targets for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. All three indicators have remained broadly stable across the road period, and above Highways England's targets. \| Asset \| Performance Indicator \| 2019-20 \| \|-----------------------------------\|-------------------------\|-----------\| \| Inventory \| 98.57% \| \| \| Condition (SCav) \| 85.16 \| \| \| Structures \| \| \| \| Condition (SCcrit) \| 63.23 \| \| \| SCI Rating of 'Good' \| 80.49% \| \| \| Condition \| 97.3% \| \| \| Geotechnical \| \| \| \| Inventory \| 12,979 km \| \| \| Inventory Coverage \| 90.0% \| \| \| Drainage \| \| \| \| Condition Coverage \| 36.0% \| \| \| Control Centre \| 99.97% \| \| \| National Roads \| \| \| \| Technology Availability \| Telecommunication \| 99.99% \| \| Services \| \| \| \| Roadside \| 98.21% \| \| \| Key: Relative position in 2015-16 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| increase \| no change \| decrease \| ## Ris2 - A Well Maintained And Resilient Network During RP1, Highways England has developed new metrics for use in RP2 to satisfy the RIS2 outcome area: a well maintained and resilient network. The company has consulted with us during the development process and we have provided advice to DfT on their use in the next road period. Pavement: The metric for pavement will improve upon the RIS1 metric by capturing condition data for all lanes of the road, rather than just lane 1. It is also linked more closely to the company's maintenance requirements. Whilst this metric has been developed, it still requires a full data baseline against which a target can be set. Therefore, for the first two years of RP2, the RIS1 metric will be formally reported against, with the same target of 95%. We will monitor the dual running of the pavement metrics and provide advice to DfT on the establishment of a target for the new metric to be used from 2022-23. Structures: The indicators used in RP1 are well established metrics used by Highways England and local highway authorities across England. The company has developed a new metric to simplify existing indicators by providing a singular representation of asset condition. It was agreed that the existing indicators will be used during RP2, but that the new metric will be developed further. Geotechnical: Highways England have developed a new metric that provides a single indicator of good condition rather than the multiple indicators used in RP1. This new metric will be used from the start of RP2 as the measure for geotechnical assets. Drainage: In RP2, Highways England will report a new measure of resilience to carriageway flooding, rather than the measures of data coverage used in RP1. Technology: Highways England has improved its metric for measuring the availability and functionality of its roadside assets that it will report against during RP2. The company is required to develop an alternative indicator to further improve performance reporting, as recommended in ORR's in-depth review of technology assets. ## Annex B: Financial Performance Funding Highways England's funding for delivering the RIS1 outputs in RP1 was set in 2015 at £11,351m capital (specified in the RIS) and £5,310m resource (specified in Spending Review 2015). Over the course of RP1, the funding was subject to a number of approved changes which both increased and decreased its value. The final position as at March 2020 was agreed capital funding of £12,142m and resource funding of £5,513m. \| Capital \| \|---------------------\| \| Major schemes 7,149 \| \| Renewals 3,637 \| \| PFI 2,116 \| \| Mainten- \| \| ance, \| \| 1,306 \| \| Ring-fenced \| \| funds 675 \| \| Other capital \| \| 682 \| \| Support \| \| 730 \| \| Traffic \| \| Mgt \| \| 640 \| \| Operat- \| \| ions \| \| 430 \| \| Protocols \| \| 292 \| The most significant change to capital funding was the additional funding for the Lorry Park in Kent of £234m in 2016-17. Subsequently this was reduced by £170m in 2018-19 when the scheme was cancelled, before the start of construction. Other notable changes related to additional funding for the completion of some pre-RIS1 schemes, early start of construction works on the M62 junctions scheme and accelerating works on other schemes due to start construction in RP2. Most recently, in 2019-20, the funding was increased by £35m to cover increased costs related to unrecoverable VAT and updates to IFRS16, treatment of leases17. Resource funding increased by £203m over RIS1. The most significant changes were an increase of £70m in 2016-17 for the Severn River Crossing and more recently, in 2019-20, there was £108m of additional funding provided to cover increased costs related to unrecoverable VAT (£84m), Operation Brock (£21m) and HMRC (£3m). RIS1 required Highways England to manage the construction of a significantly larger number of major improvement schemes as RP1 progressed. This was reflected in the profile of its capital funding, which was 70% higher in 2019-20 than it was in 2015-16. However as Highways England grew from being a £3bn to £4.5bn business, its resource funding did not increase in-line with capital and actually reduced as a proportion of its total funding from 36% in 2015-16 to 27% in 2019-20. Figure B4: In RP1 capital funding grew with major scheme delivery but resource funding remained broadly constant ## Resource And Capital Funding By Year In Rp1 (£M) Overprogramming & Scope Change Highways England's capital funding for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the improvement schemes specified. As was common practice in (Highways England's predecessor) the Highways Agency, the capital portfolio was 'overprogrammed' in the expectation of some scheme deferral or low value for money schemes being cancelled. The value of overprogramming at the start of RP1 was estimated to be £652m. During RP1, DfT approved changes to the outputs of the RIS1 with some schemes being cancelled, deferred or changed in scope. The value of the change within RP1 has exceeded the anticipated level of overprogramming by £129m. This means that there were fewer schemes being delivered in the road period than intended, given the funding provided. However, there is evidence that additional scope was delivered on some schemes of up to £291m. Other schemes delivered less scope but there is less certainty about this value. The impact of these factors and others affecting delivery within capital funding (e.g. underfunding of business costs and windfall inflation) are discussed in chapter 4 as part of our efficiency evidence assessment. ## Capital Expenditure In the first road period, Highways England spent £12,160m of capital expenditure delivering the outputs within the RIS, as amended through change control and agreed by DfT. This marginally exceeded the company's funding of £12,142m by £18m (0.1%). However, during RP1 Highways England had been managing a significant funding pressure as the forecast cost of the RIS1 major improvement scheme portfolio increased above the original baseline estimate. At the end of RP1, the forecast total costs for the RIS1 portfolio of schemes across RP1 and future road periods, was £1.7bn higher than baseline. This was caused mainly by immature schemes estimates when the original baseline was set. A revised baseline and funding package for RP2 has now been agreed. At the outset of the road period, the programme carried a RP1 pressure of £652m, reflecting the overprogramming within the investment plan. During the first year, the company began to develop clearer forecasts for major improvement schemes (many of which were immature in their scope/design when RIS1 was created) and the pressure grew to £1.8bn. Since this point, the gap has reduced through; 1. the delivery of efficiency, or other capital savings, not identified or reflected in the early scheme forecasts, 2. change control reducing RIS1 major outputs to the level of expected overprogramming and beyond, and 3. in later years asset renewals, and designated ring-fenced funds underspending their funding allocation. During the road period, overall funding has increased. However, this was matched by additional outputs, suggesting that this has not contributed to a reduction in the funding gap. Figure B6 shows the cumulative capital underspends and overspends across RP1. It compares the baseline funding against actual spend. At the end of RP1, there were underspends against funding in ring-fenced funds, asset renewals and major improvement schemes. These underspends were largely offset by an overspend on other capital business costs (discussed below). ## Major Schemes Highways England spent £7,060m on major improvement schemes in RP1, compared to its funding of £7,149m. The company has been able to spend within its major improvement schemes total baseline funding for RP1. This is notable because the forecast funding pressure, illustrated in figure B5 and discussed above, arose mainly within the major improvement schemes and 'other capital' expenditure categories. Within the major improvement schemes expenditure category, the pressure has been mainly mitigated through underspends on other schemes, or change control reducing the size of the RIS1 portfolio. Analysis of schemes with the largest underspend variances indicates that they were mainly due to either DfT agreed change control deferring milestone delivery commitments or rescheduling and resequencing works to RP2, but within existing milestone commitments. We commissioned consultants to review the reasons for the largest cost increases on major improvement schemes. They analysed the variances on a sample of schemes that had the largest overspends and concluded that immaturity in the assumptions on which scheme estimates were calculated was the largest driver of scope change and cost variance. They found that there was a lower risk of recurrence for RIS2 schemes, due to a greater level of development maturity. We have further analysed cost variances on schemes of different types and sizes to see whether this factor has affected the portfolio equally, or if particular programmes or scheme sizes are impacted differently. Figure B7 shows the major improvement schemes that Highways England was required to have started construction on during RP1 and the variance against its RIS1 baseline, categorised by tier18 (project size based on total baseline funding). Analysis in these sections is based on the funding and spending related only to RP1. Work on many schemes will span road periods, so the total cost/funding for a scheme will differ to that relating purely to RP1. In general, other than an overspend of £60m (5%) to RP1 funding on a Tier 1 scheme (the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon), the largest overspends are against Tier 3 schemes (£50m-£200m). On these schemes, the average variance was a £9m overspend and half of them had an overspend greater than 10%. Whilst there are also some large overspends against Tier 2 schemes, these are relatively small in percentage terms when compared to the schemes' larger baselines. This suggests that schemes of relatively smaller size created the cost pressure in RIS1. This may be due to their quantity within the portfolio or indicate that there is stronger financial control and more mature baseline assumptions on the larger, more high profile, Tier 1 and 2 schemes. We will look further into this during RP2. Figure B8 shows the major improvement schemes that Highways England was required to have started construction during RP1 categorised by programme type. This shows that the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) contributed many of the largest major scheme overspends to RP1 funding, with eight schemes overspending by more than £20m (average SMP RIS baseline £109.5m) and 10 overspending by more than 10%. There were also several large overspends on the Regional Investment Programme (RIP) schemes in the portfolio. Whilst on average the variances were smaller the RIP schemes were generally smaller projects generating some larger percentage variances. (Under)/overspends against baseline by programme type (£m) Figure B9 shows the RIS1 underspends and overspends against baseline for the schemes that were open for traffic (completed) as at March 2020. Most of the schemes that opened during RP1 spent more than their RIS1 funding. Of the 17 Regional Investment Programme schemes that opened in RP1, 10 overspent their RIS1 funding and of the 11 SMP schemes that opened, 10 were overspent. Figure B9: The majority of schemes opening in RP1 overspent their RIS funding, in particular smart motorways Over/(Under)spends to RIS funding on schemes opening during RP1 (£m) ## Renewals Highways England Spent £3,494M Renewing Assets In Rp1, Compared To Its Funding Of £3,637 M. In the final three years of RP1, Highways England allocated a lower budget than its baseline funding to asset renewals. The purpose of this was to share the burden of the funding pressure faced by major projects in the early years of RP1. Asset renewals contributed c£131m of its funding to help meet this pressure. Overall for RP1, spending on asset renewals was within 0.3% of budget and was 3.9% less than funding. Figure B10 shows the profile of asset renewals expenditure from 2013-14 to 2019-20. This illustrates how the profile has changed prior to the creation of Highways England and the start of RP1 in April 2015, through to the end of the first road period. In previous years of RP1, we raised concerns around the disproportionate delivery of asset renewals in Q4 due to the potential inefficiency caused by higher costs in winter weather conditions. We can see that in the final two years of RP1 this profile has flattened, suggesting improved planning and control. ## Ring-Fenced Funds Highways England spent £652m on ring-fenced funds in RP1, compared to funding of £675m. The company underspent its Air Quality ring-fenced fund by £36m and overspent or spent in-line with budget on other funds. This is discussed further in Chapter 3. ## Other Capital Highways England spent £954m on other capital expenditure, compared to baseline funding of £682m (a 40% overspend). The apparent growth of this cost pressure in the final two years of the road period was caused by several different factors. This category includes c£600m of costs of developing capacity to deliver the significantly larger capital programme, in particular major improvement schemes. There was no assigned funding for this within the RIS1 package and it was a leading cause of the cost pressure in RP1. This was identified by the company early in the road period, but the impact was mostly felt during later years as the business grew. Similarly, Highways England capitalised more of its staffing cost because the company employed more people than originally anticipated to meet the demanding major improvement scheme delivery profile in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The company was experiencing cost pressure to a lesser extent in earlier years but this was in part masked by additional funding being provided by DfT for the M20 Lorry Park in 2016-17 before its cancellation and funding being returned in 2018-19. Other capital also included additional funding for small scale congestion relief schemes. An underspend of £27m on this item, due to delays in delivery, were more than offset by other pressures arising on the budget. ## Resource Expenditure During RP1, Highways England spent £5,579m of resource expenditure delivering the outputs within the RIS1. This exceeded the company's funding of £5,513m by £66m (1.2%) and was agreed by DfT. Figure B11 shows the cumulative resource underspends and overspends across RP1. It compares the baseline funding against actual spend. At the end of RP1, there were overspends against funding in maintenance, support and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts. These overspends were offset by underspends against operations, traffic management and protocols. ## Private Finance Initiative (Pfi) Highways England spent £2,136m on its PFI contracts, £20m (1%) more than its funding of £2,116m. This was due to higher costs at close of contracts than anticipated, offset by lower indexation and traffic volumes than assumed and a refinancing of the M25 contract during 2018-19. ## Maintenance Highways England spent £1,396m on maintenance, £90m (7%) more than the funding of £1,306m. The funding for maintenance during RP1 assumed that costs would reduce during the road period. The company has changed its procurement and contracting approach over to Asset Delivery during RP1. This has cost more than the funding assumption set for maintenance. However, Highways England report it is delivering more efficiently for the same funding as the previous type of Asset Support contracts. Furthermore, they believe that had the Asset Support contracts been renewed, market conditions meant that costs would have exceeded those incurred on Asset Delivery. ## Operations Highways England spent £405m on operations, £25m (6%) less than the funding of £430m. However, we understand this mainly relates to a categorisation error whereby the contractor spend on IT and operations projects was budgeted for in this category, but the expenditure is categorised as support costs. ## Traffic Management Highways England spent £602m on traffic management, £38m (6%) less than its funding. During most of RP1, the company set a budget that was lower than its funding of £640m by c£30m and spent in-line with its budget. ## Support Highways England spent £799m on support, £69m (9%) more than the funding of £730m. As described above, expenditure on contractor IT and operations projects is categorised here but the budget resides in operations and traffic management. Additionally, this pressure likely reflects the additional costs of supporting a company growing in size to manage delivery of the larger capital programme. ## Protocols Highways England spent £240m on protocols, £52m (18%) less than the funding of £292m. This is partially due to costs being allocated to other expenditure categories in 2015-16. In recent years, the variance has grown due to lower than anticipated costs on the contracts for the Severn Crossing tolling and Dartford-Thurrock crossing. ## Annex C: Network Investment Delivery This annex describes Highways England's performance against its investment plan during RP1. The RIS1 set the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England had to deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlined a five-year capital funding package of £12.1 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This included: 1. a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.1bn; 2. a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.6bn; 3. a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and 4. £680m of other capital investment including congestion relief schemes. We measure and report on Highways England's performance against the network investment required by the investment plan. ## Development And Delivery Of Major Scheme Programme In Rp1 At the start of RIS1, Highways England was committed to start the construction of 112 schemes. Since the start of RP1, Highways England has improved its scheduling of major improvement schemes, with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. Highways England made changes to optimise its improvement plan, by considering the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations (road corridors) to reduce customer disruption. During the RP1, Highways England continued to assess how it delivers its capital plan during the remainder of the road period. As a result, some major improvement schemes are now programmed for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes have been brought forward within RP1. Further changes were introduced for other reasons. The company substantially agreed the changes to its RIS1 commitments and delivery plan with government and has taken these through the Department for Transport's formal change control process. There are two schemes (M2 Junction 5 improvements and the A303 Sparkford - IIchester dualling) that have been deferred to RP2, but the company is yet to agree whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change with the Department for Transport. Highways England's progress in developing its capital programme during RP1 is shown in figure C1. Changes to the major improvements programme during RP1 Schedule impact Number of schemes RIS1 scheme number - name #45 - A1 & A19 Technology enhancements #48 - M62/M606 Chain Bar #53 - M53 Junctions 5-11 #54 - M56 new Junction 11A 8 Schemes paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money #67 - M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - technology upgrade #69 - A12 whole-route technology upgrade #87 - M5 Bridgwater Junctions #89 - A14 Junction 10a #37- A27 Chichester Improvement 2 #96 - A628 Climbing Lane Stopped due to lack of stakeholder support, to avoid adverse environmental impacts or to align with local authority plans #34 - M60 Junctions 24-27 & J1-4 2 #52 - M6 Junction 22 upgrade Schemes moved to RIS3 Pipeline to enable formal options development and avoid the risk of progressing the wrong proposal. #33 - M6 Junctions 21A-26 #59 - A5 Dodwells to Longshoot widening #68 - A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening- #74 M25 Junction 25 improvement 15 Start of works deferred from RP1 to RP2 to minimise road user disruption #75 - M25 Junction 28 improvement #78 - M25 Junctions 10-16 #79 - M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange #80 - M3 Junction 9 improvement Shedule imapct Number of Schemes RIS1 scheme number - name #85 - A31 Ringwood #95 - A1 Birtley to Coal House widening #100 - A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Start of works deferred #101 - A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling from RP1 to RP2 to minimise road user disruption (cont) #104 - A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction #105 - A47 Guyhirn Junction #106 - A47 Wansford to Sutton #36 - M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road #38 - A38 Derby Junctions #43 - A19 Down Hill Lane junction improvement #51 - A5036 Princess Way - Access to Port of Liverpool Start of works deferred from RP1 to RP2 due to #66 - A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet 10 #83 - M27 Southampton Junctions other factors, for example an outcome of public consultations and schemes' options appraisals #103 - A47 & A12 junction enhancements #108 - A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements #109 - A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down #111 - A358 Taunton to Southfields #77 - M2 Junction 5 improvements 2 #110 - A303 Sparkford - Ilchester dualling Start of work has been deferred from RP1 to RP2, schemes have been submitted to the Department for Transport's formal change control process, on which final decisions will be made following the completion of the statutory planning processes The company has progressed RIS1 schemes through its Project Control Framework (PCF) governance process. Figure C2 illustrates the number of schemes progressed through the PCF process. Number of schemes that progressed through project control framework process during RP1 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in RP1, Highways England committed to start work on 73 schemes by March 2020. The 73 schemes were progressed as follows: I. two schemes are to be delivered by third parties: z M11 junction 7a - junction upgrade (commitment met by Highways England with agreement to transfer funds to Essex County Council) the start of work is dependent on a third party; and z A5 Towcester Relief road - we consider that Highways England has met its obligation and the start of work is dependent on a third party. II. four schemes missed their commitment: z A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling - due to the delay to the development consent order submission; z Mottram Moor link road - delay to delivery arising from air quality issues compounded by supplier poor performance; z A57 (T) to A57 link road - delay to delivery arising from air quality issues compounded by supplier poor performance; and z A27 Arundel Bypass - to complete a further non-statutory consultation, prepare a revised preferred route announcement - ensuring the scheme delivers against the outcomes stated in the RIS and the strategic outline business case. III. 67 schemes have successfully started construction by the company: z 16 schemes started prior to RP1; and z 51 schemes started during RP1. There are two additional schemes which have been deferred to RP2 (M2 J5 improvements and the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling), but the company is yet to agree whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change with the Department for Transport. If either status changes, then these numbers will be affected. Highways England also started work on the A27 East of Lewes, on 24 March 2020. This is in addition to the 112 major improvement schemes listed in RIS1 and in the company's 2019/20 delivery plan. Figure C3 summaries the progress made on RIS1 schemes. ## Major Scheme Delivery Status For Rp1 \| Progress \| No. \| \|------------------------\|-------\| \| Status \| \| \| Phase \| \| \| Original delivery plan \| \| \| commitments (2015-20) \| \| \| Started \| 67 \| \| To be delivered \| \| \| by 3 \| \| \| rd \| \| \| party \| 2 \| \| Missed \| \| \| commitments \| \| \| 4 \| \| \| 4 schemes missed RIS1 \| \| \| - \| \| \| commitments \| \| \| 112 \| \| \| - \| \| \| 37 approved changes \| \| \| Start \| \| \| of \| \| \| works \| \| \| Removed from \| \| \| RIS1 portfolio \| \| \| Opened \| \| \| 37 \| \| \| Open \| \| \| for \| \| \| traffic \| \| \| Missed \| \| \| commitment \| \| Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule Milestone changed 16 started construction - prior to RP1 51 started in the five - years of RP1 2 HE provided funds - for 3rd party to deliver schemes - 8 low VfM schemes - paused - 2 schemes stopped 39 - 2 moved to RIS3 pipeline - 25 deferred from RP1 to RP2 - 2 deferred from RP1 to RP2 - status to be confirmed by DfT - 36 36 opened for traffic in the five years of the road period 1 - 1 scheme missed its RIS1 commitment ## At The End Of Rp1: z the company had opened for traffic 36 schemes adding extra capacity to the SRN of 343 lane miles. (This does not include the partially completed M1 Junction 13-19 scheme, which added capacity of 29 lane miles, because the scheme was not officially OFT by the end of RP1); and z there were 31 schemes in construction on the SRN (excluding the A27 East of Lewes). The map below illustrates schemes that were OFT or in construction. The map below illustrates RIS1 schemes' status at the end of RP1. Figure C4 illustrates the status of RIS1 major schemes in terms of: start of work, open for traffic, additional lane miles delivered and status at the end of RP1. \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| \|------------------------\|--------------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| map \| \| \| 1 \| A556 Knutsford to Bowdon \| \| 2 \| \| \| A1 Coal House to Metro \| \| \| Centre \| \| \| Pre-RIS 1 \| 2016-17 Q1 \| \| 3 \| A1 Leeming to Barton \| \| 4 \| M1 Junctions 28-31 \| \| 5 \| A453 Widening \| \| 6 \| \| \| Pre-RIS 1 \| \| \| A14 Kettering bypass \| \| \| widening \| \| \| 7 \| Pre-RIS 1 \| \| M1 Junction 19 \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| 8 \| Pre-RIS 1 \| \| A45-A46 Tollbar End \| \| \| 9 \| A5-M1 Link Road \| \| 10 \| M25 Junction 30 \| \| 11 \| M6 Junctions 10a-13 \| \| Pre-RIS 1 \| 2017-18 Q2 \| \| A30 Temple to Higher \| \| \| Carblake \| \| \| 13 \| M1 Junctions 32-35A \| \| 14 \| M1 Junctions 39-42 \| \| 15 \| \| \| M60 Junction 8 to M62 \| \| \| Junction 20 \| \| \| Pre-RIS 1 \| 2018-19 Q2 \| \| 16 \| M3 Junctions 2-4A \| \| 17 \| A160/A180 Immingham \| \| 18 \| A21 Tonbridge to Pembury \| \| 19 \| M1 Junctions 13-19 \| Open for Traffic Scheme status Lane miles delivered 2016-17 Q4 0 OFT 2015-16 Q2 14 OFT 2015-16 Q1 6 OFT 2016-17 Q3 0 OFT 2016-17 Q3 4 OFT 2017-18 Q2 5 OFT Not fully OFT 29 In construction \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| Open for Traffic \| \|----------------------------\|---------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| \| map \| \| \| \| 20 \| M5 Junctions 4A-6 \| 2015-16 Q3 \| \| 21 \| M6 Junctions 16-19 \| 2015-16 Q3 \| \| 22 \| \| \| \| A14 Cambridge to \| \| \| \| Huntingdon \| \| \| \| 2016-17 Q3 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 23 \| M20 Junction 10a \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| 24 \| A19 Coast Road \| √ 2016-17 Q1 \| \| 25 \| M4 Junctions 3-12 \| 2016-17 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 26 \| A63 Castle Street \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 27 \| M1 Junctions 24-25 \| 2016-17 Q4 \| \| 28 \| M6 Junctions 2-4 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| 29 \| M6 Junctions 13-15 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 30 \| M20 Junctions 3-5 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| 31 \| M23 Junctions 8-10 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| 32 \| M27 Junctions 4-11 \| √ 2018-19 Q1 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 33 \| M6 Junctions 21A-26 \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disrupton \| \| \| \| 34 \| \| \| \| M60 Junctions 24-27 & J1-4 \| \| \| \| Scheme is \| \| \| \| moved into RIS3 \| \| \| \| pipeline \| \| \| \| 35 \| A19 Testos \| 2018-19 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| Open for Traffic \| \|------------------------\|-----------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| \| map \| \| \| \| 36 \| \| \| \| M54 to M6/M6 Toll link \| \| \| \| road \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 37 \| \| \| \| A27 Chichester \| \| \| \| Improvement \| \| \| \| Stopped Other \| \| \| \| factors \| \| \| \| 38 \| A38 Derby Junctions \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 39 \| \| \| \| A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet \| \| \| \| junctions \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 40 \| M62 Junctions 10-12 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| \| 41 \| M56 Junctions 6-8 \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 42 \| M3 Junctions 9-14 \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 43 \| \| \| \| A19 Down Hill Lane \| \| \| \| junction improvement \| \| \| \| 44 \| A19 Norton to Wynyard \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 45 \| \| \| \| A1 & A19 Technology \| \| \| \| enhancements \| \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low V M \| \| \| \| 46 \| \| \| \| M1 Junction 45 \| \| \| \| Improvement \| \| \| \| √ 2016-17 Q4 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| 0 \| \| 47 \| \| \| \| M621 Junctions 1-7 \| \| \| \| improvements \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q3 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 48 \| M62/M606 Chain Bar \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low V M \| \| \| \| 49 \| M62 Junctions 20-25 \| √ 2019-20 Q2 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 50 \| \| \| \| A585 Windy Harbour \| \| \| \| - Skippool \| \| \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered Judicial/ Statutory process Further work required Further work required \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| Open for Traffic \| \|-----------------------------\|------------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| \| map \| \| \| \| 51 \| \| \| \| A5036 Princess Way - \| \| \| \| Access to Port of Liverpool \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 52 \| M6 Junction 22 upgrade \| \| \| Scheme is \| \| \| \| moved into RIS3 \| \| \| \| pipeline \| \| \| \| 53 \| M53 Junctions 5-11 \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 54 \| M56 new Junction 11A \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 55 \| \| \| \| M6 Junction 19 \| \| \| \| Improvements \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 56 \| A500 Etruria widening \| 2018-19 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 57 \| M1 Junctions 23A-24 \| √ 2016-17 Q4 \| \| 58 \| \| \| \| M6 Junction 10 \| \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 59 \| \| \| \| A5 Dodwells to Longshoot \| \| \| \| widening \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 60 \| M42 Junction 6 \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 61 \| \| \| \| A46 Coventry junction \| \| \| \| upgrades \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 62 \| \| \| \| M40/M42 interchange \| \| \| \| Smart Motorways \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 63 \| \| \| \| A45/A6 Chowns Mill \| \| \| \| junction improvement \| \| \| \| √ 2019-20 Q3 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 64 \| \| \| \| M5 Junctions 5, 6 & 7 \| \| \| \| junction upgrades \| \| \| \| √ 2015-16 Q2 \| 2018-19 Q4 \| 0 \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| Open for Traffic \| \|---------------------------\|-----------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| \| map \| \| \| \| 65 \| A43 Abthorpe Junction \| √ 2015-16 Q4 \| \| 66 \| \| \| \| A428 Black Cat to Caxton \| \| \| \| Gibbet \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 67 \| \| \| \| M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - \| \| \| \| technology upgrade \| \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 68 \| \| \| \| A12 Chelmsford to A120 \| \| \| \| widening \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 69 \| \| \| \| A12 whole-route \| \| \| \| technology upgrade \| \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 70 \| \| \| \| A1(M) Junctions 6-8 Smart \| \| \| \| Motorway \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 71 \| \| \| \| M11 Junction 7 junction \| \| \| \| upgrade \| \| \| \| Commitment \| \| \| \| met by HE - \| \| \| \| transfer funds \| \| \| \| to third party \| \| \| \| (Essex CC) \| \| \| \| 72 \| A34 Oxford Junctions \| 2019-20 Q2 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 73 \| \| \| \| A34 Technology \| \| \| \| enhancements \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q2 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 74 \| \| \| \| M25 Junction 25 \| \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 75 \| \| \| \| M25 Junction 28 \| \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 76 \| \| \| \| M4 Heathrow slip road \| \| \| \| 2017-18 Q2 \| 2017-18 Q4 \| 0 \| \| 77 \| \| \| \| M2 Junction 5 \| \| \| \| improvements \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required Developer to start construction Statutory process \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| Open for Traffic \| \|---------------------------\|--------------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| \| map \| \| \| \| 78 \| M25 Junctions 10-16 \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 79 \| \| \| \| M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley \| \| \| \| interchange \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 80 \| \| \| \| M3 Junction 9 \| \| \| \| improvement \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 81 \| \| \| \| M3 Junction 10-11 \| \| \| \| improved sliproads \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 82 \| \| \| \| M3 Junctions 12-14 \| \| \| \| improved sliproads \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q4 \| \| \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| \| 83 \| \| \| \| M27 Southampton \| \| \| \| Junctions \| \| \| \| 84 \| \| \| \| M271 / A35 Redbridge \| \| \| \| roundabout upgrade \| \| \| \| 2019-20 Q1 \| \| \| \| Missed \| \| \| \| commitment \| \| \| \| 85 \| \| \| \| A31 Ringwood \| \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| \| 86 \| M49 Avonmouth Junction \| √ 2017-18 Q3 \| \| 87 \| M5 Bridgewater Junctions \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 88 \| A52 Nottingham junctions \| √ 2016-17 Q4 \| \| In \| \| \| \| construction \| \| \| \| 89 \| A14 Junction 10a \| \| \| Paused-stopped \| \| \| \| Low VM \| \| \| \| 90 \| A5 Towcester Relief Road \| \| \| Scheme will be \| \| \| \| delivered by \| \| \| \| a third party \| \| \| \| (developer) \| \| \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required In construction Developer to start construction Scheme name Start of Work Scheme ref on map 91 2019-20 Q4 A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross 92 A1 North of Ellingham (re-scoped) √ 2018-19 Q3 2019-20 Q4 0 OFT 93 A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling Missed commitment 94 A1 Scotswood to North Brunton 2019-20 Q4 In construction 95 A1 Birtley to Coal House widening Deferred minimise disruption 96 A628 Climbing Lanes Stopped Other factors 97 A61 Dualling 2019-20 Q4 In construction 98 Mottram Moor link road Missed commitment 99 A57(T) to A57 Link Road Missed commitment 100 A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Deferred minimise disruption 101 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling Deferred minimise disruption 102 A47 Acle Straight √ 2016-17 Q4 103 Deferred external factors A47 & A12 junction enhancements 104 A47/A11 Thickthom Junction Deferred minimise disruption Open for Traffic Scheme status Lane miles delivered In construction 2017-18 Q4 0 OFT Further work required \| Scheme name \| Start of Work \| \|---------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------\| \| Scheme \| \| \| ref on \| \| \| map \| \| \| 105 \| \| \| A47 Guyhirn Junction \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| 106 \| \| \| A47 Wansford to Sutton \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| minimise \| \| \| disruption \| \| \| 107 \| A27 Arundel Bypass \| \| Missed \| \| \| commitment \| \| \| 108 \| \| \| A27 Worthing and Lancing \| \| \| improvements \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| 109 \| \| \| A303 Amesbury to Berwick \| \| \| Down \| \| \| 110 \| \| \| A303 Sparkford - Ilchester \| \| \| dualling \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| 111 \| \| \| A358 Taunton to \| \| \| Southfields \| \| \| Deferred \| \| \| external factors \| \| \| 112 \| A50 Uttoxeter \| \| 2015-16 \| \| \| (delivered by \| \| \| third party) \| \| \| Scheme meet commitment \| \| \| Scheme missed its delivery date, but delivered with RP1 \| \| \| Scheme deferred to RP2 \| \| \| Scheme deferred to RP2 commitment status undecided yet \| \| \| Scheme is moved into RIS3 pipeline \| \| \| Scheme paused/stopped \| \| \| Scheme missed commitment \| \| \| √ \| \| \| Delivered ahead of schedule \| \| Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required Further work required Statutory process Judical/ Statutory process √ 2018-19 Q3 0 OFT ## Maintenance And Renewals Highways England's increased maturity in asset management during RP1 has underpinned its improved planning of renewals, as well as its reporting of renewals and maintenance activity. ## Maintenance And Inspections Highways England's reporting of maintenance performance was limited in the first few years of RP1. This prompted our concern that Highways England was not demonstrating the extent to which it was managing a safe and serviceable network. However, the company has responded well to our challenge to develop a reporting statement over the last two years of the road period. Development of the statement first produced in 2018-19 during 2019-20, has demonstrated that Highways England has an improved understanding of the condition of the network and the need for maintenance across the SRN. The updated maintenance statement, published by Highways England within its annual performance monitoring statements, now provides a measure of performance for inspecting and maintaining its network. It includes information relating to defects resolution, litter clearance, cyclical and reactive maintenance performance and planned asset inspections. We look forward to the dataset being used consistently during RP2, such that a baseline of performance can be established and monitored. As with improvements to the reporting of asset renewals information, the developed reporting has been enabled by Highways England's maturing approach to asset management. This has been supported by internal improvement programmes, such as Operational Excellence, along with a new way of working that the company has almost completed its transition to, known as Asset Delivery. As such, the maintenance reporting statements do not yet provide a complete picture for regions that have not fully transitioned to Asset Delivery. For example, 24 hour defect resolution is not reported in the South East, or in the East, regions. We consider the reporting of the scale of need for highway maintenance, for example inspection performance and numbers of potholes, as important as Highways England's performance at fixing defects. This is because the data provides an understanding of condition and state of the network not provided by formal metrics. They therefore improve the line-of-sight between asset condition and asset renewal activity by highlighting areas of longer-term need and indicating whether the network is safe for use. If Highways England can show that it is making regular effective maintenance interventions, for example cleaning drainage runs, then it provides assurance that the asset will achieve its design life. This in turn will show whether the value and condition of its assets is maintained and renewal is therefore not premature. The maintenance reporting statements also provide an indication of Highways England's performance against its statutory obligations. Red claims are processed where a loss has occurred to a user as a result of the company not meeting its requirements to maintain the highway. The maintenance reporting statement provides a measure of current claims. During 2018-19, we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed inspections of Highways England structures assets. By the end 2018-19 the company had reduced the number down from approximately 3500 to 21 and we have continued to monitor this closely during 2019-20. At the end of the road period one inspection remained outstanding, which was subsequently completed in June 2020. Many of those with the longest overdue dates were assets where access to railway infrastructure is required. We are currently engaging with Highways England and Network Rail, to explore improvements to access arrangements. In addition to inspections of structures assets, we raised our concern at overdue inspections for geotechnical assets, vehicle restraint systems, tunnels and lighting during the road period. In response Highways England has improved its presentation of inspection progress such that performance and any backlogs can be monitored. This data has been included within Highways England's published annual performance monitoring statements in 2019-20. ## Asset Management During RP1, we completed in-depth reviews of Highways England's asset management approach to its main asset types: pavement and structures; geotechnical and drainage; and technology. We also completed a review of Highways England's ability to improve efficiency from its asset management capability. The studies sought to understand whether the company manages its assets safely, robustly, sustainably and efficiently. They broadly recognised that Highways England is a competent asset manager, applying many examples of good practice across its asset base, and that it is maturing in its asset management approach. The studies also identified a range of recommendations that might support its maturity journey. During 2019-20, we sought to understand how Highways England is engaging with recommendations made within the studies, and more generally pursuing increased maturity. Highways England has responded positively to our findings and is applying aspects of the various recommendations in the management of its assets. ## Renewals In 2019-20, Highways England met its planned renewals volumes against all asset types. Over the whole road period, the company delivered more renewals volumes than planned across the majority of asset types. Only two asset types, bridge bearings and network resilience schemes, saw marginal underdelivery. This is shown in the table in figure C5 below and graphically in figure C6. \| 2019-20 \| Road Period 1 \| \|-------------------------------\|-----------------\| \| 2019-20 Commitments \| \| \| Planned \| \| \| Output \| \| \| Actual \| \| \| Output \| \| \| Output \| \| \| Variance \| \| \| Planned \| Actual \| \| Output \| Output \| \| Output \| \| \| Variance \| \| \| Pavement \| \| \| Renewal of roads (lane \| \| \| - pavement \| \| \| kilometres) \| \| \| 1,450 \| 1,648.9 \| \| Kerbs \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| \| 11.6 \| 43 \| \| Lighting \| \| \| (number) \| \| \| 750 \| 860 \| \| Guardrail \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| \| 0.4 \| 1.3 \| \| Road Markings \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| \| 3,300 \| 4,466.8 \| \| Drainage \| \| \| Renewal of roads (kilometres) \| \| \| 115 \| 144.3 \| \| Boundary \| \| \| Fencing \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| \| 24.5 \| 27.1 \| \| Traffic Signs \| \| \| (number) \| \| \| 400 \| 1,030 \| \| Geotechnical \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| \| 7.2 \| 7.6 \| \| 114 \| 117.2 \| \| Vehicle \| \| \| Restraint \| \| \| System (VRS) \| \| \| (kilometres) \| \| Bridge Joint (number) 320 444 39% 1,281 2,893 126% Parapet (kilometres) 3.4 5.1 50% 10 15 57% Renewal of structures Waterproofing (square 69,000 89,791 30% 263,567 331,176 26% metres) Bridge Bearing 180 278 54% 855 830 -3% (number) Motorway Comms Equipment 160 306 91% 703 1,731 146% (number) Renewals and Improvements 550 656 19% 1,684 2,610 55% Renewal of (number) technology Winter Resilience 42 63 50% 174 254 46% (number) Network Resilience 36 38 6% 125 124 -1% (number) Figure C7 shows the average volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan for all asset types over each of the five years of RP1. The size of the variances show an improvement in delivering renewals that more closely reflect its assets plans in the last two years of the road period, compared with the first three years. We recognise that change to plans is an inevitable and proper aspect of effective asset management. For example, asset inspections or road user feedback could show that plans need to be adjusted. A variance between plans and delivery is to be expected, particularly when functioning at the more reactive end of the asset management scale - for example 'do-minimum' or 'do-something'. Therefore, whilst we are not necessarily looking for zero variance between planned and delivered, we are looking for consistency in the variance at an asset type level, and robust reporting that explains any changes. In 2019-20, Highways England continued to reduce the proportion of its asset renewals delivered at the end of the financial year, over the winter months. Figure C8 shows the spread of pavement renewals delivered each quarter for each year of RP1. We had been concerned in the first half of RP1 that disproportionately high delivery in Q4 was inefficient and might affect the quality of completed renewals work. The improved profile of quarterly delivery demonstrates improvements made by Highways England in planning its asset renewals. The company has also improved the transparency of its planning and delivery of asset renewals through the road period through quarterly reporting and review groups initiated by ORR. This has allowed us to better understand planned renewals profiles and the reasons for variances from those plans. It reflects how Highways England has a better central understanding of its asset base and regional work plans and delivery, demonstrating increased maturity as an asset manager. As the company transitions to RP2, we will monitor particular areas for development, such as planning of secondary asset renewals, and planning that allows for efficiency. We will also look for further improvements to reporting in RP2, such as regional breakdowns of asset renewal plans and delivery. ## Glossary Delivery plan - Highways England's plan, which sets out in detail how it will deliver its strategic outcomes and measure success. Highways England - The government owned company with responsibility for operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic road network. Launched on 1 April 2015, it replaced the Highways Agency. Highways monitor - The division within the Office of Rail and Road with responsibility for monitoring the performance of Highways England. Investment plan - The part of the road investment strategy which set out the planned investments and the funds available for the first road period. Key performance indicators (KPI) - The performance specification set out 11 key performance indicators which were used to measure Highways England's performance in Road Period 1. Full details of each indicator can be found in the operational metrics manual (referenced on page 7 of the report). Killed or seriously injured (KSI) - A person killed or seriously injured in a road traffic collision. Office of Rail and Road (ORR) - The independent safety and economic regulator for Britain's railways and monitor of Highways England. Performance indicators (PI) - Indicators which sit below, and give context to, the key performance indicators. Full details of each indicator can be found in the operational metrics manual (referenced on page 7 of the report). Performance specification - The part of the road investment strategy which set out the level of performance that Highways England must deliver in the first road period. Region - Where regions are discussed in this report, it refers to Highways England's operational regions, which are: Eastern; Midlands; North Eastern; North West; South East; South West; and M25. Road investment strategy 1 (RIS1) - This document set out a long-term vision for England's motorways and major roads, including a multi-year investment plan for improving the network and high-level objectives for the first road period. Road period 1 (RP1) - The period that the road investment strategy covers. RP1 covered April 2015 to March 2020. RP2 covers April 2020 to March 2025. Roads reform - The package of reforms implemented by government in the Infrastructure Act 2015 which included the creation of Highways England. Strategic road network - The road network which Highways England is responsible for managing, comprising the motorways and main A-roads in England (also 'the network'). Transport Focus - The independent transport user watchdog which represents users of the strategic road network and is responsible for managing surveys of road user satisfaction. CCS0520654868 ISBN 978-1-5286-1995-0	en
4902-pdf	## Hm Revenue & Customs Business Expenses: 1 April 2011 - 30 June 2011 Please note - these figures may not include some costs that have yet to be invoiced and will be updated to reflect any additional spend. ## Lesley Strathie - Chief Executive And Permanent Secretary \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 16/05/11 \| Exeter \| Office Visit \| \| £54.00 \| \| 23/05/11 \| Harwich \| Office Visit \| \| £31.40 \| \| 26/05/11 \| Manchester \| Staff Event \| \| £149.50 \| \| 20/06/11 \| Sheffield \| Office Visit \| \| £86.00 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Dave Hartnett - Permanent Secretary For Tax \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-------------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 13/04/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 15/04/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| France & \| \| \| \| \| \| Netherlands \| \| \| \| \| \| £283.51 \| £125.47 \| £111.33 \| £407.95 \| \| \| Personal expenses \| \| \| \| \| \| = £20 \| \| \| \| \| \| £948.26 \| \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| 20/04/11 \| Liechtenstein \| \| \| \| \| £174.55 \| \| £40.00 \| \| \| \| 27/04/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 28/04/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 04/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 06/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| £164.41 \| \| £102.31 \| £142.91 \| \| \| Personal expenses \| \| \| \| \| \| = £20 \| \| \| \| \| \| £429.63 \| France \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| 17/05/11 \| Switzerland \| £192.31 \| \| £15.00 \| \| 18/05/11 \| London \| \| \| \| \| Speaking \| \| \| \| \| \| Engagement \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £23.00 \| \| \| \| 07/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 10/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 11/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| £189.31 \| £78.17 \| \| £45.99 \| \| \| Personal expenses \| \| \| \| \| \| = £10 \| \| \| \| \| \| £323.47 \| Switzerland \| \| \| \| \| 21/06/11 \| Cambridge \| Conference \| \| £21.96 \| \| 23/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 24/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Inter- \| \| \| \| \| \| governmental \| \| \| \| \| \| meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| £149.24 \| \| £124.77 \| £171.56 \| \| \| Personal expenses \| \| \| \| \| \| = £10 \| \| \| \| \| \| £455.57 \| \| \| \| \| \| Italy \| \| \| \| \| \| 28/06/11 \| London \| Conference \| \| \| ## Stephen Banyard - Acting Director General, Personal Tax \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|------------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 06/04/11 \| Newcastle \| Office Visit \| \| £159.96 \| \| 02/06/11 \| Nottingham \| Office Visit \| \| £65.00 \| \| 09/06/11 \| Liverpool/Bootle \| Office Visit \| \| £104.00 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Steve Lamey - Director General, Benefits & Credits \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 14/04/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 15/04/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| St Austell \| \| \| \| \| \| Departmental \| \| \| \| \| \| Business \| \| \| \| \| \| £133.90 \| £15.95 \| \| £98.50 \| \| \| 27/04/11 \| Preston \| Meeting \| \| £78.46 \| \| 26/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 27/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Preston/ \| Departmental \| \| \| \| \| Business \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £132.92 \| £58.69 \| £92.54 \| \| \| Washington \| \| \| \| \| \| 08/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 09/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Liverpool \| Staff Event \| \| £123.96 \| \| \| 16/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 17/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Preston \| Staff Event \| \| £64.11 \| £37.40 \| \| 27/06/11 \| Lincoln \| \| \| \| \| Departmental \| \| \| \| \| \| Business \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £51.96 \| £50.00 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Melanie Dawes - Director General, Business Tax \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 05/05/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 10/05/11 \| Cheshunt \| Meeting \| \| £10.70 \| \| 26/05/11 \| Bristol \| Office Visit \| \| £64.00 \| \| 31/05/11 \| Grimsby \| Office Visit \| \| £63.50 \| \| 0106/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 02/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Rugby \| Meeting \| \| £92.80 \| £15.00 \| \| 14/06/11 \| Nottingham \| Office Visit \| \| £62.96 \| \| 17/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 20/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 21/06/11 \| Wrexham \| Office Visit \| \| £149.46 \| \| 22/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Mike Eland - Director General, Enforcement And Compliance \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 15/04/11 \| London \| Office Visit \| \| £3.80 \| \| 06/05/11 \| Sheffield \| Office Visit \| \| \| \| 16/05/11 \| Lincoln \| Conference \| \| \| \| 17/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 18/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Rugby \| Meeting \| \| \| £81.10 \| \| 19/05/11 \| London \| \| \| \| \| Speaking \| \| \| \| \| \| Engagement \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £3.80 \| \| \| \| \| 25/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 26/05/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Manchester \| Conference \| \| £94.00 \| \| \| 07/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 08/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Leeds \| Office Visit \| \| £143.00 \| \| \| 23/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 24/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Newcastle \| Office Visit \| £184.32 \| \| £60.40 \| \| 30/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 01/07/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Leeds \| Office Visit \| \| £127.50 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Simon Bowles - Chief Finance Officer \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 06/04/11 \| Worthing \| Office Visit \| \| \| \| 18/05/11 \| Southend \| Office Visit \| \| £18.90 \| \| 14/06/11 \| Bootle \| Staff Event \| \| £144.19 \| \| 20/06/11 \| Southend \| Staff Event \| \| £13.75 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Mike Falvey - Chief People Officer \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 16/05/11 \| York \| Office Visit \| \| £124.96 \| \| 07/06/11 \| Newcastle \| Office Visit \| \| £198.76 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Anthony Inglese - General Counsel And Solicitor \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| NIL RETURN \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Phil Pavitt - Chief Information Officer \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 31/05/11 \| Kent \| Office Visit \| \| £18.30 \| \| 08/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 09/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Telford \| Staff Event \| \| \| £179.96 \| \| 21/06/21 \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| 23/06/11 \| \| \| \| \| \| Workington/ \| \| \| \| \| \| Carlisle \| \| \| \| \| \| Office Visit \| \| \| £112.70 \| £191.55 \| \| 30/06/11 \| Telford \| Office Visit \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Mike Clasper - Non Executive Chairman \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|--------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 15/04/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| \| \| 19/04/11 \| Maidstone \| Office Visit \| \| £21.26 \| \| 18/05/11 \| London \| \| \| \| \| Departmental \| \| \| \| \| \| Business \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £25.13 \| \| \| \| 31/05/11 \| Southend \| Office Visit \| \| £32.36 \| \| 13/06/11 \| Leeds \| \| \| \| \| Speaking \| \| \| \| \| \| Engagement \| \| \| \| \| \| \| £87.42 \| £83.00 \| £80.00 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## John Spence - Non Executive Director * John Spence is registered blind therefore the expenses claimed are higher than that of other Non Executive Directors \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 10/05/11 \| London \| HMRC Board \| \| £15.40 \| \| 17/05/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| £15.40 \| \| 15/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| £15.40 \| \| 21/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| £15.40 \| \| 27/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| £15.40 \| \| 30/06/11 \| London \| Meeting \| \| £15.40 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Phil Hodkinson - Non Executive Director \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| 12/04/11 \| London \| HMRC Board \| \| £21.25 \| \| 21/04/11 \| London \| HMRC Board \| \| £21.25 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Colin Cobain - Non Executive Director \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| NIL RETURN \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Philippa Hird - Non Executive Director * Philippa does not make individual claims for business costs. \| DATES \| DESTINATION \| PURPOSE \| TRAVEL \| OTHER (Including \| \|-----------------\|----------------\|------------\|-----------\|---------------------\| \| Hospitality \| \| \| \| \| \| Received/Given) \| \| \| \| \| \| Total \| \| \| \| \| \| Cost £ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Air \| Rail \| \| Meals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| NIL RETURN \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
4604-pdf	# Policy For Handling Unreasonably Persistent Enquiries Paul Davies, Operations Director July 2020 ## 1. Introduction The National Archives is committed to providing excellent customer service to everyone who contacts us. Everyone is entitled to be treated respectfully, courteously and in a polite manner. When a user raises a complaint or enquiry with us, they have a right to expect to be dealt with fairly and impartially, and to receive a response which fully addresses their concerns in a timely manner. The purpose of this policy is to provide a tool for The National Archives when considering whether enquirers are displaying unreasonably persistent behaviour, and to explain the appropriate actions that The National Archives will take in this instance. The National Archives handles thousands of enquiries a year. While it will only be in exceptional cases that enquirers are deemed to be unreasonably persistent, it is desirable for robust audit purposes to have established guidance in this area. No enquirer should be treated as unreasonably persistent without prior agreement from the Quality Manager and responsible Director/s. ## 2. Who Does This Policy Apply To? 2.1 The policy applies to all enquirers who contact us. 2.2 The term 'enquirer' is employed in its widest sense within this policy to encompass people or organisations who use any of our services, whether writing, emailing, telephoning or accessing The National Archives' live chat service. Contact via social networks or digital platforms are also covered by this policy. 2.3 This policy does not apply to requests which are being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Requests which may be vexatious will be considered using the 'Guidance on vexatious or repeated requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000' document. This policy also excludes requests arising under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. ## 3. Determining Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour 3.1 Deciding whether an enquirer is being unreasonably persistent requires judgment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. There is no standard definition of unreasonably persistent, however the Information Commissioner's Office have produced guidance for the similar circumstances of "vexatious requests", when considering requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This guidance provides a useful framework that can aid the consideration process, and has been adapted to meet the needs of this policy:  Could the enquiries fairly be seen as excessive or the accusations unfounded?  Is the enquirer harassing the organisation or causing distress to staff?  Does complying with the enquirers' requests impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction (e.g., frequent, overlapping requests; no obvious intent to obtain information; futile or frivolous requests; scattergun approach)?  Is the contact designed to cause disruption or annoyance?  Does the enquiry lack any serious purpose or value? 3.2 An individual enquiry may not be unreasonable in isolation but in context it may form part of a wider pattern of unreasonably persistent behaviour, e.g. a wider dispute or the latest in a lengthy series of overlapping requests or other correspondence. In order to determine whether an enquirer is unreasonably persistent, it is necessary to look at both the context and the history of the communications between The National Archives and the enquirer, as well as the particular enquiry or contact that has triggered consideration of invoking this policy. This may include correspondence the requester has had with other business areas, including requests for information handled by the Freedom of Information Centre. It is likely that a pattern of behaviour over a period of time may trigger an assessment as much as a particular enquiry. 3.3 Individuals may act out of character when frustrated or unhappy with our service. There may have been upsetting or distressing circumstances leading up to contact with The National Archives. We do not consider behaviour that is forceful or emotional to necessarily be unacceptable. However, the actions of individuals who are angry, demanding or persistent may result in unreasonable demands on The National Archives or unacceptable behaviour towards staff. It is these actions that we may consider unacceptable and aim to manage under this policy. The key question for The National Archives must be whether continued correspondence or transactions with the enquirer is likely to cause disproportionate or unjustified distress, disruption or irritation to either staff or the organisation. There are three main actions that could be deemed unacceptable: 3.3.1 Aggressive or Abusive Behaviour Unacceptable behaviour is not limited to acts of aggression. It also includes behaviour or language (whether oral or written), the impact of which is to cause staff to feel fearful, threatened or abused. Examples of behaviours grouped under this heading include threats, personal verbal abuse (including the use of sexually-explicit language) and derogatory remarks. We also consider that inflammatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations can be abusive behaviour. Where the behaviour is extreme or it threatens the immediate safety and welfare of staff, we will consider other options, for example reporting the matter to the Police or taking legal action. In such cases, we may not give the individual prior warning of that action. 3.3.2 Unreasonable Demands Members of the public may make what we consider to be unreasonable demands on The National Archives through the amount of information they seek, the nature and scale of service they expect or the number of approaches they make. What constitutes an unreasonable demand will depend on the circumstances, the seriousness of the issues raised and the impact on individual members of staff and/or the functioning of The National Archives. Examples of actions grouped under this heading include: demanding responses within an unreasonable time-scale, insisting on speaking to a particular member of staff, continual phone calls or letters, repeatedly changing the substance of a request or enquiry, or raising unrelated concerns. 3.3.3 Unreasonable Persistence We recognise that some enquirers will not or cannot accept that The National Archives is unable to assist them further in their enquiry. Enquirers may persist in disagreeing with the action or decision taken in relation to their enquiry or contacting The National Archives persistently about the same or similar issue(s). Persistent actions will be considered unacceptable when they take up what a Director regards as being a disproportionate amount of time and/or resources. 3.3.4 Other See Appendix A for expanded criteria of an unreasonable persistent enquirer. ## 4. Managing Unreasonable Persistence Actions 4.1 There are relatively few enquirers whose actions would be considered unreasonable. How we aim to manage these actions depends on their nature and extent. 4.2 Alerting enquirers to this policy It will be the responsibility of the relevant service manager to bring to the attention of the Quality Manager situations where enquirers might be identified as being unreasonably persistent, against the criteria set out in Appendix A. It will normally be appropriate for a service manager, or the Complaints team, to draw an enquirers' attention to the existence of this policy before any decision is made. They will inform the enquirer in writing that their continued correspondence or interactions with The National Archives on a particular subject matter may lead to them being treated as unreasonably persistent. The National Archives will try to resolve matters before invoking this procedure and / or the sanctions detailed within it. If The National Archives is to continue dealing with the enquirer, it may be appropriate to draw up a signed agreement which establishes a code of behaviour for the parties involved. If this agreement is breached, consideration should be given to implementing other actions. 4.3 If it adversely affects our ability to do our work and provide a service to others, we may need to restrict an enquirers' contact with The National Archives in order to manage the unreasonable action. Wherever possible we aim to do this in a way that still allows the enquirer to receive appropriate information and assistance. We may restrict contact by telephone, letter or by electronic means, or by any combination of these, although we will try to maintain at least one form of contact if it is appropriate to do so. If it is, not all contact will be ceased. 4.4 We do not engage with written contact that is aggressive, abusive or offensive to staff. When this happens, we will inform the enquirer that we consider their language offensive and state that we will not respond to their correspondence if they do not moderate their use of language. We may require future contact to be through a third party. 4.5 We will always explain what action we are taking and why. Where enquirers continue to correspond on a wide range of issues, and this action is considered excessive (see 3.3.3 Unreasonable Persistence), then they will be told that only a certain number of issues will be considered in a given period and asked to limit or focus their requests accordingly. 4.6 Equality & Diversity considerations If we think the unreasonable or persistent behaviour may relate to a disability: that is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities, such as eating, washing, walking and going shopping, and/or the customer discloses such a disability, then this must be taken into account when decisions are made about applying this policy. ## This should not be taken to mean that the existence of a disability per se would prevent the application of the policy to a person who meets the unreasonably persistent behaviour criteria set out at section 3. For the avoidance of doubt; nor should it be taken to mean that information held by the National Archives should automatically be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act because it would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual. There is a public interest test for this exemption that must be applied. Therefore any physical or mental impairment must be weighed against the public interest in making this information available. For further information see the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 in Appendix C and vulnerable persons in Appendix D. For further information on the application of section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 see the Information Commissioner's guidance: https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1624339/health-and-safety-section-38-foia.pdf ## 5. Deciding To Restrict Enquirer Contact 5.1 Once it is clear that the enquirer meets any two or more (or are in serious breach of one) of the criteria set in section 3.3 or Appendix A, the responsible Director will review the evidence and decide, against the criteria, whether the enquirer should be identified as being unreasonably persistent. 5.2 When this decision is made, the responsible Director will notify the enquirer in writing, within 10 working days of the decision, of the reasons why the enquirer has been classified as unreasonably persistent and of the actions taken. The different options for dealing with unreasonable persistent enquirers are detailed in Appendix B. Wherever possible, we will give the enquirer the opportunity to modify their behaviour or action before such a decision is taken. ## 6. Appealing A Decision To Restrict Contact Appeal to the Chief Executive Enquirers have the right to appeal a decision to restrict contact. If you are dissatisfied with the decision to restrict or cease contact, you can, within one calendar month from the date of our final response to you, appeal the decision. The review will be carried out by a director and we will contact you within five working days of receipt of your request (the day of receipt being Day 0) to notify you of their name and contact details. All appeals are decided 'on the papers', i.e. all submissions must be in writing. There is no provision for oral submissions (i.e. by telephone or in person), except where the appellant would be disadvantaged (such as an appellant with a disability or condition that made written submission difficult). The person hearing the appeal will decide whether to permit oral submissions. The appointed director has ten working days to complete the review, if they are unable to complete the report within that time, they will write to explain the reasons why and tell you when you can expect a response. The report will then go before the Chief Executive for consideration. After consideration, and usually within a further ten working days, you can expect a formal written response from the Chief Executive. The appeal is to hear and determine:  whether the decision to restrict or cease contact was fair and justifiable;  and, if so, whether the enacted restrictions were appropriate and proportionate Unless otherwise agreed, any other appeal conditions are outside the scope of this procedure, and are dealt with according to TNA's complaints procedure. The possible findings are:  the original decision is upheld without change  the original decision is upheld but the nature of restriction is varied  the original decision is overturned (i.e. the appeal is successful) In the event that an appeal is successful, there is no authority within the appeals process to award any form of compensation or redress, other than to recommend an apology. Any decision to offer compensation or redress is dealt with outside the appeal process, with due to regard to Ombudsman best practice guidelines and also to any restrictions on offering redress that may apply to TNA as a government department. The decision is final and there is no further route of appeal within this procedure. Dissatisfaction with the handling of a complaint is dealt with by TNA's complaints procedure (for details, go to nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/complaints.htm). ## 7. Record Keeping All contact that causes concern must be recorded and kept as evidence to support further action, escalation and allow for any appeal or annual review to be carried out. This information will be stored and managed in line with our Privacy notice ## Appendix A Criteria Of An Unreasonable Persistent Enquirer Enquirers (and/or anyone acting on their behalf) may be deemed to be unreasonably persistent where current or previous contact with them shows that they have met two or more (or are in serious breach of one) of the following criteria: 1.1 Persisting in pursuing a complaint where The National Archives complaints procedure has been fully and properly implemented and exhausted; 1.2 Persisting in pursuing an enquiry which in the view of a service manager has been fully answered and no further assistance can be given; 1.3 Persisting in disagreeing with the action or decision taken in relation to their enquiry or contacting The National Archives persistently about the same or similar issue(s); 1.4 The substance of an enquiry is changed or new issues are raised persistently or users seek to prolong contact by unreasonably raising further concerns or questions upon receipt of a response whilst the enquiry is being dealt with; 1.5 Enquirers who are unwilling to accept documented evidence as being factual or deny receipt of an adequate response despite correspondence specifically answering their questions/concerns. This could also extend to complainants who do not accept that facts can sometimes be difficult to verify after a long period of time has elapsed; 1.6 Enquirers who do not identify clearly the precise issues they wish to be investigated/answered despite reasonable efforts to help them do so by staff and, where appropriate, their advocates; 1.7 Where the concerns identified are not within the jurisdiction of The National Archives to investigate; 1.8 Enquiries that focus on a peripheral matter to an extent that is out of proportion to its significance and continue to focus on this point; 1.9 Enquirers have, in the course of pursuing an enquiry, had an excessive number of contacts (or unreasonably made multiple requests) with The National Archives placing unreasonable demands on staff. Such contacts may be by telephone, letter, fax or electronically; 1.10 Enquirers that have harassed or been abusive, including racist, sexist or homophobic abuse, or verbally aggressive on more than one occasion towards staff dealing with their enquiry. If the nature of the harassment or aggressive behaviour is sufficiently serious, this could, in itself, be sufficient reason for ceasing contact; 1.11 Enquirers displaying unreasonable demands or expectations and failing to accept that these may be unreasonable after a clear explanation has been provided as to what constitutes an unreasonable demand (for example insisting on responses to complaints or enquiries being provided more urgently than is reasonable or recognised practice). 1.12 Comments or complaints which are proved to contain unfounded allegations and or includes behaviour or language (whether oral or written), the impact of which is to cause staff to feel fearful, threatened or abused. ## Appendix B Options For Dealing With Unreasonable Persistent Enquirers 1.1 When enquirers have been identified as being unreasonably persistent, in accordance with the above criteria, a Director will review the evidence and decide what action to take. 1.2 The Director will implement such action and notify the enquirer in 10 working days and in writing, of the reasons why they have been classified as unreasonably persistent and the actions to be taken. 1.3 The Director may decide to deal with unreasonably persistent enquiries in one or more of the following ways: a) Decline further contact with the enquirer either by telephone, fax, letter or electronically - or any combination of these - whilst ensuring that one form of contact is maintained (if appropriate). Alternatively, further contact could be restricted to liaison through a third party; b) Notify the enquirer in writing that the Director has responded fully to the points raised and has tried to resolve the issue but there is nothing more to add and continuing contact on the matter will serve no useful purpose. The enquirer should be notified that correspondence is at an end and that further communications will be acknowledged but not answered; c) Temporarily suspend all contact with the enquirer, or handling of an enquiry/case, whilst seeking legal advice or guidance from senior managers, or other relevant colleagues. 1.4 If this policy is to be implemented, it should be remembered and explained to the enquirer that any course of action taken as a result only relates to contact with The National Archives over their specific enquiry(s). It does not, and is not intended to, have any impact on any other dealings between The National Archives and the enquirer on other, unrelated issues. There may be occasions where it is not appropriate to maintain contact with an enquirer, for example, if an enquirer has exhausted our processes and policies and continues to correspond or after an enactment annual review and the behaviour continues. In these cases all contact will be ceased. 1.5 An enquiry which may appear spurious or tedious to the organisation may have genuine value to the individual. Furthermore, an enquiry with a very serious purpose or value may be enough to prevent it being unreasonable, even if it imposes a significant burden and is harassing or distressing to staff. The serious and proper purpose must justify both the enquiry itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern of behaviour has been taken. ## 2. Withdrawing Unreasonable Persistent Enquirers Status 2.1 Once an enquirer has been classified as unreasonably persistent, the Customer Service and Complaints team will arrange for such status to be reviewed after a period of 12 months, the review to again be carried out by a Director, as before. If it is decided that unreasonably persistent status will be re-imposed for a further period of 6 or 12 months, all relevant parties involved will be informed of this decision. However, there also needs to be a mechanism for withdrawing this status earlier if, for example, the enquirer subsequently demonstrates a more reasonable approach. If they submit further enquiries, relating to a new matter, the normal procedures would apply. 2.2 If the enquirer subsequently demonstrates a more reasonable approach for a period of up to 6 months a review of the status can be carried out. If a Director deems that there has been a significant change in behaviour the status could be withdrawn. It should be noted that all criteria of what constitutes an unreasonable persistent enquirer as set out in this policy will be considered when the status is reviewed and during the probation period. 2.3 When the unreasonably persistent status is withdrawn, there will be a six month probation period. If there is a repeat of the behaviour within the probation period, the policy can be reengaged by a Director as a continuation of the original decision. The status would be reviewed after 12 months in line with point 2.1. ## Appendix C The Definition Of 'Disability' Under The Equality Act 2010 In The Act, A Person Has A Disability If:  they have a physical or mental impairment  the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:  'substantial' means more than minor or trivial  'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)  'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping People who have had a disability in the past that meets this definition are also protected by the Act. Progressive conditions considered to be a disability: There are additional provisions relating to people with progressive conditions. People with HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis are protected by the Act from the point of diagnosis. People with some visual impairments are automatically deemed to be disabled. Conditions that are specifically excluded: Some conditions are specifically excluded from being covered by the disability definition, such as a tendency to set fires or addictions to non–prescribed substances. ## Appendix D Definition Of A 'Vulnerable' Person A 'Vulnerable Adult' May Be Defined As Any Person Aged 18 Or Over Who May Not Be Able To A) Care For Him/Herself By Reason Of Mental, Physical Or Learning Disability, Age Or Illness And B)Care For, Or Protect Him/Herself Against Significant Harm Or Serious Exploitation Vulnerable Person A 'vulnerable person' is any child or vulnerable adult. Responsible Adult A person over the age of 18 who is responsible for a 'vulnerable person'	en
1214-pdf	# Copyright Greater London Authority July 2005 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk In collaboration with Association of London Government, British Transport Police, City of London Police, Government Office for London, Housing Corporation, London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, Metropolitan Police Authority, Metropolitan Police Service, Transport for London, Youth Justice Board The partners are grateful to Mike Hough, Jessica Jacobson and Andrew Millie, of the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, King's College London, for their help in preparing this strategy. ## Isbn 1 85261 757 8 Photographs © Adam Hinton; Liane Harris Contents Summary 5 1 The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy 7 2 Principles of the strategy 15 3 Aims and objectives 19 4 Programme of action 21 5 Implementation plan 38 Appendix Participants in the consultation 47 ## Summary This strategy has been produced by 11 cross-London agencies with shared responsibilities at a regional level for tackling anti-social behaviour - either directly or indirectly. As the partners in this strategy, we are committed to building on our existing work on anti-social behaviour (ASB) and to developing new actions where necessary. The strategy will be a regional framework for action on ASB, which will bridge the gap between the national ASB strategy and the local programmes being implemented by London's 33 crime and disorder reduction partnerships. The London ASB Strategy reflects our commitment to the following principles: - ASB must be tackled effectively. - Effective action on ASB demands a balance between rigorous enforcement and prevention. - Remedies for ASB must promote long-term social inclusion. - Measures to tackle ASB must be consistent with human rights legislation. The strategy is focussed on five key objectives, which are the basis of a wide-ranging programme of action: ## 1 We Will Energise And Support Local Action By Crime And Disorder Reduction Partnerships And Their Partners. Most work to tackle ASB is carried out at a local level, as it should be. We already support this work in a wide variety of ways: through the provision of funding, training and technical support. We are committed to strengthening and extending this support. ## 2 We Will Improve Co-Ordination And Co-Operation Between Local Agencies And Between Partnerships. Effective action against ASB depends on co-operation between local agencies and between partnerships. We will encourage partnership working at a local level and will promote and facilitate co-ordination across borough boundaries. ## 3 We Will Supplement Local Action With Cross-London Work, Where Needed. Under this strategy, we are launching a range of regional initiatives that will directly address ASB. The delivery of programmes on a regional rather than a local basis can bring benefits in terms of efficiency or effectiveness. The regional initiatives are being undertaken in the areas of: - Neighbourhood policing - Transport - Fire - Housing and planning. ## 4 We Will Ensure Consistency And Sustainability In Policy Responses To Asb Across London. Different strands of social policy can pull against each other, as can different approaches to tackling ASB. We aim to ensure that: a) the London ASB Sstrategy is internally consistent; and b) other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. ## 5 We Will Identify Regional Structures For Tackling Asb. We will only achieve Objectives 1-4 if responsibility for this strategy is allocated to regional bodies that are competent to pursue them. We will ensure that this happens. Association of London Government British Transport Police City of London Police Government Office for London Greater London Authority Housing Corporation London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority Metropolitan Police Authority Metropolitan Police Service Transport for London Youth Justice Board ## 1 The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy This document sets out the London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy for 2005 to 2008. The strategy has been produced by 11 cross-London agencies with shared responsibilities at a regional level for tackling antisocial behaviour (either directly or indirectly). As the partners in this strategy, we are committed to building on our existing work in this area and to developing and implementing new actions where necessary. The strategy will identify, co-ordinate and direct the many strands of our developing work on anti-social behaviour (henceforth ASB). The strategy partners Association of London Government (ALG) British Transport Police (BTP) City of London Police (CoLP) Government Office for London (GOL) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) Housing Corporation (HC) Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Transport for London (TfL) Greater London Authority (GLA Youth Justice Board (YJB) What is anti-social behaviour? The statutory definition of ASB, as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is behaviour: ...that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as (the perpetrator). This definition covers a very wide range of behaviours. Acts of minor thoughtlessness and rudeness are 'anti-social'. So too, of course, are serious crimes. In recognition of the fact that the statutory definition 'lacks specificity and measurability', the Home Office has developed a 'typology of anti-social behaviour' which provides a guide to the categories of behaviour that are generally assumed to be anti-social by practitioners and the public. These categories comprise behaviours that cause major concern to the public, but are not serious crimes. 1 Serious crime has a different definition within the police service. It refers to rape, murder, GBH and other serious offences. The London ASB Strategy adopts the same approach as the Home Office typology, in focusing on behaviour in the middle range between minor incivilities and serious serious crime. Thus, for the purposes of the strategy, ASB is deemed as minor incivilities that are serious is behaviour that is serious enough to merit intervention from the relevant authorities, but not so serious as toa crime that would demand criminal prosecution and punishment. Individual acts are not necessarily criminal; or, if they are criminal, they may in isolation constitute relatively minor offences. Very often the harm caused by ASB is a consequence of the cumulative impact of repeated incidents. Most Londoners encounter ASB from time to time. It can take many forms - boisterous behaviour on public transport, rowdy drunks on the streets, litter and graffiti, abandoned cars, noisy neighbours. For some of us, it is an occasional irritant. For others it is more intrusive, and some people's lives are blighted by relentless, intrusive ASB. In some cases individuals are singled out as targets, and this is particularly unsettling. The corrosive and debilitating effect of persistent exposure to ASB - including the potential effect on the mental and physical health of victims - cannot be underestimated. ASB can affect whole communities, not just individuals. Where it is frequent, it can amplify people's worries about crime, and lead to a sense that crime and disorder isare spiralling out of control. If this sense becomes widespread in a neighbourhood, it has tangible consequences. Investment in the area - whether financial or emotional - may be withdrawn. Regeneration may be hampered or blocked. Where problems of disorder are brought under control, on the other hand, people may regain a sense of optimism about their neighbourhoods, and communities' capacity to regulate crime and disorder may increase. Tackling anti-social behaviour effectively is the first step towards civil renewal. The main forms of ASB Interpersonal/malicious ASB is behaviour directed against specific individuals or groups, that causes harassment, alarm or distress. Examples include: - intimidation/threats by neighbours - minor violence - hoax calls - vandalism directed at individuals or groups - serious verbal abuse (eg directed at public sector workers) Environmental ASB is behaviour that - deliberately or through carelessness - degrades the local environment, such as: - dog-fouling - allowing animals to roam - noise nuisance - setting fire to rubbish - graffiti (eg on the transport network) - abandoned vehicles - littering - fly-tipping ASB restricting access to public space refers to threatening or physically obstructive behaviours that stop people using public spaces, such as: - intimidating behaviour by groups of youths - drug abuse in public places - under-age drinking and rowdy behaviour - street drinking/drunkenness - night-time alcohol-related disorder - aggressive begging - soliciting and kerb-crawling - obstructive use of vehicles - use of motor-bikes on pavements/in parks The national strategy for tackling ASB Various factors have produced today's problems of ASB in London and elsewhere. There have been some broad cultural shifts in urban life in Britain over the last half-century. City-dwellers now tend to lead more anonymous lives, with a reduced sense of community. Traditions of deference to authority have weakened - whether it is the authority of the family head, the teacher, the employer or the police officer. Bingedrinking and use of illicit drugs have increased. We live in a more affluent age, with great emphasis on individualism and on consumerist values, and this has brought both benefits and costs. A growth in levels of ASB can be seen as one of the least desirable consequences of the combined effects of these social trends. However, that is only one part of the picture. Over the last fifty years, the ways that the economy has evolved, and some of the policy responses to this evolution, have accelerated problems of disorder. These problems are at their worst in large cities. Within cities, deprived neighbourhoods suffer the most. Areas of public housing are vulnerable, especially where large concentrations of poor, socially excluded families have developed. It can be argued that a consequence of many social and economic developments over the last half-century has been a decline in the social capital of these areas. Until recently, many of the resultant problems of ASB were not 'owned' by any single agency. The police had a responsibility to tackle crime, but ASB was not a performance priority. Schools' responsibilities for the behaviour of their pupils did not necessarily extend far beyond the school gate. Housing departments often took a relatively narrow view of their responsibilities to their tenants. Dealing with ASB was 'core business' for none of these agencies. In recognition of the high levels of public concern about ASB, central Government has undertaken a large number of initiatives that encourage and help key agencies to tackle ASB effectively. Legislative measures include the passing of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Licensing Act 2003, which introduced new powers and extended existing powers for taking enforcement action. In January 2004, the Home Office Anti-Social Behaviour Unit launched the TOGETHER campaign to support delivery of ASB action. The main elements of this campaign are outlined below. Elements of the TOGETHER campaign - The TOGETHER Actionline: a helpline for practitioners providing advice and assistance on all the tools available for tackling ASB, and supported by the TOGETHER website (www.together.gov.uk). - The TOGETHER Academy: a centre of excellence which provides training, conferences and specialist master classes for all relevant practitioners. - The provision of funding for local ASB work in every area of England and Wales. - ASB Prosecutors: a new national team in the Crown Prosecution Service supporting all CPS prosecutors dealing with ASB-related cases, and promoting better partnership working between local prosecutors and local agencies. - The establishment of TOGETHER Action Areas and trailblazers, in which pioneering initiatives are being undertaken on: - nuisance neighbours, eg through the Nuisance Neighbours Panel and by providing additional help for parents - begging - including a trailblazing campaign in Camden and Westminster - environmental crime - through various operations including Scrap-it, Gate-it and Scrub-it. - Victims and witnesses first: action research and funding to identify and promote effective ways of supporting victims and witnesses of ASB. In line with the national strategy, local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) throughout the country are now engaged in an impressive and varied range of activities focused on problems of ASB in their respective areas. ASB in London London is one of the world's most populous and diverse capital cities. It is a city with an immensely rich history and vibrant cultural life, which attracts vast numbers of tourists and other visitors. London is Europe's premier financial centre, and contains both large concentrations of wealth and large concentrations of poverty (often alongside each other). Like any large, modern city, London also has its share of problems of ASB. Indeed, at a general level, concern about ASB appears to be higher in London than elsewhere in England and Wales. For example, the 2003/04 British Crime Survey found that 25 per cent of London respondents perceived the levels of disorder in their area to be 'high', compared to 17 per cent across England and Wales as a whole. Within London there is a marked inner-outer split, with 32 per cent of people in inner London perceiving disorder as 'high', compared to 22 per cent in outer London. What are the specific concerns of Londoners with respect to ASB? The findings of the 2002 London Household Survey, conducted by the GLA (and part funded by the Housing Corporation), provides some insight into this. When asked about problems in their neighbourhoods, a number of ASB issues were described as a 'serious problem' by respondents: \| ASB issue \| % respondents describing as 'serious problem' \| \|---------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------------\| \| Litter & rubbish in the streets \| 28% \| \| Vandalism and hooliganism \| 24% \| \| Graffiti \| 18% \| \| Presence of drug dealers/users \| 17% \| \| Troublesome teenagers/children \| 16% \| In the areas covered by the Metropolitan Police Service's safer neighbourhood teams the police have been consulting local people about their concerns and the problems that make them feel unsafe. The most frequently mentioned issues were: - Youth crime - Anti-social behaviour in general - Anti-social behaviour by motorists - Graffiti. It is difficult to assess the extent to which Londoners' perceptions of ASB reflect actual incidents, because of the limitations of current methods of measuring ASB. A national one-day count of ASB was conducted in September 2003, drawing on information from a range of statutory and voluntary organisations. Across London almost 13,000 incidents of ASB were reported, over half of which related to environmental ASB. This included rubbish (17 per cent), criminal damage and vandalism (16 per cent), noise (11 per cent) and vehicle nuisance (10 per cent). The remainder comprised: nuisance (9 per cent), rowdy behaviour (8 per cent), begging (6 per cent), abandoned vehicles (6 per cent), harassment (6 per cent), drugs/substance misuse (5 per cent), prostitution (2 per cent) and animals (2 per cent). On the basis of the day-count figures it is estimated that over 3 million incidents are reported in London annually, with estimated costs of £60 to £150 million. Another source of information on ASB in London is calls recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service Computer-Aided Dispatch Management Information System (CADMIS). In the three years to March 31st 2004, just under 2.5 million CADMIS incidents related to ASB (of a total of 23 million). Of these, almost three-quarters (73 per cent) involved ASB that restricted people's use of public space, the rest being interpersonal/ malicious ASB (15 per cent) and environmental ASB (12 per cent). These ASB incidents were concentrated across the inner London boroughs with the highest densities being in Westminster and Camden. Londoners' views on ASB Qualitative research conducted to inform this strategy, in the form of focus groups with Londoners from different backgrounds, demonstrates that an enormously wide range of behaviours can fall under the heading of ASB - from dog-fouling, littering and general rudeness through to intimidation, homophobic and racist abuse, and drink-related violence. But it appears that while ASB takes many specific forms, there is a common thread in much of it. This common thread is a lack of respect: more specifically, ASB is said to reflect the perpetrators'' lack of respect for other people and/or for their environment. Notwithstanding survey and police data, which indicate relatively high levels of ASB in London, it seems that a substantial majority of Londoners are happy with where they live. Both the GLA Annual London Survey of 2003 and the London Household Survey of 2002 found that just under 80 per cent of respondents were fairly or very satisfied with their local neighbourhoods. This suggests that local problems of ASB have only a minor impact on the lives of most Londoners. It is clear, however, that the consequences of ASB can be devastating for the individuals and communities who suffer the most. Why have an ASB strategy for London? The decision to develop this strategy was initially taken by the Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group (which brings together London-wide organisations to co-ordinate action on community safety), in recognition of the signatory agencies' shared responsibilities with respect to ASB in London. As signatories to this strategy, we are committed to tackling ASB in London in a co-ordinated and effective way. We share a concern to ensure that efforts to reduce ASB are properly tailored to the unique needs of this city. London is set apart from other large cities in Britain by its sheer scale and the resulting complexity of its local government and community safety structures. The great diversity of London's population, and the city's role as a seat of government, and a tourist and financial centre, also make the task of developing effective and comprehensive ASB policies more challenging. ASB solutions that work elsewhere may not necessarily be right for London. This strategy provides a regional framework for ASB work. As such, it will bridge the gap between the national strategy on ASB and the local programmes of action being developed and implemented by the 33 CDRPs that exist across London. Most front-line work on ASB in London is carried out by these partnerships, as it should be. Each CDRP has an ASB co-ordinator, and has developed an ASB strategy as part of its general crime and disorder strategy. But we, the cross-London agencies, also have vital roles to play in relation to ASB: - We provide strategic direction for local services. - We provide expertise, training and support for local services. - We provide front-line services ourselves. The London ASB strategy Strategy will clarify and enhance these roles. In so doing, it will also help to ensure that gaps in provision are filled, and that duplication of effort in ASB work is avoided. It will support regionallevel action against ASB where this is deemed more cost-effective and efficient than local action. It will ensure that best practise is passed on and replicated. Perhaps most importantly, the strategy will facilitate a coordinated approach to ASB both within and between the London boroughs. In order to develop a strategy that will meet the needs of local partnerships as well as reflect the policies and goals of our own agencies, we have developed this strategy in a two-stage process. The first stage entailed discussion among the signatory agencies, and initial contact with CDRPs and other interested bodies, with the aim of producing a consultation document. The document 'The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy: Proposals for Consultation with Stakeholders' was produced in April 2004. This document set out the strategy's key elements, and invited the views of stakeholders - that is, statutory and non-statutory agencies and partnerships engaged in tackling ASB across London - about the details of the strategy. The second stage of strategy development involved the collection and analysis of responses to the consultation document. (Respondents to the consultation are listed in the appendix to this document.) These responses were then assessed against the capacity and resources of the signatory bodies. This strategy document represents the outcome of this process. ## 2 Principles Of The Strategy Any strategy for tackling ASB needs to be clear about what it is trying to do. Whilst accepting that whether or not behaviours are anti-social depends to some extent on the vulnerability of the victim and the degree of upset they experience, we need broad definitions of ASB, so that the parameters of the strategy are clear, and the different agencies involved know that they are using the same language and have the same objectives. The strategy must also be clear about the reasons for tackling ASB, and the end results that are desired. As the signatories to this document, we have a shared vision on tackling ASB. This vision is expressed in the following principles. 1 ASB must be tackled effectively If ignored, ASB can ruin the lives of individuals. Serious ASB may make its victims feel extremely uncomfortable and fearful in their own homes or local communities; it may also have a severe impact on their mental or physical health. At a broader level, ASB can contribute to neighbourhood decline and weaken communities. Alcohol-related ASB in town centres causes serious damage - to the individuals caught up in it, to the physical environment, and to businesses. It is therefore critically important that local agencies take effective action against ASB, in the variety of forms in which it appears. 2 Effective action on ASB demands a balance between rigorous enforcement and prevention When ASB is creating a problem, the first action must be to put a stop to it. Enforcement is therefore always a key element of efforts to tackle ASB. Local agencies now have a wide range of tools available for tacking enforcement action against ASB. These powers include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs)Anti- Social Behaviour Contracts, injunctions, parenting orders, child safety orders and dispersal orders, (a full list is available on the TOGETHER websiteTOGETHER website). AASBOs, in particular, are a powerful but flexible remedy, which can have a real and significant impact on the behaviour of ASB perpetrators. Social landlords have some specific tools that they can use to prohibit or contain ASB by tenants: demoted tenancies, possession, and introductory and starter tenancies. The Anti-Social Behaviour unit (ASBU) at the Home Office and its TOGETHER Campaign have worked successfully with London boroughs to drive forward these approaches with a clear message that ASB should be tackled and not tolerated, e.g. Crack house closures in Hackney and Hammersmith and Fulham. They have encouraged London boroughs to actively improve and sustain levels of enforcement in their boroughs, e.g. Camden haves employed ASBOs to address drug markets and street robbery in the Kings Cross area. To ensure that responses to ASB are sustainable, it is important to undertake preventive as well as enforcement activity. Enforcement measures used in isolation may, in some circumstances, displace rather than resolve ASB problems; or may further alienate individuals or groups who are already disengaged from wider society. Whilst supporting the Ggovernment's line of not tolerating anti-social behaviour, balancing enforcement and prevention means: - Tackling the underlying causes of ASB (eg in terms of family problems as well as wider social, cultural and economic factors) as well as the symptoms. - Combining enforcement action against perpetrators with packages of intervention and support. - Using strategies of diversion, mediation and reparation wherever thiese are appropriate. - Ensuring that responses are proportionate to the seriousness of the behaviour, and that they graduate from less to more stringent measures, as required. 3 A balanced approach to ASB ASB often involves clashes of values and standards. Young people look for excitement and action; their elders may prefer peace and quiet. People have different levels of tolerance for noise, for untidiness, for rowdiness. Some ASB is so grossly thoughtless, or so obviously malicious, that most people would want and expect the authorities to take firm action against it. But sometimes matters are less clear-cut. How intimidating do groups of young people have to be before action is needed? How loud can a neighbour play music before it becomes an unacceptable intrusion? What level of rowdiness at pub-closing time can just be put down to harmless high spirits? Work to tackle ASB should involve partnership working to consider what is order; and what levels of tolerance could be expected of those exposed to disorder. Definitions of order, and levels of tolerance, differ widely within and between the various communities that make up London's population. Negotiating levels of acceptable behaviour has to be done in an even-handed and open way whilst dealing firmly with those whose behaviour is unacceptable. ## 4 Measures To Tackle Asb Must Be Consistent With Human Rights Legislation Article 8 Of The European Convention On Human Rights States That: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Victims of serious ASB are, clearly, denied their right to respect for private and family life and home. Another human rights consideration is the need for compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, when tackling ASB committed by children. Article 3 (1) of the Convention requires that: In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Article 3 (2) reads: States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians or other individuals legally responsible for him or her and to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. In a great deal of public debate about ASB, it is a spoken or unspoken assumption that ASB is essentially misbehaviour by children and young people. In fact, ASB can be committed by people of all ages; and children and young people are frequently victims of ASB. Moreover, where children or young people are perpetrators of ASB, particular sensitivity is needed in responding to it. Frequently, there is a need to address risk factors - for example, relating to parenting or educational problems – that can underlie the commission of ASB by children. ## 3 Aims And Objectives The goal of maintaining standards of civil behaviour runs like a thread through the work of all public services. Education, social services, leisure services, youth services, transport, housing, the police, probation and fire services all play a part in minimizing minimising ASB. The range of local and regional programmes in London that impact on ASB in some way - or promote socially acceptable behaviour - is vast. The London ASB Strategy is not intended to review or even chart the totality of local and regional action that has a bearing on ASB. Nor does it intend to 'performance manage' work being carried out by London's 33 crime and disorder partnerships that specifically focuses on ASB. The strategy recognises that these local partnerships, and the agencies that comprise them, are best placed to identify local problems and concerns, and to design and implement responses. The overarching aim of the London ASB Strategy is to promote effective, co-ordinated action against ASB at both local and regional levels. This entails providing various forms of practical assistance and support to local partnerships, and building capacity for communication and co-operation within and between boroughs. It also involves identifying gaps in existing provision, and filling these gaps with regional work where this brings benefits in terms of efficiency or general effectiveness. Pursuing its overarching aim of promoting effective, co-ordinated action against ASB, the strategy will support the work of the Home Office towards its second Public Service Agreement target for 2005/06 to 2007/08. This target is to: Reassure the public, reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, and build confidence in the criminal justice system without compromising fairness. Performance indicators for this target include levels of perception of ASB, as measured by the British Crime Survey. The London ASB Strategy is focussed on five key objectives, outlined below. These objectives are the basis of a wide-ranging programme of action to which all the strategy partners are committed. Although some elements of the work are already underway, the main part of the programme of action will run for three years from April 2005, so as to coincide with the timetable for production of crime and disorder strategies by CDRPs. Details of the programme of action are provided in Chapters Four and Five of this document. ## The Five Objectives Of The London Asb Strategy 1 To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners. Most work to tackle ASB is carried out at a local level, as it should be. We already support this work in a wide variety of ways: through the provision of funding, training and technical support. We are committed to extending and strengthening this support. 2 To improve co-ordination and co-operation between local agencies and partnerships. Effective action against ASB depends on co-operation between local agencies and between partnerships. We will encourage partnershipworking at a local level and will promote and facilitate co-ordination across borough boundaries. 3 To supplement local action with cross-London work, where this is needed. Under this strategy, we are launching a range of regional initiatives that will directly address ASB. The delivery of programmes on a regional rather than a local basis sometimes brings particular benefits in terms of efficiency or effectiveness. Regional initiatives are to be undertaken in the following four broad areas: - neighbourhood policing - transport - fire - housing and planning. 4 To ensure consistency and sustainability in policy responses to ASB across London. Different strands of social policy can pull against each other, as can different approaches to tackling ASB. We aim to ensure that: a) the London ASB sStrategy is internally consistent; and b) other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. 5 To identify regional structures for tackling ASB. We shall only achieve Objectives 1-4 if responsibility for the strategy is allocated to regional bodies that are competent to pursue them. We shall ensure that this happens. ## 4 Programme Of Action Objective 1: To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners Regional agencies are already engaged in a large amount of work to support local action against ASB. However, more needs to be done in order to: - energise local action and maintain the momentum - help local partnerships locate funding - provide training for practitioners - develop guidance for practitioners and identify and promulgate good practice. a Maintaining the momentum in tackling ASB We will ensure that the subject of ASB remains high on the local crime and disorder agenda, and that proactive policies to tackle ASB are implemented locally. - The MPS, City of London Police and LFEPA are represented on CDRPs and are therefore well-placed to influence local strategies. As providers of front-line services, these agencies are fully engaged in communitybased consultation and the development and implementation of local initiatives on ASB. All CDRPs are required by Statutory Instrument to invite the BTP to participate in the formulation and implementation of strategies. - Through their involvement in CDRPs, the MPS, City of London Police and LFEPA will also help to ensure that problems of alcohol-related disorder associated with licensed premises are effectively tackled on a local basis. - The MPA is also represented on CDRPs, and can thereby seek to ensure that local community safety work is consistent with the ASB priorities set out in the London Policing Plan, and with the priorities of the London ASB Strategy. - ALG will ensure that ASB remains high on the local political agenda by placing ASB as a standing item for consideration by the ALG's Crime and Public Protection Steering Group, and through ongoing work to shape future policy and legislation, eg work on the London Local Authorities Bill. - ALG members' groups and forums will allow representatives from the London boroughs to come together to share experiences and expertise in tackling ASB, and thereby help to maintain their boroughs' focus on the key issues. - ALG is well-placed to develop councillors' awareness and knowledge of ASB issues. Over the next three years ALG expects to include ASB among the topics covered in its programme of conferences and training. - GOL will ensure that ASB is prioritised in CDRP crime and disorder strategies for 2005. - GOL will ensure that CDRPs are linked into the national TOGETHER campaign on ASB and will support CDRPs which are nominated as Trailblazers or Action Areas as part of the TOGETHER campaign. - BTP & TfL will ensure that considerations of transport-related ASB are incorporated within CDRP strategies and processes. - YJB, through Crime Concern, will support key ASB preventive remedies that are locally-based, including Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) and Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) - for example through training, quality assurance and providing networking opportunities. b Helping local partnerships to identify funding opportunities for ASB work There is extensive funding available to local agencies and partnerships for (directly or indirectly) tackling ASB. However, there are untapped sources, both from national government and elsewhere. Additionally, local resources may already be available but could be deployed more effectively to tackle local ASB problems. - ALG will work with its members to highlight the need for targeted and flexible funding sources for locally-led initiatives to tackle ASB. - In the medium term there may be some scope for directing ALG grant aid for community organisations to ASB work. - For the future, it is expected that Local Area Agreements will result in simplified and more flexible funding streams to local authorities via regional government; a key theme will be Building Safer and Stronger Communities. - YJB has secured funding for expansion of YISPs and YIPs through Spending Review 2004; this will be used to expand provision in London from April 2005. c Providing training for ASB practitioners Many ASB practitioners, including ASB Co-ordinators, are new to the work, and need training. Whilst there is some national provision, much training is best provided regionally; it sustains networks of local practitioners whilst providing economies of scale. - GOL will develop its training programme for ASB co-ordinators, started in January 2004, and will extend this to other appropriate groups throughout 2005 and beyond. - GOL will ensure CDRPs are accessing and linked into the Home Office TOGETHER Academy training programme. - The MPS ASB Team is committed to supporting a continuing programme of training for multi-agency groups, the new Safer Neighbourhoods teams and local police managers. Its work also includes the exchange and collation of initiatives across London and the UK. - The MPS ASB Team has established a practitioners' forum comprising police practitioners from most London boroughs. Other legal and professional practitioners are also becoming involved in the forum. - The MPS will support the ALG to extend and enhance training provision on ASB in and around licensed premises (ie training for licensees, door staff and others). - GLA will work with ALG in order to develop child-specific training provision for practitioners within local and regional structures. Training will cover issues such as child protection, children's rights, and referral information. - ALG provides training and guidance on ASB and a broad range of public realm issues through its Transport and Environment Committee. - YJB will ensure YOT staff receive briefings on the use of new ASB powers, and participate fully in their implementation with respect to young people. - ASB strategy partners will work with the London Retail Consortium to develop training on tackling ASB for staff in London businesses. d Developing guidance for ASB practitioners The TOGETHER Academy, Actionline and website provide wide-ranging guidance and advice to ASB practitioners. Other agencies and partnerships also provide guidance on tackling ASB: for example the Housing Corporation Bank of Good Practice, and the good practice database of the Registered Social Landlords' Crime and Nuisance Group. We will ensure that practitioners have ready access to all the available advice, and that any gaps in existing guidance are identified and filled. - The ALG provides regular guidance on all aspects of enviro-crime, including ASB, through its Transport and Environment Committee. - The Housing Corporation has issued Statutory Management Guidance (August 2004) for housing associations which covers the production of ASB policies and procedures. It has produced separate guidance (July 2004) on eligibility for housing, tenancy demotions, and evictions on grounds of ASB. - The Housing Corporation will continue to use its web-based Bank of Good Practice (www.bankofgoodpractice.org) to promulgate housing association good practice in tackling ASB. - Strategy partners (to be identified by Crime and Disorder Plus) will establish common methods of identifying, developing, evaluating and promulgating good practice in tackling ASB. Objective 2: To improve co-ordination and co-operation between local agencies and partnerships There is a need for better co-ordination within and especially between local partnerships. This will involve: - tackling ASB - improving information on local ASB activity - improving information on regional ASB activity - co-ordinating enforcement within and across boroughs - co-ordinating support for ASB victims, witnesses and perpetrators - improving links between CDRPs and the court process and improving support for victims and witnesses - facilitating data exchange - helping to engage local people and promoting communication strategies - helping to get local agencies engaged in ASB work. a Tracking borough activity on ASB There is now an impressive amount of local action against ASB, but little shared knowledge about what is in hand. Boroughs need to know what their neighbours are doing to respond to ASB, so that they anticipate displacement and co-ordinate activities where possible. They also need to be able to contact relevant personnel in other boroughs. - GOL will continue its existing system of tracking borough activity on ASB to ensure that information on local initiatives and programmes is available to all London ASB co-ordinators, and other relevant practitioners. This information will be shared with ASBU and available to boroughs. b Tracking regional activity on ASB The range of service provision at regional level that has relevance to ASB is enormous and complex. Local practitioners need to be fully aware of regional initiatives that have a bearing on their work. An overview of regional activity is also needed for strategic development. - In parallel with the local mapping exercise described above, GOL will mount a mapping exercise of regional activity currently undertaken by regional partners. - This information will be shared with ASBU and boroughs. c Co-ordinating enforcement within and across boroughs Those responsible for ASB do not confine themselves to a single borough, and increasingly, conditions attached to ASBOs are general, rather than place-specific. Local areas need to have access to information on all current ASBOs, including the conditions they impose. Regionally, it is also important to monitor the profile of those who are subject to orders in terms of age, ethnicity and gender. - GOL will support development of an ASBO register of people subject to ASBOs in London (including ASBOs that are passed as part of criminal proceedings). The register will include particulars of the individual, the conditions attached to the order, the duration of the order, the authority that sought the order and the court that granted it. - Entries will be submitted and updated by ASB co-ordinators. A possible location of this could be the existing London Analysts' Support Site which has secure, password-restricted access. - The ASBO register will be used to assist ASBO enforcement across London, and also to carry out monitoring of ASBO recipients in terms of age, ethnicity and gender. d Co-ordinating intervention with perpetrators Those who are responsible for ASB, especially young and other vulnerable people, often need active intervention and support. Whilst their behaviour is unacceptable, they themselves may experience a range of problems, for example relating to mental health, alcohol or other substance misuse or special educational needs. They risk falling through gaps in service provision, by falling on the boundaries between boroughs or between services' referral criteria. - The task of developing new mechanisms for co-ordinating intervention with perpetrators is complex. A working party to take forward this task will be established; the regional agencies that will be involved in this working group are yet to be identified. - The working party will first identify the key issues that need to be addressed, and then consider possible ways of tackling these issues (eg through building on current provisions for Individual Support Orders which can be made with respect to ASBO recipients aged 10 to 17). - There is a particular need for mechanisms for co-ordinating a) packages of intervention with ABC and ASBO recipients and b) referral procedures between housing authorities with respect to evicted ASB perpetrators. - A key issue to be addressed here is the provision of training for key workers - including ASB practitioners - on how to recognise signs of mental distress in young people; this ties in with work under the Mayor's Children and Young People's Strategy. e Improving local co-ordination with the courts and CPS and support for ASB victims and witnesses ASB practitioners need closer links with the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, to improve their confidence in the capacity of these agencies to respond to ASB. Practitioners need to feel confident that: - The courts are responsive in dealing with applications for ASBOs, parenting orders, child safety orders and dispersal orders. - Breaches of orders are effectively and consistently dealt with. - Serious offenders are dealt with through criminal proceedings, wherever appropriate - thus obviating the need to use stand-alone ASBOs as a substitute for criminal prosecution. It is also critically important that victims and witnesses of ASB are supported, and that this support takes into account their particular needs (for example, relating to the fact that they often live in very close proximity to perpetrators). - The cross-London agencies are committed to developing a framework for improved liaison between local ASB practitioners, the CPS and the courts. The lead agencies for this work will be identified by Crime and Disorder Plus. - This project may involve collaboration with the London Criminal Justice Board; and court user groups attached to courts may provide suitable forums for local liaison. - The project will build on ongoing work by the CPS to extend their involvement in CDRPs, and the provision of ASB expert prosecutors (funded by the TOGETHER campaign) and ASB response courts in London and elsewhere. These ongoing developments have the aims of improving and expediting the prosecution of ASB-related cases, and promoting partnership working between the courts, CPS and local agencies. - The project will also explore ways of extending community-based victims support schemes and court-based witness services to ASB victims and witnesses. - The MPS is leading on a pan-London ASBO training project encompassing the CPS, barristers, court staff, YOTS, housing associations and police. The training will cover the application process, ASBO hearings, and the policing of ASBOs. - The pan-London ASBO project will also involve the standardisation of all ASBO case papers, to ensure consistency in ASBO applications and policing across London, and the production of a CD-Rom containing all relevant information and templates. - YJB will promote the involvement of YOT staff in court proceedings relating to ASBO applications, Individual Support Orders and ASBO breaches. - YJB will encourage the use of restorative justice options with victims of ASB that has been committed by young people referred to YOTs. f Facilitating data gathering, analysis and exchange Within CDRPs there needs to be better information exchange on ASB problems and perpetrators. Local agencies are often poorly equipped to measure and map local ASB incidents. Furthermore, there is still a degree of reluctance about the exchange of personal data on ASB perpetrators between CDRP agencies - which increases the chances that action will be taken only when enforcement brings perpetrators in front of the courts. - The MPA and MPS will collaborate with GOL and the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group to develop guidance on data-related issues, for example on: - how to record and measure ASB incidents - the management of case work information - general performance measurement and monitoring and evaluation of specific ASB initiatives. - It is important that local agencies should gather data in forms that allow for cross-borough comparisons and analysis. In collaboration with the MPA and MPS, GOL will develop a minimum functional specification for local ASB information systems. - The government is considering strengthening information sharing requirements in a review of the Crime and Disorder Act; when more is known about this, GOL will consider how best to develop protocols for the exchange within (and between) partnerships of data on individuals subject to ASBOs, ISOs and ABCs. Effective information exchange on ASB perpetrators does not only play a crucial part in enforcement activity, but also in preventive work with individuals at risk of engaging in crime and ASB. - Local agencies and partnerships should be able to carry out equality impact assessments on their ASB work, as there are risks that enforcement tools could serve to amplify discrimination and social exclusion. The GLA will develop guidance on mounting these assessments. - The Housing Corporation will collect (from May 2005) annual data on housing association lettings, tenancy demotions and evictions related to ASB. Other data relating to ASB are collected on an ongoing basis. - The MPS is exploring ways in which police ASB data can be collected from London boroughs, to gain insight into the levels and kinds of ASB being perpetrated in different areas. g Helping to engage local people and promoting communications strategies Local efforts to address ASB will only have a significant impact if they draw in local people. Community engagement and community capacity building is a regional, as well as a national, priority. This work entails involving local people in ASB action, prioritising the local issues of concern, and feeding back progress on ASB to communities - so that people develop confidence in the willingness and capacity of local agencies to tackle ASB. The development of communications strategies is hence a critical element of community engagement work. - At the regional level, the MPA and MPS are shifting their community engagement agenda from consultation and securing consent to providing much fuller involvement of communities in local work on crime and ASB. - The locally-based Safer Neighbourhood policing teams, currently being established under the MPA/MPS Safer Neighbourhoods Programme, aim to engage directly with local communities and agencies in order to identify local problems and foster a shared sense of responsibility for tackling them. - The MPA will develop a Community Engagement Strategy, which will take full account of the need to involve local people and businesses in the policing of ASB. This will provide a framework within which local police and CDRP plans for community involvement can be developed. - The MPA will ensure that the diversity agenda is addressed as part of the Community Engagement Strategy; the ALG and GLA will work with regional partners to support this development. - The GLA, in conjunction with the MPA and MPS, will undertake work to promote dialogue between younger and older members of local communities, to improve social cohesion and reduce perceptions and fear of ASB. - GOL will encourage CDRPs to develop local communications strategies which will focus on building public confidence in local action on ASB. - The Housing Corporation requires housing associations to consult residents in drawing up their ASB policies, and to be responsive to residents' views and priorities. h Helping to get local agencies on board Effective local work on ASB depends on the full commitment of all CDRP partners. In the past, some partners have been less engaged than others. The cross-London agencies will exert what levers they can to encourage fuller participation of relevant local agencies in CDRPs. - ALG will work through the relevant committees to encourage fuller engagement of local education authorities, social services and other local authority departments in CDRPs. - To encourage greater involvement of health agencies in CDRPs, GLA will work through the London Health Commission. - GOL will support GLA and ALG's efforts to promote local partnership; for example, GOL will encourage the engagement of health agencies by working through the five London Strategic Health Authorities. - The MPS will work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. - The Housing Corporation will stress the importance of housing association engagement with CDRPs, either directly or through bodies that represent several associations. Objective 3: To supplement local action with cross-London work, where this is needed Some forms of ASB are best tackled by regional as well as local agencies. This is especially true when displacement is an issue, or when perpetrators are highly mobile. Regional action can also bring benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness or efficiency. In recognition of these benefits, a range of regional initiatives to address ASB directly are being launched by this strategy. These regional initiatives are to be undertaken in the following four broad areas: - neighbourhood policing - transport - fire - housing and planning. The Mayor is responsible for setting the budget for policing, transport and the fire brigade in London, and will ensure that addressing ASB is a funding priority over the lifetime of this strategy. In addition to the regional work described here, the cross-London agencies are engaged in many other regional programmes that have a bearing on ASB. These other programmes are not, however, covered by this strategy because they address ASB only as one dimension of wider community safety and social welfare concerns. The wider programmes include work to tackle alcohol-related violence under the GLA's London Agenda for Action on Alcohol, which ties in with the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. Much regional work addressing issues of children, young people and education also has an important ASB dimension. Key initiatives include the DfES London Challenge. This initiative aims to improve secondary schools in London and encompasses multi-agency work to reduce truancy and exclusions across the Capital. a Neighbourhood policing Effective ASB work must address specific local concerns and problems, and one of the best ways of doing this is through dedicated teams of neighbourhood-based officers. - The joint MPA/MPS Safer Neighbourhoods Programme is part of the National Reassurance Programme. It aims to reduce the fear of crime and disorder and improve the environment and quality of life in local communities, through the provision of dedicated, community-based policing teams. - Each Safer Neighbourhoods Team will have a minimum staffing of at least one sergeant, two constables and three PCSOs. When the programme is fully rolled out, all areas of London will have their own dedicated policing teams. - The BTP are undertaking a similar approach on the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway with the establishment of Group Station teams. - By working in partnership with other agencies and carrying out consultation, the teams will identify the issues of most concern to local people and will respond to these issues through focused policing activity. - GOL, GLA and MPS will develop and implement regional responses to problems associated with begging. - GOL, GLA and MPS will develop and implement regional responses to problems associated with alcohol-related disorder. - Through the Capital Standards programme, GOL, GLA, MPS and other partners will support a consistent response to environmental crime and provide tools for schools and other organisations to make London cleaner and greener. - Locally-based neighbourhood and street warden schemes have an important role to play in local work to combat ASB. Schemes that are funded by ODPM will continue to receive support and guidance from GOL. - The MPS will work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. b Transport Transport-related ASB can seriously disrupt the lives of Londoners. By its nature, it must be responded to at regional as well as local level. - BTP and TfL/London Underground have produced a joint Community Safety Strategy for 2004-2005. ASB issues addressed by the strategy include begging, ticket touting and inconsiderate behaviour by groups of youths in stations. - BTP has successfully obtained a large number of ASBOs against prolific ASB offenders which has had a significant impact on the level of ASB on the rail network. - TfL has funded a transport-focused Operational Command Unit (TOCU) in the MPS that targets low level crime and disorder issues on London's surface transport. - TfL will continue to support and fund existing transport policing resources on London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway. - TfL will continue to support the work of London Underground operational staff who gather evidence for ASBO applications against regular London Underground offenders. - TfL is funding 200 additional BTP officers to provide high visibility reassurance policing on the Underground, major transport interchanges and Docklands Light Railway. - TfL is drafting a Policing Plan (encompassing the work of BTP and TOCU) to include plans for common approaches to transport policing and ASB issues in London, such as anti-graffiti tactics, the use of relevant orders, co-ordination of CCTV facilities and ways of tackling ticket touting. - TfL will ensure that there is co-ordination of bus CCTV activities with the MPS and bus operators. - TfL will assist in producing CCTV images for offenders for identification by schools, YOTs and Safer Neighbourhood Teams. c Fire A significant proportion of ASB in London takes the form of arson and fire-setting. Hoax calls to emergency services are also a large problem. A regional response to these problems is required. - LFEPA has published its first London Safety Plan for 2004/05, which includes plans for tackling fire-related ASB. - LFEPA's youth engagement programme, Local Intervention Fire Education (LIFE), currently operates in five London boroughs. It is a week-long course aiming to improve young people's lives, and primarily targeted at young people who have engaged, or may be at risk of engaging, in ASB. The Authority will continue to seek external funding to sustain and expand the LIFE programme across London. - A pan-London Arson Task Force (ATF) has been established with funding from the ODPM. The initiative involves LFEPA and other agencies, and aims to find sustainable solutions in the 60 wards with the highest arson levels. LFEPA will absorb the lessons learned during the life of the ATF and share this knowledge with others. - LFEPA's Juvenile Fire-setters Intervention Scheme seeks to address the fire-setting behaviour of children and young people across London, by working with the young people in their own homes. - In addition to the above, LFEPA is involved in various other projects focussing on young people, including a course provided in partnership with the Prince's Trust, the Prison Me No Way and Best Buddy projects, and Junior Citizens Events. - LFEPA has reached agreements with telephone companies which allow for the disablement of telephones regularly used to make hoax calls to the fire service. LFEPA is also establishing social interventions to reduce incidents of hoax calls further. d Housing and planning The nature of social housing is such that many of the most severe ASB problems tend to occur within this sector. As a growing proportion of social housing is now managed by housing associations, these agencies - with the support of the Housing Corporation - have a vital role to play in addressing problems of ASB, alongside local authority housing departments. Broader and longer-term planning issues, particularly as set out in the Mayor's London Plan, also have a direct relevance to work to prevent ASB. - The Housing Corporation will continue to promote a balanced approach by housing associations in tackling ASB, as part of their contribution to neighbourhood management. - Under Section 12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, housing associations must produce and publish policies and procedures on ASB by 30 December 2004. As the lead strategic body in relation to London's housing associations, the Housing Corporation issued guidance in August 2004 on the production of ASB policies. - The Housing Corporation issued guidance to housing associations in July 2004 on the eligibility of housing applicants with a history of ASB, or previous convictions; the use of starter and demoted tenancies; and the use of evictions (only to be considered when other interventions have failed to protect the wider community). - The Housing Corporation requires housing associations to plan new developments with proper attention to crime and nuisance reduction measures. The Housing Corporation's design quality initiatives offer practical, physical ways of preventing or reducing ASB. Future assessments of the impact of investment decisions on communities and neighbourhoods will involve both subjective and objective measures, including those associated with crime and nuisance reduction. - The Housing Corporation will also expect to see consideration of playspace and community facilities in the design of new developments and regeneration projects. - Under the London Plan, the GLA will work with the London boroughs in developing sub-regional planning frameworks. Issues relating to safety, security and community will be key elements of these frameworks. Objective 4: To ensure consistency and sustainability in policy responses to ASB across London Different strands of social policy can pull against each other. Stimulating the night-time economy is desirable, for example, but there are problems to be tackled associated with ASB. There can be tensions between promoting the welfare of children and carrying out enforcement with respect to children engaged in ASB. We aim to ensure that: - the London ASB Strategy is internally consistent; and - other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. a Ensuring the internal consistency of the London ASB Strategy All work carried out under this strategy must be fully consistent with the principles that underpin this strategy, as set out in Section 2 of the document: - ASB must be tackled effectively - there must be sustainable and long-term solutions, combining prevention and enforcement - ASB measures must be consistent with human rights legislation - ASB measures must foster, rather than undermine, social inclusion and cultural diversity. - In April 2006, all the strategy partners will assess the extent to which their work on ASB to date has been consistent with the principles of the strategy. - The GLA will mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of this programme of work on minority groups such as BME groups, refugees and asylum seekers, religious minorities. - This impact assessment will pay particular attention to whether enforcement has the effect of further marginalising and stigmatising vulnerable groups (eg children, homeless people and mentally ill people) and how any such negative effects can be mitigated. - In carrying out work under this strategy, we shall ensure that the positive as well as negative behaviours of children and young people are recognised and that the work is consistent with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. - YJB will consider the impact of ASB legislation on the use of custody for young people, in line with the need to reserve custody for the most serious and persistent young offenders. b Ensuring harmony between the London ASB Strategy and other regional programmes The cross-London agencies are collectively responsible for a wide range of policy issues. Inevitably different agencies - and departments within agencies - have differing priorities. It is essential to minimise the tension between different policy agendas. - All signatories to the London ASB Strategy will ensure that their work on ASB is consistent with the strategy's principles. - The GLA will mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of the strategy's programme of work on minority groups. - YJB will consider the impact of ASB legislation on the use of custody for young people. - Other London-wide programmes and strategies will be assessed in order to identify and address any inconsistencies with the London ASB Strategy. The lead agencies for this task will be identified by the working party. - Key issues to be addressed by the audit of London-wide programmes include: - Ensuring that the voices of children and young people are heard in developing and implementing work that has a bearing on ASB in London. - Ensuring that local responses to ASB involving children and young people are consistent with the Mayor's Children and Young People's Strategy; and that potential conflicts of interest between care and control of children are resolved. - Reviewing youth provision, school exclusion policies and school admission policies in London, especially in the light of recent legislative changes and the forthcoming Youth Green Paper (autumn 2004), to address the deficit in out-of-school provision for children and young people. - Ensuring that any changes in legislation relating to the night-time economy in commercial areas of London results in consideration of how to reduce any related alcohol-related crime and disorder. - Ensuring that the implications for ASB are taken fully into account in decisions made throughout London (and under the Mayor's London Plan) relating to housing allocation, planning, land use and building design. - Ensuring that the London ASB Strategy contributes to the sustainable development of London, as defined by the Mayor's Sustainable Development Framework for London. Objective 5: To identify regional structures for tackling ASB We shall only achieve Objectives 1-4 if overall responsibility for the strategy is allocated to a regional body that can drive it forward and review progress. The Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group will take on this responsibility. The Group is chaired by the GLA, and brings together London-wide agencies to co-ordinate work on crime and disorder. Crime and Disorder Plus will identify appropriate working groups to take forward the work of the strategy. If this is deemed appropriate, the working party responsible for producing this document will direct and oversee implementation of the strategy. Where necessary, new working groups may be established to take forward particular tasks under the strategy. However, the guiding principle will be that it is preferable to use existing viable structures than to create new ones. The first step in implementation of the strategy will be the development of an outcome-focused action plan, which will be an elaboration of the programme of action presented in this document. The action plan will set out the specific actions to be undertaken by each of the strategy partners, together with detailed time-scales, targets and performance indicators. It will also be necessary to establish a system for monitoring and review of the actions. ## 5 Implementation Plan Objective 1:To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners \| a \| \|-----------------------------------------------\| \| All (through \| \| C & D+ and ASB \| \| working group). \| \| b Helping local partnerships identify funding \| \| ALG \| \| opportunities for ASB work \| \| c \| \| Providing training for ASB practitioners \| \| GOL \| \| d Developing guidance for ASB practitioners \| \| GOL \| \| Agency \| \| MPS/LFEPA/ \| \| City of London \| \| MPA \| \| ALG \| \| GOL \| \| - \| \| - \| \| BTP & TfL \| \| YJB \| \| YJB \| \| MPS \| \| MPS/ALG \| \| ALG \| \| GLA/ALG \| \| YJB \| \| Various \| \| ALG \| \| Housing Corp \| \| Various \| \| TfL \| •As concerns in London are higher than elsewhere in the country, then it is appropriate that the capital should develop new or innovative approaches to tackle the problem. The Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group and its working group on ASB will devise three or four high-profile new cross-borough initiatives each year in discussion with ASBU and find ways to develop, fund, launch and evaluate them. •As CDRP partners, these agencies will continue to ensure that action on ASB is prioritised by the partnerships (including action on night-time alcohol-related Police disorder), and to engage fully in local consultation and the design and implementation of initiatives. •MPA members sitting on CDRPs will seek to ensure that local community safety strategies reflect ASB priorities in the London Police Plan and the priorities of the London ASB Strategy. •Ensure prioritisation of ASB in workstreams and ensure that ASB remains high on the local political agenda. •Promote the sharing of experiences and expertise of local authority Membersthrough ALG groups and forums. •Include ASB among topics covered in programme of conferences and training. •Ensure prioritisation of ASB in CDRP strategies and that ASB strategies are implemented effectively. •Ensure that CDRPs are linked to the national TOGETHER campaign on ASB. •Support CDRPs nominated as Trailblazers or Action Areas under TOGETHER campaign. •Ensure that considerations of transport-related ASB are incorporated within CDRP strategies and processes. •Support locally-based preventive remedies eg YISPs and YIPs. •Prioritise ASB issues in the next funding round and consider scope for directing ALG funding to ASB work in the medium term. •Use funding to expand provision of YISPs and YIPs. •Develop existing training programme for ASB co-ordinators. •Ensure CDRPs are linked into TOGETHER Academy training programme. •Continue involvement in multi-agency training on ASB; the exchange and collation of information on ASB initiatives; and the development of the ASB practitioners' forum. •Extend and enhance training provision for licensees, door staff and others on ASB in and around licensed premises. •Provide ongoing guidance, advice and training in public realm issues through its Transport and Environment Committee and to organise an ASB event for members in 2005. •Assist in the development of child-specific training provision for practitioners. •Ensure YOT staff are briefed on new ASB powers and participate in their implementation. •Work with the London Retail Consortium to develop training on tackling ASB for staff in London businesses. •Provide guidance/best practice on effective delivery structures for CDRPs. •Provide guidance on all aspects of enviro-crime through Transport and Environment Committee. •Issued Statutory Management Guidance to housing associations on the production of ASB policies, and guidance on dealing with applicants, evictions, starter tenancies and demoted tenancies. •Continue to develop web-based good practice bank. •Establish common methods of identifying, developing, evaluating and promulgating good practice in tackling ASB. •TfL is drafting a TfL-wide Crime and Disorder Strategy (encompassing the work of BTP and TOCU) to include plans for common approaches to transport policing and ASB issues in London, such as anti-graffiti tactics, the use of relevant orders, co-ordination of CCTV facilities and ways of tackling ticket touting. ## Objective 2: To Improve Co-Ordination And Co-Operation Between Local Agencies And Partnerships \| a \| Tracking borough activity on ASB \| \|------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------------\| \| GOL \| \| \| b Tracking regional activity on ASB \| \| \| GOL \| \| \| c \| Co-ordinating enforcement \| \| GOL \| \| \| d Co-ordinating support for perpetrators \| \| \| Working group \| \| \| to be established \| \| \| e \| Improving local co-ordination with the courts and \| \| To be identified \| \| \| support for ASB victims and witnesses \| \| \| f \| Facilitating data gathering, analysis and exchange \| \| MPA/MPS/GOL \| \| \| GLA \| \| \| g Helping to engage local people and promoting \| \| \| MPA/MPS \| \| \| communications strategies \| \| \| h Helping to get local agencies on board \| \| \| ALG \| \| \| Agency \| \| \| MPS \| \| \| YJB \| \| \| GOL \| \| \| GLA \| \| \| Housing Corp \| \| \| BTP & MPS \| \| \| MPA \| \| \| GLA/ALG \| \| \| GLA/MPA/MPS \| \| \| GOL \| \| \| Housing Corp \| \| \| GLA \| \| \| GOL \| \| \| MPS \| \| \| Housing Corp \| \| •Extend and develop electronic tracking of borough activity on ASB. •Mount a mapping exercise of regional activity on ASB. •Support development of an ASBO register. •Develop new mechanisms for co-ordinating support for ASB perpetrators, including ABC and ASBO recipients and perpetrators who have been evicted for ASB. •Develop framework for liaison between local ASB practitioners, courts and the CPS - building on current CPS and developments eg provision of ASB expert prosecutors and ASB response courts. •Framework to include improved provision for ASB victims and witnesses. •Implement new framework. •Lead on pan-London ASBO project involving multi-agency training on ASBOs and the production of standardised ASBO case papers. •Promote involvement of YOT staff in ASB court proceedings. •Encourage use of restorative justice options with victims of ASB committed by young people. •Develop guidance on data-related issues eg recording and measuring ASB incidents, management of case-work information, evaluation etc. •Develop a minimum functional specification for local ASB information systems. •Develop model protocols for information exchange (within and between CDRPs) on ASB perpetrators. •Provide guidance on equality impact assessments. •Annual data collection from housing association on range of ASB-related activities, eg evictions, demoted tenancies; continuous data collection on lettings, applicants' histories (previous experiences of ASB), properties available as the result of evictions. •Collect and review police data on ASB incidents from all boroughs. •Ensure that the new Safer Neighbourhood policing teams fully engage with local communities and agencies in identifying and tackling ASB issues. •Develop a Community Engagement Strategy to promote the involvement of local people and businesses in the policing of ASB; and ensure that the diversity agenda is addressed as part of this work. •Support an emphasis on the diversity agenda in work to promote community engagement. •Co-ordinate work promoting dialogue between younger and older members of local communities. •Encourage CDRPs to develop communications strategies, focused on building public confidence in local action on ASB. •Require housing associations to consult residents in drawing up their ASB policies, and to be responsive to residents' views and priorities. •Work through Member groups to encourage the engagement of local education authorities, social services and other local authority departments in local work to tackle ASB. •Encourage the involvement of relevant health agencies in the work of CDRPs, through the London Health Commission. •Support ALG and GLA's promotion of local partnerships. •Work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. •Promote housing association engagement with CDRPs. ## Objective 3: To Supplement Local Action With Cross-London Work a Neighbourhood policing MPA/MPS b Transport BTP c Fire LFEPA d Housing and planning Housing Corp Agency GOL/GLA/MPS GOL BTP BTP BTP All Agencies TFL TFL TfL/MPS/BTP TFL TFL TFL TFL GLA •Establish Safer Neighbourhood Teams across London which will engage in focused, community-based policing. The teams will work in partnership with local communities and agencies, and will identify, prioritise and tackle those issues that are causing the greatest concern. •Multi-agency work to develop regional responses to problems associated with begging. •Multi-agency work to develop regional responses to problems associated with alcohol-related disorder. •Work with partners to support a consistent response to environmental crime, building on the Capital Standards programme. •Continue to support established warden schemes. •Ensure that tackling ASB remains one of the fundamental priorities. •Continue to enhance the quality of life for those using and working on the railway by the use of ASBOs and other interventions. •Work closely with TFL, MPS and COLP to further enhance a joined-up policing approach to ASB across London. •Further enhance information sharing between transport policing and other agencies, particularly targeting ticket touts (travel cards, concert and football tickets). •Actively use the National Graffiti Database (hosted by BTP in partnership with the Home Office and London Underground). •Continue to support and fund existing transport policing resources on London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway. •Continue to support work of LU operational staff who gather evidence for ASBO applications. •Implement Community Safety Strategy, developed by BTP and TfL/London Underground. •Continue to support and fund the MPS Transport OCU. •Co-ordinate bus CCTV activities between TfL, MPS and bus operators, and assist in producing CCTV images of offenders for identification by schools, YOTs and Safer Neighbourhood Teams. •Develop and implement TfL-wide Policing Plan. •Support and fund 200 additional reassurance police to augment current BTP resources on the Underground, major interchanges and DLR; these to be in place by beginning of 2005/06. •Implement London Safety Plan. •Continue to seek external funding to sustain and expand the LIFE programme. •Continue work of Arson Task Force and share lessons learnt. •Continue work of Juvenile Fire-setters Intervention Scheme. •Continue work to tackle hoax calls. •Undertake other young people's initiatives. •Continue stressing importance of housing association working in partnership to tackle ASB. •Promote good practice in ASB work by housing associations through guidance on production of ASB policies, and guidance on housing eligibility and the use of starter and demoted tenancies and evictions. •Ensure that housing associations take ASB issues into account in the design of new housing developments and regeneration projections. •To work with London boroughs under the Mayor's London Plan, in developing sub-regional planning frameworks - taking into account design issues relating to safety, security and community. ## Objective 4: To Ensure Consistency And Sustainability In Policy Responses To Asb Across London \| a \| \|-------------------------------------------\| \| All signatories \| \| London ASB Strategy \| \| b Ensuring harmony between the London ASB \| \| To be identified \| \| Strategy and other regional programmes \| \| Agency \| \| GLA \| \| YJB \| •Assess the extent to which the cross-London agencies' work on ASB is consistent with the principles of the London ASB Strategy. •Mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of the strategy's programme of work on minority groups. •Consider impact of ASB legislation on use of custody for young people. •Carry out assessments of other cross-London programmes and strategies to identify and address inconsistencies between these and the London ASB Strategy. ## Appendix: Participants In The Consultation London CDRPs Barking and Dagenham Islington Camden Kensington and Chelsea Corporation of London Lewisham Croydon Merton Enfield Richmond Hackney Southwark Hammersmith and Fulham Sutton Haringey Tower Hamlets Harrow Waltham Forest Havering Wandsworth Hounslow Westminster Housing associations/housing association representatives Family Housing Association G17 Anti-Social Behaviour Group Gallions Housing Association Genesis Housing Group Hyde Group Notting Hill Housing Group Orbit Bexley Housing Association Richmond Housing Partnership Southern Housing Group Other Home Office ODPM Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Crown Prosecution Service, London ASBO Solutions Black Londoners Forum Camden LGBT Forum Crimestoppers Croydon Churches EC1 New Deal for Communities Groundwork Mediation UK NSPCC Revolving Doors Agency Royal Parks Police Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below: Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458 The Queen's Walk www.london.gov.uk London SE1 2AA You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require. If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above. \| Chinese \| Hindi \| \|------------\|----------\| \| Vietnamese \| Bengali \| \| Greek \| Urdu \| \| Turkish \| Arabic \| \| Punjabi \| Gujarati \| City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458	en
3269-pdf	## New And Expectant Mothers Who Work A Brief Guide To Your Health And Safety Introduction This leaflet is aimed at new and expectant mothers. It answers some basic questions you may have about carrying on working while you are pregnant or returning to work after giving birth. It sets out what action your employer should take to protect your health and safety and your child's, and any action you need to take. Being pregnant or a new mother does not prevent you from working and developing your career. Many women work while they are pregnant and return to work while they are breastfeeding. In some workplaces, there are risks that may affect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers and that of their child and there are specific laws that require employers to protect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers. ## What Specific Regulations Are There To Protect New And Expectant Mothers' Health And Safety? Specific laws relating to new and expectant mothers at work are mainly contained in: ■ ■ the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW) which require employers to protect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers; ■ ■ the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which require employers to provide suitable rest facilities; ■ ■ the Equality Act 2010 which provides protection to pregnant women and those on maternity leave against discrimination. Depending on the circumstances, this can include failing to carry out a risk assessment under MHSW regarding a pregnant worker. These regulations cover female employees of childbearing age and expectant or new mothers, including those who are breastfeeding. ## What Sort Of Risks Might I Be Exposed To? You may be at risk from processes, working conditions or physical, biological and chemical agents and these risks will vary depending on your health, and at different stages of your pregnancy. Some of the more common risks might be: ■ ■ lifting/carrying heavy loads; ■ ■ standing or sitting still for long lengths of time; ■ ■ exposure to infectious diseases (further information can be found at www.hse. gov.uk/pubns/books/infection-mothers.htm); ■ ■ exposure to lead; ■ ■ exposure to toxic chemicals; ■ ■ work-related stress; ■ ■ workstations and posture; ■ ■ exposure to radioactive material; ■ ■ threat of violence in the workplace; ■ ■ long working hours; ■ ■ excessively noisy workplaces. ## Do I Have To Tell My Employer That I Am Pregnant Or That I Am Breastfeeding? If you are pregnant, have given birth in the last six months or are breastfeeding, you are not required to inform your employer. However, it is important for you and your child's health and safety protection, and for maternity leave purposes, that you provide them with written notification as early as possible. When they have had written notification from you, your employer may revisit their original risk assessment to identify if they need to do more to make sure you and your baby are not exposed to risk. Your employer can also ask for a certificate from your GP or your midwife showing you are pregnant. ## Do I Have To Be Pregnant Before My Employer Takes Action To Protect My Health And Safety? No. Your employer is required to assess the health and safety risks that any employees are exposed to at work. Any specific risks to female employees of childbearing age and new or expectant mothers and their new baby, do not need to be assessed separately, but can be considered as part of, or as an extension to, the overall risk assessment. When you have told your employer in writing that you are pregnant, they may want to revisit their original, general risk assessment. If the risk cannot be removed, your employer must: Action 1: temporarily adjust your working conditions and/or hours of work - if that is not possible; Action 2: you should be offered suitable alternative work (at the same rate of pay) if available - if that is not feasible; Action 3: you should be suspended from work on paid leave for as long as necessary, to protect your health and safety, and that of your baby. ## What Involvement Should I Have In The Risk Assessment Process? As part of your employer's general duties they must inform you (either directly or through your safety representative) about the preventative and protective measures implemented to reduce, remove or control risk. Your employer may revisit their original risk assessment to identify if there is anything else they need to do to make sure either you or your baby are not exposed to risk. It is important that you tell your employer about any advice you have had from your doctor or midwife (eg pregnancy-related medical conditions such as high blood pressure, a history of miscarriages etc) as that could affect the assessment. Your employer will use this information to review their risk assessment and if necessary to adjust your working conditions accordingly. You can ask to see the outcome of the risk assessment and your employer must show it to you. The flowchart on page 3 outlines the action your employer must take to do this. ## Stage 1: General Risk Assessment Does The Risk Assessment Get Repeated As My Pregnancy Progresses? Employers are required by law to review general workplace risks. Your employer should regularly monitor and review any risk assessment as circumstances may change, particularly at different stages of your pregnancy. If you think you are exposed to a risk at work, you need to talk to your employer about it so they can review the risk assessment. You may also wish to talk to your safety representatives. Any written advice from your GP to your employer may help. ## Can I Rearrange My Hours To Decrease My Stress Level? If the risk assessment identifies stress as a possible risk, your employer should remove the risk, where possible. If that is not possible, your working conditions or hours of work should be adjusted. ## Am I Entitled To More Frequent Rest Breaks? As a new or expectant mother, you are likely to need to go to the toilet more often, as it is important to drink plenty of fluids both while you are pregnant and when you are breastfeeding. It is sensible to agree timing and flexibility of rest breaks with your employer as part of the risk assessment process. ## I Have Told My Gp I Think My Health Problems Are Due To Risks I Have Been Exposed To At Work. I Am Pregnant, So Should I Be Signed Off Work? Signing you off sick from work may not resolve the cause of your ill health and in some circumstances, this may affect your maternity benefits. Once informed that you are pregnant, your employer may revisit their original, general risk assessment and if that identifies a risk, take the appropriate action. ## Can I Still Work Nights? Yes. But, if your GP or midwife has provided a medical certificate stating that you must not continue to work nights, then your employer must offer you suitable alternative day work on the same terms and conditions. If that is not possible, then your employer should suspend you from work on paid leave for as long as necessary to protect your health and safety and/or that of your child. ## What Are My Maternity Rights? HSE is responsible for areas relating to your health and safety, and that of your child before birth and during breastfeeding. You should contact www.gov.uk for more information about your maternity rights: ■ ■ time off work for antenatal appointments; ■ ■ statutory maternity pay; ■ ■ maternity allowance; ■ ■ protection against unfair treatment or dismissal. ## When Can I Return To Work? You will find information about how much maternity leave you can choose to take by visiting www.gov.uk, but you are required to take compulsory maternity leave for the first two weeks following childbirth. You can decide your return to work after compulsory maternity leave in discussion with your employer. It is important to have this discussion before you return to work, if an earlier assessment has identified risk for the new mother or baby. If this is the case, you may need to be suspended from work on full pay, pending further assessment. For more information about returning to work, visit www.gov.uk. ## I Am Returning To Work. Can I Still Breastfeed? It is your decision if you wish to breastfeed on your return to work. You should provide your employer with written notification, if possible before you return, that you are breastfeeding. Your employer may revisit the original risk assessment (as outlined in Stage Two of the flowchart on page 3), if potential risks had already been identified in the general risk assessment. Your employer must provide suitable rest facilities for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers and it is recommended that employers provide a private, healthy and safe environment for nursing mothers to express and store milk. Toilets are not suitable for this. ## Are There Specific Workplace Risks Associated With Breastfeeding? There may be risks other than those associated with pregnancy to consider, if you plan to continue breastfeeding once you have returned to work. These depend on your working conditions and could include: ■ ■ working with organic mercury; ■ ■ working with radioactive materials; ■ ■ exposure to lead. You should inform your employer, in writing, as early as possible, that you plan to continue breastfeeding when you return to work. Your employer should then take the same action as when you provided notification of pregnancy (see the flowchart on page 3). I am concerned that my employer has failed to take the appropriate action. What should I do? You can talk to, and get advice from, your safety representative, your union (if you belong to one), or your occupational health service (if your employer provides one). You can also visit HSE's website at www.hse.gov.uk for further advice. Specifically you may wish to visit the workers' rights pages (www.hse.gov.uk/ workers/index.htm) for more information, or the complaints page if you feel your employer is not fulfilling their legal duties relating to your health or safety (www.hse.gov.uk/contact/workplace-complaints.htm). ## Further Information For information about health and safety, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this guidance, visit www.hse.gov.uk. You can view HSE guidance online and order priced publications from the website. HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops. This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance. This leaflet is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg373.htm. © Crown copyright If you wish to reuse this information visit www.hse.gov.uk/copyright.htm for details. First published 04/13.	en
4464-pdf	## Our Rail And Road Duties Summary How ORR exercises its functions is governed by various statutory duties which we must take into account when making decisions. Different duties apply depending on whether ORR is exercising its economic or safety functions. These duties are listed below. ## Economic Duties For economic regulation our duties are set out under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. These duties include the duty to:  promote improvements in railway service performance;  otherwise to protect the interests of users of railway services;  promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable;  contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods;  contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;  promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services;  promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services;  promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator;  impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of ORR's functions under Part 1 RA 1993 or the RA 2005 that are not safety functions;  enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance;  protect the interests of users and potential users of services for the carriage of passengers by railway provided by a private sector operator, otherwise than under a franchise agreement, in respect of the prices charged for travel by means of those services, and the quality of the service provided;  protect the interests of persons providing services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway in their use of any railway facilities which are for the time being vested in a private sector operator, in respect of the prices charged for such use and the quality of the service provided;  in exercising functions that are not safety functions: - take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways; - have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected with the provision of railway services; - have regard to any general guidance given to ORR by the Secretary of State about railway services or other matters relating to railways; - have regard to any general guidance given by the Scottish Ministers about railway services wholly or partly in Scotland or about other matters in or as regards Scotland that relate to railways; - in having regard to guidance given by Scottish Ministers, give what appears to ORR to be appropriate weight to the extent to which the guidance relates to matters in respect of which expenditure is to be or has been incurred by the Scottish Ministers; - act in a manner which ORR considers will not render it unduly difficult for persons who are holders of network licences to finance any activities or proposed activities of theirs in relation to which ORR has functions; - have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways or railways services; - have regard to any notified strategies and policies of the National Assembly for Wales, so far as they relate to Welsh services or to any other matter in or as regards Wales that concerns railways or railway services; - have regard to the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to carry out the functions conferred or imposed on them by or under any enactment; - have regard to the ability of the Mayor of London and Transport for London to carry out the functions conferred or imposed on them by or under any enactment;  in exercising its safety functions, other than its functions as an enforcing authority for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, to have regard to any general guidance given to it by the Secretary of State;  have regard to the interests, in securing value for money, of the users or potential users of railway services, of persons providing railway services or of the persons who make available the resources and funds and of the general public;  have regard, in particular, to the interests of persons who are disabled in relation to services for the carriage of passengers by railway or to station services. ## Safety Duties Schedule 3 of the Railways Act 2005 gives ORR a general duty to do such things and make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purposes of railway safety, and to assist and encourage persons concerned with matters relevant to those purposes to further those purposes. Section 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) also gives ORR a general duty to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and of those who might be put at risk as a result of the activities of persons at work. These objectives are called HSWA's general purposes. The railway safety purposes are so much of HSWA's general purposes as relate to the risks relevant to or connected with:  securing the proper construction and safe operation of railways, tramways etc;  securing the proper construction and safe operation of locomotives, rolling stock or other vehicles used, or to be used, on such systems;  protecting the public (whether or not they are passengers) from personal injury and other risks arising from the construction and operation of such systems;  protecting persons at work from personal injury and other risks so arising ## Other Railway Duties Section 21 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides that ORR shall have an overriding duty to exercise its regulatory functions in such a manner as not to impede the performance of any development agreement. Section 22 of the Crossrail Act 2008 provides that section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 shall be treated as including the objective of facilitating the construction of Crossrail. It also provides that ORR shall consult the Secretary of State about this aspect of the duty. Regulation 31 of The Railways (Infrastructure Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 sets out the various duties to which ORR must have regard when carrying out its functions under these Regulations. ## General Duties Section 72 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 requires us to keep our functions under review and ensure that in exercising these functions we do not:  impose burdens which we consider to be unnecessary, or  maintain burdens which we consider to have become unnecessary. We also have an equalities duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires us to have due regard to the need to:  eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;  advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (relevant protected characteristics are - age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation);  foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. ## Our Road Duties The Infrastructure Act 2015 (IA 2015) gives ORR functions in relation to monitoring and enforcing in its role as Monitor for Highways England (HE). Our monitoring function requires us to carry out activities to monitor how Highways England exercises its functions. Our enforcement function enables us to take enforcement action against Highways England: this is a discretionary function and it is for ORR to determine whether or not to exercise its enforcement powers under the IA 2015. How we exercise our monitoring and enforcement functions is governed by general statutory duties which we must take into account when making decisions. These duties are set out in sections 12 of the IA 2015. The duties are listed below: ## General Road Duties  ORR must exercise its functions in the way we consider most likely to promote the performance and efficiency of Highways England;  In exercising our functions, we must also have regard to the following factors: - the interests of users of highways; - the safety of users of highways; - the economic impact of the way in which HE achieves its objectives; - the environmental impact of the way in which HE achieves its objectives; - the long-term maintenance and management of highways; - that regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent; and - regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed. ORR must also have regard to Statutory Guidance, issued by the Secretary of State and HM Treasury as to the manner in which we carry out our monitoring and enforcement functions. ## © Crown Copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk	en
2453-pdf	## Disposal Of Asbestos Waste Em9 Asbestos Essentials Equipment And Method Sheet Non-Licensed Tasks What This Sheet Covers This sheet describes good practice when you need to dispose of asbestos waste. This information will help employers and the selfemployed to comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It is also useful for trade union and employee safety representatives. Any asbestos product or material that is ready for disposal is defined as asbestos waste. Asbestos waste also includes contaminated building materials, tools that cannot be decontaminated, personal protective equipment and damp rags used for cleaning. If in doubt, always treat waste as 'Hazardous' or 'Special'. See the table for more details. Only carry out work if you are properly trained and have the right equipment. England and Wales Asbestos waste is 'Hazardous Waste' when it contains ## Remember: • Asbestos fibres can cause fatal lung disease and lung cancer. • Check what you're working on before you start. • Read the safety checklist and sheet a0. • You must be trained to work Scotland Asbestos waste is 'Special Waste' when it contains more than 0.1 % asbestos. The Special Waste Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 apply. Complete a Hazardous Waste Consignment Note. Contact the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for more information. safely with asbestos materials. England, Scotland and Wales ## Caution: Don'T Mix Asbestos Waste With Other Waste To Get Below 0.1 %. ˜ z Waste must be packed in UN-approved packaging with a CDG hazard label and asbestos code information visible. ˜ z Double-wrap and label asbestos waste. Standard practice is to use a red inner bag with asbestos warnings, and a clear outer bag with the CDG label, if required. more than 0.1 % asbestos. The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 apply. Complete a Hazardous Waste Consignment Note. Contact the Environment Agency for more information in England. Contact Natural Resources Wales for more information in Wales. All asbestos waste is subject to Schedule 2 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and most waste is subject to The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 (CDG 2009). CDG does not apply to firmlybound asbestos - asbestos cement or articles with asbestos reinforcement which do not release hazardous or respirable fibres easily. However, the hazardous and special waste regulations still apply. CDG applies for all other asbestos waste. ## Caution ˜ z Avoid breaking up large pieces of asbestos waste. Instead double wrap in suitable polythene sheeting (1000-gauge) and label accordingly. Don't overfill bags. ˜ z To transport waste, you need a waste carriers licence. Beware of sharp objects that could puncture plastic. ˜ z If you carry waste, use a sealed skip, or a vehicle with the following: ˜ z segregated compartment for asbestos; ˜ z easily cleanable; ˜ z lockable (it is not good enough to throw sheeting over a standard skip). ˜ z Otherwise, arrange for transport by a registered waste carrier. ˜ z Safe disposal - make sure you use a licensed disposal site. ˜ z Complete a Waste Consignment Note. Keep copies of these documents for three years. For information about health and safety, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this guidance, visit www.hse.gov.uk/. You can view HSE guidance online and order priced publications from the website. HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops. This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance. This document is available at: www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/essentials/	en
4869-pdf	\| \| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\|----------------\|--------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PACS (IT) \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| ACCENTURE \| 579101 \| 67,779.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 582520 \| 30,225.06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 585277 \| 30,988.62 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 585277 \| 1,439.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH \| ARX LTD \| 571376 \| 88,988.70 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY \| 23449 \| 33,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 583889 \| 81,840.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL \| CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST \| 23824 \| 50,129.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 584885 \| 3,218,484.75 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 580466 \| 40,013.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 580468 \| 52,679.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 580485 \| 32,146.12 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| GAS \| CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD \| 580489 \| (33,535.67) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT \| 23502 \| 25,037.89 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| CHIEF EXECUTIVE \| COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT \| 23713 \| 26,991.96 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH \| MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE \| DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE \| 583642 \| 259,260.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 579985 \| 64,123.55 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 579989 \| 73,912.82 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 579990 \| 75,325.35 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 STAFF RESIDENCES PGI \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 579991 \| 34,232.38 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583261 \| 74,070.94 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583264 \| (73,912.82) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583943 \| 68,953.69 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583944 \| 74,372.58 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583946 \| (74,070.94) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 583948 \| (68,507.21) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 586164 \| 31,704.53 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 586166 \| 71,267.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 586169 \| 70,445.01 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 586170 \| 58,549.01 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 EDMS PROJECT \| EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS \| EDM GROUP LTD \| 582415 \| 46,500.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 31/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SYSTEMS (UK) LTD \| 583306 \| 40,170.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| ERNST & YOUNG LLP \| 580713 \| 220,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| ERNST & YOUNG LLP \| 585599 \| 335,414.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 \| 579819 \| 27,120.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 \| 582548 \| 27,120.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED \| HEALTHCARE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS \| 582732 \| 47,641.44 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 578902 \| 64,655.88 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 578902 \| 5,652.95 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 MRI SERVICE \| INDEPENDENT SECTOR \| INHEALTH LTD \| 583580 \| 56,425.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE \| SENIOR LECTURER \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23309 \| 80,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 THERAPIES SLA \| HEALTHCARE SRV REC PCTS \| LOCALA COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS C.I.C \| 584311 \| 45,423.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 REG SPINAL INJURIES CENTRE PGH \| PAIN MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT \| MEDTRONIC LTD \| 578763 \| 28,260.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 23357 \| 115,401.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 23360 \| 41,767.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR \| NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY \| 23690 \| 107,999.15 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 17/07/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 23677 \| 947,690.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 17/07/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 23679 \| 26,637.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 578139 \| 89,770.23 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 578477 \| 52,000.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 580493 \| 63,540.18 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 580493 \| 15,761.51 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 583231 \| 69,486.69 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 583231 \| 12,897.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 583436 \| 54,984.79 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 583436 \| 16,799.57 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23256 \| 51,239.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23256 \| 1,484.09 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23257 \| 43,505.85 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23257 \| 1,260.07 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23258 \| 62,112.65 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23258 \| 1,798.97 \| Transaction Reference Amount \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23259 \| 62,112.65 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|------------------------------------\|------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|---------\|--------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23259 \| 1,798.97 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23260 \| 67,605.30 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23260 \| 689.85 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23262 \| 141,004.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23262 \| 1,438.86 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23266 \| 97,698.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23335 \| 128,110.21 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23336 \| 75,297.71 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23441 \| 200,780.61 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23442 \| 59,242.49 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23501 \| 32,893.30 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23501 \| 168.70 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23521 \| 67,185.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 23523 \| 159,066.05 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 580704 \| 143,015.04 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 580745 \| 44,207.76 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 584192 \| 75,114.38 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/07/2012 EDMS PROJECT \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| PHOENIX PARTNERSHIP \| 579396 \| 44,000.40 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY REAGENTS \| RADIOMETER LTD \| 580294 \| 31,084.37 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 578861 \| 25,146.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 583101 \| 26,742.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 583103 \| 78,220.80 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED \| SCC SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES \| 569884 \| 33,808.38 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY \| GAS \| TOTAL GAS & POWER \| 574517 \| 339,976.33 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY \| GAS \| TOTAL GAS & POWER \| 581614 \| 77,445.55 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 06/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY \| GAS \| TOTAL GAS & POWER \| 581615 \| (339,976.33) \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 04/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| UNISON \| 25024 \| 70,856.32 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL \| 585724 \| 237,651.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/07/2012 ERROR SUSPENSE \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL \| 585726 \| 58,052.00 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 586609 \| 549.60 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 586609 \| 27,372.30 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 24/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| EDENRED \| 21271 \| 55,932.05 \|	en
1024-pdf	## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14 march 2015 london plan 2011 implementation framework ## Copyright GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY March 2015 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Crown Copyright All rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2015) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning /researchreports/monitoring-london-plan Updated May 2015 to add figures on long term vacant properties returning to use to KPI 4 and Table 3.1 as these were not available at the time of initial publication. The data in Table HPM1 was also corrected. ## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14 march 2015 ## Contents \| executive summary \| \| \| \| 1 \| \|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----\|----\|----\|-----\| \| chapter one introduction \| \| \| \| 6 \| \| Scope and purpose of the AMR \| \| \| \| 7 \| \| The London Development Database \| \| \| \| 8 \| \| The London Plan and its Implementation \| \| \| 9 \| \| \| Further Alterations to the London Plan \| \| \| \| 9 \| \| chapter two perfoRmance against kpi targets \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously \| \| \| \| \| \| developed land \| \| \| \| 11 \| \| KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development \| \| \| \| 14 \| \| KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space \| \| \| \| 16 \| \| KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes \| \| \| \| 19 \| \| KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes \| \| \| \| 21 \| \| KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities \| \| \| \| 25 \| \| KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity \| \| \| \| 26 \| \| KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market \| 27 \| \| \| \| \| KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available \| \| \| 30 \| \| \| KPI 10 Employment in outer London \| \| \| \| 31 \| \| KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from \| \| \| \| \| \| disadvantage in the employment market \| \| \| \| 32 \| \| KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services \| 34 \| \| \| \| \| KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable \| \| \| \| \| \| modal split for journeys (public /private transport modal split) \| \| \| 36 \| \| \| KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable \| \| \| \| \| \| modal split for journeys (zero traffic growth) \| \| \| \| 37 \| \| KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable \| \| \| \| \| \| modal split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share) \| \| \| \| 39 \| \| KPI 16 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable \| \| \| \| \| \| modal split for journeys (increased passenger and freight transport on the \| \| \| \| \| \| Blue Ribbon Network \| \| \| \| 40 \| \| KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values \| 42 \| \| \| \| \| KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat \| \| \| \| 43 \| \| KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination \| \| \| \| \| \| of waste to landfill by 2031 \| \| \| \| 45 \| \| KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development \| \| \| 47 \| \| \| KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources \| \| \| \| 49 \| \| KPI 22 Increase in urban greening \| \| \| \| 50 \| \| KPI 23 Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network \| \| \| \| 51 \| \| KPI 24 Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm \| \| 53 \| \| \| chapter three Additional performance measures and statistics 55 Housing and Design 56 Environment and Transport 99 Planning 106 chapter four other contextual data sources 120 chapter five conclusions and looking ahead 124 ## Executive Summary i This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives of the London Plan (published in July 2011), by showing how London is performing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the eleventh AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fourth using the KPIs in the 2011 London Plan. ii Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered. iii The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be: Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth, Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city, Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods, Objective 4- A city that delights the senses, Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment, Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities. iv Different KPIs contribute to measuring the performance of the London Plan against these six objectives; Objective 1 - KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14 Objective 2 - KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24 Objective 3 - KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15 Objective 4 - KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24 Objective 5 - KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23 Objective 6 - KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17 v Overall, the performance is positive: 17 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For two of them the baseline data is changing, which creates some uncertainty. Six KPI targets have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For 1 KPI target the performance is mixed. The performance against the individual London Plan Objectives is summarised as follows: ## Objective 1- A City That Meets The Challenges Of Economic And Population Growth vi A very high and above target proportion of new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen back from the previous year peak. In total 29,382 dwellings were completed in 2013/14 against the 32,210 ten-year average annual target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease. ## Objective 2 - An Internationally Competitive And Successful City vii London's employment rate (over 70%) has reached its highest annual average level since records began in 1992, almost closing the gap with that for the country as a whole. The office pipeline continues to tighten but remains above the benchmark. The proportion of office and all B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. Whilst the rate of loss of industrial land decreased significantly on the previous year, it still remains considerably above the monitoring target. This trend will be monitored closely. ## Objective 3- A City Of Diverse, Strong, Secure And Accessible Neighbourhoods viii Employment specifically in Outer London has increased by 3% on the previous year. The gap in lone parent income support between London and England and Wales as a whole has almost closed. The increase in pupil/ teacher ratios in London as a whole has stopped, with more boroughs seeing a reduction than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (28% of conventional completions in 2013/14) remain below the numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 3% on the previous year. ## Objective 4- A City That Delights The Senses ix The proportion of designated heritage assets at risk has remained largely unchanged. Improved monitoring arrangements have been put in place for river restoration activities. Significantly more designated open space (20 ha) has been lost than in the previous year, but it should be noted that although the creation of new open space, potentially even as part of the same development is not recorded. For example the proposed loss at the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed. In terms of cycling, growth in journey stages by bicycle has slowed over the last few years. ## Objective 5- A City That Becomes A World Leader In Improving The Environment x Both waste recycling rates and landfilling continue to go into the targeted direction of travel. Carbon dioxide emissions savings are above target and there has been an increase in renewable energy generation. The area of green roofs in the CAZ has been assessed in more detail and increased by at least 75% since 2007. There has been a loss of over 15 ha of protected habitat in terms of development approvals, but completions on protected habitat sites are down on the previous year. ## Objective 6- A City Where It Is Easy, Safe And Convenient For Everyone To Access Jobs, Opportunities And Facilities xi Public transport use continues to grow annually, while private car use and road traffic across the whole of London continue to decline. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. In terms of the use of London's waterways, freight transport on the Thames is up by 27% on the previous year. More comprehensive and accurate monitoring arrangements have been put in place for passenger transport. ## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview \| KPI target \| \|----------------------------------------\| \| 1 \| \| Maintain at least 96 per cent of \| \| new residential development to be \| \| on previously developed land \| \| + \| \| Both approvals and completions above \| \| target and up on previous year \| \| 2 \| \| Over 95 per cent of development \| \| to comply with the housing density \| \| location and the density matrix \| \| - \| \| 3 \| \| No net loss of open space \| \| designated for protection in LDFs \| \| due to new development \| \| - \| \| 4 \| \| Average completions of a minimum \| \| of 32,210 net additional homes per \| \| year \| \| - \| \| 9% below target \| \| 5 \| \| Completion of 13,200 net \| \| additional affordable homes per \| \| year \| \| - \| \| 6 \| \| Reduction in the difference in life \| \| expectancy between those living in \| \| the most and least deprived areas \| \| of London (split by gender) \| \| + \| \| Difference has shrunk \| \| 7 \| \| Increase in the proportion of \| \| working age London residents in \| \| employment 2011-2031 \| \| + \| \| 8 \| \| Stock of office permissions to be at \| \| least three times the average rate of \| \| starts over the previous three years \| \| + \| \| 9 \| \| Release of industrial land to be \| \| in line with benchmarks in the \| \| Industry SPG \| \| - \| \| 10 \| \| Growth in total employment in \| \| Outer London \| \| + \| \| Total employment in Outer London \| \| increased by 3% on previous year \| \| 11 \| \| Reduce employment rate gap \| \| between BAME groups and the \| \| white population; and reduce \| \| the gap between lone parents \| \| on income support in London vs \| \| England & Wales average \| \| 12 \| \| Reduce the average class size in \| \| primary schools \| \| + \| \| 13 \| \| Use of public transport per head \| \| grows faster than use of private car \| \| per head \| \| + \| \| 14 \| \| Zero car traffic growth for London \| \| as a whole \| \| + \| \| Annual decrease in road traffic for \| \| London as a whole continues \| \| 15 \| \| Increase in share of all trips by \| \| bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 \| \| per cent by 2026 \| \| + \| \| Continued, but only very slight, \| \| increase in journey stages by bicycle \| \| Below target and fall of proportion \| \| within density matrix range from \| \| previous year's peak \| \| Loss of 20 ha, significantly up on \| \| previous year, but new open space not \| \| recorded \| \| Below numeric target. Three-year \| \| average affordable homes share of \| \| overall conventional housing provision \| \| down by 3% on previous year \| \| Increase by 1.2% on previous year and \| \| continuing reduction in gap between \| \| London and the rest of the UK \| \| Stock of office permissions continues \| \| to tighten but still remains six times \| \| the average rate of starts \| \| Continuing reduction in loss of \| \| industrial land, but still 68% above \| \| target \| \| + \| \| Little change in BAME gap in recent \| \| years; gap in lone parent income \| \| support almost closed \| \| Rise in class sizes stopped and \| \| reduction in more boroughs than in \| \| previous year \| \| Public transport use continues to \| \| grow annually, and private care use \| \| continues to decline \| ## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview \| KPI target \| comment \| \|---------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\| \| 16 \| \| \| A 50% increase in passengers and \| \| \| freight traffic transported on the \| \| \| Blue Ribbon Network from 2011- \| \| \| 2021 \| \| \| ?/+ \| \| \| Passenger numbers on Thames - \| \| \| change of baseline; 27% increase in \| \| \| freight on previous year \| \| \| 17 \| \| \| Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 \| \| \| development in PTAL zones 5-6 \| \| \| + \| \| \| With 62% well above benchmark and \| \| \| 13% increase on previous year \| \| \| 18 \| \| \| No net loss of Sites of Importance \| \| \| for Nature Conservation. \| \| \| - \| \| \| 19 \| \| \| At least 45 per cent of waste \| \| \| recycled/composted by 2015 and \| \| \| 0 per cent of biodegradable or \| \| \| recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 \| \| \| + \| \| \| 20 \| \| \| Annual average percentage carbon \| \| \| dioxide emissions savings for \| \| \| strategic development proposals \| \| \| progressing towards zero carbon in \| \| \| residential developments by 2016 \| \| \| and in all developments by 2019 \| \| \| 21 \| \| \| Production of 8550 GWh of energy \| \| \| from renewable sources by 2026 \| \| \| + \| \| \| Generation increased by over 6% on \| \| \| previous year \| \| \| 22 \| \| \| Increase in total area of green roofs \| \| \| in the CAZ. \| \| \| + \| \| \| Increase of at least 75% since 2007 \| \| \| 23 \| \| \| Restore 15km of rivers and streams \| \| \| 2009-2015 with an additional 10km \| \| \| by 2020 \| \| \| ?/+ \| \| \| 24 \| \| \| Reduction in proportion of \| \| \| designated heritage assets at risk \| \| \| as a percentage of the total number \| \| \| of designated heritage assets in \| \| \| London. \| \| \| +/- \| \| \| \| Assets at risk largely unchanged \| 15.3 ha loss to approved development, significantly up on previous year, but completions on SINC down; new designations not recorded Both rates going into targeted direction of travel, but change only very slight in recent years + 11% above 25% carbon dioxide emissions savings target (2010-2013) Additional restoration, but significantly less than in recent years, although under-reporting likely ## Chapter One Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr 1.1 This is the eleventh London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 10). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of his Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation. 1.2 While this is the eleventh AMR published by the Mayor, it is the forth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These indicators are intended to be a mixture of those carried forward from the previous London Plan (to help ensure some comparability over time) and new/ amended ones (reflecting new or changed policies, or changes in the availability of data). What has not changed is the importance the Mayor places' in effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a "plan-monitor-manage" approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary. 1.3 The AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes. 1.4 At the core of this AMR are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London's performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2013/14. 1.5 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves. 1.6 This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA's London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a "live" system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA's Intelligence Unit, the GLA's Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority. ## The London Development Database 1.7 The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation has agreed to enter the data for its area. The GLA provides the software and carries out a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce a diverse range of reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work done by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource. 1.8 It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data. 1.9 As a result of the 2013 review of the Information Scheme (the legal document that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and the London Boroughs in relation to LDD), Class J Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential use without the need for a full planning permission are now included in the scope of the scheme. Other forms of consent that can lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) are currently submitted on a voluntary basis so are not included in the data in our AMR. A formal consultation to bring them within the scope of the scheme is currently underway. 1.10 The LDD system itself has remained fundamentally unchanged since it was first developed in 2004, with changes being made incrementally as required. A substantial project to modernise the IT infrastructure that supports the database is nearing completion. Once this is finished, the LDD Management Team, which comprises representatives from the GLA and a number of London boroughs, will look closely at the system and decide if any further changes are required. Discussions so far have not identified any major changes that need to be made, although we are looking to introduce a new method to measure the length of time between an initial planning permission being granted and the final scheme reaching completion. 1.11 A new version of the LDD public page, which can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/ went live in December 2014. The new version adds thematic maps based on the data published in the last AMR, as well as improvements to the way the permission data is displayed and the facility to load additional spatial layers from the London Plan. The thematic maps will be updated following the publication of each successive AMR. ## The London Plan And Its Implementation 1.12 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs' local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor. 1.13 At the centre of the Mayor's approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents that together make up a London Planning Implementation Framework. The keystone of this approach is an Implementation Plan, which sets out the overall approach to London Plan policy implementation. It provides details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered and contains detailed information about London's infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. The published first edition was published in January 2013 and is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/ publication/implementation-plan. It will be updated regularly. 1.14 The Implementation Framework also includes: • Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), • Opportunity Area/Intensification Area Frameworks, Implementation guides • This Annual Monitoring Report. 1.15 The key distinction between the Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes. ## Further Alterations To The London Plan 1.16 In March 2015 the Mayor published his Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) now called 2015 London Plan, rolling the London Plan forward to 2036, particularly to address key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of the most recent census data. The Further Alterations propose minor changes to four KPI targets that reflect changes elsewhere in the Plan. These are KPIs 4, 5, 19 and 21. Next year's AMR will be based on the 2015 London Plan and the amended set of KPIs. ## Chapter Two Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets Key Performance Indicator 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land Target: Maintain at least 96 % of new residential development to be on previously developed land 2.1 This KPI looks at the proportion of residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that will be lost is then compared to the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses. 2.2 98.4% of units approved during 2013/14 are on brownfield land, above the Mayor's 96% target and an improvement on the 98.2 figure for 2012/13. Only three boroughs; Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Hounslow; are significantly below the 96% target. Barking and Dagenham and Havering are both below the benchmark for the second year in a row, however the loss of greenfield in Barking and Dagenham is solely down to the submission of details for the extant permission for the development of Lymington Fields which was first granted in 2009. This site was also responsible for the borough missing the target in 2012/13. Havering's 65.1% is comprised of a number of small schemes on greenfield sites in addition to 242 units on parkland and sports pitches off Gooshays Drive, Harold Hill. The greenfield development in Hounslow is the redevelopment of the Heston Leisure Centre and surrounding lands. In addition to new residential units, the scheme will deliver new indoor and outdoor leisure facilities. 2.3 The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 97%, above the benchmark and an improvement on the 95.7% reported in AMR10. The largest schemes to reach completion are both in Merton, 169 units on Brenley Playing Fields and 118 units on the site of Rowan High School. Year % of development approved on previously developed land by units by site area by units by site area 2006/07 98.6 98 97.2 96.5 2007/08 97.3 96.7 96.6 94.8 2008/09 98.1 96.6 98.9 98.1 2009/10 97.3 96.8 98.8 97.9 2010/11 96.8 95.3 97.1 95.7 2011/12 99 97.4 97.6 95.0 2012/13 98.2 97.8 95.7 95.3 2013/14 98.4 97.2 97 96.6 Source: London Development Database % of development completed on previously developed land borough % of development approved on previously developed land by units by site area by units by site area Barking and Dagenham 84.2% 81.5% 84.2% 81.5% Barnet 95.2% 95.8% 95.2% 95.8% Bexley 100% 100% 100% 100% Brent 99.4% 98.8% 99.4% 98.8% Bromley 100% 100% 100% 100% Camden 99.9% 100% 99.9% 100% City of London 100% 100% 100% 100% Croydon 98.5% 96.3% 98.5% 96.3% Ealing 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% Enfield 99.3% 97% 99.3% 97% Greenwich 95.7% 96.3% 95.7% 96.3% Hackney 99.3% 99.7% 99.3% 99.7% Hammersmith and Fulham 100% 100% 100% 100% Haringey 100% 100% 100% 100% Harrow 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% Havering 64.2% 67.9% 64.2% 67.9% Hillingdon 100% 100% 100% 100% Hounslow 91.2% 91.6% 91.2% 91.6% Islington 100% 100% 100% 100% Kensington and Chelsea 97.7% 98.2% 97.7% 98.2% Kingston upon Thames 97.6% 97.7% 97.6% 97.7% Lambeth 100% 100% 100% 100% Lewisham 100% 100% 100% 100% Merton 94.4% 96.3% 94.4% 96.3% Newham 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.6% Redbridge 99.8% 98.7% 99.8% 98.7% Richmond upon Thames 98.9% 98.4% 98.9% 98.4% Southwark 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.8% Sutton 99.7% 99.3% 99.7% 99.3% Tower Hamlets 99.9% 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% Waltham Forest 100% 100% 100% 100% Wandsworth 100% 100% 100% 100% Westminster 100% 100% 100% 100% London 98.4% 97.2% 97% 96.6% Source: London Development Database % of development completed on previously developed land Optimise the density of residential development Target: Over 95 % of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2) 2.4 The tables below compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport matrix - all schemes \| \| financial year \| % of units approvals \| \|---------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\|------------------------\| \| within range \| above range \| below range \| \| 2006/07 \| 36% \| 60% \| \| 2007/08 \| 40% \| 55% \| \| 2008/09 \| 41% \| 53% \| \| 2009/10 \| 39% \| 56% \| \| 2010/11 \| 37% \| 58% \| \| 2011/12 \| 40% \| 55% \| \| 2012/13 \| 58% \| 37% \| \| 2013/14 \| 43% \| 50% \| \| Table 2.4 Residential approvals compared to the density \| \| \| \| matrix - schemes of 15 units or more \| \| \| \| financial year \| % of units approvals schemes 15+ \| \| \| within range \| above range \| below range \| \| 2006/07 \| 30% \| 69% \| \| 2007/08 \| 36% \| 63% \| \| 2008/09 \| 36% \| 62% \| \| 2009/10 \| 35% \| 63% \| \| 2010/11 \| 31% \| 68% \| \| 2011/12 \| 37% \| 60% \| \| 2012/13 \| 59% \| 39% \| \| 2013/14 \| 40% \| 56% \| Source: London Development Database Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes. 2.5 Compliance within the density matrix for approvals during 2013/14 stands at 43%, down on the previous year but still better than has been achieved in the six years prior to 2012/13. 40% compliance in schemes of 15 units or more is also below the previous year's peak but again better than the six before that. 2.6 The proportion within the range has been squeezed by schemes above the range but also by an increase in those below, even in more central areas. 5% of all unit approvals in inner London boroughs are below the desired range. This compares to 10% in outer London boroughs. It might be expected that the introduction of the Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 would have an impact on the figures, but they appear to share a similar pattern to all approvals with 42% of these falling within the appropriate range. For the prior approvals with more units though, 61% of schemes with 15 units or more have a density above the desired range. 2.7 Land in London is a scarce resource and building costs in London are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable. The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable. ## Key Performance Indicator 3 Minimise The Loss Of Open Space Target: No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development 2.8 The performance monitoring for this KPI target focuses more specifically on designated open space rather than open space overall. 2.9 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the changes in open space as a result of planning permissions. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by the LDD. Reprovision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR. The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17 and does not include private residential gardens. 2.10 Table 2.5 shows the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2013/14, was just under 20 hectares. This is a very large increase on the previous financial year where the figure was less than 0.6 ha. The number of approvals on protected open space has also risen sharply from four to 29. Two proposed development sites account for over 12 ha alone - Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park. It is worth noting that the proposed loss at the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed. 2.11 There have been 23 schemes completed on protected open space over the same period, amounting to 6.98 ha in total. This represents a slight increase of 0.5ha on the previous year. The majority of protected open space lost in 2013/14 was MOL (5.8ha). Athough the biggest recorded loss of MOL was in Merton on the Rowan Park site, where 217 residential units were built. the development also proposed a 2.5 ha park. Borough Name Borough Reference Barnet B/00354/13 Local Open Spaces 0.391 Bexley 13/01616/FULM Metropolitan Open Land 0.041 Brent 131501 Local Open Spaces 0.071 Brent 132490 Local Open Spaces 0.224 Bromley 13/02593/FULL1 Green Belt 0.034 Camden 2013/1889/P Metropolitan Open Land 0.075 Camden 2013/1969/P Other Designated Protection 0.008 Croydon 13/00891/P Other Designated Protection 0.119 Ealing P/2012/0708 Local Open Spaces 0.679 Enfield P13-01332LBE Metropolitan Open Land 0.022 Greenwich 12/1168 Local Open Spaces 0.255 Greenwich 13/0117 Local Open Spaces 0.000 Greenwich 13/0161 Other Designated Protection 0.050 Greenwich 13/0364 Local Open Spaces 0.026 Havering P0995/12 Green Belt 0.130 Havering P1451/10 Local Open Spaces 0.082 Hillingdon 68911/ APP/2012/2983 Hounslow 00798/Q/S4 Local Open Spaces 2.440 Hounslow 01187/A/S10 Local Open Spaces 0.670 Hounslow 01270/G/P1 Green Belt 0.857 Kingston upon Thames 13/16542/FUL Metropolitan Open Land 0.188 Merton 13/P0692 Other Designated Protection 0.178 Richmond upon Thames 13/2826/FUL Metropolitan Open Land 0.086 Sutton C2013/67958 Green Belt 0.017 Sutton D2005/54794 Metropolitan Open Land 0.283 Sutton D2011/64908 Metropolitan Open Land 0.300 Sutton D2012/66220 Metropolitan Open Land 7.000 Sutton D2013/67938 Metropolitan Open Land 0.060 Wandsworth 2012/0758 Metropolitan Open Land 0.009 London (Gross hectares): 19.795 Source: London Development Database Protection Designation Area of Open Space (HA) Green Belt 5.500 \| Borough Name \| Borough \| \|--------------------------\|----------------\| \| Reference \| \| \| Brent \| 093104 \| \| Bromley \| 09/01715/FULL1 \| \| Bromley \| 09/02881/DET \| \| Bromley \| 10/00504/ \| \| EXTEND \| \| \| Bromley \| 10/03407/FULL1 \| \| Bromley \| 11/00994/FULL1 \| \| Croydon \| 11/00768/P \| \| Croydon \| 11/01068/P \| \| Croydon \| 12/00174/P \| \| Croydon \| 12/00198/P \| \| Ealing \| P/2010/1894 \| \| Ealing \| P/2012/1991 \| \| Enfield \| P12-00244PLA \| \| Enfield \| P12-00245PLA \| \| Enfield \| P12-01762PLA \| \| Hammersmith and Fulham \| 2009/00758/FR3 \| \| Hounslow \| 00092/J/P1 \| \| Hounslow \| 00132/A/P12 \| \| Islington \| P060898 \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 10/14545/FUL \| \| Merton \| 11/P1509 \| \| Richmond upon Thames \| 08/4383/FUL \| \| Sutton \| C2011/63884 \| \| London (Gross Hectares): \| \| Source: London Development Database Protection Designation Area of Open Space (HA) Metropolitan Open Land 0.133 Increase supply of new homes Target: Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year. 2.12 This target comprises three elements: • conventional completions of selfcontained houses and flats, • the non-conventional supply of student bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and houses in multiple occupation • long-term empty properties returning to use. The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG. The components of this 32,210 total at borough level can be found in Annex 4 of the London Plan. 2.13 Net conventional completions stand at 23,986, representing 80% of the 29,830 target in the 2011 London Plan. The total net completions of non-self-contained accommodation units are 4.339, or 265% of the 1,634 target. This is the second year in a row in which completions of nonself-contained accommodation are well in excess of the relevant benchmark. This net increase is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there has been a net decrease in sui generis (SG) bedrooms. Approximately 60% of these have been replaced by a smaller number of self-contained residential units. Of the remainder, the majority have provided new bedrooms in hostels or halls of residence. This can therefore be seen as the replacement of sub-standard accommodation. Together the conventional and non-conventional supply amount to 28,325 completions, 90% of the 31,464 combined benchmark. 2.14 The final element of the 32,210 monitoring benchmark in the 2011 London Plan is for 749 empty homes to return to use each year. This is measured using the Government's housing live table 615 and taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but represents the best source of information available. In the reporting period covered by this AMR 1,057 long term vacant homes were returned to use. 2.15 These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. The development industry is showing signs that it is recovering from the impacts of the economic downturn. With scheme starts containing over 40,000 residential units recorded on the LDD during 2013/14, the highest level since 2007, and capacity for over 240,000 homes in the pipeline (up from 215,000 in the previous year), there is considerable potential for the delivery of an increased number of newhomes in the coming years. The revised population projections and increased housing delivery benchmarks set out in the recently published London Plan 2015 show that the need for additional housing is more pressing than ever. \| Net \| Net \| \|------------------------\|--------\| \| Borough \| \| \| conv \| non- \| \| conv \| \| \| Barking and Dagenham \| 868 \| \| Barnet \| 1,009 \| \| Bexley \| 528 \| \| Brent \| 680 \| \| Bromley \| 605 \| \| Camden \| 475 \| \| City of London \| 429 \| \| Croydon \| 1,298 \| \| Ealing \| 769 \| \| Enfield \| 512 \| \| Greenwich \| 1,282 \| \| Hackney \| 1,120 \| \| Hammersmith and Fulham \| 542 \| \| Haringey \| 454 \| \| Harrow \| 301 \| \| Havering \| 156 \| \| Hillingdon \| 559 \| \| Hounslow \| 835 \| \| Islington \| 1,244 \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| 234 \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 261 \| \| Lambeth \| 1,256 \| \| Lewisham \| 753 \| \| Merton \| 440 \| \| Newham \| 1,971 \| \| Redbridge \| 258 \| \| Richmond upon Thames \| 364 \| \| Southwark \| 1,651 \| \| Sutton \| 340 \| \| Tower Hamlets \| 684 \| \| Waltham Forest \| 392 \| \| Wandsworth \| 1,186 \| \| Westminster \| 530 \| \| London \| 23,986 \| Sources: London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants Total London Plan target % of target longterm empty homes returning to use* An increased supply of affordable homes Target: Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year 2.16 This KPI measures the completion of affordable units as granted in planning permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or transfers of stock post completion. 2.17 During 2013/14 a net total of 6,592 affordable units were completed. This represents a decrease from 7,773 the previous year (revised upwards from the figure of 7,539 published in last year's AMR). 2.18 While the supply of affordable housing decreased in the last year, the total level of conventional completions increased. The share of affordable housing has therefore fallen from 35% (revised from 34%) to 27.5%. 2.19 Net affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2013/14. During this period affordable housing output averaged 34% of total provision, down 3% on the 37% reported in the last AMR. 2.20 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average of 34%. Over the three years, Barking and Dagenham have reported the highest percentage of affordable housing. At 54% they are the only borough to exceeded 50% of total provision. 2.21 The lowest proportion, as in the previous year, was recorded in the City of London (5%), followed by Redbridge (10%) and Westminster (12%). 2.22 The amount of affordable housing delivered through the planning system has been adversely affected by the recession. During this period it has proved necessary for developers to renegotiate s106 agreements drawn up before the economic crisis to make schemes viable and ensure they are delivered. This process has led to a decline in the amount of affordable housing in both absolute and percentage terms over the last two years. It remains to be seen whether the quantity of affordable homes delivered through the planning system will increase as the economy recovers. 2.23 As noted in previous AMRs, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by DCLG. 2013/14 borough Total net conventional affordable completions 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total Barking and Dagenham 113 243 588 944 30% 48% 68% 49% Barnet 441 408 274 1,123 35% 29% 27% 30% Bexley 165 30 166 361 55% 7% 31% 31% Brent 412 224 243 879 74% 34% 36% 48% Bromley 214 142 92 448 36% 20% 15% 24% Camden 62 299 201 562 17% 53% 42% 37% City of London 0 0 24 24 0% 0% 6% 6% Croydon 362 415 179 956 51% 46% 14% 37% Ealing 333 301 220 854 47% 30% 29% 35% Enfield 79 243 164 486 26% 44% 32% 34% Greenwich 416 87 679 1,182 27% 41% 53% 40% Hackney 430 575 451 1,456 37% 46% 40% 41% Hammersmith & Fulham 80 107 90 277 16% 24% 17% 19% Haringey 316 352 150 818 46% 58% 33% 46% Harrow 251 310 33 594 51% 43% 11% 35% Havering 177 122 57 356 45% 46% 37% 43% Hillingdon 343 387 45 775 34% 26% 8% 23% Hounslow 319 49 79 447 54% 21% 9% 28% Islington 489 315 401 1,205 41% 30% 32% 35% Kensington & Chelsea 19 4 164 187 16% 7% 70% 31% Kingston upon Thames 81 38 84 203 30% 19% 32% 27% Lambeth 348 269 444 1,061 41% 42% 35% 40% Lewisham 469 592 152 1,213 39% 33% 20% 31% Merton 69 196 138 403 15% 43% 31% 30% Newham 412 305 503 1,220 53% 30% 26% 36% Redbridge 54 52 2 108 10% 20% 1% 10% Richmond upon Thames 79 167 109 355 36% 34% 30% 33% Southwark 593 462 433 1,488 55% 43% 26% 41% Sutton 235 103 49 387 40% 44% 14% 33% Tower Hamlets 714 274 104 1,092 62% 26% 15% 35% Waltham Forest 358 269 3 630 72% 57% 1% 43% Wandsworth 269 308 224 801 27% 34% 19% 26% Westminster 71 125 47 243 9% 21% 9% 13% London 8,773 7,773 6,592 23,138 39% 35% 28% 34% Source: London Development Database Affordable as % of total net conventional supply Reducing health inequalities Target: Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women) 2.24 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level based on mortalities over a ten year period. The London Plan's regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the LSOA based Indices 20% of wards, by sex year Male Female 2004-2008 2009-2013 2004-2008 2009-2013 Most deprived 20% wards 75.2 77.5 80.7 82.8 Least deprived 20% wards 80.4 82.2 84.2 85.8 London average 77.7 79.7 82.2 83.8 Difference - most deprived to least deprived 5.2 4.6 3.5 3.0 Difference - most deprived to London average 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.0 Figures may not sum due to rounding Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile summarised in the table are simple averages of the published figures. 2.25 When comparing the figures for 2004-08 and 2009-13 (see table 2.9), the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has shrunk at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.2 to 4.6 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.5 years to 3.0 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this as explained above, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two time periods needs to be treated with some caution. Sustaining economic activity Target: Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011– 2031 2.26 Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate# during 2013 as the economy continued its recovery following a downturn between 2009 and 2011. This has taken London's employment rate to its highest annual average level at any time since records began for London in 1992. Year London workingage residents in employment London residents of working age 2004 3,448,300 5,050,000 68.3 72.4 -4.1 2005 3,490,100 5,118,900 68.2 72.5 -4.3 2006 3,538,000 5,178,900 68.3 72.4 -4.1 2007 3,600,000 5,224,100 68.9 72.4 -3.5 2008 3,662,400 5,269,000 69.5 72.1 -2.6 2009 3,639,300 5,318,900 68.4 70.5 -2.1 2010 3,639,200 5,349,900 68.0 70.1 -2.1 2011 3,669,400 5,395,000 68.0 70.0 -2.0 2012 3,737,300 5,424,600 68.9 70.6 -1.7 2013 3,828,500 5,458,700 70.1 71.3 -1.2 # This includes self-employment Source: Annual Population Survey 2.27 Historically the rate of engagement in economic activity for London residents has been below that for the country as a whole. However as Table 2.10 shows, the gap has shrunk steadily between 2005 and 2013, from 4.3 percentage points to just 1.2 percentage points - a reduction in the gap of over 70 % and the narrowest annual average gap at any time since records began for London in 1992. employment rate %# London UK Difference Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market Target: Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years 2.28 In this edition of AMR we continue to use data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts in Central London at end-2014 was 5.9:1 (table 2.11). In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2013, the ratio of permissions to starts was 7.1:1 according to EGi and 4.5:1 according to LDD. Although it can be noted that the EGi and LDD ratios are down from their peaks in 2011 and 2010 respectively, both measures remain ahead of the target of 3:1. The trend should, however, continue to be monitored closely. 2.29 Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2014 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for that year. The variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets1. It is known that the EGi database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market. ## Starts And Completions 2.30 Based on EGi data, Figure 2.2 illustrates starts of 488,561 sqm2 for 2014. The 2014 figure is slightly lower than the 502,620 sqm achieved in 2013, but similar to the ten year average of 485,973 sqm. However, it is somewhat below the 1985-2014 average of 576,025 sqm but similar to the three year average for starts over the period 2012-2014 with 578,763 sqm. 2.31 The five largest starts were all in the City or City Fringe. These were at: Principal Place, E1 (56,092 sqm); Angel Court, EC2 (33,897 sqm); Fore Street, London Wall, EC2 (28,744 sqm); New Street, EC4 (25,672 sqm) and 26-28 Mitre Square, EC3 (25,353 sqm). Beyond the City, the largest schemes were in Rathbone Place, WI (20,067 sqm) and Haymarket, W1 (18,580 sqm). The largest start in E14 was at Orchard Place (4,339sqm). 2.32 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2014 totalled 3,390,534 sqm according to the EGi data (compared to 3,716, 078 sqm at the end of 2013). These compare to a even higher ten year average of 3,871,963 sqm. 2.33 The data shows renewed activity in the Docklands (compared to the level of starts in 2013) and a number of very large schemes. The three largest schemes are at: Wood Wharf, E14 (297,500 sqm); North Quay, E14 (222,036 sqm) and Battersea Power Station, SW8 (157,777 sqm). These are followed by 49 Leadenhall Street, EC3 (105,033 sqm), and Heron Quays, E14 (103,886). These five schemes together account for 26% of the consented space at the end of 2014. 2.34 The mean size of unimplemented permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 14,791 sqm; followed by the City at 11,423 sqm, and Westminster, at 3,555 sqm. year average starts in Central London# year EGi LDD 2004 11.9:1 6.4:1 2005 8.1:1 7.4:1 2006 8.3:1 8.7:1 2007 6.3:1 4.7:1 2008 7.5:1 4.1:1 2009 10.0:1 7.0:1 2010 13.0:1 11.6:1 2011 13.5:1 8.0:1 2012 8.3:1 3.9:1 2013 7.1:1 4.5:1 2014 5.9:1 N/A # Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices ## Overview Of Office Market 2.35 During 2014, the central London office market continued its recovery from the Financial Crisis. The occupational markets and investment markets were both strong. Overall, central London take-up levels exceeded those of 2013 and were ahead of pre-Crisis levels. As a result, vacancy levels across central London have fallen over the past year, to less than 7%, with the lowest availability being recorded in the West End. Knight Frank recorded availability in the West End at just 4.5% during Q3 20143. 2.36 Falling vacancy has also signalled rising rents. In the latter part of 2014, King's Cross reported two leasing deals at £70 sq ft and £80 sq ft - levels which exceed prime rents in the City. In the West End, the oil company Trafigura was reported to have signed a deal at £150 sq ft - a record for the market. 2.37 In the City, while banking has been relatively quiet in leasing terms, the insurance sector has been active. Both new towers in Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street have been letting well. There is also firm evidence that the occupier base of the City is becoming more diverse with more technology and creative businesses operating from there. For example, while Finance & Insurance employment shrank by 9% since 2010, Professional & Technical grew by 12% and Information & Communications grew by 29%4. 2.38 There has also been a sharp increase in serviced offices and co-working spaces. Total serviced office space in the City doubled between 2000 and 2014 with 60% of the centres opening since 2008. 5The trend illustrates the importance of the SME market in particular to the area. 2.39 Occupier mobility also continued. For example, in the advertising sector, Ogilvy & Mather decided to move from Canary Wharf to Southbank, at Sea Containers House; Havas Worldwide is moving to King's Cross and Omnicom has committed to a 370,000 sq ft sublet from RBS at Bankside, also on the Southbank. The growing attraction of central London to tech companies was also underscored during 2014 with a number of signature deals. For example, Amazon has pre-leased over 400,000 sq ft at Brookfield's Principal Place development in Shoreditch. 2.40 Meanwhile interest in purchasing 'trophy' buildings, particularly among overseas buyers has intensified. Yields have fallen significantly, and the levels of purchasing is increasingly influenced by diminishing availability. 2.41 The impact of Permitted Development Rights (PDR) continues apace. A growing amount of central London office stock is also being lost to residential use (albeit that the Central Activities Zone, Tech City and North of the Isle of Dogs are currently exempt from PDR). The growing pressure for residential conversions is illustrated by the recent purchase of New Scotland Yard by Abu Dhabi Financial Group, with the intention of converting the building into apartments. The GLA will continue to monitor the impact of PDR through the London Development Database. Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available Target: Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG 2.42 Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 61.6 hectares of industrial land recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2013/14. Almost half (46%) of the area approved for transfer is in East London and a further 25% in West London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include The Old Vinyl Factory, Blyth Road in Hillingdon (just over 5 hectares) and Five Oaks Lane in Redbridge, Lionel Road in Hounslow, the Tower Bridge Business Complex, Clements Road in Southwark and the Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth (each 3-4 hectares). Over Subregion Annual average release 2001-2006 Annual average release 2006-2011 Release in planning approvals 2011/12 Central 6 5 9.4 6.0 7.3 2.3 East 57 54 38.6 29.2 28.3 19.4 North 2 2 1.5 6.5 3.6 3.4 South 11 4 31.7 5.1 6.7 4.4 West 10 18 35.1 25.7 15.6 7.2 London 86 83 116.3 72.5 61.6 36.7 Source: London Development Database, the 2015 London Plan and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites 94% of the approvals involve transfers of less than one hectare of industrial land. 2.43 Compared with 2011/12 and 2012/13 the level of planning approvals for industrial land release in 2013/14 is significantly lower but still 68% above the annual benchmark in the London Plan and the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The target is exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in East London. The annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 are included as additional context. Release in planning approvals 2012/13 Release in planning approvals 2013/14 LP/SPG annual benchmark 2011-2031 ## Key Performance Indicator 10 Employment In Outer London Target: Growth in total Employment in Outer London 2.44 In 15 outer boroughs the number of employee jobs has grown; in the remaining 4 outer boroughs the number of such jobs has fallen. Since 1984, the growth in the number of employee jobs in Outer London has not been as large as in Inner London (12.3 % compared to 27.3 %). London overall experienced an increase in the number of employee jobs of 21.1 %. 2.45 The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Nine Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 % growth in the number of employee jobs since 1984, whereas four saw a reduction in employee jobs. 2004-2013 Year Outer London London % in Outer London 2004 1,918,000 4,565,000 42% 2005 1,937,000 4,667,000 42% 2006 1,963,000 4,717,000 42% 2007 1,945,000 4,772,000 41% 2008 1,986,000 4,910,000 40% 2009 1,924,000 4,808,000 40% 2010 1,923,000 4,803,000 40% 2011 1,911,000 4,879,000 39% 2012 1,998,000 5,088,000 39% 2013 2,047,000 5,249,000 39% Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Self-employed jobs are calculated by applying estimates of borough shares of London's total self-employed jobs from the Annual Population Survey data to the London total self-employed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission's recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan's new policies for outer London. 2.46 Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2004 to 2013. In 2011 the total number of jobs in Outer London had fallen by 75,000 from its 2008 peak. However by 2013 it had recovered strongly, increasing by 136,000 between 2011 and 2013, or by 7.1 %. This represents a weaker rise than in both inner London (8.0 %) and London overall (7.6 %). Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market Target: Reduce the employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales 2.47 Table 2.14 shows that employment rates for White and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups continue to increase. The gap between employment rates for White vs BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend, although there has been little change in recent years. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points and the downward trend reduced this to 13.2 percentage points by 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points before falling again to 14.0 percentage points in 2012 and was 14.1 in 2013. Over the whole nine-year period the gap has reduced by 2.5 percentage points. 2.48 London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in the deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment. 2.49 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents with dependent children has continued to fall. In London it fell by eight percentage points between 2012 and 2013 compared with four points in England and Wales overall. Since 2004 the gap has fallen from eight to one percentage point, after a peak in 2006 at thirteen percentage points. 2.50 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales. BY CALENDAR YEAR Year All Persons White Groups BAME Groups Employment rate gap in employment rate % rate % in employment 2004 3,448,300 68.3 2,532,100 73.5 908,300 56.9 16.6 2005 3,490,100 68.2 2,517,500 73.6 967,300 57.3 16.3 2006 3,538,000 68.3 2,503,700 73.8 1,026,800 57.9 15.9 2007 3,600,000 68.9 2,500,500 73.9 1,095,500 59.7 14.2 2008 3,662,400 69.5 2,542,700 74.7 1,115,500 60.0 14.7 2009 3,639,300 68.4 2,541,800 73.9 1,091,100 58.4 15.5 2010 3,639,200 68.0 2,476,400 72.8 1,155,500 59.6 13.2 2011 3,669,400 68.0 2,459,700 73.5 1,203,400 58.9 14.6 2012 3,737,300 68.9 2,494,100 74.2 1,239,700 60.2 14.0 2013 3,828,500 70.1 2,560,100 75.5 1,264,900 61.4 14.1 Source: Annual Population Survey Note that due to changes in the ethnicity questions on the Annual Population Survey during 2011 these estimates cannot be reliably viewed as a timeseries. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups. \| London \| England and Wales \| \|----------------\|---------------------\| \| Annual \| \| \| Report \| difference \| \| families on IS \| \| \| as % of \| \| \| lone parent \| \| \| families \| \| \| # \| \| \| lone \| \| \| parent \| \| \| families \| \| \| on IS \| \| \| 2004 \| 165,120 \| \| 2005 \| 163,620 \| \| 2006 \| 162,770 \| \| 2007 \| 160,450 \| \| 2008 \| 152,520 \| \| 2009 \| 141,720 \| \| 2010 \| 129,100 \| \| 2011 \| 109,200 \| \| 2012 \| 102,590 \| \| 2013 \| 83,050 \| Source: DWP's Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS #Lone parent families with dependent children only in employment rate % White/ BAME as % of lone parent families# Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services Target: Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools 2.51 Between 2008 and 2014 the average class size across London has increased, with a few exceptions in some boroughs in certain years. Between 2013 and 2014 overall class size remain unchanged. 13 boroughs saw a reduction in average class size compared to 10 boroughs the previous year, 5 staying the same and 15 boroughs increasing in average class size. The trend across the whole of England has been on the up with average class sizes currently just under 27. 2.52 The main drivers of increasing class sizes in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as the pressure on London's primary schools to reduce costs. It is unclear if the recent change in migration patterns driven by the economic downturn is structural or temporary with previous trends resuming. This is something that will be monitored closely. 2.53 The building of new schools is likely to continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2013, a further 27 new Free Schools were set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and opportunities to enable local people and communities to do the same. The draft Social Infrastructure SPG, published for consultation in March 2014 suggests additional ways to link the provision of schools with housing growth through co-located and multi-use facilities. Borough 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Barking & Dagenham 26.9 27.2 27.5 27.9 27.9 28.3 28.0 Barnet 27.5 27.6 27.9 28.1 28 28.2 28.4 Bexley 27.3 27.8 28 28.2 28.3 28.5 28.4 Brent 28 27.8 28.1 28.5 28.6 28.7 28.9 Bromley 27.2 27.7 27.8 28.1 28.3 28.4 28.3 Camden 26.9 26.6 27.1 27.1 27.5 27.5 27.6 City 24.8 24.7 25.9 25.9 24.7 25.9 25.9 Croydon 27.6 27.7 27.9 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.2 Ealing 27.5 27.2 27.7 27.8 28 28.3 28.0 Enfield 28.3 28.6 28.2 28.7 28.8 28.8 28.7 Greenwich 26.2 26.2 26.5 26.9 27 27.1 27.4 Hackney 25.8 25.8 26.1 26.3 26.3 26.2 26.8 Hammersmith & Fulham 25.8 26.2 26.4 26.1 26.8 26.1 26.1 Haringey 27.5 27.5 27.6 28 27.9 28.2 28.0 Harrow 26.1 26.9 26.7 28 28.5 28.8 29.8 Havering 27 27.4 27.8 28 28.2 28.6 28.4 Hillingdon 26.5 27.2 27.4 27.4 27.5 27.9 28.0 Hounslow 27.2 27.4 27.8 28.2 28.4 28.4 28.1 Islington 25.5 25.5 25.3 26.2 26.4 26.3 26.6 Kensington & Chelsea 26 25.7 26.2 26.8 27 26.7 26.7 Kingston 27.1 27.1 27.7 27.6 27.5 27.7 27.6 Lambeth 25.8 25.6 25.7 26 26.3 26.6 26.3 Lewisham 25.9 26.3 26.3 26.8 26.9 27.2 27.4 Merton 26.7 27 27.1 27.5 27.9 27.7 27.8 Newham 26.8 27 27.4 27.8 28.1 27.9 26.6 Redbridge 29.2 29.1 29 29.5 29.6 29.1 29.3 Richmond 26.5 26.9 27.4 28 27.9 28.2 28.5 Southwark 24.6 24.6 24.8 25.3 25.8 26.3 26.4 Sutton 27.9 27.7 27.9 28.2 28.5 28.7 28.8 Tower Hamlets 26.3 26.3 26.9 27.3 27.7 27.6 27.7 Waltham Forest 28 28.1 28.5 28 28.5 28.2 28.4 Wandsworth 25.5 25.3 25.9 25.6 26.3 25.9 25.8 Westminster 25.8 25.4 26.3 26.7 26.6 26.0 25.6 London 26.8 27 27.2 27.6 27.7 27.8 27.8 Source: Department for Education Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head 2.54 The indices in Table 2.17 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 7 (TfL Planning December 2014). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). \| Year \| Public transport index \| Private transport index \| \|--------\|--------------------------\|---------------------------\| \| 2001 \| 100 \| 100 \| \| 2002 \| 103.1 \| 99.5 \| \| 2003 \| 108.1 \| 97.1 \| \| 2004 \| 113.8 \| 95.1 \| \| 2005 \| 112 \| 92.6 \| \| 2006 \| 114.7 \| 92 \| \| 2007 \| 124.4 \| 90.9 \| \| 2008 \| 128.2 \| 86.4 \| \| 2009 \| 127.5 \| 85.6 \| \| 2010 \| 127.8 \| 84.8 \| \| 2011 \| 131.2 \| 82.8 \| \| 2012 \| 133.6 \| 80.7 \| \| 2013 \| 134.2 \| 78.8 \| Source: Transport for London 2.55 Total daily journey stages in 2013 were 30.6 million, up from 30.2 million in 2012, and 5.0 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 33% were by private transport, and 45% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 34%, and increased slightly by 0.6% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by over 21% since 2001, and is down almost 2% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year. Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole 2.56 Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes continued to fall in the latest year for London as a whole, down by 0.3% between 2012 and 2013, and 10.7% since 2001. In 2013, traffic volumes fell in Inner London by 2.0%, while traffic in Outer London grew slightly by 0.4%. Traffic levels in Inner London are over 17% lower than in 2001, whereas in Outer London, traffic levels are over 7% lower than 2001. So despite a very slight upwards trend in Outer London since 2011, for the longer term London as a whole, the trend in car traffic is declining rather than growing across all parts of London. 2.57 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the Environment and Transport section of chapter 3. Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 All roads: Greater London 32.26 32.14 31.95 31.59 31.38 31.49 31.16 30.27 30.07 29.70 29.10 28.90 28.82 Inner London (excl City and Westminster) 8.98 8.90 8.84 8.66 8.51 8.52 8.58 8.29 8.19 8.05 7.82 7.57 7.42 Outer London 22.04 22.03 21.92 21.72 21.66 21.76 21.42 20.90 20.83 20.63 20.28 20.35 20.43 All roads index (2001=100) All roads index (2001=100) Greater London 100.0 99.6 99.0 97.9 97.3 97.6 96.6 93.8 93.2 92.1 90.2 89.6 89.3 Inner London (excl City and Westminster) 100.0 99.2 98.4 96.4 94.8 94.9 95.5 92.3 91.2 89.6 87.1 84.2 82.6 Outer London 100.0 99.9 99.5 98.6 98.3 98.7 97.2 94.8 94.5 93.6 92.0 92.3 92.7 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 % in 2009 to 5 % by 2026 2.58 Table 2.19 shows that in 2013 in absolute terms around 0.59 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 83% compared to 2001 and 0.5% more than in the most recent year (2012 to 2013). Table 2.19 also shows that almost 2% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001. Year Daily Cycle stages (millions) 2001 0.320 1.2 2002 0.323 1.2 2003 0.370 1.4 2004 0.380 1.4 2005 0.415 1.6 2006 0.466 1.7 2007 0.467 1.6 2008 0.489 1.7 2009 0.514 1.8 2010 0.544 1.9 2011 0.572 1.9 2012 0.582 1.9 2013 0.585 1.9 Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 7, tables 2.3 and 3.4 2.59 Growth will need to strengthen again to meet the Mayor's objective to see a cycling revolution by achieving the target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Cycle mode share (percentage) Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 2.60 Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger journeys on all river boat services on the Thames - those boarding at TfL London River Services (LRS) piers and non-LRS piers and also Woolwich Ferry Passengers. This explains the reason for the 102% increase on 2012/13 figures as previously the Woolwich Ferry and services operating from independent piers were excluded from the figures. The new system uses an electronic method of counting to give a clearer reflection of the total number of passenger journeys on the Thames. This will become the new monitoring baseline. 2.61 Table 2.20 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. After the small decline in 2010/11 and 2012/11, numbers rose by 0.5 % in 2012/13 and by over 100% in the latest year, as explained above. A figure for LRS-only piers that allows a comparison to the previous year is unfortunately not available. 2.62 In April 2012, a new extension to London Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier. 2.63 The achievement of the KPI target still requires considerable further investment, as detailed in the Mayor of London and Transport for London's River Action Plan. The plan has already helped deliver an enhanced Putney to Blackfriars River Bus service with faster journey times and more frequent River Bus services on this route. Plans to deliver better information at London's piers has begun with the introduction of real time boat arrival information, called iBoat. 2.64 Work is currently underway to extend existing piers, build new piers and better better integrate river services into the wider transport network. A new pier at Plantation Wharf is due to open in 2015. 2.65 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. 2.66 The overall figure is a combination of both the interport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the seaward limits) such as sea dredged aggregates or sugar and intraport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination within the Port of London or within the seaward limits). Both elements of the total saw an increase in 2013 accounting to a total increase of 27%. A principal driver of the increase in interport trade was aggregates, with a large increase in particular at terminals in Greenwich (up almost 11%). In terms of intraport trade, material from both the Lea Tunnel and Crossrail schemes resulted in an increase in the volume of construction, excavation and demolition waste (CE&DW) transported on the river from Greater London of almost 140% in 2013. However, increases were also seen in transhipped aggregates (33%) and containerised waste (11%) to the Belvedere Energy for Waste (EfW) facility. . \| Year \| Number of passengers \| % change on previous year \| \|-------------------------\|------------------------\|-----------------------------\| \| April 2000 - March 2001 \| 1 573 830 \| - \| \| April 2001 - March 2002 \| 1,739,236 \| + 10.5 \| \| April 2002 - March 2003 \| 2 030 300 \| + 16.7 \| \| April 2003 - March 2004 \| 2,113,800 \| + 4.1 \| \| April 2004 - March 2005 \| 2,343,276 \| + 10.9 \| \| April 2005 - March 2006 \| 2,374,400 \| + 1.3 \| \| April 2006 - March 2007 \| 2,746,692 \| + 15.7 \| \| April 2007 - March 2008 \| 3,078,100 \| + 12.1 \| \| April 2008 - March 2009 \| 3,892,693 \| + 26.5 \| \| April 2009 - March 2010 \| 4,188,530 \| + 7.6 \| \| April 2010 - March 2011 \| 4,142,226 \| - 1.1 \| \| April 2011 - March 2012 \| 4,136,200 \| - 0.1 \| \| April 2012 - March 2013 \| 4,160,500 \| + 0.5 \| \| April 2013 - March 2014 \| 8,411,200 \| +102.2 \| Source: TfL London Rivers Services \| Year \| Tonnes of cargo \| % change on previous \| \|--------\|--------------------\|-------------------------\| \| year \| \| \| \| 2001 \| 10,757,000 \| - \| \| 2002 \| 9,806,000 \| + 9% \| \| 2003 \| 9,236,000 \| + 6% \| \| 2004 \| 8,743,000 \| - 5% \| \| 2005 \| 9,288,000 \| + 6% \| \| 2006 \| 9,337,000 \| + 0.5% \| \| 2007 \| 8,642,000 \| - 7% \| \| 2008 \| 9,312,000 \| + 8% \| \| 2009 \| 8,146,000 \| - 13% \| \| 2010 \| 7,754,000 \| - 5% \| \| 2011 \| 9,022,000 \| + 16% \| \| 2012 \| 8,715,000 \| -3% \| \| 2013 \| 11,087,000 \| + 27% \| Source: Port of London Authority Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values Target: Maintain at least 50 % of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 2.67 This indicator aims to show that highdensity employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses. The data is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000m2 for B1 uses so schemes proposing less than this are not recorded. 2.68 62% of all B1 floorspace approved during 2013/14 is located in areas with good public transport accessibility, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 13% \| \| PTAL level \| all B1 \| offices (B1a) \| \|------------------\|--------------\|-----------------\|-----------------\| \| floorspace (m2) \| % \| floorspace (m2) \| % \| \| 5 or 6 \| 709,363 \| 62 \| 696,254 \| \| 4 or less \| 438,648 \| 38 \| 267,880 \| \| Total floorspace \| 1,148,011 \| 964,134 \| \| Source: London Development Database above the previous year's figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 72% up 10% on the previous year. These figures reflect the location of the proposed floorspace. From roughly 515,000m2 of B1 floorspace granted outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), less than 15% is in an area of high PTAL. Of 340,000m2 of offices outside CAZ, 21.5% is in an area of high PTAL. This compares to 100% in the highly accessible CAZ area. 2.69 As noted above, the figures are based on gross approvals. Overall approvals during 2013/14 would result in a net loss of both B1 and B1a office floorspace for the second year in a row. Perhaps surprisingly the loss of office is also mostly (75%) in areas with a high PTAL score. ## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat Target: No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) 2.70 Tables 2.23 and 2.24 are based on the changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions and completions. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations: • Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, • Site of Metropolitan Importance, • Site of Borough Grade I Importance • Site of Borough Grade II Importance • Site of Local Importance 2.71 Open Space designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3. 2.72 Table 2.23 shows 17 approvals on SINCs in 2013/14, 12 more than the previous financial year. The total area covers 15.3 Ha, up from 0.87 Ha in the previous year. The largest losses are on the Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park both mentioned in KPI 3. 2.73 Table 2.24 shows 6 completions on SINC sites, one more than in the previous year. The largest completion on a SINC was in Brent where 21 homes were built on a site of Borough Grade 2 Importance located within a churchyard. The total net loss of SINCS was 0.895 Ha, down 0.45 Ha on last year. \| Nature Conservation Type \| Borough Name \| Borough \| \|------------------------------------\|------------------------------------\|------------------------------------\| \| Reference \| \| \| \| Bexley \| 08/11096/FULM \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Brent \| 122995 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Brent \| 131501 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| Camden \| 2013/1889/P \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| Ealing \| P/2012/0708 \| Site of Local Importance \| \| Ealing \| P/2013/5324 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| Havering \| P0151/13 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Havering \| P1451/10 \| Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance \| \| Hillingdon \| \| \| \| 68911/ \| \| \| \| APP/2012/2983 \| \| \| \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| 5.500 \| \| \| Kensington and \| \| \| \| Chelsea \| \| \| \| PP/11/01937 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| 0.565 \| \| Kensington and \| \| \| \| Chelsea \| \| \| \| PP/13/03968 \| Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance \| 0.635 \| \| Kingston upon \| \| \| \| Thames \| \| \| \| 13/16542/FUL \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| 0.188 \| \| Merton \| 13/P0692 \| Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance \| \| Sutton \| D2005/54794 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Sutton \| D2011/64908 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Sutton \| D2012/66220 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Wandsworth \| 2012/0758 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| London (Net \| \| \| \| hectares): \| \| \| \| \| Sum: \| 15.310 \| Source: London Development Database \| Nature Conservation Type \| Borough Name \| Borough \| \|-----------------------------------------\|---------------------------------\|------------------------------------\| \| Reference \| \| \| \| Brent \| 093104 \| Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance \| \| Hammersmith and \| \| \| \| Fulham \| \| \| \| 2009/00758/FR3 Site of Local Importance \| 0.102 \| \| \| Hounslow \| 00132/A/P12 \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| \| Islington \| P060898 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| Richmond upon Thames 08/4383/FUL \| Site of Metropolitan Importance \| 0.293 \| \| Sutton \| C2011/63884 \| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance \| \| london (Net hectares): \| Sum: \| 0.895 \| Source: London Development Database Area of Open Space (Ha) Area of Open Space (Ha) Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031 Target: At least 45 % of waste recycled/ composted by 2015 and 0 % of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 2.74 Table 2.25 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste has continued to decline - by about 800,000 tonnes between 2002/03 and 2013/14 and by over 60,000 tonnes during the last year alone. 2.75 It also shows that London's recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 30 % in 2012 and remaining there over the past two years. There is still some way to go towards reaching the 45% target that has been set for 2016. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats and less garden waste. 2.76 The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has gone down by over 1 % last year, after over 5 % in the year before and the amount has more than halved since 2007/8 to under 25 % with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. tonnes) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total~ 4,446 4,342 4,370 4,223 4,235 4,154 3,975 3,862 3,797 3,648 3,576 3,640 Landfill 3,163 3,021 2,856 2,692 2,404 2,209 1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116 911 889 (%) 71.0% 70.0% 65.4% 63.7% 56.8% 53.2% 49.0% 48.7% 44.7% 30.6% 25.5% 24.4% Incineration with EfW 872 826 869 767 929 919 912 803 896 1,303 1,462 1,525 (%) 20.0% 19.0% 19.9% 18.2% 21.9% 22.1% 22.9% 20.8% 23.6% 35.7% 40.9% 41.9% Incineration without EfW 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Recycled/ composted 410 494 643 763 844 925 994 1,060 1,076 1,105 1,088 1,110 (%) 9.0% 11.0% 14.7% 18.1% 19.9% 22.3% 25.0% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 30.4% 30.5% Other# 0 0 0 0 59 101 123 117 130 124 115 116 (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% # Other includes material which is sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processess. ~ Total may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes of ondon's local authority collected waste since 2005/06. Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2013/14, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annualresults-tables Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development Target: Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and all developments by 2019 2.77 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the Government's zero carbon targets - see Tables 2.26 and 2.27 below. 2.78 An analysis6 of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2013 was undertaken by the GLA in 2014 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide targets set out in London Plan Policy 5.2. The assessment was made against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations and showed an approximate 36 % reduction in regulated7 carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of the 2010 building regulations. This is 11% above the 25 % target. The 40 % target for 2013- 16 was applied to applications received at Stage I from 1 October 2013. Only one application to which the 40 % target applies was determined at Stage II in 2013, and is included in this analysis, but this target will become more relevant in future AMRs. 2.79 Although the number of applications determined by the Mayor at Stage II was slightly up from 2012 (174 compared to 171), the quantum of development was less. Overall, applications determined by the Mayor in 2013 included 43,178 dwellings, 12,701 fewer dwellings and 0.9million m2 less floorspace than in 2012. The amount of non-domestic development remained stable at 2.3 million m2 of floorspace approved. The number of smaller schemes is reflected in the total savings achieved and commitments to installation of infrastructure and technologies. 2.80 Of each of the elements of the energy hierarchy, combined heat and power (CHP) produced the largest carbon dioxide savings. It accounted for 21 % of all projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2013. Approximately 41,000 dwellings (more than 95 % of those proposed) were proposed to be connected to heat networks. 2.81 Nine % of the projected savings were due to energy efficiency - a higher figure than in 2011 and 2012, indicating greater investment in the 'fabric first' approach. Renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately six % of the overall savings. The most popular renewable energy technology installed was photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays, with developers committing to the installation of over 71,000m2 of PV panels. 2.82 The carbon dioxide savings from developments where CHP is unsuitable were substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are less likely to meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in the London Plan. 2.83 Boroughs are being encouraged to set up carbon dioxide off-setting funds in line with Policy 5.2 to further reduce carbon dioxide across London. The Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance was published in April 2014. This provides the boroughs with further guidance on what to consider when setting up an off-set fund. reduction targets for residential buildings Year improvement on 2010 Building Regulations 2010-2013 25 per cent 2013-2016 40 per cent 2016-2031 zero carbon Source: London Plan 2011 reduction targets for non-domestic buildings \| Year \| improvement on 2010 Building \| \|-------------\|---------------------------------\| \| Regulations \| \| \| 2010-2013 \| 25 per cent \| \| 2013-2016 \| 40 per cent \| \| 2016-2019 \| as per Building Regulations \| \| 2019-2031 \| zero carbon \| Source: London Plan 2011 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources. Target: Production of 85508 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 2.84 This renewable energy generation target has been developed using data in the Mayor's Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies9 which marked out the role renewables could play in our future energy mix by 2026. The renewable energy generation figure includes the potential energy production from various electricity and heat supply technologies, including: photovoltaics, wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste; as well as solar thermal, ground and air and water source heat pumps. GENERATION IN LONDON Electricity: 2011-2013 Year bio-mass landfill gas Capacity (MW)/ (GWh) wind and wave 2011# Total (MW) 0 3.7 0.3 20.6 165.7 25.0 215.3 Total (GWh) 0 8.0 1.7 49.9 558.7 7.0 625.3 2012# Total (MW) 0 4.4 0.3 23.4 167.0 42.3 42.3 237.5 Total (GWh) 0 10.9 1.3 46 679.7 34.2 772.1 2013# Total (MW) 0 4.4 0.3 23.4 169.5 49.1 246.8 Total (GWh) 0 11.5 2.3 60.2 706.3 39.7 820.1 # Updated July 2014 Source: Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Installed Capacity, Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2.85 The most authoritative datasets for energy generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Table 2.28 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2013. Generation has been increasing by 6.2% to over 820 GWh but is well below the 2026 target. In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and Renewable Heat Premium Payments (RHPP)10, the following renewable heat installations have been achieved: • 9.8MW of installed capacity installed through the non-domestic RHI; • 0.7MW of installed capacity from heat pumps and biomass, through the RHPP in domestic dwellings; • A total of 181 domestic accredited installations from domestic RHI11. sewage gas bioenergy photovoltaics total ## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ 2.86 In 2014 the GLA, working with the Green Roof Consultancy, mapped all known green roofs in the CAZ that were visible on aerial imagery taken in the summer of 2013. A total of 678 green roofs covering an area of over 175,000m2 (17.5 ha) were found. The map is published here: https://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ greening-london/urban-greening/ greening-roofs-and-walls/green-roof-map It provides a more accurate estimate of total green roof area in central London than the estimates included in the previous AMR, which have relied on random sampling. The latest estimates confirm previously identified trends of increasing green roof area since 2007, when the total was less than 10 ha. The total of 17.5ha still represents an underestimate of green roof cover. Through the website linked above the GLA is asking installers or purchasers of green roofs to inform the GLA of any green roofs that may have been missed, or that have been installed since the summer of 2013, to update our map accordingly. Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network Target: Restore 15km of rivers and streams* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (defined as main river by the Environment Agency - includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance) 2.87 Restoration is defined as a measure that results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement. 2.88 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London's Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made. • River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice). • Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice). • Pre and post fixed point photography. 2.89 The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system. 2.90 Table 2.29 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007, except for the last year. This may have been caused by the changed reporting process for river restoration schemes in 2014/15. Project delivery is now reported directly to the River Restoration Centre through the 'Restore' database. This makes reporting simpler and improves the access to project details. However, it is likely that there has been under-reporting for the year 2014/15. To improve reporting, a River Restoration Group has been established that will review and promote the new process. Over 12.5 km restoration in total (more than 2 km per year) since 2008 still represents progress towards the 2015 target of 15 km. 2.91 There is uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3). Table 2.29 River restoration London 2000 to 2014 Year restoration (metres) cumulative restoration (metres) 2000 680 680 2001 150 830 2002 600 1,430 2003 2,300 3,730 2004 500 4,230 2005 0 4,320 2006 100 4,330 2007 5,100 9,430 2008 2,000 11,430 2009 1,500 12,930 2010 1,808 14,738 2011 3,519 18,257 2012 3,000 21,257 2013 2,395 23,652 2014 330 23,982 Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group and the London Catchment Partnership Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm Target: Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London 2.92 The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures on development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year's. There are 24 new listed 2011 2012 2013 2014 number % at number % at risk World Heritage Sites 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Listed Buildings# 18,745 2.53% 18,854 2.8% 18,872 2.7% 18,896 3% Conservation Areas 1000 6.4% 949 6.8% 1,009 6.3% 1017 6.3%** Schedule Monuments 154 22.7% 154 22.7% 155 20.6% 156 19.87% Registered Parks and Gardens 149 5.40% 150 8% 150 7.3% 150 7.3% Registered Battlefield 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0% designated by UNESCO # does not include Places of Worship there are a total of 1017 Conservation Areas in London, the figure given for the number of conservation areas at risk is based on the number of LPAs who responded to the Conservation Area at Risk survey (953), not the total number of Conservation Areas given above Source: English Heritage buildings, eight new conservation areas and one more scheduled monument in London. 2.93 In terms of designated assets at risk, between 2013 and 2014 there was an increase of 0.3% of listed buildings at risk; a decrease of 0.73% of scheduled monuments at risk; and for all other designed assets the situation remained the same in terms of both their number and their condition as in the previous year. For detail on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/. English Heritage also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has produced a Heritage at Risk 2014 summary for London. \| \| number % at \| number % at \| \|------\|----------------\|----------------\| \| risk \| risk \| risk \| ## Endnotes 1 EGi data for permissions are based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sqm gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2011, the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition). 2 All figures sited are sqm net internal area 3 Knight Frank Central London Quarterly Q3 2014 4 Office for National Statistics (2014) Inter Department Business Register, Number of Businesses (Local Units) by Broad Industry Group 5 Ramidus (2014) Serviced Offices and Agile Occupiers in the City of London. 6 Energy Planning. Monitoring the implementation of London Plan energy policies in 2012. GLA. 2013 7 The carbon dioxide emissions controlled by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans. 10 Target not specified in London Plan. It has been included since AMR 8. 11 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ environment/tackling-climate-change/ energy-supply 12 https://www.gov.uk/government/ statistical-data-sets/rhi-and-rhppdeployment-data-january-2013 13 DECC do not publish installed capacity figures achieved through domestic RHI installations. ## Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2013/14 Introduction 3.1 This report provides further detail on housing provision in London, adding to that provided in the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD). The LDD was established by the GLA in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London. 3.2 This section deals with housing provision as defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by the London boroughs. LDD records all Full and Outline permissions that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. Variations to these, whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 agreements, are also recorded. Changes of use from office to residential via the prior approval process are also included following their introduction on 30th May 2013. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of their proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals not matching across tables in this report. Prior approvals from retail to residential are not currently being recorded on LDD so do not contribute to these figures. Temporary permissions are excluded. 3.3 The Mayor's London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition. 3.4 Although some individual schemes are referenced in this report, it is intended to give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local level can be found in borough AMRs. ## Key Statistics And Findings a There were 23,986 net conventional housing completions in London in 2013/14. b Taking into account net supply of 4,339 non-self-contained units, total housing provision excluding long-term vacant properties returning to use was 29,382. This amounts to 91% of the benchmark for completions in the London Plan 2011. c New build accounted for 85% of net conventional supply in 2013/14, conversions 5% and changes of use 10%. d Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions through planning permissions amounted to 23,148 homes. Social rented units make up 60% of affordable completions over this period, intermediate housing just over 36% and affordable rent just over 3%. e Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 36% of homes completed during 2013/14 had one bedroom, 42% had two bedrooms and 22% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 23% in 2012/13. f 29% of gross affordable housing completions in 2013/14 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms, including 7% with four bedrooms or more. g 15% of net units approved and 20% of net units in schemes started during 2013/14 are affordable housing. h As of 31 March 2014, the net housing pipeline consisted of over 240,900 homes. 54% of these are in schemes that had not yet started. i The average density of new housing approvals in 2013/14 was 137 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 118 dph. ## Completions 3.5 Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained bed spaces, and long-term empty homes returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. KPI 5 in chapter 2 and Tables HPM1 and HPM2 show housing provision at borough level. 3.6 Net conventional completions for 2013/14 are 23,986. This is the highest total for four years, but still below the peak of over 29,500 in 2008/09. 3.7 The non-self-contained element of the benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in student halls of residence, hostels and houses in multiple occupation. The net total of 4,339 is the highest since the LDD was established in 2004. 3.8 The figures for the change in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. The change is calculated from the number of vacant dwellings as at October each year so does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but it remains the best source of net change available. 3.9 Figure 3.1 shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last seven years. As noted above, data on the third element of the total, vacants, is not yet available. Based on just conventional and non-conventional supply, completions have risen sharply since last year. It is not known at this stage whether vacants will be a positive or negative figure, but it is likely that the total will remain well above that for the previous year. 3.10 In 2013/2014 a total of 27,537 homes have been completed, with 3,551 lost or replaced to give the net total of 23,986 (see Table HPM1). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply, but this does not appear to have been a major issue for any boroughs this year. 3.11 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD; new Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Conventional 25,300 25,084 27,226 28,215 29,534 24,732 19,185 21,988 21,923 23,986 Non- Conventional 4,164 449 2,973 1,284 2,408 1,426 1,922 1,491 2,653 4,339 Vacants back in use 2,519 -61 3,608 287 -398 2,223 4,882 5,670 2,018 1,057 Total 31,983 25,483 33,955 31,230 32,996 30,185 27,596 30,400 26,600 29,382 build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 85% of net conventional supply in 2013/14 (it was 87% in 2012/13), conversions 5% and changes of use 10%. 3.12 New builds account for more than half of all net gains in every single borough, the lowest proportion being found in Hammersmith and Fulham and Harrow, both at 57%. By contrast both Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich gained 98% of their new units from new build and Kensington and Chelsea saw a net loss from the other development types so have a net % in excess of 100. In gross terms the figure for Kensington and Chelsea is much lower at 74%. The gross London average is 80%. Conversions led to a net loss of units in three boroughs, Westminster (-52 units), Kensington and Chelsea (-42) and Richmond upon Thames (-21), most likely through buildings being de-converted from flats back to houses. Hammersmith and Fulham (146) and Lambeth (144) gained the most units through residential conversions. It is worth noting that conversion of flats to a house is not defined as development in the legislation that governs planning and may be done without planning permission. They are sometimes recorded on certificates of proposed lawful development and the London boroughs are currently being consulted on whether these should be recorded on LDD. This should improve the accuracy of figures on de-conversions in future years. Changes of use accounted for 10% of net completions in net terms and 9% gross. The introduction of permitted development rights for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 had very little impact on completions during 2013/14, but it is anticipated that the percentage may rise in the coming years as the large volume of consents across London start to be implemented (see table HPM 15). 3.13 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in Table HPM14) was 118 dwellings per hectare (dph), an slight decrease on the previous year's figure of 120. As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Havering was just 30dph and in Bromley it was 32dph. The City of London has the highest density at 808dph. Tower Hamlets and Newham delivered at the next highest densities, 316 and 242 dph respectively. 3.14 Table 3.2 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 2013/14 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms was not recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced, however boroughs are now recording it on a voluntary basis so net data may become available in future AMRs. One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 36% and 42% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 38% of social rented supply, compared to 9% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. The proportion for all tenures is 22%. These figures are very similar to those reported in AMR10. The biggest change is for affordable rented properties where 50% of approximately 500 units have three bedrooms or more. 3.15 Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. Barking and Dagenham has delivered the most affordable family housing, completing 351 homes with 3 bedrooms or more. This represents 60% of their affordable completions. None of the 24 affordable units completed in the City of London are family housing. 3.16 Total net affordable housing supply in 2013/14 was 6,618, down from 7,773 2012/13. Affordable units represent 27.5% of all net completions during this year, this is also down on the previous year's figure of 35%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportions of affordable housing supply were found Table 3.2 Gross conventional housing Completions by tenure and number of bedrooms 2013/14 dwellings 1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4+ beds Total Social Rented 1,166 1,641 1,259 448 4,514 Intermediate 1,171 1,135 208 19 2,533 Affordable Rent 147 113 178 82 520 Market 7,314 8,625 2,835 1,222 19,996 All Tenure 9798 11514 4480 1771 27,563 as a % of total 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Total Social Rented 26% 36% 28% 10% 100% Intermediate 46% 45% 8% 1% 100% Affordable Rent 28% 22% 34% 16% 100% Market 37% 43% 14% 6% 100% All Tenure 36% 42% 16% 6% 100% Source: London Development Database in Kensington and Chelsea (70%) and Barking and Dagenham (68%). Barking and Dagenham have the highest three year average at 54% 3.17 Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 23,164 homes, with social rented units accounting for 60% of these and intermediate products 36%. Affordable rent units are starting to appear in completions, accounting for just over 3%. ## Approvals 3.18 Annual approvals include all units in planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be for renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year. Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2013/14 approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by bedrooms. 3.19 Approvals have bounced back since the significant dip in 2012/13 which followed the introduction of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the end of 2011/12. The total of 55,407 is slightly below the average across the time series. The borough to approve the highest number of units is Hammersmith and Fulham thanks largely to the outline application for the redevelopment at Earls Court that proposes a net gain of 4,887 units. The next biggest scheme in terms of net units is another outline application for The Warren in Greenwich that proposes 2,032 units. Details of the units proposed for this scheme are vague and will be firmed up in subsequent applications. The outline permission or the redevelopment of the South Acton Estate was also approved in this year which proposes an initial 2,350 units to replace 1,851 existing homes. 3.20 In terms of tenure, 85% of approved units are for market sale or rent, leaving 15% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 4% Affordable Rent and 5% social rented. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association. 3.21 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table HPM 13 is 137 dph, an increase on last year's 127 dph. This is still significantly lower than the figure of over 165 dph for 2011/12. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest densities are in the City of London (431 dph) and Tower Hamlets (430 dph). The lowest is in Bromley which is just 29 dph, kept low by schemes for replacement dwellings on large sites that drag down the average. 3.22 Excluding the office to residential prior approvals, the density of approvals stands at 132 dph. ## Starts 3.23 In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year. 3.24 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 40,192 starts, a big increase on the 26,764 in the previous year. The low total in the previous year contradicted anecdotal evidence at the time that the construction sector was showing signs of recovery, so the relatively high level of starts recorded this year is welcome evidence the anticipated recovery has begun. The healthy number of units in the pipeline discussed below shows that the lack of new starts is not necessarily a major cause for concern. In terms of tenure, 20% of net starts in 2013/14 were affordable housing. The breakdown by tenure is affected by a number of large net losses of social rented housing as boroughs continue to redevelop existing estates, the replacement units being for intermediate or affordable rent. Consequently social rented units account for 1% of net starts, despite being the biggest single tenure in gross terms. 3.25 The majority of the units recorded as starts are 1 and 2 bed units, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 24% of starts (see HPM10). ## The Pipeline Of New Homes 3.26 The 'pipeline' of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are 'not started' and those that are 'under construction'. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above, the under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes. The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made. 3.27 Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 240,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver over 7½ years of supply at the target level in the 2011 London Plan and more than 5½ years at the higher target in the London Plan 2015. 3.28 Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline as of 31 March 2013. At the end of the year there were just under 130,000 units (net) which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started, as well as over 110,000 units (net) in schemes under construction. This is a big jump on the position at the same time in the previous year. The boroughs with the largest pipeline are mainly concentrated in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. Greenwich has a net pipeline of nearly 25,000 units, nearly 14,600 of which are in schemes that are classified as under construction. Newham's pipeline has grown to over 23,600, of which 5,700 are under construction. Tower Hamlets also have over 23,000 units in the pipeline of which over 10,000 are under construction. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of nearly 18,000 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a total pipeline of under 1,000 units. 3.29 HPM 12 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 22% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more. ## Gypsy And Traveller Sites 3.30 Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2013/14 no permissions relating to pitches for gypsies and travellers were either approved or completed. There are no permissions relating to gypsy and traveller pitches in the pipeline. \| Borough Name \| Lost \| Gained \| Net \| \|----------------------\|--------\|----------\|--------\| \| Barking and \| \| \| \| \| Dagenham \| \| \| \| \| 3 \| 871 \| 868 \| 1,041 \| \| Barnet \| 130 \| 1,139 \| 1,009 \| \| Bexley \| 17 \| 545 \| 528 \| \| Brent \| 107 \| 787 \| 680 \| \| Bromley \| 67 \| 672 \| 605 \| \| Camden \| 129 \| 604 \| 475 \| \| City of London \| 18 \| 447 \| 429 \| \| Croydon \| 124 \| 1,422 \| 1,298 \| \| Ealing \| 274 \| 1,043 \| 769 \| \| Enfield \| 200 \| 712 \| 512 \| \| Greenwich \| 39 \| 1,321 \| 1,282 \| \| Hackney \| 104 \| 1,224 \| 1,120 \| \| Hammersmith and \| \| \| \| \| Fulham \| \| \| \| \| 107 \| 649 \| 542 \| 564 \| \| Haringey \| 107 \| 561 \| 454 \| \| Harrow \| 54 \| 355 \| 301 \| \| Havering \| 17 \| 173 \| 156 \| \| Hillingdon \| 27 \| 586 \| 559 \| \| Hounslow \| 165 \| 1,000 \| 835 \| \| Islington \| 144 \| 1,388 \| 1,244 \| \| Kensington and \| \| \| \| \| Chelsea \| \| \| \| \| 164 \| 398 \| 234 \| 530 \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 40 \| 301 \| 261 \| \| Lambeth \| 204 \| 1,460 \| 1,256 \| \| Lewisham \| 90 \| 843 \| 753 \| \| Merton \| 72 \| 512 \| 440 \| \| Newham \| 73 \| 2,044 \| 1,971 \| \| Redbridge \| 48 \| 306 \| 258 \| \| Richmond upon \| \| \| \| \| Thames \| \| \| \| \| 88 \| 452 \| 364 \| 210 \| \| Southwark \| 76 \| 1,727 \| 1,651 \| \| Sutton \| 38 \| 378 \| 340 \| \| Tower Hamlets \| 10 \| 694 \| 684 \| \| Waltham Forest \| 351 \| 743 \| 392 \| \| Wandsworth \| 141 \| 1,327 \| 1,186 \| \| Westminster \| 323 \| 853 \| 530 \| \| London \| 3,551 \| 27,537 \| 23,986 \| Source: London Development Database London Plan 2011 benchmark Supply as % of benchmark Hackney 22 933 911 79 154 75 3 137 134 104 1,224 1,120 Croydon 30 1,110 1,080 78 211 133 16 101 85 124 1,422 1,298 Ealing 157 650 493 112 171 59 5 222 217 274 1,043 769 Enfield 153 535 382 32 63 31 15 114 99 200 712 512 Greenwich 32 1,286 1,254 7 16 9 0 19 19 39 1,321 1,282 City of London 14 353 339 4 16 12 0 78 78 18 447 429 Camden 71 437 366 55 58 3 3 109 106 129 604 475 Barnet 64 943 879 66 135 69 0 61 61 130 1,139 1,009 Bexley 9 478 469 8 28 20 0 39 39 17 545 528 Brent 28 679 651 77 80 3 2 28 26 107 787 680 Bromley 50 559 509 17 44 27 0 69 69 67 672 605 Barking and Dagenham 0 851 851 3 6 3 0 14 14 3 871 868 Borough Name Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net New Build Conversion Change of use Total Redbridge 12 207 195 29 63 34 7 36 29 48 306 258 Merton 41 437 396 30 44 14 1 31 30 72 512 440 Newham 11 1,899 1,888 55 111 56 7 34 27 73 2,044 1,971 Lambeth 65 1,070 1,005 135 279 144 4 111 107 204 1,460 1,256 Lewisham 42 697 655 40 81 41 8 65 57 90 843 753 Kingston upon Thames 28 226 198 12 22 10 0 53 53 40 301 261 Hounslow 115 842 727 45 88 43 5 70 65 165 1,000 835 Islington 87 1,138 1,051 52 151 99 5 99 94 144 1,388 1,244 Kensington and Chelsea 39 294 255 113 71 -42 12 33 21 164 398 234 Havering 13 159 146 4 10 6 0 4 4 17 173 156 Hillingdon 17 544 527 9 22 13 1 20 19 27 586 559 Harrow 13 184 171 41 98 57 0 73 73 54 355 301 Haringey 10 285 275 94 187 93 3 89 86 107 561 454 Hammersmith and Fulham 23 330 307 83 229 146 1 90 89 107 649 542 Source: London Development Database Southwark 34 1,579 1,545 37 64 27 5 84 79 76 1,727 1,651 Sutton 10 263 253 25 67 42 3 48 45 38 378 340 Tower Hamlets 6 652 646 4 12 8 0 30 30 10 694 684 Waltham Forest 291 591 300 60 128 68 0 24 24 351 743 392 Wandsworth 41 1,102 1,061 95 120 25 5 105 100 141 1,327 1,186 Westminster 99 407 308 196 144 -52 28 302 274 323 853 530 London 1643 22085 20442 1767 3022 1,255 141 2430 2,289 3551 27537 23,986 Richmond upon Thames 16 365 349 70 49 -21 2 38 36 88 452 364 Borough Name Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net New Build Conversion Change of use Total Rent Total Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Social Rent Int. Aff. Borough Name Table HPM 3: Net conventional affordable housing completions by tenure 2010/11 to 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham -36 149 0 167 76 0 370 17 201 944 Barnet 303 138 0 285 123 0 223 43 8 1123 Bexley 126 39 0 17 12 0 99 47 20 360 Brent 268 144 0 174 50 0 151 92 0 879 Bromley 204 10 0 129 13 0 62 30 0 448 Camden 37 25 0 194 105 0 159 29 13 562 City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 Croydon 308 54 0 255 98 62 57 59 63 956 Ealing 264 69 0 168 132 0 98 115 7 853 Enfield 55 24 0 106 137 0 123 41 0 486 Greenwich 257 159 0 74 13 0 450 217 12 1182 Hackney 247 183 0 378 184 13 305 146 0 1456 Hammersmith and Fulham 0 80 0 5 102 0 -11 101 0 277 Haringey 62 254 0 204 148 0 68 82 0 818 Harrow 62 189 0 187 95 28 10 23 0 594 Havering 154 23 0 90 32 0 51 1 5 356 Hillingdon 253 90 0 258 129 0 22 23 0 775 Hounslow 222 97 0 28 21 0 20 59 0 447 Islington 295 194 0 137 178 0 160 241 0 1205 Kensington and Chelsea 19 0 0 0 0 4 143 21 0 187 Kingston upon Thames 56 25 0 29 9 0 48 23 13 203 Lambeth 217 131 0 174 95 0 334 97 13 1061 Lewisham 272 197 0 257 265 70 103 49 0 1213 Merton 31 38 0 98 98 0 50 74 14 403 Newham 261 135 16 64 160 81 334 169 0 1220 Redbridge 20 34 0 44 8 0 1 1 0 108 Richmond upon Thames 44 35 0 118 49 0 81 28 0 355 Southwark 459 134 0 300 162 0 239 160 34 1488 Sutton 159 76 0 70 33 0 17 5 27 387 Rent Total Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Rent Int. Aff. 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Social Source: London Development Database Borough Name Tower Hamlets 547 167 0 172 102 0 73 31 0 1092 Waltham Forest 299 59 0 125 144 0 -234 147 90 630 Wandsworth 128 141 0 199 109 0 62 175 0 814 Westminster 31 40 0 97 28 0 9 37 0 242 London 5624 3133 16 4603 2910 258 3701 2383 520 23,148 net conventional supply, 2011/12 to 2013/14 borough Total net conventional affordable completions 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 113 243 588 30 48 68 Barnet 441 408 274 35 29 27 Bexley 165 29 166 55 7 31 Brent 412 224 243 74 34 36 Bromley 214 142 92 36 20 15 Camden 62 299 201 17 53 42 City of London 0 0 24 0 0 6 Croydon 362 415 179 51 46 14 Ealing 333 300 220 47 30 29 Enfield 79 243 164 26 44 32 Greenwich 416 87 679 27 41 53 Hackney 430 575 451 37 46 40 Hammersmith and Fulham 80 107 90 16 24 17 Haringey 316 352 150 46 58 33 Harrow 251 310 33 51 43 11 Havering 177 122 57 45 46 37 Hillingdon 343 387 45 34 26 8 Hounslow 319 49 79 54 21 9 Islington 489 315 401 41 30 32 Kensington and Chelsea 19 4 164 16 7 70 Kingston upon Thames 81 38 84 30 19 32 Lambeth 348 269 444 41 42 35 Lewisham 469 592 152 39 33 20 Merton 69 196 138 15 43 31 Newham 412 305 503 53 30 26 Redbridge 54 52 2 10 20 1 Richmond upon Thames 79 167 109 36 34 30 Southwark 593 462 433 55 43 26 Sutton 235 103 49 40 44 14 Tower Hamlets 714 274 104 62 26 15 Waltham Forest 358 269 3 72 57 1 Wandsworth 269 308 237 27 34 20 Westminster 71 125 46 9 21 9 London 8,773 7,771 6,604 39 35 28 Source: London Development Database Affordable as % of net conventional supply borough Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 251 160 337 123 53% Barnet 398 530 145 66 19% Bexley 186 211 103 45 27% Brent 259 333 136 59 25% Bromley 104 333 151 84 35% Camden 224 249 103 28 22% City of London 301 119 21 6 6% Croydon 534 760 84 44 9% Ealing 316 563 115 49 16% Enfield 260 315 102 35 19% Greenwich 384 661 230 46 21% Hackney 452 498 206 68 22% Hammersmith and Fulham 355 211 62 21 13% Haringey 280 190 59 32 16% Harrow 140 140 50 25 21% Havering 15 56 70 32 59% Hillingdon 111 213 220 42 45% Hounslow 441 411 108 40 15% Islington 652 583 100 53 11% Kensington and Chelsea 143 87 133 35 42% Kingston upon Thames 108 116 52 25 26% Lambeth 506 517 342 95 30% Lewisham 290 418 110 25 16% Merton 221 182 45 64 21% Newham 539 972 400 133 26% Redbridge 123 119 26 38 21% Richmond upon Thames 155 188 55 54 24% Southwark 683 667 313 64 22% Sutton 110 87 118 63 48% Tower Hamlets 198 432 61 3 9% Waltham Forest 286 311 80 66 20% Wandsworth 466 602 121 138 20% Westminster 307 280 197 69 31% London 9798 11514 4455 1770 23% Source: London Development Database completions by number of bedrooms 2013/14 borough Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 170 67 272 79 60% Barnet 100 99 74 18 32% Bexley 38 56 49 23 43% Brent 54 101 61 27 36% Bromley 4 60 27 1 30% Camden 90 70 33 8 20% City of London 20 4 0 0 0% Croydon 56 99 15 10 14% Ealing 99 180 41 16 17% Enfield 120 147 31 9 13% Greenwich 224 348 105 2 16% Hackney 148 181 89 43 29% Hammersmith and Fulham 59 32 27 0 23% Haringey 84 37 17 12 19% Harrow 12 16 5 0 15% Havering 8 9 22 18 70% Hillingdon 14 21 9 2 24% Hounslow 86 66 18 2 12% Islington 224 198 35 24 12% Kensington and Chelsea 93 13 59 3 37% Kingston upon Thames 19 29 31 5 43% Lambeth 132 153 163 36 41% Lewisham 40 108 29 17 24% Merton 82 27 15 39 33% Newham 99 218 110 76 37% Redbridge 1 0 0 1 50% Richmond upon Thames 36 52 21 1 20% Southwark 109 183 127 35 36% Sutton 16 12 24 0 46% Tower Hamlets 19 61 24 0 23% Waltham Forest 68 123 56 37 33% Wandsworth 127 85 15 0 7% Westminster 33 34 16 4 23% London 2484 2889 1620 548 29% Source: London Development Database Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing proposed net Net % affordable Market Social Barking and Dagenham 78 150 0 0 550 159 23 106 472 9 23 106 23% Table HPM 7: Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14 Borough Name Barnet 298 374 0 0 2,319 299 60 10 2,021 -75 60 10 -0% Bexley 18 141 0 0 453 236 70 0 435 95 70 0 28% Brent 104 0 0 0 1,234 151 101 57 1,130 151 101 57 21% Bromley 94 0 46 0 575 5 4 10 481 5 -42 10 -6% Camden 244 106 0 0 1,245 182 37 0 1,001 76 37 0 10% City of London 3 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 503 0 0 0 0% Croydon 109 16 0 0 2,961 95 104 227 2,852 79 104 227 13% Ealing 676 1,802 45 0 2,657 1,227 457 23 1,981 -575 412 23 -8% Enfield 131 117 0 0 989 31 217 191 858 -86 217 191 27% Greenwich 66 81 0 0 2,558 442 406 127 2,492 361 406 127 26% Hackney 261 9 0 0 1,857 164 222 43 1,596 155 222 43 21% Hammersmith and Fulham 346 615 0 0 5,914 1,211 300 31 5,568 596 300 31 14% Haringey 124 0 0 0 551 6 20 4 427 6 20 4 7% Harrow 75 0 0 0 1,405 28 0 0 1,330 28 0 0 2% Havering 29 0 0 0 617 8 38 180 588 8 38 180 28% Hillingdon 57 32 0 0 1,276 89 8 49 1,219 57 8 49 9% Hounslow 23 9 0 0 1,253 239 154 79 1,230 230 154 79 27% Islington 72 23 0 0 471 108 32 0 399 85 32 0 27% Kensington and Chelsea 259 11 0 0 1,454 76 79 12 1,195 65 79 12 12% Kingston upon Thames 49 36 1 0 362 41 0 1 313 5 -1 1 2% Lambeth 154 251 0 0 2,431 270 191 359 2,277 19 191 359 20% Lewisham 48 0 0 46 798 27 0 68 750 27 0 22 6% Merton 53 0 0 0 439 44 0 0 386 44 0 0 10% Newham 75 0 0 0 1,623 195 221 130 1,548 195 221 130 26% Redbridge 78 38 0 0 750 198 24 1 672 160 24 1 22% Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing proposed net Net % affordable Market Social Source: London Development Database Table HPM 7: Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14 Borough Name Richmond upon Thames 157 10 1 0 841 77 16 0 684 67 15 0 11% Southwark 93 314 0 0 3,409 577 307 15 3,316 263 307 15 15% Sutton 34 76 0 0 1,439 4 34 13 1,405 -72 34 13 -2% Tower Hamlets 46 189 0 0 2,690 654 308 160 2,644 465 308 160 26% Waltham Forest 59 0 0 0 1,195 0 199 377 1,136 0 199 377 34% Wandsworth 202 39 0 0 2,107 86 101 1 1,905 47 101 1 7% Westminster 555 2 0 0 2,675 44 118 39 2,120 42 118 39 9% London 4,670 4,441 93 46 51520 6973 3851 2313 46850 2532 3758 2267 15% \| \| \| \| borough \| Number of Bedrooms \| \|------------------------\|--------\|--------\|-----------\|----------------------\| \| 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4+ \| % 3+ \| \| Barking and Dagenham \| 209 \| 325 \| 167 \| 137 \| \| Barnet \| 817 \| 1,017 \| 551 \| 283 \| \| Bexley \| 194 \| 378 \| 138 \| 49 \| \| Brent \| 490 \| 616 \| 283 \| 154 \| \| Bromley \| 140 \| 245 \| 95 \| 114 \| \| Camden \| 497 \| 577 \| 287 \| 102 \| \| City of London \| 259 \| 198 \| 35 \| 14 \| \| Croydon \| 1,617 \| 1,363 \| 328 \| 79 \| \| Ealing \| 1,465 \| 1,873 \| 852 \| 174 \| \| Enfield \| 512 \| 493 \| 275 \| 143 \| \| Greenwich \| 1,609 \| 1,469 \| 423 \| 32 \| \| Hackney \| 1,013 \| 888 \| 403 \| 84 \| \| Hammersmith and \| \| \| \| \| \| Fulham \| \| \| \| \| \| 3,476 \| 2,261 \| 1,308 \| 411 \| 23% \| \| Haringey \| 239 \| 218 \| 74 \| 47 \| \| Harrow \| 615 \| 618 \| 116 \| 84 \| \| Havering \| 103 \| 389 \| 213 \| 124 \| \| Hillingdon \| 634 \| 610 \| 101 \| 77 \| \| Hounslow \| 818 \| 677 \| 162 \| 68 \| \| Islington \| 251 \| 241 \| 90 \| 29 \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| 516 \| 472 \| 330 \| 234 \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 177 \| 137 \| 38 \| 52 \| \| Lambeth \| 1,307 \| 1,305 \| 456 \| 180 \| \| Lewisham \| 392 \| 381 \| 91 \| 28 \| \| Merton \| 274 \| 126 \| 38 \| 45 \| \| Newham \| 716 \| 892 \| 475 \| 86 \| \| Redbridge \| 374 \| 421 \| 137 \| 41 \| \| Richmond upon Thames \| 382 \| 381 \| 70 \| 103 \| \| Southwark \| 1,534 \| 1,892 \| 786 \| 96 \| \| Sutton \| 597 \| 725 \| 118 \| 49 \| \| Tower Hamlets \| 1,583 \| 1,421 \| 650 \| 152 \| \| Waltham Forest \| 646 \| 785 \| 299 \| 41 \| \| Wandsworth \| 842 \| 929 \| 365 \| 156 \| \| Westminster \| 819 \| 1,011 \| 815 \| 229 \| \| London \| 25,117 \| 25,334 \| 10,569 \| 3,697 \| Source: London Development Database Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing Proposed Net % aff Borough Name Market Social Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 13 275 0 0 575 189 92 113 562 -86 92 113 17% Barnet 85 0 0 0 663 54 24 0 578 54 24 0 12% Bexley 35 602 0 0 691 7 168 408 656 -595 168 408 -3% Brent 62 32 0 0 4,089 853 833 125 4,027 821 833 125 31% Bromley 51 0 0 0 179 5 8 10 128 5 8 10 15% Camden 105 193 0 0 1,176 357 142 14 1,071 164 142 14 23% City of London 4 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0% Croydon 93 13 0 0 1,158 157 147 506 1,065 144 147 506 43% Ealing 550 1,686 0 0 1,966 1,081 399 43 1,416 -605 399 43 -13% Enfield 54 63 0 0 520 40 105 26 466 -23 105 26 19% Greenwich 9 2 0 0 1,677 260 169 63 1,668 258 169 63 23% Hackney 102 125 0 0 605 109 41 23 503 -16 41 23 9% Hammersmith and Fulham 138 32 0 0 2,074 22 519 49 1,936 -10 519 49 22% Haringey 116 0 0 0 608 32 155 139 492 32 155 139 40% Harrow 62 64 0 0 958 11 21 0 896 -53 21 0 -4% Havering 11 45 0 0 441 156 60 114 430 111 60 114 40% Hillingdon 22 1 0 0 242 0 12 0 220 -1 12 0 5% Hounslow 70 64 0 0 1,178 286 264 96 1,108 222 264 96 34% Islington 58 40 0 0 806 204 89 0 748 164 89 0 25% Kensington and Chelsea 197 3 0 0 661 120 55 5 464 117 55 5 28% Kingston upon Thames 27 0 0 0 163 22 0 0 136 22 0 0 14% Lambeth 166 61 0 0 1,969 149 197 151 1,803 88 197 151 19% Lewisham 48 67 0 0 1,471 327 177 35 1,423 260 177 35 25% Merton 53 47 0 0 316 74 0 14 263 27 0 14 13% Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing Proposed Net % aff Borough Name Market Social Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 Newham 86 0 0 0 2,026 67 226 127 1,940 67 226 127 18% Redbridge 66 37 0 0 198 108 4 1 132 71 4 1 37% Richmond upon Thames 80 10 0 0 200 16 0 0 120 6 0 0 5% Southwark 148 1,544 0 0 3,486 552 531 76 3,338 -992 531 76 -13% Sutton 47 20 0 0 229 45 3 0 182 25 3 0 13% Tower Hamlets 6 14 0 0 350 79 24 66 344 65 24 66 31% Waltham Forest 50 0 0 0 735 28 139 262 685 28 139 262 39% Wandsworth 134 41 39 0 1,688 121 283 137 1,554 80 244 137 23% Westminster 278 6 0 0 1,814 123 173 15 1,536 117 173 15 17% London 3,026 5,087 39 0 35012 5654 5060 2618 31986 567 5021 2618 20% Source: London Development Database borough Number of Bedrooms \| \| 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4+ \| % 3+ \| \|------------------------\|--------\|--------\|-------\|-------\|--------\| \| Barking and Dagenham \| 322 \| 426 \| 191 \| 30 \| 23% \| \| Barnet \| 220 \| 308 \| 130 \| 83 \| 29% \| \| Bexley \| 205 \| 626 \| 238 \| 205 \| 35% \| \| Brent \| 1,961 \| 2,585 \| 1,204 \| 150 \| 23% \| \| Bromley \| 33 \| 81 \| 52 \| 36 \| 44% \| \| Camden \| 583 \| 764 \| 273 \| 69 \| 20% \| \| City of London \| 26 \| 45 \| 15 \| 14 \| 29% \| \| Croydon \| 770 \| 953 \| 160 \| 85 \| 12% \| \| Ealing \| 1,112 \| 1,432 \| 789 \| 156 \| 27% \| \| Enfield \| 157 \| 263 \| 184 \| 87 \| 39% \| \| Greenwich \| 1,299 \| 616 \| 225 \| 29 \| 12% \| \| Hackney \| 323 \| 274 \| 124 \| 57 \| 23% \| \| Hammersmith and Fulham \| 1,049 \| 1,175 \| 333 \| 107 \| 17% \| \| Haringey \| 346 \| 397 \| 134 \| 57 \| 20% \| \| Harrow \| 289 \| 544 \| 137 \| 20 \| 16% \| \| Havering \| 111 \| 375 \| 223 \| 62 \| 37% \| \| Hillingdon \| 86 \| 128 \| 18 \| 22 \| 16% \| \| Hounslow \| 530 \| 752 \| 445 \| 97 \| 30% \| \| Islington \| 409 \| 482 \| 163 \| 45 \| 19% \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| 259 \| 298 \| 199 \| 85 \| 34% \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 90 \| 49 \| 17 \| 29 \| 25% \| \| Lambeth \| 922 \| 1,073 \| 349 \| 122 \| 19% \| \| Lewisham \| 626 \| 1,047 \| 293 \| 44 \| 17% \| \| Merton \| 156 \| 156 \| 46 \| 46 \| 23% \| \| Newham \| 978 \| 741 \| 634 \| 93 \| 30% \| \| Redbridge \| 110 \| 89 \| 77 \| 35 \| 36% \| \| Richmond upon Thames \| 98 \| 59 \| 18 \| 41 \| 27% \| \| Southwark \| 1,191 \| 1,871 \| 1,233 \| 350 \| 34% \| \| Sutton \| 103 \| 100 \| 49 \| 25 \| 27% \| \| Tower Hamlets \| 199 \| 252 \| 58 \| 10 \| 13% \| \| Waltham Forest \| 310 \| 573 \| 214 \| 67 \| 24% \| \| Wandsworth \| 671 \| 1,174 \| 270 \| 114 \| 17% \| \| Westminster \| 697 \| 707 \| 599 \| 122 \| 34% \| \| London \| 16,241 \| 20,415 \| 9,094 \| 2,594 \| 24% \| Source: London Development Database Not Started Under construction Total pipeline Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 Borough Name Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Barking and Dagenham 230 2295 2065 602 11832 11230 832 14127 13295 Barnet 1152 13092 11940 2302 6644 4342 3454 19736 16282 Bexley 166 1064 898 651 1901 1250 817 2965 2148 Brent 405 1876 1471 105 6855 6750 510 8731 8221 Bromley 303 1498 1195 320 979 659 623 2477 1854 Camden 517 1901 1384 618 3686 3068 1135 5587 4452 City of London 5 595 590 3 378 375 8 973 965 Croydon 180 4791 4611 75 2892 2817 255 7683 7428 Ealing 461 5322 4861 3197 5070 1873 3658 10392 6734 Enfield 235 1609 1374 102 753 651 337 2362 2025 Greenwich 233 10436 10203 1942 16594 14652 2175 27030 24855 Hackney 692 3706 3014 2224 6342 4118 2916 10048 7132 Hammersmith and Fulham 916 8672 7756 127 4329 4202 1043 13001 11958 Haringey 150 2368 2218 94 1115 1021 244 3483 3239 Harrow 139 2951 2812 398 1241 843 537 4192 3655 Havering 469 2001 1532 336 2277 1941 805 4278 3473 Hillingdon 153 1989 1836 84 2683 2599 237 4672 4435 Hounslow 46 1774 1728 163 2447 2284 209 4221 4012 Islington 98 1389 1291 358 2627 2269 456 4016 3560 Kensington and Chelsea 228 2089 1861 892 3139 2247 1120 5228 4108 Kingston upon Thames 121 523 402 25 663 638 146 1186 1040 Lambeth 554 3134 2580 1926 5734 3808 2480 8868 6388 Lewisham 891 6507 5616 108 3424 3316 999 9931 8932 Merton 95 564 469 194 855 661 289 1419 1130 Newham 99 18021 17922 286 5999 5713 385 24020 23635 Redbridge 81 923 842 93 543 450 174 1466 1292 Richmond upon Thames 168 1072 904 110 404 294 278 1476 1198 Southwark 440 5026 4586 1923 8205 6282 2363 13231 10868 Not Started Under construction Total pipeline Source: London Development Database Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 Borough Name Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Sutton 142 2515 2373 683 666 -17 825 3181 2356 Tower Hamlets 1069 13664 12595 1197 11361 10164 2266 25025 22759 Waltham Forest 66 2257 2191 26 1231 1205 92 3488 3396 Wandsworth 195 11532 11337 554 6786 6232 749 18318 17569 Westminster 715 3394 2679 429 4339 3910 1144 7733 6589 London 11414 140550 129136 22147 133994 111847 33561 274544 240,983 borough Number of Bedrooms \| \| 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4+ \| % 3+ \| \|------------------------\|-------\|--------\|-------\|-------\|--------\| \| Barking and Dagenham \| 2334 \| 6459 \| 3856 \| 1478 \| 38% \| \| Barnet \| 5632 \| 8297 \| 2776 \| 1208 \| 22% \| \| Bexley \| 631 \| 1575 \| 488 \| 271 \| 26% \| \| Brent \| 2931 \| 3824 \| 1615 \| 361 \| 23% \| \| Bromley \| 630 \| 1129 \| 349 \| 369 \| 29% \| \| Camden \| 1989 \| 2203 \| 944 \| 450 \| 25% \| \| City of London \| 465 \| 397 \| 72 \| 39 \| 11% \| \| Croydon \| 3423 \| 3403 \| 659 \| 198 \| 11% \| \| Ealing \| 3079 \| 4560 \| 2118 \| 635 \| 26% \| \| Enfield \| 675 \| 863 \| 544 \| 275 \| 35% \| \| Greenwich \| 10376 \| 10729 \| 4661 \| 494 \| 20% \| \| Hackney \| 3649 \| 3624 \| 2127 \| 648 \| 28% \| \| Hammersmith and \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Fulham \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 5509 \| 4696 \| 2150 \| 646 \| 22% \| \| \| Haringey \| 1961 \| 1021 \| 321 \| 165 \| 14% \| \| Harrow \| 1322 \| 1864 \| 568 \| 438 \| 24% \| \| Havering \| 1131 \| 1924 \| 836 \| 373 \| 28% \| \| Hillingdon \| 1462 \| 2005 \| 615 \| 590 \| 26% \| \| Hounslow \| 1518 \| 1705 \| 823 \| 175 \| 24% \| \| Islington \| 1707 \| 1706 \| 464 \| 139 \| 15% \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| 1653 \| 1950 \| 1049 \| 507 \| 31% \| \| Kingston upon Thames \| 466 \| 466 \| 135 \| 119 \| 21% \| \| Lambeth \| 3137 \| 4113 \| 1244 \| 371 \| 18% \| \| Lewisham \| 3490 \| 4951 \| 1142 \| 347 \| 15% \| \| Merton \| 605 \| 459 \| 162 \| 193 \| 25% \| \| Newham \| 5986 \| 7292 \| 3295 \| 638 \| 23% \| \| Redbridge \| 643 \| 563 \| 175 \| 85 \| 18% \| \| Richmond upon Thames \| 580 \| 615 \| 118 \| 163 \| 19% \| \| Southwark \| 4360 \| 5659 \| 2641 \| 571 \| 24% \| \| Sutton \| 1087 \| 1444 \| 474 \| 175 \| 20% \| \| Tower Hamlets \| 10620 \| 9271 \| 4013 \| 1113 \| 20% \| \| Waltham Forest \| 1093 \| 1650 \| 603 \| 142 \| 21% \| \| Wandsworth \| 5365 \| 9113 \| 2942 \| 895 \| 21% \| \| Westminster \| 2155 \| 2710 \| 2299 \| 567 \| 37% \| \| London \| 91664 \| 112240 \| 46278 \| 14838 \| 23% \| Source: London Development Database Note: The table excludes units where the bedroom data is not known. Table HPM 13: Density of residential approvals by borough (dph) Borough 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 80 130 273 126 67 71 Barnet 112 102 100 70 65 71 Bexley 110 83 80 101 64 77 Brent 133 182 185 146 134 147 Bromley 36 49 52 35 40 29 Camden 136 140 140 181 188 128 City of London 329 235 457 469 452 431 Croydon 131 97 141 167 102 165 Ealing 162 153 144 112 103 120 Enfield 65 72 61 61 91 75 Greenwich 211 145 337 239 233 222 Hackney 200 244 206 235 189 242 Hammersmith and Fulham 187 300 180 243 218 390 Haringey 96 107 116 214 156 105 Harrow 62 83 62 84 91 61 Havering 55 99 121 53 53 46 Hillingdon 91 39 57 70 60 55 Hounslow 159 61 75 124 67 137 Islington 243 271 293 285 193 199 Kensington and Chelsea 132 193 225 192 170 144 Kingston upon Thames 75 64 64 50 33 58 Lambeth 130 195 183 168 226 214 Lewisham 166 229 133 230 128 137 Merton 80 69 65 75 51 78 Newham 368 266 398 465 127 149 Redbridge 87 373 158 108 71 99 Richmond upon Thames 58 46 106 71 51 89 Southwark 334 230 224 208 372 283 Sutton 101 58 57 106 56 146 Tower Hamlets 303 362 318 487 224 430 Waltham Forest 132 121 111 144 128 140 Wandsworth 168 142 206 290 194 162 Westminster 155 199 206 219 196 177 London 138 153 136 165 127 137 Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare Table HPM 14: Density of residential completions by borough (dph) Borough 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 139 238 111 50 166 152 Barnet 98 64 84 80 101 87 Bexley 76 81 65 70 98 62 Brent 145 150 156 141 134 130 Bromley 35 30 49 46 48 32 Camden 229 187 196 119 194 180 City of London 505 500 306 857 376 808 Croydon 98 121 101 75 82 77 Ealing 159 110 112 103 101 121 Enfield 68 61 86 59 73 98 Greenwich 122 110 239 217 99 104 Hackney 223 245 198 223 223 237 Hammersmith and Fulham 207 209 232 283 157 235 Haringey 159 108 106 118 106 110 Harrow 71 116 79 60 93 83 Havering 71 72 53 63 50 30 Hillingdon 60 94 44 25 96 56 Hounslow 119 184 94 78 51 115 Islington 285 199 187 297 207 214 Kensington and Chelsea 173 126 194 153 157 112 Kingston upon Thames 49 45 52 90 68 54 Lambeth 172 157 290 167 158 192 Lewisham 136 188 164 160 140 174 Merton 47 67 101 78 132 96 Newham 267 240 216 166 253 242 Redbridge 110 100 217 173 84 84 Richmond upon Thames 83 71 53 59 89 98 Southwark 220 226 373 213 164 190 Sutton 88 66 66 79 97 50 Tower Hamlets 313 354 363 284 258 316 Waltham Forest 131 118 169 125 133 114 Wandsworth 172 165 104 125 149 112 Westminster 274 260 142 195 208 216 London 127 136 130 111 120 118 Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare Table HPM 15: class j prior approvals by number of bedrooms 2013/14 Borough number of bedrooms Percentage 1 2 3 4+ % 1 % 2 % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 25 24 0 0 51% 49% 0% Barnet 348 220 58 2 55% 35% 10% Bexley 0 3 0 0 0% 100% 0% Brent 101 128 13 1 42% 53% 6% Bromley 44 87 3 1 33% 64% 3% Camden 137 82 20 17 54% 32% 14% City of London n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Croydon 800 447 16 0 63% 35% 1% Ealing 81 24 7 0 72% 21% 6% Enfield 180 32 6 0 83% 15% 3% Greenwich 7 4 0 0 64% 36% 0% Hackney 15 2 1 0 83% 11% 6% Hammersmith and Fulham 81 56 12 3 53% 37% 10% Haringey 43 23 4 0 61% 33% 6% Harrow 355 234 5 0 60% 39% 1% Havering 5 3 0 0 63% 38% 0% Hillingdon 161 66 6 0 69% 28% 3% Hounslow 406 137 12 1 73% 25% 2% Islington 47 25 10 2 56% 30% 14% Kensington and Chelsea n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kingston upon Thames 139 94 5 0 58% 39% 2% Lambeth 155 93 4 9 59% 36% 5% Lewisham 68 73 2 0 48% 51% 1% Merton 201 62 5 0 75% 23% 2% Newham 13 3 0 0 81% 19% 0% Redbridge 101 56 0 0 64% 36% 0% Richmond upon Thames 254 179 21 7 55% 39% 6% Southwark 71 16 2 0 80% 18% 2% Sutton 227 200 6 0 52% 46% 1% Tower Hamlets 36 14 7 0 63% 25% 12% Waltham Forest 73 30 0 0 71% 29% 0% Wandsworth 170 90 13 0 62% 33% 5% Westminster 6 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% London 4,350 2,507 238 43 61% 35% 4% Source: London Development Database ## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor 3.31 The measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor's London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is typically higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor. 3.32 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government2. DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level. 3.33 These statistics are compiled from a range of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases. 3.34 Table AHM2 shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2010/11 to 2013/14. Over this period a total of 49,150 affordable homes were delivered, of which 28,900 were social rented housing, 17,580 were intermediate housing and 2,660 were for affordable rent. 3.35 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at 17,150 in 1995/96, fell to 8,270 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,220 in 2011/12 before falling again to 8,701 in 2013/14 and 9,210 in 2013/14. 3.36 Table AHM3 shows delivery of social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing by London borough in 2013/14. The borough with the highest affordable housing delivery by this definition in 2013/14 was Newham with 1,350, followed by Tower Hamlets (880) and Greenwich (640). As with conventional supply, there was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing. ## Intermediate Housing 3.37 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2015 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is submarket housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £71,000. This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (from 2014) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £66,000 in AMR 10. 3.38 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out a higher intermediate housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. The upper threshold for intermediate family housing can therefore be updated by adding 20% to the general threshold of £71,000 and rounding for a figure of £85,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements. 3.39 For dwellings to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income, based on the household income limits set out above. Further guidance will be provided in the forthcoming Housing SPG. 3.40 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £46,250 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,500 (updated from AMR 10 in line with RPI) and £71,000). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,079 a month or £249 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes. 3.41 These intermediate income caps £71,000 for most households increased to £85,000 for families accessing family sided (3 bed or more accommodation) are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products. ## Local Affordable Housing Policies 3.42 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) in paragraph 50 requires boroughs, which have identified a need for affordable housing, to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 (17,000 in 2015 London Plan) affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table AHM1 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies. \| BOROUGH \| BOROUGH POLICY \| \|----------------------------\|-------------------\| \| TARGET IN 2010 \| \| \| BOROUGH \| \| \| POLICY \| \| \| TARGET \| \| \| % (OR \| \| \| PRACTICE) \| \| \| AS AT 2002 \| \| \| Barking & \| \| \| Dagenham \| \| \| None \| \| \| None, use London \| \| \| Plan \| \| \| Use London Plan Policy \| n/a \| \| Barnet \| 30 \| \| Bexley \| 25 \| \| 50% and a minimum of 35% \| \| \| of units to be affordable \| \| \| housing (Feb 2012) \| \| \| n/a \| \| \| Brent \| 30-50 \| \| Bromley \| 20 \| \| Camden \| \| \| 50 \| \| \| Proposed \| \| \| 50% for >50 \| \| \| dwellings, \| \| \| 10-50% for >10 \| \| \| (or 1,000sqm) <50 \| \| \| dwellings \| \| \| City of \| \| \| London \| \| \| None \| \| \| None, use London \| \| \| Plan \| \| \| 30% on-site; 60% off-site \| \| \| (Jan 2015) \| n/a \| \| Croydon \| 40 \| \| Ealing \| 50 \| \| Enfield \| 25 \| \| Greenwich \| 35 \| \| 35% minimum onsite for 10 \| \| \| or more homes or sites 0.5 \| \| \| ha or more (July 2014) \| \| \| n/a \| \| \| Hackney \| 25 \| \| Hammersmith \| \| \| & Fulham \| \| \| 65 \| 50% \| \| Haringey \| 30 \| \| 50% Affordable \| \| \| Harrow \| 30 \| \| Havering \| None \| \| Hillingdon \| 25 \| \| Hounslow \| 50 \| \| Islington \| 25 \| \| Kensington & \| \| \| Chelsea \| \| \| 33 \| \| \| Min of 200 units per \| \| \| an from 2011/12 \| \| \| with site specific \| \| \| policy of 50% \| \| \| affordable by floor \| \| \| area \| \| \| ADOPTED BOROUGH \| \| \| POLICY TARGET \| \| \| AS AT DECEMBER \| \| \| 2014 (NUMERICAL / \| \| \| PERCENTAGE) \| \| \| EMERGING \| \| \| BOROUGH \| \| \| POLICY \| \| \| TARGET \| \| \| 50% for >50 dwellings, \| \| \| 10-50% for <50 dwellings \| \| \| (Nov 2010) \| \| \| 50% for ≥ 30 \| \| \| dwellings, \| \| \| 10-50% in 2% \| \| \| increments for \| \| \| each additional \| \| \| dwelling \| \| \| between 10 (or \| \| \| 1,000sqm) and \| \| \| 30 dwellings. \| \| \| Housing on site (March \| \| \| 2013) \| \| \| 40% \| \| \| 50% (Dec 2010) or \| \| \| "maximum reasonable \| \| \| amount" \| \| \| n/a \| \| \| BOROUGH \| BOROUGH POLICY \| \|-----------------------------\|-------------------\| \| TARGET IN 2010 \| \| \| BOROUGH \| \| \| POLICY \| \| \| TARGET \| \| \| % (OR \| \| \| PRACTICE) \| \| \| AS AT 2002 \| \| \| Kingston \| \| \| upon Thames \| \| \| 50 \| 35% \| \| Lambeth \| 35-50 \| \| 40% (50% with \| \| \| grant) \| \| \| 40% (50% with grant) (Jan \| \| \| 2011) \| \| \| 50% when \| \| \| public subsidy, \| \| \| 40% without \| \| \| Lewisham \| \| \| An element \| \| \| 35% \| 50% (June 2011) \| \| London \| \| \| Legacy \| \| \| Development \| \| \| Corporation \| \| \| Merton \| 30 \| \| Newham \| 25 \| \| Redbridge \| 25 \| \| Richmond \| \| \| upon Thames \| \| \| 50 \| 50% \| \| reasonable (2011) \| \| \| n/a \| \| \| Southwark \| 25 \| \| 50% overall (40% \| \| \| in CAZ, 35% in E&C \| \| \| and suburban zones) \| \| \| Sutton \| 25 \| \| Tower \| \| \| Hamlets \| \| \| 50% overall, 35-50% \| \| \| on individual sites \| \| \| 50% overall (2010) Equates \| \| \| to approx. 1,965 units \| \| \| annually (London Plan \| \| \| target) \| \| \| Adopted \| \| \| UDP 1998 \| \| \| = 25% \| \| \| Interim \| \| \| Planning \| \| \| Guidance - \| \| \| 35-50% \| \| \| Waltham \| \| \| Forest \| \| \| 40 \| 50% \| \| To provide at least 50% \| \| \| (5,700 homes) of homes \| \| \| as affordable over the plan \| \| \| period \| \| \| n/a \| \| \| Wandsworth \| None \| \| Min 373 units per an \| \| \| (to be reviewed on \| \| \| adoption of the LP) \| \| \| Currently being \| \| \| reviewed (on \| \| \| individual sites \| \| \| at least 33%) \| \| \| Westminster \| - \| ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2014 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET Maximising with 35% target Maximum reasonable amount Currently being reviewed 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) (April 2011) On individual sites a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable (Oct 2010) \| 2010/11 \| 2011/12 \| 2012/13 \| 2013/14 \| Total \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------\|-----------\|-----------\|---------\| \| Table AHM 2: Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2010/11 to \| \| \| \| \| \| 2013/14 \| \| \| \| \| \| Affordable housing delivery \| \| \| \| \| \| type \| \| \| \| \| \| Social Rent, of which: \| 8,890 \| 11,370 \| 5,060 \| 3,580 \| \| GLA (new build) \| 5,810 \| 9,070 \| 4,470 \| 2,960 \| \| GLA (acquisitions) \| 2,080 \| 810 \| 160 \| 80 \| \| Affordable Housing Guarantees \| 50 \| 50 \| \| \| \| HCA or GLA Schemes \| 230 \| 420 \| 0 \| 40 \| \| Local authorities \| 510 \| 600 \| 120 \| 150 \| \| of which HCA grant funded (new \| \| \| \| \| \| build) \| \| \| \| \| \| 260 \| 500 \| 100 \| 110 \| 970 \| \| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total \| 150 \| 220 \| 100 \| 90 \| \| of which, reported on IMS/PCS \| 90 \| 80 \| 50 \| 30 \| \| Private Finance Initiative \| 120 \| 160 \| 90 \| 0 \| \| Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches \| 0 \| 20 \| 0 \| 0 \| \| Other \| 90 \| 120 \| 210 \| 420 \| \| Affordable Rent, of which: \| 130 \| 280 \| 2,250 \| 2,660 \| \| GLA (new build) \| 90 \| 200 \| 1,390 \| 1,680 \| \| GLA (acquisitions) \| 50 \| 80 \| 380 \| 510 \| \| Affordable Housing Guarantees \| 50 \| 50 \| \| \| \| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total \| 0 \| 0 \| 20 \| 20 \| \| of which, reported on IMS/PCS \| 0 \| 0 \| 20 \| 20 \| \| Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches \| 10 \| 10 \| \| \| \| Local authorities \| 0 \| 380 \| 380 \| \| \| Other \| 10 \| 20 \| 30 \| \| \| Intermediate Affordable Housing \| 5,120 \| 5,710 \| 3,360 \| 3,390 \| \| Intermediate Rent, of which: \| 1,350 \| 890 \| 380 \| 490 \| \| GLA (new build) \| 1,210 \| 760 \| 330 \| 440 \| \| GLA (acquisitions) \| 140 \| 30 \| 10 \| 0 \| \| Other \| . \| 110 \| 40 \| 50 \| \| Affordable Home Ownership, of \| \| \| \| \| \| which: \| \| \| \| \| \| 3,770 \| 4,820 \| 2,980 \| 2,900 \| 14,470 \| \| GLA (new build) \| 2,790 \| 4,190 \| 2,580 \| 2,290 \| \| of which, FirstBuy \| 290 \| 600 \| 20 \| 910 \| \| GLA (acquisitions) \| 80 \| 100 \| 30 \| 90 \| \| Affordable Housing Guarantees \| 190 \| \| \| \| \| Other Homes and Communities Agency \| \| \| \| \| \| Schemes \| \| \| \| \| \| 20 \| 0 \| 20 \| \| \| \| Local authorities \| 10 \| 10 \| 20 \| 40 \| \| Section 106 (nil grant) new build - \| \| \| \| \| \| total \| \| \| \| \| \| 300 \| 210 \| 250 \| 190 \| 950 \| \| of which, reported on IMS/PCS \| 260 \| 100 \| 120 \| 190 \| \| Assisted Purchase Schemes \| 610 \| 280 \| 110 \| 120 \| \| Other \| 20 \| 0 \| 0 \| 20 \| \| All affordable \| 14,010 \| 17,220 \| 8,710 \| 9,210 \| See DCLG live table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions. Figures for some previous years have been revised. Table AHM 3: Affordable delivery in London by tenure, 2013/14 Borough Social rent Affordable Rent Barking and Dagenham 120 360 20 500 Barnet 170 90 130 390 Bexley 20 20 50 90 Brent 40 130 110 280 Bromley 10 30 20 60 Camden 130 40 40 210 City of London 20 0 0 20 Croydon 0 230 120 350 Ealing 70 100 130 300 Enfield 0 60 60 130 Greenwich 370 90 190 640 Hackney 360 60 130 550 Hammersmith and Fulham 40 10 140 180 Haringey 40 30 80 150 Harrow 30 20 30 70 Havering 10 180 80 260 Hillingdon 0 100 30 120 Hounslow 60 60 160 270 Islington 140 0 180 330 Kensington and Chelsea 110 0 10 130 Kingston upon Thames 0 60 40 90 Lambeth 120 60 70 260 Lewisham 120 50 70 240 Merton 80 20 30 120 Newham 700 20 640 1,350 Redbridge 0 0 10 10 Richmond upon Thames 0 40 10 50 Southwark 260 70 220 560 Sutton 30 20 30 90 Tower Hamlets 440 190 260 880 Waltham Forest 0 110 80 190 Wandsworth 40 10 200 260 Westminster 50 10 40 100 London 3,580 2,250 3,390 9,210 Source: DCLG Intermediate Total ## Achieving An Inclusive Environment 3.43 The LDD has been collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http:// www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at https:// www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/ publications/accessible-london-achievingan-inclusive-environment. The figures in the table are 'gross' approvals and calculated at scheme level. so units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor. 3.44 Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes for which 100% compliance is a more achievable goal. 3.45 The data in Table 3.5 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all approvals is 75%, down from 85% in 2012/13. The total rises to 93% for new builds. 8.0% of all homes, and 10.2% of new builds are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. 3.46 Despite these standards now being accepted as the norm in London, the achievement of London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains out of reach in terms of all units. One of the key reasons is that several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more, even on new build schemes. The inclusion of applications for change of use from office to residential via permitted development has also affected the level of compliance for non-new build schemes. The streamlined application process does not require applicants to provide details of compliance with these standards or permit local authorities to require it. In the absence of better information, these Class J prior approvals have been assumed to not comply. If these consents are excluded, the % compliance is comparable with the previous year. Accessible Homes standards for Residential units approved during FY2013/14 Borough Name % Lifetime homes, all units % Wheel- Chair Homes, all units Barking and Dagenham 91.6 8.0 99.9 8.5 Barnet 61.8 5.6 92.5 8.5 Bexley 82.3 14.1 91.8 15.7 Brent 75.0 13.6 98.1 17.6 Bromley 17.4 1.1 21.1 2.3 Camden 55.7 5.4 95.5 9.2 City of London 87.2 8.1 99.7 9.9 Croydon 44.6 7.2 86.3 13.6 Ealing 92.5 9.0 97.6 9.6 Enfield 79.4 8.7 98.7 10.9 Greenwich 98.9 10.0 99.9 10.2 Hackney 69.5 8.5 87.0 10.4 Hammersmith and Fulham 90.8 9.4 93.8 10.6 Haringey 39.9 1.7 78.8 4.4 Harrow 53.5 8.0 97.7 14.0 Havering 66.4 13.2 69.4 14.3 Hillingdon 82.8 8.6 99.5 10.9 Hounslow 52.8 7.0 82.6 11.3 Islington 58.8 4.9 96.6 8.1 Kensington and Chelsea 81.0 11.5 91.7 12.9 Kingston upon Thames 30.9 4.2 100.0 14.8 Lambeth 74.0 6.9 92.8 8.4 Lewisham 69.2 5.5 93.9 7.5 Merton 34.6 1.2 98.7 3.9 Newham 91.7 8.7 97.4 9.3 Redbridge 79.9 5.5 95.2 7.3 Richmond upon Thames 29.3 1.0 82.7 3.2 Southwark 91.0 8.8 97.1 9.4 Sutton 55.2 9.1 91.2 18.0 Tower Hamlets 94.1 9.5 97.7 10.0 Waltham Forest 82.0 6.9 96.1 8.2 Wandsworth 65.0 7.2 87.3 9.0 Westminster 42.0 4.4 75.6 7.4 London 74.7 8.0 93.2 10.2 Source: London Development Database % Lifetime homes, new build % WHeelchair homes, new build ## Environment And Transport Ptal Map 3.47 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2014 PTAL map (map 6) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL. ## Crossrail Funding 3.48 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £600m from developer contributions via both S106 contributions related to the Crossrail funding SPG and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Mayor's CIL came into effect from April 2012 and it raises funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail. The CIL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses. In April 2013 the Mayor published the updated "Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy" SPG. 3.49 Table 3.6 shows funding secured for Crossrail to date from each funding stream. The CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CIL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 3.6A. It is not possible to link CIL to a specific type of expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding Account (SFA), which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project's requirements. The amount of CIL 'in hand' is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis. Net of CIL administration costs. \| S106 \| Year \| CiL \| \|---------\|----------\|--------\| \| 0.24 \| \| \| \| 2010/11 \| 0 \| \| \| 1.43 \| \| \| \| 2011/12 \| 0 \| \| \| 17.20 \| \| \| \| 2012/13 \| 6.03 \| \| \| 13.31 \| 2013/14 \| 46.20 \| \| 8.03 \| 2014/15 \| 54.75 \| \| \| 2015/16 \| \| \| \| 2016/17 \| \| \| \| 2017/18 \| \| \| \| 2018/19 \| \| \| \| 2019/20 \| \| \| 40.21 \| Total \| 106.98 \| \| Category \| £ \| \|-----------------------------\|-----\| \| Total CIL Expenditure \| \| \| 106,990,843# \| \| \| Amount used to repay \| \| \| borrowing \| \| \| 0 \| \| \| Amount spent (2014/15) \| \| \| on administration by TfL/ \| \| \| GLA (1%) \| \| \| 580,508# \| \| \| Amount spent (2014/15) \| \| \| on administration by \| \| \| collecting authorities (4%) \| \| \| \| \| \| 2,290,783# \| \| \| Amount of CIL 'in-hand' \| 0 \| * figures for 2014/15 are based on actual income up to the end of December 2014. # figures correct to the end of December 2014 Source: Transport for London ## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations 3.50 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) First Review was published in August 2014 and suggests some changes to the recommendations. It now contains 14 recommendations - progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at Febuary 2015. ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations \| No. \| Recommendation \| \|------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------\| \| 1 \| All Thames-side planning authorities \| \| should consider in their SFRAs and put \| \| \| in place Local Plan policies to promote \| \| \| the setting back of development from \| \| \| the edge of the Thames and tidal \| \| \| tributaries to enable sustainable and \| \| \| cost effective upgrade of river walls/ \| \| \| embankments in line with Policy 5.12, \| \| \| CFMPs, TE2100 and advice from the \| \| \| Environment Agency. \| \| \| 2 \| The London Boroughs of Richmond, \| \| Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth \| \| \| should put in place policies to ensure \| \| \| alternative responses to managing \| \| \| fluvial risk such as flood resilience \| \| \| measures (e.g. flood gates) or \| \| \| potentially safeguarding land for \| \| \| future flood storage or, on the fluvial \| \| \| tributaries, setting back local defences \| \| \| or any resilience measures between \| \| \| Teddington Lock and Hammersmith \| \| \| Bridge in line with TE2100 findings. \| \| \| LB Hounslow has a policy in its Local Plan, \| \| \| now at examination stage, which supports \| \| \| flood resilience, making space for water and \| \| \| specifically references to TE2100. \| \| \| LBs Richmond, Kingston, and Wandsworth \| \| \| have policies in their Local Plans to address \| \| \| flood risk management from all sources. \| \| \| Wandsworth's policy in particular ensures that \| \| \| developments take into account the ability \| \| \| to implement future improvements to flood \| \| \| defences, in accordance with the TE2100 \| \| \| Plan. \| \| \| 3 \| The London Boroughs of Newham \| \| and Greenwich should work with the \| \| \| Environment Agency on issues such as \| \| \| the potential safeguarding of potential \| \| \| land needs around the existing Thames \| \| \| Barrier, and the London Borough \| \| \| of Bexley should work with the \| \| \| Environment Agency on future flood \| \| \| risk management options in line with \| \| \| TE2100 findings. \| \| ## Future Monitoring Of Suds 1.51 The potential benefits and feasibility of monitoring the implementation of SUDS is being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. This will be explored further in cooperation with the Environment Agency. Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. RB Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan policies in place to ensure the potential safeguarding of land needs around the existing Thames Barrier. LB Newham and LB Bexley are both working with the Environment Agency to update the flood risk policies in their emerging Local Plans, including TE2100 Plan requirements. ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations \| Recommendation \| \|-------------------------------------------------\| \| No. \| \| 4 \| \| Boroughs at confluences of tributary \| \| rivers with the River Thames should \| \| ensure Flood Risk Assessments \| \| (FRAs) include an assessment of the \| \| interaction of all forms of flooding, but \| \| fluvial and tidal flood risks in particular. \| \| These are the London Boroughs of \| \| Havering, Barking & Dagenham, \| \| Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, \| \| Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, \| \| Richmond and Kingston. \| \| 5 \| \| Regeneration and redevelopment of \| \| London's fluvial river corridors offer \| \| a crucial opportunity to reduce flood \| \| risk. SFRAs and policies should focus \| \| on making the most of this opportunity \| \| through appropriate location, layout \| \| and design of development as set out \| \| in the Thames CFMP. In particular \| \| opportunities should be sought to: \| \| • Set back development from the river \| \| edge to enable sustainable and cost \| \| effective flood risk management \| \| options \| \| • Ensure that developments at residual \| \| flood risk are designed to be flood \| \| compatible and/or flood resilient \| \| • Maximise the use of open spaces \| \| within developments which have a \| \| residual flood risk to make space for \| \| flood water. \| \| 6 \| \| Developments all across London \| \| should reduce surface water discharge \| \| in line with the Sustainable Drainage \| \| Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the \| \| London Plan, the emerging Sustainable \| \| Design and Construction SPG and the \| \| emerging London Sustainable Drainage \| \| Action Plan. \| \| 7 \| \| Thames Water should continue its \| \| programme of addressing foul sewer \| \| flooding. \| \| 8 \| \| The groundwater flood risk in identified \| \| locations (see IPEG map) should be \| \| considered in FRAs and SFRAs to \| \| ensure that its impacts do not increase. \| \| Tidal influences are generally taken into \| \| account in the SFRA modelling addressing the \| \| interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at \| \| confluences. \| \| These measures are becoming increasingly \| \| regularly built into SFRAs, local policies, \| \| development frameworks and planning \| \| applications. \| \| Since the Sustainable Design and \| \| Construction SPG was updated in 2014 \| \| the Environment Agency has seen an \| \| improvement in drainage strategies they have \| \| reviewed. Larger reductions in run-off rates \| \| are being achieved. \| \| The London Sustainable Drainage Action \| \| Plan will be published later in 2015 and will \| \| focus on retrofitting sustainable drainage to \| \| existing land and buildings. \| \| Thames Water continues to address localised \| \| sewer flooding problems and has undertaken \| \| the first stage of consultation in respect of a \| \| major project in the Hammersmith-Kensington \| \| area known as Counters Creek. \| \| As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be \| \| included, and is starting to be addressed in \| \| some site specific FRAs as well. \| ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations \| Recommendation \| \|---------------------------------------------\| \| No. \| \| 9 \| \| The reservoir flood risk in identified \| \| locations (see reservoir flood maps) \| \| should be in considered in FRAs and \| \| SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not \| \| increase. \| \| 10 \| \| Detailed flood risk assessments should \| \| be undertaken at an early stage at the \| \| level of individual major development \| \| locations and town centre development \| \| sites, and opportunities to reduce \| \| flood risk should be maximised where \| \| possible. \| \| 11 \| \| Relevant transport authorities and \| \| operators should examine and regularly \| \| review their infrastructure including \| \| their networks, stations, depots, \| \| underpasses and tunnels for potential \| \| flooding locations and flood risk \| \| reduction measures. For large stations \| \| and depots, solutions should be sought \| \| to store or disperse rainwater from \| \| heavy storms. \| \| 12 \| \| Emergency service authorities \| \| and operators covering hospitals, \| \| ambulance, fire and police stations \| \| as well as prisons should ensure that \| \| emergency plans in particular for \| \| facilities in flood risk areas are in place \| \| and regularly reviewed so that they \| \| can cope in the event of a major flood. \| \| These plans should put in place cover \| \| arrangements through other suitable \| \| facilities. \| \| 13 \| \| Education authorities should ensure \| \| that emergency plans in particular for \| \| facilities in flood risk areas are in place \| \| and regularly reviewed so that they \| \| can cope in the event of a major flood. \| \| These plans should put in place cover \| \| arrangements through other suitable \| \| facilities. \| \| 14 \| \| Operators of electricity, gas, water, \| \| sewerage, and waste utility sites should \| \| maintain an up to date assessment of \| \| the flood risk to their installations and, \| \| considering the likely impacts of failure, \| \| establish any necessary protection \| \| measures including secondary flood \| \| defences. \| Source: GLA and Environment Agency As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well. This is generally being achieved and the GLA is leading work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including VNEB and Old Oak Common. London Underground and Transport for London are undertaking a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted. Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London. During 2015 Drain London will be examining the risks to prisons and secure health. The London Resilience Forum is also working on these issues. Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at secondary school sites across London. The GLA recognises that it needs to confirm progress with these utility providers. ## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance 3.52 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2014 the Mayor published the following SPGs: • Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment SPG (October 2014) • The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition SPG (July 2014) • Town Centres SPG (July 2014) • Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG (June 2014) • London Planning Statement (May 2014) • Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (April 2014) 3.53 In addition a draft Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2014) was also published. 3.54 All complete and draft SPG are available on the following website http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/ supplementary-planning-guidance. ## London Boroughs Policy Consultations 3.55 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area. 3.56 All London borough Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation. 3.57 Under Regulation 19, before submitting the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only. 3.58 In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor's response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them. Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Barking & Dagenham Barking and Dagenham Employment Areas Local Development Order Last Orders? Preserving Public Houses (SPD) Barnet Contributions to Skills, Training, Employment and Enterprise from new development SPD Bexley Community Infrastructure Levy - Submission Bexley's Growth Strategy - emerging vision consultation Brent Joint West London Waste Plan Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan Bromley Local Plan draft policies and designations Camden Fitzrovia AAP adopted on 3 March 2014 Euston Area Action Plan submitted on 10 April 2014, adopted on 26 January 2015 Amendments to the following Camden Planning Guidance (CPG) documents were published on 3 September 2014: CPG 1 Design City of London Draft Local Plan - submission CIL Charging Schedule Croydon Old Town Masterplan SPD Ealing Draft West London Waste Plan (DPD) Residential gardens SPD Enfield Development Management Document North Circular AAP –Adopted North East Enfield AAP - Submitted Greenwich Adopted: Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) Woolwich Common Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Strategy (July 2014) Greener Greenwich SPD (Sept 2014) Draft: Draft Charging Schedule - Submission to Secretary of State (Nov 2014) Spray Street Woolwich Masterplan SPD - consultation draft (Nov 2014) Article 4 Directions: Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area - Confirmation of nonimmediate Article 4 Direction (21 May 2014) Greenwich Peninsula (Pier Walk and Mitre Passage) - Notice of non-immediate Article 4 Direction (28 January 2014) Hackney Finsbury Park SPD (July 2014) Queen Elizabeth Lordship Neighbourhood Area (November 2014) Hammersmith & Fulham None Haringey CIL Charging Schedule implemented on 1 November 2014 Draft Planning Obligations SPD Harrow Draft West London Waste Plan Havering None Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Hillingdon Draft Local Plan Part 2 Planning Obligations CIL Charging Schedule - adopted Hounslow Draft Local Plan CIL Draft Charging Schedule Draft West London Waste Plan Draft Planning Obligations and CIL SPD Islington Finsbury Park SPD Inclusive Design SPD Kensington & Chelsea Partial review of core strategy (adopted in 2014):- • Conservation and design, • Basement developments • Miscellaneous Matters, Partial review of the Core Strategy • Enterprise (Issues and Options) Notting Hill Gate SPD (second draft) Trellick-Edenham SPD (Draft) Royal Brompton SPD (Draft) Kingston upon Thames Draft North Kingston Development Brief (stage 2) Draft Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD Lambeth CIL Charging Schedule Lewisham DM Policies - Adoption Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan -Adoption Planning Obligations London Legacy Development Corporation Draft Local Plan- Regulation 19 Merton Sites and Policies Plan (site allocations and DM policies) - (adopted July 2014) Policies Map - (adopted July 2014) CIL Charging Schedule - applied April 2014 Morden Station planning brief - adopted March 2014 Estates Local Plan - reg 18 (regeneration of three estates) Planning Obligations SPD - draft for consultation approved. Newham None Redbridge Draft Redbridge Local Plan 2015 - 2030 - Preferred Options Report Extension (Alternative Development Strategies) Borough-wide Conservation Area Management Proposals SPD Richmond upon Thames Site Allocations Plan pre-publication - additional sites consultation and new educational sites consultation Affordable Housing SPD Planning Obligations SPD 2 Village Plan SPDs - Kew, Whitton and Heathfield Joint West London Waste Plan - consultation on submission Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule Southwark Peckham and Nunhead AAP Draft New Southwark Plan: Issues and Options version Revised draft CIL charging schedule Draft S106/CIL SPD Draft Revised Canada Water AAP Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Sutton Sutton's Community Infrastructure Levy adopted in 2014 Tower Hamlets Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD Waltham Forest Development Management DPD (October 2013) Walthamstow Town Centre Area Action Plan (October 2014) Blackhorse Lane Area Action Plan (February 2015) Local Plan Review: Core Strategy, Development Management Policies Document and Site Specific Allocations Document - submitted and 2nd proposed submission Wandsworth Local Views SPD Refuse and Recyclables in Development SPD Westminster Revision to Westminster's City Plan - Issues booklets: Design Health, Well-being and Personal Safety Open Space and Green Infrastructure Planning and Pollution Control Public Realm and Advertisements Transport and Movement Food, Drink, Entertainment, Arts & Housing Need, Delivery and Quality Social and Community Uses Westminster's Economy Flood Risk Mayfair & St James's Source: London Boroughs/GLA ## Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies 3.59 Table 3.9 provides an overview of London borough Core Strategy progress. borough Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 2015) Core Strategy stage no. of boroughs Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published 0 Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy 2 Bromley Have published Core Strategy for Submission 0 Core Strategy adopted 31 Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) Barnet (Sep 2012) Bexley (Feb 2012) Brent (July 2010) Camden (Nov 2010) City of London (Sep 2011) Croydon (April 2013) Ealing (April 2012) Enfield (Jan 2010) Greenwich (July 2014) Hackney (Nov 2010) Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) Haringey (March 2013) Harrow (Feb 2012) Havering (2008) Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) Islington (Feb 2011) Kensington & Chelsea (2010) Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) Lambeth (Jan 2011) Lewisham (June 2011) Merton (2011) Newham (Jan 2012) Redbridge (March 2008) Richmond upon Thames (2009) Southwark (April 2011) Sutton (Dec 2009) Tower Hamlets (2010) Waltham Forest (March 2012) Wandsworth (October 2010) Westminster (Nov 2013) (Hounslow progressing to full Local Plan without adopting a Core Strategy) ## Borough Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 2015) Core Strategy stage no. of boroughs Local Plan being reviewed 16 Barking and Dagenham Bromley Camden - Regulation 18 consultation (Feb 2015) City of London - Publication Croydon Hammersmith & Fulham Haringey Havering Hillingdon Hounslow –Publication Islington Kensington & Chelsea - partial review part Adopted and part Publication stage Lambeth - Publication Lewisham - Publication LLDC - Submitted Redbridge Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets - Review to be undertaken Wandsworth - Publication Westminster - Adopted and review Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates 3.60 Please note that many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it. ## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification 3.61 Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification are included in Annex 1 of the London Plan. As a result of the 2015 London Plan new Opportunity Areas are being designated in Bromley, Canada Water, Harrow and Wealdstone, Old Kent Road and Old Oak Common. The following three maps provide an overview of the current status and scale of all Opportunity Areas Planning Frameworks (OAPFs), which are facilitating the delivery of the Opportunity Areas. For some Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) studies are prepared to support the delivery of the infrastructure required. 3.62 During 2014/15, the GLA adopted OAPFs for Euston (the Euston Area Plan) and Southall. Draft Frameworks were published for consultation for City Fringe, London Riverside and Old Oak Park Royal. A DIF study was published for the Southall OA, another one is being prepared for the Upper Lee Valley to be published later in 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA \| \| REF LOCATION \| REF LOCATION \| REF LOCATION \| \|-----------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|-------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------\| \| 1 \| Bexley Riverside \| 14 Harrow and Wealdstone \| 27 Old Oak Common \| \| 2 \| Bromley \| 15 Heathrow \| 28 Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront \| \| 3 \| Canada Water \| 16 Ilford \| 29 Southall \| \| 4 \| Charlton Riverside \| 17 Isle of Dogs \| 30 Thamesmead and Abbey Wood \| \| 5 \| \| \| \| \| City Fringe/Tech City \| 18 Kensal Canalside \| 31 Tottenham Court Road \| \| \| 6 \| Colindale/ Burnt Oak \| 19 King's Cross-St.Pancras \| 32 Upper Lea Valley (including Tottenham Hale) \| \| 7 \| Cricklewood/Brent Cross \| 20 Lewisham-Catford-New Cross \| 33 Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea \| \| 8 \| Croydon \| 21 London Bridge/ Bankside \| 34 Victoria \| \| 9 \| Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside \| 22 London Riverside \| 35 Waterloo \| \| 10 Earl's Court / West Kensington \| 23 Lower Lea Valley including Stratford \| 36 Wembley \| \| \| 11 Elephant and Castle \| 24 Old Kent Road \| 37 White City \| \| \| 12 Euston \| 25 Paddington \| 38 Woolwich \| \| \| 13 Greenwich Peninsula \| 26 Park Royal/Willesden Junction \| \| \| 3.63 To bring about positive change on the ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Planning Decisions Unit in helping to implement the London Plan. The table below shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 4% over 2013. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he 'called-in' one scheme (Mount Pleasant sorting office, Islington and Camden). Table 3.10 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor 2000- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 2000-2014 Total 1,871 334 240 258 300 307 359 373 4042 Strategic Call-ins - - 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 Source: GLA Planning ## London Planning Awards 3.64 The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2014/15 Awards Ceremony was held on 03 February 2015. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 3.11 below: 1: BEST NEW PLACE TO WORK (sponsored by The international Quarter) WINNER: Pill Box, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Refurbished by Workspace Group PLC, the historical industrial 65,000 square feet warehouse was converted to accommodate 90 new and growing businesses employing over 450 people in total. With generous cycling facilities and located only a few minutes walk from Bethnal Green Station it's easily accessible. Not only does the development benefit from the facilities in Bethnal Green local town centre, it also provides an award winning café and restaurant, events space, flexible workspace, meeting rooms and a gym all carefully designed to encourage collaboration and interaction between tenants to help their businesses grow. 2: BEST COMMUNITY LED PROJECT (sponsored by Land Securities) WINNER: Shree Swaminarayan Mandir temple, in the London Borough of Brent. A fantastic example of a community led project. The manifestation of a vision the local Swaminarayan community have nurtured for 25 years. The temple was funded and built by the local community, and whilst specific to the local Hindu population, the complex also serves the wider community. The multi-function hall is a bookable resource for local schools and residents, and approximately one third of the site provides subsidised work space for local businesses. The opening of the temple was marked by a parade attended by 2000 local people. It achieves BREEAM 'excellent' with rainwater harvesting and solar panels on the roof and is considered one of the first 'eco-temples' in the world. ## Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 3: Best Conceptual Project (Sponsored By Berwin Leighton Paisner) WINNER: The London Underline, developed by Gensler in collaboration with PaveGen Systems and Momentum. The project proposes the innovative re-use of disused tube tunnels as pedestrian walkways. In particular, Gensler identified the tunnels between Green Park and Charing Cross Road and between Holborn and Aldwych linking strategic pedestrian destinations and significantly alleviating the pressure on footway and public transport between them. These underground spaces would be activated by stalls and other commercial and cultural uses helping pay for the project, as well as making them safe and attractive. Power for the network would be generated by kinetic paving systems - making the whole project self-sustaining. 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by Ballymore) WINNER: Vivo & So Stepney, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Designed by Levitt Bernstein, for the East Thames Group and Bellway Homes. The scheme transforms the previously poor quality 2.98 Hector site into a traditional permeable and legible street based development, providing 704 good quality flats and private communal spaces. 50% of the homes are affordable and all are larger than the London Plan space standards. The site is located within walking distance of the local town centre providing access to schools, shops and other social infrastructure. 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells) WINNER Clapham Old Town Regeneration Project. Designed by Urban Movement for the London Borough of Lambeth. The project involved the remodelling of the 1960's gyratory to drastically increase the ratio of footway to carriageway achieving an increase of 35% to 65% in pedestrian space, significantly improving the overall quality of the environment. Street furniture was rationalised maximising space for pedestrians and minimising visual clutter, crossings were located on key desire lines, and 60 new cycle stands and 102 trees were planted. All this was achieved whilst increasing pedestrian space, reducing traffic speeds and ensuring the funding streams for its long-term management were secured. 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA) WINNER Bow Cross in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets by Swan Housing Association. Originally a deprived estate, isolated from the surrounding community with high crime levels and poor quality environment, Bow Cross has been transformed into a traditional street-based neighbourhood where people want to live. Part redevelopment and partrefurbishment, a new road bridges over the railway infrastructure connecting the area to surrounding neighbourhoods; multi-levelled walkways were removed; and previously underused open spaces consolidated and given stronger sense of ownership. The success of the project is made evident by the large number of residents choosing to stay or return to the area, a doubling of tenant applications, and the success of private sales. ## Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 7: Best Heritage Led Rpoject (Sponsored By English Heritage) Tottenham Town Hall in the London Borough of Haringey. Newlon Housing Trust restored the Grade II Listed Edwardian Town Hall into a sustainably managed local community business centre with affordable housing to the rear around a courtyard. The scheme managed to turn the previously inaccessible Town Hall into a fully DDA compliant building. A close working relationship with English Heritage meant a thorough restoration took place including replacing tiny terrazzo mosaic tiles in the floor of the Town Hall and recreating the original clock tower on the roof of the previously derelict workshops. Demand from small, start-up businesses is strong and all residential properties are fully let. 8: BEST TOWN CENTRE PROJECT (sponsored by Turley Associates) WINNER Stockwell Street, Greenwich. Designed by Heneghan Peng Architects for Deloitte Real Estate and the University of Greenwich. The project exemplifies the type of diversification town centres and high streets need to strive for to secure their future. Whilst designed and run by the University, the Stockwell Street building brings a large library, exhibition and educational space and other cultural activities to the heart of town centre. Open to the public, the development has created a significant increase in footfall and vitality to the high street, helping local businesses and creating a truly mixed use town centre. 9: LONDON PLANNING PERSON OF THE YEAR WINNER John Turner, Head of Planning at the Ballymore Group. For his role in negotiating the new pedestrian bridge across the River Lee at Leamouth, connecting Tower Hamlets and Newham; overseeing the submission of major planning applications such as of Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Arrowhead Quay, Brentford Town Centre; and leading on the delivery of major residential developments such as London City island, Embassy gardens, Providence Tower and Royal Wharf. 10. MAYOR'S AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE WINNER Bow Cross ## Endnotes 1 See table 615 here http://is.gd/clgstocktables 2See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable ## Chapter Four Other Contextual Data Sources 4.1 This AMR cannot and does not attempt to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links IN TABLE 4.1 should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data. 4.2 A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/mayor/publications/glaintelligence/demography ## London Datastore 4.3 The primary source of data and statistics held by the GLA is the London Datastore. http://data.london.gov.uk/ which includes data not just from the GLA but also a range of other public sector organisations. ## London Development Database 4.4 For more information on the London Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The relaunched LDD public page can be found Table 4.1 Updates from the GLA Demography and Policy Analysis Group Reference Title 01-2013 Children in Poverty 2010 - Jack Ryan 02-2013 The wealth gap in London - Rachel Leeser 04-2013 Cross border mobility of primary school age children in London (2012) - Monica Li 09-2013 Poverty figures for London 2011/12 - Rachel Leeser 11-2013 ONS Mid-2012 Population Estimates - Monica Li 12-2013 Migration Indicators: August 2013 - Monica Li 13-2013 2012 Round Final Ethnic Group Population Projections - Ed Klodawski at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ ldd/ ## Development And Projects 4.5 More information on the activities of the Mayor's Development and Projects unit (Formerly the Planning Decisions Unit) can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/ priorities/planning/strategic-planningapplications ## Gla Economics Reports 4.6 The latest reports can be found at http:// www.london.gov.uk/priorities/businesseconomy/publications 4.7 For the latest news the Mayor's Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ business-economy 4.8 The London Sustainable Development Commission website is at http://www. londonsdc.org/ ## London Energy Partnership 4.9 Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/ ## Other London Data Sources Waste 4.10 The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ publications/the-mayors-wastemanagement-strategies 4.11 DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http:// www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/ waste/ 4.12 Up to date London specific data is available on the Local Authority Waste and Recycling Information Portal http://laportal.wrap. org.uk/Login.aspx ## Minerals (Aggregates) 4.13 Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ planning/research-reports/londonaggregates-working-party-0 ## Waterways 4.14 The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php ## Transport 4.15 The latest information on The Mayor's work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ transport 4.16 Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx 4.17 Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov. uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibilitylevels/resource/86bbffe1-8af1-49baac9b-b3eacaf68137 4.18 A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://www.webptals.org.uk/ 4.19 The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-transport 4.20 London First are monitoring how the London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/ our-focus/londons-built-environment/ community-infrastructure-levy/ ## Health 4.21 London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/ 4.22 London Health Observatory monitors health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/ 4.23 As of April 2013 the LHO became part of Public Health England. https://www.gov. uk/government/organisations/publichealth-england ## Government Data Sources 4.24 Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain, https:// www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future. 4.25 Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/department-for-education, which contains a section on Research and Statistics. 4.26 Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publica tions?departments%5B%5D=departmentfor-education ## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs 4.27 Various data and studies on the environment can be found at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-environment-food-ruralaffairs ## Department For Communities And Local Government 4.28 The latest information on Government policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www. gov.uk/government/topics/planning-andbuilding. ## Chapter Five # Conclusions And Looking Ahead 5.1 This AMR covers a period when at national level the National Planning Policy Guidance came into effect to support the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also seeing a range of important reforms to the planning system. In London the new 2015 London Plan has just been published rolling the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 Census. The next AMR will be based on this new Plan. In addition, a range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents were published during 2014. 5.2 Looking forward, 2015 will see the progression of minor alterations to address the Government's Housing Standards Review and Government policy on parking. A number of further SPGs will also be published during 2015, and the first steps towards the preparation of a Full Review of the London Plan are also being made. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform these processes. 5.3 The continued exploration of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help fund and deliver strategic infrastructure to help ensure that growth and development can proceed sustainably in the capital will also continue to be a priority. This will be facilitated by the emerging high-profile London Infrastructure Plan setting out London's infrastructure needs and explore costs and funding opportunities. The AMR/LDD are also supporting these activities. 5.4 Robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so if the areas where further work is needed are to be addressed. This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners' quality of life - and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximized.	en
4635-pdf	## Placing A Regulated Product On The Market Pre-market approval procedure for food and animal feed products and processes requiring authorisation. Certain food and feed products, called regulated products, require authorisation before they can be sold in the UK. Authorisation is required for the following regulated product types: extraction solvents feed additives feed for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTS) feed detoxification processes flavourings food contact materials food additives food enzymes genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as food and feed irradiated food novel foods smoke flavourings For most regulated product types, once products or processes are authorised, they are listed in relevant legislation, which also sets out how they can be used. These lists are referred to as positive lists. The positive lists for the following substances or processes are not currently set out in legislation: food enzymes food contact materials - recycled processes food contact materials - active and intelligent materials Until the positive lists are in place, these products may be placed on the market if they meet requirements of: the General Food Law any general criteria in the food enzyme and food contact material legislation You can find more information on these requirements, including when you will need to apply for authorisation of these products in Great Britain (GB), in our guidance for regulated products applicants. If you are not sure whether your product requires authorisation, contact us at regulatedproducts@food.gov.uk ## Placing Your Product On The Market In Great Britain The FSA with Food Standards Scotland (FSS) will carry out a risk analysis process for regulated products and provide advice to ministers, who will decide whether the product can be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. When a decision is made to authorise a product, this will mean a change to the legislation. The legislation will set out how the product can be used and any associated conditions of use. ## Authorisation Process Our risk assessment will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of retained EU law and the guidance previously developed by EFSA. For more details on what you'll need to supply with your application for each product type, read our guidance for regulated product applicants. After you submit your application, we will carry out initial checks to make sure it contains all the necessary information. We will then carry out an assessment to decide if the product or process is safe to be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. This will involve risk assessment by one of our Joint Expert Groups and/or Scientific Advisory Committees and a consideration of other legitimate factors (for example, risks to the environment). These will be combined to form an evidence package. Based on this evidence, we will consider possible risk management options and make a recommendation to ministers. The ministers will then decide whether the product should be authorised for use in Great Britain. There will be an opportunity to comment on the application by taking part in a consultation during the risk analysis process and before the final recommendation is made. If a decision is taken to support an authorisation, the legislation will be updated to reflect the change. The timing of the full risk analysis process will depend on how complex the application is and on the type of product. It is likely to be at least a year. For some products the deadlines are set in legislation. Throughout the process we will keep in touch to clarify any elements of the application or to seek additional information if needed. If more information is needed to complete the evaluation, we will be able 'stop the clock' on an assessment and start it again once we receive the required information. ## New Authorisations To apply for a new regulated product authorisation, use our regulated products application service . ## Ongoing Applications If you submitted your application to the EU before 1 January 2021 and the assessment process has not been completed, you will need to submit your application to us using our regulated products application service. It will be worth including your EFSA question number in your submission. This applies both to new authorisations and re-authorisation applications. We may take into account the published EFSA opinion and the outcome of any risk management discussions at the end of the transition period (31 December 2020), but in some cases we may still need to carry out a full risk assessment and consider risk management options. ## Existing Authorisations If your product or process has been authorised by the European Commission (EC) before 1 January 2021 and the necessary legislation applies, that authorisation will remain valid in the UK. ## Re-Authorisations Re-authorisations are required every ten years for the following product types: genetically modified (GM) food and feed feed additives smoke flavourings You can find more details on how when to apply for these in our regulated products guidance. ## Getting Help If you have any questions about authorisations of regulated products, contact us at regulatedproducts@food.gov.uk ## Placing Your Product On The Northern Ireland Market The EU law that applies to Northern Ireland is specified in Annex II to the Northern Ireland Protocol. This means that any business seeking a new authorisation for a regulated food and feed product marketed in Northern Ireland will have to continue to follow EU rules.	en
2459-pdf	## Sir Nicholas Macpherson - Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 04.10.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £357.07 £357.07 05.10.12 The Hague Official meetings £276.53 £276.53 Edinburgh Official meetings £151.41 £151.41 09.10.12- 10.10.12 24.10.12 Oxford Official meetings £27.14 £27.14 £132.87 £132.87 13.11.12- 14.11.12 Coventry Joint Permanent Secretary and Local Authority Chief Executive event 23.11.12 Oxford Official meeting £46.60 £46.60 Sydney, Australia Official meetings £6,482.29 £6,482.29 09.12.12- 15.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 09.10.12 Scottish Financial Enterprise Dinner 17.10.12 Breakingviews Reception 23.10.12 Lord Carter Lunch \| 24.10.12 \| Exeter College, Oxford \| Dinner \| \|-------------\|----------------------------------------------------\|-----------\| \| 30.10.12 \| The Centre for Policy Studies \| Lunch \| \| 30.10.12 \| Queen Mary, University of London \| Reception \| \| 02.11.12 \| Queen Mary, University of London \| Lunch \| \| 06.11.12 \| Lazard \| Dinner \| \| 12.11.12 \| Rothschild \| Lunch \| \| 13.11.12 \| J P Morgan Cazenove \| Lunch \| \| 15.11.12 \| National Institute of Economic and Social Research \| Reception \| \| 20.11.12 \| UBS \| Dinner \| \| 22.11.12 \| National Grid and Tate & Lyle \| Lunch \| \| 23.11.12 \| Nuffield College, Oxford \| Dinner \| \| 26.11.12 \| British Bankers' Association \| Lunch \| \| 27.11.12 \| Diageo \| Lunch \| \| 27.11.12 \| The Financial Times \| Reception \| \| 30.11.12 \| The Daily Telegraph \| Lunch \| \| 18.12.12 \| BBC \| Lunch \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## John Kingman - Second Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 09.10.12 Oxford Official meeting £86.37 £86.37 09.11.12 Heathrow Official meetings £14.28 £14.28 13.11.12 Heathrow Official meeting £28.80 £28.80 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 09.10.12 All Souls College, Oxford Dinner 30.10.12 Rothschild Lunch 13.11.12 Santander Dinner and speaking engagement 20.11.12 Ondra Partners Lunch 21.11.12 Rio Tinto Breakfast 26.11.12 British Bankers' Association Lunch 28.11.12 Imperial College London Lunch 07.12.12 Prudential Lunch 10.12.12 Dame Amelia Fawcett Lunch ## Tom Scholar - Second Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 08.10.12 Tokyo Official meetings £3,020.00 £3,020.00 Official meetings £3,801.19 £3,801.19 28.11.12- 03.12.12 New York/ Washington Hong Kong Official meetings £5,781.09 £5,781.09 04.12.12- 08.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 24.10.12 City UK Dinner 06.11.12 Spencer Stuart Dinner 12.11.12 Lazard Dinner 15.11.12 National Institute of Economic and Social Research Reception 27.11.12 The Financial Times Reception ## Michael Ellam - Director General, International And Finance, Hm Treasury Total Cost £ DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Brussels Official meetings £23.61 £23.61 19.09.12- 20.09.12 Mexico Official meetings £19.00 £229.84 £248.84 22.09.12- 25.09.12 Brussels Official meetings £141.27 £141.27 27.09.12- 28.09-12 04.10.12 Brussels Official meetings £380.89 £380.89 Official meetings £651.33 £132.86 £153.74 £937.93 08.10.12- 09.10.12 Frankfurt/ Luxembourg Tokyo Official meetings £3,461.18 £19.00 £23.94 £3,504.12 10.10.12- 14.10.12 Moscow Official meetings £784.29 £19.00 £803.29 22.10.12- 23.10.12 Brussels Official meetings £380.33 £176.68 £557.01 29.10.12- 30.10.12 Mexico Official meetings £5,946.89 £38.00 £70.00 £485.93 £6,540.82 02.11.12- 06.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £124.30 £537.07 £315.74 £977.11 12.11.12- 14.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £293.86 £154.66 £448.52 22.11.12- 23.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £555.97 £555.97 03.12.12- 05.12.12 Brussels Official meetings £290.80 £290.80 12.12.12- 14.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 06.09.12 Breugel Dinner 01.11.12 Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum Dinner 27.11.12 The Financial Times Reception 04.12.12 HSBC Dinner Indra Morris - Director General, Tax and Welfare, HM Treasury No expenses were incurred during this period. Hospitality Received Indra did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Dave Ramsden - Director General And Chief Economic Adviser, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Official meetings £87.96 £69.34 £712.30 £14.85 £884.45 16.09.12- 23.09.12 Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo Paris Official meetings £387.03 £56.13 £11.73 £454.89 23.10.12- 25.10.12 Paris Official meetings £350.84 £54.16 £15.45 £2.50 £422.95 11.11.12- 13.11.12 Paris Official meetings £358.35 £13.04 £330.05 £701.44 10.12.12- 12.12.12 17.12.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £198.43 £38.00 £236.43 18.12.12 Newport Official meetings £85.05 £8.50 £93.55 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 24.10.12 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Lunch and dinner 02.11.12 Standard Chartered Dinner 15.11.12 National Institute of Economic and Social Research Reception 07.12.12 Goldman Sachs Lunch and speaking engagement 18.12.12 JP Morgan Dinner and speaking engagement ## Jonathan Taylor - Director General, Financial Services And Stability, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Glasgow Official meetings £322.25 £38.00 £47.00 £80.00 £487.25 25.10.12 - 26.10.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 01.10.12 International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) Dinner Reception 05.10.12 London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange (New York Stock Exchange) 11.10.12 The Mansion House Reception 16.10.12 London Metal Exchange Dinner 23.10.12 Wholesale Financial Markets and Services Dinner 24.10.12 The Mansion House Dinner 12.11.12 The Lord Mayor of London Dinner ## Sharon White - Director General, Public Services, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 05.10.12 The Hague Official meetings £216.53 £216.53 18.10.12 Italy Official meetings £716.65 £716.65 Hospitality Received Sharon did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## James Bowler –Director, Strategy, Planning And Budget, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 02.08.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £18.90 £18.00 £36.90 17.10.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £41.11 12.12.12 Brussels Official meetings £295.90 £295.90 Hospitality Received James did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Alison Cottrell - Corporate Services Director, Hm Treasury DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 17.10.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £6.50 £47.61 27.11.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £19.50 £60.61 Hospitality Received Alison did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Total Cost £	en
1536-pdf	Research center on sustainable development (OPERA) Prof. Ettore CAPRI Università del Sacro Cuore - Italy ettore.capri@unicatt.it ## The 5 Aspects Of Meat Sustainability Economic Value Of The Meat Sector In Italy Meat Traceability: Main Controls Carried Out Mediterranean Diet: All The Foods, Right Quantities Nutrients Of Meat Fats And Cholesterols: A Problem Solved Apparent Consumption Vs Real Consumption In Italy Animals And Plants: Two Systems Interlocked The Water Footprint Of Meat To Reduce Impacts Searching For Efficiency THE EUROPEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ARE AMONG THOSE CHARACTERISED BY A LOWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PER KG OF PROTEIN* ## The Commitment Of Livestock Sector THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR HAS MANY WAYS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AND BREEDING PHASES THAT HAVE THE HIGHER RELEVANCE. ## Production Of Biogas Solar Power Managing Manure Precision Agriculture Project Change-R The Environmental Hourglass THE ENVIRONMENTAL HOURGLASS IN A VIDEO ## How Was It Built • The Mediterranean Diet includes the balanced consumption of every food type, without any exclusion • Environmental claims and labels aim to support the consumers in identifying the most «virtuos» product within the same food/product group. Different food groups should never be compared on the basis of their environmental impact since they have different functionalities. • There is no «perfect food»: every choice should be taken on the basis of one's ethical values and taking the context into consideration • The meat sector should commit to improving those critical aspects that still exist: this can only be achieved by focusing on mid-term goals. ## Scientific And Educational Goals For The Future • Developing realistic scenarios for risk assessment and management of the meat productions • Developing archive, data storing for quantitative assessment (LCA) • Setting benchmark and transformation factor for realistic LCA assessment • Linking ecosystem services and protecion goal of the above scenarios at different temporal and spatial scales. • Developing reliable sustanaible programs for meat production and farm organisation • Set up certification label and corporate social responsability • Educational, training programs for helping cultural challeng in the meat chain sector ## The Activities Of Carni Sostenibili The Association Sustainable Meats Activities are based on three main areas covering: • The "institutional" communication • The presence in the social world; • The organization of technical support documents for scientific communication. • Organization of scientific events, press ## Conference, Ect The sustainability meat and cured meat in Italy .Publishing of scientific report. Media comunication, event, symposium,ect Social media presence ## The Published Materials The Meat Sustainability In Italy Technical Repository Of Information On Sustainability Of The Meat In Italy. First edition published in 2014, second in 2016. Versione completa - 280 pagg. Sintesi - 36 pagg. Nutritional document At each event they were published thematic and specific documents on the topics discussed from time to time	en
2677-pdf	## Reason. 1. Standard Filming Fees Basic fee Interview with expert Presence of conservator** £300 per hour + £50 per hour (minimum £50) + £50 per hour (minimum £50) TV & film (6 person crew* max) Radio recordings £150 per hour + £50 per hour (minimum £50) + £50 per hour (minimum £50) * The term 'crew' covers both technical and non-technical personnel, plus any presenters, researchers or external interviewees. In certain circumstances a conservation specialist will need to be present during the ## Filming/Recording, And An Additional Fee Will Be Payable. Please Note: - All fees are subject to an additional Value Added Tax (currently 20%) - Fees are charged from the moment the crew is met by the member of staff until the crew leaves the building. - Cancellations or changes to a booking with less than 48 hours notice will be liable for a cancellation fee** representing 20% of the total fee, plus VAT. - For out-of-office hours filming, larger film crews (including feature films and TV dramas) the fee is negotiated on separate basis. ## 2. Image Library Transmission Fees To use images from the records, including photographs, you must seek permission from The National Archives Image Library, which will charge a transmission fee. Transmission fees are charged on any close-up shots of documents held by The National Archives which are used in the broadcast version of your film. Charges are dependent on the number of images and transmissions and the breadth of the rights required for example: - Two UK transmissions of one image = £113 plus VAT (£75 first flash and £38 repeat) - Worldwide buyout of one image (all TV, media and perpetuity) = £350 plus VAT It is your responsibility to contact Paul Johnson in The National Archives Image	en
4138-pdf	## ਸੇਧ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ: ਘਰ ਰਹੋ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਪੂਰੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਵੱਧ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ। ਪਤਾ ਕਰੋ ਿਕ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। 4 ਜਨਵਰੀ 2021 Ã ਪਰ੍ਕਾਿਸ਼ਤ ਆਖਰੀ ਵਾਰ 6 ਜਨਵਰੀ 2021 Ã ਅੱਪਡੇਟ ਕੀਤਾ - ਸਾਰੇ ਅੱਪਡੇਟ ਵੇਖੋ ਵੱਲÐ: ਕੈਿਬਨ ੇਟ ਆਿਫਸ ਇਹਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ: ## ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵਸ਼ਾ-ਸੂਚੀ ਸਾਰ: ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਿਕਸਦੇ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ। ਤੁਸÍ ਕਦÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਦੇ ਹੋ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਿਜ਼ਆਦਾ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਣਾ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਟੀਆਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਦੇ ਦੌਰੇ ਅੰਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਿਵਆਹ, ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਰੀਰਕ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਸਹਤ-ਸੰਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਇਸ ਪੇਜ Ã ਿਪਰ੍ੰਟ ਕਰੋ ਸਾਰ: ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। NHS ਦੀ ਰੱਿਖਆ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਜਾਨਾਂ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਸਭ ਤÐ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਜੋ ਅਸÍ ਸਾਰੇ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਉਹ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਇਸ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ## ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ, ਜਾਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਿਸਵਾਏ ਜਦÐ ਇਹ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ। ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: - ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਲਈ ਮੁਢਲੀਆਂ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਖਰੀਦਦਾਰੀ ਕਰਨੀ - ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ, ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨੀਆਂ, ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਵਾਜਬ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਇਹ ਘਰÐ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰੇਲੂ (ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ) ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ, ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। - ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ, ਪਰ ਿਸਰਫ ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਲੈਣੀ ਜਾਂ ਸੱਟ, ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ - ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਇਜ਼ਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰ ਛੱਡ ਿਦੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਅੱਗੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ। ਸਥਾਨਕ ਰਿਹਣ ਦਾ ਮਤਲਬ ਹੈ ਿਪੰਡ, ਕਸਬੇ ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਿਹਰ ਦੇ ਉਸ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੰਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਨਹÍ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ## ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ)। ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣੇ-ਆਪ, ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਸÍ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ, 2 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ। ## ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਕਾਲਜ, ਪਰ੍ਾਇਮਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕੰਡਰੀ ਸਕੂਲ ਿਸਰਫ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਕੀ ਸਾਰੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੀ ਅੱਧੀ ਟਰਮ ਤੱਕ ਦੂਰÐ ਹੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ## ਕਰਨਗੇ। ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਸਾਲਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੈਿਟੰਗਾਂ ਖੁੱਲੀਆਂ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ। ਭਿਵੱਖ ਦੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਦਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੇ ਅੱਧ ਤੱਕ ਆਨਲਾਈਨ ਰਹੇਗਾ। ## ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਿਕਸਦੇ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤ ਅਤੇ ਠੀਕ ਹਨ। ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੰਭਾਵੀ ਜਾਂ ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀ ਕੀਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਾਗ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵਧੀਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਚਾਲੂ ਕੀਤੀ ਸ਼ੀਲਡ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸੇਧ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕੰਮ, ਸਕੂਲ, ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਸੀਿਮਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ। ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਵਾਲੇ ਲਗਭਗ 3 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਿਵਚÐ 1 Ã ਕੋਈ ਲੱਛਣ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਅਿਹਸਾਸ ਕੀਤੇ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਇਸ Ã ਫੈਲਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋਣਗੇ। ਯਾਦ ਰੱਖੋ - 'ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ।' - ਹੱਥ - ਆਪਣੇ ਹੱਥ ਿਨਯਿਮਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ 20 ਸਿਕੰਟਾਂ ਲਈ ਧੋਵੋ - ਿਚਹਰਾ - ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਚਹਰਾ ਢੱਕ ਕੇ ਰੱਖੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ਕਰੋਗੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਤੁਸÍ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਦੇ ਹੋ - ਦੂਰੀ - ਿਜਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਤÐ 2 ਮੀਟਰ, ਜਾਂ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਸਾਵਧਾਨੀਆਂ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਚਹਰਾ ਢੱਕਣਾ) ਦੇ ਨਾਲ 1 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ ਸਾਰੇ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਤੁਸÍ ਕਦÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਿਸਵਾਏ ਜਦÐ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ 'ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ' ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ 'ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ' ਤÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਿਖਲਾਫ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜੁਰਮਾਨਾ (ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ) ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਪਿਹਲੇ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ £200 ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ ਿਦੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਸ Ã ਅਗਲੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ, £6,400 ਤੱਕ ਦੁਗਣਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਕਸੇ 'ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ' ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: ## ਕਾਰਜ-ਸਥਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਆਪਣੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਵਾਜਬ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਹ ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਿਜਹੜੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਬੁਿਨਆਦੀ ਢਾਂਚੇ, ਉਸਾਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਿਨਰਮਾਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ ## ਵਲੰਟੀਅਿਰੰਗ (ਸਵੈ ਇੱਛਾ ਨਾਲ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ) ਤੁਸÍ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਖਰੀਦਣ ਜਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਸÍ ਅਪਾਹਜ ਜਾਂ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ Ã ਅਲੱਗ ਰੱਖ ਰਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਵੀ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ, ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਅਧੀਨ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚਾ ਭਾਗ ਲੈਣ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹੈ। ਸਕੂਲੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ 'ਤੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੇਖੋ। ਤੁਸÍ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਲਈ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਵੀ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵਚਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ) - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਮਾਿਪਆਂ Ã ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ, ਬਾਲਗਾਂ ਿਵਚਾਲੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ Ã ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ) - ਅਸਮਰਥ ਜਾਂ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ (15 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਤਕ) - ਰਾਹਤ ਵਾਲੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜਾਂ ਅਪਾਹਜ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਦੇ ਸੰਬੰਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਛੋਟਾ ਿਜਹਾ ਬਰ੍ੇਕ ਹੈ। ## ਕਸਰਤ ਤੁਸÍ ਇਕੱਲੇ, ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਦੇਖੋ। ## ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਕਾਰਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਟੈਸਟ ਕਰਵਾਉਣਾ, ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਲਈ ਅਤੇ ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ## ਮੈਟਰਿਨਟੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੋ ਜਨਮ ਦੇ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ, ਜਣੇਪੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਹੋਰ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਜਨਮ ਤÐ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ। ਗਰਭ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਅਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਬਾਰੇ NHS ਮਾਰਗਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਹੈ। ## ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਸੱਟ ਜਾਂ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ) ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਹਮਦਰਦੀ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਉਸ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ, ਜੋ ਮਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ (ਜੇ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਲਈ ਸੇਧ ਅਧੀਨ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ), ਹੋਸਿਪਸ, ਜਾਂ ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਲਈ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਇਲਾਜ ਲਈ ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣਾ। ## ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਪੂਜਾ ਅਤੇ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਘਟਨਾਵਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਪੂਜਾ ਲਈ ਿਕਸੇ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ, ਿਕਸੇ ਅੰਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਮੌਤ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਸਮਾਗਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ, ਿਕਸੇ ਮੁਰਦਾ-ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਬਾਗ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਵਆਹ ਦੇ ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ 'ਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਵਰਤÐ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਿਵਆਹਾਂ, ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ, ਿਵਸ਼ਵਾਸ-ਅਧਾਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਘਟਨਾਵਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੀ ਮੌਤ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਇਹ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਿਖਆਵਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਹਨ। ## ਹੋਰ ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ ਹੋਰ ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ ਹਨ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਤੁਸÍ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਖਰੀਦਣ, ਵੇਚਣ, ਿਕਰਾਏ ਦੇਣ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਪਕਿਟੰਗ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਿਚਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਚੋਣ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਮਤ ਸੰਗਰ੍ਿਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਵੋਟ ਪਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਦੋਸਤਾਂ Ã ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਕਾÃਨ ਦੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਹੈ ਜਦÐ ਤਕ ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦਾ ਿਹੱਸਾ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ। ਤੁਸÍ ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਜਾਂ ਮਨਪਰਚਾਵੇ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਪਕਿਨਕ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਮੀਿਟੰਗ ਲਈ)। ## ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਘੱਟ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਤੁਸÍ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਸÍ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਸਥਾਨ 'ਤੇ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: ## - ਇਕੱਲੇ - ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ) - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ - ਜਾਂ, ਜਦÐ ਇਕੱਲੇ ਹੋਵੋ, ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਘਰ ਦੇ 1 ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੌੜਨਾ, ਸਾਈਕਿਲੰਗ, ਤੁਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਤੈਰਾਕੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਨੱਜੀ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਇਕ-ਨਾਲ-ਇੱਕ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਦÐ ਤਕ ਹਰ ਕੋਈ ਇੱਕੋ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੋਵੇ। ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਪਾਰਕ, ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਨਾਰੇ, ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਲਈ ਕੰਟਰੀਸਾਈਡ, ਜੰਗਲ - ਜਨਤਕ ਬਗੀਚੇ (ਭਾਵÎ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਭੁਗਤਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ਜਾਂ ਨਹÍ) - ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਸਥਾਨ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ: - ਟੈਿਨਸ ਕੋਰਟ - ਗੋਲਫ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ 5 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ, ਅਤੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਅਪਾਹਜਤਾ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ, ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਿਨਰੰਤਰ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਲਈ 2 ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ Ã ਬਾਹਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਇਕੱਠ ੇ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ (ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਅਧੀਨ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ) Ã ਿਸਹਤ ਸਮੱਿਸਆ ਹੈ ਿਜਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਿਸਹਤ Ã ਬਣਾਈ ਰੱਖਣ ਲਈ ਿਨਯਿਮਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਪÏਦਾ ਹੈ - ਸਮੇਤ ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਂ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਪÏਦੀ ਹੈ - ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜਦÐ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਸ ਪਾਸ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ 2 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੂਰ ਰਹੋ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ - ਮਤਲਬ ਉਹ ਲੋਕ ਿਜਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ, ਵਾਧੂ ਸਾਵਧਾਨੀਆਂ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ) ਦੇ ਨਾਲ 1 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ । ## ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਪਿਹਨਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ 'ਤੇ, ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਛੋਟ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਪੜਹ੍ੋ। ## ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੁਝ ਯੋਗਤਾ ਦੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਪਵੇਗਾ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਹਰ ਕੋਈ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਬਣਾ ਸਕੇਗਾ। ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਨ ੈੱਟਵਰਕ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਦੋ ਘਰਾਂ Ã ਜੋੜਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਆਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੋਗਤਾ ਦੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾਉਣਾ ਕਾÃਨ ਦੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣ (ਅਤੇ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਰਿਹਣ) ਲਈ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾÇਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਸਭ ਤÐ ਵਧੀਆ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਵੇ ਜੋ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਫੈਲਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਾਇਰਸ Ã ਰੋਕਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਮਦਦ ਿਮਲੇਗੀ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਲਾਗ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਦੇ ਦੋਸਤ ਜਾਂ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਮÎ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਿਰਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਿਰਆਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕੱਥੇ ਅਤੇ ਕਦÐ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ, ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਿਮਲਣ-ਜੁਲਣ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਰਫ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ Ã ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਏਗਾ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣਗੇ: - ਕੰਮ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਘਰÐ ਇਹ ਕਰਨਾ ਵਾਜਬ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ, ਸਫਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ, ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀ ਜੋ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰਾਂ Ã ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ। ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਵੇਖੋ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਮੀਿਟੰਗਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਬਗੀਚੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦੀ, ਅਿਜਹਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ ਤੁਸÍ ਇੱਕ ਿਨੱਜੀ ਟÀੇਨਰ Ã ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਿਕਸੇ ਬਾਲ-ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ (ਿਸਰਫ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ) - ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ, ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ, ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਹੇਠ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਪਰ੍ਿਤਬੰਿਧਤ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੇਖੋ। - ਉਹਨਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਉਸੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਾਪੇ ਜਾਂ ਸਰਪਰ੍ਸਤ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ - ਜਨਮ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ, ਅਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਭੈਣ- ਭਰਾ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਦੇਣੀ - ਸੰਭਾਵੀ ਗੋਦ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਕਸੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਰੱਖੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਸਰਿਵਿਸਜ਼ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਜਾਂ ਰੱਖਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਨੀ - ਜਨਮ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਾਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ - ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਅਤੇ ਸੱਟ ਜਾਂ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਜਾਣਾ ਜੋ ਮਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਹੌਸਿਪਸ ਜਾਂ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਇਲਾਜ ਕਰਵਾ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰਕ ਮÏਬਰ ਜਾਂ ਦੋਸਤ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ - ਿਕਸੇ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੋਰਟ ਜਾਂ ਜੂਰੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਣਾ - ਫ਼ੌਜਦਾਰੀ ਿਨਆਂ ਦੀ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਜਾਂ ਇਮੀਗਰ੍ੇਸ਼ਨ ਨਜ਼ਰਬੰਦੀ ਕÎਦਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਇਕੱਤਰ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ - ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ Ã ਰਾਹਤ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਿਵਆਹ ਜਾਂ ਇਸਦੇ ਬਰਾਬਰ ਦੀ ਰਸਮ ਲਈ। ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ 6 ਲੋਕਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੈ। - ਅੰਿਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਲਈ - ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ 30 ਿਵਅਕਤੀ। ਜਾਗ (ਵੇਕ) ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਜੁੜੇ ਰਸਮੀ ਸਮਾਗਮ 6 ਤਕ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। - ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਿਖਡਾਰੀਆਂ (ਅਤੇ ਜੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੋਚਾਂ, ਜਾਂ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ/ਸਰਪਰ੍ਸਤਾਂ ਜੇ ਉਹ 18 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹਨ) - ਜਾਂ ਜੋ ਅਿਧਕਾਰਤ ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਰਸਤੇ 'ਤੇ ਹਨ, ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ - ਘਰ ਦੀ ਬਦਲੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਸਮੂਹ ਜੋ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, 15 ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਤਕ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਆਪਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ, ਥੈਰੇਪੀ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਕਸਮ ਦੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਰਸਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸੰਗਿਠਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ - ਪਰ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ 'ਤੇ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇੱਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਨਾਲ ਕਵਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਵੇ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜੋ ਕੰਮ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟੀਅਰ ਬਣ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ), ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਆਮ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਕੱਠ ਦੀ ਸੀਮਾ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ, ਕੋਈ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ, ਸੀਮਾ ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਕੀਤੇ ਬਗੈਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਉਹ ਉਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਿਵਆਹ ਦੇ ਅਿਧਕਾਰੀ Ã ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਏਗਾ। ## ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲਦੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਗੈਰਕਾÃਨੀ ਇਕੱਠਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਨ ੇ (ਿਨਸ਼ਿਚਤ ਜੁਰਮਾਨ ੇ ਦੇ ਨ × ਿਟਸ) ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ਪਿਹਲੇ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ £200 ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ ਿਦੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਸ Ã ਅਗਲੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ, £6,400 ਤੱਕ ਦੁਗਣਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 30 ਤÐ ਵੱਧ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਗੈਰਕਾÃਨੀ ਇਕੱਤਰਤਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਕਰਵਾਉਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ £10,000 ਦਾ ਜੁਰਮਾਨਾ ਲਗਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਿਜ਼ਆਦਾ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਦਾ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਖ਼ਤਰਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵਧੀਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ । ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਚਾਲੂ ਕੀਤੀ ਸ਼ੀਲਡ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸੇਧ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕੰਮ, ਸਕੂਲ, ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਸੀਿਮਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਸਰਫ ਤਾਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਵਾਜਬ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਲੋਕ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਆਪਣੀ ਕੰਮ ਵਾਲੀ ਥਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਖੇਤਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ: - ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਢਾਂਚਾ - ਉਸਾਰੀ - ਿਨਰਮਾਣ - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਇਹ ਦੇਸ਼ Ã ਚੱਲਦਾ ਰੱਖਣ ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ, ਸਫਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ - ਤੁਸÍ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਨਹÍ ਤਾਂ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਬਗੀਚੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਿਮਲਣ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਉਪਾਅ ਸਥਾਿਪਤ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ਮਾਲਕਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਕੰਮਕਾਜੀ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ-ਵਟਾਂਦਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਮਾਲਕ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸਹੂਲਤ ਲਈ ਹਰ ਸੰਭਵ ਕਦਮ ਚੁੱਕਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਢੁਕਵÎ ਆਈਟੀ ਅਤੇ ਉਪਕਰਨ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਲੋਕ ਘਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ Ã ਜਨਤਕ ਆਵਾਜਾਈ ਤੇ ਿਵਅਸਤ ਸਮÎ ਅਤੇ ਰੂਟਾਂ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਮਦਦ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕਦਮ ਚੁੱਕਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਸੇਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਨ ੇੜਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਸੰਚਾਰ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ Ã ਕਾਫ਼ੀ ਹੱਦ ਤੱਕ ਘਟਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਵਾਧੂ ਿਵਚਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਾਲਜ, ਪਰ੍ਾਇਮਰੀ (ਿਰਸੈਪਸ਼ਨ ਤÐ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਏ) ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕੰਡਰੀ ਸਕੂਲ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਕੀ ਸਾਰੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੀ ਅੱਧੀ ਟਰਮ ਤੱਕ ਦੂਰÐ ਹੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰਨਗੇ। ## ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ, ਗਰਮੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧਣਾ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਿਵਭਾਗ Ofqual ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲ ਕੇ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਿਵਕਲਿਪਕ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ- ਵਟਾਂਦਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕੰਮ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਿਨਰਪੱਖ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਅੱਗੇ ਪਰ੍ਗਤੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਣ। ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ ਅਤੇ ਤਕਨੀਕੀ ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਜਨਵਰੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਕ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਸਹੀ ਹੈ। ## ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਟੀਆਂ ਿਜਹੜੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਹੇਠ ਿਲਿਖਆਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਯੋਜਨਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਹਮੋ-ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਦੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ: - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਦੰਦਾਂ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ/ਿਸਹਤ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੇ ਿਵਸ਼ੇ - ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸਾਇੰਸ - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ (ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਅਿਧਆਪਕ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ) - ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਵਰਕ - ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਲਈ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ, ਿਵਧਾਿਨਕ ਅਤੇ ਰੈਗੂਲੇਟਰੀ ਬਾਡੀ (PSRB) ਦੇ ਮੁਲਾਂਕਣ ਅਤੇ ਜਾਂ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਜਨਵਰੀ ਲਈ ਤੈਅ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਮੁੜ ਿਨਰਧਾਰਤ ਨਹÍ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (ਜੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸੂਿਚਤ ਕਰੇਗੀ)। ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸੀ 'ਤੇ ਦੋ ਵਾਰ ਟੈਸਟ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ Ã ਇਸ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ ਦਸ ਿਦਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਜਹੜੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ, ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਥੇ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੇ ਅੱਧ ਤਕ ਆਪਣੀ ਟਰਮ Ã ਆਨਲਾਈਨ ਅਰੰਭ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਸਹੂਲਤ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਸੂਚੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਗਏ, ਹੋਰ ਿਵਹਾਰਕ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਦੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ। ਅਸÍ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਪਰ੍ਕਾਿਸ਼ਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਿਕਵÎ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਸਪਿਰੰਗ ਟਰਮ ਿਵੱਚ ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਦੱਸਦੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਿਕਵÎ ਅਸÍ ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੀ ਿਕਵÎ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਾਂਗੇ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਸਰਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਰ੍ੇਕ ਤÐ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਜੰਨਾ ਸੰਭਵ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਇਸਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਟਰਮ ਸਮÎ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਈ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਆÇਦੇ-ਜਾਂਦੇ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਜਹੜੇ ਆਹਮੋ-ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਦੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ, ਤੁਸÍ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਆਪਣੀ ਰਸਮੀ ਿਸਿਖਆ ਜਾਂ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ ਦੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਸੇਧ ਅਤੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਉਮੀਦ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਉਸ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾਉਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਮਾਪੇ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲਕਰਤਾ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ: - ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਸਾਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ (ਨਰਸਰੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਚਾਈਲਡ ਮਾÆਡਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ) ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ - ਚਾਈਲਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ Ã, ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਣ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਸਧਾਰਨ ਵਾਂਗ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਦੇਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਕੂਲੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ (ਿਰਸੈਪਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਸਮੇਤ) ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਚਾਈਲਡਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ Ã ਿਸਰਫ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੇਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਚੇ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ, ਚਾਈਲਡਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ (ਰੈਪਅਰਾÇਡ ਕੇਅਰ ਸਮੇਤ) ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਮਾਪੇ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਇੱਕ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਬਾਲ-ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਮੁੱਖ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ Ã ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲਗਾਂ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ à ਸਮਰੱਥ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਵਰਿਤਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ - ਕੁਝ ਘਰਾਂ Ã ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਲਾਭ ਵੀ ਿਮਲੇਗਾ - ਘਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ, ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਣਗੀਆਂ ## ਯਾਤਰਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਨਹÍ ਛੱਡਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਕੰਮ ਜਾਂ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ)। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਭਾਵ ਆਪਣੇ ਿਪੰਡ, ਕਸਬੇ ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਸ਼ਿਹਰ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਸਮੁੱਚੀ ਯਾਤਰਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਗਣਤੀ Ã ਵੀ ਘਟਾਉਣ 'ਤੇ ਿਧਆਨ ਿਦਓ। ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਛੱਡ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ: - ਕੰਮ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਿਚਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਰਨੀ - ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ - ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵਚਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਜਾਣਾ - ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਜੀਪੀ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਟਮÏਟਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਕੋਈ ਦੁਰਘਟਨਾ ਵਾਪਰ ਗਈ ਹੋਵੇ ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਿਸਹਤ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਚੰਤਾ ਹੋਵੇ - ਉਹ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਖਰੀਦਣੀਆਂ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਬਾਹਰੀ ਕਸਰਤ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਇਹ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਜੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਥੋੜਹ੍ੀ ਦੂਰੀ ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਖੁੱਲੀ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚਣਾ) - ਿਕਸੇ ਜਾਨਵਰ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਕਸਰਤ, ਜਾਂ ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਤੁਰ ਕੇ ਜਾਂ ਸਾਈਕਲ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਓ, ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਅਤੇ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਬਣਾਓ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ 'ਤੇ ਿਵਅਸਤ ਸਿਮਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੂਟਾਂ ਤÐ ਬਚੋ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰ ਸਕੋਗੇ। ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਨਾਲ ਵੀ ਕਾਰ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਕਰਨ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰੋ। ਕਾਰ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧਦੇਖੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਪੱਧਰ 'ਤੇ - ਜਾਂ ਯੂਕੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ - ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ– ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਦੀ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਉਸ ਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਨਤਕ ਿਸਹਤ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਦਾ ਸਫਰ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਕÇਿਕ ਇਹ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਹੈ), ਭਾਵÎ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਸ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ 'ਤੇ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ਿਜਸ ਤÐ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਗਏ ਸੀ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੰਜ਼ਲ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ 'ਤੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਫਾਰੇਨ, ਕਾਮਨਵੈਥ Éਡ ਡੈਵਲਪਮÎਟ ਆਿਫਸ (FCDO) ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ Ã ਵੇਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ । ਇਸ ਸਮÎ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਬਰ੍ਟੇਨ ਦੇ ਵਸਨੀਕਾਂ Ã ਤੁਰੰਤ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਵਾਪਸੀ ਦੇ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਏਅਰ ਲਾਈਨ ਜਾਂ ਟÀੈਵਲ ਆਪਰੇਟਰ ਤÐ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਨਾਗਿਰਕ 'ਘਰ ਰਹੋ' ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਹਨ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਛੁੱਟੀ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੂਕੇ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਕੀ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਮੰਜ਼ਲ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਲਾਗੂ ਹਨ। ## ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਛੁੱਟੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਰਿਹਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਉਹ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ ਨਹÍ ਛੱਡ ਸਕਦੇ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ ਜਦ ਤਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਯੂਕੇ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੁੱਟੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਜੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰਾਵੈਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਮੁਢਲੀ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਦ ਤਕ ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ: - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੀ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸ ਜਾਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਸਮਰਥ ਹੋ - ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਿਕਸੇ ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਸਮਾਗਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਕੰਮ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਵਾਲਾ ਬੱਚਾ ਹੋ - ਬੇਘਰ ਹੋ, ਸ਼ਰਣ ਮੰਗ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਪਨਾਹ ਮੰਗ ਰਹੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਤÐ ਬਚ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਇੱਕ ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਅਥਲੀਟ ਜਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਹਾਇਕ ਸਟਾਫ਼ ਜਾਂ ਮਾਪਾ ਹੋ, ਜੇ ਐਥਲੀਟ 18 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਜਾਂ ਮੁਕਾਬਲੇ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਹੀ ਛੁੱਟੀ 'ਤੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਜੰਨੀ ਜਲਦੀ ਿਵਹਾਰਕ ਹੋ ਸਕੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਮਿਹਮਾਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ੀ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੋਟਲ, B&B ਅਤੇ ਕਾਰਾਵੈਨ ਪਾਰਕ ਕਾÃਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਰਸਾਏ ਗਏ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਮਿਹਮਾਨ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਸ ਮਿਹਮਾਨ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਨਵਾਸ ਵਜÐ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ, ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ, ਕਾÃਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਸਵੈ-ਇਕੱਲਤਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ Çਝ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵਜÐ ਬੇਘਰ ਹੋ ਜਾਣਗੇ। ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ Ã ਬੇਘਰ ਸਮੇਤ, ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ Ã ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਅਥਾਰਟੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲ ਕੇ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਿਹਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਦੇ ਦੌਰੇ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮਾਂ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਨ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜਵÎ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਸ¿ੀਨਾਂ, ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਦੇ ਪੋਡ ਜਾਂ ਿਖੜਕੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਿਪੱਛੇ। ਨ ੇੜਲੇ-ਸੰਪਰਕ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਰੋਗ ਦੇ ਫੈਲਣ ਦੀ ਸਿਥਤੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਵੇਗੀ। ਇਹ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਕ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਿਕਵÎ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਦੌਰਾਨ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਘਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸੇਧ Ã ਦੇਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਨਵਾਸੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਦੌਰੇ ਵੇਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ à ਇਮਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਪਿਰਵਾਰਕ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਆਪਣੇ ਿਰਸ਼ਤੇਦਾਰਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ)। ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਜੀਵਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਅੰਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਸਖ਼ਤ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ COVID-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਕੋਈ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ 30 ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੁੜੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ, ਿਵਸ਼ਵਾਸ-ਅਧਾਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਸਮਾਗਮਾਂ, ਿਜਵÎ ਪੱਥਰ ਲਗਾਉਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਫੁੱਲ ਿਖੰਡਾਉਣਾ ਵੀ 6 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਇਹਨਾਂ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਇਕੱਠ ੇ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਾਂ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਮÏਬਰ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ। ## ਿਵਆਹ, ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਿਵਆਹ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਦੀਆਂ ਰਸਮਾਂ ਿਸਰਫ 6 ਤਕ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਕੰਮ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਇਸ ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ ਅਸਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਇੱਕ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਿਵਆਹ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਿਵਆਹ ਕਰਾ ਰਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚÐ ਇੱਕ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਰੂਪ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਬਮਾਰ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸਦੇ ਠੀਕ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਉਮੀਦ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਨ ੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਇਲਾਜ ਜਾਂ ਜੀਵਨ ਬਦਲਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਸਰਜਰੀ ਕਰਾਉਣੀ ਹੈ। ਿਵਆਹ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪਾਂ ਿਸਰਫ COVID-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਕੋਈ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ## ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਸੇਵਾ ਲਈ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਹਰ ਸਮÎ ਸਖ਼ਤ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਵਰਤÐ ਬਾਰੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਖੇਡਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਰੀਰਕ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਇਨਡੋਰ ਿਜਮ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਬੰਦ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ, ਬਾਹਰੀ ਿਜਮ, ਗੋਲਫ ਕੋਰਸ, ਬਾਹਰੀ ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ, ਤੀਰਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ/ਡÀਾਈਿਵੰਗ/ਸ਼ੂਿਟੰਗ ਰÎਜਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਰਾਈਿਡੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ ਵੀ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ। ਅਪਾਹਜ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਆਯੋਿਜਤ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ēਚੇ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ēਚੇ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੜਾਅਵਾਰ ਵਾਪਸੀ ਬਾਰੇ ਹੋਰ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਘਰ ਬਦਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਬਲਕੁਲ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਏਸਟੇਟ ਅਤੇ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਏਜੰਟ ਅਤੇ ਹਟਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਫਰਮਾਂ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ Ã ਵੇਖਣ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰੋ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀਆਂ, ਤਾਜ਼ੀ ਹਵਾ Ã ਅੰਦਰ ਆਉਣ ਦੇਣ, ਅਤੇ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ ਪਿਹਨਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ## ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਜਥੇ ਵੀ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੁਸÍ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਮਦਦ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪੈਕੇਜ - ਟੀਅਰ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵਜÐ ਬੰਦ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ - ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਜੌਬ ਿਰਟੇਨਸ਼ਨ ਸਕੀਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਤਨਖਾਹ ਲਈ ਦਾਅਵਾ - ਪਤਾ ਕਰੋ ਿਕ ਕੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਸੈਲਫ-ਇੰਪਲੋਇਮÏਟ ਇਨਕਮ ਸਪੋਰਟ ਸਕੀਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਗਰ੍ਾਂਟ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ## ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ Ã ਘਟਾਉਣ ਲਈ, ਿਵਿਨਯਮ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਲਗਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਿਦੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਕ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਿਕਵÎ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ à ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਗੈਰ-ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੱਪੜੇ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਮਵੇਅਰ ਸਟੋਰ, ਵਾਹਨ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੋਅਰੂਮ (ਿਕਰਾਏ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ), ਸੱਟੇਬਾਜ਼ੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਦਰਜ਼ੀ, ਤੰਬਾਕੂ ਅਤੇ ਵੈਪ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਇਲੈਕਟÀੋਿਨਕ ਸਮਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਬਾਈਲ ਫੋਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਿਨਲਾਮੀ ਘਰ (ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਜਾਂ ਖੇਤੀ ਉਪਕਰਣਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਨਲਾਮੀ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ) ਅਤੇ ਗੈਰ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਵੇਚਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਬਾਜ਼ਾਰੀ ਸਟਾਲ। ਇਹ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ-ਕਲੈਕਟ ਚਲਾਉਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ (ਿਜੱਥੇ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਆਰਡਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਅਹਾਤੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਏ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਇਕੱਤਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ) ਅਤੇ ਸਪੁਰਦਗੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ। - ਪਰਾਹੁਣਚਾਰੀ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੈਫੇ, ਰੈਸਟੋਰÏਟ, ਪੱਬ, ਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਕਲੱਬ; ਖਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਅਲਕੋਹਲ ਵਾਲੇ ਪੀਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਟੇਕਅਵੇਅ ਲਈ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ (ਰਾਤ 11 ਵਜੇ ਤੱਕ), ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ-ਕਲੈਕਟ ਅਤੇ ਡÀਾਇਵ-ਥº ਦੇ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ। ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਖਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਪੀਣ ਦੀਆਂ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ (ਅਲਕੋਹਲ ਸਮੇਤ) Ã ਿਡਲੀਵਰੀ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਵਾਉਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਿਖਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੋਟਲ, ਹੋਸਟਲ, ਗੈਸਟ ਹਾਊਸ ਅਤੇ ਕÏਪ ਸਾਈਟਾਂ, ਕੁਝ ਖਾਸ ਹਾਲਾਤ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਨਵਾਸ ਵਜÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਨਹÍ ਆ ਸਕਦਾ, ਬੇਘਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਉਥੇ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ - ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਕÎਦਰ ਅਤੇ ਿਜਮ, ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ, ਸਪੋਰਟਸ ਕੋਰਟ, ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਡਾਂਸ ਸਟੂਡੀਓ, ਰਾਈਿਡੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ, ਚੜਾਈ ਦੀਆਂ ਕੰਧਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਗੋਲਫ ਕੋਰਸ। - ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਥੀਏਟਰ, ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਹਾਲ, ਿਸਨ ੇਮਾਘਰ, ਅਜਾਇਬ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਗੈਲਰੀਆਂ, ਕੈਸੀਨ × , ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਆਰਕੇਡ, ਿਬੰਗੋ ਹਾਲ, ਬਾਉਿਲੰਗ ਐਲੇ, ਸਕੇਿਟੰਗ ਿਰੰਕ, ਗੋ- ਕਾਰਿਟੰਗ ਸਥਾਨ, ਇਨਡੋਰ ਪਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਫਟ ਪਲੇ ਸÏਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਰ (ਇਨਫਲੇਟੇਬਲ ਪਾਰਕ ਅਤੇ ਟÀਾਮਪੋਲਾਈਿਨ ੰਗ ਸÏਟਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ), ਸਰਕਸ, ਮੇਲੇ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ, ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ, ਵਾਟਰ ਪਾਰਕ ਅਤੇ ਥੀਮ ਪਾਰਕ - ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਕਰਸ਼ਣ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਚੜੀਆਘਰ, ਸਫਾਰੀ ਪਾਰਕ, ਐਕੁਏਰੀਅਮ ਅਤੇ ਵਾਈਲਡ ਲਾਈਫ ਸÏਟਰ) - ਬੋਟੈਨੀਕਲ ਬਗੀਿਚਆਂ, ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਘਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਰ੍ਿਸੱਧ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਵਰਗੀਆਂ ਥਾਵਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਇਨਡੋਰ ਆਕਰਸ਼ਣਾ Ã ਵੀ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨਾ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਹੈ, ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ ਇਨÁਾਂ ਅਹਾਿਤਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਮੈਦਾਨ ਬਾਹਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। - ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਵਾਲ, ਸੁੰਦਰਤਾ, ਟੈਿਨ ੰਗ ਅਤੇ ਨ ੇਲ ਸੈਲੂਨ। ਟੈਟੂ ਪਾਰਲਰ, ਸਪਾਅ, ਮਸਾਜ ਪਾਰਲਰ, ਸਰੀਰ ਅਤੇ ਚਮੜੀ ਿਵੰਨÁਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਵੀ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਇਹ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ - ਕਿਮਉਿਨਟੀ ਸÏਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਹਾਲਾਂ Ã ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਸੀਿਮਤ ਸੰਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੋਟ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਦੱਿਸਆ ਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਆਈਟੀ ਅਤੇ ਿਡਜੀਟਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਲਾਇਬਰ੍ੇਰੀਆਂ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲÁੀਆਂ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਇਹ ਘਰ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ - ਅਤੇ ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ- ਕਲੈਕਟ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਲਈ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚÐ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਛੋਟੀ ਸੰਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੋਟ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਏਗੀ। ਛੋਟਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ - ਸਕੂਲਾਂ ਲਈ ਖੇਡਾਂ, ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਅਤੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਮ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਦਾ ਿਹੱਸਾ ਹੈ - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਅਧੀਨ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ - ਖੂਨਦਾਨ ਦੇ ਸੈਸ਼ਨ ਅਤੇ ਭੋਜਨ ਬÏਕ ਆਯੋਿਜਤ ਕਰਨ ੇ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਇਲਾਜ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਿਖਡਾਰੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ (ਇਨਡੋਰ ਅਤੇ ਆਊਟਡੋਰ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ), ਅਤੇ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ ਡਾਂਸਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੋਰੀਓਗਰ੍ਾਫਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ (ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਡਾਂਸ ਸਟੂਡੀਓ ਿਵੱਚ) - ਦਰਸ਼ਕਾਂ ਤÐ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਿਰਹਸਰਲਾਂ ਲਈ (ਥੀਏਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਹਾਲਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ) ## - ਿਫਲਮ ਅਤੇ ਟੀਵੀ ਿਫਲਮਾਂਕਣ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã, ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਸੇਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਏ, ਖੁੱਲÁਾ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਭੋਜਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਸੁਪਰਮਾਰਕੀਟਾਂ, ਫਾਰਮੇਸੀਆਂ, ਗਾਰਡਨ ਸÏਟਰ, ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਵਪਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਉਤਪਾਦਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਆਫ ਲਾਇਸÏਸਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਪਲਾਇਰ - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ ਵੇਚਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਰਕੀਟ ਸਟਾਲ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਮੁੱਖ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ - ਪੈਟਰੋਲ ਸਟੇਸ਼ਨ, ਆਟੋਮੈਿਟਕ (ਪਰ ਮੈਨੂਅਲ ਨਹÍ) ਕਾਰ ਵਾਸ਼, ਵਾਹਨ ਦੀ ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਗੈਰਾਜ ਅਤੇ MOT ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, ਸਾਈਕਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਟੈਕਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਵਾਹਨ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ - ਬÏਕ, ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਸੋਸਾਇਟੀਆਂ, ਡਾਕਘਰ, ਥੋੜਹ੍ੇ ਸਮÎ ਦੇ ਲੋਨ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੀ ਟÀਾਂਸਫਰ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ - ਅੰਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਡਾਇਰੈਕਟਰ - ਲਾਂਡਰੇਟ ਅਤੇ ਡÀਾਈ ਕਲੀਨਰ - ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਅਤੇ ਡÏਟਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਦੇ ਡਾਕਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਭਲਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਸਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਖਾਣ ਪੀਣ ਦੇ ਿਰਟੇਲਰ - ਪਸ਼ੂ ਬਚਾਅ ਕÎਦਰ, ਬੋਰਿਡੰਗ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਪਾਲਕ (ਸੁਹਜਾਤਿਮਕ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ, ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਰਤਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ) - ਖੇਤੀਬਾੜੀ ਸਮਾਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ - ਗਤੀਸ਼ੀਲਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਪਾਹਜਤਾ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ - ਸਟੋਰੇਜ ਅਤੇ ਵੰਡ ਦੀ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ - ਕਾਰ ਪਾਰਕ, ਜਨਤਕ ਟੌਇਲਟ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਟਰਵੇਅ ਸੇਵਾ ਖੇਤਰ - ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਕਸਰਤ ਲਈ ਬੋਟੈਨੀਕਲ ਬਗੀਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਿਹੱਸੇ - ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ - ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ਾਨਘਾਟ ਅਤੇ ਕਬਰਗਾਹਾਂ ## ਿਸਹਤ-ਸੰਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ NHS ਅਤੇ ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਖੁੱਲÁੀਆਂ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ, ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਦੰਦਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, - ਆਪਟੀਿਸ਼ਅਨ (ਅੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਾਹਰ), - ਆਡੀਓਲੌਜੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, - ਕਾਇਰੋਪੋਡੀ, - ਕਾਇਰੋਪਰ੍ੈਕਟਰ (ਕੰਗਰੋੜ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ੱਗ), - ਓਸਟੀਓਪੈਥ (ਅਸਥੀ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ੱਗ) - ਹੋਰ ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਜਾਂ ਿਸਹਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, ਮਾਨਿਸਕ ਿਸਹਤ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ ਅਸÍ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਗੈਰ-ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਲਈ NHS ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਜੋ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਸੋਚਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਉਸ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਿਕਸਮ ਦੀ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਅੱਗੇ ਆ ਕੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦੀ ਮੰਗੇ। ਬਹੁਤੀਆਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕੋਗੇ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਜੋਬਸÏਟਰ ਪਲੱਸ ਸਾਈਟਾਂ - ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਰ੍ੋਬੇਸ਼ਨ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਿਸਵਲ ਰਿਜਟÀੇਸ਼ਨ ਆਿਫਸ - ਪਾਸਪੋਰਟ ਅਤੇ ਵੀਜ਼ਾ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਪੀੜਤਾਂ Ã ਿਦੱਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਕੂੜਾ ਜਾਂ ਰੀਸਾਈਕਿਲੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ - ਇੱਕ MOT ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨਾ, ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਗੱਡੀ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ	fi
1949-pdf	## Bid Writing Course Summary On This Course You Will Learn What A Funder Wants To Hear- And What They Don'T. We Will Look At The Most Effective Language And Structure To Use, And Spend The Afternoon Putting This Into Practice With Your Own Project. For This Module We Have Developed A Fantastic Resource Pack, Including Case Studies And Language Guides Which You Can Take Away And Apply To Your Own Bid Writing. Aim Participants Are More Confident, And Have Increased Skills To Prepare Bids And Applications To Public Grant Making Bodies, Trusts And Foundations Learning Objectives The course will enable participants to  Know how to prepare effectively for writing a proposal so you are able to respond to opportunities quickly and efficiently  Understand how to evaluate whether or not to apply for funds  Know how to write in an appropriate and effective style  Understand what makes a successful application or bid  Have experience of being an assessor and scoring an application ## Summary Of Content  What Does A Good Bid Look Like?  When to bid  Deciding whether to apply  Bidding skills o Structure o Language and style o Consistency and completeness  Practical tips (including how to respond to guidance provided)  Applying for funding exercise  Assessor Practice (Interactive practical example)  Reviewing your work	en
2377-pdf	## For more information please see Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales, available online at: https:/	en
0702-pdf	## Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2015 ## By Mrs A Fairclough Ma Bsc(Hons) Llb(Hons) Pgdiplp(Bar) Ihbc Mrtpi an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 October 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/W/15/3033489 Ashmount, Smalldale, Bradwell, Hope Valley S33 9LQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Patricia Lesley Ollerenshaw against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority.  The application Ref: NP/DDD/1114/1157 dated 5 November 2014, was refused by notice dated 23 January 2015.  The development proposed is described as "a lean-to has been constructed on the back on an existing agricultural building, which was granted planning permission several years ago. The lean-to consists of a blocked supporting wall with corrugated roof and doors. It is to be used for storing hay for my livestock. Please note that the dates I have listed below are approximate dates". ## Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. ## Procedural Matters 2. A single storey lean-to extension attached to a building has already been built at the site. However, I consider that the scheme as built is materially different to the appeal proposal before me. In particular, the drawings do not indicate the door or cladding on the northeast facing elevation and as such, the scheme as built is not in accordance with the submitted plans. I will determine this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans. 3. I note that the Council is dealing with enforcement matters relating to this site. However, I am required to determine the appeal on the planning merits alone. Accordingly, I will determine the appeal on this basis. ## Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case are the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside location. ## Reasons Character 5. The appeal site is a field located adjacent to the settlement of Smalldale on its northern fringes. It is located within the open countryside. One of the core planning principles is take account of the roles and character of different areas including recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). The appeal site is also within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). The two purposes of National Parks1 are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The Framework also states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. 6. The appeal site edged in red is part of an agricultural land holding. The field which form part of the site edged in red, and within which the appeal host building and the scheme as built are located, is undulating and is part of a steeply rising hillside. It has fences, walls and hedges as well as livestock pens and shelters dotted around the field. This is typical of the upland farm landscape within the PDNP and as such, it contributes to the character of the countryside. 7. The appellant seeks approval for a lean-to extension (the appeal proposal). The appeal proposal is attached to the northwestern elevation of the dual pitched host building. The host building is some 9.75m in length and 4.7m wide. The plans indicate that the appeal proposal is some 2.2m wide and some 7.8m in length and is lower in height than the host building as it continues the plane of the host building's roof slope. 8. The Council states that the appeal proposal is not sufficiently justified for its location. Saved Policy LC13 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (LP) adopted in 2001 states, amongst other things, that new agricultural buildings will be permitted if they are close to the main group of buildings and make the best use of existing buildings. The supporting paragraphs to this policy require that applications should be accompanied by full explanations of the agricultural proposals with which they are associated to allow for proper assessment. This policy accords with the Framework and, as such, I accord it significant weight. 9. The Framework also states that sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas should be supported by both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. 10. I have also been referred to a Supplementary Planning Document entitled Agricultural Developments in the Peak District National Park (SPD) dated 2003. This provides guidance for new agricultural buildings, which indicates that if you do not supply sufficient information to justify a new agricultural building then the application may be refused. 11. The agricultural landholding comprises the field in Smalldale, as referred to above in paragraph 6, which is some 1.0ha, 2 parcels of land at Castleton, which total approximately 4ha and further rented land there around 1.5ha. The appellant states she has a flock of 60 ewes, which are kept on her land. One of the parcels of land near Castleton produces hay crops to feed the sheep in the winter months. The land at Castleton includes a small open fronted shelter. The field in Smalldale holds several structures including pens and open structures for the shelter and stabling of livestock. However, she states that the only watertight building on this land is the large block building, to which the scheme as built is attached. The appellant states that this building is used for the storage of machinery, equipment and items in connection with agriculture on the holding e.g. a quad bike, trailer, feeding racks, barriers and other portable items plus tools in connection with maintenance of the small holding. These items are stored here as it is the most secure storage available. 12. She argues that the scheme as built is used for the storage of hay on the basis that other than the host building none of the other structures on the land holding are watertight and that it is accessible by a large vehicles and trailers. Thus, she contends that the host building is required for other agricultural purposes and that the scheme as built is necessary for the storage of hay. 13. The Council indicates that one of the open shelters has been used for the storage of hay. However, the appellant says that the open shelters are also used to house all the sheep in the inclement weather and during the lambing season or for the stabling of horses. 14. At the site visit, the open structures and pens were not in use as there were no livestock present at the appeal site because they were grazing at Castleton. The appeal scheme as built was completely full of bales of hay. 15. The host building is substantial, as described by the appellant, and I saw several large and small items stored within it, including some domestic and gardening items and a boiler/flue as well as items associated with agriculture. However, although the appellant states that there is no possibility of space being made available for the amount of the hay crop, the host building is large and even with the quad bike and trailer storage and the removal of the small number of domestic items, there is no actual evidence before me to suggest that the hay could not be stored within the host building as it is watertight, spacious and accessible by large vehicles and trailers. 16. On the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the best use is made of the host building and linked to that whether the appeal proposal is necessary for agricultural purposes. I note the appellant has suggested a condition restricting the use of the appeal proposal to agriculture. However, although I note the host building has been used for domestic storage purposes in the past, such a condition would not overcome the concern I have regarding whether the proposal is justified as necessary agricultural development in the countryside and PDNP. ## Appearance 17. The originating planning application indicates that the appeal proposal is constructed of blocks with a box profile sheet roof covering, which would match the host building. Whilst the use of concrete block and sheet metal does not reflect the traditional character or appearance of the countryside within the PDNP, and such developments are normally resisted on the grounds they are neither characteristic or recessive in colour/finish, the amount of block work visible is relatively small due to its position, which is the least obtrusive on the appeal site, and its relative height. Therefore, the further impact of the extension in terms of relative form and use of materials is low on the appearance of the locality. 18. However, the roof of the host building is finished in a dark colour and the scheme as built is finished the pale coloured sheet metal roof of the scheme as built, which creates a significant contrast with the adjacent sheet metal roof on the host building, appears prominent and incongruous when viewed from public vantage points on the road and nearby public footpath. Therefore, the scheme as built causes sufficient harm to have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the locality. 19. The appellant has suggested that the appeal proposal could be conditioned in terms of the finish of the roof material such that it could be painted to reflect the dark recessive roof of the host building and this would overcome any harm to the appearance of the PDNP. In my view, the imposition of a condition to ensure that the roofs match each other in terms of dark recessive colour finish would help to lessen the impact of the appeal proposal to the extent it would assist to conserve the natural beauty of the PDNP. 20. The Council also refers to a bright reflective door. However, although a galvanised agricultural specification door was cited under materials on the originating planning application, it was omitted from the submitted plan and elevation drawings and, therefore, cannot be conditioned. This has not been considered in this appeal. ## Conclusions 21. I consider that the harmful effect of the appeal proposal on the appearance of the area could be overcome by the imposition of a condition relating to the roof. On this basis the appeal proposal does not conflict with Policy L1 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework adopted in 2011, which requires, amongst other things, that development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character. In addition, it is not contrary to saved LP Policy LC4 and relevant aspects of saved Policy LC13, which require, amongst other things that development should also relate well in terms of scale, design, mass, colouring in relation to other/existing buildings and be the least obtrusive in terms of location. These policies are consistent with the Framework and as such, I accord them considerable weight. It would also be in accordance with the objectives of the Framework 22. However, I am concerned that the appeal proposal is not necessary and has not been sufficiently justified for the purposes of agriculture in this countryside location within the PDNP. Consequently. I consider that, in terms of character, the statutory duty of conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the PDNP has not been demonstrated. Therefore, this is the determining issue in this case and I consider the appeal proposal would be detrimental to the character of the locality and conflicts with the relevant elements of LP Policy LC13 and the Framework. In addition, it would not follow the objectives of the SPD. 23. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mrs A Fairclough INSPECTOR	en
2710-pdf	## Financial Reporting Council The UK's independent regulator for corporate governance and reporting Paul George Financial Reporting Council 1 The UK's independent regulator for corporate governance and reporting ## What Is The Frc? • The UK's independent regulator responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment • Statutory and non-statutory responsibilities • Sets accounting, auditing and actuarial standards as well as the corporate governance Code • Provides independent oversight of the regulation of the auditing, accounting and actuarial professions by their respective professional bodies • Direct regulatory role in monitoring and discipline of the accounting, auditing and actuarial professions (PIEs only) • Thought leadership in the UK and internationally • Funded by a voluntary levy on companies, the audit profession and local authorities ## History Of The Frc • Originally set up in the 1980s as a private sector body tasked with promoting high quality financial reporting . It consisted of two bodies, the Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Review Panel, respectively setting UK accounting standards and reviewing listed companies' compliance with those standards • Following Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Swift Report recommended that the FRC also take on formal responsibilities for audit and accountancy regulation; this was enacted in 2004 • From 2006 the FRC also took on formal responsibility for actuarial oversight and standard-setting • Publication of "Reform" consultation in 2011 - aimed at cementing FRC's independence, increasing our effectiveness and focusing our activities on capital markets ## Frc Current Structure Frc Proposed New Structure Frc Ltd Board Codes & Standards Conduct Professional Oversight Board - Most of the FRC's statutory responsibilities under the Companies Act currently rest with the POB - Oversight of the Recognised Qualifying Bodies and Recognised Supervisory Bodies for audit - Regular monitoring of the RQBs and RSBs to ensure their continued compliance with the Companies Act - Annual publication of report to Secretary of State on our activities ## Audit Inspection Unit - Part of the Professional Oversight Board - Monitors the audits of listed companies and certain other public interest entities - Around 100 audits inspected annually, selected using a risk model - Also carries out inspections of firm-wide quality control processes at the ten largest firms ## Audit Inspection Unit Reporting - Private reports to firms on outcome of inspections - Public reports detailing the results of its inspections of individual firms, as well as an annual report with an overview of its activities - A letter detailing the AIU's findings on each individual audit is sent to the relevant Audit Committee Chairman - Report to Audit Registration Committee on findings - Post-reform we hope to have the ability to sanction firms whose audits are of unsatisfactory quality ## Frc And Choice In The Audit Market - The FRC has been concerned about the extent of market concentration, and the risk of a major firm failing, for some years - FRC and BIS commissioned Oxera to carry out a study in 2006 - Following on from this the FRC set up the Market Participants Group (MPG) - This was an attempt to reduce both concentration and the risk of a firm leaving the market by means of voluntary action by market participants ## Frc And Choice In The Audit Market (Cont) - The MPG produced a list of 15 recommendations, 14 of which have now been implemented - FRC has monitored progress and published a number of progress reports - It is clear that the recommendations may have helped audit quality but have done nothing to reduce market concentration; indeed there is evidence that the market is becoming more concentrated - FRC has exhausted its audit regulator's toolbox; the issue needs looking at by competition authorities ## Frc Current Work On Audit Market - Focus on contingency planning; working with firms to develop "living wills" - Review of recent audit proposals and meetings with audit committee chairs indicate increased propensity for large companies to put audits out to tender, partially for governance reasons, partially to obtain a cut in fees - Review of recent auditor changes points towards increasing concentration; very few companies switching from Big Four to non-Big Four, but several moving in the opposite direction ## Specific Issues Cc May Wish To Consider - Possibility of an unequivocal statement that under no circumstances would it permit the market to be dominated by three or fewer audit firms - Hyper-concentration in particular industries (eg banking, insurance, utilities) - Propensity for small FTSE companies to use Big Four auditors; contrast with similarly-sized AIM companies - Big Four expanding into AIM markets - International issues: - Regulation of central entities at heart of global networks - Trend for Big Four networks to acquire smaller rival firms in developing markets - Interaction with European Commission proposals ## Appendix A - Aiu Gradings The AIU rates individual audits as:  Good with limited improvements required; or  Acceptable but with improvements required; or  Significant1 improvements required. A variety of factors are considered when arriving at the conclusion, including:  Sufficiency of audit evidence  Quality of audit evidence  Appropriateness or otherwise of audit judgements  Evidencing of thought processes underlying audit judgements  The existence and extent of concerns in other areas ## Appendix B - Mpg Recommendations 1. The FRC should promote wider understanding of the possible effects on audit choice of changes to audit firm ownership rules, subject to there being sufficient safeguards to protect auditor independence and audit quality. 2. Audit firms should disclose the financial results of their work on statutory audits and directly related services on a comparable basis. 3. In developing and implementing policy in auditor liability arrangements, regulators and legislators should seek to promote audit choice, subject to the overriding need to protect audit quality. 4. Regulatory organisations should encourage participation on standard setting bodies and committees by appropriate individuals from different sizes of audit firms. 5. The FRC should continue in its efforts to promote understanding of audit quality and should promote greater transparency by the firms and the FRC of the capabilities of individual audit firms. 6. The auditing profession should establish mechanisms to improve access by the incoming auditor to information relevant to the audit held by the outgoing auditor. 7. The FRC should provide independent Guidance to Audit Committees and other market participants on considerations relevant to use of firms from more than one audit network. 8. The FRC should amend the section of the FRC Guidance to Audit Committees dealing with communications with shareholders to include a requirement for the provision of information relevant to the auditor re-selection process. 9. When explaining auditor selection decision, Boards should disclose any contractual obligations to appoint certain types of auditing firms. 10. Investor groups, corporate representatives, firms and the FRC should promote good practices for shareholder engagement on auditor appointment and reappointments. 11. Authorities with responsibility for ethical standards for auditors should consider whether any rules could have a disproportionately adverse impact on auditor choice when compared to the benefits to auditor objectivity and independence. 12. The FRC should review the Independence section of the FRC Guidance on Audit Committees to ensure that it is consistent with the relevant ethical standards for auditors. 13. Regulators should develop protocols for a more consistent response to audit firm issues based on their seriousness. 14. Every firm that audits public interest entities should comply with the provisions of a Combined Code-style corporate governance guide or give a considered explanation. 15. Major public interest entities (PIEs) should consider the need to include the risk of the withdrawal of their auditor from the market in their risk evaluation and planning.	en
2185-pdf	# Development Networks Evaluation Findings Sharing Event 11 September 2017 The National Archives ## Networks Agenda - Headline findings - Methodology - Development networks - Lessons learned - Recommendations ## Headline Findings - 10 networks funded throughout England (all unique and at different stages) - Over £240K invested (includes TNA and match funding) - Only 1 network no longer in operation - One network has become a new organisation (Archives West Midlands) - Enabled archive services to look beyond their own day to day operations - Helped to raise the profile of services among senior council leaders - Allowed individual archive services to tackle big challenges - Administration is a key area of concern among network members - Services have more power and authority when working collectively ## Methodology The research was undertaken over a four stage process. 1. Initiation 2. Consultation 3. Compilation 4. Dissemination ## Development Networks Membership Investment Survey And Interview Findings Development Opportunities Priority Areas Of Activity Effective Networks Recommendations For Tna - Continue supporting networks - A healthy risk appetite - Adopt a self-selection approach - Continue match funding - Enable the sharing of ideas - Acknowledge Archives Accreditation - Support leadership, governance and management and working with consultants ## Stages Of A Network Top Tips For An Effective Network 1. Agree on a clear purpose 2. Establish priorities 3. Communicate and advocate 4. Get active - do stuff 5. Develop a governance and management framework	en
2499-pdf	## London Borough of Barnet Equalities Policy Aiming for Equal Life Chances in Barnet - ensuring the right approach to equalities in changing times. Revised January 2014 Contents Foreword by Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of the Council What does Barnet Council want to achieve? Who is included in the policy? How will we do it? Expectations of Partners and Citizens How will we know we are making a difference? Foreword by Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of the Council In a time of unprecedented financial challenge, it is important to ensure that the decisions the council takes are fair and that, as an organisation, we are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. Barnet's revised Equalities Policy will help us to deliver our commitment to equal opportunities for all as the council commissions and delivers services during challenging times. Barnet is large, growing and diverse and we are proud that Barnet is a place where people get along well together. The focus of the council is to foster growth in the local economy and we want everyone to benefit from that growth. But we know that some residents will continue to need our support, which we will provide, whilst helping others maintain their independence. The council will be transparent and keep equalities at the heart of decision making as we continue to make tough financial decisions. We will monitor and report our progress, making sure we are aware of any disproportionate impact on particular groups. We want to keep Barnet as a great place for people to live, work and study. I look forward to working with our local partners and residents from across the borough to ensure that everyone can achieve their potential and benefit from all that Barnet has to offer. ## 1. What Does Barnet Council Want To Achieve? At a time of change and continuing financial austerity, the council has made a commitment to treat citizens equally with understanding and respect; provide equal opportunities and quality services in line with Best Value principles. This commitment is at the core of the council's constitution. We will take a borough wide approach to equalities and we recognise that one sector alone cannot reduce inequality, grow the economy or encourage community action. We will work with all our partners in the private, public and community sector and the rich diversity of Barnet's communities to: - Keep Barnet as a good place to live work and study where every Barnet citizen has the opportunity to live, work and study in a safe environment free from harassment and discrimination. - Build on local community strengths and assets so that citizens can support each other to take control of their own lives, optimise their independence, and make a difference in their communities and to local services. - Support communities to get on well together and build understanding about what really matters to Citizens. - Promote active engagement with the rich diversity of Barnet's communities, people who use services, residents and employees. - Seek out the voices of people who are not always heard and those who need extra help to access our services. - Place a clear emphasis on creating the right environment for fair economic growth across the borough which supports the development of diverse markets. We want to ensure that workforces and suppliers can maximise the benefits of jobs and growth for local people and communities. - Use evidence to support the delivery of needs led, appropriate and accessible services which reflect the diversity of need at different stages in people's lives. - Meet our legal, organisational and personal responsibilities to treat people fairly, promote equalities, address inequality, challenge discrimination, and make reasonable adjustments when we identify any physical or attitudinal barriers which limit equal opportunities. ## 2. Who Is Included In The Barnet'S Equalities Policy? Barnet Council's Equalities Policy is relevant to all Barnet Citizens - everyone who lives, works, studies and uses services in the borough. The Policy outlines key ways of working for Barnet Council staff and the organisations who deliver services in partnership with, and on behalf of, the council. ## 3. How Will We Do It? Barnet is a 'Commissioning Council', providing services through a mixed economy of private, public and community organisations to secure the best value for the taxpayer. We will: - Work to reflect and integrate equalities into everything we and our partners do. We will embed equalities into the decisions the council and partners make and into business and financial planning processes. - Work with local partners including public, private, voluntary and community sectors to gather information and data to understand and act on citizen's needs and expectations. Use data to identify trends and barriers and take action to make reasonable adjustments. - Assess the impact on equality as the council and our partners develop and implement specific strategies, policies and programmes. - Be open and transparent, publish information regarding our progress against our equality objectives and ensure partners can be held to account for mutually agreed outcomes. - Make consultation and engagement with the rich diversity of Barnet communities a cornerstone of developing new actions and approaches. - Enable everyone to participate in the life of the community and celebrate its diversity. - Develop a 'Communities Together' network, with the council facilitating different local groups to share information and build an understanding about what really matters to Barnet's communities, and how we can get on well together. ## 4. What Do We Expect From Our Partners? The council expects all its partners to: - Commit to the aims and principles and ways of working set out in Sections 1 and 3 of this policy document and reflect these in the way they do business in Barnet. - Reflect legal requirements for equality including the General Public Sector Equality Duty where it applies, by promoting equality, tackling discrimination and paying due regard to equalities in decision making. - Collect analyse and share equalities data to support the achievement of this policy and report progress, for example, as part of Barnet Council's Strategic Equalities Objective. - Know about and respond to the diverse nature of Barnet as part of their standard business model. - Support people to access services and reflect Barnet's diversity in their service provision by communicating with their customers, making their services accessible and personalising their offer to meet individual needs without a service premium. ## 5. What Do We Expect From Our Citizens? We want to support everyone in Barnet to take control of their own lives, communities and local services. We will foster a culture of personal responsibility where citizens and communities encouraged to promote equalities and community cohesion, maximise their independence, support each other and challenge discrimination. ## 6. How Will We Know That We Are Making A Difference? We will focus on the outcomes of our equality aims as set out in section 1 of this policy. - We will publish our Strategic Equalities Objective and measure our performance against it. These measures will reflect the things that people tell us they value and we will monitor the impact of the economic downturn on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. - In collaboration with our partners we will measure our progress, publish the results and take action to address physical and attitudinal barriers to people having equal life chances. For example, we will monitor the reporting of hate crimes. - We will publish an annual report of our progress against our Strategic Equalities Objective. - We will share best practice and achievements with our partners so that we can collaborate, learn from others and improve. The Leader of the Council, who is the responsible Elected Member for Equalities, the Lead Member for Community Cohesion and the council's Strategic Director for Communities, will review progress against our aims. This Policy will be reviewed with the Corporate Plan in 2015 and in the meantime, we will continue to work with our partners, communities and residents to implement the Action Plan that goes with this policy. Our Strategic Equalities Objective and progress against the performance measures we use to measure it will be kept online and up to date here; http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/200041/equality_and_diversity/224/equality_and_diver sity More information can be found on the Equalities pages on our website, including: - Our Equalities Policy Action Plan which will be updated annually - Our Strategic Equalities Objective and the measures we use to monitor it - Information on our progress and our key achievements - Our staff equalities policy - Links to our partners' equalities policies	en
4107-pdf	Data Quality Statement, 2017-18 Published 13th June 2019 ## Contents \| Introduction \| 3 \| \|---------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| \| \| \| Relevance \| 4 \| \| \| \| \| Accuracy and Reliability \| 4 \| \| \| \| \| Testing \| 6 \| \| \| \| \| Validation \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Timeliness and Punctuality \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Timeliness \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Punctuality \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Accessibility and Clarity \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Coherence and Comparability \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Comparability over time \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Reduction in participation in 2013-14 and 2014-15 \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Comparability with other sources \| 8 \| \| \| \| \| Assessment of User Needs and Perceptions \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Introduction The National Diabetes Audit (NDA) is managed by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England and delivered by NHS Digital formerly the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), working in collaboration with Diabetes UK and Public Health England (PHE). The NDA is a major national clinical audit, which measures the effectiveness of diabetes healthcare against NICE Clinical Guidelines and NICE Quality Standards, in England and Wales. The NDA collects and analyses data for use by a range of stakeholders to drive changes and improvements in the quality of services and health outcomes for people with diabetes. The NDA answers five key questions: 1. Is everyone with diabetes diagnosed and recorded on a practice diabetes register? 2. What percentage of people registered with diabetes received the NICE key processes of diabetes care? 3. What percentage of people registered with diabetes achieved NICE defined treatment targets for glucose control, blood pressure and blood cholesterol? 4. What percentage of people registered with diabetes are offered and attend a structured education course? 5. For people with registered diabetes what are the rates of acute and long term complications (disease outcomes)? The NDA supports improvement in the quality of diabetes care by enabling participating NHS services and organisations to: - assess local practice against NICE guidelines - compare their care and care outcomes with similar services and organisations - identify gaps or shortfalls that are priorities for improvement - identify and share best practice - provide comprehensive national pictures of diabetes care and outcomes in England and Wales Through participation in the audit, local services are able to benchmark their performance and identify where they are performing well and improve the quality of treatment and care they provide. On a national level, wide participation in the audit also provides an overview of the quality of care being provided in England and Wales. ## Relevance Data is extracted from general practice clinical systems and specialist diabetes services in secondary care hospitals. The audit is a voluntary audit for GP practices, meaning GP practices need to opt in to be included. For specialist services, participation in the audit is mandatory. In 2017-18, the participation rate was 98.3 per cent of all GP practices in England and Wales. The information collected from GP practices for the audit is individual level data and contains demographic information such as age, sex, ethnicity, diabetes duration and geographic variables such as postcode. As the data collected is identifiable data, it is subject to dissent, meaning patients can dissent from the NDA. This means that the registrations for people with diabetes captured may not be a true reflection of the whole population of people with diabetes for that GP practice. For the first time this year, the audit has gathered data on specified drug types prescribed to people with diabetes in the audit. ## Accuracy And Reliability The 2017-18 audit covers the majority of England and Wales with a participation rate of 98.3 per cent. Participation is published at Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Local Health Board (LHB) level. Caution should be taken when looking at areas with low participation and when looking at areas with variable participation over time. Primary care data are extracted from GP clinical systems via the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES); the practice must approve the extraction. Specialist diabetes services submit their data manually through the NDA Data Landing Portal. Data has been reported at GP practice level since the 2013-14 audit. The audit report includes only information on eight of the nine care processes. This is due to an issue in data collection which was identified in the 2011-12 audit. Examination of the issue highlighted inconsistencies in how eye screening was being recorded in GP records. Therefore, this care process is not covered in the audit. ## There are several data quality issues the reader should be aware of when looking at the data included in this report: ## 1. Urine Albumin/Creatinine Ratio Care Process Caution should be taken when using screening test results for early kidney disease (Urine Albumin Creatinine Ratio, UACR) prior to 2013-14 and assessing variation across CCGs for this care process over time. Some areas recorded the albumin values in 'text' field format that did not carry through to the audit during the extraction process. This method of recording is thought to be due to the different ways this test is carried out across localities. Although these values are not brought through to the dataset, the dates for these values are. This means that even if the value is not extracted, the date that the test took place is. Therefore, this date is used to determine if the care process has taken place. Since 2013-14, data have been extracted in a consistent way across all service providers. This resulted in better performance for albumin care process completion in 2013-14. However, due to the retirement of the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicator and the potential refocusing of GP practices, performance in recording this care process has fallen in recent years. ## 2. Blood Pressure Treatment Target A data quality issue for the blood pressure treatment target affected a small number of GP practices in 2015-16. A reading for systolic blood pressure was recorded but measurements of diastolic blood pressure were incomplete. These patients have been recorded as not meeting the treatment target and have not been included in the treatment target calculation. This issue does not affect the recording of whether the annual check for blood pressure has taken place. ## 3. The Hba1C Care Process An issue affected data supplied to NHS Digital for a large number of GP practices in the 2011-12 audit regarding HbA1c (blood glucose) recording. While this did not materially affect the findings in the national report, the CCG level care process and treatment target reports covering potentially affected practices for the 2011-12 publication have been removed from our website. The issue is restricted to the 2011-12 audit data. ## 4. Possible Data File Issues In 2016-17 When Submitted 14-16Th June 2017 We are aware of an issue that may have affected a number of data files collected for the 2016-17 audit that were received between the 14th and 16th June 2017. An error occurred in transit of some files to NHS Digital. Some practices may show as underperforming when this is not necessarily the case. For example, BMI results for Kenyon Medical Centres (M86015) and the HbA1c results for Staithes Surgery (B82046). ## 5. Foot Surveillance Data From Tpp Systmone Gp Clinical System In 2016-17 It has been found that foot surveillance data may have been under-reported in 2016-17 for several GP practices that used the TPP SystmOne clinical system. This may account for some of the fall in overall foot surveillance completion in 2016-17. ## 6. Incorrect Data Submitted For Leicester Royal Infirmary (Rweaa) In 2016-17 It has been identified that the data submitted to the audit from Leicester Royal Infirmary was for far fewer patients than was intended. The results for Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2016-17 should be treated with extreme caution. ## 7. Incorrect Hba1C Data Submitted For Hull And East Yorkshire Hospitals Nhs Trust (Rwa) In 2016-17 It has been identified that the HbA1c data submitted to the audit from Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust was incorrect. The data show a much lower HbA1c reading for patients than was the case. The performance of this trust appears to be much better for 2016-17 than it was, so any relative deterioration in performance should be treated with extreme caution. ## 8. Diabetes Type In 2017-18 Initial data quality checks on the 2017-18 NDA data showed that a higher than expected number of people had a read code which matched to a general diabetes diagnosis, rather than specifically Type 1, Type 2 or one of the smaller Types. Where possible, diabetes Type data collected in previous audits was used to override the general diagnosis with a more specific diabetes Type. This method was also used to complete the diabetes Type for individuals with missing data. Although this method of improving the data worked well, it is still likely that a small number of people with Type 1 diabetes, who have not appeared in a previous audit, will have their data included in the "Type 2 and other" category. ## 9. Body Mass Index (Bmi) Care Process In 2017-18 GP practices using the Vision clinical system supplier were unable to submit a BMI date or value for people registered with the practice under the new GPES collection process, due to a technical issue. To ensure that BMI data could be included in the NDA for these practices, the 2017-18 collection also extracted height and weight data, where available. For all system suppliers, as well as using submitted BMI dates to indicate that the care process had taken place, dates were used where weights had been taken. This may account for some of the uplift in BMI care process completion in 2017-18. ## 10. Bmi Treatment Target In 2017-18 As described above, GP practices using the Vision clinical system supplier were unable to submit a BMI date or value for people registered with the practice. Where no BMI value was submitted for a person, but there were values for height and weight, the BMI value was calculated using the standard formula (weight in kg) / (height in metres)^2. ## 11. Incorrect Organisation Code And Insulin Pump Data Submitted For Manchester Royal Infirmary (Rw3Mr) In 2017-18 Data for Manchester Royal Infirmary were incorrectly submitted, and subsequently reported in the NDA, under the organisation code for Manchester Children's Hospital (RW3RM). Also, all patients were incorrectly submitted as using an insulin pump. Testing Relevant data is extracted from GP systems via read codes. The list of codes is available upon request. The NHS Digital Primary Care Domain developed the specifications specifically for the NDA extract, and these were verified on several system types prior to collection of the data. ## Validation Data were automatically extracted from GP systems in England via system supplierdeveloped queries and GPES. Data submissions were initially checked and certified by GPES using test submissions. Internal validation checks were completed within the NDA team to ensure that data had been received from all eligible participating practices and there were no systematic issues with the data. Comparisons were made with GP practice and CCG level counts from previous years. One file was submitted for Wales by NHS Wales Informatics Service (NWIS) for the 2017-18 audit year and validated. Any data quality issues with the data are included alongside analysis to ensure users can interpret the results appropriately. For example, eye screening information was removed from the 2011-12 publication as the data was not deemed reliable, and the following statement was added to the report: "To improve alignment with NICE guidelines, a revised read code set of terms describing digital eye screening was used. This identified that variation in the use of terminology and its impact on the consistency of data extraction from electronic clinical records rendered it unreliable as a measure of this care process. The NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NHS DESP) records every digital eye screening and we believe that its records should now be used as the preferred measure for this annual care process. Presently this is reported only nationally." ## Timeliness And Punctuality Timeliness The 2017-18 audit collected data covering the period 1st January 2017 to 31st March 2018. Primary care data was extracted from GP clinical systems in May 2018. A 'mop up' extraction was carried out in June 2018 to capture GP practice data that could not be collected in May. Specialist diabetes services submitted their data during a five-week period between May and June 2018. It was processed and ready to analyse in September 2018 and published on 8th November 2018. Punctuality Reports are produced and data presented at National, CCG, LHB and General Practice level for England. The time lag between the end of the audit period and the publication of the data was just over seven months. ## Accessibility And Clarity Key findings and recommendations are presented in the full NDA report published in June 2019. Data was initially provided in November 2018 for England and Wales at GP, CCG and LHB levels in interactive Excel spreadsheets for ease of interrogation and further analysis by users. Web links to the technical specifications of the data are available through the NHS Digital website here: https://digital.nhs.uk/nda The key elements of the data collection are presented in the methodology document that accompanies this document. ## Coherence And Comparability Comparability over time The NDA has been running since 2003-04; however, there are inconsistencies in how the data has been processed prior to 2009-10. Therefore, caution should be taken when looking at data from earlier years of the audit. Users should also bear in mind the differences in participation over time. In the 2012-13 audit, the blood pressure treatment target was amended to be consistent with the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). A paper was produced to show the impact of this change on the previously published data. This can be found here. Reduction in participation in 2013-14 and 2014-15 There was a drop in participation in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 audit collections due to changes in the way the data was collected from GP practices. There was increased complexity to the processes for registrations and submissions due to new Information Governance 'opt in' requirements. The collection used to be on an opt out basis. Changes to the Confidential Advisory Group (CAG) requirements meant that from 2013-14 this changed to an opt in basis. The new governance meant that GP practices had to actively give permission for their data to be extracted or extract the information themselves and provide it directly to the audit. Participation of GP practices in England is variable across the country and this may be due to the varied levels of support for participation offered to GP practices by CCGs. Analysis was completed to ensure that the data collected for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were representative both in demographics and in performance: - There was a change in the age profile of the cohort of patients included in the audit in these collections. Standardising results, to account for this, leads to only a very slight change in the national figures. Therefore, to simplify interpretation and explanation, the results have not been standardised. - With a reduction in participation there was the potential for those practices taking part to skewed towards those that perform well. Analysis was carried out on practices that participated in the latest collections and those that participated in earlier collections. The findings suggest that there is no bias towards high performing practices taking part. Comparability with other sources QOF collects information on people registered with diabetes; however, this is only broadly comparable as there are differences in the collection period and the definitions of the indicators. More information on the differences can be found here. QOF collects the number of patients aged 17 years and above with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, QOF is an aggregated return and is mandatory for GP practices to participate. The table below compares the number of diabetes registrations in the NDA with the number of diabetes registrations in QOF and shows the case ascertainment based on this. ## Diabetes Registrations For Type 1 And Type 2 Diabetes For People Aged 17 Years And Over In England And Wales By Audit Year \| Country \| Audit year \| Percentage of \| \|----------------------\|---------------\|------------------\| \| patients recorded in \| \| \| \| NDA registrations \| \| \| \| ᵃ \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| QOF registrations \| \| \| \| NDA compared with \| \| \| \| QOF \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2017-18 \| 3,131,775 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016-17 \| 2,872,565 \| 3,139,340 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2015-16 \| 2,530,561 \| 3,033,529 \| \| England \| \| \| \| 2014-15 \| 1,702,610 \| 2,913,538 \| \| 2013-14 \| 1,586,380 \| 2,814,004 \| \| 2012-13 \| \| \| \| b \| \| \| \| \| 1,937,705 \| 2,703,044 \| \| 2011-12 \| 2,269,580 \| 2,566,436 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2017-18 \| 195,975 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 2016-17 \| 191,260 \| 191,590 \| \| \| \| \| \| 2015-16 \| 190,731 \| 188,644 \| \| Wales \| \| \| \| 2014-15 \| 176,472 \| 183,348 \| \| 2013-14 \| 159,981 \| 177,212 \| \| 2012-13 \| \| \| \| b \| \| \| \| \| 120,152 \| 173,299 \| \| 2011-12 \| 137,768 \| 167,537 \| ᵃ NDA data is collected over a 15 month period, between 1st January and 31st March, whereas QOF data is collected over a 12 month period, between 1st April and the 31st March. Therefore, the figures are not directly comparable. b In 2012-13 QOF methodology was updated to include all diabetes (apart from gestational diabetes), not just type 1 and type 2. NDA methodology has been updated in accordance. ## Assessment Of User Needs And Perceptions The NDA advisory group (consisting of patient representatives, Diabetes UK, clinicians, GP representatives, researchers and interested analysts from NHS Digital and Public Health England) provide advice on both analysis and content of the reports as well as the direction and development of the audit. The NDA team has an active role in the National Cardiovascular Health Intelligence Network (NCVIN) workshops to gain a better understanding of how the CCG's and localities use the data and how we can improve the publication and supporting information. These workshops are conducted quarterly and are co-ordinated by Public Health England (PHE) and bring together epidemiologists, analysts, clinicians and patient representatives. NHS Digital is keen to gain a better understanding of the users of this publication and of their needs. Your feedback is welcome and may be sent to enquiries@nhsdigital.nhs.uk (please include 'National Diabetes Audit' in the subject line). Alternatively, you can call our enquiries team on 0300 303 5678. Or write to: NHS Digital, 1 Trevelyan Square, Boar Lane, Leeds, LS1 6AE	en
0485-pdf	## Ethnic Disparities And Inequality In The Uk Technical Evidence Submission In Response To The Call From The Commission On Race And Ethnic Disparities Contact Officer Tom Pickup, Principal Policy & Project Officer Tom.pickup@londoncouncils.gov.uk 07763 783966 Organisation London local government technical evidence submission is sponsored by the Chief Executives London Committee Tackling Racial Inequality Working Group. ## Introduction & Context 1. London local authorities welcome the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities' initiative in reaching out to councils and communities to help better understand and tackle ethnic disparities and inequality in the UK. We are keen to support the work of the Commission in tackling racial disparities and we look forward to engaging with the Commissions work. We feel that there is an important window of opportunity to align our system leadership, working with the grain of our communities' appetite for progress. 2. London is proud to be the most diverse city in the UK1 - we embrace our ethnic and cultural diversity which is central to our city and essential to enabling our communities to thrive and prosper. However, evidence suggests that people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds continue to experience disparate outcomes alongside discrimination and exclusion. London local government recognises the importance of addressing this as part of our leadership of place and is committed to understanding what more could and should be done across our sector, and in partnership, to tackle ethnic disparities and inequality. 3. This submission captures themes and evidence that has emerged through collaborative cross-borough working on this agenda. In addition, individual London boroughs hold more local and granular evidence which may be useful to the Commission. This submission opens with an outline of our pan-London programme that is being built to support and embed local action dedicated to improving services and tackling racial inequality. We go on to outline evidence of racial disparity from the thematic areas identified by the Commission (education, employment and enterprise, health and crime and policing) and posit key lines of inquiry that we believe the Commission and its partners should consider to help provide a foundation to achieve genuine change. ## London Local Government'S Tackling Racial Inequality Programme 4. In June, in response to the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the disproportionate impact of the Covid 19 pandemic on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities, London Councils, working in partnership with London boroughs, initiated a pan-London programme to tackle racial inequality. In October 2020 the London Councils Leaders' Committee agreed a statement2 committing London Councils to lead and support boroughs on this issue. 5. The Chief Executives London Committee (CELC) is aligning the contribution of London's senior managerial leadership with the London Councils initiative. This is being delivered the CELC Tackling Racial Inequality working group which is chaired by Kim Smith (Chief Executive, London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham) and it engages actively with senior managerial leaders across all London boroughs. The working group seeks to support the work that individual boroughs are undertaking that responds to the needs within their communities and organisations and, where appropriate, develop regional activity. 6. In addition to the above working group collaborative activity is underway across local government service areas to respond to more specific needs such as in health, employment and welfare - this will be explored in more detail when responding to the 4 consultation areas. ## Chief Executives Of London Committee Tackling Racial Inequality Working Group 7. The CELC Tackling Racial Inequality working group was established to develop and lead work to tackle racial inequality across London local government, support boroughs in their 'place' leadership role and help build a fairer and more inclusive capital. By outlining the role of the working group this section will describe the strategic and multi-layered pan-London approach that local government has adopted. To help realise its ambition, the working group has developed a programme that builds on effective models of intervention and programmes in boroughs. The group's work programme consists of three key areas which encapsulates the breadth of activity and action needed but also already underway across London local government: - Demonstrating leadership - ensuring London local government demonstrates visible leadership on this agenda within our organisations but also across partnerships, our 'places' and our communities. This includes: o Establishing public commitments across boroughs to lead and act on this agenda. o Developing tools and guidance to support borough activity and develop solutions to significant regional challenges. o Developing an assurance and accountability approach for local government around tackling racial inequality. - Our role as large employers - as large employers within our communities and across the region, local government must be an exemplar for inclusive workforces and we seek to accelerate action to ensure this. Some boroughs have made significant progress to establish inclusive workforces and others are developing work to become more diverse, culturally aware and to support the development of their staff. This activity is centred around supporting boroughs by unblocking existing barriers (e.g. around recruitment) and sharing good practice: o Developing more robust workforce data across boroughs to improve our understanding of trends within our organisations, consistency around workforce data collection and transparency through data publication. o Collecting and sharing good practice around initiatives to develop 'BAME' staff and to establish more inclusive workforces and work practices. - Challenge and improve practice across services - Sharing and building upon examples of good practices at borough, sub-regional and regional levels to actively tackle racial inequality. There are many positive examples of how boroughs are actively tackling racial inequality, which will be identified in this paper. However, local government can do more to share these examples to enable learning but also understand what could be replicated elsewhere or at different levels (e.g. sub-regional or pan- London). This activity includes: o Creating a repository of good practice that will be shared across London local government. o Reviewing London local government service areas, at a regional level, to understand existing practices and drive additional activity. 8. The working group reflects the level of appetite and ambition in London local government to embed the need to tackle racial inequality in the way we operate and in the services we deliver. The working group and the programme more broadly will continue to develop to best establish a local government approach to this agenda and explore how this can also involve or include wider partnerships. ## Addressing The Causes Of Racial And Ethnic Disparities In The Uk (Question 1) 9. The Causes Of Racial And Ethnic Disparities In The Uk Are Multifaceted And Complex - Inextricably Linked to history and culture, as reflected in our society, systems and institutions. This response will not examine or interrogate these causes as there is a plethora of academic, public sector and personal perspectives that detail this, instead it will focus on solutions, with reference to the activity underway in London local government. 10. Nevertheless, as public services and system leaders, we do recognise the need to consider and reflect on the historical influences that shape contemporary British attitudes to race and ethnicity (e.g. the British colonial past and subsequent perceptions of people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds) - to allow an informed understanding of the origins of existing disparities (e.g. barriers to opportunities). Councils are well placed to continue conversations with our communities, with a view to deepening our collective understanding and subsequently work collaboratively to influence cultural change and seek to rectify any troubled historical relationships with 'BAME' communities. Adopting inclusive language, supported by meaningful actions, provides a solid foundation for enabling people of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures to thrive. 11. The adoption of a London local government Tackling Racial Inequality programme and a supporting statement committing London Councils as an organisation to deliver a programme of activity, is symbolic of our commitment to lead change and to shape an inclusive way forward. The programme outlined in this response demonstrates the need for more tangible action, both in relation to outcomes and experience, but also in relation to cultural attitudes. 12. For example, in relations to the latter, work is being explored in London local government around the use and categorisation of the term 'BAME'. The categorisation of 'BAME' has increasingly come under the spotlight as a term that can serve to homogenise different histories, identities and cultures, including the challenges and inequalities they experience. For local government this can hinder relationships with communities and residents and result in ineffective policy making or service delivery which can leave certain groups behind. Hence, we are exploring an alternative to 'BAME' and seeking to create a culture in local government that aims to understand and tailor initiatives or solutions towards different ethnicities, cultures and communities. 13. London local government recognises the need to understand the challenges and barriers within our own sector. Chief Executives recently sponsored a survey that looked across London local government service areas to identify some of the core challenges and barriers within the sector - these included: - Changing existing workforce and organisational attitudes. - Catering mainstream services to the needs of Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, reflecting the need to improve cultural competency within organisations. - Addressing broader societal disparities to tackle inequality and the persistent disproportionate outcomes and impacts on certain ethnic groups. - Addressing the lack of robust and granular data to better inform policy and decisions. 14. This framework will help act as a cornerstone to our activity, particularly as we recognise the collective need, across boroughs and with other public sectors partners, to ensure the sector is more inclusive and proactively seeks to tackle disproportionality and racial inequality. Reflecting on our own learning in relation to the underpinning causes of racial and ethnic disparities and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Culture change and understanding the problems o Cultural and historical attitudes inform our everyday views and perceptions, and public sector agencies have a crucial role in creating inclusivity within our actions and discourse. o How can public sector agencies establish and embed inclusive cultures that consists of a genuine understanding of the root cause(s) of racial and ethnic disparities but also tailored provision to those impacted communities? o What is the role of public sector agencies in promoting inclusive messages? - Language o How can we best work with communities to understand the impact of the language we use and adopt more inclusive terminology e.g. reviewing the use and categorisation of BAME? ## Improving Representation, Retention And Progression Opportunities For People Of Different Ethnic Backgrounds In Public Sector Workforces (Question 2) 15. Accelerating Inclusive Workforces Is A Key Component Of The Tackling Racial Inequality Programme. This means promoting diversity within local government organisations, establishing a culturally competent workforce and actively developing staff with a particular focus on those from 'BAME' backgrounds. This section will focus on the pan-London activity that is being driven and developed both around a regional approach and to support borough level activity. ## Diverse Workforces And Cultural Competency 16. The drive of this focus is the view that, as public sector organisations, we should aim to reflect the communities we serve at all levels of the organisation - this will help improve the services we deliver to residents and build trusting and helpful relations with communities. This is especially important in London given our diverse communities, therefore representativeness across organisations will help acknowledge, incorporate or embed the histories and needs of different communities in our services. 17. London local authorities with leading practice have already made significant progress to establish inclusive workforces - that is, they have a diverse and culturally competent workforce that reflects the communities they serve (i.e. staff from a range of backgrounds and cultures, including knowledge and experience of local communities). One example is the London Borough of Brent which, in their workforce strategy3, aim to ensure the council has a representative workforce and at least 80% of the same representation exists in their senior management. This has largely been achieved as 65% of staff are from BAME backgrounds compared with 62% of the Brent population4 18. At a pan-London level we aim to replicate and build on existing borough initiatives and good practice. This consists of developing pan-London projects to establish consistency and learning across boroughs, particularly around the following themes: - Recruitment - reviewing and sharing recruitment practices. Inclusive recruitment practices are a key gateway to establishing diverse and representative local government workforces. Across boroughs there are many examples of how local government is striving to establish inclusive practices, for example: o Diverse recruitment panels, at all stages and levels of recruitment. o Collecting and reviewing recruitment data to understand the background of applicants e.g. to inform recruitment campaigns. o Establishing apprenticeship and graduate schemes that focus on attracting and developing talent from local areas and communities. - There is increasing appetite across local authorities to adopt more inclusive recruitment practices, hence the London programme seeks to facilitate this through a repository and learning hub that hosts promising and good practice and establish a peer support network that enables different boroughs to connect and learn from each other. The principle of a repository and learning hub also applies beyond recruitment practices and initiatives to encompass activity to tackle racial inequality more broadly. - Data - understanding our workforces. Accessible and robust data is essential to understand the composition of our organisations and understand the perspectives of our staff. For instance, across London local government there are different approaches to workforce data collection and levels of maturity in terms of understanding workforce perspectives in relation to race (e.g. representative leadership, diversity, opportunities etc). Whilst boroughs should remain autonomous in their data collection processes there is a level of inconsistency across boroughs - mainly in reference in the level of detail some explore to understand the diversity and representativeness across their workforce that indicates an opportunity to establish consistency around the type of data collected, particularly to enable reliable benchmarking, but also to develop a more complete picture of London local government workforces. As part of the London programme, we are reviewing data collection and analysing data to develop a more robust picture across local authorities - this includes: o Collecting and compiling data across borough on ethnicity and pay band (rather than grade) to better understand the composition of staff by ethnicity based on roles and seniority. o Conducting an exercise to understand how, across London local government, we can collect more robust workforce data. This also includes how we can better share data, linking into establishing solutions around improving trust and confidence around sharing ethnicity data among 'BAME' staff with organisations. o Exploring how to improve transparency around workforce data in relation to ethnicity. ## Developing Bame Staff And Aspiring Senior Leaders 19. To reflect the diversity within the capital it is important to ensure there is visible 'BAME' leadership within our organisations, in addition to actively enabling aspiring leaders from any background to thrive. London local government established the London Leadership Programme (LLP) which aims to provide leadership development opportunities, in addition to those opportunities already offered across individual London local authorities and service specific development approaches. It seeks to equip staff with the skills and understanding to take on senior positions across the capital in the next three to five years. The programme has been running since the autumn of 2017 and through a pilot and four cohorts 150 senior managers have been offered the development opportunity. 20. It has always been an explicit ambition of the LLP to create a more diverse group of future leaders and a talent pool that better reflects the city and its communities. However, given the drive and momentum to tackle system racism, coupled with recent events, the LLP is currently being updated to reflect this new context and respond to the opportunity to rebalance, reinvent and recreate. 21. The LLP Board is now commissioning two more, sequential cohorts (cohorts 5 and 6) of the LLP over the next two years, and a fundamental review of the programme's content. The Invitation To Tender (ITT) makes explicit the need to reflect throughout the programme content, group work and selection of contributors the need to talk about and tackle social and racial injustices and acknowledge that colleagues from all backgrounds have a role to play in the discussion. This also includes equipping aspiring leaders with the skills to rise to the challenge of leading diverse organisations and places. 22. This reform of the programme is also in acknowledgement of the fact that the ethnicity of local government leaders must better reflect London's diverse communities. As such, the ITT also asks contractors to provide an additional package/ programme of development activity for 'BAME' participants, allowing them to explore and share the challenges and issues specific to their experiences and leadership journeys. This additional offer will be carefully managed and tailored to individual needs. It could, for example, take the form of 1-2-1 professional coaching and/ or mentoring. Reflecting on our own learning in relation public sector workforces and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Inclusive workforce - diversity and cultural competency are essential within any workforce and there is space for the public sector to lead by example. How can we facilitate and support organisations to adopt inclusive recruitment and development initiatives? - Data and information - public sector and other agencies can do more to encourage the collection and publication of data that can help us understand where challenges and barriers are within organisation for 'BAME' staff. This can help ensure employers develop targeted programmes, such as the LLP or similar, that can respond to clear gaps within sectors or organisation and ensure employers are accountable for being inclusive. - Developing 'BAME' staff - there is often a visible challenge around development opportunities for 'BAME' staff and the representativeness at senior levels. There is more that can be done to understand the barriers around development opportunities and leadership positions for BAME staff but there is scope to determine how public sector agencies can show leadership around this but also support other organisations to follow suit. ## Education And Schooling Experience (Questions 3 & 4) 23. Schooling And Education Represent Key Milestones During Any Young Person'S Development And The impact of a negative schooling experience, lack of education and poor educational outcomes can have significant implications for their life experience. In London there are clear disproportionate outcomes for certain ethnic groups, particularly for young Black children and often specifically young Black boys. For example, young Black boys are more likely to achieve lower grades and experience fixed or permanent exclusion. The issue of school exclusions is particularly prominent for Black Caribbean boys as they remain consistently over-represented both national and in London (second only two Roma, Gypsy, Travellers)5, even during the pandemic boroughs have been reporting increases in school exclusions for this cohort. The impact of school exclusions is significant as evidenced in criminal justice data as 89% of children in Young Offender Institutions (2018) had been excluded6 7. The cause of this disproportionality is explored extensively in academic studies (referencing historical, society and school factors; material deprivation, teacher perceptions, discrimination), hence this section will focus on examples in London to tackle the disproportionate outcomes and experiences. 24. Local authorities and schools have an essential role in addressing disproportionality within education and ensuring young people have the learning and skills to provide them with more positive life opportunities. Local authorities, working with schools and other partners, have established and are developing innovative practices and initiatives to improve the schooling experience and attainment of disadvantaged young people. Across London there are examples of tailored initiatives in schools that are aimed at raising aspirations and improving education outcomes for young Black children. ## Lambeth: Raising The Game8. 25. This is a two-year project aimed at tackling the 7-10% academic attainment gap and high exclusion rates that Black pupils of Caribbean heritage experience in the borough. The project is based in selected schools across Lambeth working to improve outcomes at all key stages, to raise aspirations and to reduce exclusions for Black pupils of Caribbean heritage who underachieve in relation to their peers nationally and locally. The project consists of 3 strands: 1. Aim High - which intends to expose Black students of all ages to successful Black role models from different sectors and life experiences. 2. Diversifying the curriculum - a teacher lead initiative, within both primary and secondary schools, that develops tools for teachers, by teachers centred around actively incorporating Caribbean literature into pupil learning; showcasing diversity in different occupations - promoting the mantra of 'the sky is the limit' for Black pupils - and working across primary and secondary schools to support pupils transition. 3. Parental Engagement Network - a repository of tools and resources for parents, that will help them support their child(ren)'s learning. 26. The project has resulted in an 11% improvement for Black students at age related expectations at KS2 in comparison to their peers and 3% improvement at KS4, and an overall reduction in permanent exclusions by 49% and over 70% reduction for Black students of Caribbean heritage. 27. Haringey has the largest gap in Britain at GCSE between higher achieving White British students and lower achieving 'BAME' groups, especially those Black students of Caribbean heritage. In response, HEP have established a programme to address and improve 'BAME' achievement in the borough which is outlined in the BAME Achievement Strategy: Raising Black Caribbean and BAME Achievement: - Achieve outcomes for all children and young people as good as, or better than, anywhere else in the country. - Close the gaps in attainment for our different ethnic groups and disadvantaged pupils. - Tackle related inequalities and negative outcomes such as exclusions, which impact on life chances. 28. To deliver the strategy HEP have established and created several resources for schools, public sector organisations, pupils and parents: - Self-evaluation tools (for schools). - Vulnerable to Underachievement Checklist which aims to: o to promote/target pupils for participation in extra-curricular activities or the need to maintain extra-curricular attendance records o to be proactive in rewarding pupils/ a group of pupils to build self-esteem, e.g. there could be a pattern by gender, ethnicity or ability o to reconfigure a tutor group where there are greater pastoral needs or for more staff training on attachment theory and how to respond. o to help governors in directing resources at greatest need or secure class-wide support from Early Help - 'BAME' action plan template (for schools). - 'BAME' children literature (for parents and pupils). - Achievement database to capture key trends around education in the borough. 29. These are just two examples of important activity to improve the achievement and schooling experiences of young Black people - there are many other programmes and projects across boroughs that are actively addressing this challenge and making a real difference in outcomes. For example: - Brent have an ongoing programme aimed at raising the achievement of young Black men - this has resulted in an improvement in exclusion rates for Black students of Caribbean heritage, including a 9.4% reduction in permanent exclusion in the last year.10 - Lewisham are conducting tailored activity to improve outcomes for 'BAME' pupils, with significant focus on addressing disproportionate schooling outcomes for Black pupils of Caribbean heritage.11 - Hackney have established a programme of work to improve outcomes for young black men, this includes, but is not limited to, addressing educational outcomes for young Black men of Caribbean heritage.12 30. Targeted interventions and tailored initiatives are an essential component of tackling the disproportionate outcomes in education, however to establish genuine change there needs to be a more inclusive system that enables children of all backgrounds the thrive. The examples and the general principles described above are key elements of change that are required in the education system. They also reflect ideas that can be built upon or replicated across different areas. Reflecting on our own learning in relation to education and schooling and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Targeted initiatives to raise the aspiration of 'BAME' children - to achieve a fundamental difference in education for 'BAME' children there needs to be a combination of system wide change and targeted intervention. The examples in this section allude to the challenges within the education system (e.g. attainment gaps, extra-curricular activity; the curriculum) and describes the different possible solutions, but there is also merit in learning from and replicating these solutions at a larger scale. Additionally, it is important to have an increase focused on 'BAME' role models - that is, showcasing young people or adults from various 'BAME' backgrounds that have demonstrated or achieved success to influence young people's ambitions. This will help permeate a culture within education institutions that strives to target and support those ethnic groups that can be left behind. - The role of education in supporting cultural change - the point is twofold. Within education there has been progress to ensure schools and institutions are inclusive but there is still more progress required to sharpen practices and attitudes. This includes improving racial literacy and cultural competency among teachers and school leaders, and ensuring that key agencies recognise the role of people and institutions in potentially holding attainment back. Promoting inclusive institutions has a much broader and important role in helping to establish cultural change by educating future generations and supporting them within an inclusive, diverse environment. This diverse environment can be reinforced through reviewing the representation of school leaders and governors (linking with the ambitions outlined in response to question 2 above). It is important to determine the role schools and similar institutions can play within this context. ## Employment & Opportunity (Question 5) 31. London Local Government Regional Activity Around Employment And Opportunity Is Being Driven Through two programmes - the CELC Economy and Employment working group and the London Recovery Programme13. The former works on local government specific initiatives and the latter, which is Co- Chaired by the London Mayor and Chair of London Councils (Cllr Georgia Gould), is also developing cross-sector initiatives to drive longer term employment and opportunity as the capital recovers from the pandemic. Within these programmes one of the key areas of activity is addressing the challenges and disproportionality around equal opportunities and employment for different ethnic groups. This section will describe the challenges in London around employment and opportunity and solutions being explored by local government. 32. Contextually, before the pandemic, there were clear disparities for 'BAME' Londoners in relation to employment and opportunities. Now, in a similar way to the other areas explored in this consultation, as a result of the pandemic, we can see there has been a disproportionate impact on 'BAME' communities which has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities: - Pre-pandemic o Employment rate: before the pandemic the employment rate for 'BAME' Londoners (67.1) was significantly lower than that of White Londoners (79.3) in 2019.14 o Pay gap: Data on hourly pay (2010 - 2019) also shows that 'BAME' Londoners (£13.50) are paid substantially less per hour than Londoners on average (£15.70). In comparison, White Londoners were paid £16.74 on average an hour for the same period15. In fact, the ethnicity pay gap differs across regions and is largest in London at 23.8%. - Impact of the pandemic o Employment levels16: between April and June 2020, the number of Black Londoners in work has declined by 9.5% on the quarter and 11.7% on the year. In comparison, the number of all Londoners in work decreased by 1.5%, the number of mixed Londoners in work decreased by 5.7% and the number of White Londoners in work decreased by 0.4%. o Employment rate17: although Black Londoners experienced the largest fall in employment levels, those from a mixed background saw the greatest quarterly fall in employment rate - 5.2%, compared to 0.7% for London as a whole. London employment rates in Q2 2020 remain uneven: London average (76.4%), White (79.8%), Asian (72.3%), Black (66.7%), Mixed (68.2%) and Other (72.4%). o Projections for the future18: the London Assembly estimates that 1.1 million jobs are at risk in London. Over a third (38%) of those at greatest risk are from 'BAME' backgrounds. Looking at the UK as a whole, 15% of workers in sector which have shut down because of the coronavirus are from a 'BAME' background, compared to 12% of all workers.19 33. In London a range of barriers and challenges have been identified around the disparities for 'BAME' Londoners' - understanding and tackling these are essential to establish meaningful solutions. In summary those barriers include: - 'BAME' employees working in London are more likely than those working in England to agree that their identity or background can have an effect on opportunities20. - Education and training are a key barrier for Black students and those from low income backgrounds having the highest drop-out rates from higher education21. Higher education is often an important enabler to social mobility, however access to aspiring 'BAME' students can often be limited particularly to the top universities - for example studies have found that Russell group universities are less likely to offer places to pupils from 'BAME' backgrounds even when they have the same grades as white peers22 - According to the Mayor's equality, diversity and inclusion strategy some of the key factors contributing to lower employment rates among these groups include language barriers, family structures, cultural differences and others. However, it also raises concerns about race discrimination in the job market23. - According to research by Community links, the key employment barriers 'BAME' women in East London face include lack of confidence, lack of (financial) independence among women, as well as social and cultural barriers (e.g. not having family support to work), as well as not having the required skills and qualifications and lack of familiarity with recruitment processes24. - According to the London Borough of Camden, the coronavirus crisis is presenting an additional barrier to 'BAME' workers as many of them work in retail, hospitality and construction. Therefore, they are facing additional sector-specific challenges as lockdown and social distancing measures are preventing the businesses in which they work to operate effectively25. - Even those aspiring and thriving entrepreneurs from the 'BAME' backgrounds experience disproportionality - these will be covered in the British Business Bank report and submission to this consultation but some of the facts include lower business success and lower turnover for certain ethnic groups26. 34. The above demonstrates that engagement with different communities and ethnic groups must be at the heart of solutions. There is robust data available that provides concrete facts which indicates clear structural and institutional issues (e.g. employment and pay gaps). However, to develop solutions there is must be a complementary approach to address common, broad challenges (e.g. education and training) and those that require some tailored responses based on the experiences of individual communities or groups. In London activity is being developed to ensure there is a robust response to exacerbated disparities around employment and opportunity for 'BAME' Londoners. Across London local government boroughs have developed targeted initiatives to support 'BAME' communities to help them develop skills to enter or re-enter employment. Furthermore, within the London Recovery Programme, an action plan is being developed that will specifically address structural inequalities in the labour market, including those experienced by 'BAME' communities and this will be reflected in the membership of the steering/expert group overseeing the development of the action plan. Reflecting on our own learning in relation to employment and opportunities and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Addressing barriers and developing solutions with affected communities. There are clear structural and institutional barriers that prevent 'BAME' people from thriving and their voice is essential to inform solutions. How can we best ensure those voices activity inform solutions are all levels? A group designed to explore this, consisting of representation from 'BAME' businesses and public sector leaders may be an effective means to ensure this. - Working with employers - the role of employers is often overlooked, however it is essential that they are included within solutions to both understand their perspective and to encourage them and incorporate them on the journey to become more inclusive. Some studies find that more diverse business, including ethnic diversity, are often higher performing which reinforces the business case for inclusivity. In London there is a challenge around diversity and inclusivity within growth sectors in the economy e.g. the creative and cultural industries and green economy, hence it is important to actively engage and focus and specific sectors. - Equal access to skills development - how can public sector agencies and businesses enable access to skills that can support people, from all ethnic backgrounds, into good and rewarding work? ## Health Inequalities (Questions 6 & 7) 35. London'S Population Is Diverse And Complex, With A Growing Population That Is Predicted To Increase By 3 million people by 2050, reaching a potential 10.5 million by 204127. In relation to ethnic diversity, 40% of Londoners identify themselves as 'BAME', compared to 45% from the white British community, furthermore 26 boroughs are within the most diverse areas in the country. This ethnic diversity is also accompanied by different health needs and inequalities - for example 'BAME' communities are more likely to suffer from infectious diseases, including HIV, tuberculosis, Hepatitis B and C which are compounded by related issues such as deprivation. Additionally, there are also challenges around mental health which also affect overall health outcomes. This section will outline the health inequalities in London including the drivers of these, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic, and describe the activity in London local government to tackle this. ## The Impact Of Covid On Bame Londoners 36. The Public Health England Review 'Beyond The Data: Understanding The Impact Of Covid-19 On Bame groups' (June, 2020) provided the first indication about the disproportionate impact on certain groups, including analysis where people lived and how their occupation made these groups more vulnerable to Covid. The research also included extensive engagement with 4,000 stakeholders from a range of communities across London. The findings suggested that Covid exacerbated and exposed the already deep-seated health inequalities in London, and that the impact of the pandemic did not affect all groups equally. The key findings revealed the following: - The highest age standardised diagnosis rates of Covid-19 per 100,000 population were in Black ethnic groups, 486 in females and 649 in males. Compared to the White population reporting 220 in females and 224 in males. - 'BAME' groups were more likely to be tested and to test positive. - 'BAME' have an increased risk of death associated with Covid. - Ethnicity and income inequality are interdependently associated with Covid-19 mortality. - Mortality rates were higher for residents living in more deprives areas of London. 37. A later PHE report 'Disparities in the Risk and Outcomes of Covid-19' provided an analysis based on PHE surveillance data, providing a better understanding of the impact of the pandemic on 'BAME' communities. The areas identified in terms of the impact of the Covid include: - Age is the greatest factor of people diagnosed with Covid, people over the age or 80 were most at risk, were 70 times more likely to die than those aged under 40 years old. - The risk of Covid cases was higher in those in 'BAME' groups. Among those tested positive for Covid, people from the Bangladeshi ethnicity had twice the risk of death compared to the White British community. - People of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Caribbean and other Black ethnicity and had between 10% and 50% higher risk of death compared to the White British community. - Critical care admissions were 28% more likely in South Asian and 36% more likely in Black ethnic groups, compared to white counterparts (considering age, sex and location). 38. The impact of Covid on 'BAME' communities, must also consider the external factors impacting on the disproportionality. There is also a propensity for economic disadvantage to be associated with unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, obesity, diabetes and hypertension, making Covid symptoms more severe and fatal. Those with pre-existing health conditions, such a diabetes and obesity, which are more prevalent in 'BAME' communities, increased the risk of having severe infection, this is exacerbated when examining living in deprived areas, where there is a higher percentage of people living with chronic diseases and long term conditions. 39. Economic factors, such as unemployment and poverty also influence mental health outcomes, who are disadvantaged economically, especially those from the migrant, refugee population and those with no recourse to public funds. Much of the focus to improve the mental health of Londoners, is carried forward by the pan-London ThriveLDN28 initiative, which is a London supported programme aimed to protect and improve mental health, recent work is also looking at the impact of Covid on the mental health of Londoners. 40. The 'BAME' population are more likely to work in front line positions within the NHS and care sector, with less access to PPE equipment. Care workers nursing auxiliaries, security guards and transport workers, and those working outside of the home, giving rise to a greater exposure of Covid. 'BAME' groups are more likely to use the public transport system to travel to and from work. Equally, people living in poor and high density housing are more at risk, including those living in intergenerational households, along with poor quality and overcrowded housing. 41. A great concern was the response from stakeholders who expressed fear and dismay about the knowledge that their 'BAME' communities were disproportionately impacted. More critically, it revealed that these communities suffered stigma and discrimination, especially among key workers working, working to support those in ill health. The report also revealed that fewer people from ethnic communities are less likely to seek medical help, from fear of being diagnosed with Covid, and present late to medical services, fuelling the lack of trust in medical services and heath care. ## London Local Government Activity 42. London's local government are required to have due regard to reduce health inequalities within their communities. All boroughs are required to produce a local Health Inequalities which sets out the actions each authority wishes to take to reduce the gap within 'BAME' communities. Complementing this work, is the role the Health and Wellbeing Boards, who have a leadership role to promote health equalities as a key element of their work. 43. Following the findings of the initial PHE report, the London Health Board, which is Chaired by the Mayor of London, and represents a range of health partners agreed to set up a Health Equity Group (HEG). The HEG, Chaired by Kevin Fenton (Regional Director for London, PHE) and Will Tuckley (Chief Executive, LB Tower Hamlets), is tasked with addressing immediate issues facing communities, supporting learning from the Covid Response and reducing the impact 'BAME' groups and those with other protected characteristics. 44. At a borough level Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), are working together across London to address health inequalities to build on what they know about their communities, in order to be more responsive to their local population. This includes focusing on population health and gathering data to implement local responses to reducing health inequalities. Activities already being supported include mobilising communities and faith leaders to work with vulnerable communities, and supporting prevention activity, focussing on prevention programmes that can be replicated across London, considering how place and the environment has an impact. This includes looking at how houses in multiple occupation and multigenerational and anchor institutions can support this agenda and making best use of digital intelligence and behavioural insights. 45. London Councils is also supporting the work of the London Vision29 which has a goal to make London the healthiest global city and tackle persistent and structural inequalities of outcome. Through this health partners have committed to reduce the significant and persistent resistant inequalities, promote good health and tackle the causes of poor health. There is commitment to reflect on the experiences of Covid and provide city wide responsive action. Reflecting on our own learning around health inequalities and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Making better use of data - across the system there is an opportunity for public agencies to determine how to better use data to understand the challenges, outcomes and experiences for different ethnic groups i.e. by incorporating learning from the pandemic response and outcomes, how data can be used to improve health outcomes? Across London's health partnerships we are exploring a range of activity, including how to improve mandatory ethnic data collection at death certification; support community participatory research; accelerate the development of culturally competent occupational risk assessment tools; fund and develop culturally competent COVID-19 campaigns and programmes; and ensure that COVID-19 recovery strategies actively reduce inequalities caused by the wider determinants of health to create long term sustainable change. - Locally led responses - communities understand local needs and, as evidenced in the initial lockdown, there is appetite for people to provide active help and support within their local communities. It is essential to ensure communities are embedded within solutions to ethnic and community health inequalities and there is a role for the public sector, with community leaders, to facilitate this. Working in partnership, at local ICS level where there is work being undertaken to support and re-engage with local communities and to co-produce responses tailored to their special needs. - Public health resourcing - the public health grant, which funds local authorities to carry out public health duties, has fallen substantially since 2015. Currently (2020/21) London receives around £649 million funding allocation, £69.64 per head of population - in 2015/16 funding amounted to £698 million, £80.75 per head. In real terms, funding has fallen by £55.8 million since 2015, the equivalent of -13% fall per Londoner. Public health services are at the heart of the pandemic response and the reduction in funding continues to limit to amount of support boroughs, with partners can provide to vulnerable people. The case needs to be made for a substantial increase in public health funding for 2021/2022, across the country, to ensure that the public sectors commitment to public health prevention and activities is sustainable in the longer term. ## Crime & Policing (Question 8 & 9) 46. Disproportionality In The Criminal Justice System (Cjs) And Associated Challenges Around Trust And confidence have been an area of persistent concern both within the London and national contexts. In London the core concern is the link between racial inequality and disproportionate outcomes within the CJS. Black communities, and particularly young Black men, are over-represented and are more likely to experience disproportionate outcomes in the CJS, including the Youth Justice System (YJS). However, the disproportionate outcomes we see in the CJS are, to a significant extent, the product of underlying inequalities that can best be solved by tackling the wider systemic, societal and institutional challenges. This section will highlight the issues in London and identify some of the activity in local government to tackle this. 47. 'BAME' Londoners, particularly those from Black communities, are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes when encountering the CJS. These issues are exacerbated when examining the YJS which is characterised by over-representation of 'BAME' - particularly Black - children and young people who also have different experiences (whether it be decisions or outcomes) throughout most processes in the system. For example: - Black children are more likely to be arrested than White or Asian children. - White children are more likely to get a caution than Black children. - Black children occupy higher representation in more serious offence groups. - BAME children are more likely to be sentenced to custody. - Black children have experienced the lowest rate of decrease in first time entrants. 48. When interrogating this further, young Black men experience disparity arguably at every stage of the CJS - from policing, through the court system, to prisons and probation. For example, young Black men disproportionately: - Experience a lack of trust and associated animosity with law enforcement. - Experience the hard end of police enforcement (stop and search; tasers; traffic stops). - Experience formal sanctions rather than formal/ informal warnings and out of court disposals, reaching all the way to imprisonment (the court system amplifies disproportionality from the earlier stages of the journey of young Black men). 49. Furthermore, linked to outcomes within the system, the latest national report on youth offending services inspections30 makes emerging findings around the quality of provision for different ethnic groups; whereby, of the inspected out of court cases those involving Asian young people received far better quality of provision than any other ethnic group. Additionally, in London, people of an Asian background have experienced the largest decrease of any ethnic group in custody (-28.8% compared to an average -12%) and the largest decrease in remands for Asian young people31. 50. There are many partners across the system that are working to tackle this disproportionality, including a range of service areas in local government that are a contributing to this agenda. This response will draw upon the example that aim to tackle and reduce disproportionality with youth offending, which then has crucial and subsequent impact on young people's lives and possible paths towards criminality. Within these examples, it is important to recognise that visible action is essential to help build trust between communities and criminal justice agencies. ## Youth Offending Teams (Yots) 51. YOTs have an instrumental role in tackling and preventing criminality among young people, this includes active work to support those groups that are more likely to encounter the YJS and experience subsequent disproportionate outcomes. Many YOTs have been providing tailored and appropriate services and support to these groups. The following are examples of the work and activity being undertaken across boroughs, by YOTs to tackle disproportionality: - Diverting young people away from the courts - Out of Court Disposals (OOCD). OOCDs are an effective way of providing a victim focused and constructive solution to an offence which can also divert or 'triage' young people away from the CJS. However, this option is currently under-utilised by young Black people - hence we see this group over-represented for first-time offending, reoffending and in youth prisons. The causes of this link to a lack trust and confidence in the CJS (i.e. increased likelihood of 'no comment' interviews) and a lack understanding about the options available to them having committed an offence. To tackle this, boroughs have taken steps to actively promote and raise awareness of the alternative options available to those young people who have committed an offence and, by working with partners, seek to increase the use of this option having recognised this as an important contributor to reducing the disproportionate number of young Black people experiencing court outcomes. At the heart of this approach is building relationships with young people and their communities - being transparent around the options available to them and actively diverting them away from the courts contributes significantly towards developing trust. - YOTs also contribute to broader activity being driven by the YJB, for example through the disproportionality toolkit and their submissions to the YJB on national standards. The toolkit enables teams to identify where in the system disproportionality occurs and through submissions to the YJB YOTs outline a cross-sector action plan (involving all key stakeholders) to tackle disproportionality. Through this there are examples of local collaborations to deliver change such as Haringey and Islington YOTs are working with City University in relation to serious youth violence and disproportionality32 33. ## Children'S Services 52. London local governments Children's Services have a core role in supporting young people and ensuring they can thrive throughout life. Across London, boroughs have been undertaking proactive work to improve outcomes for young people from different ethnic backgrounds - this includes an active role in tackling racial inequality. In addition to work of individual borough services, the London Innovation and Improvement Alliance34 have a dedicated disproportionality and anti-racism workstream which attempts to collate good practice across London. Examples of positive action includes: - Establishing Youth Justice disproportionality sub-regional working groups, led by Directors of Children's Services, dedicated to reducing racial disparities for 'BAME' young people, particularly those from Black communities. The first of these groups have been established in North Central London with other sub-regions expected to follow and develop their own networks. - Directors of Children's Services have been working with the YJB on a proposed alternative to custody provision in the London Accommodation Pathfinder project. Children from London are overrepresented in the secure estate and 80% of those receiving a remand or custodial sentence are from 'BAME' backgrounds. The proposed provision will comprise four houses across London providing for twenty places which will be a direct alternative to custody. The Pathfinder will test approaches which, if successful, will directly address the disproportionate use of custody for 'BAME' and particularly young Black men in London. ## The Broader Programme Of Activity 53. The activity of YOTs and Children's Services is part of a broader programme within London local government and across other criminal justice agencies to tackle disproportionality in the CJS. This programme consists of a breadth of action that recognising a range of barriers that must be unlocked across the system if we are develop meaningful and effective solution. The following high-level actions have been committed to by London local government: - Working with partners to build on local activity to establish a strategic pan-London approach around serious youth violence and child criminal exploitation. This is in recognition of clear synergies around the cohort of children that two areas often work with and the negative impact and experience these children experience. - Developing the work of London boroughs to support and advocate for young people, in particular to keep them out of the CJS. For example, reviewing existing contracts for appropriate adult services provision and understanding existing activity and levels of consistency across London. - Improving data by developing existing data repositories (e.g. London Innovation and Improvement Alliance data) to establish a pan-London pitch around critical milestones, with the view of identifying when and what interventions are required. This entails improving data sharing and accessibility in relation to understanding and tackling disproportionality in the CJS, including challenges during the key life milestones of a child or young person's development, and then developing a data dashboard that maps the outcomes and experiences in London for different ethnic groups (i.e. broken down by ethnicity) during key development milestones (e.g. education, mental health, deprivation) and within the CJS (e.g. pre-court; court; secure estate). - Sharing best practice - the good practice shared in this section exemplifies the positive activity underway and the need for partners to do more to promote, learn from and share experiences and outcomes e.g. proactive activity in schools to tackle disproportionate outcomes and sub-regional activity dedicated to tackle racial inequality. There is also merit in prioritising the identification and dissemination of good practice to help establish an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work. Reflecting on our own learning in disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - How to understand and tackle the 'upstream' drivers of disproportionality in the CJS: o This would allow a strategic response to disproportionality within the CJS, whilst recognising that the challenges around trust and confidence impacts everyone within the effected communities and ethnic groups. There must be responses for all cohorts within these groups. o A focus on developing solutions for young people is essential, not only because of presenting vulnerabilities, but also as a platform for generational change. o Evidence suggests that criminality for young people is significantly linked with other developmental milestones (education, deprivation etc). Our evidence suggests that locallyled responses that support young people in a joined-up way (learning, for example from the Troubled Families programme) are most effective in turning young people's lives around, and critically, away from criminality o This suggests that the Commission should explore how to support and resource the development of locally led offer that understands existing barriers and challenges and ensures young 'BAME' people have equal opportunities and are able to thrive. This, in turn, will help to deter young people from criminality. - Once in the system, outcomes and experiences for people of Asian backgrounds appears to be improving at a greater rate compared to other ethnic groups. What can we learn from around this? - How to build on and embed promising practice on diverting young people away from the courts - including use of Out of Court Disposals? - How to work with young offenders to develop career opportunities away from criminality? - How to inspire our young people to thrive through the promotion and resourcing of local youth offers that engage creatively with our communities and use inspiring role models to help unlock new, constructive and meaningful opportunities- ranging from sport, volunteering and civic engagement? ## Conclusion 54. The UK currently has an important window of opportunity to establish genuine change that can tackle, reduce and even eradicate persistent ethnic disparities and inequality. Momentum and drive have been developed within our communities, institutions and systems and we must build on this. 55. London local government strives to be at the forefront of driving improvements for our communities and we will continue to develop our programme to ensure the need to tackle racial inequality is embedded in the way we operate as organisations and in the services we deliver. 56. We look forward to seeing the findings and outcomes of the Commission's call for evidence and would welcome the opportunity to be a key partner, working with the commission and wider Government on this important agenda; to pilot any initiative; and to deliver tangible improvements.	en
4892-pdf	# Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: April - June 2008 Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin Ministry of Justice and National Statistics logos Published: 4 September 2008 ## Executive Summary Background This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days. ## Main Points - The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 56 days for the April-June quarter in 2008 - 4 days lower than in the previous quarter. - The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates' courts was 46 days in April-June 2008 - down 4 days from the previous quarter. - Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 201 days from arrest to sentence during the April-June quarter, down 9 days from the previous quarter. - For the second quarter of 2008, 39 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less. ## Average Interval From Arrest To Sentence The Bulletin This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales. This bulletin presents figures for April - June 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed - please see the Notes section for further details. The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires. ## England And Wales The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during April - June 2008 was 56 days, 4 days lower than in the previous quarter. The monthly figure for June 2008 was 56 days, equalling the figure for May. Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below ## Cases Sentenced At Magistrates' Courts For April - June 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates' courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 46 days, down 4 days from the previous quarter. ## Cases Sentenced At The Crown Court The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during April - June 2008 was 201 days, down 9 days from the previous quarter. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8). Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates' courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately. The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates' courts between January 1999 and June 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below. ## Criminal Justice System Areas A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9). On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (April - June 2008) was 39, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below. \| \| Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent \| \|--------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| young offenders in England and Wales \| \| \| Period \| Days \| \| 1996 \| 142 \| \| 1997 \| 141 \| \| 1998 \| 125 \| \| 1999 \| 108 \| \| 2000 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 95 \| 23,131 \| \| 2001 \| 76 \| \| 2002 \| 68 \| \| 2003 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 66 \| 26,086 \| \| 2004 \| 69 \| \| 2005 \| 68 \| \| 2006 \| 72 \| \| 2007 \| 65 \| \| 2007 \| \| \| January - March \| \| \| 72 \| 7,813 \| \| April - June \| \| \| 67 \| 7,928 \| \| July - September \| \| \| 62 \| 7,766 \| \| October - December \| \| \| 60 \| 7,176 \| \| 2008 \| \| \| January - March (r) \| \| \| 60 \| 7,251 (+18) \| \| April - June \| \| \| 56 \| 7,389 \| \| 2,618 \| \| \| 2,486 \| \| \| 2007 \| \| \| January \| \| \| February \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 72 \| \| \| 69 \| \| \| March \| \| \| 73 \| 2,709 \| \| 2,530 \| \| \| 2,733 \| \| \| April \| \| \| May \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 70 \| \| \| 66 \| \| \| June \| 64 \| \| July \| \| \| 64 \| 2,690 \| \| August \| \| \| 62 \| 2,668 \| \| September \| \| \| 60 \| 2,408 \| \| October \| \| \| 62 \| 2,688 \| \| November \| \| \| 59 \| 2,625 \| \| December \| \| \| 61 \| 1,863 \| \| 2008 \| \| \| (2) \| \| \| January (r) \| 62 \| \| February (r) \| 62 \| \| March (r) \| 56 \| \| April (r) \| 57 \| \| May (r) \| 56 \| \| June (r) \| 56 \| \| July (p) \| 54 \| Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. \| \| Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent \| \|-----------------------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------------------\| \| young offenders sentenced at Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales \| \| \| Period \| Days \| \| 1999 \| 96 \| \| 2000 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 83 \| 21,146 \| \| 2001 \| 68 \| \| 2002 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 63 \| 24,280 \| \| 2003 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 58 \| 24,481 \| \| 2004 \| 61 \| \| 2005 \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| 61 \| 25,498 \| \| 2006 \| 63 \| \| 2007 \| 57 \| \| 2007 \| January - March \| \| 63 \| 7,351 \| \| April - June \| \| \| 58 \| 7,469 \| \| July - September \| \| \| 54 \| 7,332 \| \| October - December \| \| \| 51 \| 6,752 \| \| 2008 \| \| \| January - March (r) \| \| \| 50 \| 6,782 (+15) \| \| April - June \| \| \| 46 \| 6,890 \| \| 2007 \| \| \| January \| \| \| 64 \| 2,484 \| \| February \| 61 \| \| March \| \| \| 63 \| 2,517 \| \| April \| \| \| 61 \| 2,372 \| \| May \| 58 \| \| June \| 56 \| \| July \| \| \| 56 \| 2,554 \| \| August \| \| \| 54 \| 2,500 \| \| September \| \| \| 51 \| 2,278 \| \| October \| \| \| 52 \| 2,527 \| \| November \| \| \| 50 \| 2,487 \| \| December \| \| \| 50 \| 1,738 \| \| 2008 \| \| \| (2) \| \| \| January (r) \| 52 \| \| February (r) \| 51 \| \| March (r) \| 46 \| \| April (r) \| 47 \| \| May (r) \| 45 \| \| June (r) \| 45 \| \| July (p) \| 45 \| Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales \| Period \| Days \| Number of cases \| \|---------------------\|----------\|--------------------\| \| 1999 \| 212 \| 2,271 \| \| 2000 \| 218 \| 1,976 \| \| 2001 \| 196 \| 1,632 \| \| 2002 \| \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| \| 178 \| 1,829 \| \| \| 2003 \| \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| \| 188 \| 1,590 \| \| \| 2004 \| 186 \| 1,653 \| \| 2005 \| \| \| \| (1) \| \| \| \| 192 \| 1,526 \| \| \| 2006 \| 214 \| 1,704 \| \| 2007 \| 206 \| 1,769 \| \| 2007 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| January - March \| \| \| \| 210 \| 459 \| \| \| April - June \| \| \| \| 206 \| 456 \| \| \| July - September \| \| \| \| 197 \| 433 \| \| \| October - December \| \| \| \| 213 \| 421 \| \| \| 2008 \| \| \| \| January - March (r) \| \| \| \| 210 \| 453 (+3) \| \| \| April - June \| \| \| \| 201 \| 490 \| \| \| 2007 \| \| \| \| January \| \| \| \| 213 \| 132 \| \| \| February \| 214 \| 136 \| \| March \| \| \| \| 206 \| 191 \| \| \| April \| \| \| \| 208 \| 156 \| \| \| May \| 216 \| 148 \| \| June \| 193 \| 150 \| \| July \| 200 \| 136 \| \| August \| \| \| \| 187 \| 167 \| \| \| September \| \| \| \| 207 \| 130 \| \| \| October \| \| \| \| 220 \| 160 \| \| \| November \| \| \| \| 213 \| 138 \| \| \| December \| \| \| \| 204 \| 123 \| \| \| 2008 \| \| \| \| (2) \| \| \| \| January (r) \| 223 \| 145 \| \| February (r) \| 204 (+1) \| 177 (+1) \| \| March (r) \| 202 (-1) \| 131 (+2) \| \| April (r) \| 201 \| 158 (+2) \| \| May (r) \| 201 \| 173 (-1) \| \| June \| 200 \| 159 \| Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Area (1) Nov 07 to Dec 07 to Jan 08 to Feb 08 to Mar 08 to Apr 08 to Jan 08 (r) Feb 08 (r) Mar 08 (r) Apr 08 (r) May 08 (r) Jun 08 Avon and Somerset 66 67 69 67 71 76 Bedfordshire 66 58 49 66 68 68 Cambridgeshire 49 56 65 67 68 65 Cheshire 32 35 37 41 44 44 Cleveland 63 63 63 60 51 53 Cumbria 53 52 58 50 49 46 Derbyshire 52 48 46 45 51 55 Devon and Cornwall 60 61 62 58 53 43 Dorset 54 64 61 75 57 53 Durham 48 55 48 47 35 42 Dyfed-Powys 52 45 54 55 49 38 Essex 53 57 59 52 44 41 Gloucestershire 74 72 69 55 60 62 Greater Manchester 62 61 54 52 53 54 Gwent 42 54 54 58 59 69 Hampshire 63 67 65 62 58 61 Hertfordshire 95 74 69 61 58 66 Humberside 58 62 62 58 49 51 Kent 59 65 68 68 65 77 Lancashire 66 65 56 50 47 48 Leicestershire 63 69 70 73 75 74 Lincolnshire 43 55 86 78 92 68 Merseyside 71 65 57 58 60 59 Metropolitan 72 73 72 71 70 69 Norfolk 52 57 48 43 53 54 North Wales 45 58 61 56 55 53 North Yorkshire 60 62 59 55 48 46 Northamptonshire 53 56 59 50 55 60 Northumbria 61 59 56 53 53 46 Nottinghamshire 58 65 68 71 67 63 South Wales 60 63 65 56 55 51 South Yorkshire 72 76 66 69 59 55 Staffordshire 51 60 64 56 49 47 Suffolk 52 46 49 47 47 43 Surrey 66 78 71 56 43 40 Sussex 64 67 60 52 44 43 Thames Valley 64 65 63 62 60 51 Warwickshire 49 45 62 46 43 31 West Mercia 50 44 42 48 48 52 West Midlands 53 55 53 52 52 56 West Yorkshire 59 61 61 65 62 67 Wiltshire 59 62 69 64 50 63 British Transport Police 69 60 51 62 57 68 England and Wales 60 62 60 58 56 56 Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. (1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. ## Notes To The Pledge The Pledge 1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment. 2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. 3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas. 4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target. ## Notes To The Data And Methodology Data Sources 5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are: - the Police National Computer, which is the police's central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and - the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage. Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage. ## Paths Through The System 6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System: - one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and - another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them. ## Definitional Rules 7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is: - a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence; - who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and - within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence. Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category. ## Calculation Rules 8. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main. 9. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source. 10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. ## Additional Notes National Statistics 11.This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference. ## The Bulletin 12.The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency. 13.The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997. 14.In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer. ## The Definition 15.A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997: "A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence." 16.Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages. ## The Calculations 17.In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. ## The Extraction 18.All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were: - committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; - handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police; - proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales; - resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and - breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders. However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise. ## The Amended Methodology 19.From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer. 20.The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable. ## The Provisional Statistics 21.From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures. 22.These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales. 23.The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates' courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. ## The Survey 24.The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year. 25.Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion. 26.In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results. 27.The previous year's survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available. ## Symbols And Conventions The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin: \| - \| Not applicable \| \|-----\|-------------------\| \| 0 \| Nil \| \| .. \| Not available \| \| (r) \| Revised data \| \| (p) \| Provisional data \| ## Contact Points For Further Information Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board's reducing delays internet site at: www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/ Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: press.office@justice.gsi.gov.uk Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to: Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: trushar.pandya@justice.gsi.gov.uk General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: esd@justice.gsi.gov.uk Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk	en
4641-pdf	(Notice 1: This notice is to be printed and served on individuals if Certificate B or C is completed) Proposed development at: Take notice that application is being made by: Any owner of the land or tenant who wishes to make representations about this application, should write to the council within 21 days of the date of this notice. Signature Date (dd-mm-yyyy) Statement of owners' rights: The grant of planning permission does not affect owners' rights to retain or dispose of their property, unless there is some provision to the contrary in an agreement or lease. Statement of agricultural tenants' rights: The grant of planning permission for nonagricultural development may affect agricultural tenants' security of tenure. 'Owner' means a person having a freehold interest or a leasehold interest the unexpired term of which is not less than seven years. 'Tenant' means a tenant of an agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in the land.	en
3634-pdf	## Licensing Forum Tuesday 1 November 2016 Conference Room A The National Archives Kew \| 10.15-10.45 \| Arrival and Coffee \| \| \|--------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 10.45-11.00 \| Introductory Remarks and News from TNA \| \| \| Malcolm Todd \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 11.00-11.40 \| Public Sector Mapping Agreement \| \| \| Jamie Clark, BEIS \| \| \| \| 11.40-12.10 \| Research and Education Space project \| \| \| Richard Leeming, RES \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 12.10-12.55 \| Software Licensing \| \| \| James Lafferty \| \| \| \| 12.55-14.00 \| Lunch \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 14.00-14.40 \| Land Registry Open Data \| \| \| Lynne Nicholson, Land Registry \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 14.40-14.55 \| Update on the IFTS Review \| \| \| John Williams \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 14.55-15.00 \| Arrangements for Next Meeting and Closing \| \| \| Remarks \| \| \| \| John Williams \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
2795-pdf	## Share Museums East Forward Planning A Practical Guide For Museums Supporting excellence, resilience and cooperative working in museums in the East of England. ## Acknowledgements SHARE Museums East would like to thank the pilot group of museums who, through working through the process, contributed so much to the development of this guidance. Since the pilot some have moved on. Nonetheless, we would especially like to thank: - Kate Brown, Cambridgeshire Museums Development Officer - Polly Hodgson, Curator of Cambridge and County Folk Museum - Beverley Donaldson, Partnership Officer at Cambridge Museums Advisory Partnership - Corinna Bower, Curator of Denny Abbey and Farmland Museum - Liz Davies, Nene Valley Railway All were generous in allowing us to SHARE examples from their plans and experience. We also want to acknowledge the work of Margaret Greeves, former Assistant Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum and founder member of the SHARE Steering Group. In leading museums together through the Forward Planning process she has embodied the spirit of SHARE Museums East. Through our ongoing Forward Planning cohorts she continues to support museums across the East of England to develop and implement their forward plans in imaginative and practical ways. This document is largely her work. ## Introduction This practical guide is written for curators and managers who will lead the planning process for their museum. It explores strategic planning through a series of steps that have been developed with a pilot group of museums in Cambridgeshire. The planning process is designed to win support for the organisation's vision, to articulate its strategic priorities, set objectives and allocate resources to support them. It can be used by any arts organisation with a collection and an audience. Many excellent toolkits and guidance materials are freely available online and have been consulted in the preparation this guide. Our document differs in style while matching the requirements of Arts Council England's Accreditation 2012. It is a simple mapping document that shows how to lead the planning process to gain maximum 'buy in' from stakeholders, staff and supporters. SHARE Museums East continues to engage cohorts of museums in Forward Planning work, using the process outlined here as a guide. ## Why Forward Planning? All organisations achieve their aims with less effort, in less time and to greater effect, if they plan. This is particularly true where an organisation has a limited number of staff and relies on enthusiasts and volunteers. The process of planning, particularly the consultation undertaken during the development of the plan, is just as important as the final plan document. Consultation builds consensus and reinforces support for the achievement of the planned aims and objectives. The forward planning process therefore has the potential to refresh or even redefine the purpose and direction of your museum and to energise everyone in the process. ## Using This Guide This Guide will help you to develop the Forward Plan in two closely linked parts ## - The Master Plan - The Action Plan These are designed to serve two distinct audiences and purposes. The Master Plan gives strategic guidance to the governing body and the staff and is a public document. As well as defining the direction of your organisation for all those involved a Master Plan, signed off by the Board, can be used in support of your Accreditation application (or return) and can be sent to the principal funder, to new funders, potential partners and funding bodies. The Action Plan is the day-to-day practical guide that ensures the aims and objectives of the Master Plan are implemented within a framework of available time and resources. It is, in effect, a 'who does what' document. ## The Master Plan And Action Plan Will Achieve Better Understanding Of What Must Be Done And What Must Wait And Why. The Guide is organised in four stages: - Preparation - gathering information - Consultation - involving others - Master Plan - the strategic public document - Action Plan - the operational delivery plan. We also include checklists, resources, links, ideas and examples to support the process. ## Forward Planning Step By Step Follow this process to bring your trustees, stakeholders, staff and volunteers with you as you write your plan. 1 Understand the planning process. Use it flexibly to determine the strategic direction of your museum. 2 Gather and review previous plans and information on current performance. 3 Involve others: Decide how you will involve your trustees or management board, staff and volunteers, stakeholders and supporters. 4 Discuss the vision for the future with the chair of your board and develop values with your staff. 5 Begin drafting your new Master Plan. 6 Identify priorities for the plan period. 7 Prepare a financial statement for the year preceding the plan period and income and expenditure for each year of the plan period 8 Gain the approval of the board for the Master Plan 9 Draw up the Action Plan for the delivery of the priorities, assigning staff and budget across SMART objectives. Discuss and agree this with the team who will deliver it. 10 Use the Action Plan to check off your achievements as you proceed, reporting to meetings of the Board. Use this to prepare your annual review. ## Contents Page \| 1 \| Preparation \| \|-----\|------------------------------------------------\| \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| \| 1.1 \| Accreditation \| \| 1.2 \| Gathering information \| \| 1.3 \| Committing ideas to paper \| \| 1.4 \| Reviewing past achievements \| \| 2 \| Consultations \| \| 10 \| \| \| 2.1 \| Chair of Trustees/Museum Lead - establish the \| \| 2.2 \| Management team \| \| 2.3 \| Trustees \| \| 2.4 \| Staff groups \| \| 2.5 \| Audience groups \| \| 2.6 \| Key stakeholders \| \| 2.7 \| Other supporters \| ## 3 Drafting Your 'Master' Plan 14 \| 3.1 \| Introduction to the Museum \| 14 \| \|--------\|------------------------------------------------------\|------\| \| 3.2 \| Museum Mission \| 16 \| \| 3.3 \| Key aims \| 17 \| \| 3.4 \| Vision and values \| 17 \| \| 3.5 \| Review of previous plan and key achievements \| 18 \| \| 3.6 \| Priorities for 3 or 5 years relating to the key aims \| 18 \| \| 3.7 \| Income and Expenditure for the period \| 19 \| \| 3.8 \| Appendices \| \| \| 3.9 \| Risk assessment \| 21 \| ## 4 The Action Plan 23 \| \| 4.1 \| Writing SMART objectives \| 23 \| \|-----\|-----------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------\|------\| \| 4.2 \| Putting the Plan to use \| 25 \| \| \| 4.3 \| Managing Staff and Volunteers using the Action Plan \| 25 \| \| \| 4.4 \| Training and Development \| 25 \| \| ## 5. Appendices: Checklists & Resources 26 \| SWOT \| Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats \| 26 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------\|------\| \| PESTEL \| Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal \| 27 \| \| SMART \| Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic, Time Limited \| 28 \| \| Further ideas for prioritising key aims \| 29 \| \| \| Plan presentation \| 32 \| \| \| Useful links \| 34 \| \| \| RAPT \| Risk Awareness Profiling Tool \| 34 \| \| Accreditation standard and checklist \| 34 \| \| ## 1 Preparation In this section: i. Accreditation ii. Gathering information iii. Making notes iv. Reviewing achievements If you follow the steps in this section you will have completed the initial work required for writing a successful forward plan. These include a review of the health of your organisation, consideration of how you care for your collections and how you use them for the benefit of your museum users. ## 1.1 Accreditation ii. The Forward Plan is the backbone of the Accreditation submission. It is the Arts Council's standard by which your museum (if in England) will be judged by its principal funders. Accreditation has been designed to assist museums to conduct their business in a professional manner. It enables museums and governing bodies to assess their current performance, and supports them in planning and developing their services under the headings: - organisational health - collections - museum users' experiences ## The Accreditation Standard Includes The Following Defining Statements About Forward Planning: Effective forward planning is a requirement (1.4) 'the museum must plan effectively for longterm success and to make sure it can adapt in a changing environment in order to survive'. The Forward Plan is a forward-looking document that sets out the detailed aims and objectives of an organisation, to be achieved within a defined planning cycle. It is sometimes called a Business Plan. Forward Planning is a considered way of setting direction and overarching ambition, of taking stock and prioritising work in line with the organisation's statement of purpose and in consultation with its stakeholders, aligning resources with objectives. The statement of purpose and key aims must be approved in all cases by the governing body. If you are unfamiliar with the scheme, it is a good idea to look at it at this stage. http://www. artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supportingmuseums/accreditation-scheme/ For the Accreditation standard download: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/ uploads/pdf/accreditation_standard_ english_web.pdf ## 1.2 Gathering Information Begin by looking at your existing documents. These may include: - plans - funding applications - reports - surveys - local planning documents - any similar material you have in hard copy or on your computer. You will also need the visitor data you have gathered and analysed, such as - comments cards - visitor books - letters - any staff ideas you have encouraged. Set some time to review them. Reading them will remind you how much work you have already done and will stimulate your ideas about what to retain and what to discard. ## 1.3 Making Notes As you prepare to get others involved in the planning process, make sure you keep jotting down ideas that occur to you. Make sure you review your old plans. ## Ask Yourself: - How suitable are your current vision and overarching aims? - If you are planning a major change do you need to alter them? - Do you need to re-phrase the language used to reflect your vision for the future? - How well has your plan served your organisation? - To what extent were objectives achieved? - Have you been over or under-ambitious? - How could you improve the way you communicate your plan to others? ## 1.4 Reviewing Past Achievements Review and note down what you count as Key Achievements. This is a rehearsal for the work with groups you will undertake shortly. ## Ask Yourself: - What contributed to success? - What lessons should be learned? - What impeded your plans? - How might these constraints or barriers still exist? - How might you avoid or overcome them in future? - Consider these questions against each of the following six areas of the museum's activity: 1. museum as organisation - staff, volunteers, administration, systems, finance… 2. collections - permanent displays, exhibitions, conservation, stores, documentation… 3. users and their experiences - access, learning and outreach services, tours, trails… 4. income generation and fund-raising - admission, shop/cafe revenue, sale of images, development… 5. buildings and facilities - condition, use of spaces, appearance on approach, development… 6. partnerships - with other museums, with tourism, in response to other partners… ## Idea - Table It is helpful to write down some initial ideas that look forward in these areas too. Use the table below as a guide and as a discussion tool with colleagues and supporters when consulting with them. \| AREA \| PAST ACHIEVEMENT \| \|--------------------------\|---\| \| ORGANISATION \| \| \| COLLECTIONS \| \| \| USERS and EXPERIENCES \| \| \| INCOME and FINANCE \| \| \| BUILDINGS and FACILITIES \| \| \| PARTNERSHIPS \| \| ## Idea - Checklists You may find the checklists appended to this guidance will help you complete your preparation SWOT for achievements and the museum's state of health PESTEL for analysis of its situation in its environment Guidance on the Accreditation Standard Near the end of this work - ASK YOURSELF: - What ideas and objectives are emerging? - What are the resource implications? Keep making notes to capture all the ideas. Now that you have gathered and reviewed your current plan and examined your museum's achievements and its health in relation to the environment in which it operates, it is time to begin the consultation phase. ## 2 Consultation The purpose of the plan is to align the efforts of all those involved in the work of the museum. To ensure that the plan is implemented, key groups working for or with the museum should be involved in its development and be able to refer back to the plan's key aims and priorities for action. The plan will succeed only if there is good communication with these groups. Consultation on the plan is central to establishing and maintaining that communication. This section explores a variety of ways to engage different groups of people in the planning process. ## Who Should Be Involved? 1 Chair of Trustees/Museum Lead - establish the vision 2 Trustees 3 Staff groups 4 Audience groups 5 Key stakeholders 5 Other supporters ## Practice Example - Visions Here Are Two Different Examples Of Visions To Help You Think About Yours: Cambridge Folk Museum 2012-15 http://www.folkmuseum.org.uk "The Folk Museum is the only museum in Cambridge devoted to the history of the City and its people. Our vision is to become the Museum of Cambridge: a resource for the people of Cambridge, which explores and interprets the growth of the City and its surroundings alongside the development of the University. We will consult with new and existing communities and audiences to provide an experience that is thought-provoking and informative. The proximity of the Museum to Kettle's Yard, the historic house and contemporary gallery of the University, offers an opportunity for collaboration. Together with Kettle's Yard, the Museum can offer a destination on the north side of the town, the oldest settlement. The distinct and different nature of the collections and of the spaces in which they are housed offer visitors complementary heritage experiences. By working in partnership with the City, the University, Magdalene College and other local arts organizations, all organizations in the area will benefit from increased visitors." Or much shorter, but to the point, here is the Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service 2008-2011 Vision http://www.cimuseums.org.uk "Our vision is that we will provide a museum service that not only acts as a source of pride, inspiration and fun, for all the diverse peoples of Colchester and Ipswich but is also recognised a one of the best in the country and a role model for others both inside and outside the museum sector". ## 2.1 Chair Of Trustees/Museum Lead Assuming you are the Museum Lead (curator, director or manager) preparing the strategic document that sets the direction for the museum into the future, you need to capture the essence of this direction, the vision. The vision statement should be both aspirational and achievable: 'blue skies' tempered with practicality. It must capture the passion and determination that will impel the museum forward, but at the same time it must recognise the need to conserve the organisation's energy and consolidate successes. The process of developing the vision must be steered and shared. Initial conversations about the vision and how to express it are most productive when the Chair of the Trustees and the Museum Lead make an opportunity to discuss ideas 'in private and off the record'. Once there is an understanding and a sharing of ambition at this level the rest of the planning process, especially identifying priorities and curbing wild or over ambitious ideas, is made much easier. When you have captured an expression of the vision, you are ready for discussions with colleagues, trustees and supporters. By the end of your consultations all who work with you should share the vision. ## 2.2 Management Team The Museum Lead will lead the planning process with the staff to prepare for a planning meeting with trustees. You will need to be able to show what resources are available, or what may need to be added in order to implement ideas as they are proposed. By sharing the the work in the first section, including the vision, with your senior colleagues, you will ensure that the forward impetus for the whole enterprise comes from the staff at least as strongly as from the trustees. Staff may also know about developments in the museum sector of which trustees may not be aware and which have a bearing on the museum e.g. funding streams, standards, training and development opportunities. In the course of talking with colleagues about the vision you may also feel it is worthwhile capturing the essential values that underpin the way you all work. These may include things such as integrity, commitment to public benefit, collaboration, equal access for all. Once again be sure to capture ideas and responses on paper. PRACTICE EXAMPLE - Values In support of their Strategic Plan the Fitzwilliam Museum staff produced a small booklet in which they explored their values and what each meant for the conduct of the museum as a whole and for an individual member of staff: Fitzwilliam Museum (2010) Values http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk "Excellence, quality, creativity, inclusiveness, imagination, integrity, collaboration, leadership - these are words that we associate with The Fitzwilliam Museum and they express the values we aspire to. They are drawn from the ideas of people through the Museum" ## 2.3 'Trustees' Members of the museum's governing board or committee, the trustees, have responsibility for the museum's governance and its solvency1. The trustees will contribute ideas and respond to those put to them by the Museum Lead on behalf of the staff. They need to be involved in the development of the plan from the outset to assure themselves that the museum is well-run and achieves its purposes. ## Idea: Hold A Planning Meeting With Trustees Ask the trustees to attend a dedicated half or whole day meeting to plan the museum's future. Prepare for the day well. It is a good idea to send some information about the purpose and structure of the day in advance. Begin with a cup of tea or coffee while they gather, then ask them to take a careful look around the buildings - outside, inside, stores and displays. Many museums have found it useful to bring in an outsider to facilitate these discussions. It is often to useful to request that no comments are given during the walk around, but instead, invite Trustees to record all their observations on paper and then pool ideas afterwards in small groups. Listing thoughts and suggestions under the SWOT headings might help. ## 2.4 Staff Groups All members of staff, including key volunteers, should be given an opportunity to contribute to the plan. This is best done when the shape of the proposals is emerging. If this involvement is left until later they may feel that their contributions will not be considered seriously. Try to make sure such meetings are enjoyable - offer some refreshments and use an 'icebreaker' to encourage positive contributions and avoid 'group think'. ## Idea - Unlock Discussion Ask each person to bring along a small object that represents what attracted them to working in museums or expresses why they enjoy working in the museum. Give each person just a couple of minutes to present their object and explain what it represents and why. By the end of these presentations you will already have quite a range of different ideas and an understanding of what motivates each individual, and they will understand one another better and be ready to make useful comments on the draft plan. ## 2.5 Audience Groups Do not forget the visitor or potential visitor. ASK YOURSELF: - Who are your visitors and users? - Why do individuals come? What brings families in? - What new audiences do you wish to attract? - How can your collections be presented to appeal to them? Remember to consider minority groups or new arrivals to the community and any housing developments. If you are able to do so, reach out to them, and think also about 'shut in' people, including those in care and retirement homes. Try to involve people who represent them in consultations when your plan is in draft. Their responses will be valuable and they will be advocates for any new programmes designed to serve them. ## Idea - In The Mind Of The Visitor If you want your trustees or staff to think about users and their experiences invite them in pairs or threes to take on the 'persona' of an audience group and 'visit' the museum in character e.g. older person interested in local history; school student with a project to research; English language student with time to kill; tourist visitor from the UK; foreign tourist visitor etc. Send them out to visit the museum for 15 - 20 minutes and when they return ask them to jot down any ideas for changes or improvements in signage, information, displays, facilities or services. ## 2.6 Key Stakeholders Stakeholders are individuals or organisations for whom the success of your museum is important. They are likely to include: - local preservation groups and those interested in the heritage of the region or community - benefactors and donors of funds, objects or works of art - the city, district, borough or county council - the parent body [e.g local authority or university] - one or more charitable trusts that may be involved in supporting the museum. All of these may be regarded as stakeholders and will expect at the least to be kept informed, or to be consulted on proposed developments. If additional funding is required for the implementation of the plan from any of the stakeholders, or even continued funding at the current level, the stage at which to involve them should be carefully considered. If you are planning to apply for a major grant, check whether you need to share your Forward Plan as it is developed with the funder. ## Idea: Use Others Remember the value of SHARE: resources, networks, training and consultations that are designed to assist museums across the whole range of their activities At all times when you feel the need for a second opinion, as you develop your plan, help is available within the museums community. The museums represented in our group valued meeting and discussing areas of concern with sympathetic colleagues. They said it was "almost like mentoring", "someone to hear what has gone on" that left them "feeling more positive". ## 2.7 Other Supporters Try to build in time for others to contribute to your draft plan. Your local Museum Development Officer should be pleased to be consulted at an early stage in the planning process and will be able to steer you towards funding and expertise in a range of areas. If your museum belongs to a network by virtue of its type, collections or special projects, then colleagues in your network can be very helpful when you are planning. Time permitting, they will be willing to advise and may have experience in an area where you lack it. In keeping them informed about your ideas you may discover opportunities for working together and forming partnerships to develop certain activities and projects. FINALLY - Gather all the information generated by your consultations and review it. Examine and re-draft any existing plan in the light of new ideas. ALWAYS WRITE IT DOWN! ## 3 Drafting Your Master Plan The Master Plan Should Include The Following Elements 1 Introduction to the Museum and its setting 2 Museum Mission 3 Vision and values 4 Key aims 5 Review of previous plan and key achievements 6 Priorities for 3 or 5 years relating to the key aims 7 Income and Expenditure for the period 8 Appendices 9 Risk Assessment This section will consider each element in turn, citing some examples along the way. ## 3.1 Introduction The Master Plan will be a public document. It needs to introduce your museum to readers who are not familiar with it. The introduction should briefly set your institution in its political, environmental and social context. PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION Here is the introduction to the master plan for The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey http://www.dennyfarmlandmuseum.org.uk "The Farmland Museum is an Independent Trust which was formed in 1992 following the establishment of a museum in the village of Haddenham in 1969. The museum is a registered charity and under a Local Management Agreement also manages the historic monuments of Denny Abbey on behalf of English Heritage. The Museum together with English Heritage actively works with other partners and businesses within the cultural life of its surrounding villages in South Cambridgeshire, the cities of Cambridge and Ely and beyond." PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION This example is from the Cambridge and County Folk Museum http://www.folkmuseum.org.uk "The Cambridge & County Folk Museum is an Independent Trust and a company limited by guarantee (no. 412205). The museum is registered with the Charity Commission (no. 311309) and it holds full Museums Accreditation …" [updated additional information for the 2012-2015 plan] "The museum is located within the oldest part of the City where the Romans settled and established the original river crossing on Magdalene Street. This area is now being developed as the creative independent traders' sector of the City in order to encourage visitors away from the city centre. This is to be enhanced by the re-development of Kettle's Yard Gallery next door to the museum, which will enable the Museum to explore and harness new audiences, whilst also offering partnership opportunities. Recent news that the University Museums of Cambridge (UCM) have been recognized by the Arts Council England as a Major Partner Museum provides potential opportunities for further collaborative work with the Folk Museum. The UCM is one of 16 museums and partnerships which are to receive a share of £20m Renaissance major grants funding. Cambridge City Council's Arts Strategy highlights the vision of the Council to enhance the quality of people's lives through cultural activities. The Museum is able to contribute to and deliver a number of the key priorities laid out in the strategy such as access to art for all, engaging and enabling local communities in cultural activity and enhancing the city's reputation and identity through innovation and excellence of cultural provision. It is expected that the number of new city residents will rise by 27% over the next 20 years due to increased City development. More homes and residents provide the potential for the museum to increase its current visitors as well as opportunities for outreach. It also provides the Folk Museum with the opportunity to reaffirm its goal in delivering a museum which is a centre of excellence for the history of Cambridge and its surroundings." ## 3.2 Museum Mission Can you express the purpose of your museum in a sentence or two? This is your mission statement and although it should be short and succinct, arriving at the mission statement may be a lengthy process. Each word will be weighed and examined for interpretations and nuances. It is a good idea to discuss and refine the mission statement with the Board. Try to express your mission positively: for example, "will provide" is stronger and more positive than "aims to provide". It sounds more resolute and determined. ## Practice Examples: Museum Mission Statements Cambridge Folk Museum Mission Http://Www.Folkmuseum.Org.Uk "The museum will illustrate and interpret the social history of Cambridge and the County through its collections and other resources for the education and enjoyment of all." ## The Farmland Museum And Denny Abbey Http://Www.Dennyfarmlandmuseum.Org.Uk "Our mission is to enable a wider audience to participate in and enjoy the Museum's work, enabling every individual to gain an understanding of rural life in Cambridgeshire, and, to provide visitors to Denny Abbey and those participating in the Museum's outreach work with a sense of change, while evoking an equally strong sense of stability and continuity with the past, which helps in the development of an individual's sense of self worth, place and community." ## Cmap Mission Http://Www.Cambridgeshire.Gov.Uk/Cmswebsite/Apps/Committees "Cambridgeshire Museums Advisory Partnership (CMAP) supports the strategic development of the sector to ensure that Cambridgeshire's museums continue to care for and make accessible the heritage of Cambridgeshire, its people and environment, for everyone's learning and enjoyment." ## 3.3 Vision And Values Following your mission statement, you should insert your vision statement. Have a look at the example below from the Horniman Museum and Garden's plan, which combines introduction, vision, values and objectives in a statement on their website http://www.horniman.ac.uk PRACTICE EXAMPLE: VISION AND VALUES "The Horniman Museum is a charitable company limited by guarantee. …Our vision is central to everything we do, whilst our values help shape our work and give the Horniman its unique character. Our vision: to use our worldwide collections and the Gardens to encourage a wider appreciate of the World, its peoples and their cultures, and its environments. Our values: - respect for the World's diverse cultures, environments and resources - enrichment through learning and understanding - enjoyment for our visitors - communication of our message and awareness of what we do - excellence in research, interpretation and care of our collections - stewardship of our historic listed buildings and Gardens - efficiency and effectiveness in the way we conduct our business - partnership with the community and institutions nationally and internationally - relevance to our urban, multi-cultural setting - valuing difference by working towards a diverse workforce and audience" ## 3.4 Key Aims The key aims will spell out your mission in more detail. Your aims should be broad in scope. They express how you plan to carry out the museum's mission. There may be as many as 10 key aims at this stage. Later these will be prioritised and limited to no more than six. You may find that the aims can reflect the headings that you have used earlier to examine your existing plan: - museum as organisation - collections - users and their experiences - income generation and fund-raising - buildings/facilities - partnerships Aims may begin "to continue…" and relate to an essential on-going activity, or they may begin "to develop…", "to explore…" or "to instigate…" and relate to new initiatives or projects. Both are good so long as you can clearly define the activities related to them when you come to write the more operational Action Plan later (see part 4). PRACTICE EXAMPLE: KEY AIMS The previously cited Horniman Museum outlines just three long term aims, which cover all of its work: Access - we will use the collections and Gardens to stimulate curiosity and wonder, promoting opportunities for people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds to participate in and enjoy exhibitions, educational programmes, activities and events - both face to face and online. Collections - we will safeguard and develop the collections so that they can be made as accessible as possible now and into the future. Enabling - we will secure and effectively manage our resources so that we are able to protect, develop and share our collections for the benefit and enjoyment of our visitors, both real and virtual, now and into the future. ## 3.5 Review Of Previous Plan And Key Achievements One of the most encouraging activities for you and your colleagues in preparing your Master Plan will be to reflect on what has been achieved in the past year, how and why. Some projects will be complete but there will be others, in addition to routine maintenance tasks, that may constitute a major part of your Master Plan. Remember also that new aims and activities may need additional resources. ## Practice Example: Reviewing Acheivements The Farmland Museum And Denny Abbey Http://Www.Dennyfarmlandmuseum.Org.Uk Achievements over the last five years (2006-2010) • Attracting project funding and grants of £500,000 exclusive of SCDC and EH core funding • Working with English Heritage, SCDC and HLF on a joint five year development plan of Abbey interpretation (new text panels, timeline and dressing), production of a new guidebook, storage and display of excavated material, school sessions and children's interactives • Achieving and maintaining Accreditation • Location, photographing and adding more information to the digital catalogue of 10,000 objects in the collection • Six years of HLF funded education and outreach post and ability to support an education officer from core funding from 2007 • Creation of a new temporary exhibition space and ticket office. ## 3.6 Priorities For Three To Five Years - Relating To The Key Aims If, like many museums, you find that you have a long list of aims, you should choose no more than six priorities from among them. Once again use the headings suggested for the review of your achievements in part 1: In each of these areas try to express your aim succinctly. This will help you later when you develop your Action Plan and its related objectives in measurable terms. Look at these possible examples: Aim 1: Museum as organisation - e.g. "to position ourselves as the centre for …" (your priority for the museum's profile and marketing it effectively) Aim 2: Collections - e.g. "to maximise the potential of our collections..." (your priority for management, conservation, storage, displays, interpretation or exhibitions) Aim 3: Users and their experiences - e.g. "to encourage volunteering and play a full part in … " (choose where you can work with greatest impact and long-term benefit in education and outreach) Aim 4: Income generation - e.g. "to identify opportunities to generate income through commercial activities and/or fund-raising / working with partners in culture and business .." Aim 5: Building/facilities - e.g " to maximise the potential of our site for… " (your prioirites for improvements or maintenance. What about your café for example, or your storage?) Aim 6: Partnerships - e.g "to strive for sustainability and greater resilience … " (identify funding opportunities to match your projects; explore joint working with a neighbouring or complementary organisation and consider sharing projects and posts). For more ideas on prioritising your aims see the appendix on page 29. ## 3.7 Income And Expenditure The Accreditation standard requires financial information for two consecutive years: reporting on the current year and proposing a budget for the subsequent year. Use your version of the table overleaf to prepare a financial statement for the year preceding the plan period, then to develop an overview of the sources of income expected for each year of the forward plan and the corresponding expected levels of expenditure. The level of detail of income and expenditure given will depend upon the size and complexity of the museum and on the number of different funding streams it receives. ## Idea: Differentiate Between Core And Project Money It is useful to differentiate 'core' income/funding and its source from income generated by activities, subscriptions and donations, from funds raised for 'projects'. Use corresponding distinctions between 'core' and 'project' for expenditure also, as in the example shown. This makes it easy to demonstrate to trustees and funders what can be achieved with each and the effect of losing all or part of one or the other. IMPORTANT NOTE: We recommend that you prepare the financial information as suggested overleaf but do not incorporate it into the published version of your Master Plan. This flexibility allows you to attach it or update it, or to append a different presentation of the information according to the use of your Plan. The headings in the table overleaf are only examples. You should choose headings that are most useful for the purposes of your museum. \| \| \| Year 1 \| Year 1 \| Year 2 \| Year 2 \| \|--------------------------------------\|-------\|------\|---------\|------\|----------\| \| INCOME \| \| CORE \| PROJECT \| CORE \| PROJECT \| \| County/City Council/University grant \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Funds raised by development activity \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Friends subscriptions \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Admission charges \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Shop and café sales \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Donations \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Grants: AIM \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| HLF \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL \| \| \| \| \| \| \| EXPENDITURE \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rent, rates, utilities etc \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Salaries: Administration \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Collections \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Education/outreach \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Collections care/Conservation \| \| \| \| \| \| \| IT, website, photography \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Buildings maintenance \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Grounds \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Administration costs (printing, \| \| \| \| \| \| \| stationery, telephone etc) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Travel and training \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Other \| \| \| \| \| \| \| TOTAL \| \| \| \| \| \| ## 3.8 Master Plan Appendices: We suggest that the following information is appended to your Master Plan to complete it. - Acknowledgement of funders It is especially recommended that the principal contributors to the achievements mentioned in the plan should be listed, including sponsors and donors as well as trusts, foundations and local or central government grant giving programmes. - List of Board Members - List of key staff, including key volunteers, and support groups such as the friends or development groups. You may also want to include analysis of the lessons learned in the process of your consultations, quoting those consulted where appropriate. ## 3.9 Risk Assessment Once you have completed your Master Plan you should check its feasibility and sustainability by carrying out a risk assessment. The purpose here is to identify risks arising from the plan itself or from the environment in which your museum is operating and then to record what actions will be taken to reduce or mitigate the risks. We do not suggest that your risks are shared outside the organisation and are therefore not suggesting that they are published with your plan. However, identification and consideration of risks are useful to the board and senior management and should be regularly reviewed and revised. Risks for your planned activities may arise from known or unknown circumstances. It is useful and prudent to analyse the priorities you have planned in order to identify potential risks. For each one you will want to identify the likelihood of the risk occurring and the impact if it were to do so. The 'residual risk' is the level of risk remaining after the mitigating actions have been applied. In the example given below 'likelihood' and 'impact' of risk are recorded on a scale of 1 - 3 and are then multiplied to produce the score of the risk. A traffic light system is used so that the highest risks are coloured red and can be seen at once. These are the risks that the Trustees need to consider particularly keenly as they will bear the risks should they be realised. NOTE: Larger organisations preparing their risk assessment may like to consider using the RAPT - Risk Awareness Profiling Tool. It is an online checker using the headings Assets, Systems, Finance and Audience that is very flexible and easy to use. At the end you will have a 'to do' list of areas of risk in order of urgency and impact. http://www.raptonline. org.uk/welcome.asp and see Appendix. visitors A Audience volunteers R Resources B1 Rent - see R2 income targets A1 Planned work in B Buildings/facilities R3 Failure to achieve B3 Storage - see C1 C2 Unable to control moth infestation in textile collection A2 Failure to attract active B2 Maintenance by owner is delayed and collections are put at risk adjacent buildings deters negotiation 2 2 4 Curator is monitoring and in working to recruit new volunteers 1 3 3 HLF funded Volunteer Coordinator Reserve plans in place Representations underway Rent is increased Representations underway Representations underway \| Ref \| Plan \| \|----------------------------\|--------------------------\| \| failure \| \| \| C \| \| \| Collections \| \| \| M1 \| \| \| Vacancies on Board \| \| \| M2 \| \| \| IT equipment - age of \| server and likelihood of \| \| M \| \| \| Museum as organisation \| \| \| 1 - 3 \| hood \| \| Risk \| \| \| Likeli- \| \| \| 1 - 3 \| Impact \| \| Score \| impact \| \| be sought \| \| \| shared facility. \| MDO/Curatorial adviser \| \| 3 \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| 9 \| \| \| Consultation with staff on \| \| ## Practice Example: Assessing Risk [See Section 3.9 For Notes] remain unfilled 2 2 4 Appeal for trustees in local press in addition to action by Chairman C1 Additional external storage cannot be found 3 3 9 No large new acquisitions. Further requirements. External expertise will housekeeping. Further searches for M3 Accreditation not achieved 1 3 3 Careful preparation and support from 2 3 6 Urgent appeal for assistance through SHARE scheme Control action to mitigate Current Status of Previous Status of applied Residual Risk after action is i.e. who is responsible for managing each risk ## 4 The Action Plan Your Action Plan is the operational document that puts your Master Plan to work. It is where you spell out your objectives and how you will achieve them within the timeframe of your plan and the limitations of your staff and finances. The Action Plan must be used. It needs to be crisp and clear. It will express the key aims of the Master Plan in terms of a set of objectives that should be regularly reviewed and updated by the Museum Lead. The Action Plan will become the instrument for keeping the efforts of all the staff aligned. In this section we look at: - Writing SMART objectives - Putting the Action Plan to use - Managing staff and volunteers usng the Action Plan - Training and Development - Drawing it all together - 10 steps ## 4.1 Writing Smart Objectives Objectives that are SMART are - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-limited. To develop SMART objectives, take the Key Aims you have prioritised in your Master Plan, one by one. Analyse each one and how you will achieve it. ASK YOURSELF: ## - What Will Actually Happen To Deliver Each Aim? Capture the answers: these are your Objectives. As in the example below, try to use an active verb to describe them. For reference use a numbering system that will link the objectives to the key aims they deliver. Indentifying the lead person responsible for an objective, and checking that one person is not responsible for too many of them, is a useful exercise which engages staff in responsibility for delivering the objectives. If you can identify support for the lead person as well this makes their position less lonely and again engages more people in ensuring that the plan is delivered. Breaking down the Master Plan into the Action Plan requires detailed consideration of the resources needed to deliver each objective and will quickly show whether more than 100% of any person's time has been committed, as well as whether funds are sufficient to deliver any action. ## Practice Example: Action Planning Against Aims [Smart Objectives] Aim 4 To Increase Revenue From 'Commercial Activities' And Fundraising. In order to become more self-sufficient, the museum needs to maximize its own income generation and fundraising abilities. The areas that will be focused upon include the museum shop, café, room hire, paying visitors, friends groups and a new fundraising strategy. Each one will be expressed as a SMART objective. See table overleaf. 4.3 Hire out education room 4.1.5 Energise the Friends 4.4 Increase number of paying visitors 4.1.6 Review current fund-raising with new Chair of Trustees currently visit Identify and target groups who do not Develop trails to increase repeat visits § The amount of income should be discussed and set as a target. \| \| \| Discuss bookings with U3A and WEA, \| Clarify structure of Friends and identify \| \|-----------------------------------------\|----------------------\|---------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------\| \| Visitor \| of Board \| Manager \| Collections \| \| Recruit new Friends and appoint a Chair \| \| \| \| \| Museum \| Lead/ Chair \| Services \| Manager with \| \| local untapped sources of funds \| \| \| \| \| Museum \| Lead \| \| \| \| Volunteer \| External \| marketing \| advice \| \| Council \| £500 grant \| for marketing \| from City \| \| (24 X £30) \| \| \| \| \| of Friends \| \| \| \| \| Sept 2012 \| \| \| \| \| Appointment \| \| \| \| \| local history society and others \| \| \| \| \| Education \| Officer \| \| \| \| Care-taker \| \| \| \| \| ? \| \| \| \| \| £720 minimum pa \| \| \| \| \| Coordinator \| \| \| \| \| Sept 2012 \| \| \| \| \| Access to funds for \| priorities clarified \| \| \| \| when compared with \| 2011 \| \| \| \| Feb 2012 \| \| \| \| \| Increased visitor numbers \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 4.2 \| Increase café \| activity \| \|-----------------------------------------\|---------------\|--------------------------------\|------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------\| \| range \| large windows \| permanent feature of the shop. \| * Trial an interactive Pop-Up shop \| for families. If successful make it a \| Increase frequency of Saturday café; \| * Create a 'Made in XXXXXX' product \| \| 4.1 \| Improve Shop \| \| \| \| \| \| \| * Increase shop space making use of the \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Visitor \| Services \| Officer \| \| \| \| \| \| explore viability of Sunday tearoom \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Volunteer \| \| Education \| Officer \| With \| Education \| Officer \| \| Officer \| Trustees \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Coordinator \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Friends & \| Officer and \| Trustees x 1 \| Museum Lead \| and Education \| Officer \| SHARE support \| \| None \| advice \| In-kind \| \| \| \| \| ## Aim 4 To Increase Revenue From Income Generation And Fundraising \| Museums \| Grant £300 \| \|-------------\|--------------\| \| None \| \| \| \| Cambridge \| \| Jan 2012 \| Jan 2012 \| \| \| revenue§ \| \| Volunteers \| \| \| ? \| \| \| Easter 2012 \| \| \| ££ turnover \| \| \| Objectives \| \| \| Actions \| \| \| Lead Person \| \| \| Additional \| Support \| \| Estimated \| Cost \| \| Source of \| Funding \| \| End Date \| \| \| Performance \| Measurement \| ## 4.2 Putting The Action Plan To Use Putting The Action Plan To Use Once completed, this action plan will quickly show how everything falls into place: - what needs to be done - who will do it - with what additional support - by what date. Share it with your key staff and volunteers. Check that they agree it can be delivered. Give them their own copy and invite them to highlight the objectives that require their contribution. ## 4.3 Managing Staff And Volunteers Using The Action Plan The SMART Objectives must be practical to be useful. When they are, they offer a framework for staff management, training and development. Because each objective identifies the lead person who will deliver it and where they may find support. For the Museum Lead the objectives present targets for staff. Their performance can be discussed in relation to the targets. Where annual appraisal interviews, whether formal or informal, are conducted, the objectives of the Action Plan can be used and reviewed. The connection of objectives with individuals will further reinforce the feeling that each person makes a recognised contribution to the achievement of the museum's aims and the delivery of the vision. PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MANAGING USING THE ACTION PLAN Your museum aims to increase its income by hiring out a room and the Education Officer has agreed to take this on as she has ideas about potential client groups. At your meeting with her you discuss these ideas and agree that she will contact potential users. She is prepared to commit to getting a regular client within three months and to raising a minimum of £720 in the first year (24 weeks @ £30 for a one hour session). You can discuss a higher rate 'after hours', charges for use of equipment etc. You caution her not to spend too much time on this but leave it to her. As a result you have a SMART objective that is realistic, and you can expect the Education Officer to report to you on this activity. ## 4.4 Training And Development Because the Action Plan shows what must be done, it can be used to check whether there are any skills gaps or development needs among those involved in delivering the plan. A list of any such needs creates your Annual Training Plan. It's easier to apply successfully for funds for training when you can show evidence of need related to your plan in this way. ## Idea: Display The Objectives Get a white-board and put it up in a non-public area where all staff and volunteers can see it. Write up the current month or quarter's objectives and activities and who is taking each forward. Cross them off as they are achieved. It can be an incentive and prove very rewarding. The Master Plan and Action Plan will help you to achieve a better understanding of what your priorities for action are, and what must wait, and why. Follow the step by step process on page 14 to bring your trustees and stakeholders, staff and volunteers with you. ## Appendices 1. Checklist For Swot This useful self examination can be undertaken with the Board and with groups of staff and applied to the organisation/museum and to the way the groups function. Use this approach in your consultations to gather information for your plan, but use it carefully and constructively inviting others to make suggestions and keeping a positive tone to the discussion. You might put contributions onto a flip chart divided into four quarters. Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats You might ask yourself questions such as those listed below. You will be able to think of others: Strengths - what do we do well? - What advantages does our position in town/out of town give us? - Which are our best assets (collections, buildings, people)? - What support may we rely on? How are our partners a strength? Who have we done great projects with? - How can we build on these areas? How ambitious are we as an organisation? - How clear are we about what we do well? - How are we thought of in the local press and by the tourist information centre? ## Weaknesses - (The Opposite Of Strengths) - Where Do We Not Do So Well? - Where do we lack profile in our marketing? - Are people sure what they will find or experience if they visit? - How suitable is our staff structure for our organisation now? - How active or united is our Board? - What skills and experience do we need for our plans? - How clear are we, from trustees to volunteers, about where we are going and when we are going to get there? ## Opportunities - What Opportunities For Growth Or Development Present Themselves? - How can we take advantage of changed circumstances in our immediate environment or in local or national trends? - How can we work more effectively with partners if we allow others to lead? - How could we explore digital elements to our advantage - for example putting some collections online or having a more attractive website? - Can we turn a threat - such as loss of staff - into an advantage? e.g. by taking the opportunity to refine our activities and re-structure roles ## Threats - (These Are The Opposite Of Opportunities But Can Also Apply Even To Our Strengths). - Is our funding threatened by cuts elsewhere? - Is our lease about to run out? - Who is responsible for the upkeep of our old buildings? - Rival organisations - is another new museum or gallery with more funding about to overshadow ours? Or is a new leisure park or shopping centre planned nearby? Has our setting changed, with new shops or housing around us - Are key members of staff/volunteers soon to retire? ## 2. Checklist For Pestel PESTEL is a very useful approach to recognising and defining the situation in which your museum operates. It invites an analysis under six headings and encompasses governance issues. It is useful to apply the same headings to the organisation itself, as suggested here: Political - this should include both national and local politics in relation to culture and the arts and any effect they may have on your museum's operation. Consideration of political issues with a small 'p', such as the 'standing' of the museum in local public opinion, is also encouraged. Ask yourselves such questions as - What do we want to be known for? e.g. Do you want to be at the cutting edge, offering encounters with innovative practice or do you want to have a reputation of solid, educational work? - How are we seen by others? e.g. Is your organisation seen as 'elitist' or as 'populist'? Is it considered a 'backwater' and 'hobby place' for older citizens or a lively place for families? Economic - this is usually closely related to the political issues that have been identified but should also look more immediately at the financial health of the organisation and how this may be addressed both immediately and in the longer term. - Are there expenses that you are unsure about? Rent, rates and buildings refurbishment? - Do you know enough about cuts to funding in the local authority or your parent body? Have you explored new sources of funding or criteria for applicants e.g. HLF? Social - this should invite an examination of the diversity of visitors and users as compared with the local population and with regional and national statistics. - How well do our staff demographic match the local population? - In what ways might we encourage volunteers from minority groups to come to the museum and become engaged in an activity on site? - How can we demonstrate that we provide learning experiences that can change lives and attitudes to heritage? ## Technological - This Considers All Digital Activities And The Equipment Used To Safeguard Collections. - Does our website serve our aims and objectives and reflect the 'personality' or profile we wish for our museum? - Are we using or might we use social media to reach a new audiences and engage them with our museum, its collections and activities? - Have we thought about digitally sharing our collections with others - working with Collections Link or BBC Your Paintings? - How do we look after our photographic images/digital files? Have we thought about a digital strategy for the management and preservation of your digital assets? - Does our monitoring equipment deliver accurate information, or if we have controls are they set to ensure the appropriate environment for your collections? - What about alarms and security routines? Do we rely too much on technology? ## Environmental - This Overlaps With Technological. - Can we improve our carbon footprint and save our utility bills? Who do we go to for advice? - Should we change our lighting to reduce UV or lux levels or to save energy? ## Legal - If A Charity, Do We Comply With Legal Requirements Of The Charity Commissioners? - Are we well versed in employment legislation? - What about Health and Safety at work, especially in the café? Who is responsible? - Entertainment licensing? Do we need a licence? - Ethical issues - are staff and volunteers clear and do they behave with integrity? - Copyright and intellectual property rights? - Volunteer management? Dignity at work? - Freedom of information and data protection? Disability Discrimination? - Are we protected - security? Insurances? - Is our Board clear about our liabilities? - More generally, have we put policies in place to guide our work and those who carry it out? ## Appendix 3 Further Ideas For Prioritising Key Aims It is essential to focus on a limited number of priorities for the plan period. This gives impetus to new work or a fresh emphasis to continuing work. The priorities will almost certainly emerge from the discussion about aims and objectives. However it may be necessary to force the discussion to arrive at agreement on the priorities. It is all too easy in this process to end up with a longer list of things to do in the new plan than were in the earlier one. It is difficult to drop activities to make room for new ones - but this is essential. Here are two approaches ## A] List Your Priorities Under Theme Headings Themes may emerge from your discussions and help to group the aims. For example, The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey chose four themes to guide their objectives and to be monitored and reviewed quarterly for reporting to the Trustees. The chosen themes related closely to those of the South Cambridgeshire District Council - Education and life-long learning - Stronger resilient communities and volunteering opportunities - Tourism, enterprise, innovation and regional economic growth - Health, happiness and well-being ## B] Consider Priorities Under The Six Areas Of The Museum'S Activity Outlined In Chapter One, The First 3 Of Which Relate Directly To The Headings Of The Accreditation Standard The questions under each suggest useful prompts. ## 1. The Museum As Organisation - How is our museum perceived by others? - Should we be working on raising our profile? - What does this mean for how we promote and position our museum and what it has to offer to the local and tourism markets? - Do we need additional funds for marketing? - Is this a long term or a short-term objective? ## 2. The Collections – - What priorities do we want to set for collections management? - Is the documentation complete? - Do we need to transfer the catalogue to a database and put the collections online? What does this mean for staffing? - What about the permanent displays? Do they need refreshing? Are they attractive and accessible to all our audiences or only to some? - Is this the period in which we prioritise and tackle our storage problems? - Can we get in some loan exhibitions to attract visitors while we concentrate on these essential housekeeping tasks? - Do we know of any remedial conservation that is required? ## 3. Users And Their Experiences - Services, Education And Outreach Activities. There may be real opportunities in this area where funding is easier to find. There may also be new partners in the health or older peoples' services, as well as with schools. Could we encourage visitors to explore the museum by theme as a way of winning repeat visits, increasing the educational value of the visit and appealing to a greater variety of interests of different groups? Might we offer the museum as a meeting place for a booked group or the café as the final destination for a walking group? What about putting the collections online and increasing footfall by linking to city walks? Or sending them out in loan boxes? ## 4. Income Generation And Fund-Raising – Once your priorities are clear you may be able to identify immediately where to turn for funding. Consider also: - Have you got the right connections to help you with this? For example one museum in the cohort group had in-kind assistance from a department store that improved the appearance for their small shop and boosted sales. - Are the Trustees able to help or should you consider forming a development committee? - Are you using the Museum Development support in our area? ## Buildings/Facilities - Is the museum responsible for the upkeep of the buildings? - Has there been a thorough inspection within five years? Should we finally investigate that damp patch in the store? - Did your walk around reveal obstacles for people with mobility difficulty to get to our front door? Is the alternative door sufficiently attractive or does it serve as the goods entrance? - Should this be tackled now or as part of a larger scheme in the next plan? - How good is the signage? For motorists? For pedestrians? ## Partnerships And Funders - What are the key partnerships that you need to nurture and how? - Are you communicating well with them? For many small museums it is simply too difficult to do all that they would like to on their own. Have you considered the joint funding of projects with one or more other museums and perhaps sharing staff? PRACTICE EXAMPLE: Wide Skies project, Cambridgeshire 'Wide Skies' is supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and aims to provide museums in Huntingdonshire and Fenland with increased links into the community. Two Learning Coordinators were appointed to work with a cluster of museums in each district, drawing in new volunteers and equipping them to develop family activities, and reminiscence work as well as the more usual museums volunteer work of collections documentation, storage and front of house services. The project has completed the first year and new volunteers have been recruited across the nine participating museums. The museums have clearly benefited from fresh eyes and new approaches: "The new volunteers have brought with them an enthusiasm which has helped to stimulate and invigorate all aspects of service delivery and work in the Museum." Curator from one of the participating museums ## Appendix 4 Plan Presentation Without going to the expense of hiring a designer there are some simple ways to smarten the look of your plan and to make the message stronger. Instead of tables of figures e.g. for trends in visitor numbers or schools groups using your museum, convert these into bar charts and pie charts from your Excel sheet. It makes the figures easier to 'read' and conveys the message at a glance, as in these examples: ## Presentation Of Visitor Figures - This Distinguishes Schools Visits Within The Total Number Of Visitors Explaining your staff structure, particularly if you want to show how heavily your museum relies on volunteers or that several staff externally funded and on fixed term contracts, is also best done using a diagram. Using images is very important, too. An image of a variety of people enjoying an event at your museum or a new display, information board or exhibition, will save many words and conjure up the atmosphere in the museum. This message reinforces the words you used to express the vision. Offer your Master Plan as a .pdf to be downloaded from your website and print a limited number of hard copies to give to trustees and others, but don't spend a lot of money on an expensive publication. ## Appendix 5. Resources And Useful Live Links Arts Council England (Ace) http://www.artscouncil.org.uk for guidance documents such as Accreditation http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/accreditationscheme/ Self-evaluation http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/selfevaluation/ Roll-out of Accreditation in the East of England http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/ supporting-museums/accreditation-scheme/ The resource list to support Accreditation is now available as a downloadable document on the ACE website at http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/ accreditation-scheme/how-do-i-apply Good governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector - Version for smaller organisations. FAQs and downloads http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/codeofgovernance Directory of Social Change (DSC) provides training and information to the voluntary sector to enable charities to achieve their mission and runs courses and publishes charity and voluntary sector books on fundraising, management, organisational and person developments, communication, finance and law. http://www.dsc.org.uk The Charity Commission is established by law as the regulator and registrar of charities for England and Wales. http://www.charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk Risk Awarenss Profiling Tool (RAPT) http://raptonline.org.uk Association of Independent Museums (AIM) Focus papers Creating and Implementing Forward Plans, Michael Day, second ed. Revised by Adrian Babbidge http://www.aim-museums.co.uk Collections Link http://collectionslink.org.uk for Accreditation Guidance to Section Two, Benchmarks in Collections Care and Caring for Collections. You can join interest groups on this site and access a rich bank of free resources. Collections Trust http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk for a range of useful publications on Collections Care and Management, SPECTRUM 4.0 and BSI PAS 197: 2009 Code of Practice for cultural collections management. Collections Trust Collections Management: a Practical Guide especially for a framework and policies. Others in this series: Documentation, Pest Management, Governance. ## Idea: Checking Against Agreed Definitions Check to see if your statement of purpose reflects the accepted definitions of a museum of the Museums Association (MA) The MA agreed a definition in 1998. It says: 'Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society.' This definition includes art galleries with collections of works of art, as well as museums with historical collections of objects.' See also the International Committee for Museums (ICOM)'s definition.	en
4202-pdf	RUN AT 01/05/2018 11:12:49 \| Department family \| Entity \| Date \| Expense Type \| Expense area \| Supplier \| Transaction number \| AP Amount (£) \| \|----------------------\|---------------------------\|------------\|---------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------\|-----------------\| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Clinical Other \| GP FORWARD VIEW \| ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP (THE) \| 21823089 \| 29,684.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BARNBY GATE SURGERY \| 21779851 \| 3,459.14 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BARNBY GATE SURGERY \| 21779851 \| 97,247.18 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BARNBY GATE SURGERY \| 21779851 \| 8,194.56 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BARNBY GATE SURGERY \| 21779851 \| 9,873.41 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Voluntary Sector \| COMMISSIONING - NON ACUTE \| BEAUMOND HOUSE COMMUNITY HOSPICE \| 21894050 \| 26,710.83 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 697.73 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 28,936.68 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PCO Seniority \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 1,608.10 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 124.20 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 7,576.30 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Other \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 398.70 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 3,272.18 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Pension EEs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| BILSTHORPE SURGERY \| 21779857 \| 265.16 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector - Over/ Under Performance \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| BMI HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS \| 21634513 \| (30,046.32) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| BMI HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS \| 21730369 \| 102,018.94 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| CARE UK CLINICAL SERVICES LTD \| 21730399 \| 34,929.85 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Commercial Sector \| CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT CENTRES \| CIRCLE NOTTINGHAM LTD \| 21730318 \| 153,866.67 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 560.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 1,702.97 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 57,750.36 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 556.40 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 9,091.67 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779836 \| 5,861.32 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886585 \| (39,961.16) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886585 \| (2,476.80) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886586 \| 79,292.51 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886586 \| 12,725.71 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP \| PRESCRIBING \| COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886586 \| 2,476.80 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Not For Profit \| NHS 111 \| DHU 111 (EAST MIDLANDS) CIC \| 21730315 \| 33,424.58 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| DONCASTER AND BASSETLAW HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 21730357 \| 270,877.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HILL VIEW SURGERY \| 21779842 \| 23,614.43 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HILL VIEW SURGERY \| 21779842 \| 1,203.47 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HILL VIEW SURGERY \| 21779842 \| 2,383.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HILL VIEW SURGERY \| 21779842 \| 83.93 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HILL VIEW SURGERY \| 21779842 \| 2,490.55 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 877.57 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 32,232.48 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PCO Locum Adop/Pat/Mat \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 1,030.28 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 3,015.25 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 2,643.25 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21797787 \| 2,539.99 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21886595 \| (36,023.52) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21886595 \| (2,743.40) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21886596 \| 69,508.07 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21886596 \| 11,935.79 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP \| PRESCRIBING \| HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY \| 21886596 \| 2,743.40 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779849 \| 126,525.43 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779849 \| 3,276.74 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PCO Doctors Ret Scheme \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779849 \| 3,999.84 \| \|------------------------\|-----------------------------\|--------------\|-------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|------------\|--------------\| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779849 \| 14,608.42 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 2,099.37 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 54,230.17 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 9,392.69 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 44.22 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 380.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 89.99 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 6,006.36 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 3,715.19 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Prior Year AVCs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 4,100.16 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE \| 21797786 \| 3,767.23 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS GP Statutory Levy \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779833 \| (412.37) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Voluntary Levy \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779833 \| (62.56) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Pension EEs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779833 \| (16,353.47) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Pension ERs Adjustments \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779833 \| (16,564.76) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779834 \| 2,804.31 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779834 \| 103,909.79 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779834 \| 1,403.96 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779834 \| 4,483.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY \| 21779834 \| 11,511.36 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| NHS MANSFIELD & ASHFIELD CCG \| 21689498 \| 27,467.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| NHS NOTTINGHAM CITY CCG \| 21707423 \| 42,395.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS IT Comm Servs-GP Practices \| PRIMARY CARE IT \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21599951 \| 11,811.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS IT Comm Servs -GP Practices \| PRIMARY CARE IT \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21599951 \| 14,283.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-PMS IT Comm Servs -GP Practices \| PRIMARY CARE IT \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21599951 \| 1,374.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Charges from CCG \| NON RECURRENT PROGRAMMES \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21599951 \| 1,117.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Computer Network Costs \| IM&T \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21599951 \| 8,900.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG \| 21663929 \| 46,278.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-CQUIN \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21730360 \| 29,036.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| NOTTINGHAM WOODTHORPE HOSPITAL \| 21730336 \| 39,363.88 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Clinical&Medical-Othe Public Sector \| PROGRAMME PROJECTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL \| 21592680 \| 260,507.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21731835 \| 25,470.29 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21731835 \| 1,018,811.63 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| COMMUNITY SERVICES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21731836 \| 920,400.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case \| MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21740240 \| 27,737.10 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case \| LEARNING DIFFICULTIES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21740246 \| 10,003.39 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case \| MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21740246 \| 26,727.90 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787820 \| (59,441.00) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| COMMUNITY SERVICES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787822 \| (59,290.00) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787823 \| (44,343.00) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787833 \| (26,215.25) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| COMMUNITY SERVICES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787841 \| (226,800.00) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Non Contract \| IMPROVING ACCESS TO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21787842 \| 28,627.03 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| COMMUNITY SERVICES \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21823062 \| 148,226.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21823095 \| (831.90) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21823095 \| 48,594.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case \| MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS \| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST \| 21894106 \| 27,732.21 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS Contract Value \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 51,000.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 219.65 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS Prem Actual Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 12,629.17 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 70.95 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS Prem Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 886.73 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-APMS Prem Water Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 98.44 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-PMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD \| 21657510 \| 3,811.47 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 1,932.92 \| \|------------------------\|-----------------------------\|--------------\|--------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------------\|------------\|--------------\| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 48,057.32 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PCO Other \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 4,526.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 16,020.32 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 1,000.25 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 158.40 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 4,741.72 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 5,780.95 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE \| 21779840 \| 5,457.54 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 21730329 \| 28,047.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST \| 21730330 \| 5,078,405.64 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 5,800.46 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 121,035.91 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 785.76 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 3,583.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 1,996.02 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP \| 21779845 \| 11,575.19 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779854 \| 82,983.30 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779854 \| 3,409.03 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779854 \| 17,670.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Other \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779854 \| 775.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779854 \| 10,162.06 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886597 \| (40,590.68) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886597 \| (3,319.60) \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing \| PRESCRIBING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886598 \| 81,649.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886598 \| 12,229.92 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP \| PRESCRIBING \| SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21886598 \| 3,319.60 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 1,844.03 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 96,882.08 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS PCO Locum Adop/Pat/Mat \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 7,002.54 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 2,183.41 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 16,604.00 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 9,811.55 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 2,357.83 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP \| 21779838 \| 2,225.93 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Global Sum \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779847 \| 100,540.25 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779847 \| 752.13 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779847 \| 6,833.33 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration \| PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING \| THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE \| 21779847 \| 11,290.07 \| \| Department of Health \| NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG \| 30/04/2018 \| Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-Contract Baseline \| ACUTE COMMISSIONING \| UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 21730374 \| 370,755.46 \| \| TOTAL \| 9,904,121.26 \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
4182-pdf	Email: les.waters@orr.gov.uk 12 March 2020 Jon Haskins Head of Regulatory Compliance & Reporting Network Rail The Quadrant:MK Elder Gate Milton Keynes MK9 1EN Dear Jon, ## Network Rail'S Network Statement, 2021 I am writing to conclude ORR's review of Network Rail's latest network statement, as required of us under The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 ("the 2016 Regulations"). We commented on your provisional version, on which you consulted in August 2019, and have reviewed your published Network Statement 2021, dated 8 November 2019. The summary you have provided showing the key changes was, once again, very useful. We are providing some detailed comments and suggestions in an annotated Word copy of your network statement for you to consider as you prepare your 2022 edition. Most of these are in Chapter 6 (Charges), and are generally around the clarity and consistency of text, although one point worth mentioning here is the omission of charter train operators and where they fit in the market segments. Elsewhere, we have identified some hyperlinks that do not work as intended and note that your contacts section needs updating with ORR's new Canary Wharf address. Taken with some minor page numbering issues we would encourage you to refresh the publication. Looking ahead, the area most needing continued improvement is the provision of information relating to service providers' facilities. We note the reinstatement of your summary spreadsheet and welcome the additional information it contains. Although this gives useful at-a-glance information, the Implementing Regulations on Service Facilities require full service facility descriptions, which the spreadsheet was not designed to provide. We recognise that Network Rail can only make available the service facility descriptions it receives. However, we understand that the Rail Delivery Group is looking at how further information about service providers' facilities can best be gathered and we encourage Network Rail to engage with service facility providers to assist this work. Finally, noting that the RailNetEurope common template has changed, we anticipate your provisional 2022 version to follow that format. I am copying this letter to Matthew Blackwell with thanks for his constructive engagement. Yours sincerely Les Waters	en
2222-pdf	## Department Of Health Quarterly Information 1 January - 5 May 2010 GIFTS GIVEN OVER £140 Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return ## Gifts Received Over £140 Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return ## Hospitality1 \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| \| Name of organisation \| Type of hospitality received \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton \| \| \| \| \| \| Date of \| \| \| hospitality \| \| \| Nil return \| \| ## Overseas Travel Destination Purpose of Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used ## Meetings With External Organisations2 Secretary of State, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting Discuss local issues January 2010 Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust February 2010 National Autistic Society Autism Strategy March 2010 General Medical Council Introduction Meeting March 2010 GMB Union Public Health Minister of State (Health Services) - Mike O'Brien MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting Introductory meeting January 2010 Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee January 2010 Royal College of General Practitioners To discuss Out of Hours January 2010 Royal College of Surgeons Introductory meeting January 2010 British Medical Association Introductory meeting January 2010 Specialised Healthcare Alliance To discuss specialised commissioning February 2010 Royal College of General Practitioners To discuss Out of Hours February 2010 Social Partnership Forum Roundtable discussion March 2010 NHS Institute To discuss the work of the Institute March 2010 American Pharmaceutical Group Introductory meeting March 2010 NHS Confederation Introductory meeting To discuss NICE processes March 2010 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) To discuss Electronic prescription services March 2010 Great Bear Healthcare and Pelican Healthcare March 2010 Unite To discuss the recruitment and retention of junior pharmacists March 2010 Managers in Partnership To discuss management costs in Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities March 2010 NHS Alliance To discuss Primary Care issues March 2010 Combat Stress To discuss how best to address mental health needs for veterans April 2010 Confederation of British Industry To discuss procurement and commercial issues Minister of State (Public Health) - Gillian Merron MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting January 2010 Alcohol Concern To discuss funding and the work they are doing to reduce alcohol related harm. January 2010 Terrence Higgins Trust Joint meeting with Ann Keen to discuss access to HIV Treatment. To discuss the Family Planning Association's work and sexual health January 2010 Family Planning Association and members of SHOG (Sexual Health Organisation Group) - The Medical Foundation for AIDS & Sexual Health, Brook, Terrence Higgins Trust and National Aids Trust March 2010 Business4Life Change4Life Commercial Partners meeting March 2010 Coeliac UK and members of the APPG on Coeliac Disease To discuss changes proposed by the Food Standards Agency Minister of State (Care Services) - Phil Hope MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting For people with learning disabilities to ask Minister questions about services January 2010 Various people with learning disabilities from the East Midlands Public Service Agreement 16 Sounding Board January 2010 Children's Palliative Care, National Oversight group - various stakeholders To discuss children's palliative care services To discuss employment for people with learning disabilities January 2010 East Midlands Public Service Agreement 16 Sounding Board - various stakeholders To discuss services for people with learning disabilities January 2010 Northampton Learning Disability Programme Board - various stakeholders January 2010 Aiming High for Disabled Children Ministerial Implementation Group - various stakeholders Joint meeting with Department for Children, Schools and Families to discuss services for people with learning disabilities To discuss issues around Health, Work and Well-being January 2010 Health Work and Well Being National Stakeholder Council - various stakeholders To discuss the volunteering strategy January 2010 Social partnership forum - various stakeholders February 2010 National Autistic Society To discuss the National Autism Strategy February 2010 Social Care Reference Group - various stakeholders To discuss current issues around social care \| February 2010 \| Care Conference - various \| \|--------------------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------\| \| stakeholders \| \| \| To discuss the National Care Service \| \| \| White Paper \| \| \| To discuss dementia research \| February 2010 \| \| - various stakeholders \| \| \| March 2010 \| Unite. \| \| dementia services \| \| \| March 2010 \| Meeting with various independent \| \| sector care homes \| \| \| To discuss prescribing errors in care \| \| \| homes \| \| \| March 2010 \| Independent Safeguarding Authority \| \| adults \| \| \| To discuss the 'one year on' \| \| \| document published by the National \| \| \| Advisory Council \| \| \| March 2010 \| National Advisory Council (NAC) for \| \| Children and Young People's \| \| \| Psychological Wellbeing and Mental \| \| \| Health \| \| \| March 2010 \| Various carer organisations \| \| understanding \| \| \| March 2010 \| Manygates Clinic \| \| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity \| \| \| Disorder \| \| \| To discuss learning disability policy \| March 2010 \| \| various stakeholders \| \| \| To discuss mental health policy \| \| \| March 2010 \| Ministerial Advisory Group on Mental \| \| Health Inequalities. The following \| \| \| organisations were present: Together, \| \| \| Race Equality Foundation, Equalities \| \| \| National Council, St Mungo's, \| \| \| Stonewall, Age UK, RADAR, Equality \| \| \| Human, Rights Commission, \| \| \| FaithAction, Afiya Trust \| \| \| Men's Health Forum \| \| \| \| \| \| March 2010 \| Autism Trust \| \| March 2010 \| Various social care stakeholders \| \| March 2010 \| English Bridge Union \| \| March 2010 \| Autism Programme Board - various \| \| stakeholders \| \| \| To discuss the National Autism \| \| \| Strategy \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Parliamentary Under Secretary for Health, Ann Keen MP \| \| \| \| \| \| Date \| of \| \| Meeting \| \| \| January 2010 \| Forster - Creative Agency \| \| Nursing & Midwifery Commissions \| \| \| Brochure \| \| \| \| \| \| January 2010 \| Terrence Higgins Trust - Joint with \| \| Gillian Merron MP \| \| \| Joint meeting with Gillian Merron to \| \| \| discuss access to HIV treatment \| \| \| January 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| National Society of Epilepsy \| To discuss specialist nurses \| \| \| \| \| Social Partnership Forum \| To discuss the workforce implications \| \|-------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\| \| of developing policy \| \| \| January 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| Social Partnership Forum \| To discuss the workforce implications \| \| of developing policy \| \| \| February 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| Breakthrough Breast Cancer \| Breast cancer cares pledges and \| \| priorities for the election \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| Eye Healthcare Alliance \| To discuss direct referrals for people \| \| with age related macular \| \| \| degeneration \| \| \| \| \| \| Forster - Creative Agency \| To discuss the Prime Minister's \| \| Nursing & Midwifery Commission \| \| \| Brochure \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| Breakthrough Breast Cancer \| Meet with breast care nurses and \| \| discuss breast care nursing \| \| \| \| \| \| To discuss the workforce implications \| \| \| of developing policy \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| Social Partnership Forum \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Lords, Baroness Thornton \| \| \| \| \| \| Date \| of \| \| Meeting \| \| \| Introductory Meeting \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) \| \| \| \| \| \| SENSE for deaf / blind people \| Discuss Free Personal Care at Home \| \| Bill \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| The King's Fund \| Introductory Meeting \| \| \| \| \| Joint Epilepsy Council \| Introductory Meeting \| \| \| \| \| March 2010 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	en
0146-pdf	1 2 3 4 ## Scientific Committee On Health, Environmental And Emerging Risks 5 Scheer 6 7 8 Preliminary Opinion on 9 ## Potential Risks To Human Health Of Light Emitting Diodes 10 (Leds) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The SCHEER adopted this Opinion by written procedure on 6 July 2017 24 ## Abstract 1 2 Following a request from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Health, 3 Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) reviewed recent evidence to assess potential 4 risks to human health of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) emissions. 5 The review of the published research conducted by the SCHEER has led to valuable conclusions 6 and identified certain gaps in knowledge on potential risks to human health from LEDs. 7 The Committee concluded that there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from LEDs 8 emission in normal use (lamps and displays) by the general healthy population. There is a low 9 level of evidence that exposure to light in the late evening, including that from LED lighting 10 and/or screens may have an impact on the circadian rhythm. At the moment, it is not yet clear 11 if this disturbance of the circadian system leads to adverse health effects. 12 Vulnerable and susceptible population (young children, adolescent and elderly people) have 13 been considered separately. Children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although 14 emissions may not be harmful, blue LEDs (between 400 nm and 500 nm) may be very 15 dazzling and may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern especially for children 16 below three years of age. Elderly population may experience discomfort with exposure to LED 17 systems, including blue LED displays (for example destination displays on the front of buses 18 will be blurred). 19 Although there are cellular and animal studies showing adverse effects raising concerns 20 particularly in susceptible population, their conclusions derive from results obtained using 21 exposure conditions that are difficult to relate to human exposures or using exposure levels 22 greater than those likely to be achieved with LED lighting systems in practice. 23 Reliable information on the dose-response relationship for adverse health effects for the case 24 of the healthy general public is not available in the scientific literature for all wavelengths 25 emitted by LED devices, although a threshold is identified for optical radiation in general based 26 on experimental and injury data. 27 Since the use of LED technology is still evolving, the Committee considers that it is important 28 to closely monitor the risk of adverse health effects from the long term LED usage by the 29 general population. 30 Key words: Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), risk assessment, health effects, SCHEER 31 ## Opinion To Be Cited As: 32 SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks), Preliminary 33 Opinion on Potential risks to human health of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), 6 July 2017. 34 35 ## Acknowledgments 2 Members of the Working Group are acknowledged for their valuable contribution to this 3 Opinion. The members of the Working Group are: 4 5 SCHEER 6 Rodica Mariana Ion 7 Ana Proykova (Chair) 8 Theodoros Samaras 9 10 External experts: 11 Ellen Bruzell 12 Jean-François Doré 13 Massimo Nicolò 14 John O'Hagan (Rapporteur) 15 Celia Sánchez-Ramos 16 Linda van Kerkhof 17 18 All Declarations of Working Group members and supporting experts are available on the 19 following webpage: 20 http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/experts/declarations/scheer_wg_en 21 ## About The Scientific Committees (2016-2021) 1 Two independent non-food Scientific Committees provide the Commission with the scientific 2 advice it needs when preparing policy and proposals relating to consumer safety, public health 3 and the environment. The Committees also draw the Commission's attention to the new or 4 emerging problems that may pose an actual or potential threat. 5 They are: the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) and the Scientific Committee 6 on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER). The Scientific Committees review 7 and evaluate relevant scientific data and assess potential risks. Each Committee has top 8 independent scientists from all over the world who are committed to work in the public 9 interest. 10 In addition, the Commission relies upon the work of other Union bodies, such as the European 11 Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Centre for 12 Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 13 ## Scheer 14 This Committee, on request of Commission services, provides Opinions on questions 15 concerning health, environmental and emerging risks. The Committees addresses questions 16 on: 17 - health and environmental risks related to pollutants in the environmental media and other 18 biological and physical factors in relation to air quality, water, waste and soils. 19 - complex or multidisciplinary issues requiring a comprehensive assessment of risks to 20 consumer safety or public health, for example antimicrobial resistance, nanotechnologies, 21 medical devices and physical hazards such as noise and electromagnetic fields. 22 ## Scheer Members 23 Roberto Bertollini, Teresa Borges, Wim de Jong, Pim de Voogt, Raquel Duarte-Davidson, Peter 24 Hoet, Rodica Mariana Ion, Renate Kraetke, Demosthenes Panagiotakos, Ana Proykova, Theo 25 Samaras, Marian Scott, Remy Slama, Emanuela Testai, Theo Vermeire, Marco Vighi, Sergej 26 Zacharov 27 ## Contact: 28 European Commission 29 DG Health and Food Safety 30 Directorate C: Public Health, Country Knowledge, Crisis management 31 Unit C2 - Country Knowledge and Scientific Committees 32 Office: HTC 03/073 L-2920 Luxembourg 33 SANTE-C2-SCHEER@ec.europa.eu 34 © European Union, 2016 35 36 ISSN 1831- ISBN 978-92-79- 37 doi:10.2772/ ND 38 The Opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists who 39 are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European 40 Commission. The Opinions are published by the European Commission in their original 41 language only. 42 To learn more about the Scientific Committees, please visit 43 http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/index_en.htm 44 45 ## 1. Summary 1 2 The purpose of the present SCHEER Opinion requested by the European Commission is to 3 assess the potential health hazards associated with LED emissions in the general population 4 due to LED usage. 5 The eye and skin are the most susceptible target organs for effects due to optical radiation, 6 and action spectra also exist for effects on skin and eye (ICNIRP, 2013). The type of effect, 7 injury thresholds and damage mechanisms vary significantly with wavelength. There are 8 several variables to be taken into account when referring to effects of optical radiation from 9 LEDs on human health: spectrum of a LED light source; intensity of the lighting, especially in 10 the blue part of the spectrum; duration of exposure; exposure level at the eye or skin; health 11 of the eye or skin; direct staring without deviation versus active eye movement. 12 The specific safety requirements and risk assessment methods regarding photobiological 13 hazards are contained within several European safety standards. In order to assess the 14 potential health hazards associated with LEDs, it is necessary to take into account all exposure 15 parameters - the irradiance (the flux of optical radiation that reaches a target, distance 16 dependent), the radiance (radiation flux leaving the source depending on emission angle, 17 independent of distance to target), and the exposure duration. 18 People are exposed to optical radiation from a range of sources including different LEDs in any 19 given 24-hour period. For many people, exposure to natural optical radiation will predominate, 20 i.e. exposure to optical radiation from LEDs is likely to be insignificant compared with the 21 exposure to natural light outdoors. 22 ## Potential Health Effects Of Leds In The General Population 23 Published studies show that the blue light-weighted (for eyes) radiance from screens is less 24 than 10% of the blue light photochemical retinal hazard limit, assuming viewing greater than 25 about 3 hours (acute exposure), see Annex IV Dosimetry. 26 The search of the literature for the long-term impact of LED emissions on human health did 27 not identify any studies since the technology has been recently distributed on the market for 28 the general population. Because the technology is still evolving, it is important to continue 29 monitoring the scientific literature. 30 The SCHEER concludes that the available scientific research does not provide evidence for 31 health hazards to the eye or skin associated with LEDs when the total exposure is below the 32 international agreed eposure limits (ICNIRP). However, issues in terms of flicker, dazzle, 33 distraction and glare may occur. 34 It is expected that the risk of direct adverse effects will increase if these limits are exceeded. 35 However, there is insufficient information in the scientific literature on the dose-response 36 relationship for adverse health effects for optical radiation exposure of the healthy general 37 public. 38 In addition, no evidence was found for increased risk of photosensitivity from LED lamps when 39 compared with other lighting technologies. Indeed, the absence of ultraviolet radiation from 40 general LED lamps may reduce the risk of photosensitivity for a number of these conditions. 41 Short-wavelength light (peak around 480 nm) influences the circadian system, but the full- 42 action spectrum for the influence of light on the circadian system is not completely clear yet as 43 other wavelengths have an influence as well. It has been shown that normal use of LEDs or 44 screens illuminated by LEDs during the evening can perturb the circadian system, as do other 45 types of artificial lights. LEDs with a higher component of short-wavelength light have 46 increased impact on the circadian system, perhaps influencing sleep quality. At the moment, it 47 is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian system leads to adverse health effects. 48 Although there is some evidence that use of screens technology into the evening may impact 49 sleep quality, it is not clear whether this is due to the optical radiation or the activity being 50 carried out. 51 In addition, LEDs do have issues in terms of flicker, dazzle, distraction and glare. 1 Due to the point-source nature of some LED lighting, studies have shown that the light emitted 2 leads to discomfort and glare. 3 Some lamps for illumination available on the market incorporate "point" LED sources without 4 diffusers, which can cause glare if viewed. This was also reported to be a concern with some 5 LED street lights. 6 Flicker from some LED lamps can result in stroboscopic effects. There are claims by small 7 number people of adverse health effects such as migraine or headaches. There appear to be 8 no technical reasons why LED lamps need to flicker since many models do not. 9 Potential health effects of particular LED sources (toys, car lights) 10 11 A European standard for electronic toys limits the emission of optical radiation from toys. 12 Some LED emission spectra may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern 13 especially for children below about three years of age. 14 LEDs are used in virtual reality headsets where the screen is very close to eyes. However, the 15 luminance of the source is very low and the exposure limits are not likely to be exceeded. The 16 reported disorientation and nausea after extended use of these headsets is likely to be due to 17 motion sickness rather than the optical radiation emitted by the screen. 18 The SCHEER is concerned about the high-luminance exterior sources used on some vehicles. 19 Current examples appear to be blue-rich, which increases glare and scattering, particularly for 20 older observers. The internal car lighting with LEDs that has replaced standard incandescent 21 bulbs has emission levels that will result in exposures significantly below internationally agreed 22 exposure limits. However, some exhibit pulsed emission modes that can result in phantom 23 arrays when the head or eye is moved quickly. Such effects can be distracting. Distraction, 24 dazzle and glare effects do not result in direct harm to the eye, but there could be 25 consequences if the person exposed is carrying out a safety-critical task, such as driving. 26 Susceptible groups 27 28 As the eye ages scattering may increase. This is a particular problem for blue light. Therefore, 29 older people may experience discomfort problems with exposure to LED systems, not clearly 30 seeing the blue LED displays (such as destination displays on the front of buses). 31 People with degenerative and vascular disease of the retina may be more susceptible to harm 32 from LEDs than the general population, but the risk is considered similar to that from other 33 lighting sources with similar emission characteristics. 34 Although emissions from e.g. toys may not be harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for 35 young children. 36 Additional aspects to consider 37 38 The worst-case viewing condition is generally on axis viewing of an LED source, for example 39 staring at a screen or an LED lamp. If a source is safe for viewing on axis it will be safe under 40 all other viewing conditions at the same distance. 41 Flashing LED sources in the peripheral vision are more likely to cause distraction than those on 42 axis. 43 LED lamps used for area illumination are usually more energy efficient than other sources, e.g. 44 incandescent lamps. For the same colour temperature, the blue light component of the optical 45 emission is similar to an incandescent lamp. However, the infrared (and possible ultraviolet 46 emission) will be greatly reduced or absent, which might influence the normal bioprocesses in 47 humans. This aspect is still under investigation. 48 49 ## 2. Mandate From The Eu Commission Services 1 2.1 Background 2 3 The Light-Emitting Diode (LED) is a semiconductor light source that releases energy in the 4 form of light when a suitable voltage is applied to it. LEDs are used in home lighting, laptop 5 and phone screens, TV sets, traffic signals and increasingly becoming used as a light source in 6 the automotive industry to mention a few applications. 7 The LEDs are energy efficient and last much longer than the conventional light sources, which 8 make them widely used by the general population. Hence it is important to know the 9 implications of LED radiation on the human health. 10 11 Recently, researchers have analysed potential risks of white LEDs [1], issuing 12 recommendations to avoid the hazards. Another group of researcher has speculated about the 13 effects of LED radiation on retinal epithelium cells (RPE) [2], 14 15 The human visual system is exposed to high levels of natural and artificial lights of different 16 spectra and intensities along lifetime. These lights give rise to the formation of reactive oxygen 17 species and induce mutagenic mechanisms which lead to apoptosis and consequently to 18 degenerative eye diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). 19 20 There are several variables to be taken into account when referring to LEDs effects on human 21 health: 1) spectrum of a LED light source, 2) intensity of the lighting, especially in the blue 22 band, 3) duration of exposure, 4) health of the eye, 5) direct staring without deviation versus 23 active eye movement. 24 25 According to the SCENIHR Opinion on the artificial light1: "blue radiation directly from bright 26 cold white light sources in proximity of the workers eyes (e.g. task lights) or strong projectors 27 (floodlights, accentuation and scenic lighting, etc.), or reflected may represent a risk for retinal 28 damage; the blue light component from cold white reading lights may perturb circadian 29 rhythm of the user; a child's crystalline lens is more transparent to short wavelengths than 30 that of an adult, making children more sensitive to blue light effects on the retina." 31 32 Legal background 33 34 At international level, recommendations for exposure limit values (ELVs) to protect against 35 adverse effects of optical radiation are established by the International Commission on Non- 36 Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and apply both to the occupational population and the 37 general public. 38 39 At EU level, the following legal framework exists that aims at minimising the risks posed by 40 the LEDs. 41 42 Regarding the protection of the occupational population, the ELVs of Directive 2006/25/EC2, 43 which set the minimum safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks arising 44 from artificial optical radiation, are based on the ICNIRP recommendations applicable at the 1 time of publication3. 2 3 Furthermore, the safety of LEDs (unless they are less than 50 V AC or 75 V DC) falls under the 4 scope of the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2014/35/EU4. LEDs must comply with the safety 5 objectives of Annex I of the Directive that include all type of risks, guaranteeing a high level of 6 protection of health and safety of persons. 7 8 If LEDs are less than 50 V AC or 75 V DC, their safety is covered by the General Product 9 Safety Directive 2001/95/EC5. 10 11 All European standards (EN) related to LVD are voluntary, but if harmonised and published in 12 the Official Journal of the European Union, they would provide presumption of conformity with 13 the safety objectives of the LVD. 14 15 EN 62471 on the "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems" sets a risk group 16 structure and methods to assess the photo-biological risks of lamps including LEDs. 17 The specific safety requirements regarding photobiological hazards are contained within the 18 LED modules and luminaire safety standards (EN 62031 and EN 60598-series) and in other 19 lamp safety standards: EN 62560 and EN 62776. 20 ## 2.2 Terms Of Reference (Tor) 21 22 The Scientific Committee is asked to assess the safety risks associated with the use of LEDs 23 and to provide an answer to the following questions: 24 25 1. What are the potential health hazards associated with LEDs emission in the general 26 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 27 28 2. If possible, identify dose response relationship associated with LEDs emission in the general 29 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 30 31 3. What are the potential health risks associated with LED displays (e.g., TV sets, laptops, 32 phones, toys and car lighting) in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible 33 populations (e.g., children and elderly people)? 34 35 4. What are the potential health risks associated with LED lamps (e.g., toys and car lighting) in 36 the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible populations (e.g., children and elderly 37 people)? 38 39 3 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): "Guidelines on limits of exposure to broad-band incoherent optical radiation (0.38 to 3 μm)", Health Physics 73 (3), 539-554 (1997) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPbroadband.pdf International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): "Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths be-tween 180 nm and 400 nm (incoherent optical radiation)", Health Physics 87 (2), 171-186 (2004) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPUV2004.pdf 4Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357–374 5 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4–17 ## 3. Opinion 1 The SCHEER replies to the questions in the terms of reference. 2 Q1. What are the potential health hazards associated with LEDs emission in the general 3 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 4 5 LEDs are optical radiation emitters. Optical radiation does not penetrate the body; the eye and 6 skin are the organs that are most susceptible to damage. 7 8 The risks following exposure to optical radiation hazards are a complex function of wavelength 9 and exposure conditions. International organizations, such as the International Commission on 10 Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), have produced weighting functions for different 11 hazards associated with optical radiation. ICNIRP guidelines for optical radiation in general do 12 not differentiate between exposure to professionals and exposure to the general public. 13 The type of effect, injury thresholds, and damage mechanisms vary significantly with 14 wavelength. The effects may overlap and have to be evaluated independently. Action spectra 15 at selected wavelengths, intensity, duration, exist for specific chemical reactions in skin and 16 eye. 17 The SCHEER takes these action spectra for the following parameters: wavelength, intensity, 18 duration and viewing position to assess the potential hazard. 19 20 Wavelength 21 Most current white-light LED lighting devices (blue LED and yellow phosphor) emit blue light 22 combined with green/yellow light without significant red or any near infrared wavelengths. It is 23 under investigation whether the absence of near infrared wavelengths has any health 24 implications. Many people perceive white colour 4000 K LED lighting as harsh because almost 25 thirty percent of the spectrum is emitted as blue light, but direct adverse health effects are 26 unlikely. 27 28 The blue light photochemical retinal hazard to the eye from domestic LED lighting is between 29 10-20% of the relevant ICNIRP exposure limit, assuming viewing longer than about 3 hours. 30 For a comparison, 14% of that limit corresponds to a mid-range incandescent lamp. The 31 ICNIRP guidelines are based on observed eye or skin injury after experimental exposure of 32 animals and on information from human accidents. Reduction factors are used in setting the 33 exposure limits for humans when animal studies are used. 34 35 Intensity 36 Radiant intensity (W/sr) is a parameter characterising the emission of the source, while 37 luminous intensity (lm/sr) is important in terms of visual perception including distraction, glare 38 and after-images. 39 40 The optical radiation incident on a target tissue is expressed in terms of irradiance (W/m²) or 41 illuminance (lm/m² or lux). 42 43 For photochemical processes, the effect is a function of not only the irradiance (or radiance) 44 but also of the exposure duration. The product of these two factors gives the dose (the radiant 45 exposure (J/m²) or radiance dose (J/m²sr)). The irradiance (or radiance) used in this 46 calculation of effects is weighted by the appropriate action spectrum. A person will receive 47 exposure to optical radiation from a range of sources including different LEDs in any given 24- 48 hour period. In order to assess the potential health hazards associated with LEDs, it is 49 necessary to take into account all of these exposures. For many people exposure to natural 50 optical radiation will predominate, i.e. exposure to optical radiation from LEDs is likely to be 51 insignificant compared with the exposure to natural light outdoors. The SCHEER concludes that 52 the available scientific research does not provide evidence for health hazards associated with 1 LEDs when the total exposure is below the ICNIRP exposure limits. However, issues in terms 2 of flicker, dazzle, distraction and glare may occur. 3 4 Animal experiments and in vitro studies suggest that cumulative blue light exposure below the 5 levels causing acute effects also can induce photochemical retinal damage. The search of the 6 literature for long-term impact of LED emission on human health did not identify studies 7 investigating the healthy general population. However, technology is still evolving and it is 8 important to continue to monitor the literature. 9 10 Due to the point-source nature of some LED lighting, studies have shown that these emitters 11 can cause discomfort and glare. 12 13 It has been shown that normal use of LEDs or screens illuminated by LEDs during the evening 14 can perturb the circadian system influencing sleep quality, because of the high component of 15 the short-wavelength light (peak around 480 nm). However, the full action spectrum for the 16 influence of light on the circadian system is not completely clear yet, as other wavelengths 17 have an influence as well. At the moment, it is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian 18 system leads to adverse health effects. Although there is some evidence that use of screens 19 technology into the evening may impact sleep quality, it is not clear whether this is due to the 20 optical radiation or the activity being carried out. 21 22 23 Viewing position 24 The worst-case viewing condition is generally on axis viewing of a LED source, for example 25 staring at a screen or a LED lamp. If a source is safe for viewing on axis it will be safe in all 26 other viewing conditions at the same distance. However, flashing LED sources in the peripheral 27 vision are more likely to cause distraction than those on axis. 28 29 Q2. If possible, identify dose response relationship associated with LEDs emission in the 30 general population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position 31 32 Reliable information on the dose-response relationship for adverse health effects for the case 33 of the healthy general public is not available in the scientific literature for all wavelengths 34 emitted by LED devices, although a general threshold is identified for optical radiation in 35 general based on experimental and injury data. 36 37 If the exposure is below ICNIRP exposure limits, the SCHEER is not aware of any risk of 38 damage to the eye and skin. The risk of damage to the eye or skin will increase if ICNIRP 39 exposure limits are exceeded. However, the profile of the dose-response relationship is not 40 well known. 41 42 Since LED emission characteristics like exposure patterns and spectra (wavelength-dependent 43 intensity) vary from one emitter to another, it is not possible to predict the profile of the dose- 44 response function for a general LED emitter. 45 46 Q3. What are the potential health risks associated with LED displays (e.g., TV sets, laptops, 1 phones, toys and car lighting) in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible 2 populations (e.g., children and elderly people)? 3 4 Evaluating the retinal blue light hazard effectively requires taking account of the irradiance of 5 the retinal image of the source viewed. For momentary viewing, the retinal image subtends 6 the same angle as does the source. With increasing exposure time, the retinal image is spread 7 over an increasingly large area of the retina due to eye movement (saccades) and task- 8 determined movement, resulting in a corresponding reduction in retinal irradiance. A time- 9 dependent function of the angular subtense of the retinal image for exposures from 0.25 sec 10 (aversion response time) to 10,000 sec is defined, ranging from 1.7 mrad (taken as the 11 smallest image formed on the retina) to 100 mrad. 12 13 Published studies show that the blue light weighted radiance from screens is less than 10% of 14 the blue light hazard limit that is defined to protect the retina regarding photochemically 15 induced injury. 16 17 Light from screens, independent of the wavelength, has been shown to influence the circadian 18 system. There is some evidence that use of screen technology into the evening may impact 19 sleep quality. However, it is not clear whether this is due to the optical radiation or the activity 20 being carried out. 21 22 There is an European standard for electronic toys that limits the emission of optical radiation 23 from toys. However, children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although emissions 24 may not be harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for young children. Some LED emission 25 spectra may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern especially for children 26 below about three years of age. 27 28 Internal car lighting with LEDs has replaced standard incandescent bulbs. However, emission 29 levels are significantly below ICNIRP exposure limits for blue light to eyes. Since many such 30 LED sources are operated in pulsed emission modes this can result in phantom arrays when 31 the head or eye is moved quickly. Such effects can be distracting. 32 33 As the eye ages scattering may increase. This is a particular problem for blue light. Therefore, 34 older people may experience discomfort with exposure to LED systems, including blue LED 35 displays (for example destination displays on the front of buses will be blurred). 36 37 People with degenerative and vascular disease of the retina may be more susceptible to harm 38 from LEDs than the general population, but the risk is considered similar to that from other 39 lighting sources with similar spectral characteristics. 40 41 LEDs are used in virtual reality headsets where the screen is very close to eyes. However, the 42 luminance of the source is very low and the exposure limits are not likely to be exceeded. 43 Manufacturers give guidance on maximum duration of use for such headsets. Some people 44 report disorientation and nausea after extended use of these headsets. This is likely to be due 45 to the motion sickness rather than the optical radiation emitted by the screen. 46 47 Q4. What are the potential health risks associated with LED lamps (e.g., toys and car lighting) 48 in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible populations (e.g., children and 49 elderly people)? 50 51 LED lamps used for area illumination are usually more energy efficient than other sources and 52 therefore consumers have been encouraged to use them instead of, for example, incandescent 53 lamps. Most domestic applications are likely to use retrofit lamps. For the same colour 54 temperature, the blue light component of the optical emission is similar to an incandescent 55 lamp. However, the infrared emission will be greatly reduced or absent, which might influence 56 the normal bioprocesses in humans and is still under investigation. 57 1 It is good practice in lighting design to ensure that lamps for illumination are either positioned 2 outside of the usual field of view or are of such low luminance that the source does not 3 produce significant glare. Some sources available on the market incorporate "point" LED 4 sources without diffusers, which can cause glare if viewed. This was also reported to be a 5 concern with some LED street lights. 6 7 Flicker has been measured at 100 Hz from some LED lamps. It is not possible for consumers to 8 identify which LED lamps flicker and which do not at the point of purchase. Since some LED 9 lamps flicker with almost 100% modulation, this can result in stroboscopic effects (for example 10 a waved hand appears as a series of stationary images). There are claims by a small number 11 of people for adverse health effects such as migraine or headaches. Although not a direct 12 adverse health effect, it is foreseeable that any moving machinery (including food mixers) may 13 appear stationary at particular speeds under flickering LED lamps. There appear to be no 14 technical reasons why LED lamps need to flicker since many models do not. However, the use 15 of a dimmer switch may introduce flicker in LED lamps that do not flicker on full power. 16 17 The SCHEER is concerned about the high luminance sources used on some vehicles, 18 particularly daylight running LED lights that remain on without dimming at night. Current 19 examples appear to be blue-rich, which increases glare and scattering, particularly for older 20 observers. There are claims that these running lights are a greater glare source in fog than 21 more traditional vehicle lighting. However, the SCHEER is not aware of any risk of direct harm 22 to the eyes from the blue light component of external vehicle LED lighting at normal viewing 23 distances, although if a driver's vision is impaired this could result in accidents. 24 25 Apart from the concern over flicker, no evidence was found for increased photosensitivity risk 26 from LED lamps when compared with other lighting technologies. Indeed, the absence of 27 ultraviolet radiation from general LED lamps may reduce the risk of photosensitivity for a 28 number of these conditions. 29 30 There is a European standard for electronic toys that limits the emission of optical radiation 31 from toys. However, children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although emissions 32 may not be directly harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for young children. 33 34 Additional information 35 Many LEDs contain toxic substances and in order to assess their potential health impact/effect 36 there is a need for further research on waste management. In normal use, there is no 37 evidence of harm from these toxic substances since substances do not leach from LED 38 modules. 39 40 41 ## 4. Minority Opinions 42 No minority Opinion. 43 44 ## 5. Data And Methodology 1 The general approach by the Scientific Committee to health risk assessment is to evaluate all 2 available evidence from human and mechanistic studies regarding effects to exposure to the 3 agent of concern and then to weigh this evidence together across the relevant areas to 4 generate a combined assessment. 5 Throughout the Opinion, consistency and adherence to the International System of Units (SI) 6 regarding the use of terms and units has been used. For definitions and abbreviations please 7 refer to the Glossary of terms and to Abbreviations. 8 ## 5.1 Data/Evidence 9 Data 10 The primary source of scientific data for this Opinion was papers and reports published in 11 international peer reviewed scientific journals in the English language available on PubMed, 12 Scopus and Web of Science. Information has also been taken from technical reports from 13 different agencies and bodies. The literature review carried out is outlined in Annex VII, 14 including the search key words used. 15 The overall quality of the studies is taken into account in a tiered approach (Figure 1), as well 16 as the relevance of the studies for the issue in question. 17 18 ## Fig. 1: Tiered Approach In Selection Of Publications Based On Their Relevance And 19 Quality 20 21 ## Evidence 22 The health risk assessment evaluates the evidence within each of the identified areas and then 23 weighs the evidence together across the areas to generate a combined assessment. This 24 combined assessment addresses the question of whether or not a hazard exists, i.e. if there is 25 a causal relationship between exposure and some adverse health effect. 26 27 In the present Opinion, the potential risks to human health of LEDs have been assessed by 28 reviewing the literature on epidemiological studies, experimental studies in humans, 29 experimental studies in animals and mechanistic in vitro studies. 1 ## 5.2 Methodology 2 The potential health risks to human health of LEDs have been studied via different approaches 3 as controlled studies, case reports, and experimental studies in animals. Also keeping the 4 benefits from the LED lighting in mind, the risk from the LED optical radiation hazard may be 5 managed by exposure optimisation. This is shown in figure 2, below. 6 7 8 reaches low levels. 9 The shape of the curve in figure 2 depends on a number of factors, such as the part of the 10 optical spectrum under consideration, time of exposure, prior exposure, possibly age and 11 individual differences (such as photosensitivity, eye pathologies, etc.). 12 13 The risk assessment approach used in this Opinion is based on that promoted by the European 14 Commission for workplaces (EC 1996) and for products used by consumers (EC 2015). 15 16 This Opinion is primarily concerned with the risk arising following exposure of the eyes or skin 17 to optical radiation from LEDs. Therefore, this will be considered the hazard. It may be 18 necessary to quantify the hazard using an appropriate metric, but usually quantification is only 19 relevant if the optical radiation geometry and distance substantiate the risk of exposure of 20 people. If exposure is possible then the exposure scenario needs to be considered. For 21 example, if the source of exposure is an indicator LED, or if it forms part of a display screen, 22 then it is very likely that people will view the source. However, for many illumination sources, 23 the LED should be shielded from direct viewing and such direct viewing will be likely only 24 under accidental or improper use conditions. Once an exposure scenario has been identified, 25 the optical radiation exposure conditions, for example of the eye or skin, will need to be 26 quantified and compared with relevant limits. These limits may be instantaneous limits or 27 time-averaged limits. In the latter case, exposure from a number of different sources 28 throughout a day will need to be considered. If the exposure is less than the relevant limit, 29 then the risk of adverse health effects is considered low. This assessment needs to be carried 30 out under normal use of the LED and under reasonably foreseeable conditions of misuse. 31 32 In addition to consideration of direct harm, the risk assessment also needed to consider issues 33 that may arise from direct viewing of some LED sources where the risk arises due to the 34 adverse impact of the optical radiation on vision, such as distraction, glare and after-images. 1 These effects depend not only on the optical radiation incident on the eye, but also the 2 ambient light level and the task being carried out at the time of exposure. 3 4 A third category of risk is potentially due to the temporal characteristics of the optical radiation 5 emitted by the LED. The potential effects may be due to the actual emission of the source as 6 directly viewed, or due to head or eye movement, or to the impact on moving equipment. 7 8 A fourth category is where exposure to optical radiation from an LED may impact on circadian 9 rhythm or other aspects of wellbeing. 10 These issues are addressed in this Opinion. 11 12 ## 6. Assessment 2 ## 6.1. Photometry And Radiometry 3 LED characteristics including physical size, flux levels, spectrum and spatial distribution, 4 separate them from typical element sources, which are generally employed and measured for 5 photometric and radiometric quantities. For every radiometric quantity there is a photometric 6 analogue. 7 Photometry is the science of the measurement of light, in terms of its perceived brightness to 8 the human eye. It is distinct from radiometry, which is the science of measurement of radiant 9 energy (including light) in terms of absolute power. Concepts such as radiance, irradiance, 10 radiant power and radiant intensity used in radiometry can easily be defined via simple 11 geometric relationships. While sharing these identical relationships, photometry also 12 introduces detector response modelled after human visual characteristics. 13 Radiometry deals with the measurement of electromagnetic radiation across the total 14 spectrum (infrared, visible, ultraviolet and beyond). Photometry is concerned only with the 15 visible portion of the spectrum, from about 380 nm to 780 nm and measures luminous flux, 16 luminous intensity, illuminance, and luminance. 17 All radiometric and photometric quantities are defined in detail in the glossary. 18 Table 1 indicates the symbols and the units of the quantities; the indices "e" = "energetic"; "v" 19 = "visual". 20 ## Table 1: Radiometric And Photometric Quantities 21 \| \| \| Radiometric \| Photometric \| \|------------\|---------------\|----------------\|----------------\| \| Quantity \| Symbol Units \| Quantity \| Symbol Units \| \| Radiant \| \| \| \| \| Power \| \| \| \| \| ) \| \| \| \| \| e \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| W \| Luminous Flux \| \| \| \| ) \| \| \| \| \| v \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| lumen \| \| \| \| \| (lm) \| \| \| \| \| I \| \| \| \| \| v \| \| \| \| \| \| lm/sr \| Radiant \| \| \| Intensity \| \| \| \| \| I \| \| \| \| \| e \| \| \| \| \| \| W/sr \| Luminous \| \| \| Intensity \| \| \| \| \| Irradiance \| E \| \| \| \| e \| \| \| \| \| \| W/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| Illuminance \| E \| \| \| v \| \| \| \| \| \| lm/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| or \| \| \| \| lux \| \| \| \| \| Radiance \| L \| \| \| \| e \| \| \| \| \| \| W/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| sr \| Luminance \| L \| \| \| v \| \| \| \| \| \| lm/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| sr \| \| \| \| 22 The luminosity function or luminous efficiency function describes the average spectral 23 sensitivity of human visual perception of brightness. It is based on subjective judgements of 24 which of a pair of different-coloured lights is brighter, to describe relative sensitivity to light of 25 different wavelengths. As defined by the Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE) the 26 luminosity function V(λ) is a standard function, which may be used to convert radiant energy 27 into luminous (i.e., visible) energy (see Annex IV Photometry and Radiometry for details). 28 29 ## 6.2 Physical Characteristics Of Leds Sources 1 The basic technology of an LED is that of a conventional diode, i.e., the creation of a positive- 2 negative or p-n junction by doping (impregnating) semiconductor materials with impurities. In 3 a p-n junction, current can flow from the p-side of the material to the n-side, but not in 4 reverse. As electrons move and meet holes, they fall into a lower energy level by the emission 5 of photons. The wavelength (colour) of the light thus emitted depends on the band gap energy 6 of the semiconductors that form the p-n junction. It should be noted, however, that there are 7 situations (e.g., silicon or germanium diodes) where the recombination of electrons and holes 8 does not lead to an optical emission. 9 The spectral irradiance for a domestic retrofit LED lamp is shown in the figure 3, with the 10 spectrum from an incandescent lamp for comparison. However, the emission spectrum 11 depends on the type of LED. In particular, for white light LED lamps, the emission may be 12 produced by a blue LED accompanied by a broad emission phosphor (as shown in the figure 3) 13 or by multiple LEDs emitting different colours that can be mixed in various proportions to 14 produce "white" of different colour temperatures. 15 16 ## Fig. 3: Emission Spectra For An Incandescent Lamp And An Equivalent Led Lamp 17 It is important to put exposure to optical radiation from LEDs into context with natural optical 18 radiation sources. The data above is shown in the figure 4 on a log/linear scale for the spectral 19 irradiance for comparison with a blue sky (minus any direct contribution from the sun). It can 20 be seen that the spectral irradiance from the sky is about two orders of magnitude greater 21 than from the LED or incandescent lamp over a considerable part of the spectrum shown. 22 1 2 3 Infrared LEDs (IRLEDs) have been used for many years in, for example, remote control 4 systems. Although LED technology is still developing, ultraviolet (UV) LEDs have not yet 5 replaced traditional sources of UV radiation in many applications. 6 7 Further information on LED technology is contained in Annex I. 8 9 ## 6.3 Point Source Vs Diffuse Source 10 In this report it is necessary to differentiate not only between point source light (light emitted 11 from a LED chip) and diffused light LED sources, but also between diffused light that 12 illuminates the environment and diffused light emitted by (for example) a LED screen that is 13 directly viewed by users. In this sense, the exposure conditions (irradiance, distance from 14 source and exposure duration) are totally variable and should be considered independently. 15 For example, screens are mostly tactile and the distances of use are dependent on the length 16 of the arms of the user and the quality of their eyesight. However, at any given time, a person 17 is likely to be exposed to optical radiation from a range of different optical radiation sources, 18 including optical radiation from the sun. Any exposure to optical radiation from LEDs needs to 19 put into context. 20 21 To save energy, the European directives from the Eco-design of Energy Using Products 22 (2005/32/CE) have recommended the replacement of incandescent lamps by more economic 23 devices such as LEDs. However, the emission spectra from earlier types of white-light LEDs 24 were rich in blue radiation, known to be potentially dangerous to the retina for high radiant 25 exposures (Krigel et al., 2016). Therefore, it is important to consider actual source 26 characteristics and exposure conditions. 27 28 There are several variables to be taken into account when referring to effects of optical 29 radiation from LEDs on human health: 1) spectrum of a LED light source, 2) intensity of the 30 lighting, especially in the blue part of the spectrum, 3) duration of exposure, 4) exposure level 31 at the eye or skin, 5) health of the eye or skin, 6) direct staring without deviation versus 32 active eye movement. 33 34 35 ## 6.4. The Fundamental Interaction Between Light And Matter 1 Light (or more generally optical radiation) reacts with matter in various ways. These 2 interactions are based on the absorption of the optical radiation by matter. When the energy of 3 a photon is taken up by matter, reflection (the electromagnetic radiation is returned either at 4 the boundary between two media or at the interior of a medium), refraction (change in 5 direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium), scattering (the 6 process of deflecting a unidirectional beam into one or many directions), or transmission (the 7 passage of electromagnetic radiation through a medium) (Das, 1991; Elliott, 1995; 8 Hillenkamp, 1989). 9 10 There are four basic interactions that can occur following absorption of optical radiation: 11 photothermal, photochemical, photomechanical and photoelectric interactions (see Annex II 12 for details). However, only the first two are relevant to the optical radiation from current LEDs. 13 ## 6.5. Eye Optics Fundamentals 14 A diagram of the human eye, showing the significant anatomical details, is shown below. 15 ## 16 Fig. 5: A diagram of the human eye (source: © National Eye Institute, National 17 Institutes of Health) 18 19 The visual sensitivity of the eye to optical radiation varies with wavelength between about 380 20 and 780 nm. The wavelength range varies between individuals and the absolute response also 21 has a distribution. However, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE from the 22 French, Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage) have published response curves for so-called 1 standard observers, based on experimental studies, taking account of whether the light levels 2 are high (day time), low (night time) or in between. These are termed photopic, scotopic and 3 mesopic curves, respectively. The photopic and scotopic curves are shown in figure 6. 4 5 6 7 ## 6.5.1 Thermal And Photochemical Aspects 8 The risk of thermal effects is related to burns to the retina, generally resulting from short-term 9 exposure to very intense visible and IR-A radiation. Lesions occur on the outer retina 10 (photoreceptors and cells of the pigment epithelium) and appear after some time has passed 11 (usually about 24 hours). With photochemical interactions, first, reactive oxygen species may 12 be generated, second, the presence and action of these represent oxidative stress, and unless 13 repair mechanisms and detoxification processes alleviate the impact, cell death (any type) 14 may occur. Photoreactive pigments (lipofuscin) in the epithelium accumulate with age, 15 increasing the risk of oxidative stress. The photopigment fragments thus created act as free 16 radicals, which may lead to the death of the photoreceptor cells (Kuse et al, 2014; Chamorro 17 et al., 2013). The radiation absorbed, which depends on the radiance of the light source and 18 the duration of exposure, causes photochemical decomposition of the pigments present in the 19 photoreceptor cells. 20 21 The retina is exposed to all of the visible wavelength range, the most severe retinal damage is 22 likely to result from the effects of the shorter wavelengths (400-600 nm); this is commonly 23 known as the "blue-light-hazard" (see action spectrum below, ICNIRP 2013). However, the 24 retina contains a number of endogenous photosensitisers (such as vitamin A derivatives, 25 lipofuscin, melanin, flavins, porphyrins and rhodopsin) which can be excited by visible/infrared 26 radiation reaching the retina (Rozanowska et al., 1995). The retina contains many 27 chromophores that can lead to photochemical damage when excited at each wavelength of 28 light. Optical radiation emitted by LEDs may induce cell damage depending on the wavelength 29 and therefore some wavelengths may produce more severe retinal photoreceptor cell damage 30 than other wavelengths. (Chamorro, et al., 2013). Short wavelength light can penetrate 1 through tissues to the cells and their organelles, inducing the generation of reactive oxygen 2 species (ROS) in RPE mitochondria and even apoptosis (Roehlecke, et al., 2009). Also, optical 3 radiation emitted by LEDs can cause a phototoxic effect, especially from the most energetic 4 radiations: the violet and blue (400 - 500 nm) (Godley et al., 2005). The higher toxicity of the 5 blue part of the spectrum is recognised in the ICNIRP action spectrum for the blue light hazard 6 shown in figure 7. Also shown in figure 7 is the aphakic action spectrum, intended for people 7 without a lens, but which can also be applied for very young children. 8 9 10 ## 11 6.5.2. The Effects On The Healthy Eyes 12 6.5.2.1. Computer Vision Syndrome 13 Computer vision syndrome (CVS) is the combination of eye and vision problems associated 14 with the use of computers and was a concern before the introduction of LED screens. In 15 modern society the use of computers for both vocational and avocational activities is almost 16 universal. However, CVS may have a significant impact not only on visual comfort but also 17 occupational productivity since between 64% and 90% of computer users experience visual 18 symptoms which may include eyestrain, headaches, ocular discomfort, dry eye, diplopia and 19 blurred vision either at near or far distance after prolonged computer use. Rosenfield (2011) 20 reviewed the principal ocular causes for this condition, namely oculomotor anomalies and dry 21 eye. Accommodation and vergence responses to electronic screens appear to be similar to 22 those found when viewing printed materials, whereas the prevalence of dry eye symptoms is 23 greater during computer operation. The latter is probably due to a decrease in blink rate 24 and blink amplitude, as well as increased corneal exposure resulting from the monitor 25 frequently being positioned in primary gaze. 26 27 The aim of another study (Argiles et al., 2015) was to evaluate spontaneous eye blink rate 28 (SEBR) and percentage of incomplete blinks in different hard-copy and visual display terminal 29 (VDT) reading conditions, compared with baseline conditions. Its conclusions are that the high 30 cognitive demands associated with a reading task led to a reduction in SEBR, irrespective of 31 type of reading platform. However, only electronic reading resulted in an increase in the 32 percentage of incomplete blinks, which may account for the symptoms experienced by VDT 33 users. 34 ## 6.5.2.2 Anterior Segment Of The Eye 1 To date there is no evidence that commercially available LED light sources have a deleterious 2 effect on the anterior segment (conjunctiva, cornea and lens) of the human eye. 3 It has been reported that the severity of damage induced by light depends on radiation 4 intensity, radiation wavelength and time of exposure (Lee et al., 2016). To date there are 5 scientific reports showing that blue LED light at high doses (i.e. in excess of exposure limits) is 6 toxic for the ocular surface. The excess of blue light LED radiation stimulates the production of 7 pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1, IL-6, and IL-8, through the c-jun amino-terminal 8 kinase [JNK] pathway, p38 pathway, and nuclear factor– kB [NF-kB] pathway) and enzymes 9 (e.g. MMP-1) that mediate prostaglandin and leukotriene biosynthesis, as well as antioxidant 10 enzymes in corneal epithelial cells (Lee et al., 2016). 11 The overexposure to emitting blue radiation (410 nm) at 50 J/cm2 can induce oxidative 12 damage and apoptosis to the cornea, which may manifest as increased ocular surface 13 inflammation and resultant dry eye compared to LED light emitting red and green irradiation 14 (Lee et al., 2016). 15 Regarding the lens, cataract is the major cause for legal blindness in the world (Ide et al., 16 2015). Oxidative stress on the lens epithelial cells is the most important factor 17 in cataract formation. Cumulative light-exposure from widely used LEDs may pose a potential 18 oxidative threat to the lens epithelium. However, blue light exposure from the sky dominates 19 and exposure to blue light from current LEDs is a small additional contribution to the natural 20 exposure. 21 Previous authors (Xie et al., 2014) analysed the photobiological effect on human lens epithelial 22 cells (hLECs) of white LED light exposure with multichromatic correlated colour temperatures 23 (CCTs) of 2954, 5624, and 7378 K. In vitro experiments showed that compared with 2954 and 24 5624 K LED light, LED light having a CCT of 7378 K caused overproduction of intracellular 25 reactive oxygen species (ROS) and severe DNA damage, which triggered cell cycle arrest and 26 apoptosis. These results indicate that white LEDs with a high CCT could cause significant 27 photobiological damage to hLECs. 28 Caution should be exercised regarding the effect of LED light on human lens as this study was 29 conducted using human lens epithelial cells in cultures. Responses against blue light irradiation 30 might be variable in clinical situations involving human subjects. Humans are not ordinarily 31 exposed to blue light with high radiant exposure, as they were in experimental studies. It is 32 possible that under specific occupational circumstances, humans may be exposed to high 33 radiant exposure blue light. However, existing European legislation for the exposure of workers 34 to artificial optical radiation would apply. 35 Some concern should be raised for medical professionals working under intensive shadowless 36 lamps in the operating room. The incandescent or halogen light sources for surgical lamps are 37 being replaced by more energy-efficient light emitting diodes (LEDs). However, occupational 38 exposure legislation will apply. 39 ## 6.5.2.3 Posterior Segment Of The Eye 40 The present review did not identify any peer-reviewed literature demonstrating damage of the 41 posterior segment of the human eye following exposure to optical radiation from commercially 42 available white LED lamps in everyday life. Data are available only concerning the effect of 43 LED light exposure or overexposure for in vitro or in vivo animal model studies. 44 Some concerns regarding possible hazard of LED light exposure comes from the fact that white 45 light from LEDs appears normal to human vision, however a strong peak of blue light ranging 46 from 460 to 500 nm is also emitted within the white light spectrum; this blue light corresponds 47 to a potential retinal hazard, but only at levels significantly in excess of the exposure limits 48 recommended by ICNIRP (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011). See also figure 3 for a comparison with 49 the exposure to optical radiation from a blue sky. 50 The composition of the white-light spectrum differs among LED products and their light 51 qualities may change over time. Although it is robust in the beginning, a white light LED may 52 progressively release more short-wavelengths (blue light) when LED lumen depreciation 1 occurs because of phosphor degradation. The quality of the light deteriorates after the lights 2 pass below the 70% lumen maintenance level (U.S. Department of Energy 2009). These 3 characteristics suggest that a white LED might cause more blue light exposure than other 4 domestic lighting sources at the end of their life. Cumulative exposure to blue light has been 5 argued to accelerate aging of the retina and possibly play an etiological role in age-related 6 macular degeneration (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011). 7 Irradiating human RPE cells in vitro with three different LED light sources - blue (468 nm), 8 green light (525 nm), red-light (616 nm) or white light at an irradiance of 5 mW/cm2 induce a 9 significant reduction of the viability of the cells for all four LEDs light (Chamorro et al., 2013). 10 However, ROS levels increased only after the exposure with blue, green or red light but not 11 after the exposure to white light compared to non-irradiated cells, although there was an 12 increased degradation of nucleic acids in all irradiated cells in comparison with control cells. 13 Notwithstanding, apoptosis cell death also increases significantly following white light exposure 14 (blue 86%, green 84%, red 66%, white 89%) compared to only 3,7% of apoptosis of the non- 15 irradiated RPE cells. Summing up, three light–darkness cycles (12 h/12 h) exposure to LED 16 lighting, including white LED, affect the growth of RPE cells and produce cellular stress, 17 increasing ROS levels as well as increasing DNA damage and the number of apoptotic cells. 18 LED light at domestic lighting levels induced retinal injury in a Sprague-Dawley (albino) rat 19 model after chronic exposure (Shang et al., 2014; Shang et al., 2017). Retinal cell function 20 loss was demonstrated in vivo by electrofunctional test showing a significant decrease of 21 b-wave amplitude after 9 and 28 days of blue or white LED, or compact fluorescent lamp 22 (CFL), light exposure. The findings were confirmed ex vivo by a significant thinning of the 23 outer nuclear layer where the nuclei of photoreceptor cells are located and more apoptosis 24 after blue and white LED light exposure, compared with the exposure to the light from the 25 CFL. The retina has one of the highest oxygen consumption levels of tissues in the body and it 26 is sensitive to oxidative stress (Yu and Cringle, 2005). Oxidative stress is the crucial risk factor 27 for photoreceptor degeneration, which is caused by the generation of toxic ROS within retinal 28 tissue. The retina contains enzymes involved in detoxification or synthesis, particularly in the 29 outer segment or retinal pigment epithelium (Shang et al., 2014; Shang et al., 2017). The 30 spectrum emitted by white LED lights contain photons with energies that exceed the threshold 31 of the enzymes serving as a stress-induced protection mechanism (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011); 32 thus, exposure to optical radiation from white LEDs may result in severe damage to the outer 33 retina at high levels of exposure. Spectral power distribution (SPD), as well as irradiance, are 34 risk factors that contribute to the photochemical retinal injury. To prevent or decrease this 35 potential retinal damage, some companies are increasing the market segments of lower colour 36 temperature (i.e. lower blue component) LEDs for domestic lighting (U.S. Department of 37 Energy 2012). 38 Recently the potential for retinal damage from optical radiation emitted by 10 commercially 39 available LED light sources and a LED lantern used for home was evaluated (James et al., 40 2017). Each lamp was tested by measuring the spectral irradiance and spectral radiance. The 41 authors concluded that all light sources tested are in the exempt group according to the 42 ANSI/IESNA Recommended Practice RP-27 series of documents (ANSI/IESNA 2005, 2007) 43 which is the equivalent of the European Standard EN 62471 and therefore do not pose an 44 ocular hazard. 45 ## 6.5.3 Potential Effects On The Non-Healthy Eyes 46 Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disease and a leading cause of 47 blindness in the patients aged about 65 years or older in industrialised countries (Chu et al., 48 2013; Wu et al., 2014). 49 The typical pathology of advanced AMD is described as having two main forms: geographic 50 atrophy (GA) and neovascular (exudative) AMD. Although pharmacologic treatment has 51 changed the visual prognosis of exudative AMD, there is still a limited curative treatment for 52 AMD, and therefore the best option is to prevent its onset by trying to point out possible risk 53 factors which might contribute to further acceleration of the pathologic senescence process of 1 the choroid, RPE and neuroepithelium. A growing number of studies indicate that the effect 2 of oxidative stress contributes to AMD-related pathological changes (Beatty et al., 2000; Lau 3 et al., 2011; Narimatsu et al. 2013). Besides aging and smoking, the main source of oxidative 4 stress can be cumulative light exposure, which may induce abnormal accumulation of reactive 5 oxygen species in the macula. 6 A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that individuals with high levels of sunlight 7 exposure (UVR exposure, visible light exposure and blue light exposure regarded as sunlight 8 exposure) are at a significantly increased risk of AMD (Sui et al., 2013). Furthermore, the risk 9 for cataract extraction, as well as early AMD, is increased in subjects exposed to sunlight 10 (Delcourt et al., 2014). The cornea and natural crystalline lens absorb the most UVR (100 nm- 11 400 nm), and only a small fraction of UV-A (315 nm-400 nm) reaches the retina (Sliney, 12 2001). Although by 20 years of age only 0.1% UVR reaches the retina, due to the metabolites 13 of tryptophan which absorbing UVR (Sliney, 2002), another important component of sunlight, 14 blue light has a better ocular penetration than UVR and by the age of 60–70 years old, there is 15 still 40% of blue light (460 nm) reaching the retina (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011). 16 The urban population tends to have longer duration of exposure to artificial lighting indoors 17 rather than sunlight outdoor. However, for even a short period of time outdoors, the optical 18 radiation exposure from sunlight tends to dominate. 19 ## 6.5.4. Vulnerable And Susceptible Populations 20 6.5.4.1. Children 21 The transmission of UV-A and blue light to the retina is higher in young children than in older 22 children (above about three years) and adults. The ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 2013) suggest 23 that the action spectrum for aphakes may be appropriate for young children, generally 24 considered to be those below about three years of age. This formed the basis of a 25 recommendation on the emission limits for LEDs incorporated into toys (Higlett et al., 2012). 26 ## 6.5.4.2. Adolescent 27 The studies of Kim et al. (2016) show that smartphone use has dramatically increased in 28 recent years. According to the authors, smartphones may have adverse health effects, 29 particularly on the eyes, because users stare at the screen for a much longer time than with 30 previous generations of mobile phones. The objective of this study was to elucidate the 31 relationship between smartphone use and ocular symptoms among adolescents (n=715). The 32 conclusion was that the increasing use of smartphones can have a negative impact on ocular 33 health in adolescents, although there was no implication that the optical radiation had any 34 direct adverse health effect. 35 ## 6.5.4.3. Elderly Population 36 No peer-reviewed studies were identified that suggested there was a specific risk to the older 37 population from exposure to the optical radiation from LEDs. However, the aging eye transmits 38 less blue light to the retina and is more susceptible to scatter light at these wavelengths. 39 There have been claims that blue-rich sources of light produce more glare for the older 40 population. This is likely to be evident for LED displays (for example destination indicators on 41 the front of buses) using blue light and vehicle LED lighting. 42 43 ## Conclusion 44 Although there are no reliable data to be used for risk assessment of eye-safety of life-time 45 usage of LED light sources, there might be some concern on the potential negative 46 consequences of LED emissions particularly in a susceptible population which already present 47 early signs of pathologic senescence of the macula. However, it should be emphasised that 48 those concerns derive from results obtained in experimental animal models or cell culture 49 models using exposure levels greater than those likely to be achieved with LED lighting 50 systems in practice. 51 Exposure to optical radiation from white LEDs may result in severe damage to the outer retina 1 at high levels of exposure. Spectral power distribution (SPD) and irradiance are risk factors 2 that contribute to the photochemical retinal injury. To prevent or decrease this potential retinal 3 damage lower blue component LEDs for domestic lighting should be used. 4 5 ## 6.6. Skin Optics Fundamentals 6 6.6.1 Structure Of The Skin 7 Human skin is constituted by three main layers: epidermis, dermis and sub-cutaneous tissue, 8 made from different cellular types that fulfil different functions (see Annex II for a short 9 description for the various parts). 10 Fitzpatrick (1975) originally developed a scale of skin types for use in phototherapy treatment 11 planning. The scale has been more widely adopted (Fitzpatrick 1988) to indicate the sensitivity 12 of the skin to ultraviolet radiation - see Annex III. 13 ## 6.6.2 Optical Properties Of Skin 14 Optical properties of the skin are complex, and result from reflectance; absorption and 15 scattering of the different wavelengths of incident light (see for review Anderson and Parrish, 16 1981, Lister et al., 2012, Liu, 2012). The optical pathways in the skin are shown in figure 8. 17 18 ## Fig. 8: Optical Pathways In The Skin (Source: E. Bruzell) 19 Due to the change in refractive index between air (nD = 1.0) and epidermal surface (nD = 1.55 20 for the stratum corneum), a small fraction of incident optical radiation is reflected. This regular 21 reflectance from normal skin is always between 4% and 7% over the entire spectrum from 22 250-3000 nm, for both white and black skin. Similar air-tissue optical interfaces also cause 23 internal reflections of diffuse and back-scattered radiation, within the epidermis and dermis, 24 and also contribute to remittance of the skin. 25 Absorption is a reduction in light energy. Absorption results from the presence of 26 chromophores in the skin: urocanic acid, melanin, haemoglobin (oxy-/deoxy), bilirubin, 27 porphyrins. Although abundant in all tissues, water is not a significant absorber of light in the 28 visible region, but absorbs infrared radiation. Two molecules are the major light absorbing 29 substances in skin: melanin and haemoglobin. Melanins, both eumelanin (brown) and 30 phaeomelanin (red) almost exclusively located in the epidermis in humans, have an absorption 1 spectrum that gradually decreases from the ultraviolet (UV-B, 280 nm) to the near infrared 2 (750 nm) regions. Haemoglobin is the dominant absorber of light in the dermis. The 3 absorption spectrum of oxy-haemoglobin shows three peaks: a dominant peak in the blue 4 region (420 nm) and two further peaks in the green-yellow region (500-600 nm), at 5 respectively 540 and 580 nm [the combination of the blue and green-yellow bands cause 6 haemoglobin to appear red]. 7 Scattering is a change in the direction, polarization or phase of light and results from either a 8 surface effect (such as reflection or refraction) or from an interaction with molecules/particules 9 whose optical properties differ from their surroundings (particulate scatter). The major sources 10 of particulate scatter in the skin are the filamentous proteins: keratins within the epidermis, 11 and collagens in the dermis. In addition, other structures/substances such as melanosomes in 12 the epidermis contribute to light scattering in the skin. Scattering is influenced by the size of 13 the filaments; it increases with increasing fibre diameter, and with wavelength (it increases 14 with decreasing wavelength). 15 Epidermis - the epidermis has an important function in absorbing most of the short-range UV- 16 B (280-315 nm) and a significant proportion of UV-A (315-400 nm) radiation. This results both 17 from absorption of UV radiation by melanin and urocanic acid, and from scattering by keratins. 18 An efficient protection against UV is afforded by the thickening of the stratum corneum that 19 results from the epidermal hyperplasia triggered by UV exposures. 20 Dermis - the dermis is mainly constituted from collagens and elastin and is highly 21 vascularized. Light is absorbed by haemoglobin and scattered by the large collagen fibres 22 (about 10 times larger than keratin fibres of the epidermis). 23 Sub-cutaneous tissue - the sub-cutaneous tissue is rich in fat and is vascularized. Fat is a 24 highly diffusing optical medium, and haemoglobin absorbs light in blood vessels. But 25 penetration of visible light (400-700 nm) in the skin is limited to a depth of about 3 mm, and 26 only a small proportion of visible light penetrates sub-cutaneous tissue. 27 ## 6.6.3 Penetration Of Light In The Skin 28 The penetration depth of light in the skin is a function of wavelength and absorption/scattering 29 by skin composition (melanin, keratin, collagen, haemoglobin, fat). 30 UV - Most UV-B incident on the skin is blocked by the epidermis. It is usually considered that 31 only 10% of UV-B reaches the basal layer of the epithelium as opposed to 50% of UV-A. UV-A 32 reaches the dermis. 33 Visible light - Penetration of visible light in the skin increases with increasing wavelength. 34 However, penetration of visible light is limited to 0.8 - 3 mm. 35 Infrared - infrared radiation can reach subcutaneous tissue. 36 When optical radiation reaches a tissue, part of this radiation is scattered in the environment 37 (5-7% for perpendicular radiation, and almost constant for all wavelengths) (Sandell et al., 38 2011), some is absorbed in different layers, and part is transmitted internally by successive 39 layers of tissue until the incident energy is dissipated. 40 41 The first optical interaction with skin occurs on the stratum corneum layer at the surface, 42 where a certain fraction of the incident radiation is scattered in the environment because the 43 corneal refractive index (np = 1.55) is much greater than air. This component represents 5-7% 44 for radiation perpendicular, and is almost constant for all wavelengths. 45 The remission (diffusion reflectance) is the fraction of incident radiation that returns from the 46 skin. 47 48 The transmission is the fraction of incident radiation that penetrates through the skin. 49 50 Regular reflectance is the radiation that penetrates the skin and is scattered back later 1 (Sandell et al., 2011). The absorption spectra of any tissue, including skin, is determined by 2 the presence of all biologically important molecules involved in double bonds (chromophores of 3 skin) and containing water in biological tissues. The overall optical properties of the skin 4 depend on photon absorption and scattering by a wide range of biomolecules, with specific 5 chromophores, of endogen or exogen origin: bilirubin, beta-carotene, aromatic amino acids 6 (tryptophan, tyrosine), urocanic acid, nucleic acids and melanin. The major contribution to 7 blood optical absorption is due to haemoglobin, both in its oxygenated and deoxygenated 8 forms. Oxyhaemoglobin has an absorption band near 405 nm (Soret band) and the 9 characteristic double peak absorption in the area of 545–575 nm; deoxyhaemoglobin strongly 10 absorbs near 430 nm and a weak band at 550nm (Anderson et al., 1982; Parrish and Jaenicke 11 1982; Cheong et al., 1990) 12 13 The aminoacids have absorption maxima around 275 nm, the nucleic acids with maximum 14 absorption in the 260 nm due to chromophores observed in the epidermis and cornea (see 15 figure 9). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Melanin is the chromophore of the human skin epidermal layer and is one of the major light 23 absorbers in some biological tissue. There are two types of melanin: eumelanin which is black- 24 brown and pheomelanin which is red-yellow. Their absorption spectra are wide, without 25 specific peaks and they effectively absorb in all spectral regions from 300 to 1200 nm. In the 26 near-ultraviolet radiation and visible regions of the spectrum, except the melanin, the basic 27 skin chromophores are bilirubin, vitamins, flavins, flavin ferments, carotenoids, phycobilins 28 and phytochrome, among others, as well as elastin and collagen fibers (Utz et al.,1993). 29 The skin consists of three main visible layers from the surface: stratum corneum (~20μm 30 thick), epidermis (100μm thick, the blood free layer), dermis (1–4 mm thick, vascularized 31 layer). The average scattering properties of the skin are defined by the scattering properties of 32 the reticular dermis because of the relatively large thickness of the layer (up to 4 mm) and of 33 the comparable scattering coefficients of the epidermis and the reticular dermis (Genina and 34 Tuchin, 2011). 35 36 The subcutaneous adipose tissue (1-6 mm thick depending from the body site) has absorption 37 defined by absorption of haemoglobin, lipids, and water (about 11%) (Jacques, 2013). 38 39 At wavelengths from 600 to 1500 nm, scattering prevails over absorption and penetration 40 depth is increased to 8–10 mm. 41 According to Johnson and Guy (1972), for a sample consisting of the epidermis and dermis, 1 the depth of penetration is 0.15−0.2mm (wavelength 632.8 nm) and 0.21−0.4 nm 2 (wavelength 675 nm). 3 ## 6.7 Optical Radiation Effects On Skin 4 The topic is reviewed in the SCENIHR Opinion "Health Effects of Artificial Light" (SCENIHR, 5 2012). A brief version containing some new information published since 2012 can be found in 6 Annex III. 7 8 The SCHEER is unaware of UV-LED sources intended for the general population with the 9 exception of a few devices for certain cosmetic purposes (see Annex III). UV nail lamps and/or 10 LEDs do not appear to significantly increase the lifetime risk of non-melanoma skin cancer. 11 However, data are lacking regarding the possibility of premature skin ageing, and the risk to 12 the eyes of the professional operators should be considered. Assessment of LED sources in 13 medical devices and for occupational use is beyond the scope of this Opinion. 14 15 Vitamin D production in human skin following exposure to UV irradiation from LEDs has been 16 studied in vitro via High Performance Liquid Chromatography indicating possibility for 17 synthesis of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 if the UV LED source is powerful enough. However, 18 UV-B is carcinogenic to humans and public health organizations, including SCHEER (SCHEER, 19 2016) do not recommend use of artificial UV radiation to enhance vitamin D levels 20 ## 6.7.2 Effects Of Led Reported In The Literature (Photodermatoses) 1 2 6.7.2.1Controlled studies: A controlled study (Fenton et al., 2013) investigated 3 photosensitivity after exposure to either a single-envelope compact fluorescent lamp 4 (CFL) (15 W GE BIAXTM Electronic 220–240 V; 50/60 Hz; 120 mA; FLE TBX/XM827 183 5 JA/S; 900 lumen), a double-envelope CFL (15 W OSRAM DULUXSTAR Mini Ball 827 6 Lumilux Warm White 220–240 V; E27; 50/60 Hz; 850 lumen) or an LED lamp (10 W 7 0026172 Hi-Spot RefLED PAR30; E27; 15 000 h; 100–250 V; 50–60 Hz; 20 lm Warm 8 White 830/3000 K; 400 lumen). The emission spectra of the lamps between 250-400 nm 9 at the distance of patient testing were recorded and presented. Two hundred patients 10 (103 actively photosensitive) were exposed to the single-envelope CFL and of these, 11 11 patients were exposed to the double-envelope CFL. One hundred and one patients (45 12 actively photosensitive) were exposed to the LED and, in addition, there were 20 healthy 13 controls. The patients were exposed on untanned skin on the inner forearm while the 14 healthy controls were exposed on untanned skin on the back. All subjects were at a 15 distance of 5 cm from the lamp. One of the exposure sites was covered with UVR- 16 protective film. In the CFL-group 32 patients presented with responses (delayed papules, 17 erythema and immediate urticarial responses), while in the LED-group one patient 18 showed a response. Two of the healthy volunteers showed a positive erythemal response 19 24 h post-irradiation. The patient showing a positive response in the LED-group was 20 diagnosed with solar urticaria and had visible light sensitivity. The SCHEER notes that 21 the LED irradiance in the full emission range was unknown. The LED's UV emission was 22 negligible compared to those of the CFLs. 23 24 A pilot study (Fenton et al., 2014) investigated the exposure of a compact fluorescent 25 lamp (CFL) (GE BiaxTM Electronic, part number FLE15TBX/XM/827, 220–240 V, 50–60 26 Hz, 15 W, 120 mA, 900 lumen (GE Lighting, Northampton, U.K.), an energy-efficient 27 halogen lamp (EEH) (Osram Halogen ES Classic Spot R63, part number 64546 R63 ES, 28 240 V, 42 W, 630 lumen (Osram, Munich, Germany) and an LED (Hi-Spot RefLED PAR30, 29 part number 0026172, 100–250 V, 50–60 Hz, 10 W, 400 lumen (Sylvania, Raunheim, 30 Germany). The emission spectra of the lamps between 250-400 nm at the distance of 31 patient testing were recorded and presented. Fifteen patients with lupus erythematosus 32 (LE) and five healthy volunteers were included and tested for cutaneous responses to 33 repeated exposures from the lamps. The patients were exposed on untanned skin on the 34 back at a distance of 5 cm from the lamp. One of the exposure sites was covered with 35 UVR-protective film. The authors reported that: "No cutaneous LE lesions were induced 36 by any of the light sources. Delayed skin erythema was induced at the site of CFL 37 irradiation in six of the 15 patients with LE and two of the five healthy subjects. 38 Erythema was increased in severity and was more persistent in patients with LE. One 39 patient with LE produced a positive delayed erythema to the EEH. A single patient with 40 LE produced immediate abnormal erythemal responses to the CFL, LED and EEH. Further 41 investigation revealed that this patient also had solar urticaria. All other subjects had 42 negative responses to LED exposure". The SCHEER notes that the LED irradiance, for 43 which UV-emission was negligible compared to those of the CFL and EEH, in the full 44 emission range was unknown. 45 46 ## 6.7.2.2 Case Reports 47 48 A case of solar urticaria triggered by LED-therapy was reported by Montaudié et al. 49 (2014). A 55-year-old woman with no history of urticarial rash following previous sun 50 exposures was treated with 415 nm LED for mild rosacea (a photo-aggravated 51 dermatosis). Phototesting confirmed the diagnosis of solar urticaria. The SCHEER notes 52 that the irradiance, treatment distance and LED-spectrum were not noted. 53 54 A case was reported of a patient with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) who 1 presented with a rash after dental treatment (Tiao et al., 2015). The patient was 2 allegedly being exposed to "surgical light" emitting UV-B, a wavelength range without 3 purpose for this type of light. The SCHEER notes the spectral characteristics of the 4 source were not given. It is unknown whether her reaction alternatively could have been 5 due to an (photo-)allergy to dental materials, heat effects from the emission of blue light 6 from LED dental curing lights (irradiance typically in the order of thousands mW/cm2) or 7 a drug-mediated photosensitivity reaction (the patient took several medications for her 8 disorder). 9 10 ## 6.7.3 Conclusions 11 Emission from commercial LED lighting can induce a positive skin response in some 12 patients with solar urticaria when exposed in short distances in controlled environments. 13 The dose that elicits such a response is not known. 14 The SCHEER concludes that thermal effects from visible and IR-emitting lighting sources 15 are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in healthy skin from LEDs intended for 16 lighting purposes and displays. However, there may be effects due to excessively intense 17 sources close to the source, such as from high irradiance (near-) IR sources. If saunas 18 and warming cabinets are equipped with IR-LEDs, these devices may cause erythema 19 below the pain limit. 20 The SCHEER is not aware of UV-LEDs in tanning equipment, but such devices would have 21 the same carcinogenic potential as conventional sources provided the same level of 22 irradiance is received as from the radiation sources that the UV-LEDs have replaced. 23 Cancer is not likely to develop from nail-curing LED-devices if the risk is not already 24 increased in susceptible individuals. 25 26 ## 6.8 Circadian Rhythms 27 Apart from influencing vision, light received by our eyes has several non-image forming 28 functions, such as the pupillary light reflex and providing input to our biological clock. 29 The presence of a light (day) and dark (night) phase due to the earth's rotation has 30 resulted in the evolution of an internal clock in almost all organisms, including humans. 31 The rhythm imposed by this 'biological' clock has a periodicity of approximately 24 hours 32 and is, therefore, often referred to as the circadian rhythm (circa = approximately, and 33 diem = day). This biological timekeeping system imposes day-night rhythms on many 34 processes in our body, including behaviour (sleep/wake cycle), endocrine regulation, 35 immune response and energy metabolism. Disturbances of our circadian rhythms have 36 been linked with negative effects on health and increased accident risks. The biological 37 clock is highly influenced by external light clues, including artificial light. These results 38 were previously reviewed in the SCENIHR Opinion 'Health effects of artificial light' in 39 2012. In the current Opinion, the SCHEER focusses on the effects of LED sources. For a 40 summary of the mechanism of generation of circadian rhythms and their normal 41 functions, see Annex V. 42 ## 6.8.1. Synchronisation And Regulation Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 43 The central clock in our brain needs to be synchronised with the outer world, which 44 occurs via light cues. In the absence of any light cues, the central clock will maintain its 45 'own' rhythm, which is usually a bit shorter or longer than 24 hours. After a few days, 46 the circadian rhythm of a person would be 'out of sync' with the outside world (Dijk and 47 Archer 2009; Dibner, Schibler et al. 2010). The peripheral clocks are synchronised by 48 multiple cues, including neuronal and hormonal signals from the central clock, but also 49 feeding time is an important cue for several peripheral tissues (Patton and Mistlberger 50 2013). 51 52 Multiple photosensitive receptors in the retina translate the light signal into a neuronal 1 signal (see next section for more details). The influence of light on the circadian system 2 is dependent on 1) timing, 2) intensity, 3) duration, 4) spectrum of the light stimulus, 3 and 5) of previous light exposure. For intensity and duration, experiments have shown 4 that there is a dose-dependent relationship with response of the circadian system (Duffy 5 and Czeisler 2009). Importantly, relatively low intensity levels (<100 lux) and short 6 durations (seconds to minutes) have been reported to affect the circadian system 7 (Glickman, Levin et al. 2002, for review see Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Lucas, Peirson et 8 al. 2014). With regard to timing and previous light exposure, light stimuli have a greater 9 impact on the circadian system when they are present during the dark phase. Light 10 present during the late night/morning will advance the phase of the circadian rhythm, 11 whereas light present during the evening will delay the phase of the circadian rhythm. 12 This is an important concept considering disturbances of the circadian rhythm since 13 chronic light exposure during the evening, causing a phase delay, can result in social 14 jetlag (see 6.9.4: 'Consequences of disturbance of the circadian rhythm by light'). 15 Furthermore, the effect of light is dependent on previous light exposure, since 16 adaptation to light also occurs with regard to the circadian system (Duffy and Czeisler 17 2009, Kozaki et al. 2016). Finally, the photoreceptors are not equally sensitive to all 18 wavelengths of light; therefore, the spectrum of the light is critical. 19 ## 6.8.2 Role Of Light Spectrum On Regulation Of The Circadian Rhythms 20 Different wavelengths of light appear to have different effects on the biological clock. 21 This is caused by the spectral sensitivity of the photoreceptors in the retina providing the 22 input to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) via the intrinsically photosensitive retinal 23 ganglion cells (ipRGCs). The photoreceptors of the retina include the rods and cones for 24 image-forming vision. However, in the absence of rods and cones, several non-image 25 forming functions remain (circadian entrainment, pupillary light reflex), indicating the 26 presence of an additional photoreceptor. Melanopsin was discovered about 15 years ago 27 as the protein in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells of the retina (ipRGCs) 28 that is responsible for providing input to the circadian system and providing other non- 29 image forming functions (Hattar, Liao et al. 2002, Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Hatori and 30 Panda 2010, Tosini, Ferguson et al. 2016). In vitro experiments have shown that 31 melanopsin has a peak spectral sensitivity of around 480 nm (Panda, Provencio et al. 32 2003, Panda, Nayak et al. 2005, Qiu, Kumbalasiri et al. 2005, Torii, Kojima et al. 2007, 33 Bailes and Lucas 2013). However, in vivo, the signals received in ipRGCs from the other 34 photoreceptors also have a role in determining ipRGCs output and the subsequent input 35 to the circadian system. Their relative contribution is still under investigation, which is 36 compounded by the finding that this appears to be context dependent (Lucas, Peirson et 37 al. 2014). Additionally, the spectral composition of the light that is received by the 38 photoreceptor is influenced by the spectral transmission properties of the ocular media, 39 which is, for example, dependent on age (Lucas, Peirson et al. 2014, Gimenez, Beersma 40 et al. 2016). In summary, spectral sensitivity of the circadian system is a complex 41 interplay of external and internal factors, and not yet completely understood. However, 42 experiments have shown that, overall, circadian rhythms are more affected by short 43 wavelength light (460-490 nm) (Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Benke and Benke 2013), with 44 the exact peak probably dependent on the individual and context involved. 45 ## 6.8.3 Influence By Optical Radiation Including Leds 46 For details on how human circadian rhythms are investigated in most of the described 47 studies (such as assessing melatonin rhythms) please see Annex V. As described above, 48 the circadian system is regulated by light input. The circadian system is not only 49 influenced by daylight, but also by optical radiation from artificial light sources. Some 50 artificial lighting sources influence aspects of the circadian system and compete with 51 natural light as a zeitgeber. For example, studies using exposure to artificial light 52 sources reported effects on melatonin rhythms and subsequent sleep (for example, 53 Wright, Lack et al. 2001, Wright, Lack et al. 2004, Cajochen, Frey et al. 2011, Wood, 54 Rea et al. 2013, Chang, Aeschbach et al. 2014, Gronli, Byrkjedal et al. 2016, Rangtell, 1 Ekstrand et al. 2016). This might have health consequences when artificial light is 2 present during evening and night time, when naturally no light is present. Exposure to 3 light during the evening and night may delay the phase of the circadian clock. This delay 4 might cause a disturbance of the circadian rhythm: see section 'Consequences of 5 disturbance of the circadian rhythm by light' in Annex V for more details. These effects 6 can occur with all types of artificial light, however, recent studies indicate that this effect 7 is amplified for certain types of LEDs which have relatively high amount of short- 8 wavelength emission. As described above, the circadian system is more sensitive to 9 light of a short wavelength. 10 ## 6.8.3.1 Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Leds Sources 11 The widespread use of LEDs is relatively recent. Therefore, only a small number of 12 studies investigated the effects of LEDs vs. traditional light sources on circadian 13 rhythms. It is important to note that LEDs, as traditional light sources, are not one 14 homogenous class; their influence on the circadian system depends on the specific 15 properties of that particular light source. Some studies have investigated the effect of 16 (blue) LEDs on circadian rhythms without a comparison to traditional light sources (for 17 example, Wright, Lack et al. 2004, Kayaba, Iwayama et al. 2014), which indicated that 18 LEDs that emit short-wavelength light influence circadian rhythms, as do other light 19 sources with short-wavelength light. 20 21 Most of the few studies available investigated screens illuminated by LEDs. For example, 22 a study from Cajochen et al. investigated the effect of exposure to white light from a 23 commercially-available screen illuminated with LEDs or a cold cathode fluorescent lamp 24 (CCFL) illuminated screen (Cajochen, Frey et al. 2011). Spectral measurements were 25 performed showing that the radiance between 400 nm and 480 nm of the LED screen 26 was higher (0.241 W/(sr m2) compared to 0.099 W/(sr m2)). Participants were asked to 27 watch this screen in a controlled laboratory setting for 5 hours during the evening. 28 Relative to the non-LED screen, the LED screen delayed the dim light melatonin onset 29 (DLMO) and enhanced the suppression of evening melatonin levels for approximately 2 30 hours. In addition, exposure to the LED screen reduced subjective and objective 31 measures of sleepiness and increased performance on cognitive tasks, relative to the 32 non-LED screen. These results indicate that exposure to screens illuminated with these 33 types of LEDs have a larger immediate influence on the circadian system than the CCFL- 34 illuminated screen. 35 36 A study from Wright et al. similarly showed that LEDs can phase delay the circadian 37 rhythm in melatonin levels (Wright, Lack et al. 2001). However, in this study the phase 38 delay caused by this type of white LED was not different to the phase delay caused by a 39 traditional white fluorescent light source. In this study, a blue/green LED was also 40 included, which did affect the circadian rhythm in melatonin to a greater extent 41 compared to the white LED or white fluorescent light source. The authors report that the 42 white LED has a narrow peak wavelength at 460 nm and a secondary broader peak 43 wavelength at 560 nm. The blue/green LED has a peak wavelength at 497 nm and a 44 half-peak bandwidth of 485-510. Exposure to the light sources was performed for 2 45 hours during night time (from 24.00- 02.00 h). Hence, exposure started when melatonin 46 levels were already high. This is in contrast to the study by Cajochen et al., where 47 exposure was during the evening when melatonin levels start to rise and for a longer 48 period (5 hours). All light sources suppressed the melatonin levels between 24.00 and 49 02.00 hours. In all experimental groups with an additional light source, a phase delay of 50 the melatonin rhythm was observed the subsequent day. Exposure to light from 51 blue/green LEDs caused the largest delay of 42 minutes. The delay observed after 52 exposure to the fluorescent light box and white LEDs was similar (both 22 minutes). In 53 summary, this study shows that all of the used light sources influenced the circadian 54 rhythm of melatonin with the blue/green LEDs having a greater effect. 55 1 Similar findings were observed in a second study in which exposure to light from blue 2 LEDs was compared to white fluorescent light (West, Jablonski et al. 2011). A white LED 3 source was not included. Results show that there is increased melatonin suppression 4 with increased radiance from blue LED light. Additionally, blue LEDs affect melatonin 5 levels at lower radiances compared to white fluorescent light. 6 7 Combined, these studies indicate that any additional influence on the circadian system 8 by LEDs is dependent on the characteristics of the emitted optical radiation and of the 9 use of the LEDs (i.e. timing and duration) in a similar fashion as other light sources 10 influence the circadian system. It is important to note that they might also have a more 11 beneficial emission spectrum compared to traditional light sources (Aube, Roby et al. 12 2013, Lu, Chou et al. 2016) depending on the time (of the day) of exposure and on the 13 characteristics of the LEDs. 14 15 Additionally, there are a few studies that investigated the effect of 'real life' devices in 16 which LEDs are incorporated, such as tablets (Wood, Rea et al. 2013, Chang, Aeschbach 17 et al. 2014, Gronli, Byrkjedal et al. 2016, Heo, Kim et al. 2016, Rangtell, Ekstrand et al. 18 2016). In these studies, no controls with non-LED devices were made. However, these 19 studies provide some insight to the effects that occur in real life, where the use of 20 screens illuminated by LEDs has increased tremendously over the recent years 21 (Gradisar, Wolfson et al. 2013). Most of these studies observed effects on melatonin 22 onset, levels, sleepiness and/or sleep quality. In one of the studies, no effects were 23 observed (Rangtell, Ekstrand et al. 2016). The authors suggest that this might be due to 24 bright light exposure during the day for 6.5 hours, however, no control group was 25 included (Rangtell, Ekstrand et al. 2016). 26 27 The study by Chang et al. (2014) was the first to investigate repeated exposure to a LED 28 illuminated screen on circadian rhythms. In this study, participants were asked to read a 29 book using an iPad® or an ordinary book for 4 hours before going to sleep, for 5 30 consecutive days. The 'reading an ordinary book' is an important control group, since it 31 controls for the level of (cognitive) activity performed regardless of light. Effects were 32 observed on melatonin levels, time to fall asleep, subjective and objective sleep 33 measures and sleepiness levels on the morning after. After 5 days of using the iPad® an 34 average delay of the melatonin rhythm of 1.5 h compared to reading an ordinary book 35 was observed on day 6. This observation is an important factor for the development of 36 possible advice on health consequences. 37 38 In summary, the available studies indicate that white-light LEDs can have larger 39 influence on the circadian rhythm compared to traditional light sources, due to their 40 different spectral emission pattern. Light sources that emit more short-wavelength light, 41 as do most white LEDs, will have a larger effect on the circadian system at equal 42 intensity, duration and timing and after equal previous light exposure. However, 43 recently new LEDs have become available that emit lower levels of short-wavelength 44 light, which might decrease effects in the future, when use of these LEDs is more 45 widespread. In addition, it is unclear if the effects on the biological clock remain with 46 repeated exposure as occurs in real life. Furthermore, it is important to note that 47 exposure to artificial light with high levels of short-wavelength during the day might 48 enhance entrainment of the circadian clock. 49 ## 6.8.4 Consequences Of Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 50 The studies described above showed that influence of artificial light sources on the 51 circadian rhythm is dependent on the characteristics of the emitted optical spectral 52 radiance. Several of the LEDs investigated in these studies have a larger effect on 53 circadian rhythms compared to traditional light sources, due to their different spectral 54 emission patterns. Currently, there are no studies that investigated the health 55 consequences of use of LEDs during the evening and night. For negative consequences 1 reported for other artificial light sources, please see Annex V. 2 ## 6.8.5 Vulnerable And Susceptible Populations 3 It is known that elderly persons have less robust circadian rhythms (Cornelissen and 4 Otsuka 2016) and might, therefore, be more susceptible to circadian disturbance caused 5 by artificial light in general. In addition, adolescents are known to more often have a late 6 chronotype (Roenneberg, Kuehnle et al. 2007). Combination of a late chronotype with 7 artificial light exposure during the evening might result in enhanced effects on sleep. 8 9 ## 6.8.6 Conclusions 10 The currently available studies indicate that artificial light can influence the circadian 11 system, depending on the light characteristics. Light sources that emit more short- 12 wavelength light, as do some types of LEDs, will have a larger effect on the circadian 13 rhythms at equal optical radiance, duration and timing of exposure. Exposure during the 14 evening might result in poorer sleep and negative health risks, although evidence is 15 limited. Several studies suggest a link between desynchronisation of the biological clock 16 and increased metabolic risk factors. However, it is unclear if chronic artificial evening 17 light can cause these effects. 18 19 However, the current conclusion is based on a limited amount of studies, which were 20 mostly performed in a laboratory setting. An important question that remains is whether 21 light from LEDs, and artificial light in general, present in indoor lighting and screens will 22 have an effect on the circadian system in real life compared to natural light sources. 23 Moreover, it is currently unknown if the effects on the circadian system remain, enhance 24 or reduce, after repeated and ultimately after chronic exposure, such as currently occurs 25 in real life. 26 27 ## 6.9 Temporal Light Modulation (Flicker) And Potential Health Effects 28 Most light sources operating from the electrical mains tend to have a degree of temporal 29 modulation. However, sources such as incandescent lamps have thermal inertia, which 30 means that the degree of modulation is limited to about 10%. LEDs operated from DC 31 sources will not flicker unless modulation is introduced, for example to increase 32 perceived brightness. LEDs operating from mains supplies (50 Hz in Europe) may have a 33 degree of modulation ranging from less than 10% to 100%. Such modulation may also 34 be introduced by dimming systems. 35 36 Flicker is usually used to represent modulation of the light source that can be perceived. 37 Some people are susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy, which may be triggered by light 38 modulation or rapidly changing images. The susceptibility is a function of flicker 39 frequency and possibly the proportion of the field of view occupied by the actual or 40 virtual source (which may include reflections from surfaces). Photosensitive epilepsy has 41 an overall incidence of 1.5/100,000 per year, which increases between the ages of 7 and 42 19 years, to seven per 100,000 per year (Quirk et al., 1995). Concerns over exposure to 43 flashing images on screens have existed since before the use of LEDs in screen 44 technology (Wilkins et al., 2004). No published studies were identified to suggest 45 increased reporting of symptoms as a result of LED technology. The usual trigger of 46 concern for sufferers of photosensitive epilepsy is strobe-like lighting, as used in 47 entertainment, or as experienced when driving through an avenue of trees with the sun 48 to the side. However, there was one recent case study (Brna and Gordon, 2017) of an 49 adolescent who had symptoms triggered by the multiple flash (to reduce "red eye") from 50 a smart phone. 51 52 Under a flicker/strobe rate of about 5 Hz and above about 60 Hz, the proportion of 1 patients with photosensitive epilepsy who are sensitive to an episode is less than 5%, 2 with the peak sensitivity at about 20 Hz (Binnie et al., 2002). 3 4 Area lighting operating from the mains may flicker at 100 Hz (in Europe), which is above 5 the frequency of concern for photosensitive epilepsy. However, depending on the degree 6 of modulation, some people may perceive the flicker, especially in the peripheral field of 7 view. Although no published case-studies were identified, there are claims that a small 8 number of people are very sensitive to flickering light at about 100 Hz, triggering 9 symptoms such as headaches, migraine and general malaise. The figure shows the LED 10 lighting assessed in the home of a patient suffering from migraine and face burning 11 when in the vicinity of their kitchen LED down-lighters (PHE, 2017). Figure 10 shows the 12 lighting operating at full brightness (100%) and when set to 50% on a dimmer switch. 13 14 15 16 17 The spectra for the different LED lighting in the kitchen/dining room area is shown in 18 figure 11. 19 20 21 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in the US published the IEEE 1 Recommended Practices for Modulating Current in High-Brightness LEDs for Mitigating 2 Health Risks to Viewers in 2015 (IEEE, 2015). This document provides a plot of the risk 3 of adverse health effects as a function of frequency and percentage modulation. 4 5 As the flicker frequency increases, another effect is likely, called the phantom array. This 6 is often experienced when travelling behind a car at night. If the car has LED brake or 7 normal rear lights, a sudden eye movement can result in a series of images of the 8 source. The effect can also be produced when driving past a static flickering light source, 9 such as LED road studs (cat's eyes). Roberts and Wilkins (2013) showed that phantom 10 arrays can be perceived at flicker rates up to about 2 kHz, and possibly higher under 11 some circumstances for some viewers. It is possible that some of the susceptibility to 12 high frequency (100 Hz and above) flicker may be due to the phantom array, even if the 13 array is not perceived. 14 15 A major concern following the introduction of fluorescent lamps in industry was the 16 stroboscopic effect, sometimes referred to the "wagon-wheel" effect, where a rotating 17 object appears static. This was addressed in industry by ensuring that fluorescent lamps 18 were on different phases and/or incandescent task lighting was used. LED lighting can 19 produce the same effect, depending on the degree of modulation. However, of greater 20 concern is the use of modulated LED lighting in domestic and other non-industrial 21 environments where awareness is likely to be low. It is reasonably foreseeable that a 22 food mixer blade could appear stationary when the only illumination source is a 23 modulated LED, or a group of LEDs operating at the same frequency. 24 25 The International Commission on Illumination organised a workshop in February 2017 to 26 consider the implications of temporal light modulation, and how to quantify both the 27 hazard and the risk (CIE, 2017). 28 29 It is possible to operate LEDs from essentially DC power supplies. However, even when 30 the temporal light modulation is assessed for a given LED luminaire, there appears to be 31 no guarantee that similar luminaires, even with the same part number, will be identical 32 (CIBSE, 2016). 33 ## 6.9.1 Conclusion 34 LED lighting can produce a stroboscopic effect, depending on the degree of modulation. 35 The use of modulated LED lighting in domestic and other non-industrial environments 36 where awareness is likely to be low is of a concern. Although no published case-studies 37 were identified, there are claims that a small number of people are very sensitive to 38 flickering light at about 100 Hz, triggering symptoms such as headaches, migraine and 39 general malaise. 40 ## 6.10 Exposure And Health Risk Scenarios 41 x Exposure situations in various indoor LED lighting settings 42 43 Many people spend significant proportions of the day and evening (and possibly night) 44 staring at screens, which may be LED illuminated. Television screens tend to be viewed 45 at distances of 1 metre or more, computer screens at about 50 cm and tablets or phones 46 viewed at closer distances. There are also applications where a dedicated screen or a 47 smartphone may be viewed within a few centimetres, for example in virtual reality 48 headsets. O'Hagan et al. (2016) assessed the emissions from various screens and 49 concluded that exposure levels were less than 10% of the ICNIRP blue light exposure 50 limit, even for extended use durations. Since the assessment was carried out in terms of 51 source radiance, the assessment conclusion was made independent of viewing distance. 52 53 The blue light photochemical retinal hazard to the eye from domestic LED lighting is 1 between 10-20% (compared with 14% for a mid-range incandescent lamp) of the 2 relevant ICNIRP exposure limit, assuming viewing longer than about 3 hours) (O'Hagan 3 et al., 2016). 4 5 x Exposure situations in various outdoor LED lighting settings (streets) 6 7 Many street lights and other street fixtures are being converted to, or replaced with, LED 8 lighting. The main driver for this is energy saving. However, if this factor alone is 9 considered, LED lighting may be installed that is poor quality in terms of the optical 10 spectrum, light pattern and glare. 11 Correlated colour temperature (CCT) is a measure of the blueness of an optical radiation 12 source: the higher the CCT, the more blue-rich the source is. CCT is the temperature of 13 a Planckian radiator that is the closest match to the emission of the source (CIE, 2011). 14 The CCT of LED street lighting varies from about 7000 K down to about 2700 K. When 15 compared with the sodium lamps that many LED street lights are replacing, the high CCT 16 installations can appear harsh and almost equivalent to daylight. Moonlight has a CCT of 17 about 4000 K, so it could be argued that artificial street lighting should not exceed this 18 value. However, it is important that the lighting installation is appropriate for the use of 19 the road (e.g., motorways may justify higher CCT lighting than residential roads). 20 Glare can occur from two main scenarios: the luminance may be too high or the 21 luminance ratios are too high (IES, 2011). Good lighting practice is to ensure that unless 22 it is the purpose of the source, the source should be diffused or shielded from direct 23 viewing to avoid glare. Some LED street lights have exposed LED elements that can be 24 seen by road users within their normal field of view, such as looking ahead. Such sources 25 may contribute to discomfort glare (IES, 2011). Where the LED elements were recessed 26 or diffused in order to reduce the luminance, such concerns were not reported. 27 Vehicle LED lights, and particularly daylight running lights and headlights, can be a 28 source of either discomfort glare or disability glare. The latter is due to scattering of the 29 light in the eye and is more prevalent for sources emitting high levels of blue light and 30 for older observers. The sources may also produce a higher level of glare during fog. No 31 references were identified with quantified assessments of these issues. 32 ## 6.11 Overall Conclusion: 33 The Committee concludes that there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from 34 LEDs in normal use (lightening and displays) by the general healthy population. 35 Either discomfort glare or disability glare can be temporarily caused by vehicle LED 36 lights, and particularly daylight running lights and headlights. 37 Light sources that emit more short-wavelength light, as do some types of LEDs, will have 38 a larger effect on the circadian rhythms at equal optical radiance, duration and timing of 39 exposure. At the moment, it is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian system 40 leads to adverse health effects. 41 42 43 ## 7. Recommendations For Future Work 1 The review of the published research conducted by the SCHEER has led to valuable 2 conclusions and identified certain gaps in knowledge on potential risks to human health 3 from LEDs. These gaps could be partially filled if further research would be carried out to 4 elucidate unresolved problems as follows. 5 ## 6 Effect On The Eyes 7 There is insufficient knowledge about the actual exposure of people to optical radiation 8 from LED sources and the total exposure from all optical radiation sources - information 9 about the exposure of the general healthy population is needed for assessing the 10 potential health effects. It is suggested that the exposure assessments should consider 11 different age groups, i.e. babies, young children, adolescents and adults into old age. 12 It was recognised that early-to-market LED lamps had a significant blue emission. 13 Further research is going into improving LED lamps to make them similar to traditional 14 types of lighting, such as incandescent lamps. The current EN 62471 standard does not 15 take account of population groups particularly sensitive to blue light, hence there are no 16 specific recommendations for population groups whose natural mechanisms for filtering 17 blue light are diminished (children, aphakics and pseudophakics). However, it is 18 recognised that the exposure of the general population to optical radiation from LEDs is 19 likely to be insignificant compared with the exposure to natural light outdoors, but any 20 additional health burden needs to be considered. 21 High luminance, flicker, phantom array and stroboscopic effect are other factors relevant 22 to risk assessment that need to be addressed in further studies. In particular, are some 23 population groups particularly susceptible to modulated emissions from LED lamps, 24 either due to the design of the LED drive circuit or through the use of dimming circuits? 25 The use of high luminance vehicle lighting should be investigated to determine if there 26 are potential adverse consequences for increased accident rates. 27 Cumulative exposure over a twenty-four hour time period should be considered, and 28 further research should be done into the reported effects of long-term, low-level 29 exposure on age-related macular degeneration. 30 31 ## Effects On Healthy Skin 32 Depth of skin penetration is primarily dependent upon the wavelength of the optical 33 radiation. Research should be carried out on heat effects on the skin and the relation to 34 skin cancer, if the use of infrared saunas/warming cabinets incorporating infrared LED 35 sources are established. In addition, exposure and dose levels for the induction of effects 36 for patients with certain photodermatoses should be investigated. 37 38 ## Circadian System 39 An important question is whether optical radiation from LEDs, and artificial light in 40 general, which is present in indoor lighting and screens will have an effect on the 41 circadian system in real life compared to natural light sources. Research will need to 42 consider the wavelengths of emission, time of day and duration of exposure, any 43 confounding factors, such as the activity being carried out, prior light history and the age 44 of subjects. Secondly, it is currently unknown if the effects on the circadian system 45 remain, enhance or reduce after repeated and ultimately after chronic exposure, such as 46 currently occurs in real life. Moreover, it remains to be investigated if the potential 47 disturbance of the circadian system, caused by LEDs and/or artificial light, is related to 48 negative health effects, as appear to occur due to other circadian disturbances such as 49 shift work. 50 ## 8. References 1 Anderson RR, Parrish JA, Jaenicke KF (1982). Optical properties of human skin, in The 2 Science Photomedicine, ed by J.D. Rogan, J.A. Parrish (Plenum Press, New York, 1982) 3 pp. 147–194. 4 Anderson RE, Rapp LM, Wiegand RD (1984). Lipid peroxidation and retinal degeneration, 5 Curr. Eye Res. 3 pp. 223–227. 6 Anderson RR and Parrish JA (1981). The optics of human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 77:13- 7 19. 8 Anderson RR and Parrish JA. Optical properties of human skin, in The Science 9 Photomedicine, ed by J.D. Regan (Plenum Press, New York, 1982) pp. 147–194. 10 ANSES (2016). Assessment of the health risks associated with night work. 11 https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2011SA0088EN.pdf. 12 Argiles M, Cardona G, Perez-Cabre E, Rodriguez M (2015). Blink Rate and Incomplete 13 Blinks in Six Different Controlled Hard-Copy and Electronic Reading Conditions. 14 Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 56(11):6679-85. 15 Aube M, Roby J, and Kocifaj M (2013). Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various 16 artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS One 17 8(7): e67798. 18 Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC (2000). Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine. 3rd ed. 19 Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20 Bailes HJ, and Lucas RJ (2013). Human melanopsin forms a pigment maximally sensitive 21 to blue light) supporting activation of and signalling cascades. Proceedings of the Royal 22 Society B: Biological Sciences. 280 (1759). 23 Balasubramanian D (2000). Ultraviolet radiation and cataract, J. Ocul. Pharmacol.Ther. 24 16 (3) pp. 285–297 25 Balwani M, Bloomer J, Desnick R. Porphyrias Consortium of the NIH-Sponsored Rare 26 Diseases Clinical Research Network. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Wallace SE, 27 Amemiya A, Bean LJH, Bird TD, Ledbetter N, Mefford HC, Smith RJH, Stephens K, eds. 28 GeneReviews® [Internet]. Initial Posting: September 27, 2012. 29 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100826/ (accessed 20 June 2017) 30 Barnkob LL, Argyraki A, Petersen PM, and Jakobsen J (2016). Investigation of the effect 31 of UV-LED exposure conditions on the production of vitamin D in pig skin. Food 32 Chemistry. 212, 386–391. 33 Beatty S, Koh H, Phil M, Henson D, Boulton M (2000). The role of oxidative stress in the 34 pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration. Surv. Ophthalmol. 45, 115e134. 35 Behar-Cohen F, Martinsons C, Viénot F, Zissis G, Barlier-Salsi A, Cesarini JP, Enouf O, 36 Garcia M, Picaud S, Attia D (2011). Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: 37 Any risks for the eye?. Prog Ret Eye Res. 30:239-257 38 Benke KK, and Benke KE (2013). Uncertainty in Health Risks from Artificial Lighting due 39 to Disruption of Circadian Rhythm and Melatonin Secretion: A Review. Human and 40 Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 19(4): 916-929. 41 Bikle DD (2012). Vitamin D and the skin: Physiology and pathophysiology. Rev Endocr 42 Metab Disord. 13:3–19. 43 Binnie CD, Emmett J, Gardiner P, Harding GFA, Harrison D, and Wilkins AJ (2002). 44 Characterising the flashing television images that precipitate seizures. SMPTE Journal, 45 323-329. 46 Bornehag CG, Nanberg E. Phthalate exposure and asthma in children. Int J Androl. 47 2010;33:333-45. 48 Boulton M, Dontsov A, Jarvis-Evans J, Ostrovsky M, Svistunenko D (1993). Lipofuscin is 1 a photoinducible free-radical generator. J PhotochemPhotobiol B-Biol. 19:201-202 2 British Standard. Classification of non-electrical sources of incoherent optical radiation. 3 BS EN 16237:2013 Annex B. 4 Brun A,Sandberg S. (1991). Mechanisms of photosensitivity in porphyric patients with 5 special emphasis on erythropoietic protoporphyria. J Photochem Photobiol B. 10:285- 6 302. 7 Burke TM, Scheer FA, Ronda JM, Czeisler CA, and Wright KP Jr. (2015). Sleep inertia, 8 sleep homeostatic and circadian influences on higher-order cognitive functions. J Sleep 9 Res. 24(4): 364-371. 10 Buscemi N, Vandermeer B, Hooton N, Pandya R, Tjosvold L, Hartling L, Vohra S, Klassen 11 TP and Baker G (2006). Efficacy and safety of exogenous melatonin for secondary sleep 12 disorders and sleep disorders accompanying sleep restriction: meta-analysis. BMJ. 13 332(7538): 385-393. 14 Cajochen C, Frey S, Anders D, Spati J, Bues M, Pross A, Mager R, Wirz-Justice A, and 15 Stefani O (2011). Evening exposure to a light-emitting diodes (LED)-backlit computer 16 screen affects circadian physiology and cognitive performance. J Appl Physiol 110(5): 17 1432-1438 DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00165.2011 18 Cancer Registry of Norway. https://www.kreftregisteret.no/globalassets/cancer-in- 19 norway/2015/cin-2015.pdf (accessed 20 June 2017) 20 Cedernaes J, Schioth HB, and Benedict C (2015). Determinants of shortened, disrupted, 21 and mistimed sleep and associated metabolic health consequences in healthy humans. 22 Diabetes. 64(4): 1073-1080. 23 Chamorro E, Bonnin-Arias C, Pérez-Carrasco MJ, de Luna JM, Vázquez D, and Sánchez- 24 Ramos C (2013). Effects of Light-emitting Diode Radiations on Human Retinal Pigment 25 Epithelial Cells In Vitro. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 89: 468–473 26 Chang AM, Aeschbach D, Duffy JF, and Czeisler CA (2014). Evening use of light-emitting 27 eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. 28 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 29 Cheong WF, Prahl SA, Welch AJ (1990). A review of the optical properties of biological 30 tissue. IEEE J. Quant. Electr. 26(12), 2166–2185. 31 Chou CF, Cotch MF, Vitale S, Zhang X, Klein R, Friedman DS, Klein BE, Saaddine JB 32 (2013). Age-related eye diseases and visual impairment among U.S. adults. Am. J. Prev. 33 Med. 45, 29e35. 34 Christiansen AL, Aagaard L, Krag A, Rasmussen LM, Bygum A (2016). Cutaneous 35 Porphyrias: Causes, Symptoms, Treatments and the Danish Incidence 1989-2013. 36 ActaDermVenereol. 96:868-872. 37 Christoffersson G, Vagesjo E, Pettersson US, Massena S, Nilsson EK, Broman JE, Schioth 38 HB, Benedict C, and Phillipson M (2014). Acute sleep deprivation in healthy young men: 39 impact on population diversity and function of circulating neutrophils. Brain Behav 40 Immun. 41: 162-172. 41 CIBSE. Human responses to lighting based on LED lighting solutions. Commissioned by 42 the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and the Society of Light and 43 Lighting. CRCE RDD 01-2016. http://www.cibse.org/knowledge/knowledge- 44 items/detail?id=a0q20000008I6z6 (accessed 24 April 2017). 45 Cicchi R, Rossi F, Alfieri D, Bacci S, Tatini F, De Siena G, Paroli G, Pini R, and Pavone FS 46 (2016) Observation of an improved healing process in superficial skin wounds after 47 irradiation with a blue-LED haemostatic device, J. Biophotonics. DOI: 48 10.1002/jbio.201500191 49 CIE Stakeholder Workshop for Temporal Light Modulation Standards for Lighting 1 Systems. CIE TN XXX, Vienna, 2017. 2 CIE, Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (2011). CIE S 017/E: 2011, ILV: 3 International Lighting Vocabulary. CIE, Vienna. 4 Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (1998) Erythema Reference Action Spectrum 5 and Standard Erythema Dose. Joint ISO/CIE Standard. ISO 17166:1999(E)/CIE S 007- 6 1998, Geneva, Switzerland 7 Cornelissen G, and Otsuka K (2016). Chronobiology of Aging: A Mini-Review. 8 Gerontology. 9 Curtis J, Tanner P, Judd C, Childs B, Hull C, Leachman S (2013). Acrylic nail curing UV 10 lamps: High-intensity exposure warrants further research of skin cancer risk. J Am Acad 11 Dermatol. 69:1069-1070. 12 Dahl MV, McEwen GN Jr, Katz HI. Urocanic acid suppresses induction of immunity in 13 human skin. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2010;26:303-10. 14 Das P (1991). Laser and Optical Engineering USA. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp: 41-42. 15 Davies MJ, Truscott RJ (2001). Photo-oxidation of proteins and its role in 16 cataractogenesis, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B, 63 pp. 114–125 17 Delcourt C, Cougnard-Gregoire A, Boniol M, Carriere I, Dore JF, Delyfer MN, Rougier MB, 18 Le Goff M, Dartigues JF, Barberger-Gateau P, Korobelnik JF (2014). Lifetime exposure to 19 ambient ultraviolet radiation and the risk for cataract extraction and age-related macular 20 degeneration: the Alienor Study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 7619e7627. 21 Dermatology Information System (DermIS, University of Heidelberg and University of 22 Erlangen, Germany). http://skincancer.dermis.net. Accessed 18.01.2017 23 Dibner C, Schibler U and Albrecht U (2010). The mammalian circadian timing system: 24 organization and coordination of central and peripheral clocks. Annu Rev Physiol. 72: 25 517-549. 26 Diffey BL (2012). The risk of squamous cell carcinoma in women from exposure to UVA 27 lamps used in cosmetic nail treatment. Br J Dermatol. 2012 Nov;167(5):1175-8. doi: 28 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11107.x. Epub 2012 Oct 5. 29 Dijk, D. J. and S. N. Archer (2009). "Light, sleep, and circadian rhythms: together 30 again." PLoS Biol 7(6): e1000145. 31 Dillon J, Atherton SJ (1990). Time resolved spectroscopic studies on the intact human 32 lens, Photochem. Photobiol., 51 (4), pp. 465–468 33 Dontsov AE, Glickman RD, Ostrovsky MA (1999). Retinal pigment epithelium pigment 34 granules stimulate the photo-oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids. Free RadicBiol Med. 35 26:1436-1446. 36 Dowdy JC, Sayre RM (2013). Photobiological safety evaluation of UV nail lamps. 37 Photochem Photobiol. 89: 961–967. 38 Duffy JF and Czeisler CA (2009). Effect of Light on Human Circadian Physiology. Sleep 39 Med Clin. 4(2): 165-177. 40 EC 1996. Guidance on Risk Assessment at Work. Luxembourg. ISBN 92-827-4278-4 41 EC 2015. EU general risk assessment methodology. Document 2015-IMP-MSG-15. 42 Elder G, Harper P, Badminton M, Sandberg S and Deybach JC (2013). The incidence of 43 inherited porphyrias in Europe. J Inherit Metab Dis. 36:849-57. 44 Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/social/ 45 Engle-Friedman M (2014). The effects of sleep loss on capacity and effort. Sleep Sci 1 7(4): 213-224. 2 Farinola GM, Ragni R (2011). Electroluminescent materials for white organic light 3 emitting diodes. Chem Soc Rev. 40:3467-82. 4 Fenton L, Dawe R, Ibbotson S, Ferguson J, Silburn S, Moseley H (2014). Impact 5 assessment of energy-efficient lighting in patients with lupus erythematosus: a pilot 6 study. Br J Dermatol. 170(3):694-8. 7 Fenton L, Ferguson J, Ibbotson S, Moseley H (2013). Energy-saving lamps and their 8 impact on photosensitive and normal individuals. Br J Dermatol. 169(4):910-5. 9 Fitzpatrick TB (1975). Soleil et peau [Sun and skin]. Journal de Médecine Esthétique (in 10 French) (2): 33–34. 11 Fitzpatrick TB (1988). The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through 12 VI, Archives of Dermatology. 124 (6): 869–871. 13 Flohil SC, van der Leest RJ, Dowlatshahi EA, Hofman A, de Vries E and Nijsten T (2013). 14 Prevalence of actinic keratosis and its risk factors in the general population: the 15 Rotterdam Study. J Invest Dermatol. 133:1971-8. 16 Foote CS (1976) Singlet oxygen. In: Pryor WA (ed), Free Radicals in Biology. New York: 17 Academic Press. 18 Genina EA, and Tuchin VV (2011). Optical properties of skin, subcutaneous, and muscle 19 tissues: a Review J. Innovative Opt. Health Sci. 49–38 20 Ghiasvand R (2016). Sunscreen use, indoor tanning and risk of melanoma among 21 Norwegian women. PhD Dissertation. Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway. ISBN 978-82- 22 8333-305-3 23 Gimenez MC, Beersma DG, Bollen P, van der Linden ML and Gordijn MC (2014). Effects 24 of a chronic reduction of short-wavelength light input on melatonin and sleep patterns in 25 humans: evidence for adaptation. Chronobiol Int. 31(5): 690-697. 26 Gimenez M, Beersma D, Daan S, Pol B, Kanis M, van Norren D and Gordijn M (2016). 27 Melatonin and Sleep-Wake Rhythms before and after Ocular Lens Replacement in Elderly 28 Humans. Biology (Basel) 5(1). 29 Glickman G, Levin R, and Brainard GC (2002). Ocular input for human melatonin 30 regulation: relevance to breast cancer. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 23 Suppl 2: 17-22. 31 Godley BF, Shamsi FA, Liang FQ, Jarrett SG, Davies S, and Boulton M (2005). Blue light 32 induces mitochondrial DNA damage and free radical production in epithelial cells. J. Biol. 33 Chem. 280, 21061–21066 34 Gradisar M, Wolfson AR, Harvey AG, Hale L, Rosenberg R, and Czeisler CA (2013). The 35 sleep and technology use of Americans: findings from the National Sleep Foundation's 36 2011 Sleep in America poll. J Clin Sleep Med. 9(12): 1291-1299. 37 Gronli J, Byrkjedal IK, Bjorvatn B, Nodtvedt O, Hamre B, and Pallesen S (2016). Reading 38 from an iPad or from a book in bed: the impact on human sleep. A randomized 39 controlled crossover trial. Sleep Med. 21: 86-92. 40 Gruber-Wackernagel A, Byrne SN and Wolf P (2014). Polymorphous light eruption: clinic 41 aspects and pathogenesis. Dermatol Clin.;32:315-34. 42 de Gruijl FR, Van der Leun JC (1994). Estimate of the wavelength dependency of 43 ultraviolet carcinogenesis in humans and its relevance to the risk assessment of a 44 stratospheric ozone depletion. Health Phys. 67:319–25 45 Halliday GM, Damian DL, Rana S, Byrne SN. The suppressive effects of ultraviolet 46 radiation on immunity in the skin and internal organs: implications for autoimmunity. J 47 Dermatol Sci 2012; 6:176-182. 48 Harris DM, Werkhaven JA (1989). Biophysics and applications of medical lasers. Adv 1 Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 3: 91-123 2 Hatori M, and Panda S (2010). The emerging roles of melanopsin in behavioral 3 adaptation to light. Trends Mol Med. 16(10): 435-446. 4 Hattar S, Liao HW, Takao M, Berson DM and Yau KW (2002). Melanopsin-containing 5 retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science. 6 295(5557): 1065-1070. 7 Heo JY, Kim K, Fava M, Mischoulon D, Papakostas GI, Kim MJ, Kim DJ, Chang KJ, Oh Y, 8 Yu BH and Jeon HJ (2016). Effects of smartphone use with and without blue light at 9 night in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled 10 comparison. J Psychiatr Res. 87: 61-70. 11 Higlett MP, O'Hagan JB and Khazova M (2012). Safety of light emitting diodes in toys. 12 Journal of Radiological Protection, 32, 51-72. 13 Hillenkamp F (1989). Laser radiation tissue interaction. Health Phys. 56: 613-616 14 Holme SA, Anstey AV, Finlay AY, Elder GH and Badminton MN (2006). Erythropoietic 15 protoporphyria in the U.K.: clinical features and effect on quality of life. Br J Dermatol. 16 155:574-81. 17 Holme SA, Malinovszky K and Roberts DL (2000). Changing trends in non-melanoma 18 skin cancer in South Wales, 1988-98. Br J Dermatol. 143:1224-9. 19 IARC (2010). Monograph Volume 98: painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. IARC 20 Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 21 Ide T, Kinugawa Y, Nobae Y, Suzuki T, Tanaka Y, Toda I, Tsubota K (2015). LED Light 22 Characteristics for Surgical Shadowless Lamps and Surgical Loupes. Plast Reconstr Surg 23 Glob Open. 9;3(11): e562. 24 IEEE Recommended Practices for Modulating Current in High-Brightness LEDs for 25 Mitigating Health Risks to Viewers, Std 1789-2015, Piscataway. 26 IEC/TR 62778:2014 Application of IEC 62471 for the assessment of blue light hazard to 27 light sources and luminaires https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7427 28 IES. Illuminating Engineering Society. The Lighting Handbook, Tenth Edition, ISBN 978- 29 087995-241-9. New York, 2011. 30 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines on limits of 31 exposure to incoherent visible and infrared radiation. Health Phys. 105 (2013) 74-96. 32 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPVisible_Infrared2013.pdf, 2013 33 Jacques SL (2013). Optical properties of biological tissues: a review, Phys. Med. Biol. 58 34 R37–R61 35 James RH, Landry RJ, Walker BN and Ilev IK (2017). Evaluation of the potential optical 36 radiation hazards with led lamps intended for home use. Health Phys. 112(1):11–17; 37 2017. 38 Johnson K, Guy A (1972). Impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on biological 39 systems and the environment. Proc. IEEE. 60(6), 49–79 40 Joo EY, Abbott SM, Reid KJ, Wu D, Kang J, Wilson J, and Zee PC (2017). Timing of light 41 exposure and activity in adults with delayed sleep-wake phase disorder. Sleep Med. 42 32:259-265 43 Karu TI (1987). Photobiological fundamentals of low-power laser therapy. IEEE J 44 Quantum Electron. 23:1703–1717 45 Karu TI. Low-power laser therapy. IN Biomedical photonics handbook. Editor Vo-Dinh T, 46 Florida: CRC Press; 2003. 47 Kayaba M, Iwayama K, Ogata H, Seya Y, Kiyono K, Satoh M, and Tokuyama K (2014). 1 The effect of nocturnal blue light exposure from light-emitting diodes on wakefulness and 2 energy metabolism the following morning. Environ Health Prev Med. 19(5): 354-361. 3 Kim J, Hwang Y, Kang S, Kim M, Kim TS, Kim J, Seo J, Ahn H, Yoon S, Yun JP, Lee YL, 4 Ham H, Yu HG, Park SK. (2016). Association between Exposure to Smartphones and 5 Ocular Health in Adolescents. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 23(4):269-76. 6 Kleinman MH, Smith MD, Kurali E, Kleinpeter S, Jiang K, Zhang Y, Kennedy-Gabb SA, 7 Lynch AM and Geddes CD (2010). An evaluation of chemical photoreactivity and the 8 relationship to phototoxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 58:224-32. 9 Kozaki T, Kubokawa A, Taketomi R, and Hatae K (2016). Light-induced melatonin 10 suppression at night after exposure to different wavelength composition of morning light. 11 Neuroscience Letters 616: 1-4. 12 Krigel A, Berdugo M, Picard E, Levy-Boukris R, Jaadane I, Jonet L, Dernigoghossian M, 13 Andrieu-Soler C, Torriglia A, Behar-Cohen F (2016). Light-induced retinal damage using 14 different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity. Neuroscience. 15 339:296-307 16 Kumar Khanna V (2014). Fundamentals of solid-state lighting - LEDs, OLEDs, and their 17 applications in illumination and displays. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca Raton 18 (FL). 19 Kuse Y, Ogawa K, Tsuruma K, Shimazawa M, and Hara H (2014). Damage of 20 photoreceptor-derived cells in culture induced by light emitting diode-derived blue light, 21 Sci Rep. 4: 5223. 22 Kvam E and Tyrrell RM (1997). Induction of oxidative DNA base damage in human skin 23 cells by UV and near visible radiation. Carcinogenesis. 18(12):2379-84. 24 Lau LI, Chiou SH, Liu CJ, Yen MY, Wei YH (2011). The effect of photo-oxidative stress 25 and inflammatory cytokine on complement factor H expression in retinal pigment 26 epithelial cells. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52, 6832e6841. 27 Leccese F, Vandelanotte V, Salvadori G and Rocca M (2015). Sustainability, 7, 13454- 28 13468; doi:10.3390/su71013454 29 Lee HS, Cui L, Li Y, Choi JS, Choi J-H, Li Z, Kim GE, Choi W, Yoon KC (2016) Influence of 30 Light Emitting Diode-Derived Blue Light Overexposure on Mouse Ocular Surface. PLoS 31 ONE 11(8): e0161041. doi:10.1371/journal. 32 Lehmann AR (1995). The molecular biology of nucleotide excision repair and double- 33 strand break repair in eukaryotes. Genet. Eng. (N Y) 17:1–19 34 Lim SR, Kang D, Ogunseitan OA, Schoenung JM (2011). Potential environmental impacts 35 of light-emitting diodes (LEDs): metallic resources, toxicity, and hazardous waste 36 classification. Environ Sci Technol. 45(1):320-7 37 Lister P, Wright TA, Chappell PH (2012). Optical properties of human skin. J Biomed 38 Optics. 17: 090901-1-15. 39 Litvack F, Grundfest WS, Papaioannou T, Mohr FW, Jakubowski AT and Forrester JS 40 (1988). Role of laser and thermal ablation devices in the treatment of vascular diseases. 41 Am. J. Cardiol. 61: 81-86. 42 Liu H (2012). Caractérisation de tissus cutanés cicatriciels hypertrophiques par 43 spectroscopie multi-modalités in vivo : instrumentation, extraction et classification de 44 données multi-dimensionnelles. PhD Thesis. Université de Lorraine (in French). 45 Liu PT, Stenger S, Li H, Wenzel L, Tan BH, Krutzik SR, Ochoa MT, Schauber J, Wu K, 46 Meinken C, Kamen DL, Wagner M, Bals R, Steinmeyer A, Zügel U, Gallo RL, Eisenberg D, 47 Hewison M, Hollis BW, Adams JS, Bloom BR and Modlin RL (2006). Toll-like receptor 48 triggering of a vitamin D mediated human antimicrobial response. Science. 311:1770-3. 49 Lu CC, Chou C, Yasukouchi A, Kozaki T and Liu CY (2016). Effects of nighttime lights by 1 LED and fluorescent lighting on human melatonin. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and 2 Humanized Computing 7(6): 837-844. 3 Lucas RJ, Peirson SN, Berson DM, Brown TM, Cooper HM, Czeisler CA, Figueiro M, Gamlin 4 PD, Lockley SW, O'Hagan JB, Price LL, Provencio I, Skene DJ and Brainard GC (2014). 5 Measuring and using light in the melanopsin age. Trends Neurosci. 37(1): 1-9. 6 MacFarlane DF, Alonso CA (2009). Occurrence of nonmelanoma skin cancers on the 7 hands after UV nail light exposure. Arch Dermatol. 145:447-449. 8 Magee M, Marbas EM, Wright KP Jr, Rajaratnam SM, and Broussard JL (2016). Diagnosis, 9 Cause, and Treatment Approaches for Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder. Sleep Med 10 Clin 11(3): 389-401. 11 Markova A, Weinstock MA (2013). Risk of Skin Cancer Associated with the Use of UV Nail 12 Lamp. J Invest Dermatol. 133 :1097–1099. 13 Martásek P (1998). Hereditary coproporphyria. Semin Liver Dis. 18:25-32. 14 Mattis J and Sehgal A (2016). Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Disorders of Aging. Trends 15 in Endocrinology & Metabolism 27(4): 192-203. 16 Miyauchi M and Nakajima H (2016). Determining an Effective UV Radiation Exposure 17 Time for Vitamin D Synthesis in the Skin Without Risk to Health: Simplified Estimations 18 from UV Observations. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 92: 863–869. 19 Monajembashi S, Cremer C, Cremer T, Wolfrum J and Greulich KO (1986). 20 Microdissection of human chromosomes by a laser microbeam. Exp. Cell. Res. 167: 262- 21 265. 22 Montaudié H, Lacour JP, Rostain G, Duteil L, Passeron T (2014). Solar urticaria to visible 23 light triggered by light-emitting diode therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 71(3):e74-5. 24 Morita D, Nishida Y, Higuchi Y, Seki T, Ikuta K, Asano H, and Ishiguro N (2016). Short- 25 range ultraviolet irradiation with LED device effectively increases serum levels of 26 25(OH)D. Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology, B: Biology. 164, 256–263. 27 Mykletun M, Aarsand AK, Støle E, Villanger JH, Tollånes MC, Baravelli C, Sandberg S 28 (2014). Porphyrias in Norway. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 134:831-6. [Article in English, 29 Norwegian] 30 Narimatsu T, Ozawa Y, Miyake S, Kubota S, Hirasawa M, Nagai N, Shimmura S, Tsubota, 31 K (2013). Disruption of cell-cell junctions and induction of pathological cytokines in the 32 retinal pigment epithelium of light-exposed mice. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54, 33 4555e4562 34 Nouri K (2011). Lasers in dermatology and medicine, Springer Ed., London, Dordrecht, 35 Heidelberg, New York 36 O'Hagan JB, Khazova M and Price LLA (2016). Low energy light bulbs, computers, tablets 37 and the blue light hazard. Eye, 30, 230-233. 38 Orphanet. The portal for rare diseases and orphan drugs 39 http://www.orpha.net/(accessed 20 June, 2017) 40 Orphanet Report Series - Prevalence of rare diseases: Bibliographic data - November 41 2016 - Number 1. 42 http://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/GB/Prevalence_of_rare_diseases_by_alph 43 abetical_list.pdf (accessed 20 June, 2017) 44 Panda S, Nayak SK, Campo B, Walker JR, Hogenesch JB and Jegla T (2005). Illumination 45 of the Melanopsin Signaling Pathway. Science 307(5709): 600-604. 46 Parsons MJ, Moffitt TE, Gregory AM, Goldman-Mellor S, Nolan PM, Poulton R, and Caspi A 1 (2015). Social jetlag, obesity and metabolic disorder: investigation in a cohort study. Int 2 J Obes (Lond) 39(5): 842-848. 3 Pattison DI, Rahmanto AS, Davies MJ (2012). Photo-oxidation of proteins, 4 Photochem.Photobiol. Sci. 11 pp. 38–53 5 Patton DF and Mistlberger RE (2013). Circadian adaptations to meal timing: 6 neuroendocrine mechanisms. Front Neurosci. 7: 185. 7 PHE. Public Health England, Personal Communication 2017. 8 Quirk JA, Fish DR, Smith SJM, Sanders JWAS, Shorvon SD, and Allen, PJ (1995). First 9 seizures associated with playing electronic screen games: A community-based study in 10 Great Britain. Annals of Neurology. 37, 6, 733-737.F 11 Rambhatla PV, Brescoll J, Hwang F, Juzych M and Lim HW (2015). Photosensitive 12 disorders of the skin with ocular involvement. Clin Dermatol. 33:238-46. 13 Rangtell FH, Ekstrand E, Rapp L, Lagermalm A, Liethof L, Bucaro MO, Lingfors D, Broman 14 JE, Schioth HB and Benedict C (2016). Two hours of evening reading on a self-luminous 15 tablet vs. reading a physical book does not alter sleep after daytime bright light 16 exposure. Sleep Med 23: 111-118. 17 Rhodes LE, Bock M, Janssens AS, Ling TC, Anastasopoulou L, Antoniou C, Aubin F, 18 Bruckner T, Faivre B, Gibbs NK, Jansen C, Pavel S, Stratigos AJ, de Gruijl FR and 19 Diepgen TL (2010). Polymorphic light eruption occurs in 18% of Europeans and does not 20 show higher prevalence with increasing latitude: multicenter survey of 6,895 individuals 21 residing from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia. J Invest Dermatol.130:626-8. 22 Rimington C (1985). A review of the enzymic errors in the various porphyrias.Scand J 23 Clin Lab Invest. 45:291-301. 24 Roberts JE and Wilkins AJ (2013). Flicker can be perceived during saccades at 25 frequencies in excess of 1 kHz. Lighting Research and Technology, 45, 124-132. 26 Roberts JE, Finley EL, Patat SA, Schey KL (2001). Photooxidation of lens proteins with 27 xanthurenic acid: a putative chromophore for cataractogenesis, Photochem. Photobiol. 28 74 (5) pp. 740–744 29 Rochette PJ, Therrien J-P, Drouin R, Perdiz D, Bastien N, Drobetsk EA, Sage E (2003). 30 UVA-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers form predominantly at thymine–thymine 31 dipyrimidines and correlate with the mutation spectrum in rodent cells. Nucleic Acids 32 Res. 31(11): 2786–2794. 33 Roehlecke C, Schumann U, Ader M, Knels L, Funk RHW (2011). Influence of blue light on 34 photoreceptors in a live retinal explant system. Mol Vis.17: 876–84 35 Roehlecke C, Schaller A, Knels L, and Funk RH (2009) The influence of sublethal blue 36 light exposure on human RPE cells. Mol.Vis. 15, 1929–1938 37 Roenneberg T, Kuehnle T, Juda M, Kantermann T, Allebrandt K, Gordijn M and Merrow M 38 (2007). Epidemiology of the human circadian clock. Sleep Med Rev. 11(6): 429-438. 39 Rossmann-Ringdahl I, Olsson R (2005). Porphyria cutanea tarda in a Swedish 40 population: risk factors and complications. Acta Derm Venereol. 85:337-41. 41 Rosenfield M (2011). Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential 42 treatments. Ophthalmic & physiological optics: the journal of the British College of 43 Ophthalmic Opticians. 31(5):502-15. 44 Rozanowska M, Jarvis-Evans J, Korytowski W, Boulton ME, Burke JM, Sarna T (1995). 45 Blue light-induced reactivity of retinal age pigment - in vitro generation of oxygen- 46 reactive species. J BiolChem 270:18825-18830. 47 Sandell JL and Zhu TC (2011). A review of in-vivo optical properties of human tissues 1 and its impact on PDT J. Biophotonics. 4 773–87 Bashkatov A N. 2 Sassa S (2006). Modern diagnosis and management of the porphyrias. Br J Haematol. 3 135:281-92. 4 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), Health 5 effects of artificial light, March 19, 2012 6 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), 7 Scientific Opinion on The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration 8 materials for patients and users. 29 April 2015. 9 SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks), Opinion 10 on Biological effects of ultraviolet radiation relevant to health with particular reference to 11 sunbeds for cosmetic purposes, 17 November 2016. 12 Schomerus C and Korf HW (2005). Mechanisms regulating melatonin synthesis in the 13 mammalian pineal organ. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1057: 372-383. 14 Shang YM, Wang GS, Sliney D, Yang CH, Lee LL (2014). White light–emitting diodes 15 (LEDs) at domestic lighting levels and retinal injury in a rat model. Environ Health 16 Perspect. 122;269–276 17 Shang YM, Wang GS, Sliney D, Yang CH, Lee LL (2017). Light-emitting-diode induced 18 retinal damage and its wavelength dependency in vivo. Int J Ophthalmol. 10(2): 191– 19 202. 20 Shipp LR, Warner CA, Rueggeberg FA, Davis LS (2014). Further investigation into the 21 risk of skin cancer associated with the use of UV nail lamps. JAMA Dermatology 150:775- 22 776. 23 Sliney DH (2001). Photoprotection of the eye - UV radiation and sunglasses. J. 17 - 24 Photochem. Photobiol. B 64, 166e175. 25 Sliney DH (2002). How light reaches the eye and its components. Int. J. Toxicol. 21, 26 501e509. 27 Sliney DH (2006). Risks of occupational exposure to optical radiation. Med Lav. 97: 215– 28 20 29 Schwartz T. 25 years of UV-induced immunosuppression mediated by T-cells - from 30 disregarded T suppressor cells to highly respected regulatory T cells. Photochem 31 Photobiol 2008; 84:10-18. 32 Sui GY, Liu GC, Liu GY, Gao YY, Deng Y, Wang WY, Tong SH, Wang L (2013). Is sunlight 33 exposure a risk factor for age-related macular degeneration? A systematic review and 34 meta-analysis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 97, 389e394. 35 Takahashi JS (2017). Transcriptional architecture of the mammalian circadian clock. Nat 36 Rev Genet. 2017 Mar;18(3):164-179 37 Tiao J and Werth VP (2015). Cutaneous lupus erythematosus flare following exposure to 38 surgical light during a dental procedure. BMJ Case Rep Published online: 9 December 39 2015 doi:10.1136/bcr-2015-212864 (accessed 20 June 2017). 40 Torii M, Kojima D, Okano T, Nakamura A, Terakita A, Shichida Y, Wada A and Fukada Y 41 (2007). Two isoforms of chicken melanopsins show blue light sensitivity. FEBS Lett. 42 Tosini G, Ferguson I and Tsubota K (2016). Effects of blue light on the circadian system 43 and eye physiology. Mol Vis. 22: 61-72. 44 Utz SR, Barth J, Knuschke P, Sinichkin YuP (1993). Fluorescence spectroscopy of human 45 skin.Proc. SPIE. 2081, 48–57. 46 Valbuena MC, Muvdi S and Lim HW (2014). Actinic prurigo. Dermatol Clin. 32:335-44. 47 Versteeg RI, Stenvers DJ, Kalsbeek A, Bisschop PH, Serlie MJ and la Fleur SE (2016). 1 Nutrition in the spotlight: metabolic effects of environmental light. Proc Nutr Soc. 75(4): 2 451-463. 3 Wang XS, Armstrong ME, Cairns BJ, Key TJ and Travis RC (2011). Shift work and chronic 4 disease: the epidemiological evidence. Occup Med (Lond) 61(2): 78-89. 5 West KE, Jablonski MR, Warfield B, Cecil KS, James M, Ayers MA, Maida J, Bowen C, 6 Sliney DH, Rollag MD, Hanifin JP and Brainard GC (2011). Blue light from light-emitting 7 diodes elicits a dose-dependent suppression of melatonin in humans. Journal of applied 8 physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985) 110(3): 619-626. 9 Wilkins AJ, Bonanni P, Porciatti P, and Guerrini R. Physiology of Human Photosensitivity. 10 Epilepsia, 45(Suppl. 1):7–13, 2004. 11 Wittmann M, Dinich J, Merrow M, and Roenneberg T (2006). Social jetlag: misalignment 12 of biological and social time. Chronobiol Int. 23(1-2): 497-509. 13 Wong PM, Hasler BP, Kamarck TW, Muldoon MF and Manuck SB (2015). Social Jetlag, 14 Chronotype, and Cardiometabolic Risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 100(12): 4612-4620. 15 Wood B, Rea MS, Plitnick B, and Figueiro MG (2013). Light level and duration of 16 exposure determine the impact of self-luminous tablets on melatonin suppression. Appl 17 Ergon. 44(2): 237-240. 18 Wright HR, Lack LC and Kennaway DJ (2004). Differential effects of light wavelength in 19 phase advancing the melatonin rhythm. J Pineal Res. 36(2): 140-144. 20 Wright HR, Lack LC and Partridge KJ (2001). Light emitting diodes can be used to phase 21 delay the melatonin rhythm. 31: 350-355. 22 Wu J, Uchino M, Sastry SM, Schaumberg DA (2014). Age-related macular degeneration 23 and the incidence of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 24 PLoS One 9, e89600. 25 Xie C, Li X, Tong J, Gu Y Shen Y (2014) Effects of white light-emitting diode (LED) light 26 exposure with different correlated color temperatures (CCTs) on human lens epithelial 27 cells in culture. Photochem Photobiol. 90(4):853-9. PDF NOT IN MY FILE) 28 Yu DY, Cringle SJ (2005). Retinal degeneration and local oxygen metabolism. Exp Eye 29 Res. 80(6):745-51. 30 Zastrow L, Groth N, Klein F, Kockott D, Lademann J, Renneberg R, Ferrero L (2009). The 31 Missing Link - Light-Induced (280–1,600 nm) Free Radical Formation in Human Skin. 32 Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 22:31-44 33 34 35 ## 9. Glossary Of Terms 1 2 Some basic performance characteristics, which can be used for comparing LEDs of the 3 same or different technologies, are listed below: 4 5 \| Action spectrum \| the rate of a physiological activity plotted against \| \|----------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------------------\| \| wavelength of light. It shows which wavelength of \| \| \| optical radiation is most effectively used in a specific \| \| \| chemical reaction. Action spectra are a necessary \| \| \| basis for finding the pigment(s) responsible or a \| \| \| specific photoresponse \| \| \| Beam angle \| \| \| \| \| \| the angle at which the brightness decreases to 50% of \| \| \| the maximum value. LEDs are directional light sources \| \| \| with an emission pattern, which is usually conical. (No \| \| \| light is emitted from the back of the LED.) \| \| \| Blue light hazard \| the potential for a photochemical-induced retinal \| \| injury \| resulting \| \| exposure at wavelengths primarily between 400 and \| \| \| 500 nm. The BLH mechanism overrules the thermal \| \| \| damage for long exposure times (more than 10 sec). \| \| \| Blue light hazard irradiance \| irradiance, spectrally weighted with the blue hazard \| \| (W/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| ) \| \| \| Candela \| The luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a \| \| source \| that \| \| frequency 540×1012 hertz and that has a radiant \| \| \| intensity in that direction of 1⁄683 watt per steradian. \| \| \| The definition describes how to produce a light source \| \| \| that (by definition) emits one candela. \| \| \| Correlated Colour \| \| \| Temperature \| \| \| a specification of the colour appearance of the light \| \| \| emitted by a lamp, relating its colour to the colour of \| \| \| light from a reference source when heated to a \| \| \| particular temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin \| \| \| (K) \| \| \| Degree of erythema \| \| \| as the threshold UV dose for a minimal redening of \| \| \| the skin occuring a few hours after exposure, is \| \| \| typically \| \| \| 200-250 \| J/m \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| for \| \| weighting with the CIE action spectrum for erythema. \| \| \| A standard erythemal dose (SED) is defined as 100 \| \| \| J/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| CIE erythemally-weighted UV. \| \| \| Dose-response relationship \| The \| \| response relationship, describes the change in effect \| \| \| on an organism caused by differing levels of exposure \| \| \| (or doses) to a stressor after a certain exposure time \| \| \| Electroluminescence \| \| \| \| \| \| Optical phenomenon and electrical phenomenon in \| \| \| which a material emits light when an electric current \| \| \| pass through it \| \| \| Electromers \| one of two or more substances that differ only in the \| \|----------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------\| \| distribution of electrons \| \| \| \| \| \| Exposure limits \| \| \| It is important to note that to define the exposure \| \| \| limits, experiments were carried out on rabbits and \| \| \| some monkeys, exposed acutely to optical radiation \| \| \| (with different wavelength). Fundus examination was \| \| \| performed and the toxicity limit was reached when a \| \| \| white lesion was observed on the retina. Then, when \| \| \| this limit was determined, a reduction factor (between \| \| \| 2 and 10) was added. The blue-light hazard exposure \| \| \| limit is to protect against photo-maculopathy and is \| \| \| not based upon chronic light exposure. [Behar-Cohen \| \| \| et al. \| \| \| , 2011] \| \| \| External quantum efficiency \| is the quotient of the number of photons emitted out \| \| of the LED over the number of electrons passed in the \| \| \| device. \| \| \| Feeding efficiency \| is the quotient of the average ratio of photons emitted \| \| to the total energy acquired by an electron-hole pair \| \| \| from the power supply when the LED is operating. \| \| \| Fluorescence \| \| \| \| \| \| Emission of optical radiation, usually visible light, \| \| \| caused by excitation of atoms in a material, which \| \| \| then reemit almost immediately (in aprox. 10 \| \| \| −8 \| \| \| \| \| \| seconds) \| \| \| Forward currents \| \| \| \| \| \| The current which flows across the LED's leads, from \| \| \| anode to cathode, in order for the LED to receive \| \| \| sufficient current to power on \| \| \| Forward voltage \| \| \| \| \| \| The forward voltage is the voltage drop across the \| \| \| diode if the voltage at the anode is more positive than \| \| \| the voltage at the cathode \| \| \| Forward voltage drop \| Is the voltage drop across a conducting, forward- \| \| biased, LED. It depends on the energy bandgap of the \| \| \| semiconductor material from which the diode is made \| \| \| as well as the series resistance of the material. LEDs \| \| \| are made to produce a variety of colours, using \| \| \| different materials and energy bandgaps. As an \| \| \| example, the forward voltage drop of red LEDs is \| \| \| around 2.2 V and the forward voltage drop for \| \| \| white/blue LEDs is in the range of 3.1 to 3.8 V [Kumar \| \| \| Khanna, 2014]. \| \| \| Glare \| difficulty seeing in the presence of bright light such as \| \| direct or reflected sunlight or artificial light such as \| \| \| car headlamps at night. \| \| \| High-brightness LED \| Any of a new generation of LEDs bright enough for \| \| \| illumination applications such as automotive interior, \| \|------------------------------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------------------------\| \| exterior, and display \| \| \| Illuminance \| irradiance, spectrally weighted with the photopic eye \| \| sensitivity curve. The SI unit is lux. \| \| \| Irradiance (exposure rate) \| radiant energy per surface area per unit time in \| \| (J/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| s = W/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| ). \| \| \| Lumen \| The standard unit for the luminous flux of a light \| \| source. It is an SI derived unit based on the candela. \| \| \| It can be defined as the luminous flux emitted into \| \| \| unit solid angle (1 sr) by an isotropic point source \| \| \| having a luminous intensity of 1 candela. \| \| \| Luminance \| A photometric measure of the luminous intensity per \| \| unit area of light travelling in a given direction. It \| \| \| describes the amount of light that passes through, is \| \| \| emitted or reflected from a particular area, and falls \| \| \| within a given solid angle. The SI unit for luminance is \| \| \| candela per square metre (cd/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| ) \| \| \| Luminous efficacy \| Is the quotient of the luminous flux emitted by the \| \| power consumed by the LED; it is measured in \| \| \| lumens/watt. \| \| \| Luminous flux \| The quantity of the energy of the light emitted per \| \| second in all directions. The unit of luminous flux is \| \| \| lumen (lm). \| \| \| Luminous intensity \| A measure of the wavelength-weighted power emitted \| \| by a light source in a particular direction per unit solid \| \| \| angle, \| based \| \| standardized model of the sensitivity of the human \| \| \| eye. The SI unit of luminous intensity is the candela \| \| \| (cd) \| \| \| Phosphorescence \| \| \| \| \| \| The emission of light from a substance exposed to \| \| \| radiation which persists after the exciting radiation \| \| \| has been removed \| \| \| Radiance \| radiant intensity per area emitted from a source; in \| \| (W/m \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| sr) \| \| \| Radiant efficiency \| the product of external quantum efficiency and \| \| feeding efficiency. \| \| \| Radiant exposure \| radiant energy per surface area in J/m \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| Radiant intensity \| The radiant flux emitted, reflected, transmitted or \| \| received, per unit solid angle, and spectral intensity is \| \| \| the \| radiant \| \| wavelength, depending on whether the spectrum is \| \| \| taken as a function of frequency or of wavelength. \| \| \| Radiant power \| Radiant power or \| \| radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or \| \| received, per unit time, and spectral flux or spectral power is the radiant flux per unit frequency or wavelength, depending on whether the spectrum is taken as a function of frequency or of wavelength. \| Regular reflectance \| The radiation that penetrates the skin and is scattered \| \|----------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------\| \| back later \| \| \| Remission (diffusion \| \| \| reflectance) \| \| \| The fraction of incident radiation that returns from the \| \| \| skin or from a particular sample \| \| \| Singlet oxygen \| The most energic state of oxygen generated by light \| \| excitation of the ground state of oxygen \| \| \| \| \| \| Steradian \| the unit for a solid angle, which is the 3 dimensional \| \| analogue of an ordinary angle. Any area on a sphere, \| \| \| which is equal in area to the square of its radius, \| \| \| when observed from its centre, subtends precisely \| \| \| one steradian (sr) \| \| \| Transmission \| The passage of electromagnetic radiation through a \| \| medium \| \| 1 ## 10. List Of Abbreviations \| AC \| Alternating current \| \|-----------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\| \| AD \| Atopic dermatitis \| \| \| \| \| AK \| Actinic keratosis \| \| AMD \| Age-related macular degeneration \| \| \| \| \| ARM \| Age-related maculopathy \| \| \| \| \| BCC \| Basal cell carcinoma \| \| \| \| \| CAD \| Chronic actinic dermatitis \| \| \| \| \| CCFL \| Cold-cathode fluorescent lamp \| \| \| \| \| CFL \| Compact fluorescent lamp \| \| \| \| \| CI \| Confidence interval \| \| \| \| \| Commission International de l'Eclairage \| CIE \| \| \| \| \| Cutaneous malignant melanoma \| CMM \| \| \| \| \| CRI \| Colour rendering index \| \| \| \| \| DC \| Direct curent \| \| \| \| \| DNA \| Deoxyribonucleic acid \| \| \| \| \| ECDC \| European Centre for Disease prevention \| \| and control \| \| \| \| \| \| ECHA \| European Chemicals Agency \| \| \| \| \| Energy-efficient halogen lamp \| EEH \| \| \| \| \| EFSA \| European Food Safety Authority \| \| \| \| \| ELC \| European Lamp Companies Federation \| \| \| \| \| ELV \| \| \| EM \| Electromagnetic (radiation) \| \| \| \| \| EN \| \| \| \| \| \| EU \| European Union \| \| \| \| \| FED \| Field emission device \| \| \| \| \| FL \| Fluorescent lamps \| \| \| \| \| GaAs \| \| \| \| \| \| GLS \| General Lighting System \| HID High-intensity discharge lamp ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ipRGCs Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells IR IR-A Infrared (radiation) The wavelength range of 780-1400 nm LE Lupus erythematosus LED Light emitting diode LET Lupus erythematosus tumidus LPS Sodium low-pressure lamp LVD Low Voltage Directive LWS Long wavelength cone opsin, Long wavelength sensitive cones (red) MED Minimal erythemal dose MHL Metal halide lamp MWS Medium wavelength cone opsin, medium wavelength sensitive cones (green) NIR LED Near Infra Red LED of wavelengths between 780 nm and 1400 nm Organic light emitting diodes OLED OR Odds Ratio PDT Photodynamic therapy PLE Polymorphic light eruption PMLE Polymorphous light eruption POLA Pathologies Oculaires Liées à l'Age (study) PWM Power wave modulation ROS Reactive oxygen species RPE Retinal pigment epithelial cells RR Relative risk \| SAD \| Seasonal affective disorder \| \|---------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\| \| \| \| \| SCC \| Squamous cell carcinoma \| \| \| \| \| SCCS \| Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety \| \| \| \| \| SCENIHR \| Scientific Committee on Emerging and \| \| Newly Identified Health Risks \| \| \| \| \| \| SCHER \| Scientific Committee on Health and \| \| Environmental Risks \| \| \| \| \| \| SCN \| Suprachiasmatic nucleus \| \| \| \| \| SED \| Standard erythemal dose \| \| \| \| \| SHP \| Sodium high-pressure discharge lamp \| \| \| \| \| SI \| Système International d'unités \| \| (International System of Units) \| \| \| \| \| \| SLE \| Systemic lupus erythematosus \| \| \| \| \| SSL \| Solid state lighting \| \| \| \| \| SWS \| Short wavelength cone opsin, short wave \| \| length sensitive cones (blue) \| \| \| \| \| \| TL \| Tube luminescent (French for luminescent \| \| tube) \| \| \| \| \| \| UV \| Ultraviolet (radiation) \| \| \| \| \| UV-A \| The wavelength range of 315-400 nm \| \| \| \| \| UV-B \| The wavelength range of 280-315 nm \| \| \| \| \| UV-C \| The wavelength range of 100-280 nm \| \| \| \| \| VUV \| Vacuum ultraviolet radiation \| \| \| \| \| XP \| Xeroderma pigmentosum \| 1 2 3 ## Annex I Led Technolgies 1 Inorganic Leds 2 The first LEDs in the 1960s were based on gallium arsenide (GaAs) crystals and emitted 3 infrared radiation but no visible radiation, therefore, their applicability was limited. The 4 introduction of phosphorus (P) in GaAs resulted in a red-light LED. Some of the most 5 common semiconductor materials used for LEDs are listed in Table 2. 6 ## Table 2. Semiconductor Materials Used In Leds And Their Resulting Radiation 7 (Gilbert, 2009) 8 \| Material \| Radiation emission \| \|-------------------------------------\|--------------------------------------\| \| Aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) \| Red and infrared \| \| Aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) \| Green \| \| Bright orange red, orange, yellow \| Aluminium gallium indium phosphide \| \| (AlGaInP) \| \| \| Aluminium gallium nitrate (AlGaN) \| Near to far ultraviolet \| \| Diamond (C) \| Ultraviolet \| \| Gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) \| Red, orange and red, orange, \| \| yellow \| \| \| Gallium phosphide (GaP) \| Red, yellow, green \| \| Gallium nitrate (GaN) \| Green, emerald green \| \| Indium gallium nitrate (InGaN) \| Bluish green, blue, near ultraviolet \| \| Sapphire (Al \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| O \| \| \| 3 \| \| \| ) as substrate \| Blue \| \| Silicon carbide (SiC) \| Blue \| 9 There are many variations of the basic technology that can enhance the efficiency of 10 LEDs. The technology described above is based on a metallurgical interface formed 11 between p- and n-doped semiconductors of the same material (homojunction). This can 12 be replaced by materials of different energy bandgaps and/or polarity (heterojunction), 13 so that the vast majority of photons produced are not reabsorbed in the LED materials 14 and diffusion of electrons through the (shallow) p-region does not lead to non-radiative 15 recombination at the interface. 16 ## Organic Leds 17 Organic LEDs (OLEDs) constitute the evolution of inorganic LEDs. Their name originates 18 from the use of organic semiconductors to achieve light emission. Organic 19 semiconductors are organic compounds containing sequences of carbon (C) and 20 hydrogen (H) atoms, with occasionally nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), sulphur (S), or other 21 atoms fastened to this sequence. In a saturated organic material there is an electron 22 pair responsible for holding the carbon atoms together. Therefore, all electrons are 23 bound to atoms and the material is an electrical insulator. However, in an unsaturated 24 organic material, excess electrons can exist in the carbon atom bonds, which are loosely 25 bound to the carbon atoms. These electrons are called π-electrons and give the material 26 the properties of a semiconductor by hopping, tunnelling and other charge mobility 27 mechanisms. Organic semiconductors are considered an environmentally friendly 28 technology and are biodegradable (Kumar Khanna, 2014). 29 Two types of electroluminescent materials are used for creating white OLEDs, namely, 30 fluorescent and phosphorescent materials. Fluorescence is the emission of optical 31 radiation (light) when a substance is exposed to any type of electromagnetic radiation, 32 where the emitted radiation generally appears within 10 ns after the excitation. This 33 effect is due to an allowed transition generally from an excited singlet state to a ground 1 singlet state. Phosphorescence is any delayed emission of optical radiation which 2 appears 10 ns or longer after the excitation. This term should be used only for the 3 delayed emission due to a forbidden transition from an excited triplet state to a ground 4 singlet state. 5 The first OLEDs were fabricated by the deposition of small organic molecules on 6 substrates. However, this technology poses a number of difficulties including the fact 7 that it has to be implemented in vacuum. As a result, polymeric LEDs were developed 8 and proposed as an alternative, even though they have a less efficient performance and 9 a shorter lifespan compared to small-molecule OLEDs. 10 Some basic performance characteristics which can be used for comparing LEDs of the 11 same or different technologies are listed below: 12 ## Comparison Of Different Leds 13 Table 3 contains a comparison between inorganic and organic LEDs. 14 ## Table 3. Comparison Between Inorganic And Organic Leds (Kumar Khanna, 15 2014) 16 17 \| Characteristic \| Inorganic LEDs \| Organic LEDs \| \|-----------------------------\|-------------------\|-----------------\| \| Operating voltage \| Low \| High \| \| External quantum efficiency \| High \| Low \| \| Maximum luminance \| 10 \| \| \| 6 \| \| \| \| -10 \| \| \| \| 7 \| \| \| \| cd/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| 10 \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| -10 \| \| \| \| 4 \| \| \| \| cd/m \| \| \| \| 2 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Glare effects \| Possible \| No \| \| (diffused light) \| \| \| \| Lifetime \| Long \| Shorter \| \| (depends on environmental \| \| \| \| conditions) \| \| \| \| Fabrication process \| Complex \| Simple \| 18 ## White Light 19 White light is composed of several colours as seen in the rainbow. It is also possible to 20 create white light by additive colour mixing. This method is based on the physiological 21 response of the human eye, which usually is expressed by saying that human vision is 22 trichromatic. The three additive colours (also called primary) that are used for creating 23 other visible colours by mixing them in appropriate proportions are red, green, and blue 24 (RGB). In this way, it is possible to create white light by using three LEDs emitting in the 25 three primary additive wavelengths (colours). Nevertheless, there is a way to create a 26 white perception by the eye using only two colours, known as a complementary pair. 27 One colour of a complementary pair incorporates the wavelengths of a part of the visible 28 spectrum, while the other encompasses the remaining range of wavelengths. Examples 29 of complementary pairs are blue and yellow, green and magenta, and red and cyan. 30 The idea of complimentary pairs can help generate white light with a single LED, by the 31 technique of wavelength conversion. The LED emits in a relatively narrow wavelength 32 band compared to incandescent lamps. Some of the light emitted is absorbed by a 33 phosphorescent material and re-emitted in a wavelength band in the residual spectrum. 34 (The wavelength of the emitted photon by the phosphorescent substance is of longer 35 wavelength than the absorbed one, an effect known as the Stokes shift.) As a result the 36 initial light from the LED and the converted (in terms of wavelength) light from the 37 phosphorescent material can be combined to produce white light. 38 39 ## White Inorganic Leds 1 There are no inorganic LEDs emitting white light, i.e., radiation of such a broadband 2 spectrum. The two techniques described above are used for manufacturing "white LEDs". 3 In the case of multichip LEDs, three or more LEDs, each emitting light in a narrow band 4 (e.g., in red, green, blue) are used. If a single LED is used, then wavelength conversion 5 has to take place. Some of the techniques employed to achieve this include: (i) Blue LED 6 + yellow phosphor (= phosphorescent material); (ii) Blue LED + several phosphors; (iii) 7 Blue LED + quantum dots (= nanocrystals 2-10 nm size containing cadmium or selenium 8 atoms); (iv) UV LED + RGB phosphors. 9 Multichip LEDs have a higher efficiency compared with the single chip LEDs, since 10 wavelength conversion is accompanied by energy loss in the phosphorescent material. 11 However, since every LED requires its own power source to electronically adjust the light 12 it emits, RGB multichip LEDs become expensive, as well as challenging in the design of 13 the electronic circuits needed to drive them. Therefore, due to the lower cost and 14 easiness of fabrication the most frequently method implemented to create white light is 15 a near-UV or blue LED (InGaN-GaN) combined with a yellow phosphor (YAG:Ce). 16 ## White Oleds (Woleds) 17 White organic LEDs use the same principles for synthesizing white light, like the ones 18 described above. However, it is easier to fabricate a single LED with white 19 electroluminescence with organic materials. The main approaches to obtain white light 20 from organic/organometallic emitters are summarized in Fig. 12 (Farinola and Ragni, 21 2011). There are two general categories of methods as mentioned above: (a) 22 combination of two or more individual emitters of different colours, (b) a single material 23 that simultaneously emits different wavelengths covering a broad part of the visible 24 spectrum. If the first approach is used, the emitters can be confined either in a single 25 layer or stacked in a multilayer fashion. In the second approach a single compound can 26 be employed that emits light at different wavelengths from molecules and their excited 27 states (e.g., excimers or electromers). It is also possible to produce white light from one 28 single polymer that contains different emitting moieties connected in the same molecular 29 entity. The latter method offers the potential for low cost and large area light emitting 30 devices but it poses the challenge of careful molecular design and arrangement, as well 31 as precise control of the moiety ratios. 32 ## Thermal Management Of Leds 1 The physical processes that convert electrical energy to light result in the production of 2 heat, which must be removed from the devices, because overheating reduces their 3 lifetime. Moreover, changes in temperature affect the forward voltage of a LED and the 4 wavelength of light emitted. For white light generation with additive colour mixing (RGB 5 technique) such a change in wavelength can be detrimental, since stability is necessary 6 to get the desired result. The efficient thermal management of light emitting diodes 7 allows for higher forward currents and, thus, more light emitted by it. 8 Thermal management is performed with the use of materials with high thermal 9 conductivity that permit heat to diffuse away from the LED to a heat sink. The latter is 10 usually a plate or other structure of large surface made of copper, from which heat is 11 removed by natural or forced convection. The design of the heat sink depends on the 12 power supplied to the LED, the number of LEDs put together, as well as environmental 13 conditions, like temperature and site of operation (e.g., open space or enclosure). 14 ## High-Brightness Leds 15 A high-brightness LED is one which gives a luminance flux of more than 50 lm (Kumar 16 Khanna, 2014). A LED that consumes high power is not necessarily of high-brightness. 17 The efficacy of a high-brightness LED is about 100 lm/W and the driving current is 350 - 18 1400 mA. Effective heat removal is crucial for high-brightness LEDs and this is usually 19 achieved by a heat sink immediately next to the LED junction. 20 High-brightness LEDs are used for backlighting (e.g., phone LCDs), flashlights, general 21 illumination, automotive daylight running/headlamps, signal lamps and medical devices. 22 ## Driving Circuits Of Leds 23 One of the concerns, raised about LED lighting, has been flicker. LEDs can usually be 24 operated from a DC source. However, for various reasons, products are manufactured 25 that produce optical emissions with a degree of temporal modulation. The various 26 options for drive circuits are described below. 27 ## Dc Circuits 28 There are two methods for driving an LED with a DC source, namely a constant voltage 29 source or a constant current source. The first method is more problematic to implement: 30 forward voltage may differ among LED batches within a manufacturing tolerance. As a 31 result, the current flowing in each LED, when they are aggregated in luminaires, 32 becomes uneven. However, LEDs are non-linear devices, which mean that forward 33 current changes drastically with small changes in forward voltage. This implies that 34 uneven forward currents lead to dissimilar optical outputs from the LEDs with 35 detrimental impact on the desired operation of the luminaire. Therefore, it is preferable 36 to drive LEDs at a constant current. 37 38 There are mainly two techniques to achieve a constant current supply to LEDs, namely 39 by using a resistor to limit the current flowing in the LED and by using a constant current 40 source, like a DC-DC converter. Although current limiting resistors are an inexpensive 41 solution to constant current sources, they suffer from important drawbacks. Resistors 42 dissipate electric energy and generate heat, which is wasted power that needs to be 43 removed. Moreover, using a voltage source and a resistor will not prevent the LED from 44 experiencing voltage supply variations as current changes and, consequently, light 45 output variations. Nor will it protect an LED from getting damaged by high voltage. 46 Constant current supply suggests LED connection "in series" in a luminaire, a 47 configuration where failure of one LED leads to a failure of the whole series of LEDs. 48 Connection of LEDs "in parallel", which is inevitable in several cases either for single 49 LEDs or for chains of them, still poses the problem, as discussed above, of equalising the 50 current flowing in them. 51 AC circuits 1 DC driving of LEDs is an optimal approach for battery powered devices, like mobile 2 phones. However, when it comes to luminaires that stretch several metres (e.g., around 3 a building) DC drive can result in significant losses, like in the case of power distribution, 4 requiring high voltages and additional current regulators. However, to run an LED 5 directly from the AC supply will require the use of a transformer to reduce voltage and a 6 rectifier to make it as constant with time as possible. The output of a full-wave rectifier 7 converts the sinusoidal AC voltage of 50/60 Hz to a DC voltage pulsating at double the 8 frequency. Due to the fast response of LEDs the small changes in the DC voltage are 9 translated into flickering light. To solve this problem, a capacitor in parallel to the LED 10 may be used. 11 12 One way for LEDs to operate connected directly to an AC supply is the "Christmas tree 13 lights" approach, where the driving voltage equals the sum of all voltage drops across 14 each LED, when several of them are connected in series. Using this approach, two 15 strings of LEDs can be connected to the source, each one in reverse polarization. In this 16 way, during the positive half-cycle of the AC voltage, current can flow through the LEDs 17 of one string only, while during the negative half-cycle, current can flow through the 18 LEDs of the other string. It is important to note that in this approach the (reverse) 19 voltage applied to each LED of the non-emitting string should be low enough not to 20 damage it. 21 22 Dimmers 23 LED dimming can be achieved either in an analogue or in a digital fashion. In the former 24 case the forward current through the LED is varied, and so is the optical output. 25 However, in this method heat is generated constantly, which may result in an undesired 26 temperature change. Digital dimming is implemented with PWM (pulse width 27 modulation), in which the forward current flows through the LED in a periodic pulsating 28 manner for a fraction (duty cycle) of the total time cycle duration (comprising both on- 29 and off-time intervals). As a consequence, the average current, which is related to the 30 optical output, is different from the peak current. The pulsation of the forward current 31 has to be performed at a rate (frequency) large enough, so that it is not perceived by 32 the human eye either as a direct flicker or through a stroboscopic effect. 33 34 ## Annex Ii The Fundamental Interaction Between Light And Matter 1 2 There are four basic interactions that can occur following absorption of optical radiation: 3 (a) Photothermal: partial conversion of light energy into heat motion via transitional, 4 rotational and vibrational modes of movements of the target molecules. The effects are 5 produced by the photoexcitation of tissue by the production of thermal energy (heat), 6 accompanied by an increase of the temperature for the exposed tissue (Cicchi et al., 7 2016). The most important and significant alterations are dependent on the temperature 8 of the tissue after absorption of the optical radiation, as follows: at 37°C, no measurable 9 effects are observed; for the next 5°C above this, the tissue is thermally affected due to 10 conformational changes of molecules. Some bond destruction and membrane alterations 11 occur at approximately 42-50°C, and at 60°C denaturation of proteins and collagen 12 occurs leading to coagulation of tissue and necrosis of cells. At higher temperatures 13 (>80°C), the cell membrane permeability is drastically increased. 14 (b) Thermal relaxation: is influenced by the thermal coefficient of the tissue, the 15 properties of the surrounding tissue or fluids and the temperature differential between 16 the irradiated and non irradiated tissue (Litvack et al., 1988). An example is the 17 exposure to intense flashes of light shorter than ~20 μs (not likely from current LEDs); 18 when the rise in temperature is at least 10°C above the physiological temperature, the 19 thermal damage occurs, which leads to thermal denaturation of many proteins. Factors 20 that influence thermal relaxation are summarized as follows: absorption characteristics 21 of the target tissue; emission mode: continuous wave or pulsed emission; incident 22 power; power density; beam movement relative to tissue site (for example, with a laser 23 beam, rapid beam movement will reduce heat build-up and aid thermal relaxation); 24 endogenous coolant: water content and vascularity of the tissue. 25 (c) Photochemical interactions: when the radiant energy causes atomic or/and 26 molecular excitation. In the photochemical reactions, the molecule must absorb optical 27 radiation and the radiation energy must match energy difference between the ground 28 and excited state. Photochemical effects occur as a result of direct excitation of 29 electronic bonds by the optical radiation (Litvack et al., 1988). At shorter wavelengths, 30 tissue components become electronically excited, thus this (photo excitation) leads to 31 rupture of molecular bonds and formation of molecular fragments. Photochemical 32 reactions generally do not result in a significant rise in temperature, but they are 33 involved either a change in the course of biochemical reaction due to the presence of an 34 electromagnetic field or photodecomposition due to high energy photons that rupture 35 molecular bonds (Das, 1991; Monajembashi et al., 1986; Niemz, 2004). 36 (d) Photomechanical and photoelectrical interactions: non-thermal interactions 37 produced by high energy, short pulsed laser light, including: photodisruption, 38 photodisassociation, photoplasmolysis and photoacoustic interaction. Absorption of 39 pulses of energy result in rapid expansion or generation of shock waves responsible for 40 photo-disruption or photodissociation. The laser beam's energy is transformed into 41 vibration or kinetic energy (Harris et al., 1989). Such interactions are not likely from 42 current LEDs. 43 In conclusion, the light absorption can result in the formation of an (electronically) 44 excited state, which has different chemical properties to the ground state. The intensity 45 and shape of absorption spectra are a result of the nature of excitation between ground 46 and excited states. Various processes result in the deactivation of the excited state. The 47 energy could be lost through fluorescence or phosphorescence (emission of radiation of 48 longer wavelengths) or dissipated as heat. 49 50 Photobiology 51 52 Photobiology is the study of the interaction of optical radiation with living organisms. 53 54 ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 2013) state that exposures to optical radiation can produce 1 acute onset of observable biological responses. In general there is a lack of knowledge 2 regarding the injury threshold for effects from long term chronic exposure. But, in 3 contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines for electromagnetic fields with wavelengths greater 4 than 1 mm, the guidelines for optical radiation in general do not differentiate between 5 workers and the general public (ICNIRP, 2004; ICNIRP, 2013). 6 7 The time elapsed between the absorption and the biological effect is called the primary 8 radiation effect period. Since optical radiation is absorbed in tissue, with penetration 9 depths of a few microns for UV to millimeters for IR, it follows that it is the skin and eyes 10 of the human body that are the most affected direct target tissues. The photochemical 11 effects (i.e., chemical changes in target cells) dominate in the UVR and shorter 12 wavelength visible spectral regions, while the thermal effects are dominant in the IRR 13 and visible spectral regions (ICNIRP, 2004; ICNIRP, 2013). 14 15 Photobiological reactions can be classified in two types: Primary reactions, which 16 derive from the interaction between photons and the chromophores/photoreceptors, 17 observed in the first seconds or minutes after the irradiation of light and secondary 18 reactions, as response to primary reactions, in hours or even days after the irradiation 19 occurs (Karu et al., 2003). The light absorption depending on the wavelength and causes 20 primary reactions on the mitochondria. These are followed by a cascade of secondary 21 reactions (photosignal transduction and amplification) in the cytoplasm, membrane and 22 nucleus (Karu et al., 1987). 23 24 Light of a specific wavelength excites electrons in cellular molecules, leading to the 25 breaking or reorganization of chemical bonds therein. In this way specific biochemical 26 reactions as well as whole cellular metabolism can be altered. The generation of singlet 27 oxygen (1O2), and other highly-reactive free radicals (hydroxyl (HO•), anion superoxide 28 (O2 -•), peroxide (ROO•) and hydroperoxyide (ROOH), enables the attack of the 29 surrounding cellular molecules: proteins or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). They can 30 interact with DNA causing some structural reorganization, and with other cellular targets 31 such as retinal photoreceptors to cause deterioration of cellular function and cell death. 32 Photochemical processes are in general dose dependent, meaning that low-level, long- 33 term exposure gives rise to the same effect as short, lower radiance exposures (Pattison 34 et al., 2012). Depending on wavelength, different damage to DNA may occur, some of 35 which may induce a disruption in the DNA strand, a structural reorganization, and/or 36 deterioration of cellular function and possibly cell death (Zastrow et al., 2009). 37 38 The chromophores, after light absorption in a specific wavelengths range, induce 39 oxidative damage to various cell compartments and functions. As most biologically 40 relevant molecules are in a singlet state (figure 13) in their ground state (S0), their 41 photoactivation leads to an electronically excited singlet state (1S). The photoexcitation 42 may be followed by an intersystem crossing (ISC) and formation of an excited triplet 43 state (3S), which is able to transfer an electron (or hydrogen) to/from another molecule 44 leading to a formation of a radical pair (Type I of photosensitized damage). The 45 energy can be transferred to another molecule, which could become chemically reactive 46 (e.g. radicals and reactive oxygen species) (Foote, 1976). 47 Interaction of an excited triplet state with molecular oxygen (which is in a triplet state in 48 its ground state) may lead to an energy transfer (Type II of photosensitized 49 damage). As a result, the photoexcited molecule returns to its ground state, while 50 oxygen is activated to an excited singlet state, called singlet oxygen (1O2). 51 Chromophores which upon photoexcitation undergo intersystem crossing and produce 52 free radicals and singlet oxygen are known as photosensitizers (PS) (Nouri, 2011). 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ## Annex Iii Structure Of The Skin, Fitzpatrick Skin Type And Optical Radiation 1 Effects On Skin 2 3 ## Structure Of The Skin 4 The epidermis (figure 14) is the most superficial layer of the skin. Its thickness varies 5 from 50 μm (eye lids) to 1.5 mm (sole of the foot). The epidermis is almost exclusively 6 constituted from a single cell type, the keratinocytes, organized in four cell layers. The 7 basal layer is made from a single layer of actively dividing keratinocytes, adherent to a 8 basal membrane, and containing small keratin filaments. Interspersed within basal 9 keratinocytes are melanocytes (1 to 5%, depending on anatomical location) that produce 10 pigments (melanin) in specific organelles (melanosomes) and emit dendrites through the 11 upper keratinocytes layers. Basal keratinocytes progressively differentiate and migrate 12 to form the upper epidermis layers. Stratum spinosum are made from 5 to 15 layers of 13 large polygonal keratinocytes, and contain some Langerhans cells (dendritic cells, 14 involved in antigen processing). Stratum granulosum is made from 1 to 4 layers of 15 keratinocytes; these cells become flattened, their nuclei begin to degenerate, and they 16 contain granules of keratin precursor (keratohyalin). The most external layer of the 17 epidermis, stratum corneum, is made from 10 to 30 layers of dead keratinocytes 18 (corneocytes) entirely filled with keratin fibrils. 19 The dermis is a conjunctive tissue, of approximately 1 mm thickness. The upper part of 20 the dermis, papillary dermis, is in contact with the epidermis basal membrane, and 21 forms papillae that increase contact surfaces with the epidermis (rete ridges). It is highly 22 vascularised and contains neurofibrils and sensory receptors (Pacini corpuscles). The 23 most important part of the dermis, reticular dermis, is made from intercrossed protein 24 networks (collagen and elastin) produced by fibroblast cells, and is vascularised in its 25 upper part. Dermis also contains skin annexes: sweat glands, simple tubulous glands of 26 which the extremities form glomeruli deep into the dermis or even in the sub-cutaneous 27 tissue (their mean density is 200 glands/cm2, but may reach up to 600 glands/cm2 in the 28 forehead or in the palms), and hair follicles (actually an invagination of the epidermis) 29 and their erector muscle and their associated oil gland (sebaceous gland). 30 Sub-cutaneous tissue is essentially made from fat and is vascularised. 31 32 33 (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anatomy_The_Skin_- 34 _NCI_Visuals_Online.jpg) 35 ## Fitzpatrick Skin Type Classification 1 Skin type classification has been developed to characterize skin susceptibility to solar 2 ultraviolet radiation. 3 Skin phototypes have been defined by Fitzpatrick according to the answers of white- 4 skinned volunteers exposed to 3 MEDs (approximately equivalent to 45-60 minutes of 5 noon exposure in the northern (20° to 45°) latitudes in the early summer) to two simple 6 questions: "How painful is your sunburn (i.e. intensity of erythema, oedema and 7 discomfort) after 24 hours?", and "How much tan will you develop in a week?". 8 Originally, the Fitzpatrick classification comprised four skin phototypes. Skin Phototype I: 9 those who burn easily and do not tan at all; Skin Phototype II: those who burn easily 10 and tan with difficulty (freckled and often red-haired individuals); Skin Phototype III: 11 those who burn moderately, show immediate pigment darkening reactions and tan 12 moderately; and Skin Phototype IV: those who do not burn and develop a good tan. 13 Later, in addition to white-skinned persons, brown-skinned (Skin Phototype V: who 14 seldom burn and always tan) and black-skinned (Skin Phototype VI: who never burn) 15 persons were included in the classification (Fitzpatrick, 1988) - see Table 4. 16 Skin phototypes are independent of hair and eye colour, e.g., although persons with skin 17 phototype I or II, with a very pale or pale complexion, usually have blond or red hairs 18 and clear eyes, but they may have dark hair or eyes. 19 20 ## Table 4. Skin Phototypes (Fitzpatrick, 1988) 21 \| Phototype \| Skin reaction to sun \| Skin colour \| Hair colour \| Eye colour \| \|----------------\|-------------------------\|----------------\|----------------------\|---------------------\| \| exposure \| \| \| \| \| \| Pale, Fair \| Blond \| Clear \| I \| Always burns, never \| \| tans \| \| \| \| \| \| Fair, Freckles \| Blond, Red \| Clear \| II \| Usually burns, \| \| sometimes tans \| \| \| \| \| \| III \| May burn, usually tans \| Light Brown \| Dark Blond, \| Hazel, Brown \| \| Light Brown \| \| \| \| \| \| Dark \| Olive brown \| Light Brown, \| \| \| \| Brown, Black \| \| \| \| \| \| IV \| Rarely burns, always \| \| \| \| \| tans \| \| \| \| \| \| Brown \| Dark \| V \| Seldom burns, always \| \| \| tans \| \| \| \| \| \| Dark Brown, \| \| \| \| \| \| Black \| \| \| \| \| \| Moderate \| \| \| \| \| \| constitutional \| \| \| \| \| \| pigmentation \| \| \| \| \| \| VI \| Never burns \| Black \| Black \| Dark \| \| Marked \| \| \| \| \| \| constitutional \| \| \| \| \| \| pigmentation \| \| \| \| \| 22 23 ## Optical Radiation Effects On Skin 1 There are no sharp lines in wavelength-dependent biological effects in the skin. Thus, 2 effects commonly known to be induced by e.g. UV-A radiation such as the DNA base 3 damage, 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine can be induced also by wavelengths of the visible 4 spectrum (Kvam, 1997). Another example is the induction of bulky DNA adducts such as 5 cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers by UV-B irradiation (Lehmann, 1995), which have been 6 shown also to be induced by UV-A in rodent cells (Rochette, 2003). 7 8 ## Benign Effects Of Optical Radiation On Healthy Skin 9 Mild heating and erythema may occur below certain temperatures and irradiances below 10 about 100 mW/cm2 (British Standard, 2013). Sub-acute UV damage may cause loss of 11 collagen in the dermis, termed photoaging. The action spectrum for photoaging is not 12 well defined, but the wavelength range from UV to IR-A is suggested. There is no known 13 threshold dose. Beneficial effects of low doses of UV exposure are pigment development 14 through melanin production and skin hardening, both of which contribute to UV 15 protection upon further UV exposure, as well as synthesis of vitamin D (UV-B-induced). 16 ## Vitamin D 17 Vitamin D (a steroid hormone) is essential for human health. It is essential for bone 18 growth and for maintaining bone strength. In addition, vitamin D plays a role in cell 19 growth: the function of many genes is modulated by vitamin D metabolites, and many 20 cells have vitamin D receptors. 21 Synthesis of pre-vitamin D3 occurs in the skin from the conversion of 7- 22 dehydrocholesterol from the keratinocytes cell membranes by UV radiation in the UV-B 23 range (the action spectrum of vitamin D induction by UV exposure peaks at 297 nm). A 24 thermochemical reaction leads to the formation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Vitamin 25 D3 is transported to the liver and converted into its stored form, 25-hydroxyvitamin D 26 [25(OH)D] (calcidiol), and further converted into its active form, 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin 27 D [1,25(OH)2D] (calcitriol) in the kidneys. [It should be noted that keratinocytes are 28 unique in being able to synthetize 1,25(OH)2D, expressing the vitamin D receptor, and 29 responding to the 1,25(OH)2D generated (Bikle, 2012)]. Exposure of 600 cm2 of the skin 30 (i.e. the surface of face and back of hands) only needs 1/3 MED (300 J/m2 for skin type 31 III) to synthetize 400 IU (10 μg) vitamin D (Miyauchi and Nakajima, 2016). 32 Narrow-band (full width, half maximum 10-30 nm) UV irradiation with LEDs can increase 33 the endogenous production of vitamin D. UV-B and UV-C irradiation with an LED device 34 effectively increases serum levels of 25(OH)D in Vitamin D-starved mice irradiated twice 35 a week for 4 weeks at 1 kJ/m2 - suberythemal - at wavelengths between 268 and 316 36 nm (Morita et al., 2016). Barnkob et al. (2016) used UV LEDs in the wavelength range 37 280–340 nm to investigate optimal vitamin D bio-fortification in isolated pig skin 38 fragments. A wavelength of 296 nm was found to be optimal for vitamin D3 production. 39 The maximum dose of 20 kJ/m2 produced 3.5–4 μg vitamin D3/cm2 pig skin. 40 ## Malignant Effects Of Optical Radiation On Healthy Skin 41 Photothermal 42 Thermal pain is induced by skin temperatures greater than about 45°C (ICNIRP, 2013) 43 (corresponding to about 100 mW/cm2 (British Standard, 2013)). At this temperature and 44 irradiance levels reversible or irreversible damage to skin structures can occur. The 45 damage is accompanied by an inflammatory reaction in the skin. Normally, the aversion 46 response limits exposure durations. However, in anaesthetised persons the aversion 47 response may be compromised. This situation is unlikely to be relevant for exposure 48 from non-medical devices. On the other hand, during occupational exposure workers 49 may be prone to exceed the thermal limits. A skin condition caused by regular localised 50 heating of the skin resulting in a reddish-brown colour, called erythema ab igne, may 51 indicate thermal damage of the skin. The presence of such erythemal damage may 1 increase the risk of skin cancer development in the presence of carcinogenic chemicals or 2 UV radiation exposure. The threshold doses to induce erythema ab igne may be below 3 the thresholds of thermal pain (ICNIRP, 2013). If saunas and warming cabinets are 4 equipped with IR-LEDs, these devices may cause erythema below the pain limit. 5 ## 6 Photochemical 7 Sunburn, Erythema And Cancers 8 UV-B and UV-A exposure can induce delayed and immediate sunburn reactions 9 (erythema), respectively, accompanied by inflammatory reactions. The erythemal action 10 spectrum is defined in a standard by the Commission International de l'Eclairage (CIE 11 1998; ISO ⁄ CIE 1999). 12 Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common types of cancer in the 13 Caucasian population. The very common actinic keratosis (AK) (pre-cancer) can be 14 induced by cumulative solar and artificial UV radiation, as well as by exposure to 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Precise prevalence and incidence figures are often 16 unavailable as the lesions are not commonly reported to cancer registries. AK occurs 17 mostly in skin types I-II (see Table 5). In a Dutch study at least one AK lesion was found 18 in 38% of all subjects investigated above 50 years of age (Flohil et al., 2013). AK is the 19 most common precursor of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in Caucasians (DermIS). 20 Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is induced by UV radiation, chemical carcinogens (e.g. 21 arsenic), immunosuppression and genetic disorders, such as some of the 22 photodermatoses (see Annex III, Photodermatoses). BCC is the most common skin 23 tumour in humans and it seldom metastasises. Seventy-five percent of carcinomas occur 24 in patients over 40 years of age. Cancer registries often exclude non-melanoma skin 25 cancers. In South Wales, United Kingdom, the age-standardised incidence rates per 100 26 000 population in 1998 were 127.9 for men and 104.8 for women (Holme et al., 2000 in 27 DermIS). Corresponding Danish numbers (per 100,000 person-years) for men and 28 women in 2007 were 91.2 and 96.6, respectively (SCENIHR, 2012). The association 29 between severe sunburns and basal cell carcinomas is likely (SCENIHR 2012), but the 30 pathogenetic pathways of UV-B and UV-A radiation for basal cell carcinomas 31 development need to be clarified (Calzavara-Pinton, 2015). Pathogenetic factors for 32 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tumours (metastasising) are UV radiation, chronic 33 inflammatory skin changes, chemical carcinogens, immunosuppression, as well as viral 34 infections. In South Wales, United Kingdom, the age-standardised incidence rates per 35 100,000 population in 1998 were 25.2 for men and 8.6 for women (Holme et al., 2000). 36 Corresponding Danish numbers (per 100,000 person-years) from 2007 were 19.1 and 37 12.0, respectively (SCENIHR 2012). Intermittent sun exposure and a history of 38 sunburns, a predictor of intermittent exposure, increase the risk of cutaneous malignant 39 melanoma (CMM) (SCENIHR 2012, Ghiasvand, 2016 ). The pathologic factors for this 40 skin tumour are sun exposure (intermittent burning), artificial UV exposure, as well as 41 phenotypic (fair skin) and genetic nature (in patients with e.g. xeroderma 42 pigmentosum). CMM occurrence is increasing with ambient annual erythemal dose. It is 43 the most frequent cause of death due to a skin disease. In Norway, where the age- 44 standardised incidence rates are similar to those of Australia, the 2015-figures (per 100 45 000) were 41.2 for men and 36.5 for women (Cancer Registry of Norway, 2015). CMM 46 incidence has increased faster than any other cancer in white populations during the past 47 decades (Ghiasvand, 2016). 48 ## Immunosuppression 49 UV irradiation of the skin has an immunosuppressive effect. Both overexposure and sub- 50 acute doses (<1 MED) can suppress adaptive cellular immunity (i.e. acquired immunity 51 against a pathogenic agent or substance and effected by direct cell-to-cell contact). The 52 immunosuppressive effects of UV radiation, in particular wavelengths shorter than about 53 320 nm, have been shown in several studies (reviewed by Schwartz, 2008). In animal 1 studies such UV-induced suppression contributed to skin cancer formation and 2 aggravation of bacterial/viral infections (Norval 2006b in SCENIHR, 2012). In humans, 3 UV overexposure may cause flare-ups of herpes simplex viruses (Norval 2006a, Sayre et 4 al., 2007, both in SCENIHR 2012). In humans, the suppressive effects of UV on skin 5 immune status occur in the UV-B (around 300 nm) as well as in the UV-A (around 370 6 nm) range (Halliday et al., 2012). 7 One of the mechanisms is via the immunologically important lymphocytic cells: UV 8 irradiation activates the regulatory T and B cells (Halliday et al., 2012). Urocanic acid, 9 found predominantly in the stratum corneum of the epidermis, acts as an endogenous 10 sunscreen by absorbing UV-B radiation. When exposed to UV-B irradiation, trans- 11 urocanic acid is converted to the cis isomer which activates regulatory T cells and 12 suppresses induction of immunity in human skin (Dahl et al, 2010). 13 UV exposure also has the ability to enhance the innate immune response (inborn defence 14 against infectious agents). UV exposure increases levels of anti-bacterial proteins in the 15 skin (Gläser et al., 2009 in SCENIHR, 2012) which may explain why solar exposure does 16 not favour bacterial infections in general (Liu et al., 2006, SCENIHR, 2015). 17 ## Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers And Exposure To Uv Nail Light 18 Nail curers uses UV-A radiation to dry (polymerize) nail polish and/or set acrylic nails. 19 UV-A radiation is provided by small devices, rather inexpensive (from ca. 30 to 100 €), 20 that can be used either in professional nail care salons or at home. For decades these 21 devices have been fitted with compact fluorescent lamps emitting broad band UV-A (320 22 to 400 nm) and of a typical power of 36 W. More recently, UV LEDs have been 23 introduced, that emit a narrower UV spectrum (375 to 420 nm), and of a typical power 24 of 14 W. 25 Concern about the safety of this procedure was triggered by MacFarlane and Alonso 26 (2009), who reported the occurrence of non-melanoma skin cancers on the hands after 27 UV nail light exposure in two women. The first patient was a 55-year-old white woman 28 with no specific risk factors (little recreational UV exposure, no solar damage, and no 29 preceding human papillomavirus infection) who developed a squamous cell carcinoma in 30 situ on the dorsal aspect of her right index finger and had a 15-year history of twice- 31 monthly UV nail light exposure. The other patient was a 48-year-old white woman who 32 developed a squamous cell carcinoma on the dorsum of her right hand. This patient, with 33 moderate recreational UV exposure and no personal or family history of skin cancer, had 34 a Fitzpatrick skin type III, with several actinic keratoses on her face and arms. There 35 was no preceding human papillomavirus infection at this site or elsewhere. Questioning 36 revealed previous exposure to UV nail lights approximately 8 times in 1 year, several 37 years before her first skin cancer. 38 To evaluate the actual risk of skin cancer associated with exposure to UV-A lamps used 39 in cosmetic nail treatment, Diffey (2012) constructed a mathematical model that 40 combined age and UV exposure to compare the risk of developing SCC due to typical sun 41 exposure with the risk of inducing these cancers from exposure to UV-A nail lamps. 42 Calculations were based upon actual measurements of UV irradiance of a typical 18 43 watts device, giving an erythemally weighted output of 1.58 SED h-1 [Standard Erythema 44 Dose, a measure of erythemal UV radiation exposure dose], and upon the assumption of 45 a session every 3 weeks, i.e. an annual exposure dose of 3.8 SED [this dose can be 46 compared to an estimation of a median baseline sun exposure level of 166 SED year + 47 85.5 SED per year holiday (SCHEER, 2016)]. Results were expressed as number needed 48 to harm (NNH) and indicate that the risk of inducing an SCC from exposure to UV-A nail 49 lamps is very low for a typical usage, since tens or hundreds of thousands of women 50 would need to use a UV-A nail lamp regularly for one to go on to develop SCC on the 51 dorsum of the hands as a direct consequence. Moreover, this risk can even be reduced 52 to virtually zero by wearing fingerless gloves when the hands are being exposed. 53 Risk calculations by Diffey were based on measured irradiance of a single device fitted 1 with fluorescent lamps of relatively small power. Markova and Weinstock (2013) 2 measured the spectral irradiance of three common UV Nail Lamp devices: two fitted with 3 broadband UV-A fluorescent bulbs (respectively 36 W with a peak emission at 368 nm, 4 and 9 W with a peak emission at 370 nm), and one fitted with UV LEDs (405 nm, 6 W). 5 They then used the action spectrum for human photocarcinogenesis (de Gruijl and Van 6 der Leun, 1994) to determine the carcinogenic-effective irradiance of a 10 min UV nail 7 lamp session and compare it with that of a single narrowband UV-B phototherapy 8 course, a commonly used dermatological treatment, viewed as low risk for the 9 development of nonmelanoma skin cancer. They calculated that over 13,000 fluorescent 10 lamp and more than 40,000 UV-A LED sessions would be required to equal at the nail 11 plane the UV dose received during one narrowband UV-B course, which represents over 12 250 years of weekly UV nail sessions to experience the same risk exposure. 13 Following a request from the Nail Manufacturers Council on Safety (an organization 14 formed by the nonprofit trade association the Professional Beauty Association), Dowdy 15 and Sayre (2013) conducted a photobiological safety evaluation of six nail curing lamps. 16 Radiant hazards were assessed as defined in ANSI/IESNA RP-27 Recommended Practice 17 for Photobiological Safety. Three of the devices evaluated were fluorescent UV nail lamps 18 systems incorporating 2, 3 or 4 small 9 W lamps. The other three devices were LED- 19 based incorporating arrays of 6 or 32 LEDs or 1 LED (single finger unit). Lamps were 20 evaluated at three positions, 1 cm above the inner surface (approximating exposure to 21 the hand) and the 20 cm RP-27 non-general light source distance, oriented 0° and 45° 22 to the opening. At 1 cm distance, weighted Actinic UV ranged 1.2–1.7 μW cm-2, 23 classifying these devices into RP-27 Risk Group 1 (Low - for the finger unit) or 2 24 (Moderate); which corresponds to 29.8–276.25 min permissible daily exposure [the RP- 25 27 risk group classification is based on an occupational exposure assumption]. At 20 cm 26 on centre and 45°, actinic UV ranged 0.001–0.078 μW cm-2 and unweighted near UV 27 (320–400 nm) ranged 0.001–0.483 mW cm-2, and UV risk to skin and eyes were all 28 within the Exempt classification. Likewise the retinal photochemical blue light hazard and 29 retinal thermal and cornea/lens IR were also Exempt. According to this evaluation, the 30 total exposure incurred during a typical nail lamp session represents a small fraction of 31 the RP-27 permissible daily occupational exposure. 32 Shipp et al. (2014) measured the unweighted UV-A irradiance of 17 nail polish drying 33 devices (in 16 salons), and evaluated the potential risk to the user by comparison with 34 an energy density of UV-A shown to induce DNA damage (60 J cm-2). The median UV-A 35 exposure for a single visit was low (5.1 J cm-2). These data suggest that the risk for 36 carcinogenesis remain small. [It should be noted that the devices measured by Shippp et 37 al. appear to have been fitted with fluorescent lamps]. 38 In a research letter, Curtis et al.(2013) evaluated two nail curing lamps - not LEDs - and 39 found that total MED (Minimum Erythema Dose) per session was 0.1 MED or less, 40 representing annual doses of 1.1 to 1.5 MED, and raised the possibility that long-term 41 exposure to UV nail lamps may have the potential to increase both cancer risk and 42 photoaging. 43 Thus, regardless the metrics chosen, UV nail lamps and/or LEDs do not appear to 44 significantly increase the lifetime risk of non melanoma skin cancer. However, data are 45 lacking regarding the possibility of premature skin ageing, and the risk to the eyes of the 46 professional operators should be considered. 47 48 ## Optical Radiation Effects In Pathological Conditions 1 Photodermatoses 2 It is reasonable to believe that patients diagnosed with a known photosensitivity disorder 3 will avoid the radiation responsible for their symptoms. However, UV exposure may both 4 relieve and aggravate symptoms in patients with conditions such as acne, psoriasis and 5 atopic dermatitis. Also some viral infections, such as herpes simplex virus, can 6 sometimes be exacerbated by UV. Individuals who experience intermittent or infrequent 7 outbreaks of their condition may not avoid UV exposure at all times. Many lupus 8 erythematosus patients may not be aware of their photosensitivity (SCENIHR, 2012) and 9 therefore, will not always avoid UV exposure. Indoor lighting-triggered disease activity 10 has been reported previously (SCENIHR, 2012). 11 The SCENIHR opinion on artificial light (2012) provides a comprehensive, yet not 12 exhaustive list of various photodermatoses. Below, only a few of the most commonly 13 occurring diseases/conditions are mentioned. A majority of both optical radiation- 14 induced and -aggravated photodermatoses listed in the previous Opinion (SCENIHR, 15 2012) manifest with possible or established ocular involvement (Rambhatla et al., 2015) 16 17 ## A. Diseases Induced By Optical Radiation 18 The wavelength dependency of some optical radiation-induced photodermatoses is 19 presented in Table 6. The prevalence figures presented below for the various diseases 20 were found at http://www.orpha.net/ if not specified otherwise. 21 ## 22 1. Idiopathic Or Immune-Based 23 Actinic prurigo can have childhood onset or onset before 20 years of age. The prevalence 24 varies from 0.003% in Scotland to 8% in Chimila Indians of Colombia (Valbuena et al., 25 2014). Chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) is an uncommon dermatitis thought to be a 26 delayed-type hypersensitivity response against photo-induced cutaneous antigens, 27 similar to allergic contact dermatitis (Rambhatla et al., 2015). CAD has adult onset. 28 Prevalence is estimated to 1-5 in 10 000. Hydroa vacciniforme is a rare photodermatosis 29 with childhood onset (Rambhatla et al., 2015). Indicated prevalence is 1-9 in 1 000 000. 30 Lupus erythematosus can have various sub-types (see SCENIHR, 2012). They can have 31 childhood onset and affect all age groups. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has 32 prevalence in Europe of 12.5-39 per 100 000 (SCENIHR, 2012) while autosomal 33 recessive SLE has a prevalence of <1 in 1 000 000. Polymorphic light eruption (PLE) can 34 have childhood onset, but mean onset is in the second or third decade of life. PLE is the 35 most common photodermatosis. In European countries the prevalence is up to 20% 36 (Gruber-Wackernagel et al., 2014). PLE affects mostly women, and a prevalence of 37 33.4% in females of skin type I was reported by Rhodes et al. (2010) in Europe. Solar 38 urticaria is an uncommon condition that affects all ages, but with a peak during the 39 fourth and fifth decades of life (Rambhatla et al., 2015). Prevalence numbers are stated 40 as 36 per 100 000 (orpah.net, 2016). 41 ## 42 2. Genophotodermatoses 43 The diverse group of inherited photosensitive diseases is rare, and the diseases present 44 with various wavelength susceptibility (SCENIHR, 2012). Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) 45 is characterised by defective DNA repair mechanism for UV damage associated with 46 chromosome instability. XP has a prevalence of 1 in 1 000 000 in the USA and Europe, 47 with higher figures in other countries and continents particularly in communities with a 48 high degree of consanguinity (orpha.net, 2011). Birth prevalence is 0.23 per 100 000 in 49 Europe (Orphanet Report Series, 2016). 50 ## 3. Porphyrias 1 Porphyrias constitute a group of disorders related to enzymatic defects in the haem 2 synthesis (Rimington, 1985). These result in increased synthesis of porphyrins and for 3 some of the diseases, with possible cutaneous photosensitisation. The porphyrin 4 absorption range is about 320-600 nm with the largest absorption maximum about 400 5 nm and smaller maxima between about 500-700 nm. Hepatocytes and bone marrow 6 erythroblasts are the major cell types involved in haem synthesis and thus, enzymatic 7 defects will be manifested in these cells (Rimington, 1985; Sassa, 2006). Six of the nine 8 porphyrias described are associated with photosensitivity. Two of these are among the 9 second and third most often occurring types. They can be of either erythropoietic or 10 hepatic type or both (Sassa, 2006). The skin localisation of porphyrins of hepatic or 11 erythrocyte origin is dependent on the water solubility of the porphyrins (Brun et al., 12 1991) and not necessarily the depth at which they accumulate. Thus, knowing the type 13 of porphyria in a patient cannot indicate "safe" wavelengths within the porphyria 14 absorption spectrum by choosing "appropriate" penetration depths. Porphyrias are, in 15 general, rare diseases and prevalence and incidence vary between type of porphyria and 16 countries (Table 6). As an example, erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP), an autosomal 17 recessive disease, has been described worldwide. The prevalence of EPP may vary based 18 on the population allele frequency of the low-expression IVS3-48T>C allele, which 19 ranges from approximately 1% in African Americans to approximately 43% in Japanese 20 (Balwani et al., 2012). 21 22 1 2 Total incidence of all porphyrias in Denmark is 0.52 in 100000 per year 1989-2013 (Christiansen et al., 2016) a) Most 3 common porphyria in children, third most common of all porphyrias. b)Holme et al., 2006 4 5 6 \| Porphyria \| Prevalence \| \|----------------\|----------------\| \| location \| \| \| Reference \| Prevalence, \| \| per \| million \| \| inhabitants \| \| \| Ref : \| \| \| orpha.net \| \| \| (year) \| \| \| per million \| \| \| inhabitants \| \| \| (95% \| CI) \| \| if \| not \| \| otherwise \| \| \| stated \| \| \| Variegate \| \| \| porphyria \| \| \| 3.2 (2.4- \| \| \| 4.0) \| \| \| Elder \| et \| \| al. \| \| \| , 2013 \| \| \| 1-9 (2009) \| 0.08 \| \| (0.06- \| \| \| 0.10) \| \| \| 11 \| \| \| European \| \| \| countries \| \| \| Low: 0.4 \| \| \| High: 10.4 \| \| \| Poland \| \| \| Switzerland \| \| \| 1-9 \| Erythropoietic \| \| protoporphyria \| \| \| a) \| \| \| 9.2 \| (7.7- \| \| 11.6 \| \| \| 11 \| \| \| European \| \| \| countries \| \| \| \| \| \| Low: 1.5 \| Poland \| \| Elder \| et \| \| al. \| , 2013 \| \| (between \| \| \| 1/75000 in the \| \| \| Netherlands \| \| \| and \| \| \| 1/200000 \| in \| \| Wales \| \| \| b) \| \| \| (2013)) \| \| \| \| \| \| High: 27.7 \| \| \| Norway \| \| \| Reference \| Geographic \| \|-------------------\|---------------\| \| location \| \| \| Incidence \| \| \| per million \| \| \| inhabitants \| \| \| (95% \| CI) \| \| if \| not \| \| otherwise \| \| \| stated \| \| \| 11 \| European \| \| countries \| \| \| Elder \| et al. \| \| 2013 \| \| \| PolandSwitzerland \| \| \| (2007- \| \| \| 2009) \| \| \| Low: 0.01 \| \| \| High: 0.26 \| \| \| Denmark \| Christiansen \| \| et al. \| , 2016 \| \| 9 (1989- \| \| \| 2013) \| \| \| 1) 2-5 \| \| \| al. \| \| \| , 2014 \| \| \| 2) 0.12 \| \| \| (0.10- \| \| \| 0.15) \| \| \| 2) Elder \| et \| \| al. \| \| \| , 2013 \| \| \| Low: 0.03 \| Poland/ \| \| (2007- \| \| \| 2009) \| \| \| \| \| \| Spain \| \| \| \| \| \| High: 0.36 \| \| \| Norway \| \| \| 1 per \| Porphyria \| \|----------------\|--------------\| \| cutanea tarda \| \| \| Sweden, \| \| \| Norway \| \| \| 10 000 \| \| \| 1/25000 \| \| \| Western \| \| \| Europe (2009) \| \| \| Rossmann- \| \| \| Ringdahl \| \| \| et al. \| \| \| , \| \| \| 2005; \| \| \| Mykletun \| \| \| et al. \| \| \| , \| \| \| 2014 \| \| \| 1 per \| Hereditary \| \| coproporhyria \| \| \| Czech \| \| \| Republic \| \| \| 100 000 \| \| \| Martásek, \| \| \| 1998 \| \| \| 1/1 mill \| \| \| (2009) \| \| \| \| \| \| erythropoietic \| \| \| porphyria \| \| ## \| Denmark \| Christiansen \| \|------------\|-----------------\| \| et al. \| , 2016 \| \| 73 (13 per \| \| \| million) \| \| \| (1989- \| \| \| 2013) \| \| \| 650 \| \| \| Denmark \| Christiansen \| \| et al. \| , 2016 \| \| (1 per \| \| \| 10 000) \| \| \| (1989- \| \| \| 2013) \| \| \| 4 \| Denmark \| \| et al. \| , 2016 \| \| (1989- \| \| \| 2013) \| \| \| Denmark \| Christiansen \| \| et al. \| , 2016 \| \| (1989- \| \| \| 2013) \| \| ## 4. Photosensitivity With Exogenous Origin 1 Photosensitivity can be induced by skin exposure to plant and vegetable compounds 2 (phytophotodermatitis), drugs, chemicals and cosmetics, all in combination with optical 3 radiation. The most common mechanism for photosensitivity induced by drugs is 4 phototoxicity, while a less frequent mechanism is photoallergy. Photoallergic contact 5 dermatitis is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction in susceptible individuals. Most of 6 these drugs or chemicals cause reactions after UV-A exposure although some can cause 7 sensitisation with UV-B radiation or visible light (SCENIHR, 2012). A list of drugs 8 associated with photosensitivity is provided by Valbuena et al. (2014) and a list of drugs 9 and other compounds absorbing in the 290-700 nm wavelength range exhibiting 10 phototoxicity can be found in Kleinman et al. (2010). 11 Photosensitisers used in photodynamic therapy of various cancers can elicit reversible 12 skin phototoxic responses upon subsequent exposure to visible radiation (SCENIHR, 13 2012), such as from artificial light sources including LEDs. 14 15 ## A. Photo-Aggravated Dermatoses 16 This is a large and diverse group of diseases which are not primarily caused by optical 17 radiation, but which can be exacerbated by such radiation. Examples of diseases and 18 conditions are listed in e.g. SCENIHR 2012 and Rambhatla et al. (2015). Mechanisms of 19 disease and wavelength dependence are not always known. 20 21 ## B. Susceptible Groups 22 Children in general and persons affected by photodermatoses are susceptible to 23 excessive optical radiation exposure of their skin. Childhood onset can occur for e.g. 24 actinic prurigo, hydroa vacciniforme, lupus erythematosus, polymorphic light eruption, 25 solar urticaria and xeroderma pigmentosum. Photosensitivity occurs in children for (at 26 least) the following porphyrias: erythropoietic protoporphyria, congenital erythropoietic 27 porphyria and hepatoerythropoietic porphyria. 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 \| Classification \| \| Wavelengths (nm) \| \|-------------------\|------------------\|---------------------\| \| Visible blue \| \| \| \| (400-500) \| \| \| \| UV-A \| \| \| \| (315- \| \| \| \| 400) \| \| \| \| Visible \| \| \| \| green-red \| \| \| \| (500-780) \| \| \| \| Photodermatosis \| UV-B \| \| \| (280- \| \| \| \| 315) \| \| \| \| Actinic prurigo* \| \| \| \| \| \| (seldom) \| \| "Light"- \| \| \| \| induced, \| \| \| \| endogenous \| \| \| \| Chronic \| actinic \| \| \| dermatitis* \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| vacciniforme* \| \| \| \| \| (UV-A?) \| \| \| erythematosus* \| \| \| \| (may \| also \| be \| \| photoaggravated) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| eruption \| \| \| \| Porphyria \| \| \| \| \| Solar urticaria* \| \| \| light?) \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| pigmentosum* \| \| \| \| \| \| (few) \| \| induced* \| \| \| \| "Light"- \| \| \| \| induced, \| \| \| \| exogenous \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| contact \| \| \| \| dermatitis \| \| \| \| \| 6 \| \| ## Conclusions On Photodermatoses 7 Porphyrias are rare diseases. Prevalence and incidence figures vary substantially 8 between type of porphyria and countries. The absorption spectrum of the porphyrins 9 present in patients with photosensitive porphyrias overlaps the emission spectra of LED 10 lighting sources. The SCHEER could not find evidence for increases in the incidence of 11 porphyrias and photodermatoses since the publication of the Opinion on artificial light 12 (SCENIR, 2012). Theoretically, the incidence of the chemical/drug-induced types of 13 porphyrias and induction and aggravation of any of the photodermatoses may increase 14 with increased light exposure in general. Although it seems possible to elicit certain 15 visible light-induced photosensitivity disorders with LED lighting sources, it must be kept 16 in mind that these diseases are rare. 17 ## Annex Iv Photometry, Radiometry And Dosimetry 1 Photometry And Radiometry 2 Photometry is the science of the measurement of light, in terms of its perceived 3 brightness to the human eye. It is distinct from radiometry, which is the science of 4 measurement of radiant energy (including light) in terms of absolute power. Concepts 5 such as radiance, irradiance, radiant power and radiant intensity used in radiometry can 6 easily be defined via simple geometric relationships. While sharing these identical 7 relationships, photometry also introduces detector response modelled after human visual 8 characteristics. 9 Power (watts) is converted to luminous flux in lumens via the integral equation: 10 $$\begin{array}{r l}{11}&{{}\Leftrightarrow\exists\not\exists\not\exists\not\exists\not\exists z}\end{array}$$ V(O) where is the photopic response function of the human eye in day light, 12 Φv = flux (lumens), Pe = Power, K = constant (683 lm/W for photopic). The unit of 13 luminous flux is the lumen. 14 15 ## Dosimetry 16 The emissions from an LED source can be quantified in terms of radiant power (watts). 17 This should not be confused with the electrical input power used historically to specify 18 incandescent lamps. The radiant power is usually the total emission of the source and is 19 most appropriate for sources that emit equally in all directions. If the source is 20 directional then it is more appropriate to specify the radiant intensity (watts per 21 steradian) and if the source is not a point source, radiance (watts per square metre [of 22 emitter] per steradian). These quantities are radiometric quantities and are appropriate 23 across the optical spectrum (for ultraviolet, visible and infrared emissions). 24 It may also be appropriate to specify a spectral quantity to show how the contributions 25 to the above quantities vary with wavelength - the emission spectrum. 26 With the spectral information, it is possible to weight the emission for a range of factors 27 to take into account human (or other) responses. The response of the eye to optical 28 radiation at different wavelengths has been experimentally determined and weighting 29 with the response function, particularly for high light levels, gives the photometric 30 quantities. Luminous flux (lumen) is equivalent to radiant power, weighted at each 31 wavelength with the luminous efficacy function and summed across all wavelengths. The 32 equivalent quantities for radiant intensity and radiance are luminous intensity (lumen per 33 steradian or candela) and luminance (lumen per metre squared per steradian or candela 34 per metre squared), respectively. 35 All of these quantities are parameters associated with the actual source or a virtual 36 source (due to the use of a diffuser or reflectors). 37 The optical radiation incident on a surface, which could be the eye or the skin, is 38 quantified in terms of irradiance (watts per square metre). The equivalent photometric 39 quantity is illuminance (lumen per square metre or lux). Since radiance is generally 40 conserved in an optical system, the radiance on the retina will generally be the same as 41 the radiance of the source. 42 Spectral data for the optical radiation incident on a surface, for example in watts per 43 square metre per nanometre, can be used to weight for a range of hazard or beneficial 44 effects. In this Opinion, reference is made to a number of studies, which suggest that 45 the blue emission from LEDs may be of concern. The International Commission on Non- 46 Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2013) has published guidelines on limits for 47 exposure to blue light, which take into account the effectiveness of optical radiation to 1 cause adverse effects at different wavelengths. 2 The spectral irradiance from an LED source is weighted at each wavelength and the 3 resulting weighted spectrum is summed for comparison with the ICNIRP exposure limit. 4 Since the weighting function peaks at about 440 nm, decreasing by a factor of ten for 5 wavelengths less than 400 nm and greater than 500 nm, any incident blue radiation is 6 more significant. This is shown in Fig. 15. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fig. 15 shows the weighted (for blue light hazard, Fig.7) spectral radiance of the 13 incandescent lamp and LED lamp shown in Fig. 3. When the values were summed, the 14 weighted radiance was 14 W m-2 sr-1 for the LED lamp and 10 W m-2 sr-1 for the 15 incandescent lamp. The ICNIRP exposure limit for long-term exposure (> 10000 s or 16 about 3 hours) is 100 W m-2 sr-1. 17 18 Most lighting sources are not directly visible to observers in order to avoid a glare 19 source. Sources may be shielded or fitted with diffusers. The exceptions are indicator 20 devices and, for example, vehicle lighting, which is in the direct field of view, and 21 illuminated screens. Therefore, the general exposure condition is to indirect optical 22 radiation. ICNIRP provides a general rule for white light sources, which is that if the 23 luminance is less than 104 cd m-2, it is unlikely to be a hazard. Screens are usually up to 24 about 4% of this luminance (O'Hagan et al. 2016). 25 26 27 ## Annex V Circadian Rhythm 1 Generation Of The Circadian Rhythm 2 The biological clocks consists of multiple 'clocks': 1) the central clock in the brain (the 3 suprachiasmatic nucleus or SCN) and 2) peripheral clocks in almost all organs including 4 heart, liver and kidneys. The peripheral clocks are regulated by the central clock (Dibner, 5 Schibler et al. 2010). A self-sustaining molecular oscillator generates the circadian 6 rhythms at a cellular level. This oscillator comprises genes and proteins that are 7 organized in positive and negative transcription translation feedback loops (Takahashi, 8 2017). In short, the heterodimer transcription factor CLOCK/BMAL1 drives the 9 transcription of the Period and Cryptochrome genes. The proteins translated from these 10 transcripts gradually accumulate in the nucleus and shut down the expression of their 11 own genes by repressing the transcription of the CLOCK/BMAL1 heterodimer. This 12 process is influenced by post-translational modifications that affect the stability of the 13 clock proteins and, thereby, influence the periodicity of circadian rhythms. In turn, this 14 determines, for example, a person's chronotype (i.e. a morning or evening person) 15 (Takahashi, 2017). 16 ## Function Of Circadian Rhythms 17 Circadian rhythms most likely evolved to adapt and respond optimally to daily 18 environmental cycles. It enables anticipation to expected events and ensures that bodily 19 processes occur in a temporal and synchronized fashion at the most optimal timing 20 related to the environment. A simplified example: eating when food is present and 21 subsequently optimize metabolism processes after eating. The bodily processes 22 regulated in a circadian fashion are widespread and linked. Ranging from behaviour 23 (sleep/wake cycles), cognition (attention, concentration), the immune system and repair 24 mechanisms, to numerous physiological processes including endocrine functioning, 25 metabolism, cardiovascular functioning etc. It has been shown that circadian rhythms 26 occur in 2-10% of a tissue's gene expression and, in addition, several post- 27 transcriptional mechanisms result in circadian rhythms in protein expression (Takahashi 28 2017). 29 ## Measuring Circadian Rhythms In Humans 30 To determine if circadian rhythms are influenced by external stimuli, several biomarkers 31 for circadian rhythms are usually investigated. These include body temperature, 32 melatonin and cortisol, of which melatonin is the most widespread used marker. 33 Melatonin is one of the hormones with a robust circadian rhythm and its levels are easily 34 assessed using saliva, serum or urine. The timing of melatonin production from the 35 pineal gland is directly regulated by the central clock in the brain, the SCN. During night 36 time, norepinephrine is released from sympathetic nerve endings to the pineal gland 37 which regulates the key enzyme in melatonin production, arylalkylamine N- 38 acetyltransferase (AANAT) (Schomerus and Korf 2005). Melatonin levels rise during the 39 dark period and decrease at the end of the dark period. However, regulation of 40 melatonin is not only via light/dark, since melatonin levels decrease towards the end of 41 the night when no light is present and darkness during the day will not result in 42 melatonin production. As such, melatonin levels are often used as a marker for a 43 person's circadian phase, although this relation involves other aspects as well. Exposure 44 to light at night reduces the production of melatonin, since norepinephrine levels drop 45 (Schomerus and Korf 2005), but changes in circadian phase depend on other aspects as 46 well (light during the day and other zeitgebers, such as food). Melatonin also rises at 47 night in nocturnal animals, and, as such, it is better described as a hormone of the night, 48 rather than a sleep hormone. 49 50 51 ## Consequences Of Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 1 As described in section 6.9.1 negative health effects of optical radiation from LEDs, 2 specifically, have not been investigated. It is expected that these effects are not LED- 3 specific; they apply to exposure to light during the evening that influences the circadian 4 system in general. The effects may, however, be enhanced for LEDs compared to 5 traditional light sources at similar illumination levels, due to the particular spectral 6 emission pattern of certain types of LEDs. In addition, it is important to note that direct 7 causal relations of the use of LEDs or other artificial light sources during the evening on 8 health have not been investigated. Indications are obtained from association studies, 9 circumstantial evidence and hypothesized effects based on studies investigating other 10 types of circadian disturbance. 11 12 Disturbance of the circadian system has been associated with several negative health 13 effects. This is mainly the case for relatively severe disturbances of the circadian system 14 that, for example, occur due to shift work or jetlag. For example, circadian disturbance 15 as might occur due to shift work has been associated with cancer, metabolic health 16 effects, and cognitive functioning (IARC 2010, Wang, Armstrong et al. 2011, ANSES 17 2016, Mattis and Sehgal 2016). Although the circadian disturbance observed due to 18 evening light exposure is less severe, some underlying mechanisms and consequences 19 might be similar. 20 21 An important consequence of the circadian disturbance due to light during the evening is 22 its effect on sleep. As described in more detail above, the studies by Cajochen et al. and 23 Chang et al. indicate that use of certain types of LEDs, similar to other artificial light 24 sources, can result in reduced sleepiness (Cajochen, Frey et al. 2011, Chang, Aeschbach 25 et al. 2014) and increased latency to sleep (Chang, Aeschbach et al. 2014), possibly 26 causing shorter sleep duration and poorer sleep quality. It is important to note that, 27 regardless of the cause (i.e. being artificial light or other factors), reduced sleep duration 28 and quality is associated with poorer cognitive performance, fatigue, altered mood and 29 increased health and safety risks (Christoffersson, Vagesjo et al. 2014, Engle-Friedman 30 2014, Burke, Scheer et al. 2015, Cedernaes, Schioth et al. 2015). 31 32 Furthermore, additional light during the evening has been hypothesized to phase delay 33 circadian rhythms. Delay in the circadian rhythm can result in 'social jetlag'. This refers 34 to the phenomenon that the circadian rhythm is delayed but the social environment 35 requires behavioural patterns to remain at the earlier phase (Wittmann, Dinich et al. 36 2006). In other words, a person still has to get up early in the morning to go to 37 work/school. This can cause several important bodily processes to occur 'out of sync' 38 with the biological clock, such as food consumption. This desynchronization of external 39 and internal stimuli might be underlying some of the health effects related to 40 disturbances of the circadian system. Social jetlag has mainly been associated with risk 41 factors for cardio-metabolic diseases (Parsons, Moffitt et al. 2015, Wong, Hasler et al. 42 2015). Furthermore, evening light exposure might enhance delayed sleep-wake phase 43 disorder (DSWPD) in sensitive persons. This disorder is characterized by late sleep and 44 wake times and poorer sleep quality (Joo, Abbott et al. 2017, Magee, Marbas et al. 45 2016). 46 47 In addition to observed effects of evening light on sleep in experimental settings, it has 48 been suggested that evening exposure to light might have an direct effect on food 49 consumption and metabolism (Versteeg, Stenvers et al. 2016). It has been hypothesized 50 that evening light causes increased food consumption at unfavourable moments (i.e. 51 when metabolism processes are in their rest phase). In addition, an association has been 52 observed between melatonin levels and metabolic disorders. Melatonin might have a 53 direct effect on food intake and melatonin receptors are also present on pancreatic cells. 54 Polymorphisms in the melatonin receptor have been associated with increased risk of 55 type 2 diabetes (Versteeg, Stenvers et al. 2016). 56 1 In summary, disturbances of the circadian rhythm can result in negative consequences 2 on sleep, cognitive performance and, in the long term, on metabolic risk factors. Since 3 no experimental studies have been performed with chronic exposure (multiple years) to 4 artificial light during the evening, it is currently unknown if the disturbance of the 5 circadian rhythm remains, increases or reduces after chronic exposure to light during the 6 evening. 7 8 9 10 ## Annex Vi Hazardous Waste Due To The Materials Used For Producing Light- 1 Emitting Diodes (Leds) 2 3 A South Korean/U.S. investigation on the toxic potential of LEDs, CFLs and incandescent 4 lamps, found that in comparing the bulbs on an equivalent quantity basis with respect to 5 the expected lifetimes of the bulbs, the CFLs and LEDs have 3-26 and 2-3 times higher 6 toxicity potential impacts than the incandescent bulb, respectively (Lim et al., 2011). 7 Arsenic is present as gallium arsenide is found in light emitting diodes (LEDs). The 8 element is a human carcinogen and exposure to arsenic can result in various skin 9 diseases and can decrease nerve conduction velocity6. Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and 10 short-term exposure to high concentrations of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhoea, 11 convulsions and damage to the kidney and reproductive system. It can also cause 12 anaemia, increased blood pressure, and induce miscarriage for pregnant women. 13 Children are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exposure to lead, for it can 14 damage nervous connections and cause brain disorders7. 15 16 Except for these heavy metals, TBBA (tetrabromobisphenol-A), PBB (polybrominated 17 biphenyls) and PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) could be encountered as fire 18 retardants for plastics (thermoplastic components, cable insulation). TBBA is presently 19 the most widely used flame retardant in printed wiring boards and covers for 20 components - brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The combustion of these halogenated 21 compounds releases toxic emissions including dioxins which can cause reproductive and 22 developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also 23 cause cancer8. 24 25 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is mainly found in the plastic components of electrical and 26 electronic equipment. When burned, PVC releases dioxins, furans and phthalates, some 27 of which are known reproductive toxicants and carcinogens (Hazardous substances in e- 28 wastes., 2009).9 29 30 Phthalates used as softeners to PVC can easily leach into the environment. 31 Epidemiological data has suggested an association between indoor exposure to phtalates 32 and asthmatic and allergic reactions in children (Bornehag et al., 2010) 33 ## Annex Vii: Literature Review 1 2 Comprehensive literature searching involved capturing the scientific literature about the 3 LED effects on skin, eye, retina, macula, cornea, lens tear film, circadian rhythm, 4 circadian disruption, melatonin suppression. 5 6 ## Search Strategy And Selection Of Publications 7 Example Topic: Circadian Effects (Search Ec Library And E-Resources Centre) 8 Selection on Title of the following topics: 19 references 9 Circadian rhythm: 8 out of 12 10 Blue light AND circadian AND human: 1 out of 9 11 Blue light AND circadian disruption: 4 out of 15 12 LED AND circadian rhythm: 2 out of 2 13 Melatonin suppression: 4 out of 16 14 Circadian light: 0 out of 3 15 Based on abstracts, 9 papers were excluded, since they were not relevant; 3 papers 16 were excluded because either the full text was not available or they were not available in 17 English; 7 publications were included in the present opinion. 18 19 References from RIVM report 2014: 13 references were selected from this report. The 20 search strategy used in this report was also repeated to get an update on the literature 21 since 2014. This resulted in 179 publications. Based on title, 7 publications were 22 selected. Based on abstract 4 publications were excluded since they were not relevant. 3 23 publications were used in the Opinion. One of them had also been identified in the search 24 of the EC library and e-resources centre. 25 26	en
0123-pdf	bakewell@bakewell-and-partners.co.uk www.bakewell-and-partners.co.uk ## Side Extension And Alterations To The Old Police House, 2 Buxton Road, Ashford In The Water, Derbyshire Design & Access And Heritage Statements Introduction 1. This statement accompanies a householder planning application and application for conservation area consent for the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new side extension together with other alterations to the old Police House, 2 Buxton Road, Ashford in the Water. The application is accompanied by drawings 7984-01 (site location plan), 7984-02 (survey as existing), 7984-03 (proposed scheme design) and 7984-04 (block plan). ## Site Description And Context 2. The application site is a semi-detached house set on the southern side of Buxton Road in Ashford in the Water, on the northern edge of the village conservation area. 3. The building is an unlisted two storey cottage, believed to have been built by the Chatsworth Estate as a police house early in the 20th century. It is constructed from local random rubble limestone with squared sandstone quoins, and a natural stone slate roof with projecting eaves. The eaves are low, with the first floor set partly in the roof space lit by hipped dormer windows. 4. To the side of the property is a detached single storey building in "Davey" blocks and reconstituted stone slate roof, dating from the later 20th century. The building comprises a small single garage at the front, and a home office at the rear. ## Proposed Development 5. The proposed development consists of the demolition of the single storey outbuilding, and its replacement with a single storey side extension comprising two guest bedrooms and bathroom; a new front porch; blocking up the first floor gable windows and construction of a new replacement dormer window at the rear; and relocation of a soil and vent pipe from the centre of the front elevation to the property boundary at the party wall line. 6. The proposals drawing also shows a single storey rear extension across the full width of the existing house, and alterations to the ground floor living room window. These components of the proposed development are "permitted development" under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended in 2008), and are capable of being implemented independently of this planning application. They are likely to be commenced before this application is determined, without prejudice to the components of the proposals which are subject to planning control. ## Amount Of Development 7. The parts of the proposal requiring planning permission do not materially affect the amount of development on the site, as the proposed side extension replaces the existing single storey building to be demolished. ## Layout And Access 8. The principle of the layout of the site is not materially affected by the proposals. The building remains a cottage with principal elevation facing the highway behind a large front garden. The front elevation of the new extension is set behind the principal elevation of the cottage, whereas the existing garage comes forwards of it and is thus a somewhat intrusive element in the street scene. 9. The driveway remains as existing to provide off-street parking in front of the house. The existing garage is too narrow to accommodate the applicants' car, so the demolition of the garage does not result in the loss of a usable parking space. ## Scale, Landscaping And Appearance 10. The size and shape of the new side extension is dictated by the requirement for two guest bedrooms for use by the applicants' grown-up family, and by the shape of the rear extension about to be commenced as permitted development. The rear extension is a lean-to construction whose roof pitch is limited by the height between the ground floor eaves and the sill level of the first floor windows. A lowered floor level within the new extension has been introduced in order to maximise the roof pitch, but it remains less than ideal. Nevertheless, the pitch has been continued across the rear roof pitch of the side extension, to avoid awkward and unsightly roof junctions. The front roof pitch of the side extension matches the pitch of the main roof, so that the principal view of the house, from the Buxton Road, is of a cottage with entirely traditional materials and detailing. This results in unequal pitches to the side, gable elevation, which is not ideal and which would probably not be acceptable for a freestanding building seen in the round. However, in this situation the side elevation will be read as part of the continuous stone wall to the adjacent footpath, which varies in height. The narrow width of the footpath restricts views of the gable elevation, which will always be from a narrow angle, preventing the unequal pitches from being appreciated. 11. We are conscious that Mr Maxwell advised that the rear wall of the side extension should be in line with the rear wall of the original house rather than the rear wall of the new rear extension. However, limiting the floor space of the side extension to the area suggested by Mr Maxwell would not provide the two guest bedrooms required by the applicants to meet their family circumstances; and would represent a reduction in built footprint compared to the existing detached garage and office. We submit that the benefit to the appearance of the Conservation Area resulting from setting back the front elevation, as requested by Mr Maxwell, outweighs any disbenefit arising from maintaining the approximate depth of the existing building. 12. The proposed porch is three square metres in area, and would therefore be permitted development if its height were less than three metres. However, we consider that it is preferable for the roof pitch to match that of the existing hipped dormers, and therefore seek planning permission for a matching roof form. 13. The proposed new dormer window on the rear elevation will match the existing dormers in size, materials and detailing. 14. Proposed internal alterations, not requiring planning permission in themselves, provide an opportunity to relocate the existing soil and vent pipe to a less prominent position. Although still on the front elevation, the relocation is an improvement to the appearance of the building within the Conservation Area. 15. Landscaping is to remain unaffected by the proposal. ## Heritage Statement 16. This heritage statement is made in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 17. The building's significance within the conservation area is governed from it's quality of materials, its appropriate vernacular proportions, its positive contribution to the street scene and the nature of its location within the built framework of the village. 18. The use of local stonework with complementary gritstone dressings, timber casement windows and stone slate roofing complement and contribute positively to the mix of external facing materials in the immediate area. The proportions of the building, both in terms of its overall scale and the window sizes, harmonise with the character of the village Conservation Area. 19. The proposed side extension, porch and new dormer window are all in materials to match the existing building, and the proportions of the front elevation maintain the character of the Conservation Area. ## Conclusion 20. The proposed alterations requiring planning permission are necessary to provide accommodation meeting the applicants' requirements and circumstances, and maintain the character both of the Conservation Area and of the host building. The application therefore meets the requirements of the National Park Authority's Core Strategy, saved policies of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.	en
2799-pdf	## Four-Country Working Guidance On Devolved Responsibilities And Collaborative Working Across The Uk Four-country working is the Food Standard Agency's collaborative, UK-wide approach to policy making. It involves civil servants from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales working together to achieve desired outcomes across the UK. We work this way because: the Food Standards Agency's remit covers three countries - we operate in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales and we have different policy responsibilities within these countries Food Standards Scotland (FSS), an independent public body, has responsibility for food policy in Scotland devolution has resulted in different policy requirements, accountabilities and priorities across the four countries A commitment to four-country working ensures that we can effectively protect public health and consumer interests across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Practically speaking, a fourcountry approach involves collaborative working practices at all levels of our organisation. ## Devolved Policy Responsibilities Responsibilities in the following policy areas have been devolved: food and feed safety and hygiene nutrition and health claims, standards and labelling food compositional standards and labelling This means powers to develop policy for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales have been transferred from the UK government to these countries. Devolution also means that the Food Standards Agency is accountable to each country's administration for our activities within these countries. This devolution of power has led to differing governance, accountability and delivery models for the FSA across England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, and for the FSS in Scotland. These differences include: the creation of independent food advisory committees for food safety and standards issues in Northern Ireland and Wales alternate delivery bodies for official controls in Northern Ireland alignment with different policy requirements, such as those set out in the Welsh Language Act Policy responsibilities within each country also differ. The Food Standards Agency is responsible for different policy areas across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. ## Summary Of The Policy Area And The Responsible Department By Country Here is how certain food policy areas are split in England: food and feed safety and hygiene - Food Standards Agency (FSA) nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - Department of Health and Social Care food compositional standards and labelling - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Here is how certain food policy areas are split in Northern Ireland: food and feed safety and hygiene - FSA nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - FSA food compositional standards and labelling - FSA Here is how certain food policy areas are split in Wales: food and feed safety and hygiene - FSA nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - Welsh Government food compositional standards and labelling - FSA ## Food Standards Scotland Food Standards Scotland is an independent public body working for consumers in Scotland. On 1 April 2015, it took on the functions that the Food Standards Agency (Scotland) previously carried out. The Food (Scotland) Act 2015 established Food Standards Scotland as a non-ministerial office. It is part of the Scottish Administration and sits alongside, but independent from the Scottish Government. It is primarily funded by the Scottish Government, but charges fees to recover costs for regulatory functions. Food Standard Scotland's role is comparable with the Food Standards Agency's. It develops policies, provides consumer and business guidance, advises stakeholders, and enforces food regulations. The FSA works closely alongside the FSS to achieve shared results. The FSA and FSS have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place. The FSA-FSS MoU was originally written and signed in 2015, when responsibility for FSA policy areas in Scotland were transferred to Food Standards Scotland. It has been jointly reviewed and updated by experts in both organisations to ensure it is fit for purpose in the post EU transition regulatory regime. The FSA-FSS MoU sets out the principles that will underpin the relationship between the two organisations the two organisations. It provides a high-level summary of the commitments made by the FSA and FSS on how we will work together, and defines our working relationship in detail across key areas of work. The updated MoU was signed by FSA and FSS CEOs in December 2020. View Memorandum of understanding between the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland as Word (153.34 KB)	en
4643-pdf	20 March 2015 ## Important Changes To The Public Library Subsidy Scheme Dear Colleague, This letter is to inform you of important changes to the scope of the Public Library Subsidy, which is administered by The National Archives. The Public Library Subsidy (PLS), which was introduced in 1924, was intended to provide a subsidy to public libraries in order to assist them in the purchase of government and other official publications. This was at a time when official information was only available in print. The PLS is currently claimed by a number of intermediaries which sell copies of qualifying publications to public libraries and then claim the subsidy back from The National Archives. A high proportion of these publications are accessible free of charge on government and other public sector websites in accordance with the government's digital by default strategy. For many publications, including Command and House of Commons Papers, the only way to access them is online. Online publication has meant that users of government and parliamentary information have had the option of accessing the information at home, work, place of education, in addition to their local library. As well as being free at the point of access, a significant proportion of government and parliamentary information can also be re-used freely under the terms of the Open Government Licence and Open Parliament Licence. The National Archives has a responsibility to ensure that public money is spent responsibly, including money that is spent on the public library subsidy. In this context we have reviewed the scope of the PLS and concluded that there is no longer a justification for providing a subsidy for documents and publications that are freely available on-line to public libraries and the general public. It is difficult to justify a subsidy for print publishing at a time when the main thrust of government policy is to publish online. Consequently, the scope of the subsidy will be amended to exclude publications that are available free of charge on official websites. Therefore, from 20th September 2015 publications which are freely available online will no longer be eligible for the PLS. An illustrative list of the publications which fall into this category include:  Government Command and House of Commons Papers  Parliamentary House of Commons and House of Lords Papers  House of Commons and House of Lords Bills  Statistical publications  Gazettes  Other organisational publications which are only published online The changes to the scope of the PLS do not preclude any organisation from continuing to produce and sell printed copies of official information to new or existing customers. Publications which are not freely available online will still be eligible for the subsidy, this includes; driver education material, citizenship guides, maps and bound volumes of legislation (individual pieces of primary and secondary legislation were removed from the scope of the PLS in 2004). It should be noted that the PLS will remain under review and may be subject to further change in future. A copy of this letter has been sent to each of the main intermediaries and a copy will be published on The National Archives website. If you have any queries regarding the change to the scope of the PLS or the publications within it then please contact official.publishing@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Yours sincerely, Malcolm Todd Head of Information Policy	en
1343-pdf	BIOSCIENCE AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR STATISTICS 2019 August 2020 otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ## Contents Terminology ............................................................................................................... 7 1. Industry overview ................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Core sectors ................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Service & Supply sectors ........................................................................... 10 2. Sector overviews - Key facts ............................................................................. 11 2.1 Biopharma sector ....................................................................................... 11 2.2 Biopharma - Core businesses ................................................................... 11 2.3 Biopharma - Service & Supply chain ......................................................... 12 2.4 Med Tech sector (including digital health) .................................................. 12 2.5 Med Tech - Core businesses .................................................................... 12 2.6 Med Tech - Service & Supply chain .......................................................... 13 3 Geographical analysis ....................................................................................... 14 3.1 Core Biopharma and Biopharma Service & Supply sectors regionally ....... 16 3.2 Core Med Tech and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors regionally ......... 17 4 Digital health and Genomics .............................................................................. 19 4.1 Digital health .............................................................................................. 19 4.2 Genomics ................................................................................................... 20 5 Industry and sector trends 2010-2019 ............................................................... 21 5.1 Life sciences industry trends ...................................................................... 22 5.2 Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends ........................................... 24 5.3 Service & Supply sector trends .................................................................. 25 5.4 Geographical trends ................................................................................... 26 Annex 1– Full data partners acknowledgement statement ....................................... 28 Annex 2 - Methodology ............................................................................................ 29 Annex 3 - Company ownership ............................................................................... 35 Annex 4 - Segmentation codes ............................................................................... 36 Annex 5 - Data quality principles .............................................................................. 37 ## Key Messages The UK life sciences industry employs 256,100 people in 6,3001 businesses and generates a turnover of £80.7bn. The Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech sectors contain businesses involved in the discovery, development and marketing of therapeutics, and medical devices respectively. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest by employment (102,800 or 40% of the industry) and Core Biopharma is the largest by turnover (£36.7bn or 45% of the industry). The Core sectors are supported by two Service & Supply sectors that supply materials, equipment and specialist services. These two sectors employ 89,400 in 2,710 businesses with a turnover of £23.6bn. The largest segment within the industry is small molecules, consisting of businesses with the majority of their activity developing and marketing therapeutics based on this technology. The segment employs 49,200 (19% of the industry) and generates a turnover of £31.7bn (39% of the industry total). Along with small molecules, the Top 3 Core segments in the industry by employment include digital health (the largest segment by employment in Core Med Tech with 12,900 employees) and in vitro diagnostics (9,700 employees). The Top 3 Core segments in the industry by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, and single use technology. In total these segments account for 44% of industry turnover. Within the two Service & Supply sectors, the two largest segments contain businesses that supply contract manufacturing and research services, and that supply reagents and equipment. In Biopharma, these two segments employ 31,300 with a turnover of £12.0bn; in Med Tech, these segments employ 12,000 with a turnover of £2.3bn. 82% of the businesses in the industry are SMEs; these employ 24% of the industry total and generate 10% of the turnover. The Core Biopharma sector has a higher percentage of non- SME businesses at 31% compared to 18-19% for all other sectors. The Top 25 Global Pharmaceutical companies with activity in the UK (and are non-SMEs) employ 55% of the Core Biopharma sector. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 or 24%. The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment. Employment in the Core Biopharma sector is concentrated in the South East and East of England, and London with 67% of all sector employees, compared to 40% for Core Med Tech employment. ## Trend Data Between 2010 and 2019, the industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% at a compound annual growth rate of 0.9%. Over the period, all sectors except for Core Biopharma increased employment. This is compared to employment growth in all industries2 of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%. The employment decreases in Core Biopharma (5,400 in total over the period) were concentrated between 2011-2013, when a number of the large pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring. Total industry turnover decreased in real terms3 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). Between 2010 and 2019, the single-use technology and assistive technologies segments replaced orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment in the industry's top 5 core segments by employment. By turnover, digital health replaced vaccines in the top 5 segments over the same period. Between 2010 and 2019, most regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200. ## Introduction This report contains analysis of trends in the UK life sciences industry, covering the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors4. The three main measures of economic contribution and industry structure are: - employment - the number of people employed by life science businesses - turnover - the amount of money taken by businesses within scope of life science sector activities - number of businesses - the number of life science businesses and their sites registered in the UK It contains analysis of the industry looking at the economic activity of businesses that market therapeutic products and medical devices as well as the specialist Service & Supply chains that are key parts of the ecosystem. A segmentation approach is applied that enables a detailed analysis of the product and service categories that make up the industry5. The analysis is based on the 2019 database of sites and businesses updated between October and December 2019 using the methodology summarised in Annex 2. Since data is based on activity in 2019, any impacts from covid-19 will not be reflected in any trends seen in the statistics. The UK officially exited the UK in January 2020 and has entered into a transition period. The data in this report focusses on data up until 2019, so data is currently unavailable to determine any long term impacts on trends. This will continue to be reviewed going forward as more data becomes available. Similarly, this data is set prior to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and so any potential impacts on the industry will not be reflected in this publication. The year referred to in this report is the year of the update rather than the year of the turnover and employment figures; turnover and employment are for the latest 12 months available. For the majority of sites, these figures will have been derived from latest accounts submitted by businesses to Companies House; the figures may be submitted up to 9 months after the end of the accounting period (which itself may vary between businesses). The data, charts, figures, and maps used in this document, plus separate infographics can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-databaseannual-reports ## Terminology Industry: used to collectively describe all Sectors covered in the analysis Sector: used to describe Core Biopharma, Core Med Tech, Biopharma Service & Supply or Med Tech Service & Supply Segment: used to describe the individual product or service groups within a Sector (see Annex 3 for a detailed list of segments) Core Biopharma: includes all businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical products - from small, research and development (R&D) focused biotechs to multinational Big Pharma Biopharma Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer goods and services to Core Biopharma businesses including, for example, Contract Research and Manufacturing Organisations (CRMOs), and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities Core Med Tech: includes all businesses whose primary business involves developing and producing Med Tech products, ranging from single-use consumables to complex hospital equipment, including digital health products Med Tech Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer services to Core Med Tech businesses including, for example, CRMOs, and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities Digital health: includes businesses involved in making products for both hospitals and consumers including products such as hospital information systems and mobile medical devices and apps. It is a segment wholly within the Core Med Tech Sector. Genomics: an interdisciplinary field focusing on the study of the human genome and the application of resulting knowledge to human health. It is a cross-cutting categorisation across all four sectors. Business: used to describe an entity that is the legal owner of a group of trading addresses or sites and legal entities. A business may consist of more than one site or registered company. The term business is used in this document when discussing the whole life sciences industry and the four sectors. There are 80 businesses that are active in more than one sector which means there is a small difference in the count of businesses at the industry level (6,150) compared to the sector level (6,230) and the sub-sector level (6,300). This document reports business counts at the sub-sector level. There is no difference in the sums of employment or turnover at the different levels of analysis. See Annex 2, Fig 10 for more detail. Sites: used when referring to the data at the segment or geographical level. All data in the spreadsheets that accompany this document are analysed at the site level. This is the level at which all data entries (7,000 records) are held and analysed in the database. A single site is segmented and has employment and turnover assigned to it. As a business can have multiple sites and can operate in more than one segment, the total counts of sites at segment level is greater than the count of businesses referred to at sector level. SME status: based on the European definition of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and refers to businesses with fewer than 250 employees and which either have annual turnover up to and including €50m and/or have an annual balance sheet total up to and including €43m. ## 1. Industry Overview The life sciences industry employed approximately 256,100 people in the UK in 20196. Approximately 131,800 (51% of the industry total) were employed in the Med Tech sector comprising the Core Med Tech and the Service & Supply segments. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest in the industry by employment and number of businesses with a total employment of 102,800 (40% of the industry) and 2,850 businesses (45% of the industry). The digital health segment is included in the Core Med Tech sector and is the largest segment in this sector with 12,900 employees (5.0% of the industry) and the second largest in the Core sectors by employment. The Core Biopharma sector contributes the largest turnover to the industry at £36.7bn (45% of the industry). This turnover is generated from 740 business (12% of the industry). Within the Core Biopharma sector, the Top 25 global pharmaceutical7 companies by revenue make up 58% of this turnover (£21.3bn) and employ 55% (34,900) of the Core Biopharma employees. The Service & Supply companies that support the Core Biopharma and Med Tech sectors have a combined employment of 89,400 compared to 166,700 for the two Core sectors. Turnover for the combined Service & Supply company sectors is £23.6bn compared to £57.1bn for the combined Core company sectors. ## 1.1 Core Sectors The two Core segments of the industry contain an estimated 3,590 businesses, with the majority in the Med Tech sector (79%). The businesses in these two sectors focus on the discovery, development and marketing of new therapies and medical devices. - On average, a Core Biopharma sector business has a turnover seven times that of a Core Med Tech business and employs twice as many people. - 32% of Core Biopharma sites have a turnover greater than £5m compared to 19% for Core Med Tech. - 8% of Core Biopharma sites have 250 or more employees compared to 2% for Core Med Tech. The global Top 30 Core Med Tech businesses by revenue8 employ 17% of the total Core Med Tech sector and their revenue accounts for 27% of the sector total. The global Top 25 Core Biopharma businesses by revenue9 employ 55% of the total Core Biopharma sector and their revenue accounts for 58% of the sector total. The largest segment in the Core Biopharma sector by employment is small molecules, employing 77% of the Core Biopharma sector. Digital Health, in contrast, is the largest segment within Core Med Tech and employs 13% of the sector total. The top 14 of 20 segments employ 90% of the Core Med Tech sector. The five largest employment segments in the two Core sectors combined employ 89,800 or 54% of the total in the Core sectors. Of the five largest segments, all but small molecules are segments within Core Med Tech. The top five segments in the two Core sectors by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, single use technology, digital health and orthopaedic devices. Together they have a combined turnover of £38.7bn or 68% of the total Core sectors; £31.7bn of which is from the small molecules segment. Of the businesses in Core Biopharma 69% are SMEs compared to 81% in the Core Med Tech sector. ## 1.2 Service & Supply Sectors Both the Core Biopharma and Med Tech businesses are supported by large specialist UK based Service & Supply sectors. The Biopharma Service & Supply sector employs 60,400 people in 1,500 businesses and generates a turnover of £18.4bn. The largest segments by employment in this sector are contract manufacturing and research, reagent & equipment suppliers, and clinical research organisation that together employ 41,100 people and account for 81% (£14.9bn) of the sector turnover. The Med Tech Service & Supply chain sector employs 29,000 people in 1,210 businesses, with a turnover of £5.2bn. The largest segments in this sector by employment are reagent & equipment suppliers, contract manufacturing and research, and specialist consultants (excluding regulatory) that together employ 15,500 people and account for 54% (£2.8bn) of the sector turnover. ## 2. Sector Overviews - Key Facts 2.1 Biopharma Sector - In total, the sector employs 124,300 people: 63,900 in Core Biopharma businesses and 60,400 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £55.1bn. - Regionally, employment in the sector is concentrated in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England, and in Scotland. - Large non-SME businesses are the major employers in Core Biopharma (91% of all employment in the sector). In the Service & Supply sector, the majority (81%) of the businesses are SMEs and employ 23% of the sector. ## 2.2 Biopharma - Core Businesses Overall, the Core Biopharma sector contains 740 businesses employing 63,900 people and a turnover of £36.7bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows that businesses whose main economic activity involves small molecule therapeutics form the largest segment, accounting for 64% (470) of sites, 77% of employees (49,200) and 86% (£31.7bn) of turnover. Antibodies, therapeutic proteins and vaccines are the next largest segments, together making up 18% (11,300) and 11% (£4.1bn) of employment and turnover respectively. Geographical analysis of employment shows Core Biopharma businesses in all areas of the UK with the greatest concentration in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England which together account for 79% (50,400) of Core Biopharma employment. Analysing the size of the businesses shows 31% (230) of Core Biopharma businesses are non-SMEs. These large businesses employ 58,200 people (91% of Core Biopharma employment) and account for £35.6bn of turnover (97% of Core Biopharma turnover). They represent 44% of total life sciences industry turnover and 23% of employment. ## 2.3 Biopharma - Service & Supply Chain Overall, the Biopharma Service & Supply chain consists of 1,500 businesses employing 60,400 people with a turnover of £18.4bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest employing segment is contract manufacturing and research organisations that consist of 320 sites employing 19,000 people. The largest segment in terms of turnover is reagent & equipment suppliers, which represents 45% (£8.3bn) of the total. Clinical research organisations complete the Top 3 Biopharma Service & Supply segments: in total the Top 3 account for 68% (41,100) of the employment. Geographical analysis of employment shows the South East and East of England combined have the most Service & Supply businesses (580) and employees (40%), followed by Scotland (10%), London (10%) and the North West of England (9%). Analysing the size of businesses shows that the Biopharma Service & Supply sector is predominately composed of SMEs (1,220) that make up 81% of businesses in the sector, yet they represent only 23% of employment (13,800 people) and 8% of turnover (£1.5bn) for the sector. ## 2.4 Med Tech Sector (Including Digital Health) - In total, the sector employs 131,800 people: 102,800 in Core Med Tech businesses and 29,000 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £25.6bn. - Core Med Tech employment is spread across the UK. While the South East, London, and the East of England account for 40% of the employment in the Service & Supply sector, 60% is outside of South Eastern England10, which is often considered to be the hub for such services. - SMEs in both Core Med Tech and Service & Supply account for a similar proportion of businesses (81% and 82% respectively) and employment (31% and 33% respectively). ## 2.5 Med Tech - Core Businesses Overall, the Core Med Tech sector contains 2,850 businesses, employing 102,800 people with a turnover of £20.4bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest segment by turnover is in vitro diagnostics followed by single use technology, digital health, orthopaedic devices, and assistive technology. These top five segments account for 42% (£8.5bn) of the Core Med Tech turnover. Digital health technology is the largest segment by employment followed by in vitro diagnostics, assistive technology, single use technology, and orthopaedic devices. These top five account for 47% (48,600) of sector employment. Geographical analysis of employment shows there are sites spread across the UK and employment is less concentrated in the South East, East of England, and London. Compared to the Core Biopharma sector where 33% of employment is outside these regions, the majority (60%; 61,300) of Core Med Tech employment is outside of South Eastern England. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that of the 2,850 businesses in Core Med Tech, 81% (2,320) are SMEs. They represent 31% (32,000) of Core Med Tech employment and 19% (£3.8bn) of Core Med Tech turnover. Core Med Tech SMEs account for 46% of the total number of life sciences SMEs. ## 2.6 Med Tech - Service & Supply Chain Overall, the sector contains 1,210 businesses that employ 29,000 and generates a turnover of £5.2bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest segment of the sector is reagent, equipment and consumables suppliers, which has the highest number of sites (300) and employs 26% (7,400) of the sector's total and 31% (£1.6bn) of its turnover. The next largest segments by employment are contract manufacturing and research followed by specialist consultants. Geographical analysis shows, in contrast to Core Med Tech, the top 3 areas are the South East and North West of England, and the East Midlands. These three areas account for 48% (14,000) of the employment and 50% (£2.6bn) of the sector turnover. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 82% (1,000) of businesses are SMEs, employing 9,600 people (33% of Med Tech Service & Supply) and accounting for £1.3bn (25%) of turnover. ## 3 Geographical Analysis - The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 (24%). The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment. - The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England, particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading, and areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester. - Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, as well as London and Reading. - The Service & Supply sectors' employment is distributed in a similar pattern to the sector they serve but less concentrated around the major conurbations. The distribution of employment by sector is shown in Figure 2. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with 61,700 (24% of the industry) employed across all four sectors. The Top 3 regions by employment include the South East followed by East of England, and the North West. Together these regions contain 50% (126,900) of all life sciences industry employees. The relative contribution of the four sectors to the overall life sciences employment in the regions is shown in Figure 3. In the South East, East of England, the North West, and London the Core Biopharma sector accounts for 33% of life sciences employment in those regions; Biopharma Service & Supply accounts for 38% of life sciences employment in Scotland, the North East of England, and Northern Ireland; Core Med Tech accounts for more than half of life sciences employment in East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and The Humber, Wales, and the South West of England; no region has Med Tech Service & Supply employment greater than 25%. Maps of the distribution of life sciences employment across the UK (Fig 4 & Fig 5) give details on the location concentrations of employment. ## 3.1 Core Biopharma And Biopharma Service & Supply Sectors Regionally The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading including areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester. The Biopharma Service & Supply sector is more widely distributed than Core Biopharma, with the Top 4 regions employing 59% of the sector (compared to 79% for Core Biopharma). In particular, Scotland contains the third largest concentration of Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment representing 10% of the sector total. ## 3.2 Core Med Tech And Med Tech Service & Supply Sectors Regionally The Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors employment has concentrations of employment in areas around London and in the North West of England. In contrast to the Biopharma sectors, Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham. ## 4 Digital Health And Genomics - The digital health segment employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn. - Between 2010 to 2019, the segment has increased employment by 3,300 and turnover by £490m. - Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in the last 10 years. - The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. - Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn. - The largest activity in the Genomics segment is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover ## 4.1 Digital Health The digital health segment is composed of 640 businesses (670 sites), the highest number of businesses for a Core segment in the life sciences industry. Digital health employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn. The estimated turnover and employment include only businesses where a significant proportion (over 20%) of their economic activity is in digital health. This approach does not include all the economic activity associated with, for example, large diversified businesses where digital health is not their main activity. Geographically, 28% of the sites are located in London along with 26% of the employment in the segment. The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. These regions together employ 57% of the segment. Analysis of the sector breakdown shows that, within digital health, hospital information systems accounts for 35% (£616m) of turnover and 30% (3,900) of employment. The e-health analytics and medical monitoring & diagnostics are the next largest sub-segments by employment and together the Top 3 sub-segments employ 8,000 people, or 62% of the segment. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 80% (510) of digital health businesses are SMEs and employ 33% of digital health jobs (4,300), contributing £330m in turnover (19%) of the digital health segment turnover. ## 4.2 Genomics Genomics is an interdisciplinary field of science and technology focused on the study of genomes. In this analysis the focus is on the study of the human genome and the application of the resulting knowledge to human health. Since the instigation of the Human Genome Project in 2001, the field and its applications have grown. The global market for equipment, reagents, and services based on genomics was estimated at over £8bn in 2015 and is forecast to grow rapidly.11 Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn12. Between 2017 and 2019 the activity has increased employment by 1,100 and turnover by £0.6bn. The largest activity in the segment is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover. Within this segment, sale of instruments is the largest activity by turnover, employing 500 (19% of the genomics total) and generating a turnover of £1.9bn (83% of the genomics total). ## 5 Industry And Sector Trends 2010-2019 In this section, the changes in employment and turnover between 2010 to 2019 are analysed using the same methodology as that from the supplemental report13, published in 2018, using a subset of the database records. These cover 98% of all 2019 records; unincorporated businesses have been omitted from the time series as historic information is not available for these undertakings. All turnover figures given in this section are given in real terms and have been deflated to bring them in line with 2019 equivalent values. - Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500 an increase of 9%, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.9%. - Total industry turnover decreased in real terms14 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019. This movement was driven by a decrease in the Core Biopharma sector (£9.3bn), which was offset by increases in the Core Med Tech sector and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). - Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900, while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400. - This decrease in the Core Biopharma sector was concentrated in the small molecule sector and over the period 2012 - 2013, during which time a number of the Top 25 pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring. - The Core Med Tech employment grew by 9,800 between 2010 to 2019, an 11% increase. - Together, employment in the Service & Supply sectors grew from 2010 to 2019 by 16,100, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900). - Over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in the United Kingdom have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. The West Midlands and Scotland were the exception to this, seeing a decrease in employment. ## 5.1 Life Sciences Industry Trends Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% compared to 2010, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)15 of 0.9%. This is compared to employment growth in all industries16 of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%. Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900 while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400. Several of the Top 25 companies, who are the majority employers in the industry, completed site closures and reorganisations during this period. The Core Med Tech sector and the Biopharma Service sector have shown employment growth in the last year (3,700). The Core Biopharma sector has remained static (+200), whilst the Med Tech Service sector has fallen (-1,700). ## Total industry turnover decreased in real terms17 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). From 2010 to 2011, total industry turnover grew but a decline followed until 2013 after which growth resumed. This decrease was primarily driven by decreased revenue of £7.6bn in the Core Biopharma sector between 2011 and 2013 after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019. These decreases were offset by a steady increase of £6.2bn from 2013 in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 234,200 237,100 231,600 234,400 237,100 245,400 252,600 251,400 252,500 254,700 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 82.4 82.9 79.8 74.7 75.5 75.4 76.4 78.8 80.6 80.7 Sites 6,180 6,350 6,490 6,670 6,660 6,790 6,740 6,640 6,980 6,850 ## Top 5 Segments Comparing the Top 5 segments of 2019 to those of 2010: - The Top 3 segments by employment have remained the same but fourth and fifth have changed with single use technology and assistive technology replacing orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment. - The Top 5 by turnover changed rank, with vaccines being replaced by digital health in the list. ## 5.2 Core Biopharma And Med Tech Sector Trends Core Biopharma The Core Biopharma sector employment fell by 5,400 (-8%) between 2010 and 2019, at a CAGR of -0.9%. Most of this decrease happened between 2012 and 2013 when employment in the small molecules segment fell by 7,200. Since 2014, sector employment has grown moderately. The segments associated with biological or advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) therapeutics all showed employment increase totalling 2,200. Over the 10 years, this sector's turnover fell by £9.3bn. Turnover decreased between 2011 and 2013, after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 69,200 69,500 62,900 61,500 62,200 64,900 66,200 63,800 63,600 63,800 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 46.0 46.0 43.1 38.4 39.1 37.9 38.0 37.8 38.7 36.7 Sites 750 770 790 820 820 840 860 870 900 890 ## Core Med Tech The Core Med Tech sector employment grew by 9,800 over the period 2010 to 2019, an increase of 11% on 2010, a CAGR of 1.1%. Twelve out of twenty segments in Core Med Tech had an increase in employment totalling 13,700, and seven segments accounted for 92% of this increase, led by digital health. Over the whole period, turnover grew in real terms by £0.5bn. In the Digital Health segment, employment increased by 3,300 and turnover by £490m, which represents 34% and 40% growth respectively. The number of sites has doubled from 330 in 2010 to 670 in 2019. Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in 2010 or later. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 92,300 94,000 95,000 95,600 96,600 98,000 100,200 101,900 100,500 102,100 20.0 20.2 20.1 19.9 19.6 19.3 19.3 19.7 19.7 20.5 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) Sites 3,030 3,070 3,100 3,180 3,120 3,170 3,130 3,070 3,200 3,120 ## 5.3 Service & Supply Sector Trends Both Service & Supply sectors increased employment and turnover between 2010 and 2019, by 16,100 and £7.2bn respectively, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900). The largest increases in these sectors were in the Biopharma contract manufacturing and research segment (5,100), and Med Tech reagent, equipment and consumable suppliers' segment (1,400). ## Biopharma Service & Supply Between 2010 and 2019, the Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment and turnover increased by 27% (12,900) and by 48% (£5.9bn) respectively. The sector exhibited steady growth in employment in all years and the CAGR over the period was 2.7%. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 47,100 47,500 47,900 49,500 50,300 53,200 55,400 55,800 57,900 60,000 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 12.4 12.6 12.3 12.1 12.2 13.3 14.0 15.9 16.8 18.3 Sites 1,320 1,400 1,460 1,510 1,540 1,570 1,570 1,560 1,630 1,620 ## Med Tech Service & Supply Between 2010 and 2019, the Med Tech Service & Supply sector employment increased by 3,200 and turnover by £1.3bn over the period. The sector had a downturn between 2018 and 2019 of 1700 employees and £0.3bn. The sector employment had a CAGR of 1.3% between 2010 and 2019. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 25,600 26,100 25,800 27,800 28,000 29,300 30,800 29,900 30,500 28,800 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.2 Sites 1,090 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,190 1,200 1,180 1,150 1,250 1,230 ## 5.4 Geographical Trends When comparing geographical employment data over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net18 increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200. The geographical net changes in employment vary by life sciences sector. These major changes are: 1. Core Biopharma - Large decrease in employment in the South East of England and an increase in the East of England. The main cause of the fall in employment in the South East was the restructuring of three Top 25 Pharma businesses that resulted in closures of a number of sites in the region. 2. Core Med Tech - Increases in all regions of England except for decreases in the West Midlands (1,700) and East of England (900). Increases in Northern Ireland (700) and Wales (600) but a large decrease in Scotland (1,800). The fall in employment in the West Midlands is due to a mixture of causes. These include movement of businesses to other UK regions and acquisition of businesses by overseas owners leading to restructuring. The main cause of the fall in Scotland was the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by one of the Top 30 Medical Device businesses. 3. Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply - Increases in the majority of regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Large increase in the South East of England in the Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors. Biopharma Service & Supply sector increases are also notable in London, North West, Yorkshire and The Humber and Northern Ireland. The West Midlands is the only region to see decreases in both Service & Supply sectors. ## Annex 1– Full Data Partners Acknowledgement Statement The Office for Life Sciences gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following regional and national organisations in the compilation of the life sciences database over the past eleven years. The content of the database has been derived from a variety of proprietary data sources which have been provided under license. The Office for Life Sciences would like to acknowledge the assistance given by the owners of these data sources. Business Information was accessed under license by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Limited and the FAME database from Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. More details on how this data is used can be found in Annex 2 below. The database construction, data integration, data analysis and commentary preparation were completed by a consortium led by Cels Business Services (CBSL) Ltd. The consortium included Kepier & Company Ltd and Lindum Research. ## Data Partners - Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI) - Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) - AXREM - BioIndustry Association (BIA) - BioNow - Biopartner - Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) - British Healthcare Trade Association (BHTA) - British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA) - HealthTech and Medicines Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) - Innovate UK - Invest Northern Ireland - MedCity - Medicines Discovery Catapult - Medilink East Midlands - Medilink North of England - Medilink South West - Medilink West Midlands - MediWales - MHRA - OBN - One Nucleus - Scottish Enterprise - South East Health Technologies Alliance (SEHTA) - TechUK - Welsh Government - West of England LEP ## Annex 2 - Methodology Summary The annual update of the database is carried out in four main phases: compiling information on new businesses and existing businesses; classification or segmentation of new businesses; matching of business details with economic data from external databases; and validation of the data set. Information on new businesses is sourced from the data partners and also by searches of publicly available and subscription databases. The data partners provide lists of businesses from their internal databases, which contain both potentially new businesses (those businesses that have been formed in the period after the last annual update) and existing businesses (those businesses that are already in the database). For existing businesses, this includes information the data partners have obtained on address changes, any information on employees at a location, or suggested segmentation changes. The information from data partners and other information sources is cleansed to remove duplicates and records already in the database and is then segmented. Segmentation assigns each new business and site to a sector and segment. In some cases, allocation can be to more than one sector or segment, for example some large multi-national businesses produce both pharmaceutical and medical devices. If, based on the information available, a business cannot be assigned to a sector and segment, it is deemed to be not-in-scope (NIS). Such NIS business information is retained but is not included in the data set used to analysis the industry. In order for a business to be classified as in-scope and their data to be included, they are assessed against the following criteria: have a legal entity in the UK; is a private limited company (this excludes universities, publicly owned institutions, NHS activities, and charities); and have 20% of their total UK turnover derived from one or more of the segments shown in Annex 319. Businesses proposed for inclusion or identified through a search of new incorporations, are checked for "proof of life" i.e. signs of economic activity such as employees, turnover, award of funding, or an active website with contact details. Businesses which fail this test but appear to be in scope are reviewed again in the next project cycle. Once the cleansed data set is prepared, it is used to source data on turnover and employment from either D&B or FAME, and from examination of published company reports or data. The turnover figures will include turnover on the sale of products wholly or partially manufactured outside the UK. The data returns from D&B and FAME are carefully checked to ensure a correct match with the business location. Further detailed validation of the data is then carried out examining significant changes in the employment and turnover data. These changes are investigated to detect any anomalies through verification against other sources. For example, large changes in employment at a business site are scrutinised to see if information is available from press releases or other information in the public domain to verify the change. In 2018, Gender Pay Gap reporting was used both to detect potential anomalies by using the compulsory employment band data, and to verify or update using more detailed information provided by businesses within their own reports. The data for individual sites under one business is examined to ensure that there is no double-counting of employment or turnover data. Once the validation analysis is completed, the data set is "locked" for the annual update cycle, ready for analysis for this publication. Postcodes attached to records in the database allow geographical analysis of employment and turnover at site level. Where available, we have validated employment data for the large businesses by using information such as annual reports or websites to identify the number and types of employment. The primary allocation of turnover to location is based on the legal entity information sourced from third party databases, validated for large businesses from annual accounts. This method of turnover reporting is used throughout the document. To bring the definition used for SME status in previous datasets in line with that used in the database from 2017 onwards, we sourced information from D&B. We used GDP deflators20 to take account of inflation across the years. We also adjusted for population demographics to represent the changing size of the potential workforce21. ## Trends Analysis In order to create trends over the period 2010 to 2019 historical information for all businesses which have matched company registration number (CRN) was sourced. This backfilling approach creates a like-for-like snapshot for each year from 2010 from which we can observe trends. Because the dataset used for the trend analysis excludes companies and records where no CRN match was possible the 2019 employment and turnover figures in the trend analysis do not match those in the single year 2019 analysis22 To gather additional economic information (employment and turnover), third-party sources including Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), FAME, and published company-filed accounts or reports are used. These are the same sources as those used to construct the main annual dataset. Where economic data could not be sourced from company-filed accounts, an algorithm was used to populate the dataset based on growth profile averages for individual segments. To source additional segmentation information, company reports and information available via Internet searches were used. This was necessary to align definitions, e.g. the merging of the 'Pharmaceutical' and 'Medical Biotechnology' sectors into 'Biopharmaceuticals' in the 2014 report. ## Segmentation The life sciences database contains information on businesses in the UK structured at the level of trading address corresponding to the 7,000 records in the database for 2019. Using this as the lowest level of information the data is aggregated to site and company level to give the estimate of total number of life sciences businesses in the UK (6,300 at sub-sector, L0 level). Each trading address or site is examined to allocate the activity carried out to one of the segments in a sector. As a small proportion of businesses in the database have more than one trading address or site and can operate in more than one sector (for example can have activity in medical technology and pharmaceuticals), the sum of number of businesses at the sector, segment, and geographical level will be greater than the total number of businesses in the UK. Each business and their individual sites are segmented depending on the main type of final medicinal product or device produced. Businesses that produce products that are directly used in healthcare are designated "Core" businesses to distinguish them from businesses that are active only in the Service & Supply chain. It should be noted that in the Biopharma sector suppliers of over the counter (OTC) medicines are included along with generic suppliers and manufacturers. Within the database, codes are used to allocate businesses and sites to one or more segments. Where a company has products that fall in more than one category. these are all coded, however only the code that represents the majority of the business activity is used in the analysis. Figure 10 breaks down the count of records in the database from the total number of businesses in life sciences down to the allocation of sites to business activity. Segmentation was reviewed for all businesses and sites in the 2014 update. During the 2015 update a number of the businesses that have large contributions to employment and turnover were reviewed for segmentation and their turnover in scope (TOS). The Pharmaceutical and Medical Biotechnology sectors were also combined into a new sector: Biopharma. Additional segmentation codes are used to further classify company activities by both product type and business activity. For example, in vitro diagnostics is further segmented into in vitro diagnostic products that involve clinical chemistry, immunochemistry etc. The business activity codes are used to code businesses and sites dependent on whether they undertake R&D, manufacturing, Service & Supply (of their products), and sales/distribution (of their products). The codes for each sector containing Core businesses are shown in Annex 3. The Service & Supply chain sectors that serve the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors are coded with the prefix BP and MT respectively followed by the appropriate number to define the type of service or supply. ## Alignment With Standard Industry Classification (Sic) Codes Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes are used to classify businesses by industry in administrative statistics. This was last updated in 200823. This classification system has categories for businesses whose primary activity is the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, manufacture of types of medical equipment, and those whose primary activity is biotechnology R&D. The SIC system, however, does not allow identification of the full range of life sciences businesses. A bespoke industry segmentation based on this wider range, specifically to be used in the database, was defined with the assistance of the data partners and is summarised in Annex 3. This is the classification system used in this report. We have analysed the SIC codes of the businesses within the database and only 25% of businesses in the life sciences database fall into the standard SIC codes used to identify the life sciences industry. The remaining businesses fall into another 250 SIC codes, demonstrating the on-going need for this report and for the life sciences database to describe and analyse the full breadth of this industry. For comparison, Table 6 shows the total employment and turnover for businesses in the database with SIC codes typically used to define the life sciences industry. \| SIC code description \| SIC \| Number of \| Employment \| \| Turnover \| \|----------------------------------\|--------\|--------------\|--------------\|------\|-------------\| \| Code \| Sites \| \| £bn \| \| \| \| Manufacture of Basic \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Pharmaceuticals \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 21100 \| 280 \| 42,900 \| 22.7 \| \| \| \| Manufacture of pharmaceutical \| \| \| \| \| \| \| preparations \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 21200 \| 120 \| 10,200 \| 3.5 \| \| \| \| 26600 \| 40 \| 1,500 \| 0.4 \| \| \| \| Manufacture of Irradiation, \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Electromedical and \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Electrotherapeutic Equipment \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Manufacture of Medical and \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Dental Equipment and Supplies \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 32500 \| 530 \| 28,000 \| 5.7 \| \| \| \| Research and Experimental \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Development on Biotechnology \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 72110 \| 820 \| 14,000 \| 5.0 \| \| \| \| Total life sciences based on SIC \| 1,790 \| \| 96,600 \| 37.3 \| \| \| Total life sciences in database \| 7,000 \| 256,100 \| 80.7 \| \| \| ## The additional benefit of the segmentation approach used in the life sciences database is the ability to make a more granular assessment of the sector, including growth rates and trends. For example, this is the only source of definitive information that shows employment and growth rates in digital health or allows us to understand the growth of advanced therapy medicinal products. ## Timeline Of Events The trends described in this report should be considered in context. A short timeline of political and life sciences-specific events is detailed below. This does not attempt to explain causality or justify the trends detailed above and should be viewed as contextual information only. \| Date \| Event \| \|-------------------------\|--------------------------------------------------------------\| \| May 2010 \| UK General Election \| \| Autumn 2010 \| Formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England \| \| December 2011 \| Strategy for UK Life Sciences published \| \| Duration of 2012 \| City Deals wave 1 (8 cities) \| \| Duration of 2013 \| City Deals wave 2 (18 cities) \| \| March 2014 \| Formation of the Office for Life Sciences \| \| Late 2014 to early 2015 \| Devolution Deals (3 city regions) \| \| May 2015 \| UK General Election \| \| Duration of 2015 \| Growth Deals (39 LEPs) \| \| June 2016 \| Referendum on UK leaving the European Union \| \| June 2017 \| UK General Election \| \| August 2017 \| Life Sciences Industrial Strategy published \| \| December 2017 \| Life Sciences Sector Deal launched \| \| December 2018 \| Life Science Sector Deal 2 launched \| Annex 3 - Company ownership The data sources contain information on the ultimate global owner of the businesses in the database. This information is available for 69% of the records in the database. However, the businesses where the owner origin is not known have a low economic impact as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12. ## Annex 4 - Segmentation Codes Biopharma Core (BP) Code Description BPA Antibodies BPB Therapeutic Proteins BPC Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) BPD Vaccines BPE Small Molecules BPF Blood & Tissue Products Service & Supply Chain (MX/BX) Code Description X01 Clinical Research Organisation X02 Contract Manufacturing Organisation X03 Contract Formulation Manufacturing X04 Assay developer X05 Analytical Services X06 Formulation/Drug delivery specialist X07 Reagent, Equipment & consumables supplier X08 Regulatory Expertise X09 Patent and Legal specialist X10 Logistics & Packaging X11 Information systems specialists X12 Tissue and Biomass X13 Market Analysis/Specialist consultants X14 Contract design X15 Training X16 Recruitment X17 Investment Companies X18 Healthcare service provider24 Business Activity Code Description BAA Research & Development, including Design BAB Manufacture BAC Sales / Distribution BAD Service & Supply Chain Genomics Code Main Value Chain GenA Sampling GenB Sequencing GenC Analysis GenD Interpretation GenE Application GenX N.E.C 24 Healthcare service providers have been designated as "out of scope" for this study. No new records have been added to the dataset in 2019. Existing records will be removed in 2020 and adjustments made accordingly. Medical Tech Core (MT) Code Description MTA Wound Care & Management MTB In vitro diagnostic technology MTC Radiotherapy equipment MTD Medical Imaging/Ultrasound Equipment MTE Anaesthetic and respiratory technology MTF Orthopaedic Devices MTG Cardiovascular & vascular devices MTH Neurology MTI Ophthalmic Devices/Equipment MTJ Dental and maxillofacial technology MTK Drug Delivery MTL Infection Control MTM Surgical Instruments (reusable) n.e.c. MTN Single use technology n.e.c. MTO Re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment n.e.c. MTP Implantable devices n.e.c. MTQ Assistive Technology MTR Mobility Access MTS Hospital hardware including ambulatory MTT Digital health Digital Health Code Description MTT01 Hospital information systems MTT02 GP information systems MTT03 Social Alarms/Communications devices MTT04 Personal medical records MTT05 Telemed (medical monitoring) and telediag MTT06 E-health - data analytics MTT07 Digital Medical Electronics MTT08 Professional Mobile health devices MTT09 Professional Mobile health services/apps MTT10 Consumer Mobile health devices MTT11 Consumer Mobile health services/apps MTT12 Training simulators and robotics ## Annex 5 - Data Quality Principles As an Official Statistics publication, we aim to collect data and present this report in line with principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics25 to engender trust in our data and encourage the use of this report as a reliable source of life sciences data. This data quality statement covers the fourteen principles under the three pillars of the Code: trustworthiness, quality and value. ## Trustworthiness: T1: Honesty and integrity - Data is collected, processed and quality assured by an independent contractor. The initial technical specification is set by professional analysts within the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) who also engage regularly with the contractor, review methodological aspects, and undertake further quality assurance checks before publication. T2: Independent decision making and leadership - OLS analysts abide by the Code of Practice, keeping pre-publication access to the data strictly to those involved in the report's creation and ensuring the statistical integrity of content. The Department's Head of Profession for Statistics is engaged when necessary. T3: Orderly release - Pre-publication access to the report is restricted to those involved in the report's creation and publication. The report meets Government Statistical Service (GSS) standards of statistical impartiality, separating statistical commentary from any political, press or ministerial statements. Subsequent statements by the government using data from this report quote this source and non-governmental users are encouraged to do the same. Unscheduled corrections are released as soon as is practicable, alongside an explanatory note on both the cause and impact of the error, in line with the Code of Practice. T4: Transparent processes and management - Substantial financial and administrative resources are employed to enable this data collection and effective quality assurance, including a proportion for further development of the report each year in light of new user requirements or new methodology / collection possibilities. We are transparent about our methodology and approach to quality, as evidenced in Annex 2. T5: Professional capability - Data is collected, processed and quality assured by a consortia contractor. Each individual has appropriate analytic capabilities, data protection awareness and industry-specific expertise, and has been involved in the production of the report for several years. The report 'owners' within OLS are professional badged government analysts. T6: Data governance - All professionals involved in the creation, publication and storage of this dataset are well-versed in data protection and operate in compliance with data protection legislation. We publish the maximum amount of data available without contravening third-party licence agreements, utilising GSS best practice for statistical disclosure control (e.g. banding commercially sensitive variables). ## Quality: Q1: Suitable data sources - Full methodology including a description of third-party administrative data sources and their suitability can be found in Annex 2. The annex also contains a comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source. Different segmentation levels and how these are aggregated into final figures are explained in Annex 2, with the glossary defining key terms to ensure users are clear at what level figures are presented (e.g. businesses vs. sites). Q2: Sound methods - Full methodology can be found in Annex 2, alongside assumptions made. Terminology is consistent through the report and accompanying files, with clear descriptions in the glossary. Year-on-year trends are for real growth only based on like-for-like data against the previous year. The method used for the real growth calculations is explained in the Annex 2.To ensure long-term trends are calculated using the most robust methodology and greatest level of data available, we will be undertaking extra trend analysis which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. Q3: Assured quality - Rigorous quality assurance has been undertaken by the contractor, OLS statisticians and an external business analyst within the wider Department. Quality assurance is a significant part of the technical specification and contract tendering process and is reviewed each year. When an unscheduled revision was necessary following the postpublication identification of an error in a previous report, we immediately alerted users, engaged with the Department's Head of Profession for Statistics, and published an explanation of the cause and impact of the error alongside the revised report, all in accordance with the Code of Practice. ## Value: V1: Relevance to users - We review content each year based on user needs, allowing a proportion of resource for that year's topic of interest. In previous years this has led to the inclusion of digital health and genomics as chapters in their own right, with a new cross-cutting classification designed to identify businesses operating it genomics. This year the topic of interest is a portrayal of long-term trends using an alternative methodology which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. In response to user feedback, this year we have further extended the fields in the publicly available underlying businesses dataset to include all fields for which we are not restricted by commercial licences. In particular, we now include a unique reference number for each site. V2: Accessibility - Data is free and equally available to all, published on gov.uk with no restrictions to access. Underlying data is published up to the extent our commercial licenses allow, with banded variables where we cannot provide exact figures. Commentary is objective and a range of graphical visualisations are used to aid comprehension. V3: Clarity and insight - Commentary on the current size and shape of the life sciences sector is objective, focussing on impartial statistical messages. Charts and maps are used to illustrate these. Key statistical messages are highlighted up front. A comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source, is presented in Annex 2. The database itself is created through collaboration with a range of industry experts, including region-specific and sector-specific representation through trade bodies and other network organisations. V4: Innovation and improvement - We review content, presentation and methodology each year based on user needs. Past development has primarily been around scope and how to identify new and emerging segments of the life sciences sector, e.g. digital health and genomics. Each new approach to scope is explored and tested with our data partners, and the statistical impact is fully considered before implementation. Other developments have included extending the scope of publicly available data fields. V5: Efficiency and proportionality - Where possible, the database draws on existing information using third party sources, such as the D&B and FAME datasets and company accounts. All data partners are voluntary contributors. The need for this health life sciences database and report arises from the difficulty in identifying the life sciences sector from already-existing ONS sources since they use SIC codes, which do not encapsulate the full extent of the life sciences. In particular, as SIC codes were last refreshed in 2008, they do not allow easy identification of new and emerging segments within the medical technology sector, such as digital health. The database and report provide a valuable and robust evidence base on the size and shape of the UK life science sector.	en
0189-pdf	## B Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Final report Councillors Brathwaite (Chair), Bigham, Kingsbury, Ogden and C. Whelan OBE March 2013 ## Contents \| Contents \| 2 \| \|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------\| \| Executive Summary 3 \| \| \| List of Recommendations \| 4 \| \| Chair's Foreword and Introduction \| 6 \| \| Legislative position and responsibilities \| 7 \| \| What we know about metal theft 10 \| \| \| The national picture \| 10 \| \| London 12 \| \| \| Lambeth 13 \| \| \| What we know about the crime and the criminals 16 \| \| \| Past, current and future activity 17 \| \| \| The council \| 17 \| \| The Police 25 \| \| \| Heritage assets 27 \| \| \| Infrastructure 29 \| \| \| Scrap Metal Dealers \| 30 \| \| Other local authorities 31 \| \| \| Conclusions 35 \| \| \| Recommendations 37 \| \| \| Notes and thanks 40 \| \| \| Terms of reference and core questions 40 \| \| \| Methodology \| 40 \| \| Thanks 41 \| \| \| References \| 42 \| \| \| \| \| Appendix A - Letter to Public Bill Committee 44 \| \| \| Appendix B - List of Scrap Metal Dealers registered with LB Lambeth 45 \| \| \| Appendix C - Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan 46 \| \| \| Appendix D - LB Bexley Metal Theft awareness publicity materials 52 \| \| \| \| \| ## Executive Summary The Report Considers The Scale And Impact Of Metal Theft In The London Borough Of Lambeth. It examines the roles and responsibilities of the various council departments and identifies that the council does not currently have a clear understanding of the local scrap metal trade and is not making full use of its powers in relation to the trade. The commission identifies some good practice within the authority, particularly its commitment to the Alliance to Reduce Crime Against Heritage (ARCH) memorandum of understanding, and identifies a number of areas where the council and its partners could work better together to reduce metal theft. ## The commission's work was undertaken as the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 was being considered by Parliament. The Act is the first major reform to the scrap metal trade in 48 years. The commission welcomes the strengthened powers provided in the new legislation but does not consider it to be a panacea. Instead, the commission recommends that in the period prior to the new Act's commencement, and beyond, the council and its partners implement a partnership action plan to tackle the issue in a holistic manner. ## The report concludes that, whilst there is significant work that could be done within Lambeth, it is unlikely to have a significant impact unless similar work is replicated by the borough's neighbours. The commission therefore recommends that the Cabinet Member works closely with the council's partners and neighbours to develop and enforce a voluntary code of conduct for the scrap metal trade with a view to this being adopted pan-London once its sub-regional success can be demonstrated. ## List Of Recommendations (A) That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (ii) That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach (B) That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report (C) That following development of a draft code of conduct the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, supported by the Chair of the Commission, lead on negotiations with Lambeth's neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, lay the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of our area (D) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership, and relevant constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) and implement actions accordingly (i) That progress against the plan's key milestones be reported back to Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (E) That reassurance be sought from the Borough Commander that Lambeth Police are fully committed to tackling metal theft ,resourcing it accordingly and that specific consideration be given to the following (i) That confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank (ii) That consideration be given to equipping all officers with portable ultraviolet lights to enable them to immediately identify property marking such as SmartWater (F) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership make clear to residents what number they should call if they witness suspicious activity (G) That partnership working with the full range of those operating in the policy area be improved specifically: (i) Links between the council and the British Transport Police 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on specific scrap metal dealers, is shared (ii) Links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore undertaking joint action (iii) Links with British Telecom's public relations team to identify opportunities for a shared communications campaign (iv) Opportunities for joint training between the Police, council officers and partners so that each are aware of each others issues and powers (v) Opportunities for the Police and council officers to undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and the Metal Theft Days of Action (H) That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) (I) That the council report back to Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub- Committee on how it disposes of its own scrap metal to ensure that the value is returned to the council (J) That all outstanding recommendations relating to council-owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers be implemented immediately ## Chair'S Foreword And Introduction My curiosity into metal theft arose following a spate of metal theft in Lambeth. Lambeth citizens have experienced disruptions to rail services, interruptions to telecommunications, theft of lead and copper from the roofs of churches, schools, private and council buildings, the theft of street signs, gully and manhole covers, and, most reprehensible, theft from war and grave memorials. We felt that criminals were endangering our heritage and councillors were not about to sit back and let that happen. During the course of the commission members sought advice from the police, local scrap metal-dealers, local churches, British Telecom, Network Rail, community groups and individual residents. Whilst it was clear that agencies worked very hard to tackle metal theft in their own industries or areas, the commission was struck by the lack of a coordinated approach to metal theft. We have sought to address this recommending a more strategic approach to the prevention, investigation, enforcement and prosecution of metal theft. We want to ensure that the council, our neighbours and partners share expertise and resources and work smarter together. In addition the commission strongly believed that the community could play a pivotal role in the prevention and detection of metal theft. They are in effect the eyes and ears of the council and should be positively encouraged to look out for and report suspicious behaviour that might be related to metal theft. While the commission welcomed the introduction of a licensing regime for scrap metal dealers in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 we felt that reliance on the Act alone was not enough to deter metal theft in the borough. Robust policy changes and initiatives at a local level are needed to continue the recent decline in metal theft. I would like to give my thanks to the members of the commission for their time and genuine commitment to the task of tackling metal theft in the borough. We are grateful to all those who gave their time to our work but are especially indebted to Nicole Terrieux and Kristian Aspinall in the Community Safety Team and PC Rob Harrison for their support in the development of the partnership action plan that will be the driving force for change. I would also like to thank Tom Barrett, Scrutiny Manager, for his invaluable input and for coordinating our approach to what we discovered was a very complex issue. ## Legislative Position And Responsibilities 1. The commission began its work by identifying the wide range of legislative powers that can already be applied to the issue of metal theft. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is the main existing piece of legislation that regulates scrap metal dealers. It requires the council to issue licences to scrap metal dealers and, to maintain a register of persons operating in the borough as scrap metal dealers. Once registered with a local authority dealers must maintain records giving the following information: - a description of the scrap metal and its weight; - the date and time it was received; - the full name and address of the person from whom it was received; - the price payable for it or its value; - if the scrap metal was delivered by vehicle, the registration number of that vehicle; - the date the scrap metal was processed or dispatched; - the full name and address of the person to whom the scrap metal was sold or exchanged and the price; - if the scrap metal is disposed of otherwise than by sale or exchange, its value immediately before its disposal or processing1 2. In Lambeth dealers apply to register through completing a form, there is no fee payable and the council is unable to refuse registration nor can it impose any operating conditions. 3. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 was amended in early 2012 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012. LASPO increased the maximum level of fines available for offences under the 1964 Act, made trading in cash illegal for non-itinerant dealers and introduced new powers for the police to enter premises. The provisions relating to cashless trading were enacted in December 2012. 4. As demonstrated in Table 1 there are a range of regulatory provisions that are applicable to the scrap metal trade including those related to waste transfer, transporting waste, burning cable insulation and requiring planning permission for scrap metal yards. The Environment Agency has national responsibility for regulation and enforcement of the 'waste' element including responsibility for permitting sites, licensing waste transportation and other hazardous waste systems. In addition to the regulatory framework there is also the criminal framework relating to handling stolen goods and motor salvage regulations. With regard to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 the general consensus was that the Act was well past its sell by date. - Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 (registration with local authority and requirements on SMDs re keeping records) - Theft Act 1968 (handling stolen goods) - Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (makes it a criminal offence to transport waste without being a registered Waste Carrier with the Environment Agency) - Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Scrap Metal Dealers required to have a permit to operate from Environment. Agency) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (requires Scrap Metal yards to have planning permission) - Clean Air Act 1993 (makes it a criminal offence to burn insulation from cables with a view to recovering metal- often an indication of an illegal scrap yard) - Vehicle Crimes Act 2001 (Motor Salvage Operators Regs 2002 requires motor salvage operators to register with the local authority and keep appropriate records) - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (increase fines in SMD'64; ban on cashless trading (not itinerants); police powers of entry to Scrap Metal Dealers) 5. As the commission began its work the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, a Private Members Bill taken up by Richard Ottaway MP (Croydon South), began its journey through Parliament. As the commission finished its report the Bill completed its journey through parliament successfully and was awaiting enactment. The new legislation repeals and replaces the 1964 Act with one that will 'empower local authorities with a more robust and enforceable licence regime for all those who deal and collect scrap metal'2 . Key elements of the new legislation are as follows:  No person can carry on business as a scrap metal dealer without a scrap metal licence  The scrap metal licence is to be issued by the local authority  The local authority must not issue or renew a license if it is not satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to operate a scrap metal business  A local authority will have the power to close down scrap metal yards operating without a license  Where an applicant, licensee or manager has a criminal record relevant to metal dealing the local authority may impose conditions upon or vary the license so as to restrict trade  It will be an offence to receive metal from a person without first verifying that person's identity  Dealers will be required to keep records for each sale and disposal for a period of three years  The extension of cashless trading to itinerant dealers3 : it will be an offence for a scrap metal dealer to pay for metal received other than by cheque or an electronic transfer  The introduction of a national public register of all Scrap Metal Dealers kept by the Environment Agency  The local authority has the power to revoke licences in certain circumstances  Local authorities and the police will have new powers to enter and inspect premises carrying on scrap metal business  The Act specifically widens the definition of Scrap Metal Dealers to include Motor Salvage Operators 6. As part of its work the commission submitted its views on the (then) draft legislation to the Public Bill Committee (House of Commons). This submission is set out in Appendix A to this report. Whilst the commission welcomes the main provisions of the soon-to-be Act councillors felt that the inability to impose local conditions on a licence was a significant omission. However, the commission's lobbying on this point proved unsuccessful, save for the provision that the Act would be reviewed within five years to ensure that it had met its objectives. The commission felt that despite the numerous current and proposed legislations relating to with metal trade and theft, the council, as an enforcement agency, needed to be in a position to apply current and new legislative powers and responsibilities if Lambeth is to effectively tackle metal theft in the borough. The commission recognises that there is the issue of manpower and resources that needs to be addressed. 7. In the course of its work the commission was repeatedly reminded that successfully tackling metal theft required a response from beyond just those with legislative or regulatory powers. As such the commission considered evidence and information from British Telecom, English Heritage, the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, local churches, the Friends of West Norwood Cemetery, and a local scrap metal dealer. The commission also attended a conference organised by the Local Government Association that included speakers from the Energy Networks Association, the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, the Environment Agency, the British Metals Recycling Association (the trade association for scrap metal dealers) and a number of local authorities exhibiting best-practice in the area. Examples of work that each are undertaking are included in the Past, Current and Future Activity section of this report. ## What We Know About Metal Theft The National Picture 8. Estimates of the total social and economic cost of metal theft to the UK vary. The most recent studies estimate it at £220m per year (Home Office, 2011), between £220m-260m per year (Deloitte, 2011) and £777m per year (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2010)4. The LGA's Metal Theft Toolkit records that in 2011, '15,000 tonnes of metal were stolen, of which 7,500 tonnes came from railways, statues and church roofs. The cost of the thefts to the railways alone amounted to £13 million, with many more millions lost as a result of delays to passengers'5 . Nationally metal theft frequency is decreasing with both the Met and the British Transport Police (BTP) recording year-on-year decreases. Despite this 2011 was the worst year on record for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group who recorded over 2,500 metal theft related claims during the period. 9. The commission was provided with evidence from both the Police and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group that metal theft was closely linked to commodity prices (see Figure 1). Those prices were closely linked to global industrial growth, particularly by the two largest consumers of copper; China and the US 6. The slow-down in the global economy resulted in falls in the price of copper during 20127 and it was suggested to the commission that this may be one of the reasons for the decrease in metal theft during the last couple of years. Although the worldwide prices of scrap metal have recently fallen in recent years, it is generally believed that prices will stay at elevated levels for some time. So the problem of metal theft is not going away. 10. In terms of impact National Rail estimated that in 2010/11 3.8m passenger journeys were delayed or cancelled as a result of cable theft, causing 360,000 delay minutes and resulting in £16.5m compensation payments to train operators 9. Simon Davies, General Manager for Cable and Payphone Crime, British Telecom (BT) explained to the commission that metal theft was costing BT millions of pounds and taking up thousands of man hours every year. Single cuts to BT cable could result in thousands of people being without telephone or broadband services and in the most extreme cases result in complete community isolation (as had happened on the Isle of Skye). The commission noted that whilst being regular victims of metal theft Network Rail were also the largest contributor to the legitimate UK scrap metal industry. Local authorities were the third largest contributor10 11. In March 2012 the Environment Agency had permitted 831 scrap metal sites nationally, were aware of 317 active illegal sites and had stopped 190 illegal sites from operating. However, the commission learned that estimates by BT of the number of sites far exceeded those of both the Environment Agency and records kept by local authorities. ## London 12. The Metropolitan Police's pan London Operational Co-ordinator for Metal Theft Acting Inspector James Coomber, informed the commission that the national correlation between the number of crimes and commodity prices was repeated at a regional level. Looking at the London region as a whole it is the outer North East and South East boroughs that have the highest volume of metal theft crime. Croydon was known to have over 50 itinerant dealers registered and had experienced the highest number of incidents of metal theft in both 2011 and 2012. Acting Inspector Coomber informed the commission that there was also a clear correlation between the number of scrap metal dealers and the number of metal theft crimes in an area11 . 13. In London the Metropolitan Police was reporting a 30% decline in metal theft incidents in 2012 and British Transport Police (BTP) had also recorded yearon-year declines (see Table 2 below). However both BTP and the Met cautioned that this was a result of both increased police activity and a reduction in commodity prices. The British Metals Recycling Association had predicted that the price of copper would increase from its slump in 2012 and in their evidence to the commission English Heritage warned that, despite a drop in metal theft last year, they were concerned that an increase in commodities prices or a decrease in police focus on the issue would spark a resurgence in metal theft. \| \| \| \| \| \| Live \| Non-live \| \|--------------\|---------\|---------\|------------\|---------\|---------\|-------------\| \| \| 2010/11 \| 2011/12 \| 2012 - Oct \| 2010/11 \| 2011/12 \| 2012 - Oct \| \| London North \| 102 \| 142 \| \| 184 \| 172 \| \| \| London South \| 114 \| 64 \| 33 \| 203 \| 165 \| 60 \| \| London \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Underground \| 22 \| 42 \| \| 99 \| 64 \| \| \| Total \| 238 \| 248 \| \| 486 \| 401 \| \| ## Lambeth 14. The commission received detailed information from the Metropolitan Police relating to the prevalence and value of metal theft in Lambeth (see Table 3). In 2011 there were 168 incidents with metal worth £206k stolen and by September 2012 there had been 85 incidents with metal worth £122k stolen. Figures did not exist prior to 2011 as the Met had only recently begun tracking metal theft as a specific crime (previously it had been recorded under 'theft'). 15. In comparison to Croydon, Southwark and Lewisham, Lambeth suffers less from metal theft. However, as was highlighted by Cllr Jack Hopkins, Lambeth's Cabinet Member for Public Protection in his session with the commission, despite being low volume and generally small scale crimes the impact of metal theft was high (see case studies). The volume and type of thefts from authorities neighbouring Lambeth was also cause for concern to the commission. Southwark particularly had suffered a number of high profile thefts of public art (notably the Barbara Hepworth sculpture from Dulwich Park 15 and a statue dedicated to Alfred Salter MP ) whilst the spate of thefts in Richard Ottaway's Croydon South constituency, including church roofs and war memorials, led to his introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill. Members of Case study: St Peter's Church - Leigham Court Road, Streatham , St Leonards ward St Peter's Church is a Grade II* listed building. It was built in two main stages in 1870 and the mid-1880s. New vestries (with flat roofs) were added in the early 1900s. Lead thefts from the church started in the summer of 2008. There have been 6 lead thefts since then, the last was in January 2012. All of the lead thefts have been done to areas which can be accessed by climbing up drain pipes or lightening conductor tape. None of the thefts have involved ladders. On one occasion there was evidence that they used the church's tools and the church's wheel barrow to assist the theft. Since 2008 the Church introduced a range of additional security measures including the use of SmartWater, anti-climb-paint and new railings (for which it had taken 6-months to get the necessary planning permission from the council despite the urgency of the matter). In March 2012 St Peter's were able to access seed-funding from the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group to pay for the fitting of an alarm-system. Since then the Church had not experienced any thefts. In the course of discussion with the commission the Clerk of Works at St Peter's indicated that some success had also been experienced through contacting the Church's neighbours to increase there awareness that thefts had taken place. Since doing so the Police had been called on a number of occasions when suspicious activity had been spotted. The Clerk of Works also indicated that the Church had been disappointed at the lack of advice on protecting themselves provided by the Police, though that provided by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group had been excellent. the commission were also pleased to learn that colleagues in Wandsworth were taking the issue seriously. 16. The commission was also conscious of the borough's geography, that it was long and thin, and the major roads that ran through it, particularly the A23. This meant that it was easy for Lambeth itinerant dealers to travel outside of the borough and for non-Lambeth itinerant dealers to travel into, across and through the borough. This placed a greater emphasis on the importance of joint number plate recognition activities with the Police (see reference to Operation Cubo later in this report). Furthermore it made the commission aware that if metal is collected locally it is unlikely, due to our geography, to be processed locally thus making a joint approach with neighbouring authorities more important. 17. Given the link between crime volume and number of scrap metal dealers it is perhaps not surprising that Lambeth only has 12 scrap metal dealers registered in the borough. Of these four are physical scrap metal yards and the remaining . This compares to fifty-plus itinerant traders in eight are itinerant traders16 Croydon. Please review Appendix B for a list of the Scrap Metal Dealers operating in Lambeth. 18. However, the commission had cause to question the accuracy of the council's register. The commission were provided with a restricted profile of scrap metal merchants and metal theft in the borough prepared by Lambeth Police in August 2011. That document included a list of 8 scrap metal dealers in or on the borders of Lambeth. None of those appearing on the Police's list were registered on the Council's list and vice versa. Furthermore, in his evidence to the commission, the Council's Licensing Manager indicated that he had become aware of four un-registered scrap metal dealers as a result of health and safety audits undertaken by other parts of the Environmental Health Team. As a result, letters have been sent to each of the four unregistered dealers insisting that they register. However, the discrepancies between the information held suggests that there can be little certainty that either the Police or local authority have an authoritative record of Scrap Metal Dealers operating in Lambeth. It also suggests a lack of information sharing between the council and the Police. 19. The commission was also conscious of the relevance of motor salvage operators (MSOs) in relation to the scrap metal trade. The council is required to register MSOs and the powers available to it are stronger than those for registering scrap metal dealers (for example registration can be refused). However, there is only one registered operator in the borough. Given the apparent inaccuracies in the register of scrap metal dealers the commission thought it very likely that the register for MSOs was out of date and did not reflect the number of MSOs actually working in the borough. 20. The commission was provided with detailed information relating to the location of council-owned buildings that had been the subject of metal theft. Prior to 2007 there had been no insurance claims relating to metal theft but since then there had been 56, more than half of which related to either Libraries (16) or Schools (13). The total value of claims was close to £207,00017 . The commission noted that the council's buildings, as is common practice for local authorities, are insured for catastrophe cover only with an excess of £500,000. As such the £207,000 figure was, or is to be, met entirely from council funds via a reserve set-aside for insurance claims. In addition to council-owned buildings the commission also received the following information from the Council's Public Realm Division: No of instances Total Cost (£) 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 Total; Description Time Plates (Parking/Disabled Bays) 7,680 48 0 10 0 58 Metal Bollards / Cast Iron Bollards 17,434 22 21 3 6 52 Signs (Parking and Direction) 6,930 9 2 25 1 37 Posts (street name plates/Signs) 9,499 16 7 7 1 31 Frames (Gully/Manhole cover) 25,230 19 38 15 2 74 Street Name Plates 29,912 43 60 5 16 123 Guard Rails 676 4 0 0 0 4 Total 97,361 161 128 65 26 379 21. Whilst this too shows a declining trend the prevalence, total value and level of risk presented to the public from the loss of, for example, 80 gully or manhole covers was a shock to the commission. Members were pleased to note that a number of steps are being taken to reduce exposure to metal theft including fitting plastic parking signs, fixing road name plates out of reach and not replacing bollards as part of street de-cluttering. These steps may go some way in explaining the decline in theft of non-insured assets in the borough. ## What We Know About The Crime And The Criminals 22. Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther (British Transport Police and Association of Chief Police Officers lead on metal theft) characterised metal theft as similar to the illegal drugs market in reverse: small packages are stolen which are then bundled and exported. DCC Crowther highlighted that the riskreward ratio was in favour of criminals; the average fine in 2010 was £369. The relatively small fines also acted as a disincentive to pursue prosecution18 . However, DCC Crowther felt that the removal of limits on fines for the most serious offences and introduction of cashless trading in the LASPO Act would go some way to addressing these problems. The commission agreed that the removal of an upper limit in financial penalties for the most serious offences represented a significant increase in the powers of the Magistrate court. We nevertheless felt that in practice, given the past level of fines, the removal of the upper limit on fines may not translate into magistrates imposing higher fines unless Lambeth together with the prosecuting authority, took a more robust approach to all cases of metal theft. For example, to persuade the magistrate to look beyond the value of the material stolen when deciding the level of fines, impact statements19 by Lambeth officers should be submitted to highlight other consequences of metal theft in addition to the financial impact. 20 23. The majority of metal theft in Lambeth was opportunistic with only a small percentage of crimes being large scale. This reflected two different types of criminality: the opportunist and the organised criminal. Of the 88 offences in Lambeth recorded in the six months prior to August 2011 39 related to copper theft and 32 to lead. The remaining types of metal were only in single figures (e.g. cabling, brass and steel). ## Past, Current And Future Activity 24. In February 2012 the LGA surveyed English and Welsh councils to ascertain if they had been affected by metal theft since April 2009. 70% of the authorities that responded had been affected with 18% reporting that they had suffered major consequences as a result. 39% of those surveyed had prosecuted thieves and/or scrap metal dealers. Mark Norris, Senior Adviser on policing, community safety and re-offending policy for the LGA, informed the commission that the broad conclusion of the survey was that many authorities were affected, but fewer had been doing anything about it at the time of the survey. The commission was therefore interested in what Lambeth had done, was doing and planned to do to address the issue. ## The Council 25. The two parts of the council with the greatest responsibility for tackling metal theft were the Public Realm Division, part of the Housing, Regeneration and Environment Department and the Community Safety Team, part of the Culture and Communities Division of the Adult and Community Services Department. The commission interviewed officers from both areas. 26. The Public Realm Division is responsible for a wide range of services relating to the maintenance and development of the public environment including: consumer protection (licensing and trading standards) street care and management. The Division is responsible for registering scrap metal dealers in accordance with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. In its sessions with the commission it was revealed that no enforcement activity (such as checking to ensure that the requirements of registration were being met (e.g. keeping records)) had been undertaken by the Division beyond fulfilling the legislative requirement to register dealers. Officers explained that this was because there was no funding for registration and therefore no capacity to undertake such work. In addition officers felt that there was insufficient call for a proactive approach and inadequate legislative powers should they do so. As a result the department did not have an established relationship with those Scrap Metal Dealers they had registered. 27. Public Realm officers were aware of the changes brought in by the LASPO Act and the proposals in the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill (soon-to-be Act) but did not propose to take any action until those pieces of legislation were in place. The impression given to the commission was that, once funding was attached to a licensing regime (as per the new Scrap Metal Dealers legislation), the department would be able to engage more proactively with local scrap metal dealers. Officers estimated that £4-500 was the likely indicative cost per licence issued and would be sufficient to fund a single enforcement visit per year. The frequency of enforcement visits was likely to be in line with the perceived risk of each dealer. 28. Officers indicated that there was occasional communication with the police relating to whether or not businesses were registered. However, the department did not share information (for example on itinerant traders) with neighbouring authorities and there appeared to be a lack of communication between the relevant council departments. For example there was no mechanism by which trading standards would be notified when the roof from West Norwood Library was stolen so that, for example, an alert could be sent to local dealers21 . Members of the commission were also concerned at the apparent incompleteness of the council's register and that it appeared that it was only by chance that the Licensing Manager had become aware of the additional four dealers that had undertaken health and safety audits within the same Division. 29. Overall the commission was disappointed that the Division were not taking a more proactive approach to the issue. In particular they felt that there had been a failure to create downward pressure on the local scrap metal industry through proper enforcement of the range of legislation available to them (particularly the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and environmental protection powers) and a lack of coordination with the likes of the Police or Environment Agency. This perception was also reflected in the Division's approach to the new Scrap Metal Dealers legislation. The commission felt that officers were treating the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill as a panacea when in fact tackling the problem was a far wider issue requiring a range of approaches. Given the link between levels of theft and the number of dealers it was quite clear to the commission that one of the most important first steps the Division needed to take was getting a clear idea of the number of scrap metal dealers in the borough and establishing an ongoing relationship with them. 30. Some of the concerns that the commission had regarding closer working between council departments were addressed in discussion with Adrian Smith, Divisional Director, Culture and Communities and the officer with overall responsibility for the council's Community Safety Team. Mr Smith indicated that the council was moving away from separate functions towards a more integrated model of enforcement under the banner of 'community safeguarding'. The commission were informed that the model would go some way to getting the multiple enforcement specialisms (community safety, environmental crime, licensing, noise, trading standards, foods, health and safety) sharing resources and intelligence and working better together. 31. The Community Safety Team informed the commission that metal theft had not been identified as a priority issue in the Safer Lambeth Partnership's22 annual strategic assessment. Despite this, in partnership with Lambeth Police and in discussion with the commission the Team drafted a multi-agency action plan on metal theft. The commission was grateful to the Community Safety Team for pausing the development of the action plan whilst the commission completed its work. This enabled the commission to take ownership of the action plan, ensure its findings are fully reflected within it and is an excellent example of collaborative working between officers and a Scrutiny Commission. The plan is appended at Appendix C. ## Recommendation: That The Safer Lambeth Partnership, And Relevant Constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft ## Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) And Implement Actions Accordingly (P1/T3) 32. The plan focuses on four areas: Intelligence; Protection and prevention; Enforcement action; Communications and addresses the operational concerns that arose in the course of the commission's work. These include identifying and protecting at-risk assets (council, partner and community); creating a master list of scrap metal dealers and establishing a relationship with dealers; establishing an ongoing enforcement regime and steps to build awareness of metal theft. The commission was impressed at the commitment shown to tackling the issue by the officers (Police and Lambeth) that engaged the commission on the plan's development. 33. However, some concerns remained. It appeared that commitment to the issue was driven by the efforts of a few, relatively junior police and council officers. Whilst this was to be welcomed the commission felt that this left maintaining focus on the issue vulnerable to key staff leaving. Indeed, during the commission's work both of the lead Police officers, one a PC and the other a Sergeant were moved to other duties. Furthermore question marks remained regarding levels of commitment to full implementation of the action plan by the relevant parts of the partnership and therefore delivery of the outcomes identified. The commission was keen to see the momentum that had been established by the development of the action plan maintained within the partnership. Key to this appeared to be establishing single points of contact within both Lambeth Police and the council with a commitment to the issue, the seniority to direct officers and ability take a strategic approach to the issue. Recommendation: That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach Recommendation: Confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank 34. In its session with the Community Safety Team and Cabinet Member for Public Protection the commission learned of a number of welcome steps that were being taken in relation to protecting Lambeth's 2500 heritage assets (e.g. churches, public art, war memorials). As the commission's work progressed Lambeth became the first London Borough (shortly followed by our neighbours in Wandsworth) to join English Heritage's Alliance to Reduce Crime Against ## Alliance To Reduce Crime Against Heritage - Memorandum Of Understanding As a signatory to the ARCH memorandum of understanding (MoU) Lambeth has committed to the following responsibilities: - An annual strategic assessment for heritage crime which informs an action plan for the parties (the council, English Heritage, ACPO and the CPS) to the MoU to follow. - Development plans take account of the historic environment. - Exercise functions as a local planning authority in relation to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. - Strategies to tackle crime and disorder including anti-social behaviour to include the historic environment and associated heritage assets. - Assist MoU partners where practicable and wherever resources and powers allow, in the prevention, investigation, enforcement and prosecution of heritage crime. - work closely to develop and adopt good practice in the sharing of personal and non personal information with other signatories. - recognise that the sharing of knowledge and working practices is beneficial in tackling heritage crime. - Assist and advise in any campaigns of prevention and, where expertise is needed and resources allow, in the investigation and prosecution of any crimes. Heritage (ARCH). ARCH is a voluntary national network of stakeholders with an interest in preventing crime that causes damage to or interferes with the enjoyment of heritage assets in England. In addition to ARCH membership Lambeth also became the first London Borough to sign the ARCH memorandum of understanding for enforcement agencies (see box). The commission welcomed Lambeth's membership of ARCH, particularly the commitment that this gave to prioritising heritage crime, including metal theft, and was eager for the council to demonstrate how it was exercising its responsibilities as a member. This was especially the case in relation to war memorials, the commission was conscious that the 100year anniversary of the beginning of the Great War was approaching in 2014, and West Norwood Cemetery which had been subjected to a number of thefts and provided evidence to the commission. The commission felt that identifying a Heritage Champion from members of the Council would help give the issue sufficient weight and also that ARCH membership appeared to represent an excellent opportunity to work together with the council's neighbours and fellow-signatory in Wandsworth. Recommendation: That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (P1/T3) (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (P1/T3) 35. Alongside ARCH membership the Cabinet Member for Public Protection informed the commission that he was establishing an Urban Heritage Watch (UHW). The purpose of UHW was to provide a mechanism by which members of the community could help protect the borough's heritage assets by taking an active role in monitoring sites, reporting suspicious activity and sharing intelligence. As well as 'friends groups' the scheme would also be targeted at those who run businesses overlooking heritage sites, for example shopkeepers. Such an approach was welcomed by the Commission, not least because it reflected some of the good practice that had been identified at St Peter's Church (see case study) and by both the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group and English Heritage who emphasised the importance of intelligence about and subsequent risk-rating of assets. 36. It was inconceivable to the commission that many of the metal thefts that took place in the borough had not been witnessed by members of the public. However, as councillors learned, it was not uncommon for thieves to disguise themselves as legitimate workers (for example dressed in BT overalls/using BT vans). The commission therefore questioned whether the council and/or Police should engage in a broader awareness-raising campaign, similar to that which had been undertaken in Bexley (see Appendix D). Given the existing level of communications 'noise' arising from other borough-wide campaigns the Cabinet Member and Community Safety Officers felt that such a campaign risked being expensive, ineffective and not in proportion to the scale of the issue. Rather they preferred taking a targeted approach as proposed in the Urban Heritage Watch scheme and working with the likes of BT and Safer Neighbourhood Teams to raise awareness of legitimate works that were taking place. Despite this, members of the commission felt that some improvement needed to be made to make clear to the public what they should do if they witness some suspicious activity as it was clear that many considered calling 999 an over-reaction. ## Recommendation: That The Safer Lambeth Partnership Make Clear To Residents What Number They Should Call If They Witness Suspicious Activity 37. Although Public Realm and Community Safety Team are the parts of the council with the greatest role in relation to metal theft the commission also discussed the topic with the Risk and Insurance Team (Finance & Resources Department) and received a brief paper from the Valuations and Asset Management Services Division (Housing, Regeneration and Environment Department). The latter note identified reactive work being undertaken to a number of heritage sites in the borough after they had suffered from metal theft or vandalism: West Norwood Library, Nettlefold Hall and West Norwood Crematorium Chapel, Brockwell Hall and Streatham Library. 38. Information provided by the Risk and Insurance Team highlighted that metal theft accounted for just 1.3% of total claims made by the council between 2007- 12. For this reason management activity to date had been focussed on other ## Case Study: West Norwood Library And The Nettlefold Halls Thefts of metal from West Norwood Library and the Nettlefold Halls appear to date back to at least 2008. In September 2010 the council's insurers, Zurich Municipal, conducted a risk management report of the site. This highlighted the vulnerability of the building's copper roof and recommended that further protection was put in place to restrict access as a priority and within three months. No such measures were put in place. Between 12 March and 14 June 2011 further thefts of the copper roof at West Norwood Library and the Nettlefold Halls were recorded on 8 separate occasions and on 6 June 2011 the Library and Halls were closed due to extensive flooding and water damage. The council's Risk and Insurance Team highlighted that these thefts exacerbated existing problems of water ingress into a building which was already in need of repairs and maintenance works. As such the costs incurred as a result of the water ingress have only been partially met through the insurance claims. The Library and Halls were not re-opened and at the time of writing redevelopment plans were being put in place for the site. In the meantime the Library relocated temporarily to the Lambeth Resource Centre, before subsequently moving to the Old Library site due to low usage of the LRC. No full appraisal of the financial cost to the council of the closure and relocation of the library has been undertaken. However, the commission was able to identify the following direct costs: \| Cost \| Value (£) \| \|--------------------------\|--------------\| \| 2008-11 Insurance claims \| -29,000 \| \| 2011 Making safe \| -10,000 \| \| Temporary Roof \| -187,000 \| \| Loss of income (p/a) \| -40,000 \| \| Total \| -266,000 \| Whilst it is clear that the cost to the council of these incidences of metal theft are well in excess of £¼m the commission was also aware of the significant impact that closure of the Library and Halls had on the community. In addition to the various events hosted by the library in 2010-11 the Nettlefold hosted 682 events and activities open to the public and 60 private events. Groups affected by the continued loss of this community resource include older people's groups, dance schools, fitness classes (including GP referral classes), student shows, homework classes, music shows, mental health groups and the local MP's advice sessions. The commission was informed that many of the groups that used the auditorium/theatre space in particular have moved out of the local area. claim areas where the cost to the council is significantly higher23. However, there was evidence that where management activity had been undertaken the reports and recommendations of the Risk and Insurance Team were not necessarily adhered to. This was most notably the case with West Norwood Library and Nettlefold Hall where thefts of its copper roof has compounded a previous lack of investment in repairs and maintenance resulting in the continued closure of the site (see case study). The immeasurable cost to the community of loss of the resource and the (unmeasured) total financial costs incurred by the council as a result of these thefts far outstrip both the scrap value of the copper stolen and the costs of the preventative action that was recommended. Further investigation of the council's property risk management surveys revealed that there were 24 outstanding priority 1 recommendations (requiring action within between 1-3 months) from the council's insurers, some of which dated back to June 2009. It was not acceptable to the commission that the reports and recommendations of the council's insurers are not implemented as failure to do so exposes the council to unnecessary risk, potential cost and in the worst-case scenario loss of services to communities. ## Recommendation: That All Outstanding Recommendations Relating To Councilowned Or Leased Buildings From The Council'S Insurers Be Implemented Immediately. The Police 39. Across the UK the commission learned of considerable work being undertaken by the Police. Particularly notable was the success of Operation Tornado, a voluntary scheme developed in the North East by a partnership of the British Metals Recycling Association (BMRA), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), British Transport Police (BTP), the Home Office, and Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland Police. The scheme requires anyone selling scrap metal to participating dealers to provide photographic proof of identity and abstention from cash payments as two of a number of measures used to restrict the sale and movement of stolen metal. In the pilot areas Durham reported a 55% reduction in offences, Cleveland 55%, Northumbria around 40%, and BTP a 60% reduction24 . The commission was informed that Operation Tornado was due to be rolled out across the Met area but at the time of writing this had not taken place. The majority of the steps taken voluntarily under Tornado will become law once the Scrap Metal Dealer Bill 2013 is enacted but it was of particular note that Tornado's success took place without legislation. This demonstrated to the commission that it was not necessary to wait until new legislation was in place to take effective steps to restrict the trade in illegal scrap metal. Accordingly the commission puts its full weight behind proposals to roll Tornado, or a similar voluntary code out across London as soon as possible. At the very least the commission felt that such a move would enable the Police and local authority to identify higher-risk dealers. ## Recommendation: That The Cabinet Member For Public Protection, In Partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report 40. The commission was informed in October 2012 that in the previous twelve months there had been only two thefts on the railways in Lambeth, one in Tulse Hill and the other in Waterloo. In both cases members were pleased to hear that there had been arrests. In the same session members were informed that BTP, English Heritage, HM Revenue and Custom , BT and National Rail analysts worked together on 'fusion' units. They used red, amber, green (RAG) ratings to identify problematic scrap metal dealers and then worked to convert those rated as red to amber or green. However, where a red-risk dealer was identified the relevant local authority would not necessarily be notified. This felt to the commission like a further area where closer information-sharing could result in more effective partnership work, reduce duplication and create further downward pressure on the illegal trade. 41. The commission was surprised to learn that until mid-2012 the Crime Record Information System (CRIS) had not included specific classifications for metal theft; previously it had just been classified as theft. This had now changed with the introduction of two classifications; 'metal theft infrastructure' and 'metal theft non-infrastructure'. This increase in the profile of metal theft within the Police was also reflected in the Met's decision to take a more coordinated approach to the issue in early 2012 through the introduction of Operation Ferrous, led by Acting Inspector James Coomber. Acting Inspector Coomber had previously worked in Bexley where he had led a number of Police and partnership teams that had been acknowledged as best practice in tackling metal theft. He outlined a number of steps that the Met was taking. These included working with heritage partners such as the Church and English Heritage, deploying officers in London-wide 'days of action' every quarter (surprise visits to scrap metal dealers and motor salvage yards) and compiling a web-based database (MARS) of scrap metal dealers. 42. As well as the 'days of action' A/I Coomber informed the commission of other Met-wide operations that the police undertook which closed the net on metal thieves. This included Operation Cubo, which utilises automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) technology to identify vehicles used by criminals or uninsured drivers. The commission felt that both Cubo and Tornado represented a considerable opportunity for council officers (particularly those with relevant regulatory responsibilities) to undertake joint work with the local Police to bring the full weight of each organisation's regulatory and legal powers down on the illegal metal trade as well as an opportunity to establish a relationship with local scrap metal dealers. The commission noted that such joint operations were common in other local authority areas, including across the border in Wandsworth. ## Heritage Assets 43. The commission held information-gathering sessions with English Heritage, the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group (EIG), the Diocese of Southwark and those responsible for specific heritage assets in the borough (Friends of West Norwood Cemetery and St Peter's Church (see case study)). An experience repeated by a number of those responsible for heritage assets to the commission was that the response by the police had been slow and that they had not appeared particularly interested in the crime. Whilst there were positive reports of efforts by the local Crime Prevention Design Advisor, PC Rob Harrison, there appeared to be a disconnect between his understanding of the issues with those in the rest of the force. 44. In contrast, St Peter's Church indicated that the advice and support received from EIG had been excellent. EIG, in their session with the commission, indicated that the theft of metal from churches had been a significant problem since 2007 resulting in the group imposing restrictions on their cover where churches were not taking a proactive approach to protecting themselves. It did not escape the commission's attention that St Luke's Church, the location for one of the commission's information-gathering sessions, had been the victim of metal theft when scaffolding had been erected. The Group's consultants and surveyors provide advice to churches and specific guidance is available on their website. Since 2008 the Group has been distributing free SmartWater kits to their policy-holders and they were confident that, when used with the relevant warning signs, SmartWater acted as a considerable deterrent. By November 2012 over 18,000 churches nationwide had registered with SmartWater and EIG had reported a 60% drop in lead thefts during the previous 12 months25 . 45. However, EIG were aware that SmartWater whilst a deterrent would not prevent all metal theft. However the 'deterrent factor' could be enhanced by wider usage of ultra violet lights (under which SmartWater shows up) by both the Police and scrap-metal dealers. 46. EIG had also recently launched a hands-off our church roofs campaign which provided further advice to churches and encouraged them to consider installing a suitable roof alarm. This was alongside a targeted approach to funding RDAS alarm systems for certain churches. The £3-6,000 cost of rolling out such systems to the 14,000 churches in England was prohibitive to EIG however, as can be seen in the St Peter's case study, one Lambeth Church had received seed funding for an alarm from EIG and this had brought theft at the site to a halt. EIG informed the commission that funding for alarm systems was provided on a targeted basis taking into account claims history, local knowledge and consultation with relevant personnel within each diocese. The free alarm-surveys were being provided as part of the 'hands off' campaign. The commission was also pleased that EIG's advice to churches included guidance on establishing churchwatch-type arrangements as had been so successful at St Peter's and was proposed by the council's Urban Heritage Watch scheme. 47. The commission also welcomed the considerable work that had been undertaken by English Heritage in relation to metal theft under the banner of its ARCH scheme. When metal theft had first become a problem it was felt that English Heritage's insistence that metal, where stolen from a heritage building, be replaced with like-for-like, was exacerbating the problem26. However, it became clear that the organisation was now taking a more pragmatic and proactive approach to the problem exemplified in a series of publications27 providing guidance on heritage crime prevention, interventions (including prosecution), preventing and dealing with theft of metal from churches and the production of heritage crime impact statements. The focus on these topics was particularly welcomed as the commission learnt from the Diocese that in the past the Police and magistrates had taken a long time to respond and . Guidance on the production of impact statements appeared uninterested28 was felt to be particularly helpful in assisting those who had been the victim of metal theft to articulate the impact of the crime to the relevant enforcement agencies. 48. In its session with Mark Harrison, National Policing and Crime Advisor at English Heritage, the commission also welcomed suggestions for the development of community-based responsibility for and awareness of heritage assets, particularly amongst young people. This was again felt to be an area where the council could act as a platform, facilitating the involvement of, for example, local youth groups, Girl Guide or Scout Troops and acknowledging the role that this would play in the development of a 'sense of place' 29. This was similar to the suggestion made by Richard Moore, Chair of Thurlow Park Safer Neighbourhood Panel, who suggested to the commission that a Lambeth Heritage photo competition may encourage people to take more responsibility for heritage assets30 . The commission felt that such approaches would prove a welcome, and inexpensive, addition to the council's Urban Heritage Watch proposals. ## Infrastructure 49. Unsurprisingly, given their access to the necessary funds, the commission found the use of alarms to be widespread by Network Rail and British Telecom. Simon Davies, General Manager for Cable and Payphone Crime (BT) highlighted the RABIT (Rapid Assessment BT Incident Tracker) alarm system which enabled BT to identify immediately where unauthorised cuts were made to its cable and send information to police control centres immediately. Similarly Network Rail had successfully used tremor alarms to prevent theft. However, despite the success of alarms and other preventative measures (such as smartwater and physically locking down infrastructure) protecting the network represented only one part of British Telecom's threepronged approach. The remaining steps were: choking the market, through visiting scrap metal dealers and ensuring that there is no easy route for the disposal of BT cable through non-authorised dealers; and engagement with government, the trade, the police (sharing intelligence) and communities (for example working with crimestoppers and undertaking mailshots of areas where there has been metal theft). 50. Mr Davies informed the commission that one of the difficulties that they had experienced nationally was a lack of local enforcement activity. The commission welcomed Mr Davies' offer to work more closely with the council and felt that in terms of communications, intelligence-sharing and joint operations (such as joint visits to scrap metal dealers) there was considerable scope for such work. 51. Network Rail provided the commission with information on their four-fold strategy to tackle metal theft which had seen delay minutes reduce by 51% since 2011. This focussed on: - Engineering - the use of CCTV, alarms and making access more difficult - Education - increasing awareness including lobbying activity on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill - Enforcement - working closely with British Transport Police, visiting dealers and sharing intelligence via the fusion intelligence unit - Enablement - the operational response to incidents and use of security patrols in key areas ## Recommendation: That Partnership Working With The Full Range Of Those Operating In The Policy Area Be Improved Scrap Metal Dealers 52. Whilst the commission was unable to meet formally with representatives of the British Metal Recycling Association (BMRA) members acknowledged that legitimate scrap metal dealers were often the victims of crime. This view was reinforced when the commission undertook a visit to, and met with the owner of, Glynn's Metal Recycling in Loughborough Junction, Lambeth. Security at the site was considerable and included ANPR technology. Paul Glynn, who owns and manages the site came to the commission's attention when he purchased, in order to return, a memorial plaque that had gone missing from a . Mr Glynn informed the church in Camberwell some 30 years previously31 commission that there was little benefit in trading in stolen materials as the risks outweighed the limited profit available. It became clear to the commission that the borough's registered scrap metal dealers operated at the front-line of metal theft with thieves regularly attending the premises to try to dispose of stolen metal and being abusive and making threats if such attempts were refused. This insight was particularly meaningful for the commission as it emphasised the opportunity which existed to establish close working relationships between local scrap metal dealers and the relevant authorities to tackle the trade in stolen metal. Whilst Mr Glynn indicated that he had regular visits from, and a strong relationship with, the local police he had never had any contact with the local authority or other regulatory authorities. 53. In his presentation at the LGA conference, Ian Hetherington, Chief Executive of the BMRA indicated that the majority of SMDs in the UK were registered with the BMRA but there was a 'long tail' of small dealers who were not. Whilst membership of the BMRA is not necessarily an indication of legitimacy this point was used to emphasise that the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2013 would not work unless it was effectively enforced by all the relevant powers. Mr Glynn made a similar point when he emphasised to the commission that the presence of unscrupulous dealers, and their ability to continue operating, made business harder for registered dealers as those who were not registered were able to pay more than the going rate for metals because they did not have the same overheads. ## Other Local Authorities 54. The commission found the Local Government Association's Metal Theft Toolkit a helpful document setting out some of the approaches to metal theft that had been undertaken at other local authorities32 . This included voluntary codes of practice for scrap metal dealers developed by Birmingham City Council (see appendix 1), Kirklees, Forest of Dean and the British Metals Recycling ## Case Study: Bexley In December 2011 a multi-agency Metal Theft Task Force was formed and comprised; police, two BT Metal Theft Investigators and an Environmental Crime Officer from London Borough of Bexley. This core team was assisted by Bexley Trading Standards and Neighbourhood Services Team, Registered Social Landlords, Smartwater, Environment Agency, DWP Benefit Fraud Team, HMRC Criminal Taxes Unit and BTP Metal Theft and Cable Crime Team. In the three months the team made 24 arrests, 12 proactive operations were carried out, 25 search warrants were executed, 22 scrap metal dealers visited, 11 vehicles seized and 17 people reported for other offences. During the period 1st October 2010 and 30th September 2011 Bexley borough suffered 634 recorded metal theft crimes, which included a series of thefts of dry riser valves from 18 tower blocks. At one stage 85 valves were stolen and 16 of the 18 blocks had no valves left at all. The loss of one valve rendered the whole system inoperable and no water could be directed to any level of the block in the event of a fire. The cost for repairs and replacements was around £75,000. In addition drain cover thefts totalled 180 during 2010 and 2011, costing over £52,000 to replace. Local people were outraged by the theft of memorial plaques from the Bexleyheath and Sidcup war memorials. The repair bill for copper water tanks, piping and intercom wiring systems that were stolen from newly refurbished flats in Thamesmead was over £250,000. British Telecom also suffered frequently, with one estate in Erith having underground cable stolen three times. On each occasion over 200 telephone lines were knocked out for a period of three days. The team carried out a series of operations on roads leading to scrap metal yards to disrupt the activities of thieves and those involved in the illegal transport of waste. Joint inspections of scrap metal yards were conducted to search for stolen property and to check they were complying with legislation. Owners were encouraged to adopt a code of practice and keep records of all transactions and the team ensured the yards displayed signage to demonstrate partnership working and to deter thieves. Other tactics included property marking, seizure of uninsured and unlicensed vehicles, 'theft alerts' to yard owners and crime prevention advice. Social landlords were advised when stolen property was recovered and offenders were placed under threat of eviction. Tax evasion and benefit fraud were referred to the Department of Work and Pensions fraud team and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criminal taxes unit. All this work was supported by a media campaign that highlighted the safety risks and also the immoral act of stealing bronze plaques from war memorials. Association. In most cases these codes went further than either Operation Tornado or the soon-to-be enacted Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. However, the commission welcomed the local emphasis that such a code provided and the initiative that they demonstrated these authorities were taking. 55. In London, Bexley (see case study and publicity materials at Appendix D) was identified as demonstrating best practice. The commission was particularly alarmed at the theft of dry-riser valves and wished top seek assurance that a similar pattern of theft had not taken place in Lambeth. Enfield and Hillingdon were cited as having taken proactive steps in relation to registering itinerant dealers. In Enfield all individuals wishing to register as itinerant dealers are required to attend the council's offices by appointment to demonstrate how they will maintain the required records and demonstrate possession of the relevant waste carriers licence. Furthermore representatives of the Police and Department for Work and Pensions attend to ensure that the applicant is not otherwise of interest to them or claiming relevant benefits. In Hillingdon all applications for registration are passed to the local Police who then pay a visit to the applicant in person. Both approaches were reported as having been effective. The commission also noted that anti-social behaviour powers had been used in Hillingdon to curb the activities of one particular individual known to the Police33 . Recommendation: That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report Recommendation: That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) 56. The commission also welcomed the engagement of Lambeth's neighbours in tackling metal theft. Colleagues in Wandsworth had undertaken successful joint work with the Police and UK Border Agency as part of Operation Ferrous34 and were also known to be engaged with English Heritage's ARCH programme. In Southwark considerable attention had been paid to the issue following the high profile thefts of public art and Richard Ottaway MP's support for the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2013 demonstrated commitment to the issue south of the borough. ## Conclusions 57. In drawing together its findings the commission was conscious that reported figures for metal theft were declining both nationally and in London and that metal theft was not a policing and crime priority for the borough. However, members did not consider this a reason for not taking any action. The close link between metal theft and commodity prices emphasised the fragility of the declining trend and the number of scrap metal dealers in and around Lambeth, coupled with the correlation between dealer numbers and crime volume leads, remains high. This, along with the personal and financial impact of the crime leads the commission to conclude that there remains a need for action to be taken. 58. In terms of the council's approach the commission found a tale of two divisions. In particular the commission concluded that there was considerable scope for the council to take a more proactive approach towards its relationship with the local scrap metal trade both through rigorous enforcement of the existing range of legislation and the promotion of a voluntary code of practice. Pinning the council's activity solely on implementation of the Scrap Metal Dealer Act 2013 was not, in the commission's view, the right approach to be taking. The partnership action plan was a welcome step towards this more proactive approach but it was not clear to the commission how rigorously the plan would be implemented nor how the move towards a 'community safeguarding' model would ensure this implementation. 59. In line with the action plan the commission welcomed the steps that the council had begun to take in working with the Police and English Heritage. However, it was clear from the information received that the opportunities for closer partnership working were wider than these two organisations. The commission received offers for closer working from British Telecom (communications, intelligence, joint visits) and the Diocese of Southwark and indications that they would welcome closer working from those responsible for local church and heritage assets. This bodes particularly well for the Urban Heritage Watch proposal (which the commission fully supports) and presents opportunities for the cost-burden on the local authority to be reduced. 60. The commission was clear that over-and-above the implementation of the action plan there were no legal barriers to the council putting into place a voluntary code of conduct straight away, whether by itself or in partnership with the Police or others. 61. However, what also became clear was that, due to the geography of London, any action taken within Lambeth would have limited impact if it was not replicated by our neighbours. A coordinated approach is required whereby downward pressure on the trade is exerted across the sub-region and best practice and resources shared to drive the illegal scrap metal trade out of London. This is no small task, but a Met-wide approach and pockets of bestpractice already exist. It is the commission's view that these pockets just need to be joined up and that Lambeth and its neighbours are well-placed, and have been victims long-enough, to begin this work and demonstrate its value to the rest of London. ## Recommendations (A) That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (P1/T3) (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (P1/T3) (ii) That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach (B) That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report (P1/T3) (C) That following development of a draft code of conduct the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, supported by the Chair of the Commission, lead on negotiations with Lambeth's neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, lay the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of our area (P1/T6) (D) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership, and relevant constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) and implement actions accordingly (P1/T1) (i) That progress against the plan's key milestones be reported back to Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (E) That reassurance be sought from the Borough Commander that Lambeth Police are fully committed to tackling metal theft ,resourcing it accordingly and that specific consideration be given to the following (i) That confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank (P1/T3) (ii) That consideration be given to equipping all officers with portable ultraviolet lights to enable them to immediately identify property marking such as SmartWater (P2/T6) (F) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership make clear to residents what number they should call if they witness suspicious activity (P2/T6) (G) That partnership working with the full range of those operating in the policy area be improved specifically (P1/T6): (i) Links between the council and the British Transport Police 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on specific scrap metal dealers, is shared (ii) Links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore undertaking joint action (iii) Links with British Telecom's public relations team to identify opportunities for a shared communications campaign (iv) Opportunities for joint training between the Police, council officers and partners so that each are aware of each others issues and powers (P1/T9) (v) Opportunities for the Police and council officers to undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and the Metal Theft Days of Action (H) That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) (I) That the council report back to Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub- Committee on how it disposes of its own scrap metal to ensure that the value is returned to the council (P3/T6) (J) That all outstanding recommendations relating to council-owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers be implemented immediately (P1/T3) ## Note: The commission has prioritised its recommendations as either priority 1 (high), 2 (medium) or 3 (low) and provided a time-limit (T) by which the commission expects each to be completed should they be adopted. For example P1/T3 will represent a high priority recommendation with an expected time-limit of 3 months. In responding to the commission's recommendations responsible authorities will be expected to identify specific milestones and target dates, resource implications and lead officers. ## Notes And Thanks Terms Of Reference And Core Questions The commission was established by the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee in May 2012 with the following terms of reference: - To investigate the current scale of metal-theft in Lambeth and the existing response to the issue across the relevant agencies - To identify the impact of metal-theft on the borough's residents, community groups, council and businesses - To feed into, influence the development of, and support the development of Lambeth's response to Richard Ottaway MP's Private Members Bill - To identify national and international best-practice in relation to the reduction of metal-theft - To make evidence-based recommendations to the relevant decision-makers that will result in reductions in metal theft and other improvement to this policy area The following core questions were identified by the commission at the start of its work: - What trends regarding metal theft are emerging in the borough? - What can the council do (together with its partners and the Metropolitan Police Service) to protect the buildings and monuments at risk? - What can the council do to counteract the rise of metal theft? - Having considered the government briefing on metal theft, what additional action can Lambeth as a borough and in partnership with neighbouring boroughs do to prevent and detect metal theft? ## Methodology The commission conducted three public information-gathering sessions as follows: \| Date \| Location \| \|-----------------------------------\|------------------------------------------\| \| Cllr Jack Hopkins \| Cabinet Member for Public Protection, LB \| \| Lambeth \| \| \| \| \| \| 30 July \| \| \| 2012 \| \| \| Lambeth \| \| \| Town Hall \| \| \| Adrian Smith \| Divisional Director, Culture & \| \| Communities, LB Lambeth \| \| \| Nicole Terrieux \| Community Safety Service, LB Lambeth \| \| Kristian Aspinall \| Community Safety Service, LB Lambeth \| \| PC Rob Harrison \| Lambeth Police \| \| Dave Bright \| Head of Consumer Protection & \| \| Sustainability, HRE, Public Realm \| \| \| Date \| Location \| \|-------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------\| \| Robert Gardner \| Trading Standards Manager, HRE, Public \| \| Realm \| \| \| John Smith \| Licensing Manager, HRE Public Realm \| \| Mark Nicolson \| Risk & Insurance Team, LB Lambeth \| \| Andrew Lane \| Secretary, Southwark Diocesan Advisory \| \| Committee \| \| \| 6 Sept \| \| \| 2012 \| \| \| St Luke's \| \| \| Church, W \| \| \| Norwood \| \| \| Mark Norris, \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Senior Adviser on policing, community \| \| \| safety and re-offending, Local Government \| \| \| Association \| \| \| \| \| \| John Smith \| Licensing Manager, LB Lambeth \| \| Colin Fenn \| Friends of West Norwood Cemetery \| \| David Chapman \| St Peter's Church, Streatham \| \| Richard Moore \| Thurlow Park Safer Neighbourhood Panel \| \| Chair \| \| \| Paul Playford \| \| \| Ecclesiastical Insurance Group \| \| \| Leigh Ide \| \| \| Ecclesiastical Insurance Group \| \| \| 2 Oct \| \| \| 2012 \| \| \| Lambeth \| \| \| Town Hall \| \| \| Simon Davies \| General Manager for Cable and \| \| Payphone Crime, British Telecom \| \| \| \| \| \| DI Ash Cooper \| British Transport Police \| \| Metropolitan Police \| Acting Inspector \| \| James Coomber \| \| The commission members attended the Local Government Association's conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft on 15 June 2012 at which representatives from British Transport Police, the Energy Networks Association, The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, British Telecom, The British Metals Recycling Association, the Environment Agency, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and best practice exemplars all spoke In addition the Chair met with Mark Harrison, National Policing and Crime Advisor, Heritage Crime Programme & Alliance to Reduce Crime against Heritage (ARCH), English Heritage and attended the ARCH Conference at City Hall in October 2012. Councillors Braithwaite and Ogden undertook a site-visit of Glynn's Metal Recycling, Loughborough Junction and met with the owner Paul Glynn and his staff. At its inception the commission issued a press release. A survey was distributed to all faith groups known by the authority (100+) but only two responses were received. A considerable amount of desk-based research was also undertaken by the Scrutiny Team and fed back to the commission. ## Thanks The Commission Would Like To Extend Its Thanks To All Those Named Above For Their contributions to this piece of work ## References Bloomberg (2013) 'Copper Climbs on Stimulus Signal, China Equities Jump' Bloomberg [online], ://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/copper-climbs-onstimulus-signal-china-equities-jump.html (last updated 14 January 2013; accessed January 2013) Bradley et al. (January 2011) Assessing the Importance and value of historic buildings to young people: final report to English Heritage, Centre for Urban & Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University British Metals Recycling Association (15 June 2012) 'Metal Theft: the recycling industry perspective' [presentation to LGA conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft] British Transport Police (2012a) 'Freedom of Information request 978-12' British Transport Police [online] ://www.btp.police.uk/pdf/FOI%20Response%20978- 12%20Metal%20Theft%20totals.pdf (accessed January 2013) British Transport Police (2012b) 'Operation Tornado' British Transport Police [online] ://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/how_we_tackle_crime/operation_torna do.aspx (accessed January 2013) Crowther P. Deputy Chief Constable (15 June 2012) 'Keynote address' British Transport Police [presentation to LGA conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft] Coomber J. Acting Inspector (October 2012) Lambeth Metal Crime Overview, Metropolitan Police Giles G, Lloyd S and Playford P (17 September 2012) 'Theft of Metal' Ecclesiastical Insurance Group [presentation in Taunton] Financial Times (2013) 'ft.com/marketsdata: commodities' Financial Times [online] ://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Commodities (accessed January 2013) Glander and Coomber (2012) Crime prevention and reduction - London Borough Case Studies: Metal Theft Reduction LB Bexley Harrison, R. PC (8 November 2011) Emerging Metal Theft Issues - letter to the Chair of the Commission LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (July 2012) Note of meeting LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (October 2012) Note of meeting (handwritten) LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (September 2012) Note of meeting LB Lambeth Community Safety and Police (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission briefing note LB Lambeth Public Realm Division (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission briefing note ## Lb Lambeth Risk And Insurance Team (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Insurance Claims Briefing Note LB Southwark (12 April 2012) 'Art will not be bowed by metal thieves' Southwark Council [online] ://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/731/art_will_not_be_bowed_by_metal_thieves (accessed January 2013) ## Home Office (22 February 2012) Impact Assessment: Tackling Metal Theft - Prohibit Cash Payments And Higher Fines House of Commons Library (10 July 2012) Scrap Metal Dealers Bill - research paper 12/39 House of Commons Transport Committee (Session 2010-12) 'Cable theft on the railway - written evidence from the British Transport Police (CTR 11)' Parliament [online] ://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/1609/ctr11.h tm (accessed January 2013) House of Commons Transport Committee (24 January 2012) Cable theft on the railway, London, The Stationery Office Limited Local Government Association (October 2012) Metal Theft Toolkit: Let's prove our mettle, London, Local Government Association Metropolitan Police (31 January 2012) 'Metal Theft Operation' Metropolitan Police [online] ://content.met.police.uk/News/Metal-Theft- Operation/1400006525080/1257246745756 (accessed January 2013) Metropolitan Police (18 January 2013) 'Safeguarding residents of Hillingdon and surrounding areas' Metropolitan Police [online] ://content.met.police.uk/News/Safeguarding-residents-of-Hillingdon-and-surroundingareas/1400014458782/1257246745756 (accessed January 2013) Sidebottom, A. (2012) 'Metal Theft' UCL Jill Dando Institute [online] ://www.ucl.ac.uk/jdibrief/crime/metal-theft (accessed January 2013) South London Press (24 May 2012) 'I bought stolen plaque so I could give it back' South London Press [online] ://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=18772 (accessed January 2013) ## Appendix A - Letter To Public Bill Committee 7 September 2012 ## Public Bill Committee - Scrap Metal Dealers Bill Amendments Dear Here in Lambeth we have established a metal theft scrutiny commission to investigate what steps the council and others can take to reduce metal theft in and around the borough. This follows a spate of high-profile metal thefts here and in neighbouring authorities. Our work continues and we will be drawing our report and recommendations together in October. The commission has a keen interest in the passage of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill and we understand that you are on the Bill committee. We welcome proposals for local authority licensing of scrap metal dealers and consider the Bill a welcome addition to the tools that we and our partners can use to tackle the problem of metal theft. However, from the work we have undertaken it is clear that the ability to impose local conditions on a licence would enable us and our neighbours to better target the particular issues that we face in Lambeth and across South London. This flexibility in the Licensing Act 2003 has already proved successful in enabling the authority to address the local circumstances we face, such as responding to street-drinking. We also believe that such conditions should be allowed irrespective of whether a licensee has been convicted of a relevant offence. As such we urge you to support the amendments by Mr David Winnick to Page 3, Clause 3 that would enable the authority to employ other such conditions that are consistent with preventing crime. Yours sincerely Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite Chair, and on behalf of, LB Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Email: @lambeth.gov.uk ## Appendix B - List Of Scrap Metal Dealers Registered With Lb Lambeth Individual Date Registration Name or Reason for registration Premises address (if applicable) Itinerant collector? registered expires company Paul Barnaby Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Arch 439 Gordon Grove, London, SE5 9DW No 14/09/2010 13/09/2013 Jose Carlos Rodriques Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 08/03/2011 07/03/2014 Mr Tipper Company Occupies premises as scrap metal store 1 Wellfit Street, London, SE24 0HJ Yes 05/08/2011 04/08/2014 Daniel Menino Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 07/09/2011 06/09/2014 Glynn's Metal Recycling Company Occupies premises as scrap metal store 3-11 Wellfit Street London SE24 0JA Yes 20/10/2011 19/10/2014 Carlos Alberto Abreu Ribeiro Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Garage No 17, Stradle Road, London, SW4 6TE Yes 21/10/2011 20/10/2014 Jose Manuel Mendes Soares Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Garage No 17, Stradle Road, London, SW4 6TE Yes 21/10/2011 20/10/2014 Adel Testouri Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 01/02/2012 31/01/2015 John Virgo Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 15/02/2012 14/02/2015 Mr Matthew Henderson Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 20/03/2012 19/03/2015 Daniel Hewett Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 08/05/2012 07/05/2015 JonJon Thompson & Variel Muir Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 08/06/2012 07/06/2015 ## Appendix C - Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan - February 2013 Summary/Overview This action plan is the result of in-depth scrutiny of the issue in the borough by the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission. In addition, Lambeth became the first Action to Reduce Heritage Crime (ARCH) borough in London in February 2012. By signing up to ARCH Lambeth has demonstrated its commitment to prioritising metal theft and has adopted a number of responsibilities in agreement with English Heritage which are set out within the Scrutiny Commission's report. The Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission has prioritised its recommendations as either priority 1 (high), 2 (medium) or 3 (low) and provided a time-limit (T) by which the commission expects each to be completed should they be adopted. For example P1/T3 will represent a high priority recommendation with an expected time-limit of 3 months. Progress against actions by accountable officers will be monitored and reviewed by the Commission. Ref OBJECTIVES ACTIONS Lead agency Lead officer 1. Develop intelligence: Increase intelligence of the scale and impact of metal theft in Lambeth to drive targeted, co-ordinated activity that secures the greatest impact for the least investment of resources 1.1 Exercise responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough - Recognise heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough through adoption of heritage crime as a priority for the council and the Safer Lambeth Partnership through inclusion in the annual Strategic Assessment and resulting Partnership Plan - Appoint a Councillor to act as Heritage Champion for the borough - Identify a single point of contact (SPOC) for the council for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach - Confirm SPOC for metal theft in Lambeth Police (to be of senior rank) - Heads of Service from each responsible area to provide written report against compliance with ARCH criteria to next Scrutiny meeting - Report back on progress against the plan's key milestones \| Notes \| PRIORITY RANKING/ \| \|---------------------------------\|----------------------\| \| 1 = high \| \| \| 2 = medium \| \| \| TIME LIMIT (in months) \| \| \| \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| Agency: Safer Lambeth \| \| \| partners \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Officer(s): Lambeth Council \| \| \| (LBL) Chief Executive/ \| \| \| Lambeth Police Borough \| \| \| Commander \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| Cllr Lib Peck, Leader of \| \| \| Lambeth Council \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| \| \| Cllr Jack Hopkins/ Adrian \| \| \| Smith \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| Borough Commander \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| P1/ T = next Scrutiny meeting \| \| \| \| \| \| Heads of service for \| \| \| designated areas \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL/MPS \| \| \| P1/ T = Scrutiny meetings going \| \| \| forwards \| \| \| Lead officers as set out in \| \| \| action plan \| \| \| \| \| \| Ref OBJECTIVES \| ACTIONS \| Lead agency \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------\| \| Lead officer \| \| \| \| 1.2 \| \| \| \| Scope scale and risk \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Carry out audit of existing assets, estimated value and risk, to \| \| \| \| baseline and scope scale and cost of metal theft in Lambeth \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Establish priority list from assets audit, devise approach to \| \| \| \| target hardening and implement according to priority ranking \| \| \| \| and resources available \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Establish risk re council buildings \| \| \| \| 1.3 \| \| \| \| Build problem profile and co-ordinate \| \| \| \| intelligence \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Devise and introduce alert log to monitor overview of metal \| \| \| \| theft \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Circulate key contacts with monthly info request/ update \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Include a separate classification within CRIS to record metal \| \| \| \| theft \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Promote use of metal theft tags on CRIS \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Cross-refer reports of burglary (domestic/ non-domestic) \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Compile initial intelligence profile based on existing database \| \| \| \| information \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Bid to Treasury for funding for analysis and support \| \| \| \| LBL/ Nicole Terrieux (NT) \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 1.4 \| \| \| \| Improve partnership working with the full \| \| \| \| range of relevant partners \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Build links between the council and the British Transport Police \| \| \| 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on \| \| \| \| specific scrap metal dealers, is shared \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Build links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and \| \| \| neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the \| \| \| \| number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore \| \| \| \| undertaking joint action \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| 1.5 \| \| \| \| Support legitimate Scrap Metal Dealers \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Supply checklist reminder and key contacts to report \| \| \| intelligence re suspicious activity or people \| \| \| \| 1.6 \| \| \| \| Implement legislation as set out in the \| \| \| \| Scrap Metal Dealers' Act \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Scope out process and determine fee levels based on cost \| \| \| recovery and within legislative limits \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Report back to Environment and Community Safety Sub- \| \| \| Committee on how the council disposes of its own scrap metal \| \| \| \| to ensure that the value is returned to the council \| \| \| \| 1.7 \| \| \| \| Ensure value for money in disposal of \| \| \| \| council assets, refurbishment of Housing \| \| \| \| schemes and properties, and in \| \| \| \| regeneration programmes \| \| \| \| 2. \| \| \| \| Prevention: Deter, delay and disrupt offending through co-ordinated activity \| \| \| \| 2.1 \| \| \| \| Protect most vulnerable assets \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Devise approach to target hardening and implement according \| \| \| \| to priority ranking and resources available \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Carry out predictive patrolling in vulnerable locations with \| \| \| \| support from Trading Standards \| \| \| \| Notes \| PRIORITY RANKING/ \| \| \| 1 = high \| \| \| \| 2 = medium \| \| 3 = low \| \| TIME LIMIT (in months) \| \| \| \| LBL \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| Initial evaluation of loss carried out. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Mark Nicolson, Insurance \| \| \| \| and Risk (MN) \| \| \| \| LBL \| P3/ T9 \| \| \| Community Safety Analyst \| \| \| \| Alert log to be submitted to Partnership Tasking \| \| \| \| and Co-ordination (PTAC) Group. \| \| \| \| Key contacts to be identified within council \| \| \| \| departments, MPS and partner organisations \| \| \| \| (e.g. BT) \| \| \| \| Resource to be identified. \| \| \| \| MPS/ Nominated officer \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Two metal theft flags now available on MPS \| \| \| \| crime logging system ('infrastructure'/ 'non- \| \| \| \| infrastructure') \| \| \| \| Scope for further awareness-raising re \| \| \| \| recording of metal theft. \| \| \| \| Initial metal theft profile completed in 2011. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| John Smith, Licensing \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| John Smith, Licensing \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| See 3.1. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| John Smith, Licensing \| \| \| \| LBL \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| Report on process, fee levels and anticipated \| \| \| \| income to next Scrutiny meeting. \| \| \| \| John Smith, Licensing \| \| \| \| LBL \| P3/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Sue Foster, Housing \| \| \| \| Regeneration and \| \| \| \| Environment \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T12 \| \| \| Following evaluation and prioritisation of assets \| \| \| \| (see 1.1 above). \| \| \| \| NT/ MPS nominated officer \| \| \| \| MPS/ LBL Trading Standards \| P2/ T12 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Ref OBJECTIVES \| ACTIONS \| Lead agency \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------\|-------------------\|----------------\| \| Lead officer \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Implement all outstanding recommendations relating to council- \| \| \| \| owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers with \| \| \| \| immediate effect \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Compile briefing on metal theft and key contacts for \| \| \| \| dissemination to CCTV Manager/ monitoring staff \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Provide list of heritage and memorial assets to CCTV Manager \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Replace all metal equipment in council owned public toilets \| \| \| \| with plastic where possible \| \| \| \| 2.2 \| \| \| \| Reduce opportunities for metal theft \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Build metal theft vulnerability considerations into requirements \| \| \| \| for new developments in the borough through Secured By \| \| \| \| Design (SBD) approach \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Compile war memorials database \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Rank according to 'Protect most vulnerable assets' above \| \| \| \| 2.3 \| \| \| \| Protect Community assets: Heritage \| \| \| \| buildings/ Churches/ Public art/ War \| \| \| \| memorials \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Protect most vulnerable war memorials with Smartwater \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Apply for membership to the 'Alliance to reduce Crime Against \| \| \| \| Heritage' through English Heritage \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Establish SPOCs for each denomination for churches/ religious \| \| \| \| buildings in Lambeth at risk from metal theft \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Launch Lambeth as Urban Heritage Watch borough in \| \| \| \| association with English Heritage \| \| \| \| 2.4 \| \| \| \| Protect highways infrastructure and \| \| \| \| street furniture (Council) \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Share intelligence re scheduled streetworks through inclusion \| \| \| \| of MPS SPOC in distribution of weekly circulation list \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Agree and establish approach re unscheduled emergency \| \| \| \| streetworks \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Establish approach and published protocol re verification of on- \| \| \| \| site contractors by MPS \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Agree council 24/7 contact for MPS to check sites, contractors \| \| \| \| and activity \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Mirroring approach in 2.4 above, establish approach with TfL \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| \| 2.5 \| \| \| \| Protect highways infrastructure and \| \| \| \| street furniture(TfL) \| \| \| \| Notes \| PRIORITY RANKING/ \| \| \| 1 = high \| \| \| \| 2 = medium \| \| 3 = low \| \| TIME LIMIT (in months) \| \| \| \| LBL \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Uzochukwu Nwanze, \| \| \| \| Valuation and Asset \| \| \| \| Management Services \| \| \| \| Marc Nicolson \| \| \| \| MPS/LBL \| Briefing: P2/ T3 \| \| \| List of known war memorials can be extracted \| \| \| \| from In Memoriam 2014. \| \| \| \| Nominated officer/ NT \| Assets: P2/ T3 \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| \| MPS nominated officer/ NT/ \| \| \| \| LBL Facilities Mgt/ Parks \| \| \| \| P3/ T12 (see right) \| \| \| \| Dependant on compilation of initial inventory of \| \| \| \| assets \| \| \| \| To be costed \| \| \| \| Dependant on costings \| \| \| \| MPS/ LBL \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS: PC Rob Harrison/ PC \| \| \| \| Anne Burroughs \| \| \| \| LBL: Planning nominated \| \| \| \| officer \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| All known war memorials in the borough are \| \| \| \| logged on the In Memoriam 2014 database. \| \| \| \| LBL NT \| \| \| \| Lambeth is the first ARCH borough in London. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS contact tbc by MPS \| \| \| \| Lambeth Borough \| \| \| \| Commander \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS/LBL \| P3/ T12 \| \| \| Will need to establish what assistance we can \| \| \| \| offer and our approach before making contact \| \| \| \| Nominated officer/ NT \| \| \| \| LBL \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| NT \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| \| Doug Perry \| \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| Underway as at July 2012, however needs to be \| \| \| \| refreshed for MPS SPOC (to be nominated by \| \| \| \| Borough Commander) \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| \| Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| P1/ T3 \| \| \| \| Unscheduled works are alerted on ad hoc basis \| \| \| \| to specific named individuals. Email list can be \| \| \| \| updated once SPOC alerted. \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| Agree council SPOC or publicise rota. \| \| \| \| Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| P2/ T9 \| \| \| \| Establish TfL contact \| \| \| \| NT/ MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| Ref OBJECTIVES \| ACTIONS \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------\|------------\| \| Lead officer \| \| \| 2.6 \| \| \| Protect partner assets \| \| \| BT; UK Power networks; Thames Water \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Share intelligence re scheduled utility works through inclusion \| \| \| of MPS SPOC and Council CCTV Manager in distribution of \| \| \| weekly circulation list for each agency \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Agree and establish approach re unscheduled emergency \| \| \| utility works \| \| \| Schools and colleges \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Circulate schools (LA and independents) and colleges in the \| \| \| borough on benefits of Smartwater and offering training \| \| \| 2.7 \| \| \| Reduce impact on emergency services \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Compile inventory of dry riser inlets in housing blocks - \| \| \| location and state condition \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Undertake an urgent audit of the presence of dry-riser valves at \| \| \| the borough's communal housing blocks and consider \| \| \| introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations \| \| \| \| \| \| 2.8 \| \| \| Reduce the likelihood of terrorist attack \| \| \| and its impact \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Assess vulnerability to communications links for command and \| \| \| control centre (Police stations/ Main Command Centre - \| \| \| Lambeth) \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Assess vulnerability to communications links for CCTV control \| \| \| room \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Ensure communications system back up plan in place \| \| ## 3. Enforcement - Compile and maintain master list of registered SMDs - Carry out joint visits 4 x per year 3.1 Establish ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of registered scrap metal dealers (SMDs). Ensure that registered dealers are adhering to legislation re cashless payments. 3.2 Lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for SMDs - Lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for SMDs in the borough based on best practice identified in the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission report - Following the development of the draft code of conduct lead on negotiations with neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, laying the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of the area - Compile and maintain master list of registered MSOs LBL 3.3 Establish ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of registered Motor Salvage Operators (MSOs) also known as 'car breakers'. - Carry out joint visits 4 x per year (MPS/ Trading Standards/ Licensing) to check compliance in most cases with MPS support. Notes PRIORITY RANKING/ 1 = high 2 = medium 3 = low TIME LIMIT (in months) LBL/ MPS P2/ T6 Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC LBL/ MPS P2/ T9 Smartwater kits to be purchased by schools and colleges themselves NT/ MPS SPOC This action especially important re fire safety Phase 1 P1/ T6 - inventory LBL to compile in partnership with housing providers Phase 1 P1/ T12 - secure Phase 1: Lambeth Living Phase 2 P2/ T12 - inventory Phase 2 P2/ T18 - secure Phase 2: other social housing providers operating in the borough P1/ T6 Communications back-up plan in place for MPS buildings LBL Stephen Tippell/ MPS Counter-terrorism/ LBL Paul Randall/ CCTV Manager LBL P1/ T6 Licensing/ Trading Standards Ongoing re visits When designing an ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of SMDs the regime is required to utilise the full range of powers currently available to the council and ensure compliance with the terms of existing registrations. P1/ T3 Liaise with Lambeth MPS and Operation Ferrous LBL Cabinet Member Cllr Jack Hopkins/ LBL Licensing P2/T6 LBL Cabinet Member Cllr Jack Hopkins/ Chair of Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission/ LBL Licensing P1/ T6 Licensing/ Trading Standards Ongoing re visits P1/ T6 One listed SMD in borough. Theft of motor vehicles has risen in other boroughs. Rate appears to have remained stable in Lambeth. Theft of motor vehicle \| Ref OBJECTIVES \| ACTIONS \| Lead agency \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------\| \| Lead officer \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Develop compulsory guidance material for MSOs to adhere to \| \| \| \| continue lawfully trading \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Contact itinerant dealers and Scrap Metal Dealers (where \| \| \| possible) to ensure full compliance with current legislation and \| \| \| \| regulatory requirements \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Create application forms for new and existing businesses \| \| \| \| following guidance from Central Government. Design form will \| \| \| \| follow legislative requirements \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Compile and maintain master intel list on unregistered SMD \| \| \| \| premises and operators for legal sanction \| \| \| \| 3.4 \| \| \| \| Target metal thieves, illegal scrap metal \| \| \| \| dealers and Motor Salvage Operators. \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and Metal \| \| \| \| Theft Days of Action \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Consider equipping all officers on street duties with portable \| \| \| infrared lights to enable them to immediately identify property \| \| \| \| marking such as Smartwater \| \| \| \| 3.5 \| \| \| \| Share intelligence and good practice \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Share intel re current picture with Croydon and neighbouring \| \| \| \| boroughs \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Establish initial MPS/ Council borough network with Croydon, \| \| \| \| Bexley, Southwark to share intel and good practice \| \| \| \| 3.6 \| \| \| \| Target metal theft repeat offenders \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Flag details of known/ previous offenders via ANPR operations \| \| \| \| MPS/ LBL \| \| \| \| 4. \| \| \| \| Awareness and reassurance: Increase awareness of metal theft, incidents and risk; the community role in reducing metal theft, methods of reporting; and Partnership activity \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Regular item at P-TAC \| \| \| \| 4.1 \| \| \| \| Increase awareness of metal theft, \| \| \| \| incidents and risk \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Raise awareness of metal theft in Lambeth to residents to \| \| \| \| encourage detection and reporting of theft. Include SNTs, \| \| \| \| Neighbourhood Watch; TRAs and Lambeth Living; Friends of \| \| \| \| Parks. Church wardens or Vicars. \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Make clear to residents what number they should call if they \| \| \| \| witness suspicious activity \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| Identify opportunities for joint training between the police, \| \| \| council officers and partners so that each are aware of each \| \| \| \| other's issues and powers \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Notes \| PRIORITY RANKING/ \| \| \| 1 = high \| \| \| \| 2 = medium \| \| 3 = low \| \| TIME LIMIT (in months) \| \| \| \| sensors appears to be increasing. \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS/ LBL \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Intel list to be led by \| \| \| \| Licensing/ Trading Standards \| \| \| \| with MPS \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| ANPR ops - joint with \| \| \| \| Licensing (e.g. Op Cubo) \| \| \| \| Operations: Ongoing \| \| \| \| MPS \| \| \| \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| Borough Commander \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| NT/ nominated MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| LBL NT \| \| \| \| (PTAC: Ongoing - every two weeks) \| \| \| \| Approach to include definition, what to do and \| \| \| \| who to contact \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| MPS contact tbc by Borough \| \| \| \| Commander \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| P2/ T6 \| \| \| \| Community Safety/ Lambeth \| \| \| \| Police 'crib sheet' \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Communications - wider \| \| \| \| awareness \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| \| \| \| P1/ T9 \| \| \| \| Licensing/ MPS SPOC \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Ref OBJECTIVES \| ACTIONS \| \|------------------------------------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------------------------------\| \| Lead officer \| \| \| 4.2 \| \| \| Build awareness among frontline officers \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Develop and distribute factsheet and key contacts for MPS \| \| \| SNTs and all council staff to focus on frontline staff \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| \| \| Provide press releases to publicise related activity and promote \| \| \| successes in combating metal theft. \| \| \| \| \| \| 4.3 \| \| \| Develop public awareness through a \| \| \| communications forward plan which \| \| \| reflects the themes set out within 4 \| \| \| above \| \| \| \| \| \| - \| \| \| \| Link with British Telecom's public relations team to identify \| \| opportunities for a shared communications campaign \| \| \| Notes \| PRIORITY RANKING/ \| \|----------------------------------------------------\|----------------------\| \| 1 = high \| \| \| 2 = medium \| \| \| TIME LIMIT (in months) \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T6 \| \| LBL NT \| \| \| MPS contact tbc by Borough \| \| \| Commander \| \| \| LBL/ MPS \| P2/ T3 \| \| Planned activity to coincide with national days of \| \| \| action (at least 4 releases per year). \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL and MPS officers \| \| \| responsible for actions as set \| \| \| out in this plan/ Claire Melia \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| LBL \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| \| \| \| \| Communications/ Community \| \| \| Safety \| \| \| P1/ T6 \| \| # Appendix D - Lb Bexley Metal Theft Awareness Publicity Materials	en
0771-pdf	From: Drury Chris Sent: 24 September 2018 14:01 To: 'Nigel Morton' Cc: Minerals Team Subject: RE: Birchover Quarry Nigel Proposed Road Closure Order under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended): To Prohibit the Use of Main Street, Birchover by Traffic to Facilitate Water Main Renewal Works by Severn Trent Water Limited Thank you for your email on 20 September 2018 (with temporary street works road closure notice) advising us about the above proposed road closure to enable pipe maintenance at Main Street, Birchover. We note that the full width of the carriageway will be closed (inter-alia to HGV traffic to and from Birchover Quarry) for ten working days during the period 1st 10th October 2018. As you know, condition 41 (Signage and Routeing of Heavy Vehicles) of the planning permission NP/DD/0715/0722 was imposed to minimise the impact on the local public highways and communities by heavy goods and other vehicles serving the site in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and environmental amenity. I think that the route notification measures approved and implemented under condition 41 have worked well, and provided they remain in place before and after the temporary road closure then there is no issue arising in relation to compliance with the condition. The fact that your customers will not be able to comply with the routeing instructions during the period of the road closure is clearly is a matter which is beyond the control of your company. We had discussed the possibility of alternate use of the Blockstone haul road linking Birchover Road to Lees Road (north) to avoid Stanton in Peak village. However, as confirmed, my colleague Nicola has spoken to Blockstone who have stated that they are not back on the New Pilhough Quarry site until December 2018; and the planning permission for New Pilhough requires the haul road to be gated and locked while not in use. In any case you have expressed concern that other difficulties may arise in relation to this potential option (e.g. insurance cover). In the circumstances thank you for confirming in your email of 21 September 2018 (below) the alternative arrangements we discussed. Please also thank Steve Helliwell for his assistance on this matter which I am sure will help to minimise the impact of any additional traffic through Stanton in Peak village during this ten day period. Kind regards Chris Chris Drury Senior Minerals Planner Planning Service Peak District National Park Authority Telephone: 01629 816292 (direct line) Mobile: 07890 274643 E-mail: chris.drury@peakdistrict.gov.uk From: Nigel Morton <Nigel.Morton@suon.net> Sent: 21 September 2018 16:17 To: Drury Chris <chris.drury@peakdistrict.gov.uk> Subject: Birchover Quarry Chris, I can confirm our discussions regarding the closure of Main Street and the diversion route through Stanton in Peak between the 1st and 10th October. Steve Helliwell has been in contact with Birchover Stone Ltd. s principal customers and advised them of the road closure. He will attempt to supply their advanced needs during the week commencing 24th September. If this is not possible it has been explained that articulated vehicles should not be sent during the period of the diversion and he has endeavoured to restrict collections to two days per week. I will contact Stanton in Peak Parish Council to convey this information. Regards Nigel This email has been sent from Suon Limited or from one of its related companies. The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Suon Limited is registered in England No 1512619. The registered office address of Suon Limited and its related companies is Capstone House, Prospect Park, Dunston Way, Dunston Road, Chesterfield S41 9RD. This email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium.	en
4454-pdf	# Operational Selection Policy Osp 51 Records Of Royal Mail And Its Predecessors 1969-2006 ## \| Section \| Title \| Page \| \|--------------------------------------------------------------------\|----------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------\| \| \| Contents \| 1 \| \| 1. \| Authority \| 5 \| \| 2. \| Scope \| 5 \| \| 6 \| 3. \| Responsibilities of Royal Mail and its predecessors, 1969- \| \| 2006 \| \| \| \| 4. \| Records appraisal in Royal Mail \| 7 \| \| 8 \| 5. \| \| \| Relevant collection themes in The National Archives' \| \| \| \| Acquisition and Disposition Strategy \| \| \| \| 9 \| 6. \| \| \| Royal Mail and its predecessors' functions and activities, \| \| \| \| 1969-2006 \| \| \| \| 6.1 \| \| \| \| Boards and committees \| \| \| \| 9 \| \| \| \| 6.1.1 \| Relevant TNA theme \| 9 \| \| 6.1.2 \| \| \| \| Governing boards, committees and executive teams \| \| \| \| 9 \| \| \| \| 6.1.2.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 10 \| \| 10 \| 6.1.3 \| \| \| Non governing committees, project and programme \| \| \| \| boards \| \| \| \| 6.1.3.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 11 \| \| 6.2 \| \| \| \| Collection and delivery \| \| \| \| 11 \| \| \| \| 6.2.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 11 \| \| 6.2.2 \| \| \| \| Letters and packets \| \| \| \| 11 \| \| \| \| 6.2.2.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 12 \| \| 6.2.3 \| \| \| \| Parcels \| \| \| \| 13 \| \| \| \| 6.2.3.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 14 \| \| 6.2.4 \| \| \| \| Technology \| \| \| \| 14 \| \| \| \| 6.2.4.1 \| \| \| \| Letter mechanisation and automation \| \| \| \| 14 \| \| \| \| 6.2.4.1.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 15 \| \| \| 6.2.4.2 \| \| \| \| Parcel mechanisation and automation \| \| \| \| 15 \| \| \| \| 6.2.4.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 16 \| \| \| 6.2.4.3 \| \| \| \| Postcodes \| \| \| \| 16 \| \| \| \| 6.2.4.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 17 \| \| \| 6.3 \| \| \| \| Employer/employee relations \| \| \| \| 17 \| \| \| \| 6.3.1 \| TNA themes \| 17 \| \| 6.3.2 \| \| \| \| Industrial relations \| \| \| \| 17 \| \| \| \| 6.3.2.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 18 \| 6.3.3 Recruitment, grading, pay and conditions 18 6.3.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 19 6.3.4 Internal communications, training and development 20 6.3.4.1 Internal communications 20 6.3.4.1.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 20 6.3.4.2 Training and development 20 6.3.4.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 21 6.3.5 Pensions 21 6.3.5.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 22 6.3.6 Staff records 22 6.3.6.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 22 6.4 Environment 23 6.4.1 TNA themes 23 6.4.2 Background 23 6.4.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 23 6.5 Equipment, fixtures and fittings 23 6.5.1 TNA themes 23 6.5.2 Equipment 23 6.5.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 24 6.5.2.2 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 24 6.5.3 Fixtures and fittings 24 6.5.3.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 25 6.5.4 Uniforms 25 6.5.4.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 26 6.6 Financial management 26 6.6.1 TNA themes 26 6.6.2 Background 26 6.6.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 26 6.7 Information technology 27 6.7.1 TNA themes 27 6.7.2 Background 27 6.7.3 Letters and parcels 28 6.7.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 28 6.7.4 Counters 28 6.7.4.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 29 6.8 Marketing 29 6.8.1 Relevant TNA themes 29 6.8.2 Advertising 29 6.8.2.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 29 6.8.3 Corporate identity 30 6.8.3.1 Royal Cypher 30 6.8.3.1.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 30 6.8.3.2 Branding 30 6.8.3.2.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 30 6.8.4 Market research 31 6.8.4.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 31 6.8.5 Public relations 31 6.8.5.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 31 6.9 Papers of senior directors 31 6.9.1 Relevant TNA themes 31 31 6.9.2 Background and records that will be selected for permanent preservation 6.10 Philately 32 6.10.1 Relevant TNA themes 32 6.10.2 Background 32 6.10.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 33 6.11 Planning 33 6.11.1 Relevant TNA themes 33 6.11.2 Background 33 6.11.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 34 6.12 Post Office counters operations and services 34 6.12.1 Relevant TNA themes 34 6.12.2 Background 34 6.12.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 37 6.13 Postal services and post offices abroad 38 6.13.1 Relevant TNA themes 38 6.13.2 Background 38 6.13.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 39 6.14 Property management 39 6.14.1 Relevant TNA themes 39 6.14.2 Background 39 6.14.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 39 6.15 Regulation 40 6.15.1 Relevant TNA themes 40 \| 6.15.2 \| Background \| 40 \| \|------------------------------------------------------\|------------------------------------------------------------\|-------\| \| 6.15.3 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 41 \| \| 6.16 \| \| \| \| Reorganisation \| \| \| \| 41 \| \| \| \| 6.16.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 41 \| \| 6.16.2 \| Background \| 41 \| \| 6.16.3 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 43 \| \| 6.17 \| \| \| \| Security \| \| \| \| 43 \| \| \| \| 6.17.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 43 \| \| 6.17.2 \| Background \| 44 \| \| 6.17.3 \| Records that will be considered for permanent preservation \| 44 \| \| 6.18 \| \| \| \| Transport \| \| \| \| 44 \| \| \| \| 6.18.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 44 \| \| 6.18.2 \| Introduction \| 45 \| \| 6.18.3 \| \| \| \| Air \| \| \| \| 45 \| \| \| \| 6.18.3.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 45 \| \| 6.18.4 \| \| \| \| Rail \| \| \| \| 45 \| \| \| \| 6.18.4.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 46 \| \| 6.18.5 \| \| \| \| Road \| \| \| \| 47 \| \| \| \| 6.18.5.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 47 \| \| 6.19 \| \| \| \| War and civil emergencies \| \| \| \| 48 \| \| \| \| 6.19.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 48 \| \| 6.19.2 \| \| \| \| War \| \| \| \| 48 \| \| \| \| 6.19.2.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 48 \| \| 6.19.3 \| \| \| \| Civil emergencies \| \| \| \| 49 \| \| \| \| 6.19.3.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 49 \| \| 6.20 \| \| \| \| Associations and societies \| \| \| \| 49 \| \| \| \| 6.20.1 \| Relevant TNA themes \| 49 \| \| 49 \| 6.20.2 \| \| \| Post Office Recreation Council and Royal Mail Sports \| \| \| \| Foundation \| \| \| \| 6.20.2.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 50 \| \| 6.20.3 \| \| \| \| Clubs \| \| \| \| 50 \| \| \| \| 6.20.3.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 50 \| \| 6.20.4 \| \| \| \| Charitable societies \| \| \| \| 51 \| \| \| \| 6.20.4.1 \| Records that will be selected for permanent preservation \| 51 \| \| Annex 1 \| Public records and the Post Office Act 1969 \| 52 \| ## 1. Authority 1.1 The National Archives (TNA) announced in its Acquisition and Disposition Policy Statement (February 2000) its intention of developing Operational Selection Policies (OSPs) across the government. These apply the collection themes described in the Policy to the records of individual departments and agencies subject to the Public Records Acts. 1.2 The records of the Post Office and of Royal Mail are Public Records by virtue of the Post Office Act 1969 Sections 16 (2)(b) and 75 (1) (see Annex 1). 1.3 OSPs are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may, therefore, be reviewed and revised in the light of comments received from the users of the records, archives professionals, TNA, Royal Mail, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review but we would welcome comments at any time. The extent of any review and revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. 1.4 In addition to TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy (March 2007), The Royal Mail Archive also takes its guidance from the British Postal Museum & Archive's (BPMA) Acquisition and Disposition Policy. This is available at: http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/aboutus/organisation/policies/ 1.5 If you have any comments about this policy, please contact Vicky Parkinson, Head of Archives and Records Management at: The British Postal Museum & Archive Freeling House Phoenix Place London WC1X 0DL vicky.parkinson@postalheritage.org.uk ## 2. Scope 2.1 This OSP provides guidance for the selection of records for permanent retention, which were created or received by Royal Mail and its predecessors, from 1969, when the Post Office was nationalised, to 2006 when the United Kingdom (UK) letters market was opened up to full competition. All records identified by this OSP as being of historical importance will be kept in The Royal Mail Archive, a designated place of deposit. 2.2 Until 1969, Royal Mail's predecessor, the Post Office, was a government department, and its expenditure was controlled by the Treasury. Therefore it was subject to the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. Subsequent Acts of Parliament relating to the Post Office and its successors have ensured that the records created by the body are still public records. 2.3 Central government records relating to Royal Mail and its predecessors will not be covered by this OSP, although this OSP may aid departments when developing their own OSPs. 2.4 The Post Office was responsible for telecommunications in the UK until that side of the business became a separate public corporation in 1981, trading as British Telecom. In 1984, British Telecom was privatised and, since 1991, has traded as BT. Records relating solely to telecommunication matters are not covered by this OSP: these records were largely transferred to BT between 1991 and 1998. However, where records exist that relate to both postal and telecommunication matters, this OSP will apply. This is because these records were not transferred to BT but remained in the custody of The Royal Mail Archive. 2.5 Girobank was sold to the Alliance & Leicester Building Society in 1990: this OSP does not cover records created or received by Girobank. 2.6 This OSP is not an exhaustive statement of all records that will be selected for permanent preservation but it is intended to provide clear direction to those who are making review decisions. 2.7 This OSP is intended to cover all formats of record from paper and electronic records through to photographic and audio-visual e.g. files, publications, sound recordings, audio and video cassettes, DVDs, maps, plans, posters, e-mails, databases. ## 3. Responsibilities Of Royal Mail And Its Predecessors, 1969-2006 Between 1969 and 2006, the organisation now known as Royal Mail, experienced sweeping changes to its functions, structure and nomenclature. In 1969, following the Post Office Act of that year, the General Post Office (as it was then known) ceased to be a branch of government and became a nationalised industry, established as a public corporation. The 'General' was dropped and it was known simply as the 'Post Office'. It was overseen by the newly created Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications whose Minister reported to Parliament. The Act also resulted in the creation of an ombudsman, the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC). At this time, it was responsible for inland and overseas letter and post services, telecommunications, Girobank and post office counter services. It also enjoyed a monopoly on the UK letters market. By 2006, it all looked very different. In 2001, in the light of the Postal Services Act the year before, the Post Office became a public limited company wholly owned by the government. It also changed its name to Consignia. In 2002, the name was changed to Royal Mail. The businesses remained unaffected by this change in name. The Postal Services Act also established a new regulatory regime with the creation of the Postal Services Commission (PostComm), an independent postal regulator and a new user representative body, Postwatch replacing POUNC. In 2006, Royal Mail's main businesses consisted of Post Office Ltd, Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide. The telecommunications side of the business had become a separate public corporation in 1981, while Girobank was sold in 1990. 2006 marked the end, after 350 years, of Royal Mail's monopoly of the UK letters market with the introduction, on 1 January, of full competition into that market. Licensed operators were now able to collect and deliver any type of mail, from single letters to bulk mailings. The market had gradually been opened up since 2003 when other postal operators were allowed to compete for bulk mailings of 4,000 items or more. Despite the introduction of competition, Royal Mail was and still is required to provide a universal postal service for First and Second Class mail with one collection and one delivery guaranteed each working day at a uniform price throughout the UK. The post office network, despite its vital role in providing access to government services and maintaining rural communities, faced and still faces an uncertain future as it lost revenue through, primarily, the withdrawal of government business and developments in technology. Many post offices ran at a loss, forcing them to close. Although the post office network tried to replace lost revenue with the introduction of new services, the network, increasingly, had to rely on government subsidies to sustain it. ## 4. Records Appraisal In Royal Mail 4.1 Many of the records of Royal Mail and its predecessors were, until 1987, registered into file series using alpha-numeric codes e.g. MKD/L/0022. These codes referred (if only loosely) to departments. In 1988, the referencing was changed to a running numeric code that had no association with a department e.g. 000099. At present, The Royal Mail Archive follows the 'Grigg system' to appraise these registered files. This system is used by TNA in partnership with most government departments although it is now under review. Files are reviewed five years after they were closed (a process known as 'First Review') to see if they have any continuing administrative value to Royal Mail or might be of historic value in the future. Assuming that the files have survived First Review, they are reviewed once more (a process known as 'Second Review') 25 years after they were created to see if they should be selected for permanent preservation. 4.2 With the advent of electronic records, Royal Mail is gradually moving away from the paper based file registry system described above. Staff at The British Postal Museum & Archive, Royal Mail's corporate heritage function, will work with Royal Mail to ensure that electronic records deemed to be of historic importance are selected for permanent retention. 4.3 Some records, such as those relating to certain boards and committees, posters and a number of publications, have been identified for permanent preservation and are transferred to The Royal Mail Archive at the earliest opportunity. 4.4 The Royal Mail Archive also receives some records on an ad-hoc basis e.g. because staff are moving offices and have discovered records that should be selected for permanent preservation. ## 5. Relevant Collection Themes In The National Archives' Acquisition And Disposition Strategy The Acquisition and Disposition Strategy (March 2007) outlines those themes which will assist staff to appraise and select records for permanent retention in The Royal Mail Archive. Of these themes, the following are of potential relevance to the work of Royal Mail and its predecessors: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution; 3.1.2 External relations and defence; 3.1.3 Administration of justice and the maintenance of internal security including immigration and citizenship; 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.1.6 Reform of the state's organisational structure, including constitutional arrangements and changes in the machinery of central and local government; 3.2 Interaction of the state with its citizens and its impact on and documentation of the physical environment; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries; 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government. ## 6. Royal Mail And Its Predecessors' Functions And Activities, 1969- 2006 The functions and activities listed below led to the creation of records that will be considered for permanent retention in The Royal Mail Archive: ## 6.1 Boards And Committees 6.1.1 Relevant Tna Theme The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution. ## 6.1.2 Governing Boards, Committees And Executive Teams Between 1969 and 2006, a number of boards, committees and executive teams participated in the governance of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, the most senior of these being what is now known as the Royal Mail Holdings Board. This Board was set up in 1934 and was originally known as the Post Office Board. It was responsible for setting policy and strategy and monitoring performance. It was briefly renamed the Consignia Board in 2001 before becoming the Royal Mail Holdings Board in 2002. Other important boards, committees and executive teams involved in the governance of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, include the Post Office Management Board, which was created in 1969 to oversee the day to day running of the Post Office and disbanded in 1980, and the Group Executive Team (GET). The GET is responsible for developing and monitoring strategy, annual operating plans and budgets for the Royal Mail Holdings Board's approval. It also reviews operational activities and agrees policy if it has not been set aside for the Royal Mail Holdings Board to consider. The GET was originally established in 1980 as the Chairman's Executive Committee before becoming the Post Office Executive Committee (POEC) in 1992. It was renamed the Executive Board and then the Management Board prior to becoming the Group Executive Team in 2006. GET reports to the Royal Mail Holdings Board, while the Post Office Management Board reported to the Post Office Board, the predecessor to the Royal Mail Holdings Board. Other examples of Royal Mail Holdings Board committees include the following: Audit Committee; Investment Board (formerly known as the Major Project Expenditure Committee or MaPEC); Investment Committee; Mergers and Acquisitions Board; Pensions Committee. The official records of boards, committees and executive teams usually adhere to a particular format and consist of the agenda and minutes of meetings, papers circulated prior to or during the meetings, and reports, perhaps documenting the outcomes of an investigation that a committee had been tasked to carry out. Due to the role they play in setting the policy and strategy of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, the records of the Royal Mail Holdings Board, its boards, committees and executive teams and all their predecessor bodies will be selected for permanent preservation. This also applies to the records of the boards, committees and executive teams of Royal Mail Letters, Post Office Ltd and Parcelforce Worldwide. ## 6.1.3 Non Governing Committees, Project And Programme Boards Non governing committees, project and programme boards can be found throughout Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office. They oversee specific matters, investigate short term issues or manage projects and programmes. Whether the records of non governing committees or project and programme board should be selected is a decision that should be made on a case by case basis. Non governing committees or project and programme boards are usually set up to research a particular subject or to oversee the running of a particular project, programme or product. Factors to take into account when considering whether or not to keep the records of a project or programme board include the risk, impact and innovative nature of the project or programme being undertaken together with the amount of money being spent on it and how it is being financed. The deliberations of committees set up to investigate local or short term issues will be reflected in records of more senior levels and are unlikely to be appropriate for permanent preservation. For the records of the Stamp Advisory Committee see Section 6.10. Routine administrative, financial and other housekeeping records will not be selected for permanent preservation, and should be destroyed in accordance with the relevant retention schedule. ## 6.2 Collection And Delivery 6.2.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity of government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.2.2 Letters And Packets Royal Mail Letters collects, sorts and delivers letters and packets within the United Kingdom (UK) and overseas. It was established as a separate business within the Post Office in 1986 as part of a major reorganisation. For most of the period covered by this OSP, the Post Office maintained its monopoly on the collection and delivery of letters. In 1969, around 30 million letters per day were being posted. After a fall in the amount of mail being posted in the 1970s, the 1980s saw an increase so that, by 1986, 42 million letters were being posted daily to 23 million addresses. By 2006, this had almost doubled with around 84 million letters a day being posted to 27 million addresses. During this period, the collection and delivery of mail underwent a number of major changes. One of the most important of these happened just before 1969, with the launch of the two tier letter service, also known as first class and second class, on 16 September 1968. Other changes include the withdrawal of Bank Holiday collections in 1975, the withdrawal of Sunday collections in 1976 and their reinstatement in 1989, and increases, from time to time, in postal rates. However, almost all of the significant changes to the collection and delivery of mail happened after 2001 when the Post Office Corporation became a public limited company. These were: promising that first delivery would arrive by 9 30am (something that was later dropped due to the strain it placed on operations), the introduction of single daily delivery in 2004 and the opening up of the UK letters market in 2006, thereby ending a monopoly that had existed since 1636. 2006 also saw the introduction of 'Pricing in Proportion', whereby the cost of posting an item was calculated according to its physical size, thickness and weight (prior to the introduction of 'Pricing in Proportion', postage rates were based on the weight of an item so the heavier it was the more it cost to post). The change from government department to that of public corporation in 1969 marked the beginning of the launch of a range of services aimed primarily at business users, who posted the majority of mail. Examples include Datapost, launched in 1970 as an overnight, door to door service aimed initially at moving computer data and other urgent packages, Intelpost in 1980, the world's first public international facsimile transmission service, which was initially introduced between Toronto and London, and Edipost in the early 1990s, the world's first national commercial service for converting electronic messages to paper for delivery by first class post. Records relating to significant changes to the collection and delivery of mail, as outlined above will be selected, due to the impact they have had on the way in which Royal Mail Letters operated and the impact that they have had on the general public. Records relating to the launch of new services, such as Datapost and Intelpost will also be selected. ## 6.2.3 Parcels Parcelforce Worldwide provides a collection and delivery service for urgent parcels and packages within the United Kingdom and throughout the world. Unlike Royal Mail Letters, it has never had a monopoly and operates in direct competition with other parcel carriers. From the establishment of the service in 1883, the process of collecting, sorting and delivering parcels changed very little until the launch, in the late 1960s, of the Parcel Post Plan (PPP) aimed at mechanising the sorting process. By the mid 1980s, parcel sorting had been concentrated on 34 large centres from the previous system of 1200 small local sorting offices. See Section 6.2.4.2 for more details about the PPP and parcels mechanisation. The early 1970s saw a fall in the number of parcels being carried, so much so that the Post Office considered withdrawing the service. However, cost cuts, a more realistic pricing structure, collaboration with the unions and better marketing saw the service make a profit and increase its share of the market. In 1983, it was decided to increase the maximum weight of parcels it would deliver from under 10kg (22lbs) to 22.5kgs (50lbs). In 1986, as a result of a major restructure within the Post Office, the parcel service became a separate business known as Royal Mail Parcels. The mid 1980s also saw the launch of a number of new services, such as Tynerider, which offered overnight delivery in the North East of England and to the Cumbrian coast, Trakback, a proof of delivery service that utilised barcodes to enable to customers to confirm that their parcel had been delivered, and SuperService, which guaranteed delivery in 48 hours. The 1990s heralded a number of restructures and further attempts by the business to renovate its collection and delivery system so that it could compete more effectively with other parcel carrier businesses. In 1990, Royal Mail Parcels was renamed Parcelforce. In 1997, Parcelforce was re-branded as Parcelforce Worldwide. The government also considered privatising Parcelforce but this idea was eventually dropped. This period also saw efforts by Parcelforce to become more competitive culminating in Project Apollo, which saw the business move away from loss making services, close many of its delivery centres and all its distribution centres apart from Coventry, which had opened in 2001. Records that document the problems the service faced in the 1970s and its recovery will be selected as will records relating to the launch of new services. Records will also be kept that document the restructuring programmes it went through and Parcelforce's reaction to its proposed privatisation. Records will also be kept that document Parcelforce's efforts to become more competitive by renovating its collection and delivery system. ## 6.2.4 Technology The collection, sorting, cancellation and delivery of mail have traditionally been very labour intensive. While this is still the case with regard to the collection and delivery of mail, the widespread mechanisation and automation of letter and parcel handling equipment, which began in earnest in the 1970s, transformed the sorting and cancelling elements of this process. In the late 1960s the Post Office introduced a programme aimed at restructuring the postal service. The programme was set out in the 'Letter Post Plan' and the 'Parcel Post Plan' and aimed at maximising benefits that mechanisation could offer in terms of efficiency, cost savings and benefits to the customer. Both plans were underway by the early 1970s and included the completion of national postcoding and the concentration and extensive mechanisation of mail handling. ## 6.2.4.1 Letter Mechanisation And Automation The Letter Post Plan (LPP) proposed that traffic should be concentrated at a large number of prospective, interlinked Mechanised Letter Offices (MLOs) to be built and finished by the early 1980s. This was because it was more economic to concentrate sorting in a smaller number of offices. The role of other processing offices was to be reduced. However, implementation of the LPP was delayed during the 1970s due to the withdrawal of union co-operation in some areas, the search for suitable sites, construction delays, the high cost of machinery, operational problems and some alteration in the location of MLO sites. By 1974, letter code-sort equipment had only been installed in 15 offices. During that year the target of building 120 MLOs was reduced to 80. By the end of 1981, 47 MLOs were operational. The LPP was virtually complete by the end of 1985. By then considerable developments had taken place in the design and production of mechanised letter handling equipment. Most MLOs equipped from the early 1980s were provided with second generation code-sort installations and modifications were produced to improve the performance of first generation equipment. From the mid 1980s, the Post Office concentrated on developing more advanced sorting systems, particularly the application of Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The early 1990s saw the introduction of the MTT system (Machine de Tri à Tasseurs or Mail Transport System), which sorts mail, and the Culler Facer Canceller, which culls, faces and cancels the mail, while the mid 1990s heralded the arrival of the Integrated Mail Processor (IMP), which does everything from segregate and face the mail to read addresses, cancel and pre-sort the mail. Other important developments include: the introduction of the Flats Sorting Machines (which are capable of sorting oversize envelopes), sequence sorting machines (which sort mail into postmen's and women's delivery walks) and Address Interpretation (whereby difficult to read addresses are sent to Mail Data Entry Centres (MDECs) to be deciphered. Prior to this, such addresses were deciphered in an Automated Processing Centre (APC)). Records relating to the research, development, field trials and implementation of letter handling equipment will be selected as will records relating to the building of MLOs. Records relating to the LPP and that document the withdrawal and reinstatement of union support for mechanisation will be selected. Records that document the changes in working conditions of staff that would have come about as a result of mechanisation will also be selected. ## 6.2.4.2 Parcel Mechanisation And Automation Circulation of parcel traffic was reorganised under the Parcel Post Plan (PPP), the biggest restructuring programme since the service was introduced in the 1880s. It projected the concentration of all outward parcel sorting work at about 30 major mechanised centres, called Parcel Concentration Offices (PCOs), linked by direct transport routes. Parcels would be conveyed within each concentration area by road and between centres by rail, including freightliner. A major element in the Plan was to replace manually handled mail bags and wicker baskets with containers of various sizes for use within and between PCOs. Standard wheeled containers were designed for use in road, rail and freightliner transportation. An extensive building programme was initiated to replace many of the existing parcel offices which were over 60 years old and unsuitable for the installation of machinery. By 1974, 12 PCOs were already in operation, although not all were fully functional. The remainder were scheduled to be opened by 1978-1979. Progress and extension of existing PCOs continued during the 1980s. In the very early days of postal mechanisation belt conveyors and chutes were the only mechanical aids to parcel handling. During the post-war period, and particularly after the introduction of the Post Office's Parcel Post Plan in 1967, a variety of band and chain conveyors, rising conveyors, glacis fixtures, parcel containers, container transporters, tilt band and tilt tray parcel sorting machines and other mechanical devices were installed in parcel sorting offices. Mechanical equipment and the construction of a number of Parcel Concentration Offices during the 1970s was designed to increase cost effectiveness, end the use of mail bags and wicker baskets, limit manual handling of heavy loads, reduce the rate of parcel damage and improve safety and the working environment for staff. Records relating to the research, development, field trials and implementation of parcel handling equipment will be selected as will records relating to the building of PCOs. Records relating to the PPP will be selected as will records that document the changes in the working conditions of staff that would have come about as a result of mechanisation. ## 6.2.4.3 Postcodes Major advances in postcoding took place between 1959 and 1974 when the Post Office developed a system of postcodes to facilitate the mechanical sorting of letters. Initial experiments involving address coding by the public and the use of code-sort machinery took place in Norwich from 1959. After limited success, a revised alphanumeric system of postcodes was introduced in October 1966. By the end of 1974 the whole of the United Kingdom had been allocated postcodes and Norwich was recoded. Implementation of the postcode system was fundamental to the Post Office's Letter Post Plan and Mechanised Letter Office scheme. Automatic coding and sorting machinery was not normally brought into use in an office until a year or two after postal codes had been introduced in that area. The new code-sort machines, introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, employed single operators who typed the postcode on the letter onto a keyboard; this was then translated into machine readable form and printed on the envelope as a series of phosphor dots. Subsequent outward and inward sorting operations involved machine reading of this code. Records that show how postcodes were allocated will be selected as will records that document how the Post Office set about persuading businesses and the general public to use postcodes. Records will also be selected that document growing public awareness of postcodes and the social impact that they had. ## 6.3 Employer/Employee Relations In 1971, the Post Office employed 414, 824 people (excluding subpostmasters) or about one in fifty of the UK's working population. At the time, it was the biggest single assembly of labour in Europe. Even though this figure had more than halved by 2006, it was and still is one of the biggest and most labour intensive industries in the UK. This has made good relations between the business and its staff essential to its success, an issue that it has been grappling with throughout the period covered by this OSP. ## 6.3.1 Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.3.2 Industrial Relations As such a large employer the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, has always had to be concerned with issues of Industrial Relations, and it has dealt with representative bodies of staff, such as Trade Unions, since the nineteenth century. When the Post Office Corporation was established in 1969 this was against the backdrop of national controversy in the field of industrial relations, in particular following Employment Secretary Barbara Castle's abortive attempt at reform, 'In Place of Strife'. The Conservative government's Industrial Relations Act in 1971 substantially changed the background again, but this was overturned later in the 1970s and, in the Post Office, an experiment with 'industrial democracy' took place. By the 1980s Conservative reforms to industrial relations laws had been introduced and the incidence of strike action, official and unofficial, fell back from earlier highs in the 1970s. Events of particular significance since 1969 include the large scale, long lasting national strike in the Post Office in 1971 - which was in fact about several issues but not least the Post Office's mechanisation plans - and other official and unofficial strike action, such as the 1996 official national strikes and the 1976 unofficial action in support of workers at the Grunwick processing laboratory. Sympathy strike action could also cause crippling damage to postal services, particularly when in support of railwaymen who were involved in moving the mail in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1978-79 experiment in Industrial Democracy was a key moment, as were later attempts to progress industrial relations between the trade unions and the Post Office (principally with the Union of Communication Workers, the name for the Union of Post Office Workers from 1980. It was renamed the Communication Workers Union in 1993). Major causes of industrial relations difficulties for the Post Office in this period have been listed as: discipline; pay; overtime; staffing levels; working environment; withdrawal of concessions; attendance at union meetings; economy measures; casual labour; bonus schemes. Records relating to the impact of strike action on services, negotiations with trade unions at a local and national level, and Post Office policy and operations in relation to its Trade Union discussions and agreements will be selected, with particular emphasis on records relating to the major events described above ## 6.3.3 Recruitment, Grading, Pay And Conditions It is not appropriate in this Operational Selection Policy (OSP) to cover all the issues relating to recruitment, grading, pay and conditions that the Post Office and its successors have experienced between 1969 and 2006. However, apart from the fight by staff for more pay, a shorter working week and better working conditions, the most important/recurring themes in this period include: Changes to the grading of jobs - in 1969, the Post Office Corporation inherited a Civil Service job structure. 385,000 staff were spread across 230 different grades. The early 1970s were spent rationalising this. For example, four thousand senior managers throughout the Post Office were reorganised into a new senior salary structure with 100 separate grades being replaced by ten bands. Other examples of important grading changes include: the replacement of Telegram Boys with Postal Cadets in 1980 and the abolition of Postman Higher Grade (PHG) at the turn of the 21st century. Although PHGs kept their grade, new entrants were known as Operational Postal Grades (OPGs). Recruitment problems - during the 1970s, the Post Office experienced problems recruiting staff due, in part, to low pay and unsociable hours, which led to a decline in the quality of service and low morale amongst existing staff. Although recruitment problems eased in the early 1980s, they returned in the mid 1980s. When the Post Office introduced a pay supplement in difficult to recruit areas to try to combat the problem, it led to a national strike in 1988. Moves by the Post Office and its successors to reward the productivity of staff with bonuses - from 1980, bonuses in return for rises in productivity began to come in. One major example of this trend in recent years would be the Share in Success payout to staff following the success of the Renewal Plan in 2004. Staff were promised a payout of £800 if Royal Mail hit its profit target of £400 million. In fact, the target was exceeded leading to a payout of £1,034. Equal opportunities - equal opportunities in the Post Office came to the fore during the 1980s and this has continued into the present day. Examples include: moves to employ more people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, women and part timers, the introduction of career breaks, job sharing, school term time working, the launch of a Disability Advice Centre in 1993, and the implementation of programmes to tackle issues like bullying and harassment. The following records will be selected for permanent retention:  Those that document major changes to the grading of jobs;  Those that document problems in recruiting staff and solutions to the problem;  Those that document the introduction and success or failure of productivity schemes;  Those that relate to initiatives by the Post Office and its successors to implement equal opportunities;  Those that document pay negotiations, pay scales and changes to working hours;  Personnel manuals;  Personnel policies. ## 6.3.4 Internal Communications, Training And Development 6.3.4.1 Internal Communications Initiatives to improve communications between managers and their staff took off in the 1980s. Although there had always been staff magazines, like Courier, to keep staff informed about what was going on, the 1980s saw the launch of initiatives, such as staff briefings and staff surveys, aimed at improving internal communications further. In 1987, Royal Mail Letters launched a programme of monthly team briefings aimed at informing staff about local and national topics. These briefings were also launched in Royal Mail Parcels. Staff briefings were a forerunner to the 'work time learning' sessions, which were launched in the Post Office at the beginning of the 21st century, and consist of weekly half hour sessions where managers and staff get together to discuss important issues. Around the same time as staff briefings began, Royal Mail Letters and Royal Mail Parcels began to hold regular staff surveys which asked staff for their opinions on various subjects. The following will be selected for permanent preservation:  Reports into the state of internal communications within the Post Office and its successors;  Those that document the results of staff surveys and how the individual businesses responded to them;  Those that document the introduction of major initiatives such as staff briefings, staff surveys and 'work time learning';  Staff magazines like Courier and the Post Office Gazette;  Internal communications policies. ## 6.3.4.2 Training And Development The period between 1969 and 2006 saw an increased emphasis on the training and development of staff. This began in the 1970s with initiatives such as the opening of a postal management college at Rugby and the introduction of new training techniques. The early 1980s saw the Post Office launch the Postal Cadet scheme for 16 and 17 year olds and participate in the government's Youth Training Scheme (YTS). By the late 1980s, Royal Mail Letters was formalising its training with the introduction of training managers in its postal districts. The early 1990s saw staff across the Post Office being encouraged to study for relevant qualifications. For example, Counters introduced national vocational qualifications, while Parcelforce made a joint City and Guilds qualification a requirement for new delivery drivers. ## 6.3.4.2.1 Records That Will Be Considered For Permanent Retention The following records will be considered for permanent retention:  Those that document significant initiatives or shifts in policy in training and development e.g. decision to encourage staff to study for relevant qualifications, setting up of the YTS and the Postal Cadet scheme;  Training relating to important events e.g. decimalisation;  Training videos;  Training policies. ## 6.3.5 Pensions One of the key employment questions that Royal Mail and its predecessor, the Post Office, has had to face over the period from 1969 until 2006 has been that of pension provision for its staff. Throughout this time the Post Office has offered an occupational pension for staff of all grades, of varying kinds. The Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme was the name taken from 1969 when a separate scheme to the main civil service pension, which had been nominally used up to that point, was established; other names and incarnations have followed. Since then, principal considerations have been:  The deficits that have existed at various times in the funding of the scheme (and in particular the inherent deficit in 1969 when the transfers from the civil service scheme took place, and negotiations with central government over the pensions deficit since 2001), and how they were to be dealt with;  How the Pension Scheme was to be split when the Posts and Telecomms sides of the organisation split in 1981;  Changes to the benefits that the scheme has offered and staff concern (even as far as taking strike action) over changes to benefits;  Regular reviews of the performance of the scheme by Coopers and Lybrand (in the 1970s) and others;  Changes to trustee board membership and the involvement of the trade unions;  The effect of the introduction of what became the State Earning Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS) in 1978. Records related to the principal considerations of the pensions scheme, listed above, will be selected for permanent preservation. ## 6.3.6 Staff Records Royal Mail is a major employer in the UK. Staff are one of the most critical assets of any company. Employment records reflect the individual experiences of members of staff. Taken as a whole they can also be a key resource for tracking social and economic trends i.e. the impact of mechanisation on the number of staff employed and the impact of economic fluctuations (recession or booming economy) on pay rates and numbers employed. Records that relate to the following will be selected:  Key points in the employment of individuals (i.e. appointment or retirement);  Overall employment trends, such as the number of staff employed and rates of pay will also be selected;  Policy decisions about terms and conditions of employment;  Those that set out the staff structure in Royal Mail and its predecessors. ## 6.4 Environment 6.4.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government. As one of the largest employers in the country with a considerable property portfolio and a very large fleet of vehicles, the Post Office's impact on the environment was always going to be a sizeable one. Beginning in the late 1980s, it began to develop initiatives to minimise the harmful effects its activities had on the environment. Initiatives ranged from launching vehicles with environmentally friendly features, experimenting with bio-fuels and switching to lead-free petrol to minimising the impact of new buildings and cutting energy use in existing buildings. Records relating to the Post Office's and its successors' efforts to minimise the impact their operations had on the environment will be selected. ## 6.5 Equipment, Fixtures And Fittings 6.5.1 Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts. ## 6.5.2 Equipment A variety of equipment was and is used to process, handle and deliver the mail. Manual equipment, for example, ranges from sorting frames, mail processing tables and drop bags to mail bags, Yorks and delivery pouches. However, the most iconic and instantly recognisable of all the equipment used to process, handle and deliver the mail is the letter box. Since 1969, a number of new letter boxes have been added to the existing range. These include the 'K' type box, designed in 1980 for use in modern housing estates or similar developments, the business box, designed in 1994 for franked mail and located in business parks, industrial estates or some high streets, and the indoor box, also designed in 1994 for use in secure locations. The following records will be selected for permanent preservation:  Those that document the design of, experiments in, and trials and roll out of new letter boxes, including models that did not make it into production;  Those that document changes in letter box policy;  Guidelines for the livery, design and technical aspects of letter boxes. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that show the different types of mail processing, handling or delivery equipment used e.g. photographs, equipment catalogues;  Those that document the design, trials and introduction of mail processing, handling or delivery equipment specifically designed for Royal Mail Letters and its predecessors;  Those that document the introduction of equipment that was not specifically designed for Royal Mail Letters and its predecessors but that still played an important part in the mail processing, handling and delivery process e.g. introduction of MATES (Mail All Purpose Trailer Equipment) and YORKS (caged trollies used to transport sacks or trays of mail), introduction of circular sorting frames. ## 6.5.3 Fixtures And Fittings Between 1969 and 2006, the interiors of post offices underwent a number of changes to take account of developments in fixtures and fittings, innovations such as the introduction of the single queue and the security screen, and rebranding exercises. A variety of fixtures and fittings were required to fit out and furnish post offices. These ranged from counters, desks and chairs through to signage, security screens and queue barriers. With the exception of fixtures, such as signage and security screens, most of the fixtures and fittings that could be found in post offices were not custom made for them but were bought 'off the shelf'. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that show the different types of fixtures and fittings used in post offices e.g. photographs, furniture catalogues;  Those that document the design, trials and installation of fixtures and fittings specifically made for post offices e.g. security screens, signage. ## 6.5.4 Uniforms Between 1969 and 2006, a number of changes were made to the uniforms issued to employees. These changes ranged from completely new uniforms being issued to staff to improvements or alterations being made to existing uniforms or the introduction of new pieces of kit. In 1969, the Post Office broke with tradition and, instead of the usual dark blue, issued postmen with grey uniforms. The uniform also no longer carried the traditional red piping that had, until then, maintained a link with the first scarlet uniform issued in 1793. Postwomen received their new grey uniforms the following year. This break with tradition did not last long as, in 1986, postmen and postwomen were issued with dark blue uniforms. The 1980s saw the Post Office trying to issue uniforms that could cater for every kind of condition that the weather could throw at its postmen and postwomen. In 1980, the Post Office introduced lightweight uniforms for use in warm weather. However, it was not until 1986 that the Post Office issued postmen and women with its first all weather, all purpose year round uniform. Items included thermal coats, waterproof suits and pullovers. This was all part of a trend that was emerging to try and make uniforms that could cater for the needs of all Post Office employees. For example, the new uniform issued to counter employees in 1992 included a sari and a maternity dress. Uniforms also became more practical and informal. For example, women were given culottes in 1991 while, in 1992, postmen were given permission to wear their own shorts when the temperature reached 26C. The new uniform issued to postmen and postwomen between 1999 and 2001 included winter and summer caps. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the reasons behind the redesign of uniforms or the introduction of new pieces of kit;  Those that document the design, trials and rollout of new uniforms and pieces of kit;  Those that document staff attitudes towards uniforms;  Those that document consultation with the unions over the introduction of new uniforms and dress codes. ## 6.6 Financial Management 6.6.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.1 Management of government revenues and expenditure. From 1969 the Public Corporation of the Post Office was split into two businesses, Posts and Telecomms, and accounting for these businesses was done separately. In 1981 the Telecomms business became a separate Public Corporation, eventually to be privatised. Right up until the Postal Services Act 2000 came into force, there were clear links between the government and the Post Office in financial terms since the Corporation arrangements by and large persisted; when the Act was implemented in 2001 the company became a PLC with a single shareholder (the UK government) and more conventional company financial arrangements applied. The Post Office's accounting functions have always carried out the conventional activities associated with a finance function. These have included financial accounting, management accounting, forecasting and control. For the period since 1969 the majority of these functions have been based outside of London, and in particular a centre in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, was purpose-built for housing accounting work. ## 6.6.3 Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Retention The area of financial management is a complex one and a lot of records are created to document activity. The majority of these can be confidentially destroyed after statutory and business retention periods have elapsed. However, the financing and performance of the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, have been issues of significant public import since 1969, and the policy decisions made relating to finance should be properly documented and appropriate records selected. Budgets and budget planning, accounting, procurement and statistics are among potential areas of significance. Records associated with the framework and structure of accounting and finance, major financial planning, major exceptions and issues, and the changes made to systems (in particular with the change to the organisation brought about by the Postal Services Act 2000) will be selected. Records documenting the high-level outturn of accounting, and high level budgeting, forecasting and planning, will be selected. Financial management records for major projects will be selected. Published annual accounts are available in printed form in The Royal Mail Archive. ## 6.7 Information Technology 6.7.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sports, education and the arts. From the launch of ERNIE (the machine used to pick winning Premium Bond numbers) in 1957 to the roll out of Horizon (a counter automation programme) in 2001 and Royal Mail's decision in 2002 to outsource its IT department to the PRISM alliance (a consortium consisting of BT, the Computer Science Corporation of America and Xansa) in a deal that involved millions of pounds, it is difficult to think of an area of postal operations that has not been transformed by the advent of computers. Although the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, embraced IT, it has also proved problematic. Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide face stiff competition from telephones, e-mails and faxes, while Post Office Ltd has found itself vulnerable to technologies such as automatic banking transactions, plastic cards and cash dispensing machines, as evidenced by the government's decision to pay welfare benefits directly into bank accounts from 2003. ## 6.7.3 Letters And Parcels Both Royal Mail Letters, Parcelforce Worldwide and their predecessors have used automation alongside mechanisation to make the process of sorting letters and parcels quicker and more efficient. For example, the 1970s saw the introduction of first and second generation code sorting desks. Code sort desk operators would key in postcodes, which computers would convert into phosphor dots for sorting machines to read and then sort into the appropriate boxes. The 1980s heralded the arrival of Optical Character Recognition machines, which could automatically read typed and printed postcodes and add the right phosphor dots for the sorting machines to read. By the mid 1990s, advances in technology meant that hand-written postcodes could also be read. For a more detailed examination of the role technology has played in the sorting process, see Section 6.2.4. Computers also assisted in the collection and delivery processes. Innovations included using computers to assist in the planning of new postmen's walks where new buildings or other developments had had an impact on delivery patterns, and bar-coding post boxes and business collections so that staff could make a computerised record of each collection and so improve service reliability. The Post Office also took advantage of computers to launch a host of new services aimed primarily at its business users. Examples include Intelpost, the world's first public international facsimile service, which was launched in 1980 between London and Toronto, Electronic post in the early 1980s, whereby mailings were transmitted electronically, printed out and then enveloped and introduced into the system for delivery, and Parcelforce's SuperService in the late 1980s, which used a £30 million computer controlled network to guarantee a 48 hour delivery service. Records that document the development and installation or launch of collection and delivery related IT systems or services designed for or by the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.7.4 Counters The automation of the Counters business was a gradual one that began in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s. Developments included the introduction of electronic cash registers, a computerised cash management system, EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale) and the roll out of Horizon. Records that document the development and installation or launch of Counter IT systems or services designed for or by the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.8 Marketing 6.8.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. ## 6.8.2 Advertising Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors ran a huge number of advertising campaigns. These were chiefly aimed at:  Encouraging customers to do something more efficiently e.g. use postcodes or address mail properly;  Encouraging customers to buy products e.g. travel insurance or holiday money;  Encouraging customers, particularly business ones, to use its services e.g. Datapost, direct mail;  Encouraging customers to send more mail e.g. greetings cards;  Informing customers about products and services e.g. latest recommended posting times for mail. It has utilised various means to do this from television, radio and the national press to posters, leaflets and competitions. The following will be considered for permanent preservation:  Records that document the planning of campaigns, their implementation and success or failure;  Material arising from major campaigns e.g. leaflets, posters, television and radio commercials. ## 6.8.3 Corporate Identity 6.8.3.1 Royal Cypher A Royal Cypher consists of the initials of a sovereign's name and title. Permission to use the Royal Cypher and the accompanying St Edward's Crown is granted by the Lord Chamberlain's office as a mark of special esteem to Royal Mail and its predecessors. The Royal Cypher and St Edward's crown can only be applied to post boxes and vehicles (except in Scotland where, since 1953, a Scottish crown has been used). Each successive reign has brought a new Royal Cypher. Since Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952, there have been few changes to her cypher, 'EIIR'. Records that document any changes or new uses to the Royal Cypher will be considered for permanent preservation. ## 6.8.3.2 Branding Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors used a variety of logos to identify the organisation as a whole, its business units and the services it offered. Examples of these include the corporate logo adopted in the early 1970s to symbolise the newly nationalised Post Office, which consisted of 'The Post Office' spelt out in yellow double line lettering, and Royal Mail's cruciform logo, introduced in 1990, which consists of a cross shaped device comprising St Edward's Crown with the words, 'Royal Mail' in yellow double line lettering below it. The cruciform logo also comes in Welsh and Scottish versions. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the reasons behind the introduction of new logos;  Designs for new logos, both successful and unsuccessful;  Those that document the rollout of new logos;  Those that document significant changes to existing logos;  Guidelines for the use of logos. ## 6.8.4 Market Research Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors commissioned market research to find out what people thought of it as an organisation, how they used its products and services and what they thought of those products and services. Such research can give researchers an excellent insight into how the Post Office and its successors were perceived and how attitudes towards the organisation have changed over the years. The following records will be considered for permanent selection:  Those that document attitudes towards the Post Office and its successors;  Those that throw light on British society as a whole;  Those that document how products and services were used. ## 6.8.5 Public Relations Some form of public relations, that is promoting good relations between the organisation and the general public, has been practised since the 1920s with a Public Relations Department being formally established in 1934. Activities carried out by public relations include producing press releases, compiling publications such as the Post Office Guide and organising external events. By the 1990s, the department had become known as Communication Services. Press releases and publications such as the Post Office Guide will be considered for permanent preservation. ## 6.9 Papers Of Senior Directors 6.9.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution. ## 6.9.2 Background And Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Preservation The Royal Mail Archive is keen to acquire the records of senior directors. Such records can provide evidence of high level decision making which cannot be found amongst more official records. For example, the minutes of meetings will document that a decision has been made but, generally speaking, do not document the processes that led up to that decision. The Royal Mail Archive aims to ensure that records which document why major decisions were made and how those decisions were implemented are kept permanently. The Royal Mail Archive is interested in those records created by a senior director in the discharge of their function as a Royal Mail, Consignia or Post Office employee. The Archive is not interested in the records that a senior director may have created in a personal capacity e.g. as a member of a sports club or residents' association. The records of senior directors will be taken at the end of a senior director's working life cycle. An element of self selection is involved in this in that The Royal Mail Archive will be taking records that the director concerned considers to be important. As is standard practice with all records held in The Royal Mail Archive, the records will be kept under a thirty year closure period or for longer if necessary e.g. if the material contains personal data or for security reasons. ## 6.10 Philately 6.10.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts. There has been an interest in the study of stamps since they were first created and the areas of stamp design, the efficacy of particular stamps, the link between politics and stamp issues and security/fraud prevention have been among paramount special interests. The Post Office and its successors have been responsible for the manufacture of Postage Stamps since 1914 and in 1962 a formal Stamp Advisory Committee was set up to play a role in advising on the design and issue of in particular new special stamps. The decision was taken to increase the number of special stamps (often called 'commemoratives') issued and from 1964 numbers rose. Roughly eight sets of special stamps were planned and issued each year up until the Millennium sets of 1999-2001, when numbers increased. The definitive stamp was revamped in 1967 as the 'Machin Head' was established as the iconic image for the 'everyday' stamp. Efforts to produce a new design for definitive stamps in the early 1980s were unsuccessful and it was decided to continue with the use of the 'Machin Head' as the iconic image for the 'everyday' stamp. Services for philatelists have developed with Tallents House in Edinburgh acting as a centre from which products are marketed and dispatched by the Post Office. Stamp production has also developed, with the introduction of phosphor coated stamps in 1976, the introduction of the first Miniature Sheet (a special product) in 1978, and the introduction of Greetings Stamps in 1989 along with the first stamps with Non-Value Indicators (those showing '1st Class' or '2nd class' rather than a money amount). More recently there has been the introduction of computer-printed labels at Post Office counters and the ability to produce postage labels over the internet. Records related to the discussions and deliberations of the Stamp Advisory Committee, the design and manufacture of stamps and external relations regarding this, the security of stamps, and the issue of stamps will be selected. Particular care will be taken to select records related to trials and innovation in stamps and philately, whether successful or unsuccessful. This is in addition to all stamp artwork (both adopted and unadopted) which will be retained along with appropriate proofs, trials and related correspondence and papers. Records related to Royal Mail and its predecessors' relations with the philatelic world may also be selected. ## 6.11 Planning 6.11.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution For the Post Office, the concept of long term planning came to the fore when it ceased to be a government department and became a nationalised industry in 1969. It had to act like a business and also justify its actions to the government. This can be seen with the creation of a Corporate Planning Unit in the years prior to the Post Office becoming a public corporation. With the creation of that unit, the Post Office always had a department in one form or another specifically devoted to long term planning. In the 1970s, despite the Post Office trying to plan five or ten years ahead, it tended to concentrate on the short term problems it faced, such as price and wage restraints. During this period, each of the businesses also tended to produce plans independently of each other rather than considering what would benefit the Post Office as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s saw a shift with the Board using the corporate plan to set out its long term strategy for the Post Office and the businesses taking their direction from the Board. The Post Office produced a variety of documents, such as capital plans, business plans and environmental reviews, all of which were geared towards planning the future direction of the Post Office. The most important of these was the corporate plan, which set out the Board's plans for the following five years and formed the basis for the government to approve and monitor what the Post Office did. It made the Post Office accountable to the government as the latter had to approve the plan. Both sides used it as a basis to negotiate future targets and access to future capital. In fact, the strategic plan that Royal Mail produces still has to be approved by the government and, until recently, its funding package was reliant upon it. Records relating to the proposed future direction of Royal Mail and its predecessors, such as corporate plans and business plans, will be selected. ## 6.12 Post Office Counters Operations And Services 6.12.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. Traditionally, post offices, which can be found on high streets and in a variety of urban and rural locations throughout the United Kingdom, have, primarily, provided products and services to the public on behalf of the government. They were the conduit through which the government distributed pensions, social security benefits, emergency payments such as butter tokens and discounts on electricity bills, and official documentation such as the British Visitors' Passports. Post offices still form the largest retail network in the United Kingdom. They did and do play an extremely important role in the social and economic life of the United Kingdom. This is particularly the case with regard to rural sub post offices, which are often the only means of keeping the sole shop in a village from closing. The main problem facing post offices between 1969 and 2006, the period covered by this OSP, was that the maintenance of the network was dependent upon the government continuing to use it to pay out social security benefits and pensions. Post offices were also under threat from developments in technology, which meant that pensions, for example, could be paid directly into bank accounts instead of through post offices. In 1980, the government announced that it was changing arrangements for the payment of social security benefits. This led to a reduction in the volume of business being transacted through post offices and heralded the beginning of the withdrawal of government business from post offices. During the 1980s and early 1990s, post offices tried to make up for this lost revenue in a number of ways. Following the British Telecommunications Act in 1981, the post office network was allowed to provide services for a wider range of public bodies. An early example of this was the agreement made with British Rail, which enabled application forms for railcards for the disabled to be obtained from and certified at most post office counters. It expanded its retail activities by, for example, opening postshops within main post offices. Each shop sold a range of writing paper, greetings cards, packaging materials and philatelic items. The first four, at Ashford, Kent, Stevenage, Epsom and Bedford, opened in March 1984. Smaller post offices were provided with browser units with which to display merchandise. It also increased the range of products and services it could offer to the public. Examples of products and services introduced during this period vary from the installation of photocopiers and photo booths in the early 1980s to the launch of BonusPrint in 1984 (customers could pay at the counter for film developing and printing and see their prints arrive by post a few days later) and the sale of theatre tokens for London's West End theatres in the late 1980s. In 1983, a major review of the network, the first since the 1940s, found that there were too many post offices in urban areas. It was decided that some of these post offices, subject to consultation, would close over the following three years. A guarantee was given that 95% of the existing network would be maintained until April 1987. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of Crown offices were converted to agency (i.e. sub-post office) status to save money and some post offices were franchised (post offices operating within existing businesses). The first franchised post office opened in 1990 in Sainsbury's Savacentre, Colliers Wood, London. Although rural post offices were unaffected by the closures brought about by the review of the network in 1983, it was not unusual for them to close through lack of business. By the late 1980s, 100 a year were closing because of this. The solution was to re-open some of them on a part-time basis. 1, 144 post offices were operating on a part-time basis at this time. Despite all its efforts, by the early 1990s, the post office network was still facing significant problems one of most pressing being that it was still heavily reliant on government business. Although the network dealt with up to 160 different transactions, just ten of those transactions accounted for 75% of their business. It was also vulnerable to technology, with the advent of such developments as automatic banking transactions, plastic cards and cash dispensing machines encroaching on its business. More than 40% of new pensions were now paid through banks and building societies through automated credit transfers. It was also susceptible to changes in policy as a company or government department, for example, could always decide to take the services they had contracted out to post offices away. During the 1990s and into the 21st century, the post office network grappled with ways of replacing the revenue it had lost through the withdrawal of government business and developments in technology. It took full advantage of the wider powers it had been given by the government in 1987 and 1994 to develop new products and services. Examples of such products and services included the launch, in 1994, of its Bureau de Change business, home insurance in 2002 and the Post Office HomePhone in 2005. It was also repositioning itself from a benefits based business to one that would focus on banking and information services, with post offices becoming 'community banking hubs'. In March 1999, a deal was signed with Lloyd's TSB to allow those customers with personal cheque accounts to deposit and withdraw money from post offices in England and Wales. This was one of a number of agreements reached with banks to handle some of their banking transactions. Agreement was also reached with several banks and building societies, including Barclays, Lloyd's TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland and Nationwide, to make their basic bank accounts available through post offices. This was fully launched in 2003 along with the Post Office Card Account, which allowed customers to continue having their benefits paid over the counter in cash. Further developments included the launch of a 'two in one' credit card in 2005 and a new instant saver account in 2006. From 2003, the government decided to pay benefits directly into bank accounts. This had a significant impact on the network with benefits payments accounting for over 40% of some post offices' income. There were too many post offices chasing too little business. The decision was made to close up to 3,000 post offices in urban areas. This decision formed part of the Network Reinvention Programme, whose aim was to make the urban post office network more viable by reducing overprovision and creating more modern branches. After consultation, 2,500 post offices were closed. The rural post office network had been making a substantial loss since the late 1980s. At that time it was losing between £20 and £30 million a year. The majority of rural post offices did and do cost more to run than the income they generate leading to questions about their long term viability. In May 2003, the government received approval from the European Commission to release £450 million from Royal Mail's reserves of historic profits to support some rural post offices, which would otherwise have had to close because they were not commercially viable. Between 2005 and 2006, the post office network lost £111 million as it struggled to replace the income it had lost through the withdrawal of benefits payments. The post office network faced and still faces an uncertain future as Royal Mail and the government consider how to make it a financially viable business. The following records will be considered for selection:  Those that relate to government policy towards the post office network and Royal Mail and its predecessors' strategies for replacing the revenue generated by government business  Those that relate to the closure of post offices e.g. Network Reinvention Programme;  Those that relate to the introduction of new products and services or the withdrawal of existing ones;  Reviews of the post office network e.g. review of the post office network, 1983; Monopolies and Commission's report, June 1988, government review of the post office network, Jun 2000. ## 6.13 Postal Services And Post Offices Abroad 6.13.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.2 External relations and defence Royal Mail provides a range of services for the overseas market both for individuals and businesses, in mail (air and surface), express mail and logistics. Overseas is generally defined as any country outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland except the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic. Between 1969 and 2006, the period covered by this OSP, Royal Mail and its predecessors adapted to a changing and increasingly competitive international mail market through introducing new services and acquiring or partnering overseas postal companies. From the 1990s onwards Royal Mail and its predecessors expanded their overseas involvement through acquisition, alliance and partnership. It established Royal Mail Inc. in the United States in mid- 1990s. General Logistics Systems (GLS), founded in 1999, is its European parcels business based in the Netherlands and operating in over 30 countries. Spring, a joint venture with TNT and Singapore Post to handle cross-border mail, was started in the early 2000s. Meanwhile the British Postal Consultancy Service, set up in 1965 to advise overseas administrations on mechanised sorting offices, expanded both its remit and client base. In 1998, 200 consultants were working on 60 projects in 40 countries compared to a handful of projects in 1969. Key developments in services and technology included: an international Datapost service (transatlantic via Concord in 1977-78); Intelpost (the world's first international facsimile transmission service) between London and North America in 1980; Swiftair (a fast, assured mail service to specific destinations) in 1980 (this was replaced by Airsure). In 1983-84 the Post Office had a total income of £2776m of which £289m or approximately 10% was for overseas services. Outward overseas letter traffic had declined from peak levels in the mid-1970s to about 476m in 1983-84. That said, partly through Royal Mail's expanding logistics business, the five years following 1999 saw the share of its revenue earned abroad increase from 4.1% to 9.5%. The following records will be considered for selection:  Those concerning overseas investments, acquisitions and partnership agreements;  Those relating to the development of the new services described above;  Those concerning dealings with the Universal Postal Union, the international body which coordinates postal policies between member nations. ## 6.14 Property Management 6.14.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government In 2006, Royal Mail's property portfolio consisted of around 2,700 properties. These included post offices, sorting offices, research centres, headquarters buildings and distribution hubs. In recent years efforts have been made to streamline Royal Mail's estate through the consolidation of services and the closure and selling off of buildings that are no longer required. Between 1969 and 2006, numerous building projects took place e.g. the building of Mechanised Letter Offices (MLOs) and Parcel Concentration Offices (PCOs) under the Letter Post and Parcel Plans throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s, the building and opening of mail centres and distribution hubs, such as Parcelforce's centre at Coventry (2001) and Royal Mail Letters' Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre (2001), and the selective closure of Crown post offices. ## 6.14.3 Records That Will Be Considered For Selection Records that will be considered for selection include:  Those that document the building of MLOs, PCOs, mail centres, distribution hubs and other significant buildings;  Those that document Royal Mail's policy towards its property portfolio;  Lists of properties. ## 6.15 Regulation 6.15.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. There was a substantial change in the regulatory framework for the Post Office business after it became a PLC with the implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000. At the same time as this changed the organisation forever, it created a regulator, the Postal Services Commission (PostComm). PostComm regulates and enforces the Universal Service, acts as a check on Royal Mail and licenses other postal operators. In 1969 it was decided to establish a Users Council. This was called the Post Office Users National Council (POUNC). Its aim was to represent at national level the interests of the users of Post Office services, to ensure the existence of adequate consultative arrangements at local level, to receive proposals from the Postmaster General, and to make recommendations to him about the services. These powers were established under the 1969 Post Office Act. POUNC was an independent statutory body, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. From its establishment the Post Office provided a secretary and premises. The work of the council arose from matters put before it by the Post Office, public, and local advisory committees. In 2001, POUNC was replaced by Postwatch. Postwatch, which was initially called the Consumer Council for Postal Services, was established to promote the interests of users of postal services within the framework of the Postal Services Act 2000. Postwatch was responsible for monitoring postal service standards and acted as a focus for consumer issues and complaints. It was consulted on key decisions including changes to postal licences. It also, in conjunction with Postcomm, monitored and advised on the network of Post Office branches. In October 2008, Postwatch merged with energywatch and the Welsh, Scottish and National Consumer Councils to create Consumer Focus, an organisation establish to support the rights of consumers in England, Scotland, Wales and, for post, Northern Ireland. The following records will be selected:  Those concerning Royal Mail relations with PostComm and Postwatch, in particular those taking place at a high level or involving contentious issues;  Those relating to formal documents submitted to PostComm and the processes within the business that lay behind these;  Those relating to formal information requests from PostComm and standards and regulation inspection. Equivalent records of standards assessment and formal and informal government regulation from before the implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000 will also be selected. ## 6.16 Reorganisation 6.16.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.6 Reform of the state's organisational structure, including constitutional arrangements and changes in the machinery of central and local government. Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors underwent an enormous number of organisational changes, so much so that those working for the Post Office in 1969 would have had difficulty recognising the organisation in 2006. The following comprises an overview of these events although it is by no means exhaustive such were the number and variety of upheavals that the Post Office and its successors experienced during this period: In 1969, under the Post Office Act passed in the same year, the General Post Office ceased to be a government department and became a nationalised industry, established as a public corporation. It was renamed the Post Office and split into two divisions, Posts and Telecommunications, which became distinct businesses. By 1976, Postal Headquarters, which had undergone a major reorganisation in 1971, comprised six departments: Postal Marketing; Postal Mechanisation and Building; Postal Operations; Postal Finance and Management Services; Postal Pay and Grading; Postal Personnel. Central Headquarters, created in 1969, also consisted of six departments: The Chairman's Office; The Secretary's Office; The Solicitor's Office; Public Relations Department; Finance and Corporate Planning; Personnel and Industrial Relations. The United Kingdom was arranged into ten regional areas with each regional headquarters responsible for managing postal and counter operations in its area. It did this in accordance with instructions laid down by Postal Headquarters. In 1981, the telecommunications side of the business became a separate public corporation, trading as British Telecom. In 1984, British Telecom was privatised and, since 1991, has traded as BT. Following this split, the Post Office was reorganised into two businesses, Royal Mail and Counters, referred to jointly as Posts. Central Headquarters was disbanded with some of its work disappearing while the rest was shared out between Postal Headquarters, Telecomms Headquarters and National Girobank. In 1985, National Girobank became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office, Girobank plc. It had originally opened in 1968 with the aim of offering a current account banking service to anyone over the age of 16 and resident in the UK, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Prior to 1985, it had operated as a separate business within the Post Office. It continued to trade under the name, 'National Girobank' until 1987 when it became known as 'Girobank'. In June 1988, the government announced that it wanted to privatise Girobank. In 1989, the Alliance & Leicester Building Society entered into closed negotiations as the preferred bidder to buy Girobank. In July 1990, Girobank became part of the Alliance & Leicester. In 1986, postal operations were restructured into three separate businesses: Royal Mail Letters, Royal Mail Parcels and Post Office Counters. Although these three businesses had their own Managing Directors and headquarters functions, what was now the Post Office group of businesses retained a headquarters function for group policy. Additionally this 'Group' function continued to provide the rest of the businesses with services and support. The 142 head post offices that existed in the ten regions were replaced by separate district offices for each of the businesses. Royal Mail Letters had 64 district offices while Post Office Counters had 32 and Royal Mail Parcels had 12. Scotland and Wales were provided with postal boards in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively to ensure that their interests were properly represented. The postal business in Northern Ireland was also restructured although the Northern Ireland Postal Board continued to have a Chairman to deal with the political situation there. In October 1987, Post Office Counters began trading as a limited company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office and was known as Post Office Counters Ltd. In 1993, a new structure was introduced with the district offices being replaced by seven regions. In October 2001, Post Office Ltd was created. In 1990, Royal Mail Parcels was renamed Parcelforce and underwent a restructuring programme not long afterwards. In 1997, Parcelforce was re-branded as Parcelforce Worldwide. In 1992, Royal Mail Letters was reorganised with its district offices being replaced by nine geographical divisions. A small headquarters was to be dedicated to strategy while a central services department would provide common or specialist services to Royal Mail Letters. In March 2001, under the Postal Services Act passed in 2000, the Post Office Corporation became a public limited company wholly owned by the government. At the same time, it changed its name to Consignia as part of an attempt to position the company globally. Post Office Ltd, Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide remained unaffected by this change of name. In November 2002, Consignia Holdings plc changed its name to Royal Mail Holdings plc and Consignia plc became Royal Mail Group plc. Records that document major organisational change within the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.17 Security 6.17.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.3 Administration of justice and the maintenance of internal security including immigration and citizenship. Group Security (and its predecessor, the Post Office Investigation Department) is responsible for understanding, measuring and reducing the security risks faced by the organisation. Its role is central in protecting revenue, maintaining public confidence in the mail and post office networks and defending the organisation and its staff against crime and terrorism. Its responsibilities include: giving advice on how people, buildings, vehicles, mail, parcels and cash can be protected, conducting checks to improve compliance with security standards and carrying out investigations into criminal activity against the organisation. Between 1969 and 2006, key security related themes that have affected Royal Mail and its predecessors include:  Terrorism e.g. letter bombs;  Troubles in Northern Ireland and the effect they had on the Post Office and its staff;  Robberies and burglaries in post offices, which were particularly prevalent during the 1970s. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the effect that terrorism has had on Royal Mail and its predecessors;  Those that document the effect that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had on the Post Office and its staff;  Those relating to robberies and burglaries, the organisation's responses to this threat and the impact on staff;  Those that document criminal investigations involving new or significant crimes. ## 6.18 Transport 6.18.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. ## 6.18.2 Introduction Responsibility for the collection, transportation and delivery of letters, packets and parcels lies with Royal Mail's vast and complex transport network. Between 1969 and 2006, various different modes of transport were utilised to move mail from bicycles, mopeds and vans to aeroplanes, mail rail and travelling post offices (TPOs). This period was characterised by the drive to find ever quicker, reliable and more cost efficient ways of transporting mail around the country. This period also saw a decline in the use of rail to move mail around the country in preference for road and air transport. ## 6.18.3 Air Between 1969 and 2006, more use was made of aeroplanes to ferry mail around the country. The Post Office had begun to use increasing numbers of scheduled inland flights to transport mail after World War II. In 1961, a direct air mail service was introduced from London to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast. 1979 saw the establishment of a new inland network centred on Speke airport (now known as Liverpool John Lennon airport), Liverpool, which became the hub of nightly flights to and from what were, initially, five provincial centres although this number later grew. These centres were known as the 'Spokes of Speke'. In 1982, following the success of Speke airport, a second air hub was established at East Midlands airport, Derby, with the aim of linking air, rail and road transport. In 1992, these hubs, which had become both complex and congested, were replaced by more direct routes between airports. These more direct routes were collectively known as 'Skynet'. By the late 1990s, Skynet involved 25 airports handling three million items daily. Records relating to the establishment of Skynet and of hubs at Speke and East Midlands airports will be kept as will the setting up or closing down of other inland air routes. ## 6.18.4 Rail The period between 1969 and 2006 saw a decline in the use of trains to move mail in favour of road and air transport. For example, during the mid 1980s, Royal Mail Parcels transferred the majority of parcels to road transport (more than 80% now went by road). In the early 1990s, Royal Mail Letters, under a scheme named Roadrunner, transferred all Saturday movement of letters and packets from rail to road. In the late 1990s, this trend of moving the transportation of mail from rail to road slowed with the construction, by Royal Mail Letters, of a £150 million purpose built road-rail interchange centred on Willesden, North London. It linked a series of provincial hubs with a fleet of 16 new mail trains. However, this reversal was short lived. In 2003, as part of a transport review, the rail element of Royal Mail Letters' transport network was removed due to economic considerations. This decision hit Mail Rail. Mail Rail opened in 1927 to transport mail underground between railway stations and sorting offices in London. It was originally known as the Post Office Underground Railway but its name was changed in 1987 to mark its 60th anniversary. The service was suspended with the last train running on 30 May 2003. It had simply become too expensive to run. By 2002, it was five times more expensive to move mail by Mail Rail than by road. The decision also hit the travelling post offices (TPOs), in which mail was sorted while trains were on the move. The last TPO ran on 9 January 2004, ending a way of sorting mail that had been in existence since 1838. ## 6.18.4.1 Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Retention General Records that document the changing relationship between the Post Office and its successors and the railway companies will be selected e.g. negotiation of contracts, construction of Railnet and reasons behind the removal of the rail element from Royal Mail Letters' transport network. ## Mail Rail Records that should be selected include those that document:  The design and production of 34 new trains in 1981 replacing trains that had been use since 1930, the rebuilding of three trains in 1987 and any other significant alterations to the train stock;  The introduction of a new centralised computer controlled system in 1993, which replaced the electro-mechanical system installed in 1927, and any other significant alterations to the train control equipment, such as the modification, in 1987, that meant that trains could be diverted in the event of another train breaking down;  The suspension of the service and alternative plans for its use. ## Tpos Records that should be selected include those that document:  The decision, in 1968, to sort first class mail only in TPOs;  The alterations to services in 1988, the first major changes to the TPO service since World War II;  The design, field trials and production of new TPOs and any significant alterations to the design of TPOs;  The reasons behind the decision to cease use of TPOs. ## 6.18.5 Road Royal Mail's reliance on road transport to move mail is reflected in the size of its fleet - it has one of the biggest in Europe. During the early 1990s, Royal Mail Letters had 28,000 vehicles in operation while Parcelforce had 7,000. In 2006, at 36,000, Royal Mail Letters had the largest fleet of bicycles in the UK. This period has seen the introduction of new types of vehicles as well as changes to the design of vehicles already in existence. For example, postbuses, which combine the collection and delivery of mail and the transportation of passengers and are a vital link to isolated communities, were introduced in 1967. The number of routes grew swiftly in the 1970s and, by 2005, there were 166 postbus routes. There have also been experiments with innovative technology, such as electric vehicles. Records that should be selected include those that document:  The design, field trials and production of new vehicles. The Royal Mail Archive is also interested in selecting records relating to the design and field trials of unsuccessful vehicles, particularly if it relates to the use of new technology;  The reasons behind the introduction or withdrawal of postbus routes;  The increasing reliance on road transport to move mail and any major changes to the network e.g. spilt of the road fleet between Royal Mail Letters and Royal Mail Parcels in the mid 1980s, Transport Review of 2003. ## 6.19 War And Civil Emergencies 6.19.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.2 External relations and defence; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.19.2 War Members of the armed forces serving abroad can send and receive mail using the service provided by Royal Mail and its predecessors, through its HM Forces Mail Service, and the British Forces Post Office (BFPO), which is a separate organisation. Royal Mail gives the BFPO mail to deliver to troops stationed abroad, while the BFPO gives the Post Office mail to deliver from the troops to addresses in the United Kingdom. Mail sent overseas was and still is vulnerable to disruption from war, coup d'états, the imposition of sanctions and volatile political situations. The Falklands War, the Gulf War and the sanctions against South Africa are all good examples of this. The Post Office had contingency plans in place should the United Kingdom ever be invaded or subject to a nuclear attack. The following records will be selected:  Those that document issues relating to the collection and delivery of mail to and from members of the armed forces, such as the demand to send letters and packages to troops abroad free of charge and the establishment of new BFPO addresses;  Those relating to the disruption of mail due to the events outlined above will be selected;  Contingency plans, as set out in the Post Office War Plan, will be selected. ## 6.19.3 Civil Emergencies From Royal Mail and its predecessors' point of view, a civil emergency can be defined as an event that disrupts normal postal services to such an extent that it becomes noticeable to customers. Such events are caused by factors outside of the organisation's control or through industrial action by its staff. They are different from the usual run of operational difficulties, such as technical faults, planned road works or shortages of staff, which are faced on a daily basis. Such events range from adverse weather conditions, like the gales in October 1987, and natural disasters, such as flooding, to the situation in Northern Ireland, the fuel crisis in the 1970s and industrial action by railway or power workers. Given the size and complexity of its operations, it is not surprising that Royal Mail and its predecessors are and were so vulnerable to such events. As they have a significant impact not only on it but on those using its services records will be selected that illustrate how services were affected and how Royal Mail and its predecessors reacted. Contingency plans that show how such situations were to be dealt with will also be selected. ## 6.20 Associations And Societies For associations and societies set up by staff to obtain better pay and working conditions, see Section 6.3.2 on industrial relations. ## 6.20.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.20.2 Post Office Recreation Council And Royal Mail Sports Foundation The Post Office had a strong and long tradition of supporting the sporting, social and cultural activities that went on amongst its staff. This was partly because postmen needed to be fit in order to carry out their duties and partly because the Post Office thought that such activities added to the quality of life of its staff. However, prior to 1969, there was no body to co-ordinate all these activities. Therefore, in April 1971, the Post Office Recreation Council (PORC) was set up to promote, encourage and co-ordinate all forms of recreational activity. It sponsored national events, participated in international events and provided financial assistance to clubs. Clubs qualified for financial help by affiliating to one of fourteen regional or departmental associations who in turn were affiliated to PORC. Following the split between the Post Office and British Telecommunications in 1981, the PORC was renamed The British Telecommunications and Post Office Recreation Council (BTPORC). It acted as the focal point for recreational activities in both businesses. In 1987, this arrangement ended and the Council changed its name back to the Post Office Recreation Council. It continued to co-ordinate activities until April 2002 when it became the Royal Mail Sports Foundation. The Foundation provides grants for the provision of equipment, trophies and training. The Royal Mail Archive is keen to select records relating to the Royal Mail Sports Foundation and its predecessor body, the PORC, which show why they were set up and how each body supported (or in the case of the former, continues to support) the recreational activities of staff. ## 6.20.3 Clubs In 1971, there were 551 clubs with a membership of 131,281 within the Post Office. By the end of 1978, this number had risen to 673 with a membership of 203,353. This was despite the number of employees falling from 430,196 to 420,156 in the same period. Sports played ranged from bowls, billiards and badminton through to snooker, squash and swimming. Staff not interested in sports could pursue interests such as art (through the Post Office Art Club of Great Britain), drama or photography. Sorting and delivery offices often had sports and social clubs - Mount Pleasant Sports and Social Club is a good example of this. Many of these clubs would have been run on a voluntary basis and obviously formed an important part of life in the Post Office. Such clubs still exist today in Royal Mail. Records created or received by the Post Office Art Club of Great Britain will be kept. The Royal Mail Archive is also keen to preserve the records of other sports and social clubs in order to document the role they played in the Post Office and in the lives of its employees, and if this role has changed or remained the same in Royal Mail. ## 6.20.4 Charitable Societies A number of charitable societies were set up to offer financial assistance to Post Office employees and their families: The Post Office Orphans Benevolent Institution is the oldest charity in the Post Office. It was founded in 1870 to offer financial assistance to Post Office employees and their families who were experiencing hardship because of the illness or a death of a relative. The Post Office Relief Fund and the Second Post Office Relief Fund were set up during the First and Second World Wars to relieve suffering amongst Post Office employees and their families because of conditions resulting from the wars or occasioned by hostile action by or against the enemy. The Rowland Hill Fund was set up to provide financial assistance and support to who were working or who had worked for the Post Office. The Royal Mail Archive is keen to select records from these societies in order to show how staff supported themselves in the face of hardship. Records, such as those that demonstrate how staff benefitted from the work of these societies and those that set out their constitutions, will be selected. ## Annex 1 - Public Records And The Post Office Act 1969 The definition of Public Records is given in the Public Records Act 1958, First Schedule. The Post Office Act 1969, and subsequent legislation and privatisations, had effects on the application of the statutory definition of Public Records to the records of functions discharged by the Postmaster General's department. These effects and some of the wider legislative context are set out in the table below: \| \| Post Office Act 1969 \| Part I \| Abolition of the office \| \|------------------------\|-------------------------\|------------\|----------------------------\| \| of Postmaster \| \| \| \| \| General \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Part II \| Provision for the \| \| appointment, powers, \| \| \| \| \| and duties of Minister \| \| \| \| \| of Posts and \| \| \| \| \| Telecommunications \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Part III \| Re-constitution of \| \| Post Office as a non- \| \| \| \| \| Crown public \| \| \| \| \| authority \| \| \| \| \| \| Part III s \| \| \| \| 16 (2)(b) \| \| \| \| \| Effect is: to preserve \| \| \| \| \| Crown ownership, and \| \| \| \| \| Public Records status, \| \| \| \| \| of records created up \| \| \| \| \| to 1969 \| \| \| \| \| Exclusion of the (pre- \| \| \| \| \| vesting day) records \| \| \| \| \| from \| \| \| \| \| General \| \| \| \| \| Provisions \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| as to \| \| \| \| \| Transfer to the Post \| \| \| \| \| Office of Property, \| \| \| \| \| Rights and Liabilities \| \| \| \| \| of the Postmaster \| \| \| \| \| General \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Part III s \| \| \| \| 75 (1) \| \| \| \| \| Effect is: to make \| \| \| \| \| records created by the \| \| \| \| \| new Post Office \| \| \| \| \| authority Public \| \| \| \| \| Records \| \| \| \| \| Public Records Act \| \| \| \| \| 1958 to have effect \| \| \| \| \| as if the Post Office \| \| \| \| \| were included in \| \| \| \| \| Public Records Act \| \| \| \| \| 1958 Schedule I para \| \| \| \| \| 3 Table Part II \| \| \| \| \| \| \| Part III s \| \| \| 75 (2) \| \| \| \| \| Secretary of State \| \| \| \| \| may by order vest in \| \| \| \| \| the Post Office the \| \| \| \| \| property in records of \| \| \| \| \| the Postmaster \| \| \| \| General specified in the order; and within the order provide for continuing Crown access to the records Effect is: records of this function continue to be Public Records Part IV Transfer of radio and television broadcasting licensing function to Minister of Posts and Telecommunications Part V Constitution of Department for National Savings as a new government department Effect is: pre-1969 Act savings functions records and post-1969 Act Department for National Savings records are Public Records Schedule I para 1. Post Office to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal British Telecommunications Act 1981 Part I Constitution, Powers and Duties of new public corporation, separate from the Post Office, to be called British Telecommunications Part I s 56 (1) Effect is: to make records created by British Telecommunications (public corporation) Public Records Public Records Act 1958 to have effect as if the Corporation were included in Schedule I para 3 Table Part II to that Act Part I s 56 (2) Secretary of State may by order vest in the Corporation the property in records of the Postmaster General specified in the order; and within the order provide for continuing Crown access to the records Telecommunications Act 1984 Part I Constitution of Office of Director General of Telecommunications (OFTEL) Transfer of radio and television broadcasting licensing function to Director General of Telecommunications Part V Provisions for constitution of successor company (British Telecommunications plc); and for transfer of property, rights and liabilities of British Telecommunications (public corporation), on day appointed by Secretary of State by order (the 'transfer date') Schedule 5 para 44 Nothing to affect operation of s 56 of the 1981 Act in relation to any records of British Telecommunications (public corporation) and predecessors which become records of the successor company (British Telecommunications Effect is: records of this function continue to be Public Records Effect is: records created by the successor company (British Telecommunications plc)after it ceases to be owned by the Crown do not have Public Records status Effect is: to preserve the Public Record status of any records transferred from British Telecommunications (public corporation) and predecessors to the successor company (British Telecommunications plc) plc) on the transfer date November 1984 Initial public offering (IPO) for sale of shares in British Telecommunications plc 1990 Girobank sold to Alliance & Leicester Building Society on July 2 Effect is: records created after IPO date are not Public Records (transfer to British Telecommunications plc of the business of British Telecom, the statutory corporation, on 6 August 1984) Effect is: records created after sale date are not Public Records	en
1408-pdf	## Office Of Rail Regulation # Minutes Of The 93Rd Board Meeting On 30 April 2013 (09:00 - 17:00) In Room 1, Orr Offices, One Kemble Street, London Board present: Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Peter Bucks, Mark Fairbairn Mike Lloyd, Stephen Nelson, Ray O'Toole, and Steve Walker. Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Michael Beswick (Director, Rail Policy), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Alan Price (Director, Railway Planning and Performance), and Cathryn Ross (Director of Railway Markets and Economics) In attendance, all items: Dan Brown (Director, Strategy), Richard Emmott (Interim Director, External Affairs), Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), and Gary Taylor (Assistant. Board Secretary). In attendance, specific items: John Larkinson (PR13 programme Director) items 4 and 5, Sue Johnston (Deputy Director, Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Deputy Director, RPP), Nigel Fisher (Head of performance, information and analysis), Andrew Wallace (Head of Planning and Operations), Chris Fieldsend (Industry Planning manager), Carl Hetherington (Deputy Director, RME), Jonathan Hulme (Financial analyst) Richard Fitter (Financial Analyst), ## Item 1: Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. ## Item 2: Declarations Of Interest 2. Mike Lloyd confirmed that due to other commitments he will be standing down as an ORR Non-Executive Director at the end of October. On behalf of the Board the Chair thanked Mike for his considerable contribution to the work of the Board during his term and particularly for agreeing to see the PR13 process through. ## Item 3: Monthly Safety Report / Issues To Advise The Board 3. Ian Prosser raised the following safety points: - Following the update in March, Ian reported that track quality and broken rails in the Sussex area remained a concern. Ian confirmed that ORR's inspectors continued to monitor this issue closely. - Despite the continuation in improvements to workforce safety Ian reported that improvement notices had recently been issued in relation to incidents involving road rail vehicle operation and adjacent line working. Network Rail has confirmed that initiatives are ongoing to make the necessary improvements. - Statistics have shown that level crossing fatalities have risen over the last 12 months; however this was the first time none of these fatalities had been attributed to industry failings. - Work had been completed in carrying out the RM3 assessment of Network Rail. - The proposed extensions to Manchester Metro Link had recently been approved by ORR. 4. Following discussion it was agreed that it was crucial to capture the key safety issues in our annual performance letter to Network Rail. Safety performance had continued to improve but the overall level of safety risk remained high with a number of areas requiring improvement. We agreed that this links to the overall package of decisions for PR13 and that the messages included in the annual performance letter should set the scene for our Draft Determination (DD) and prefigure our position on the shaping of expenditure for areas such as maintenance, enhancement and renewals. 5. We agreed that the Chief Executive and Ian Prosser, with input from Steve Walker, would look at ensuring that the annual performance letter was balanced but raised the concerns we have, particularly in the areas of asset management, asset knowledge, renewals and maintenance. Board 30.04.13 Action i: Tell safety story clearly in annual assessment, including the areas where there has been a real improvement. The Chief Executive would work with Ian Prosser, with input from Steve Walker. ## Items 4 And 5: Pr13 Policy Decisions 6. John Larkinson presented this item which set out a suite of recommendations for Board decision as part of the overall package of PR13 policy decisions - to be included as part of the published DD document. 7. We considered the importance of remembering our legal framework and our relevant section 4 duties when looking at the overall package of decisions. For each topic John would provide the Board with a summary of the relevant section 4 duties for consideration. Paragraphs 8-49 and related action points have been redacted from the published minute as they relate to policy development. 50. We agreed that that further analysis was required in two key areas. - We asked for work to be carried out to assess where we are on achieving the published McNulty savings. As part of this we agreed that it would be important to make clear responsibilities for each area for achieving these savings. - It was agreed that it would be useful to understand where there was scope for NR outperformance and those areas which were considered to be particularly challenging. 51. John agreed to produce these additional areas of clarification for Board understanding. It was agreed that these would be circulated to the Board though correspondence. 52. We agreed that the determination offers an appropriate balanced package for Network Rail. 53. In conclusion we thanked John and the PR13 team for the comprehensive and informative discussion. ## Item 6: Draft Determination Handling Strategy 54. Richard Emmott prepared a draft handling strategy for the publication of the Draft Determination. 55. Following the discussions around the overall package for the DD, Richard agreed to revise the handling strategy to pick up many of the points raised on the key messages we need to tell. Following these revisions, Richard would circulate to all Board members for comments. Board 30.04.13 Action vii: Richard Emmott to circulate revised Handling strategy to Board members for comment ## Item 7: Update On Freight 56. We noted the presentation which set out the issues on freight, passenger franchises and open access and the associated charges. Cathryn confirmed that the presentation covered two key areas - firstly to provide background briefing on the latest issues. Secondly the slides provide a skeleton of the May Periodic Review Committee paper which will be discussed on 9 May 2013. Briefing points 57. We noted that discussions around freight and charges were still taking place. Cathryn assured the Board that the team were handling these issues and will provide a comprehensive update at the PRC meeting. 58. We noted that the Rail Freight Operators Association (RFOA) had provided analysis of the charges and had placed significant emphasis around the capacity charge. We discussed the calculation of charges. Cathryn confirmed that NR has responsibility for calculating charges. We noted that RFOA had raised a concern that they had not had enough time to prepare a response to NR's consultation but that staff did not feel this was justified as they had been involved in many of the discussions and meetings. 59. We asked whether the capacity charge should be included as CDI charges (Costs Directly Incurred) Cathryn confirmed that this issue would be picked up at the May PRC meeting. Some text has been redacted as it may relate to legal professional privilege [ ] PRC slides - skeleton for 9 May meeting 60. Cathryn confirmed that it would be important to consider the legal framework as well as to discuss our position on our statutory duties and guidance. We also agreed that it would be important to consider the overall PR13 package and overall impact on freight. Ensuring consistency of approach between freight, passenger and open access traffic would be important to meet the legal obligation to avoid discrimination. 61. We agreed with the suggested outline of the slide pack. As part of the analysis, we agreed that it would be important to pick up the following additional pieces of information: - analysis on the impact of proposed changes on the Scottish coal industry and the overall freight sector. - the impact on the profitability of freight operators and shift to road haulage to assess any modal shifts. 62. Handling will be an important area for consideration. Cathryn confirmed that this will be included in discussions around handling for the recommendations and the other options available for decision. 63. We agreed that a draft of the slide pack would be shared with the Chair as soon as possible and in advance of circulation to PRC members. Board 30.04.13 Action viii: Impact analysis on Scottish Coal industry to be provided as part of May PRC paper Board 30.04.13 Action ix: Draft paper to be provided to Chair for comments as soon as possible. ## Item 8: Network Rail Performance 64. [discussed at dinner on 29 April and included in the note of that meeting] Board 30.04.13 Action x: Final letter to be circulated to Board members ## Item 9: Ce'S Assurance And Accountability Report - Quarter 4 65. Due to time constraints we agreed to defer this item to the May Board meeting. Board 30.04.13 Action xi: CE's accountability report to be included on May Board agenda. ## Item 10: Scs Pay Policy 66. At this point, the SCS members present asked whether it was appropriate to remain in the meeting for this discussion. The Chair and non-executives agreed that they could stay. 67. We noted the proposed SCS pay policy which had been discussed and agreed by the Remuneration Committee on 22 April 2013. Following consideration we agreed with the suggested approach. ## Item 11: Chair'S Report 68. The Chair highlighted the following: 69. Following a recent meeting, Transport Scotland explained that after the independence vote, Scotland hopes to repatriate network regulation to Scotland and combine all regulators in a single organisation. They are keen for ORR to help them in thinking through the issues with factual information. We agreed with the recommendation provided that discussions are factual. 70. David Currie (new Chair Competition and Market Authority) had been present at the recent Regulatory Chairs meeting. Following discussion we agreed that we should schedule a discussion on ORR's competition powers at our July meeting. 71. Following a number of high level European meetings, we agreed that we should schedule a discussion at the July Board meeting to discuss progress and challenges to our European objectives. 72. We noted the Board objectives for 2013-14. We agreed that the objectives should be sharper and focus on key success measures. The Board Secretary agreed to revise and circulate to Board members. ## Board 30.04.13 Action Xii: Strategic Discussion On Europe To Be Included On Board Forward Programme Board 30.04.13 Action Xiii: Discussion On Orr'S Use Of Competition Powers To Be Included On Board Forward Programme Board 30.04.13 Action Xiv: Board Objectives To Be Redrafted And Circulated For Comments. Item 12: Ce'S Overview Report 73. The Chief Executive highlighted the following: 74. Positive meeting had recently taken place with Paul Deighton (Commercial Secretary, HM Treasury) and a programme of engagement with HM Treasury is currently being developed. 75. The final budget figures for 2012-13 showed an overall underspend of 3%. The consultancy budget had been used effectively during the period. ## Item 13: Board Forward Programme 76. The Board forward programme was noted. No comments were received. ## Item 14: Approval Of Minutes Of Board Meeting Held On 19 March 2013 77. The draft minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013 were noted and agreed subject to one further redaction. Board 30.04.13 Action xv: finalise redaction. ## Item 15: Matters Arising Not Taken Elsewhere On The Agenda 78. The updates on the outstanding Board actions were noted. ## Item 16: Any Other Business 79. No items were raised. Item 17: Meeting review 80. We agreed that the discussion on the package of PR13 decisions had been productive with a significant number of decisions. We congratulated the team for the careful preparation work and very creditable performances when handling scrutiny and testing questions which had enabled us to take decisions with a high degree of confidence in the options before us. ## Anna Walker Chair Minutes approved by the Board on 21 May 2013	en
2430-pdf	## How Were We Taught What Was School Like 100 Years Ago? This Resource Was Produced Using Documents From The Collections Of The National Archives. It Can Be Freely Modified And Reproduced For Use In The Classroom Only. Introduction Life at school in the Edwardian era was very different to how it is now. These photographs can tell us a lot about how children were taught at the beginning of this century. These children were in fact quite lucky, as they were at school and not working. A generation earlier, in the 1860s, one third of children in England and Wales did not attend school at all and right up until 1881 children were not required to go. Only in the 20th century were young children no longer regularly expected to work alongside adults. By 1918 school attendance was not only compulsory but the school leaving age was raised from 12 to 14 years old. Edwardian schools were similar in a lot of ways to modern ones. Classes were taken in the 'three R's' (reading, writing and arithmetic) and there were also physical education lessons ('drill'). Girls were generally taught sewing and needlework. In addition to their normal lessons, young people also usually attended Sunday School for religious education. Tasks Look at Source 1 1. This is a photograph taken at Boys Home Industrial School in 1910. Can you find: a) the master's desk b) a framed photograph c) any evidence of heating and lighting Look at Source 2 2. This is a photograph of boys from the Boys Home Industrial School studying and playing dominoes. Can you explain: a) what the classroom might have been like in the winter. b) how what is on the wall is different from your classroom. c) why the windows are so large Look at Source 3 3. This is a photograph of a physical exercise display. It was taken on Founders Day at the Boys Home Industrial School in about 1910. Can you describe: a) the uniform the boys are wearing b) the equipment they are using 4. How different is this school to the school you are at today? Make a list of the things that are different and the things that are the same: Do you think that school teachers in Edwardian times would normally sit with the children? Or do you think these teachers posed for the photographs? Background The Boys Home Industrial School, which is featured in these photographs, was based in Regents Park Road, Primrose Hill, London. The school was founded to provide 'for the maintenance and training of destitute boys not convicted of crime'. Boys who attended the school were trained in a number of disciplines, including baking, printing and shoemaking, and some boys went on to work for the William Morris Company once they had left the school. Industrial Schools were different in a number of ways from local board or church schools. Children were likely to board at the school because the intention was for them to be separated from bad influences at home. You can see in Sources 1 and 2 that the children wore uniforms, unusual in British schools of the period. One thing that the school would have shared with others of the period would have been the use of corporal punishment, usually the cane (although Scottish schools used a thick leather strap called a 'tawse'). Corporal punishment in state schools was outlawed in 1987. The early 20th century saw the true start of mass of education in Britain in the way we would recognise it today. In 1902, the Conservative government of Arthur Balfour passed an Education Act which brought state primary schools and local secondary schools under the control of local councils for the first time. The Act was needed because the provision of some schools for older children had actually been challenged in court. However Balfour also considered an educated workforce vital to maintaining Britain's position at the forefront of world trade and technical achievement. In 1906 the election of the new Liberal government led to considerable social reform. With the growth of the new Labour Party, Liberals were keen to show that they were the real party of working people. The Education (Provision of Meals) Act of 1906 introduced 'school dinners' and was followed by a further Act in 1907 which gave local authorities powers to authorise medical examinations in schools. It was hoped these would help diagnose childhood diseases early. . Teachers Notes This lesson provides material for examining photographs as evidence. It can also be used as stimulus material for looking at the history of education. For extension work, pupils could investigate the history of their own school, particularly if it is Victorian. Alternatively pupils could interview their parents/guardians or an older generation to find out if schooling has changed from when they were younger. Sources Illustration : Boys Home Industrial School - Boxing Class 1910 MH 1201/2692 f79 Source 1 : Boys Home Industrial School Classroom 1910 MH102/2691 Source 2 : Boys Home Industrial School - Boys at work and play MH102/2691 f12 Source 3 : Physical exercise display on Founders Day at the Boys Home Industrial School c1910 MH 201/2692 f26 Schemes of Work What was it like for children living in Victorian Britain Key Stage 1 & 2 Unit 11 How did life change in our locality in Victorian times? Key Stage 1 & 2 Unit 12 # Source 1 : Boys Home Industrial School Classroom 1910 (Mh102/2691 F.11) Source 2 : Boys Home Industrial School - Boys At Work And Play (Mh102/2691 F12) Source 3 : Physical Exercise Display On Founders Day At The Boys Home Industrial School C1910 (Mh 201/2692 F26)	en
0852-pdf	## Planning Decision Notice Tel: 01629 816200 Fax: 01629 816310 E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk Web: www.peakdistrict.org Minicom: 01629 816319 Aldern House . Baslow Road . Bakewell . Derbyshire . DE45 1AE P.4239 \| To: \| Mr & Mrs Butler \| \|-------------\|-------------------\| \| C/o \| Ward Design \| \| 93 Moorhall \| \| \| Bakewell \| \| \| Derbyshire \| \| \| DE451FP \| \| THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ## Town & Country Planning Acts & General Development Order In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows: \| Office Code No. \| NP/DDD/0111/0050 \| \|-------------------\|-------------------------------------\| \| Date received: \| 25 January 2011 \| \| Proposal: \| Single storey extension to dwelling \| \| Location: \| Newholme \| \| Longreave Lane \| \| \| Rowland \| \| Parish: Rowland ## The Decision NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. ## Reasons For Conditions: 1 To comply with Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which requires the National Park Authority to reconsider the proposal afresh after a period of years) as amended by Section 51 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice 2 - 3 To ensure that the extension matches the character and appearance of the existing building. ## Footnotes This application has been successful as the proposed extension is in accordance with the polices of the development plan. It will not harm the character or appearance of the original dwelling, or its setting including the National Park and it will not harm the amenities of the site, neighbouring properties or the area. Note: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38(3) of the Act also provides that the development plan consists of saved local plan policies and the development plan documents. Relevant Structure Plan policies include: 1, 2, 8, 26, 31. Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC2, LC3, LC4, LH4. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ## Statement Of Applicant'S Rights Arising From The Refusal Of Planning Permission Or From The Grant Of Permission Subject To Conditions Please Note, Only The Applicant Possesses The Right Of Appeal. You Must Use A Planning Appeal Form/Householder Appeal Form - If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. - As this is a decision to approve planning permission subject to conditions for a householder application, if you want to appeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 12 weeks of the date of this notice. - Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Secretary of State at Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN or online at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs. - The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. - The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order - In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him. ## Purchase Notices - If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted. - In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To The Applicant Dear Sir or Madam Please find attached a copy of the approval notice for the development outlined below. If the approval is subject to conditions and/or footnotes please ensure that these are fully complied with. It is particularly important that you comply with any conditions which require details to be submitted and agreed, or some other action to be taken, before work commences. Failure to do so could result in any work carried out being unlawful. If you are employing a builder or other contractor to carry out the work you should ensure that he has a copy of the approval notice and approved plans before starting work. If you wish to amend the approved plans in any way, you must first agree this with us. Failure to comply with the conditions and/or the approved plans could result in abortive work and possible enforcement action. Please return the first tear-off section at the bottom of this letter before work commences and the second tear-off section once the work has been completed. Two pre-paid labels are enclosed for your use. Yours faithfully Robert Bryan Head of The Planning Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/0111/0050 P.4239 Development: Single storey extension to dwelling The above development was completed on ______________________________________ Signed: __________________________________ Date____________________________ Name (in block capitals): _____________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/0111/0050 P.4239 Development: Single storey extension to dwelling The above development is to commence on ______________________________________ Signed: __________________________________ Date____________________________ Name (in block capitals): _____________________________________________________	en
1740-pdf	## Cg Relief Available Except Against Acquisition Of Cias; No Against Acquisition Of Cias; No Relief Under New Rules Relief Under New Rules Cg Relief Available Only Against Acquisitions Prior To 1/4/02 Cird20280 - Reinvestment Relief: Computation: Interaction With Cg Roll-Over Relief: Flowchart Cg Relief Available Only Against Acquisitions Prior To 1/4/02 Relief Available Under New Rules Against Acquisition Of Interaction With Cg Roll-Over Relief: Flowchart Rollover Relief On Disposal Of An Asset Which Is Not Rollover Relief On Disposal Of An Asset Which Is Not Within New Rules; I.E. Asset Is Not A 'Chargeable Within New Rules; I.E. Asset Is Not A 'Chargeable Intangible Asset' (' Intangible Asset' ('CiaCia') ') Relief Available Under New Rules Against Acquisition Of Cias (On Disposal Of Other Intangibles As Well As Those Cias (On Disposal Of Other Intangibles As Well As Those Qualifying For Cg Roll-Over Relief)	en
2683-pdf	# Pedal Power: The Cycle Hire Scheme And Cycle Superhighways November 2010 Copyright Greater London Authority November 2010 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN: 978-1-84781-410-4 This publication is printed on recycled paper ## Transport Committee Members \| \| \| \|--------------------------------\|------------------\| \| Valerie Shawcross, Chair \| Labour \| \| Caroline Pidgeon, Deputy Chair \| Liberal Democrat \| \| Victoria Borwick \| Conservative \| \| James Cleverly \| Conservative \| \| Jenny Jones \| Green \| \| Joanne McCartney \| Labour \| \| Steve O'Connell \| Conservative \| \| Murad Qureshi \| Labour \| \| Richard Tracey \| Conservative \| At its meeting on 9 September 2010, the Committee agreed to undertake a review into the initial impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways with the following terms of reference: - To examine the initial impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways including any issues arising from their early implementation and consider the solutions proposed; and - To assess the potential for, and issues to address, in any further roll out or expansion of the schemes. The Committee welcomes feedback on its report. For further information, contact Laura Warren in the Scrutiny Team by: letter c/o of City Hall, More London, SE1 2AA; email: laura.warren@london.gov.uk; or telephone: 020 7983 6545. For press enquiries, contact Dana Gavin by telephone: 020 7983 4603 or email: dana.gavin@london.gov.uk ## Contents \| Chair's foreword \| 6 \| \|-----------------------------------------------------\|-----\| \| \| \| \| Executive summary \| 7 \| \| \| \| \| Introduction \| 10 \| \| \| \| \| An overview of the schemes: their targets and costs \| 11 \| \| \| \| \| Initial issues for the cycle hire scheme \| 18 \| \| \| \| \| Initial issues for the cycle superhighways \| 27 \| \| \| \| \| Conclusion \| 35 \| \| \| \| \| Appendix 1 - details of this review \| 36 \| \| \| \| \| Appendix 2 - orders and translations \| 41 \| \| \| \| \| Appendix 3 - principles of scrutiny \| 42 \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| ## Chair'S Foreword The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways are major additions to London's transport network. The Transport Committee supports their development. It wants to see them result in more cycling in London. It is early days for these schemes but our review into their initial impact has revealed some issues. This report sets out, in detail, the matters which users of the schemes and organisations have raised so they may inform the future development of these schemes. It also sets out overall targets and costs for each scheme to provide a basis on which to judge their success in the longer-term. We have found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme but there remain questions about how it is being funded. It is not clear exactly how much sponsorship Barclays has provided for a scheme which has now been running for four months. The Mayor has plans to expand the scheme eastwards and potentially beyond. Many want to see its expansion across the whole of London, particularly to areas where public transport is limited. The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) will need to make clear how any plans for expansion will be funded and the rationale for the areas that will be covered. The cycle superhighways do not appear as popular with new cyclists as the cycle hire scheme. Users of the pilot cycle superhighways have told us that they do not feel safer using these routes and they are not always respected by other road users. There are clearly lessons to be learned from the design and development of the pilot cycle superhighways. These should be applied before the roll out of the future cycle superhighways to ensure these are safer and attract many more new cyclists. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this review. We look forward to receiving a response from the Mayor and TfL to the matters we raise in this report. Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair, Transport Committee ## Executive Summary The Mayor's flagship schemes to encourage cycling in London are highly visible to everybody travelling around the capital. The distinctive hire bikes and docking stations represent a new piece of transport infrastructure in central London. The forthcoming roll-out of the cycle hire scheme for casual users is keenly awaited. Similarly, swathes of cyclists on the bright blue lanes on key arterial routes into the centre are becoming a common sight. The Committee supports these initiatives. Both schemes are new and perhaps inevitably there have been teething problems and criticisms of some aspects. Our aim in this report is to highlight what is working well and, where we see the potential for improvement, to respond to these criticisms and make constructive suggestions to Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor. In doing so, we have drawn on the first large-scale survey of users and the views of a number of organisations. We found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme. Over 20 per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling as a result of the scheme and over 80 per cent thought it good value for money. One comment received, representative of the views of many, described it as "a very significant enhancement to life in London". While clearly value for money for users, there remain questions over how the scheme is being funded and the return on TfL's initial investment. The amount of sponsorship that Barclays has provided to date is unclear. It may have provided less than anticipated since its agreement with TfL is conditional on certain performance indicators being met but the scheme has not rolled out as planned. Furthermore, delays in the implementation of the scheme and the rollout to casual users have affected operating costs and revenue from charges. These delays have costs. TfL reports that the annual operating cost of the scheme will be £18 million which it expects to be met from charges and sponsorship. To date in 2010/11, TfL has received only £1.9 million of income from charges largely because the roll out to casual users was delayed by six months and has missed the summer months. TfL now expects the scheme to be self-financing in two to three years and for the income to start contributing to its £79 million set up costs by 2017/18. The roll-out to casual users of the cycle hire scheme planned for 3 December will also determine the extent to which the scheme will meet its original objectives. Current users are making on average 15,000 trips per day compared with the eventual aim of 40,000. Our survey found less than one per cent of journeys are replacing those previously made by car; TfL's planning assumptions were for a five per cent shift from car to bike. TfL and Serco, the private contractor running the cycle hire scheme, have made some welcome changes in response to initial teething problems. Our report seeks further action depending, in some cases, on the extent to which the roll-out to casual users provides its own solutions. Specifically, we ask TfL and the Mayor to address: - The lack of bikes and available docking points in certain areas, particularly at peak periods. - Problems with registration, charges and poor customer service from Serco's customer service centre. Half of the respondents to our survey had had to contact the call centre to report problems and one third rated the experience poor or very poor. The rationale for decisions about expanding the cycle hire scheme geographically is unclear. Inevitably, people in many parts of London want the scheme to be made available in their areas. The existing scheme is limited in its geographical reach, largely benefiting inner London. Yet many have highlighted that the greatest potential for growth in cycling is in outer London. TfL has highlighted some logistical issues to expanding the scheme. It suggests "bolt on" areas in large employment centres are more feasible than the London-wide expansion of the cycle hire scheme along the lines of the Paris model to which the Mayor has aspired. We have found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. The cycle superhighways will have to deliver a significant increase in cycling if they are to justify the £166 million investment. The Mayor's ambition is for the planned 12 cycle superhighways to generate 120,000 additional cycle trips per day. The two pilot cycle superhighways are attracting 5,000 cyclists per day and only one per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling specifically as a result.1 There is a need to learn lessons from the pilot cycle superhighways and apply these before the roll-out of the future cycle superhighways. It is hoped that the cycle superhighways will help create the potential for a critical mass which will eventually encourage others to get on their bikes and help realise the Mayor's ambition for a cycling revolution in the capital. Our work suggests there are some issues which need to be addressed to ensure this happens: - 60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users. Greater consistency in the measures along the route would help this situation, such as a uniform width, improvements to junctions and 20 mph speed limits on busy sections. - Development of future cycle superhighways should include detailed consultation with cycling organisations and London Boroughs and build on evaluations of the pilots to date. The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways have already had a large impact on the capital. We recognise it is very early days. Our report aims to contribute to the planning on how they develop further. Their success will determine the extent to which the Mayor's ambitions for cycling in London are realised. ## Introduction In summer 2010, the Mayor launched two major schemes to increase cycling in London. On 19 July, two of the 12 cycle superhighways were unveiled. These blue cycle lanes are intended to provide safer routes for commuters to cycle from inner and outer London to the city. On 29 July, the cycle hire scheme began. A self-service public bicycle sharing scheme operating in zone one, it is intended to provide an alternative mode of transport for short journeys. The Transport Committee welcomes these schemes and the recent announcement that the cycle hire scheme will be available to casual users from 3 December. It recognises the huge potential to increase cycling in London and the important role these schemes have to play in making this happen. The Committee wants them to be successful. With such large-scale projects, there are inevitably some issues. These schemes are still very much in their infancy. The Committee remains supportive as they are developed. The Transport Committee undertook a short review to assess the initial impact of the schemes. It explored issues which had emerged and the possible solutions, with a view to informing the future development of the schemes. Recently, the Mayor and TfL announced that the cycle hire scheme will be expanded to east London by 2012 and all 12 cycle superhighways will be installed, as planned, by 2015. This review provided the first opportunity for users of both schemes to share their views publicly. Around 1,300 people responded to the Committee's online survey. This was completed on a self-selecting basis and as such is not representative of all users but it did provide a way of gathering lots of users' views. Other people, along with organisations, provided written submissions. This review also included a public meeting on 12 October 2010 where the Committee discussed the schemes in detail. Further information about the stages in the review can be found at Appendix 1 of this report. The remainder of the report summarises the information and views gathered by the Committee. Where appropriate, it highlights issues that the Committee would like the Mayor and TfL to respond to or address to help improve the operation of these schemes. The first section provides an overview of the schemes' initial progress against the Mayor's targets and their costs. The subsequent sections set out the specific issues which have arisen in relation to each scheme and some possible solutions. ## An Overview Of The Schemes: Their Targets And Costs The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways are central to the Mayor's plan for a "cycling revolution" in London. The Transport Strategy sets out a target to increase cycling trips by 400 per cent by 20262; the equivalent of 1.5 million cycling trips per day. When launching the cycle hire scheme, the Mayor was more ambitious. He said: "In 1904, 20 per cent of journeys were made by bicycle in London. I want to see a figure like that again."3 Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these schemes, it is possible to make some initial observations. These should be placed alongside the schemes' overall targets and costs. This can help to inform their future development and provide a basis against which to judge their success in future years. Is the cycle hire scheme meeting its targets? The Mayor wants the cycle hire scheme to generate 40,000 additional cycle trips per day by offering an alternative to the car and public transport.4 To date, the scheme has attracted over 100,000 registered members who are making, on average, 15,000 trips per day.5 The average number of trips for weekdays is higher at 21,000-24,000.6 Although this is just over half the target of 40,000 daily trips, the scheme has not yet rolled out to casual users. TfL reports that by March 2011 it expects an average of 27,000 trips per day and to reach the target of 40,000 trips per day in future years. 7 The Committee's survey revealed great enthusiasm for this scheme. Around one-fifth of respondents had started cycling as a result of the cycle hire scheme. Over 80 per cent thought it represented good value for money. The following comment is typical. "Overall, I love the scheme and it has improved my quality of life tremendously. I feel fitter and happier and "empowered" by having another way to make journeys…The scheme is a very significant enhancement to life in London." The survey respondents reported some change in their travel behaviour. Over half used the hire bikes instead of different modes. Around one-fifth reported using the hire bikes instead of just the Tube, eight per cent instead of just the bus and seven per cent instead of just walking. Less than one per cent reported using the bikes instead of the car. TfL originally anticipated a modal shift of five per cent from cars. It also predicted the largest shift would be from walking (34 per cent) with some shift from buses (32 per cent) and the Tube (20 per cent).8 The cost of the cycle hire scheme There remain questions about the cost and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme. The Committee has obtained further information from TfL which is set out at Appendix 1 of this report. This shows the cycle hire scheme's capital and operational costs: the total capital cost for phase one of the scheme is expected to be £79 million and the annual operating cost is anticipated to be £18 million.9 Charges and sponsorship income from the scheme goes to TfL. This income is planned to cover operational costs.10 The timing of the break-even point has been affected by the scheme not being rolled out as planned. Phase one of the scheme was originally scheduled for May 2010.11 This was to have enabled members and casual users to use 6,000 bikes at 400 docking stations with over 10,000 docking points. It was anticipated that they would make 30,000 trips per day in year one rising to 40,000 trips per day each year thereafter. The scheme will be available to casual users from early December rather than May as planned. While this delay has enabled TfL and Serco to iron out some of the teething problems it has reduced the revenue because of the smaller than anticipated number of journeys. Registered users are making, on average, 15,000 trips per day. TfL expects the number of trips to rise to an average 27,000 trips per day by March 2011 once the scheme is rolled out to casual users. TfL and Serco are still working towards installing the target infrastructure for phase one of the scheme. TfL told us that there are 5,000 available bikes at 344 docking stations with around 8,180 docking points. These figures are between 14 per cent and 18 per cent less than had been planned for phase one of the scheme. The absence of casual users has reduced income from charges and the absence of all the planned infrastructure has resulted in higher operational costs. For example, Serco has had to supply additional staff and vehicles to help with the redistribution of bikes in popular locations. It has also supplied more call centre staff. It is not clear whether these additional costs have been met by Serco or whether TfL is providing financial support. When the Committee asked for this information, TfL reported that operating costs for the cycle hire scheme, including for the call centre and redistribution, were commercially confidential.12 In October, David Brown, the Managing Director of Surface Transport at TfL, told the Committee that, in theory, the limited roll-out to date had affected revenue. He said TfL assumed casual users would hire the bikes for longer than 30 minutes at a time so they would be a bigger revenue generator. However, TfL now expects to break even on operating costs within two to three years. Moreover, "by the end of the business plan, income from charges and the sponsorship deal with Barclays would contribute to the capital cost."13 Since then, TfL has reported that, in the first four months of the scheme, it has achieved £1.9 million of income from charges. This is just 10 per cent of the amount it expects to generate from charges by March 2011 (£18.7 million).14 It is, therefore, expecting to generate the majority of the income this year in the next four months following the roll-out to casual users. However, this coincides with the winter period when demand is expected to fall and therefore these income expectations seem optimistic.15 TfL has not revealed how much income from sponsorship it has received to date. It is possible that it has received less than anticipated because the scheme has not rolled out as planned. The agreement with Barclays provides for £25 million of funding over a five year period (equating to £5 million per year) providing TfL meets key performance indicators such as the number of trips generated through the scheme.16 The Mayor has also reported that there are other measures of success in the agreement with Barclays including the number of docking stations installed and the number of bikes in circulation.17 In the past, the Mayor has reported that Barclays would provide up to £23.8 million of sponsorship by 2014/15. Of this, £10.8 million would be used for phase one of the cycle hire scheme and the rest would be spent on future intensification /expansion of the scheme.18 TfL has also indicated that the deal with Barclays will cover the cycle superhighways.19 However, the information provided to the Committee does not indicate what amount of sponsorship funding been allocated to the cycle superhighwa has ys. TfL has reported that the cost of the proposed expansion of the scheme eastwards is £45 million over a six year period. This includes £30 million of funding for implementation and £15 million for operational costs.20 This proposed expansion will provide for 2,000 more bikes and 4,200 more docking points. TfL told the Committee that in developing the scheme, it would need to be "more imaginative" about funding. For example, if businesses wanted docking stations located outside their buildings, they could pay for them.21 It remains to be seen if other sources of funding, apart from Barclays, have been secured to offset the cost. It is also unclear what number of additional cycle trips the expansion is expected to generate. This information should be published so it is possible to assess the full costs and benefits of expanding the scheme. The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL's finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor's commitment to transparency about public expenditure. The Mayor and TfL should publish the amount of sponsorship obtained to date from Barclays and the conditions to be met for future sponsorship. The Mayor and TfL should also set out clearly how the expansion of the scheme eastwards will be paid for and the number of additional cycle trips it is expected to generate. Are the cycle superhighways meeting their targets? The Mayor wants the 12 cycle superhighways to generate up to 120,000 additional trips per day by providing commuters with a quicker, safer way to get to work from inner and outer London.22 In the first few months, TfL has reported a 25 per cent increase in cycle trips on the two pilot cycle superhighways (Merton to the City - CS7 and Barking to Tower Gateway - CS3). These are being used by 5,000 cyclists per day.23 TfL believes that it is reasonable to conclude, at this stage, that this increase is not due to cyclists diverting from parallel routes.24 The Committee's survey revealed far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways compared to the hire scheme. Only one per cent of respondents had started cycling specifically because of the cycle superhighways. Around one-third used the two pilot routes occasionally and one-third used them several times a week. TfL has reported that its initial research shows some behaviour change as a result of the cycle superhighways. Of its survey of 257 people who cycled on the routes recently, 16-24 per cent had shifted from another mode. There was a 26 per cent increase in the number of people cycling three times a week.25 TfL told the Committee that its business case for the cycle superhighways is not only about encouraging modal shift and increasing the number of cyclists. It is also about improving journey times and the smoothness of journeys for existing cyclists.26 ## The Costs Of The Cycle Superhighways The 12 cycle superhighways are expected to cost £166 million.27 This includes around £23 million for the two pilot cycle superhighways. Most of the money for the pilot routes (£12.47 million) has been spent on the highways improvements e.g. painting blue cycle lanes, installing advance stop lines and modifying junctions. This budget also covered the additional "soft" measures which are part of the scheme. It included: £1.41million for cycle parking; £1.46million for cycle training, maintenance and safety; and £1.44 million for route promotion.28 The majority of the cost of the cycle superhighways is being met by TfL. As highlighted in the previous section on the cycle hire scheme, TfL has reported that some Barclays sponsorship would be used for the cycle superhighways. The Committee has sought clarification from TfL on the amount to be covered by sponsorship but it has not given details. The information TfL has provided on the costs of the cycle superhighways is set out at Appendix 1. Greater clarity on costs and performance of these schemes In future, the Mayor and TfL should provide more detailed information about the cost and performance of these schemes so Londoners know what they are getting for their money. TfL has already released data about the cycle hire scheme to assist in the creation of 'apps' for mobile phones which give more information to users of the scheme.29 This is welcome. TfL could now build on this openness by releasing further information about the costs and performance of the schemes. There are various pieces of information which TfL could publish immediately. This includes: the 'raw data' from its Ipsos Mori survey of users of the cycle hire scheme 30 and its survey of users of the cycle superhighways; its contract with Serco for the operation of the cycle hire scheme31; and its agreement with Barclays for sponsoring both schemes. The publication of such information would be in line with the Government's commitment to publish details of all contracts over £25,000. The publication of more information about the costs and performance of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways chimes with the Government's desire for greater disclosure on public sector spending. It will enable Londoners to understand what is being spent on these schemes and what is being delivered for this money. Initial issues for the cycle hire scheme The cycle hire scheme is very popular. Inevitably with a new scheme there have been some problems. Users highlighted a number of issues in their survey responses. This section provides more details. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters by March 2011. A lack of bikes and available docking points in some areas There has been a lack of bikes and available docking points in certain areas, particularly at peak periods. The Committee's survey revealed this was a particular problem in Covent Garden, Holborn, Kennington, Westminster and Waterloo. One respondent commented: "There is a shocking lack of available docking points in Vauxhall and Kennington. Twice I had to cycle further than I had to travel from where I picked the bike up. Once I was told to take the bike home. Not fun to carry up 4 flights of stairs. I was charged £50…and told to wait 5 days for a refund." In response, TfL has worked with Serco to establish an improved bike redistribution programme. Staff have been deployed at busy docking stations to help users return or obtain bikes.32 New redistribution processes have been introduced.33 Serco has doubled its total number of redistribution staff and vehicles. In turn, this has led to questions about the environmental impact of the scheme. It was originally expected that only electric vehicles would be used for redistribution. Serco is now using 14 electrically powered vehicles, 10 Focus/Mondeo vehicles and, on a temporary basis, three 7.5 ton lorries and four Sprinter vans. It also uses 10 Nissan vans for on-street maintenance.34 It has told the Committee that it is undertaking a fleet review in light of the different redistribution requirements.35 TfL has reiterated that, as originally planned, it is not seeking to meet all the potential demand at rail stations. Although it has recently worked with Network Rail to increase the number of docking points at Waterloo station, it does not plan any further increases thereafter. TfL has suggested that it could never meet the demand at rail stations. It estimated this would require the space of 24 football pitches to park all the hire bikes required.36 Serco has suggested that alternative options could be explored. For example, the introduction of a cheap all day bike rental scheme at stations similar to the CyclePoint scheme at Leeds station.37 The introduction of the planned 400 docking stations should improve availability. Serco has stated that it believes the completion of these further docking stations will help address redistribution.38 The London Cycling Campaign reported to the Committee that the functionality of the scheme depends on the full complement of 400 docking stations being completed.39 However, the full scheme may not be in place until March 2011. In October, Serco reported that 70-80 docking stations were still subject to planning permission, under construction or constrained by other factors. It anticipated "progressively adding" docking stations so 10,000 docking points and 6,000 bikes would be available by March.40 TfL will need to work closely with London Boroughs to progress the installation of all the planned docking stations. The London Borough of Islington reported on problems with the installation of docking stations in its area. It said it had a "long list of snagging issues" to be resolved before it would sign off the docking stations. It had now agreed with TfL that it could do the majority of work on any future docking stations.41 The current number of docking stations per London Borough and in the Royal Parks is shown in the table below.42 \| London Borough/Royal Parks \| Number of docking stations \| \|-------------------------------\|--------------------------------\| \| Camden \| 37 \| \| City of London \| 28 \| \| Hackney \| 13 \| \| Islington \| 29 \| \| Kensington and Chelsea \| 46 \| \| Lambeth \| 21 \| \| Royal Parks \| 11 \| \| Southwark \| 31 \| \|---------------\|-------\| \| Tower Hamlets \| 13 \| \| Westminster \| 119 \| \| \| \| TfL has said it is learning lessons about the installation of docking stations. For the future expansion it is seeking different ways of working with London Boroughs to secure sites for docking stations.43 The future expansion will require an additional 4,200 docking points, including 1,500 within the current area. The roll-out to casual users may also help with the redistribution of bikes. Amongst others, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea44 has stressed the importance of extending the scheme to casual users for this purpose. The London Cycling Campaign has reported that for better efficiency this 'natural' re-distribution is preferable to reliance on Serco staff. In Paris, the Velib scheme gives additional free hire time to users so they take the bikes to destinations where they are in short supply. The London Cycling Campaign suggests a similar incentive scheme should be considered for London.45 ## The Committee Welcomes The Efforts Being Made By Tfl, Serco And London Boroughs To Deliver The Planned 400 Docking Stations, 10,000 Docking Points And 6,000 Bikes. This Is Crucial To The Success Of The Current Scheme. If This Installation, Combined With The Roll-Out To Casual Users, Does Not Address The Problems Of A Lack Of Bikes And Available Docking Points In Certain Areas, The Mayor And Tfl Will Need To Take Other Action. This Could Include Providing An Incentive Of Additional Free Hire Time So Users Assist With The Redistribution Of Bikes. Problems with registration, charging and poor customer service In the first few months of the scheme, some users experienced problems with the registration process. Some users were also overcharged. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "The registration process was awful. Being of Irish heritage I have an apostrophe in my name. The system could not cope with this. It took three weeks to be able to register." 43 Transcript of Transport Committee meeting on 12 October 2010, p 11 44 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's written submission, October 2010 45 London Cycling Campaign's written submission, October 2010 Serco has reported that systems errors have now been addressed and its staff retrained. There were two billing glitches in August but there have not been any since.46 In October, David Brown of TfL reported that, in light of the initial teething issues, TfL wanted to get the experience right for those customers registering as members. It therefore delayed the roll-out to casual users but was now "getting everything ready so we will be ready for casual users and the experience will be good."47 Although improvements have been made, there remains an outstanding issue for members wanting multiple membership keys. The current arrangement means members are charged for all keys held when only one key is used. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "I have two keys and get charged the £1 daily access fee for both keys even if I only use one key to unlock a bike for myself. This is unfair, and a sneaky way of generating revenue!" Another stated: "My partner registered me for a key on her account. Nowhere was it made clear that this meant that both keys would be charged every time she used hers. This is clearly a nonsense… This stupidity had turned me from a supporter of the scheme to a vocal detractor." Serco has acknowledged that this is an issue. It reported that it had made refunds where appropriate. It also now advises customers that if they want multiple keys to have separate memberships in separate names. It accepted this arrangement was not ideal. It told the Committee steps are being taken to change this part of the system.48 A more pressing issue for the roll-out to casual users is to ensure a better service from Serco's customer call centre. The Committee's survey revealed many people had received a poor service. Half the respondents reported having to contact the call centre to report a problem. Of these, more than one-third rated the experience poor or very poor. The following comments are typical. "Fortunately I've only ever been overcharged very small amounts but it has been a titanic battle to get anybody to respond substantively to me and one of my overcharges has never been resolved…." "Switching from weekly to annual access was extremely difficult. It took several attempts over two weeks." "I seem to have problems undocking the bikes. I'm not sure if this is a problem with my account or an issue with the docking station. There have been long waits when I have then contacted the call centre." Serco told the Committee that there had been problems with the call centre. In the first few months it was overwhelmed by demand. In August, there was on average 2,300 calls per day and the average call waiting time was 79 seconds49 Subsequently, though, the centre had been reviewed and the number of staff increased.50 By October, the average number of calls per day had reduced to 1,000 and the average call waiting time was 13 seconds. 51 TfL recently reported the call centre's service levels had improved; all its key performance indicators had been met since 19 September 2010.52 Whilst some improvements have been made, people contacting the call centre whilst using the bikes may still experience delays. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented "on phoning the help desk there is a good minute of pre-amble and then options. If I'm out on a bike and have a problem I simply want to speak to someone. They could do with two numbers - one for people out on bikes and one for general enquiries." Serco reported to the Committee that it would look at how to improve the responses provided to people who call when using the bikes. TfL also reported that this "was a very valid point which we need to find a way round."53 TfL and Serco have taken steps to address problems with registration, charging and a poor response from the customer call centre. More could be done to build on these improvements. They could: change the charges for members so they can have multiple keys but only get charged for each key used; and develop a process whereby users reporting problems whilst using the bikes obtain a quicker response from the call centre. Concerns about the safety of users of the scheme TfL and Serco have told the Committee that there have been around nine minor road incidents involving users of the cycle hire scheme.54 This is very few in the context of more than one million journeys on the cycle hire bikes. Some people have expressed concern that the number of road incidents could increase with the roll-out to casual users. These may include visitors to London who are unfamiliar with its streets. In September, the Mayor himself raised safety as an issue. He reported seeing terrifying things being done on the bikes. He said that "only last night I saw a girl completely dead to the world wobbling into traffic…anything could have happened."55 Organisations such as the road safety campaign group Brake56 and the head injuries charity Headway have argued for the provision of cycle helmets.57 There is considerable debate over the merits of cyclists using cycle helmets to increase their safety. In April 2010, TfL decided not to introduce cycle helmets as part of the scheme. Instead it seeks to promote safety through the provision of cycle training in the nine boroughs where the scheme operates and through the scheme's code of conduct. It has also placed stickers on the handlebars of each bike warning users not to ride to the left of large vehicles. TfL reported that this was an important message to convey. The majority of cyclists who died on London's roads last year had done whilst undertaking or riding inside a left-turning vehicle.58 ## The Committee Welcomes The Steps Which The Mayor And Tfl Has Taken To Improve The Safety Of Users Of The Cycle Hire Scheme. It Asks The Mayor And Tfl To Keep These Measures Under Review. They Should Consider What Further Action Could Be Taken If The Roll-Out To Casual Users Results In An Increase In The Number Of Road Incidents Involving Users Of The Scheme. Expansion of the cycle hire scheme There is clearly huge potential to expand the scheme. Many organisations have expressed support for intensification of the scheme within its existing area. Some organisations have argued for a wider extension of the scheme to other parts of outer London. They draw a parallel with Paris' Velib scheme which has around 24,000 bikes at 1,750 sites.59 The Mayor has also mentioned the Velib scheme. He said he wanted to overtake it, and that a London hire bike was a Rolls Royce compared to the Parisian "deux chevaux" [Citroen 2CV].60 The Mayor has already announced that the scheme will be expanded eastward by 2012 but the rationale for this expansion is not clear. The proposal provides for an additional 2,000 bikes and 4,200 docking points, of which 1,500 will be in the existing area.61 It is not apparent how lessons are being learned from the current scheme and applied, including in relation to the location of more docking points in the existing area. It is important that the development of this scheme is placed within the context of encouraging cycling across the whole of London. The Mayor and TfL should be ensuring there is a balanced development of cycling. They need to consider all the parts of the capital, including areas of outer London, which could benefit from this scheme. They should also consult on any plans for expansion. The Mayor has said that any expansion would be informed by lessons learned from the current scheme's operation.62 He has also indicated that he would consult Londoners and local communities.63 The Mayor has reported that one of the basic premises of the scheme is that a dense network of docking stations needs to be in place throughout the cycle hire zone, as users rely on the expectation that there will be a docking station close to their desired origin/destination. Therefore, areas with no Tube stations could not be incorporated in isolation to the rest of the network but rather the entire area would need to be covered by cycle hire.64 Whilst there might be potential for separate hire schemes in parts of outer London such as Croydon, Serco has highlighted that it could be confusing for users if any such schemes were not linked to the current scheme.65 TfL has also advised of some constraints to expansion. It stated that the only real way to expand the scheme was to have bolt-on areas, particularly large employment centres. In extending the scheme it was necessary to intensify the current scheme; for every extra docking point put outside the central area, there should be a corresponding one inside. TfL said that, at this stage, cost was the main inhibitor to greater expansion.66 ## There Should Be Lessons Learned From The Current Cycle Hire Scheme And Applied Before Any Expansion To Other Parts Of London. In Developing The Scheme, The Mayor And Tfl Should Give Further Consideration To The Parts Of London That Could Benefit From This Scheme. Further improvements to the scheme Many organisations have made suggestions for other improvements to the cycle hire scheme. A frequent suggestion is linking the scheme to Oystercard.67 This seems unlikely to happen. TfL has said that it would be expensive. It would also be out of step with its move to introduce contactless payment systems.68 Some people have suggestions for how to encourage greater use of the scheme. The London Borough of Southwark69 and the London Cycling Campaign70 suggest introducing multi-use corporate membership accounts for businesses. This would accord with the Mayor and TfL's existing smarter travel initiatives which seek to encourage more people to cycle and walk to work. Wheels for Wellbeing suggests expanding the scheme to include trikes for hire by disabled people and others who may not be very confident on two wheels. It reports that the Mayor has said he would consider including trikes. If introduced, this could make this scheme a "world leader".71 Serco has reported that the introduction of trikes could be difficult as it reduces the space for the other bikes in docking stations.72 There may be scope to realise improvements through some more simple actions. The London Cycling Campaign wants TfL to provide more information about the hire scheme on its online journey planner. It could show the nearest docking stations to the traveller's stated destination.73 This might encourage greater use of the scheme by people who might not otherwise consider using it. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to consider the scope for further improvements to the cycle hire scheme to maximise its benefits. These may include: introducing corporate membership; providing trikes for people with reduced mobility; and providing more details on TfL's Journey Planner. ## Next Steps The Committee welcomes the introduction of the cycle hire scheme. This is a popular initiative which has generated much enthusiasm for cycling. The Committee has identified a number of issues which it would like to see addressed to ensure it operates successfully. It would like the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters. ## Recommendation 1 By March 2011 the Mayor and TfL should report back to the Committee on all the issues raised in this report in relation to the cycle hire scheme. Their report to the Committee should include: a) An update on the impact of roll-out to casual users and increased numbers of docking stations and docking points in resolving problems with a lack of bikes and available docking points at popular locations; b) The performance of Serco's customer call centre since September 2010 and any measures taken to improve the customer service provided to users of the scheme; c) The number of incidents involving road users of the scheme and any actions taken to enhance their safety; d) The lessons learned from the current scheme which are being applied to the expansion to east London by 2012 and other proposals for expansion of the scheme to other parts of London; and e) Any other changes made to improve the impact of the cycle hire scheme. ## Initial Issues For The Cycle Superhighways The cycle superhighways have received a mixed reception. Many cyclists have highlighted concerns about their safety when using the pilot routes. Some have reported that many other road users such as car drivers ignore the blue cycle lanes. This section provides more details of the issues which have been raised. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on all these matters by March 2011. The safety of cycle superhighways Although the cycle superhighways are designed to provide safer cycling routes, it is not clear the pilot routes are achieving this. More than half of respondents to the Committee's survey did not feel any safer using the cycle superhighways to alternative routes. Two-thirds of respondents to the Committee's survey felt that the cycle superhighways were not respected by other road users. The Committee's review shows users of the cycle superhighways are experiencing various problems. In some places the blue cycle lanes are too narrow, occupied by other vehicles, disappear at busy junctions or are covered by parked vehicles. The following comments are typical. "The superhighways are not wide enough, stop abruptly at junctions and are extremely badly positioned on roads." "I found the experience rather scary being sent from one side of the road to the other. I will not be doing it again." "Just when you need them [cycle superhighways] - at major junctions, roundabouts and so on - they vanish. A novice cyclist, persuaded to venture out by the superhighways, is left high and dry just when they need most help." The London Cycling Campaign has highlighted the inconsistency of measures along the cycle superhighway routes. Whilst in some places there are full advance stop lines of 5 metres depth and mandatory cycle lanes of 2 metres width, elsewhere there are just narrow 'ghost' lanes (sections of blue paint without any legal status). However, it is most concerned that there are virtually no measures to reduce motor traffic volumes or speeds. Without such measures, it believes the cycle superhighways are bound to fall short of their potential; increased usage may only be drawn from existing cyclists. It suggests all one-way sections on the cycle superhighways be made two-way for cyclists and the bulk of the funding be spent on improving junctions and gyratories.74 Other organisations have made similar points about the need to improve the measures on cycle superhighways.75 The London Boroughs Cycling Officers' Group has highlighted the importance of prioritising cyclists at junctions and getting rid of car parking over the cycle superhighways. Gina Harkell, the Vice-Chair of the Group, suggested it would be really nice if one of the cycle superhighways was "a truly dedicated route for cyclists such as those found in Holland, Germany and Denmark."76 Many people want more measures on the cycle superhighways which reduce motor traffic, traffic speeds and/or provide better segregation amongst road users. Respondents to the Committee survey have commented on other vehicles frequently driving on the cycle superhighways. One said "[the cycle superhighways] need to be physically segregated from other traffic. There are too many lorries drifting into the cycle lanes despite the blue paint." Sustrans has highlighted that the greatest barrier to Londoners cycling, or cycling more, is fear of traffic yet the cycle superhighways generally follow busy arterial roads and provide no or minimal segregation from traffic. It therefore concludes that in their current form the cycle superhighways have limited scope to facilitate an uptake in cycling, particularly by new cyclists.77 One option is more 20mph speed limits. The Mayor has said that TfL will consider installing 20mph speed limits on specific parts of the cycle superhighways such as Southwark Bridge Road.78 The Committee has previously explored the potential for 20mph speed limits in London Boroughs as set out in its report Braking Point: 20mph speed limits in London (March 2009). Some London Boroughs including Hackney have expressed support for the introduction of 20mph speed limits where the cycle superhighways pass along busy streets.79 TfL has acknowledged that the cycle superhighways should be about addressing major barriers for cyclists such as dangerous junctions.80 David Brown of TfL said "we must not shy away from [these barriers] and, if we do, then we have missed an opportunity."81 He also reported that consistency was important. He said "we are trying to make it consistent so you hit that cycling superhighway and you have a clear idea as to…what you're doing and what to expect."82 TfL has reported on lessons learned from the pilot cycle superhighways. These are largely about ensuring the features of the cycle superhighways are put in place more quickly.83 They include allowing more time to implement traffic orders to ensure more mandatory cycle lanes and considering suspension of parking and loading during peak hours on some parts of the routes. TfL also reported that road user behaviour studies were now underway on the pilot routes. The results of these studies would inform the measures on other cycle superhighways.84 TfL is also taking steps to improve other road users' response to the cycle superhighways. It has trialed 34 "Trixi mirrors" (convex road safety mirrors) to improve the visibility of cyclists at traffic lights.85 Over the summer the Metropolitan Police Service's Cycle Task Force ran a six week operation targeted at improving the behaviour of car drivers and cyclists on the pilot cycle superhighways.86 TfL has worked with the freight industry to help reduce deliveries at peak times along the cycle superhighways where possible. It is also workin with bus operators to provide cycle awareness training and information to bus driv g ers.87 The Committee would like to see a greater consistency in the features on future cycle superhighway routes so they are safer for cyclists. The Mayor and TfL could establish a minimum level of features which should be introduced. This could include: - all the blue cycle lanes will be 2 metres wide and mandatory; - all the advance stop lines will be 5 metres deep; - all parts of the routes which are one-way will be made twoway for cyclists; - all junctions on each route will be improved; - 20 mph speed limits will be introduced for all busy sections; and ## - There Will Be An Mps Cycle Task Force Enforcement Campaign For Each Cycle Superhighway When Launched. Building on the experience of the pilot cycle superhighways fully The first two cycle superhighways are only pilots but TfL has already started work on the next two cycle superhighways (Bow to Aldgate - CS2 and Wandsworth to Westminster - CS8).88 The London Borough of Southwark and Lewisham Cyclists89 have expressed concern that work is proceeding on these routes without the pilots being evaluated. 90 Some organisations argue that there are issues on the pilot routes which need to be resolved. The London Cycling Campaign has reported on highly problematic sections such as the contraflow cycle lane on the wrong side of Horseferry Road, E14 and Cable Street91 on CS3. It believes there should be a further round of improvements to the pilot routes.92 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has also expressed concerns about the routing of CS3, having received complaints about cyclists' behaviour on narrow back streets.93 Respondents to the Committee's survey reported their concerns about specific sections of the pilot cycle superhighways. Many mentioned Cable Street and the section around Elephant & Castle. One commented: "CS3 is very badly designed on narrow streets. Cars don't give right of way at advanced stop lines and stop where they usually would when turning a road. I've had a few near misses and seen a few near misses and one bad accident because of this. For this reason I don't use it." TfL told the Committee that it was sometimes "between a rock and a hard place" in terms of the highway options for the pilot routes. If it proved that it had chosen any measures incorrectly or that the traffic was not doing what was anticipated, it could revisit these routes. David Brown of TfL said "if there is something that we have got to look at again we will look at it again. I do not have any problems about that."94 88 TfL press release 304, 30 September 2010 Some of the problems with the pilot routes might have been avoided if TfL had consulted more thoroughly. Many organisations have criticised its approach to developing the cycle superhighways. The London Cycling Campaign described it as rushed and frequently unresponsive. It wants more time for the development of future cycle superhighways and suggests a more comprehensive four-stage consultation and design process.95 TfL needs to engage fully with London Boroughs about the routes of cycle superhighways. Gina Harkell of the London Boroughs Cycling Officers' Group commented that London Boroughs felt local knowledge was not being used as well as it could be in determining the routing of the cycle superhighways. She said: "what we are seeing is wider and bluer London Cycle Network plus routes and some of the opportunities are not being taken to make them really, really safe."96 The London Boroughs of Southwark97 and Merton98 have commented on a lack of engagement from TfL. They wanted more time provided to develop better routes. London Councils has highlighted TfL's commitment in the City Charter to work with London Boroughs to learn lessons from the pilot routes before implementing future cycle superhighways.99 TfL has provided details of its multi-stage approach to developing the cycle superhighways. It has also told the Committee that it had learned lessons about consulting London Boroughs on the routes. It reported that at the same time as considering local opinion it also needed to consider its own analysis of where there was most demand for cycling.100 TfL had to be pragmatic and practical. It needed to deliver the cycle superhighways in good time, at reasonable cost, whilst balancing the needs of all road users. It would never satisfy everybody.101 The Committee welcomes TfL's steps to improve its consultation with relevant organisations, especially London Boroughs, on the routes of the cycle superhighways. Local opinion is only one of a range of factors that TfL needs to take into account when developing the routes. Yet greater involvement of people who know the areas through which the cycle superhighways run could help to deliver safer routes which are used by more cyclists. There should also be scope to revisit the pilot cycle superhighway routes and make changes where there are major problems for cyclists. More additional "soft" measures such as cycle parking Many organisations have been positive about the additional "soft" measures which are part of the cycle superhighways scheme. The London Borough of Southwark reported that a lasting legacy from the cycle superhighways will be the funding for cycle parking on housing estates along CS7 and for promotional events.102 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets commented that the additional marketing and awareness-raising activities seem to have increased use of CS3.103 The London Borough of Merton suggested there should be more training and led-cycle rides to encourage new cyclists.104 The provision of more cycle parking is important. One-third of respondents to the Committee's survey rated the availability of cycle parking spaces as bad or very bad. This reinforces the findings of the Committee's report, Stand and Deliver: cycle parking in London (June 2009). It highlighted the need for more cycle parking on-street and in new developments. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "I cycle to work along the Barclays cycle superhighway to work in the Barclays building in Canary Wharf where there is not enough cycle parking! Oh, the irony." TfL is seeking to deliver 66,000 new cycle parking spaces by 2012.105 This is welcome but it may not be enough. The advent of the cycle superhighways and other initiatives to promote cycling may see the demand for cycle parking grow. It will be important to ensure any new cycle parking is located in the right places. London Councils has expressed concern that once all the cycle superhighways are completed there could be very significant numbers of cyclists arriving in the same parts of London at the same time. It wants TfL to ensure there is more cycle parking where cycle superhighways terminate.106 The additional "soft" measures which are part of the cycle superhighways scheme, particularly the provision of cycle parking, are important. There is insufficient cycle parking in London. The Committee urges the Mayor and TfL to do more to increase the amount of cycle parking delivered through the scheme. This needs to be located in areas of greatest demand including where cycle superhighways terminate. Developing the cycle superhighways The Committee has received suggestions for developing the cycle superhighways. These include extending their length, integrating them with other roads and cycle routes and building new cycle superhighways. Many would like to see the cycle superhighways integrated in central London. The City of Westminster has commented that they should "join up across the centre and not merely leave cyclists on the periphery."107 Gina Harkell of the London Borough Cycling Officers' Group described the routes not meeting up in central London as a big failure.108 The London Cycling Campaign has suggested this matter could be addressed by introducing a 'Bike Grid'. This would involve some minor highway intervention measures on 6-8 central London roads to improve journeys made by bikes.109 TfL has reported that it has not linked the cycle superhighways in the centre because of the huge dispersal from the routes. It could, though, look at the London Cycling Campaign's proposal for a 'Bike Grid.110 The Committee would like to hear from the Mayor and TfL on any further steps that could be taken to develop the cycle superhighways. They should explore the scope to develop a 'Bike Grid' which could join together the cycle superhighways in central London by providing improved conditions for cyclists on some central London roads. Next steps The Committee wants the cycle superhighways to deliver an increase in cycling. They should be used by more Londoners who have never cycled before. The Committee has identified a number of issues which it would like to see addressed to ensure this happens. It would like the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters. ## Recommendation 2 By March 2011 the Mayor and TfL should report back to the Committee on all the issues it has raised in this report in relation to the cycle superhighways. Their report should include: a) The action taken to ensure a greater level of consistency in the highway features introduced on the cycle superhighways which benefit cyclists; b) Their plans to increase all road users' understanding and awareness of the cycle superhighways; c) The changes which have been, or may be, made to improve problematic sections on the existing pilot cycle superhighway routes; d) How London Boroughs and other relevant organisations including the London Cycling Campaign have been involved in the development of the routes of the future cycle superhighways; e) The potential to increase the amount of cycle parking delivered through the scheme; and f) Any proposals to develop the cycle superhighways further including by joining them up in central London through the creation of a 'Bike Grid'. ## Conclusion The Committee welcomes the introduction of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways. These schemes have an important role to play in increasing cycling in London. They are central to the Mayor's aspiration for a "cycling revolution." The Committee's review has highlighted great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme. This initiative has captured people's imagination and generated great interest in cycling. The Committee has found some issues in relation to the early implementation of the scheme which, if addressed, could help improve its operation and build on its initial popularity. By contrast, the Committee has found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. Many are concerned about safety and a lack of respect from other road users when using the cycle superhighways. There is clearly a need to learn lessons from the pilot routes before the roll-out of more cycle superhighways. There is a need to modify the approach to developing the future routes and to improve their features to ensure they are much safer and more attractive for new cyclists. This report has set out a number of issues in relation to the cycle superhighways which the Committee would like to see addressed. The Committee looks forward to receiving a response from the Mayor and TfL to the matters raised in this report by 1 March 2011. It will continue to monitor the impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways. It will also undertake more detailed scrutiny of the Mayor's cycling policies and programmes in due course. The Committee welcomes receiving any responses and feedback to this report by 1 March 2011. ## Appendix 1 - Details Of This Review The Committee provided an opportunity for users of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways to complete an online survey between September and October 2010. This was completed by 1,297 people. Three-quarters of respondents were male (76 per cent) and almost half (42 per cent) were 30-39 years old. The majority had their own bike (84 per cent). Around two-thirds (762) had registered for the cycle hire scheme; just over half (701) had used the superhighways. The 'raw' data from the survey is being published alongside this report as well as a summary of the main survey findings. The Committee has received over 100 written submissions from members of the public and various organisations. The organisations included: TfL, Serco, London Cycling Campaign, London Borough Officers' Cycling Group, London Councils, London Boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Hounslow, Islington, Wandsworth, Havering and Hackney, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, City of Westminster, Sustrans and Wheels for Wellbeing. The Committee held a meeting on 12 October 2010 when it heard from, and questioned, representatives of TfL, Serco, the London Cycling Campaign and the London Borough Cycling Officers Group. Following this meeting, the Committee wrote to TfL seeking further information, including on costs and funding for the schemes. TfL's response is set out overleaf. ## The Committee Undertook A Site Visit To Serco'S Operations Centre For The Cycle Hire Scheme On 22 November 2010. TfL's response on costs and funding of the schemes, 23 November 2010 Dear Val Transport Committee meeting on 12 October Thank you for your letter, which I received on 25 October. You requested some additional information which I have provided below: The amount of funding provided to Boroughs for cycle training relating to the Cycle Hire scheme and the number of people who have so far participated in this training. Funding for cycle training in support of the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways schemes is provided either direct to the relevant Boroughs, or to businesses via the workplace measures programme. The funding available to Boroughs totals £802,940 and to businesses £581,000. The funding is intended to provide 17,500 hours of training, of which 1,362 hours have been completed to date. Many more are scheduled for completion over the next few months. What contribution the cycle hire scheme and superhighways are expected to make to the Mayor's target for 5 per cent of all journeys to be undertaken by bike by 2025 and what else is expected to contribute. To achieve the Mayor's target TfL is taking a targeted approach to unlock the cycling potential in London and to focus investment in the areas where it will have most effect. The Superhighways are one element designed to realise this potential, along with Cycle Hire (design to cater for short trips in central London) and Biking Boroughs (to encourage trips of less than 8km contained within inner and outer London to be made by bike rather than car). TfL plans for the Cycle Hire scheme to deliver 40,000 trips per day (once the scheme has been fully rolled out to casual users) and the Superhighways 120,000 trips per day once all routes have been introduced by 2015. The TfL Cycling Programme includes a number of additional projects and initiatives to encourage more people to cycle. These include:  Cycle Parking, Cycle Security Plan & Cycle Task Force - which we expect will lead to reduced bicycle theft, increased confidence in bike security measures and improved perception of bike security.  Implementation of the Cycle Safety Action Plan, Cycle Safety Campaign, Cycle/HGV Safety Campaign, London Freight Driver Training– we expect these will yield improved safety considerations for cyclists, increased awareness of safety by cyclists, reduced casualty rate among cyclists, improved perception of safety.  Cycle Training, Cycle Wayfinding initiatives - both contributing to improving cycling confidence.  Infrastructure projects (Cycle paths on the Transport for London Road Network, the Greenways111 programme, Olympic Cycle Routes) - which contribute to improved perception of the convenience of cycling and improved perception of the predictability and reliability of journey times).  Cycling promotion and marketing (e.g. Catch-up with a bicycle112) - which are key to improving the image of cycling and raising its profile within London, as well as increasing the number of new cyclists. Details of any action TfL has taken or will take to improve the telephone helpline so users of the cycle hire scheme who call whilst using the cycles get quicker responses. In the first 26 days after opening, Serco's Cycle Hire contact centre had received over 58,000 calls, averaging around 2,200 calls per day. This far exceeded the volume anticipated. We worked closely with Serco to ensure additional staff were recruited, to drive down call waiting times. Whilst TfL will continue to monitor Serco's performance in this regard, we are assured of their progress: average call answering times in October were around 16 seconds, as compared to 79 seconds in August. A list of boroughs which TfL has been in contact with about possible expansion of the cycle hire scheme. TfL engaged with the following boroughs about the future of the scheme, both in terms of intensifying the existing zone and expanding the scheme.  City of London  City of Westminster  London Borough of Camden  London Borough of Hackney  London Borough of Islington  Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea  London Borough of Lambeth  London Borough of Southwark  London Borough of Tower Hamlets  The Royal Parks TfL announced on 10 November that the Cycle Hire scheme would be extended from Olympia in the west to Bow in the east. Residents living in Bethnal Green, Bow, Canary Wharf, Mile End and Poplar will have access to docking stations. You included a number of questions in the appendix to your letter, including the total capital cost for Cycle Hire and the annual operational cost for Phase 1 of the scheme. The total implementation cost for Phase 1 of the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme is expected to be £79 million. Annual operating costs are currently around £18m per annum. These costs are offset by sponsorship funding from Barclays of £25m over five years, and by revenue from membership fees and hire charges, which are expected to amount to around £18.7m in 2011/12, once the scheme has been fully rolled out to casual users. It is on this basis that TfL believes the scheme will break even 'within three years'. As requested we have also updated the tables included in your appendix, and these are attached. Finally you requested a breakdown of expenditure on the expansion of the Cycle Hire scheme, which you suggested was more than £100m. This is incorrect; the scheme is expected to require £45m of funding, over a six year period. The scheme is required to require around £30m of funding to implement with operational costs over a six year period amounting to around £15m. I look forward to the Committee's report, David Brown Managing Director - Surface Transport Original estimates Cycle Hire Scheme - phase 1 TfL's expenditure on the scheme £73m - £54.1m total project cost plus £23m for internal costs of which £10m for staff. Income from fares £119.4m over 7 years - £13m in one year; £18m p.a. thereafter. Income from sponsorship £8.1m over 7 years - - - Demand 30,000 journeys/day in year one; 40,000 journeys p/day p.a. thereafter. 400 344 400 400 Docking Stations Bicycles 6,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 10,200 8,182 10,000 10,000 Docking points Schemes in operation Member & Casual Cycle Superhighways Estimated Actual to date £23m £14.72m £20.89m* £20.89m Expenditure on Pilots £145m £2.33m £15.48m** £145m Expenditure on the Remaining Routes Funding from Barclay' sponsorship * Contracts have not yet been closed ** Subject to programming TfL's sponsorship agreement with Barclays provides £25m of funding over a five year period (equating to £5m each year), providing TfL meets Key Performance Indicators, such as the number of trips generated through the cycle hire scheme. Actual to date Expected at end of March 2011 Assumptions for each remaining year of the contract with Serco phase 1 £46.3m £79m (phase 1 only) Operating costs are expected to amount to £18m for the remainder of the contract £1.9m £18.7m £18.7m 15,178 journeys/day 27,000 journeys/day 40,000 journeys p/day p.a. Member & Casual Member Member & Casual (by end of 2010) Expected at end of March 2011 Expected upon completion of all 12 Superhighways in 2015 - - - - ## Appendix 2 - Orders And Translations How to order For further information on this report or to order a copy, please contact Laura Warren, Scrutiny Manager, on 020 7983 6545 or email: laura.warren@london.gov.uk See it for free on our website You can also view a copy of the report on the GLA website: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports Large print, braille or translations If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of this report in large print or braille, or a copy of the summary and main findings in another language, then please call us on: 020 7983 4100 or email: assembly.translations@london.gov.uk. Hindi Chinese Bengali Vietnamese Greek Urdu Arabic Turkish Gujarati Punjabi ## Appendix 3 - Principles Of Scrutiny An aim for action An Assembly scrutiny is not an end in itself. It aims for action to achieve improvement. Independence An Assembly scrutiny is conducted with objectivity; nothing should be done that could impair the independence of the process. Holding the Mayor to account The Assembly rigorously examines all aspects of the Mayor's strategies. Inclusiveness An Assembly scrutiny consults widely, having regard to issues of timeliness and cost. Constructiveness The Assembly conducts its reviews and investigations in a positive manner, recognising the need to work with stakeholders and the Mayor to achieve improvement. Value for money When conducting a scrutiny the Assembly is conscious of the need to spend public money effectively. ## Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458	en
4499-pdf	\| Department Family \| Entity \| Date Paid \| Expense Type \| Expense Area \| Supplier \| Transaction Reference \| \|---------------------------------------\|---------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------------\|--------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|------------\|-------------------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS \| LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS \| ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD \| 692960 \| 40793.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 PACS (IT) \| COMPUTER MAINTENANCE \| ACCENTURE \| 689624 \| 69365.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD \| 689208 \| 45763.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 HISTOPATHOLOGY & CYTOLOGY TW \| LABORATORY EQUIPMENT \| A MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS \| 686272 \| 41782 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 689149 \| 85528.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 689149 \| 14742.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 690818 \| 78480.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 690818 \| 13042.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 690818 \| 414.32 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 692366 \| 87719.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 692366 \| 13910.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 692368 \| 2244.43 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP AGENCY CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 692368 \| 34343.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 692368 \| 2188.72 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 693984 \| 80978.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 693984 \| 12203.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT \| NHSP BANK CONTROL \| NHS PROFESSIONALS \| 693984 \| 174.94 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY \| 28020 \| 29762.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD \| COMMERCIAL SECTOR \| BUPA CARE HOMES \| 688257 \| 81840 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 688306 \| 2628.77 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 PFI ACCOUNTING \| UNITARY PAYMENT \| CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD \| 700337 \| 3.47472e+06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY \| COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE \| DATA SEEKER LTD \| 689665 \| 49750 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 SITE ESTATES MANAGEMENT \| MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE \| DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE \| 689259 \| 278988 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 PGI UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 694825 \| 38918.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 DDH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 694827 \| 67195.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 694829 \| 36.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 694829 \| 87410.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 695414 \| 74.71 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| ELECTRICITY \| EDF ENERGY LTD \| 695414 \| 86364.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 EDMS PROJECT \| EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS \| EDM GROUP LTD \| 687773 \| 54636.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 EDMS PROJECT \| EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS \| EDM GROUP LTD \| 695023 \| 22158.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ELI LILLY & CO LTD \| 693656 \| 34560 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 CORPORATE CENTRAL COSTS \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| ERNST & YOUNG LLP \| 690321 \| 630000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 MYHT FINANCE TEAM \| AUDIT FEES: EXT NON-STAT \| GRANT THORNTON \| 698875 \| 31428.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| APPL CONTRACT \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 686249 \| 6166.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 686249 \| 78922.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 687938 \| 6166.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 687938 \| 78922.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 693324 \| -78922.7 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. \| PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE \| HUGH STEEPER LTD \| 693324 \| -6166.91 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 MRI SERVICE \| INDEPENDENT SECTOR \| INHEALTH LTD \| 694939 \| 57475 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED \| JACKSON COULSON \| 690177 \| 29628.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 MYHT SUPPLIES TEAM \| EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES \| LEEDS AND YORK PARTNERSHIP NHS FT \| 26807 \| 62500 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 NUCLEAR MEDICINE RECHARGES \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27710 \| 27227.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 03/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27724 \| 37587.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27938 \| 552 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE \| CONSULTANT \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27938 \| 36022.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27985 \| 5700 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 NUCLEAR MEDICINE RECHARGES \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27985 \| 23297.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 27989 \| 45978.2 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE \| SENIOR LECTURER \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28000 \| 55000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE \| LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS \| LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 28080 \| 43567.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 GENERAL OFFICE PGH \| POSTAGE & CARRIAGE \| NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C \| 694503 \| 25000 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 28003 \| 37842.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE \| BLOOD PRODUCTS \| NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT \| 28006 \| 108091 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| CNST CONTRIBUTIONS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 28333 \| 1.04318e+06 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| INSURANCE COSTS \| NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY \| 28334 \| 35396 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES \| CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT \| NHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD \| 28336 \| 175008 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES \| CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT \| NHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD \| 28337 \| 175008 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 27906 \| 151675 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 27915 \| 50363.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28016 \| 61599.8 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 13/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28017 \| 158786 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28119 \| 67696.59 \| \|-----------------------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|-------------------------------------\|--------------------------\|-----------------------------------------\|---------\|------------\| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28120 \| 166140 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28175 \| 56493.4 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR \| NHS SUPPLY CHAIN \| 28176 \| 99098.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 ULTRASOUND \| AGENCY PROF & TECH \| NORTHERN MEDICAL ULTRASOUND \| 694820 \| 37686 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD \| 692495 \| 80228.5 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 11/09/2013 SLEEP SERVICE \| GENERAL MATERIALS \| PHILIPS RESPIRONICS \| 687885 \| 58044.1 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 A&E PGH & PGI \| GENERAL PRACTITIONERS \| PRIMECARE \| 694293 \| 37200 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| STOCKS FINISHED GOODS \| ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD \| 693649 \| 244464 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES \| CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT \| SOUTH WEST YORKSHIRE PARTNERSHIP NHS FT \| 28325 \| 49844 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS \| PERSONAL INJURY \| SUSAN SNOW \| 29658 \| 55285 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 30/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| UNISON \| 29645 \| 71364.9 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 05/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| RATES \| WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL \| 686578 \| 229377 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 696825 \| 30573.6 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 25/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES \| WATER \| YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD \| 696825 \| 450 \| \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST \| 23/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET \| PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR \| EDENRED \| 26303 \| 47476.9 \|	en
4764-pdf	## Procedures For Closure On Transfer First published: May 2016 Reviewed: March 2019 ## © Crown Copyright 2019 You may re-use this publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at governmentaudience@nationalarchives.gov.uk ## Contents Sensitivity review ........................................................................................................................... 3 Opening of records ........................................................................................................................ 5 Closed descriptions........................................................................................................................ 5 Statute bars ................................................................................................................................... 6 ## Sensitivity Review Departments should consider sensitivity review as an integral part of the transfer process, along with the appropriate policies and procedures for identifying exempt information and consulting with other bodies. Before records are transferred to The National Archives or an approved place of deposit, the transferring department must determine their access status (the sensitivity review). The purpose of the sensitivity review is to:  consider whether any information should be retained in the department instead of transferred to an archives service  consider whether any information should be closed on transfer because one or more Freedom of Information (FOI) exemptions apply  consider whether any exempt information should be released in the public interest regardless  confirm remaining information can also be released as no FOI exemptions apply If the sensitivity review identifies information which should not to be released to the public because one or more FOI exemptions apply, the department should prepare an application schedule identifying this information precisely, citing the relevant exemption(s), explaining why the information should not be released and identifying a date at which either release would be appropriate or the case for release should be reconsidered. Departments should consider whether parts of records might be released if the sensitive information were redacted. The process includes the following steps:  consulting internally to determine whether the record is likely to contain sensitive information  making an interim decision  consulting externally, as appropriate, including with The National Archives if closure is proposed  confirming or amending the closure decision and adding to the closure application When dealing with environmental information, the application should cite the appropriate exception in the Environmental Information Regulations. If section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is cited the relevant statute bar that prohibits disclosure should be cited. When making access decisions it is important to:  consider what security levels or classifications are on the record and whether these have short or long term implications  consider what personal information is contained within the record and whether it still should be closed given the passage of time  discuss closure with staff who are familiar with the records and any related sensitivity issues or legislative requirements  consider the access status of similar records in archives services The National Archives' closure application form is available online in both Word and Excel format and contains guidance notes and examples on completing the form. The closure application must be submitted to The National Archives for review and advice early in the process, as closure must be approved before records are transferred. The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (known as the Advisory Council) will consider the case for withholding the records for a longer period. The Advisory Council will respond as follows:  by accepting that the information may be withheld and earmarking the records for release or re-review at the date identified by the department  by accepting that the information may be withheld but asking the department to reconsider the date designated for release or re-review  by questioning the basis on which it is deemed the information may be withheld and asking the department to reconsider the case Where records are being transferred to The National Archives or a place of deposit ahead of the statutory deadline, and the intention is that they remain closed until they become historical records, or they are not public records, a similar application should be submitted prior to transfer explaining which exemption(s) apply and why. However, there is no formal review of these by the Advisory Council as it is not involved in the process. Agreement of one of the Directors at The National Archives is needed. ## Opening Of Records When an exemption has ceased to apply under section 63 of the FOIA, the records will automatically become available to members of the public on the day specified in the finalised schedule (this is the schedule reviewed by the Advisory Council and closure has been agreed). In other cases, if the department concerned wishes to extend the period during which the information is to be withheld in accordance with the FOIA, it should submit a further application explaining the continued sensitivity of the information. This should be done before the expiry of the period stated in the earlier schedule. The Advisory Council will then review the application in accordance with the process described above. Access restrictions can be withdrawn at any time if it becomes clear that the restriction is no longer appropriate. The relevant department should inform The National Archives if this is the case, but be aware that other bodies involved in the sensitivity review process for transferred records should also be consulted. ## Closed Descriptions It is recognised that on rare occasions a catalogue description may be considered exempt under FOI and should be withheld from the public until the record becomes open (for example, the names of victims of sexual assault). In such cases, the records involved should be catalogued in the ordinary way and departments should then indicate clearly on the transfer form the numbers of the records which are to have their descriptions withheld. The scope/content will not be added to the catalogue at The National Archives (although the archival reference will). The records will be held in secure conditions until the record(s) become open, at which point the full description will be added to the catalogue. It is preferable in the interim if some form of alternative to the full description can be displayed rather than leaving it completely blank, for example 'Mental Health hospital patient case paper, not full description, name withheld'. However, the record will still be displayed as a closed record with closed description until the full description is released. ## Statute Bars The release of certain information is prohibited by provisions contained in legislation (such as acts, rules, regulations, orders) known as statute bars. Usually such prohibitions apply to the collectors of information and cease to apply when they transfer the custody of the records to The National Archives, although the records may still be closed under other FOI exemptions. Some bars have time limits (sunset clauses) so that they do not apply to information over a specified age e.g. for the lifetimes of individuals concerned. When FOI was implemented the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) conducted a review of statute bars to see which statue bars were no longer required or whether their terms should be varied. Section 75 of the FOIA contains a power to repeal or amend statutory bars to access that existed before November 2000 by Order. Specifically, section 75 allows the Secretary of State to relax or remove aspects of laws that have a section 44 prohibition via a Statutory Instrument (SI). There has been one such SI to-date (SI 2004/3363).There remain some pieces of legislation that currently contain a permanent statute bar on the disclosure of information, even following a transfer of custody of the records to The National Archives. The existence of such prohibitions does not exempt those organisations responsible for public records from statutory obligations under the Public Records Act 1958 (PRA). Under the PRA arrangements must still be made for the selection of those records which should be permanently preserved, and for the safe-keeping of records until they are disposed of through a transfer of custody or destruction. The National Archives does not collect public records to which there is no defined timeframe for public access. Those records deemed worthy of permanent preservation should be retained by the responsible organisation with the agreement of the Secretary of State if required until such time as a transfer can occur. This would be facilitated by the addition of a sunset clause by the legislative owners. It is the responsibility of those retaining such records to initiate this contact with the support of The National Archives.	en

3483-pdf

| Measure | 13/14-Q4 | 14/15-Q1 | 14/15-Q2 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------| | Magistrates' Court - Conviction Rate | 84.4% | 84.3% | 83.8% | | Magistrates' Court - Percentage of GPs at 1st hearing | 68.0% | 70.7% | 70.5% | | Magistrates' Court - Prosecutions dropped at 3rd or subsequent hearing | 34.3% | 35.7% | 35.3% | | Crown Court - Conviction Rate | 79.8% | 80.1% | 79.4% | | Crown Court - Timely Compliance with Judges' Order and Court Directions | 81.2% | 82.8% | 81.2% | | Violence against Women - Conviction Rate | 74.4% | 74.2% | 73.7% | | Hate Crime - Conviction Rate | 84.7% | 84.6% | 83.9% | | Sickness Absence - Average Working Days Lost (days per person) | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.7 | | Employee Engagement Index* | 53.0% | 53.0% | 53.0% |

en

4868-pdf

| Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 573184 | 79,215.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 PACS (IT) | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | ACCENTURE | 568875 | 70,159.59 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/06/2012 LAUNDRY DDH | EXT CONTR LAUNDRY | AIREDALE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 23137 | 26,199.54 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 572632 | 34,874.32 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 579780 | 48,155.01 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | ARDENTIA LTD | 571381 | 44,049.77 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY | 23273 | 33,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | BUILDING AUTOMATION SOLUTIONS LTD | 569855 | 31,642.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 568911 | 81,840.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 577160 | 79,200.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 23064 | 50,129.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 23445 | 50,129.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 MYHT NURSE MANAGEMENT | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | CARE QUALITY COMMISION | 23060 | 100,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 577638 | 3,568,684.10 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 575715 | 44,050.13 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 575724 | 33,535.67 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE | CHIEF EXECUTIVE | COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT | 23070 | 25,037.89 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 RETINAL SCREENING DIABETES | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | DIGITAL HEALTHCARE LTD | 578949 | 30,727.82 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | DTZ DEBENHAM TIE LEUNG | 574169 | 59,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | DTZ DEBENHAM TIE LEUNG | 580234 | 24,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | EDF ENERGY LTD | 573023 | 68,507.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | EDF ENERGY LTD | 573024 | 69,663.19 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | EDF ENERGY LTD | 573025 | 62,989.02 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 575149 | 32,096.79 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 VOLUNTARY SERV PGH & PGI | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | GATEWAY COMPUTING LIMITED | 573349 | 31,480.35 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 | 574562 | 27,120.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | HEALTHCARE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS | 568675 | 38,467.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 569630 | 58,844.70 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 569630 | 4,068.84 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 MRI SERVICE | INDEPENDENT SECTOR | INHEALTH LTD | 577153 | 48,719.94 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/06/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | KPMG LLP | 577599 | 21,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE | SENIOR LECTURER | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23012 | 80,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 NEPHROLOGY PGH | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23034 | 27,586.50 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 CLINICAL PHYSICS | CLINICAL SCIENTIST BAND 8 | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23036 | 49,250.25 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 CLINICAL PHYSICS | MTO BAND 6 | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23036 | 21,679.25 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/06/2012 THERAPIES SLA | HEALTHCARE SRV REC PCTS | LOCALA COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS C.I.C | 577159 | 45,423.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 GENERAL OFFICE PGH | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C | 577745 | 30,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 22988 | 115,401.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 22990 | 41,767.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/06/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 23388 | 79,913.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/06/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 23390 | 2,843,071.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 568647 | 58,462.25 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 568647 | 16,014.95 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 571203 | 15,592.89 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 571203 | 56,225.32 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 571784 | 16,410.05 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 571784 | 57,243.85 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 573386 | 14,958.06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 573386 | 62,861.39 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | ADMIN & CLERICAL: BANK | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 575208 | 14,483.43 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 575208 | 67,119.10 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE BAND 1 | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 576871 | 14,793.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 576871 | 57,037.56 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | BANK NURSE : QUALIFIED | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 578711 | -35,011.20 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22896 | 23,944.26 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22897 | 78,251.78 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22898 | 23,710.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22900 | 169,919.55 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22901 | 24,350.35 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22915 | 137,744.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22941 | 52,679.90 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22942 | 111,041.36 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 22981 | 61,302.81 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23030 | 71,783.47 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23031 | 160,046.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23145 | 132,423.14 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23146 | 90,367.37 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23226 | 201,981.17 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23227 | 96,914.46 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------|-------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 572600 | 178,219.08 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 577268 | 33,884.69 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 580779 | 41,465.16 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 SLEEP SERVICE | GENERAL MATERIALS | PHILIPS RESPIRONICS | 568823 | 40,214.40 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | IT ADDITIONS | PREMIER TELESOLUTIONS | 572865 | 27,715.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS | RADIOMETER LTD | 565039 | 28,110.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 575733 | 57,212.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 575735 | 78,220.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 578196 | 73,332.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY | 554983 | 35,860.27 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY | 577292 | -35,860.27 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY | 577748 | -35,860.27 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SMITH & NEPHEW ENDOSCOPY | 577749 | 35,860.27 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | SOUTHERN ELECTRIC | 570853 | 64,494.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SYNTHES LTD | 557809 | 45,406.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SYNTHES LTD | 575411 | -45,406.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | SYNTHES LTD | 575416 | 76,971.02 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 15/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | TOTAL GAS & POWER | 573408 | 44,864.56 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL | 575120 | 58,048.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL | 577171 | 101,094.20 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 578943 | 549.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 578943 | 35,581.28 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/06/2012 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | EDENRED | 20860 | 58,056.86 |

en

4162-pdf

## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Adult 16+ (V2) National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Instructions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...2-3 Diary examples……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4-15 Practice Pages……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16-22 Examples and advice on food descriptions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23-29 Pictures for food portion size guidance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...30-33 Breakfast cereals Rice Spaghetti Chips Broccoli or cauliflower Stew or curry Battered fish Quiche/Pie Cheese Sponge cake Drink volume guidance………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………34-35 Pictures for spoon size……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...36 "The 4-day diary"…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37-68 General questions about your diet during the recording period..………………………………………………………………………………69-74 If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS Team at NatCen on freephone **0800 652 4572** between 8.30am-5.30pm. PLEASE READ THROUGH THESE PAGES BEFORE STARTING YOUR DIARY We would like you to keep this diary of everything you eat and drink over 4 days. Please include all food consumed at home and outside the home e.g. work, college or restaurants. It is very important that you do not change what you normally eat and drink just because you are keeping this record. Please keep to your usual food habits. Day and Date Please write down the day and date at the top of the page each time you start a new day of recording. Time Slots Please note the time of each eating occasion into the space provided. For easy use each day is divided into sections, from the first thing in the morning to late evening and through the night. Where and with whom? For each eating occasion, please tell us what **room or part of the house** you were in when you ate, e.g. kitchen, living room, if you ate at your work canteen, a restaurant, fast food chain or your car, write that location down. We would also like to know **who you share your meals with**, e.g. whether you ate alone or with others. If you ate with others please describe their relationship to you e.g. partner, children, colleagues, or friends. We would also like to know **when you ate at a table** and **when you were watching television whilst eating**. For those occasions where you were **not** at a table or watching TV please write 'Not at table' or 'No TV' rather than leaving it blank. What do you eat? Please describe the food you eat in as much detail as possible. Be as specific as you can. Pages 23-29 will help with the sort of detail we need, like **cooking methods** (fried, grilled, baked etc) and any **additions** (fats, sugar/sweeteners, sauces, pepper etc). ##  Homemade Dishes If you have eaten any **homemade dishes** e.g. chicken casserole, please record the name of the recipe, ingredients with amounts (including water or other fluids) for the whole recipe, the number of people the recipe serves, and the cooking method. Write this down in the recipe section at the end of the record day. Record how much of the whole recipe you have eaten in the portion size column (see examples on pages 4 - 15). ##  Take-Aways And Eating Out If you have eaten take-aways or **made up dishes not prepared at home** such as at a restaurant or a friend's house, please record as much detail about the ingredients as you can e.g. vegetable curry containing chickpeas, aubergine, onion and tomato. Brand name Please note the **brand name** (if known). Most packed foods will list a brand name, e.g. Bird's Eye, Hovis, or supermarket own brands. ##  Labels/Wrappers Labels are an important source of information for us. It helps us a great deal if you enclose, in the plastic bag provided, labels from all ready meals, labels from **foods of lesser known brands** and also from any **supplements** you take. Portion sizes Examples for how to describe the quantity or **portion size** you had of a particular food or drink are shown on pages 23-29. For foods, quantity can be described using:  **household measures**, e.g. one teaspoon (tsp) of sugar, two thick slices of bread, 4 tablespoons (tbsp) of peas, ½ cup of gravy. Be careful when describing amounts in spoons that you are referring to the correct spoon size. Compare the spoons you use with the life size pictures on page 36 of this diary.  **weights from labels**, e.g. 4oz steak, 420g tin of baked beans, 125g pot of yoghurt  **number of items**, e.g. 4 fish fingers, 2 pieces of chicken nuggets, 1 regular size jam filled doughnut  picture **examples** for specific foods on pages 30-33 (for adults only). For drinks, quantity can be described using:  the **size of glass, cup etc** (e.g. large glass) or the **volume** (e.g. 300ml). Examples of typical drinks containers are on pages 34-35. If you are able, please measure your usual drinking vessel and record the volume on page 34  volumes from **labels** (e.g. 330ml can of fizzy drink). We would like to know the **amount that was actually eaten** which means taking **leftovers** into account. You can do this in two ways: 1. Record what was served and make notes of what was not eaten e.g. 3 tbsp of peas, only 2 tbsp eaten; 1 large sausage roll, ate only ½ 2. Only record the amount actually eaten i.e. 2 tbsp of peas, ½ a large sausage roll Was it a typical day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a typical day or whether there were any reasons why you ate and drank more or less than usual. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. Supplements At the end of each recording day there is a section for providing information about any supplements you took. Brand name, full name of supplement, strength and the amount taken should be recorded. When to fill in the diary Please record your eating as you go, **not from memory** at the end of the day. Use written notes on a pad if you forget to take your diary with you. Each diary day covers a 24hr period, so please include any food or drinks that you may have had during the night. Remember to include foods and drinks between meals (snacks) including water. Overleaf you can see 2 example days that have been filled in by different people. These examples show you how we would like you to record your food and drink, for example a ready meal and a homemade dish. Your instruction booklet contains further examples such as how to describe food eaten in a restaurant. It only takes a few minutes for each eating occasion! For your convenience a separate booklet with instructions and examples is provided. T T Th h ha a an n nk k k y y yo o ou u u f f fo o or r r y y yo o ou u ur r r t t ti i im m me e e – – - w w we e e r r re e ea a al l ll l ly y y a a ap p pp p pr r re e ec c ci i ia a at t te e e i i it t t! ! ! | Day: | Thurs | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Time | | | Where? | | | Food/Drink description & preparation | | | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | With Whom? | | | TV on? | | | At table? | | | | | | How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 | | | 6am to 9am | | | 6.30 | | | am | | | Filter coffee, decaffeinated | | | milk (fresh, semi-skimmed) | | | Sugar white | | | Kitchen | | | Alone | | | No TV | | | | | | Not at table | | | | | | 7.30 | | | am | | | | | | Kitchen | | | Partner | | | TV on | | | At table | | | | | | Filter coffee with milk and sugar | | | | | | Cornflakes | | | | | | Milk (fresh, semi-skimmed) | | | | | | Toast, granary medium sliced | | | | | | Light spread | | | | | | Marmalade | | | | | | 9am to 12 noon | | | 10.15 | | | am | | | Instant coffee, not decaffeinated | | | Milk (fresh, whole) | | | Sugar brown | | | | | | Office desk | | | | | | Alone | | | No TV | | | | | | Not at table | | | | | | 11 am | Digestive biscuit - chocolate coated on one side | | | | | Office desk | | | | | | Alone | | | No TV | | | | | | Not at table | | | | | quantity eaten Douwe Egberts Silverspoon Mug A little 1 level tsp As above Tesco's own Hovis Flora Hartleys As above 1b drowned 1 slice med spread 1 heaped tsp Unknown brand Mug A little 1 level tsp McVities 2 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 12.30 pm Tea room at work Colleagues No TV At table Ham salad sandwich from home Bread, wholemeal, thick sliced Light spread Low fat Mayonnaise Smoked ham thinly sliced Lettuce, iceberg Cucumber with skin Unsweetened orange juice from canteen Apple with skin from home, Braeburn 2pm to 5pm 3 pm Meeting room at work With supervisor No TV Not at table Tea, decaffeinated Milk (fresh, whole) Jaffa cake - mini variety quantity eaten Tesco's own Flora Hellmans Tesco's own Tropicana 2 slices thin spread on 1 slice 2 teaspoons 2 slices 1 leaf 4 thin slices 250ml carton medium size, core left Mug Some 6 Twinings Tesco's own McVities Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm 6.30 pm Pub Partner TV on At table Gin Tonic water diet Lager 3.8% alcohol Salted peanuts 8 pm Dining room Family No TV At table Spaghetti, wholemeal Bolognese sauce (see recipe) Courgettes (fried in butter) Tinned peaches in juice (juice drained) Single cream UHT Orange squash No Added Sugar 8pm to 10pm Grapes, green, seedless Chocolates, chocolate creams Potato crisps, Prawn Cocktail 9 pm Sitting room Alone TV on Not at table 10pm to 6am 10.30 pm Camomile tea (no milk or sugar) Bed room Partner No TV Not at table quantity eaten Gordon's Schweppes Draught, Carlsberg KP Single measure 1/2 small glass 1 pint 1 handful Tesco's own 3b 6 tablespoons 4 tablespoons 3 halves 1 tablespoon Prince's Sainsbury's own cream Sainsbury's own 200ml glass, 1 part squash, 3 parts tap water Bendicks Walkers 15 2 25g bag (from multipack) Twinings 1 mug  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today?  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes NAME OF DISH: Bolognese sauce **SERVES:** 4 Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Co-op low fat beef mince 500g mixed herbs 1 dessertspoon garlic 3 cloves Lea & Perrins worcester sauce dash onion 1 medium sweet red pepper 1 medium Napoli chopped tomatoes 400g tin Tesco tomato puree 1 tablespoon Tesco olive oil 1 tablespoon Brief description of cooking method Fry onion & garlic in oil, add mince and fry till brown. Add pepper, tomatoes, puree, Worcester sauce & herbs. Simmer for 30 mins | Day: | Friday | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Time | | | Where? | | | Food/Drink description & preparation | | | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | With Whom? | | | At table? | | | TV on? | | | | | | | | | How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 | | | 6am to 9am | | | 8.00 | Cappuccino, no sugar | | am | | | Café take away - | | | eating on my way | | | to work | | | Alone | Blueberry muffin, regular not low fat | | Tap water | | | 8.45 | | | am | | | Office desk | | | Alone | | | No TV | | | Not at table | | | 9am to 12 noon | | | 10 am Office desk | | | Banana | | | Alone | | | No TV | | | Not at table | | | Black tea | | | Semi-skimmed milk, no sugar | | quantity eaten Starbucks Medium size Starbucks One 300 ml glass One, medium size Typhoo Asda Large Mug A lot Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? At table? TV on? 12 noon to 2pm 1 pm Work tea room With colleague No TV At table Crayfish sandwich multiseed bread, wholemeal, medium cut, crayfish in lemon mayonnaise, no other spread rocket leaves Apple & Raspberry fruit drink 2pm to 5pm 4.30 pm Coffee, instant Semi-skimmed milk Fairy Cake, homemade, see recipe Friend's House Lounge With Friend Not at table TV on quantity eaten M&S pre-packed Sandwich 2 slices Medium filling 6 to 8 1 bottle, 275ml J2O Kenco Medium mug A lot 1 cake Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? Time slot At table? TV on? 5pm to 8pm 7.30 pm Chicken in creamy mushroom and white wine sauce for 2, oven Kitchen/Diner With boyfriend At table No TV White rice, boiled Wine 13% alcohol 8pm to 10pm 9.15 Squash, apple & blackcurrant, no added sugar, pm Sitting Room With boyfriend Not at table TV on Crisps 10pm to 6am 11.30 Water tap 1 medium glass pm Bedroom Alone Not at table TV on quantity eaten ½ pack Sainsbury's, 370g (wrapper collected) 2C Easy cook, Italian, Sainsbury's Sauvignon Blanc, New Zealand 1 small glass, 125ml Sainsbury's 1 average glass, 200ml 5 Pringles, sour cream and chives Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today?  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Holland & Barrett Evening Primrose Oil - 1000mg 1 capsule Holland & Barrett Super EPA fish oil - 1000mg 1 capsule ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes NAME OF DISH: Fairy Cakes **SERVES:** makes 20 cakes Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Tate & Lyle caster sugar 175g Silver Spoon icing sugar 140g Anchor butter, unsalted 175g Yellow food colouring 3 drops eggs 3 water 2 tablespoons Homepride self-raising flour 175g Baking powder 1 teaspoon Mix together and bake for 15 min. Mix icing sugar with water and add colouring. Approx. 1 teaspoon of icing on each cake ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am Practice Page 9am to 12 noon Practice Page quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm Practice Page 2pm to 5pm Practice Page quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Less | | | | than usual | | | | More | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | |  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons | Ingredients | |-------------------------------------------------------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Bacon | | | | Back, middle, streaky; smoked or un-smoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or | | | | fried in oil/fat (type used) or grilled rashers | | | | Number of rashers | | | | Baked beans | Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar | Spoons, weight of tin | | Beefburger | | | | (hamburger) | | | | Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of | | | | oil/fat), microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, | | | | with or without salad e.g. lettuce, tomato | | | | Large or small, ounces or | | | | in grams if info on | | | | package | | | | Beer | | | | What sort e.g. stout, bitter, lager; draught, canned, bottled; % | | | | alcohol or low-alcohol or home-made | | | | Number of pints or half | | | | pints, size of can or bottle | | | | Biscuits | | | | What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or | | | | half coated), shortbread, home-made | | | | Number, size (standard | | | | or mini variety) | | | | Bread | | | | (see also sandwiches) | | | | Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or | | | | small loaf; sliced or unsliced loaf | | | | Number of slices; thick, | | | | medium or thin slices | | | | Bread rolls | Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft | Size, number of rolls | | Breakfast cereal (see | | | | also porridge) | | | | What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; | | | | Muesli - with added fruit, no added sugar/salt variety | | | | Spoons or picture 1 | | | | Buns and pastries | | | | What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type | | | | of pastry; homemade or bought | | | | Size, number | | | | Butter, margarine & fat | | | | spreads | | | | Give full product name | | | | Thick/average/thin | | | | spread; spoons | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Cake | | | | What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; | | | | type of filling e.g. buttercream, jam | | | | Individual or size of slice, | | | | packet weight, picture 10 | | | | Cereal bars | | | | What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified | | | | with vitamins/minerals | | | | Weight/size of bar; from | | | | multipack | | | | Cheese | Type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat | | | Picture 9, or number of | | | | slices, number of spoons | | | | Chips | | | | Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); | | | | thick/straight/crinkle/fine cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking | | | | Picture 4, number of | | | | spoons, number of chips | | | | Chocolate(s) | What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling; | Weight/size of bar | | Coffee | | | | With milk (see section on milk); half milk/half water; all milk; | | | | ground/filter, instant; decaffeinated. If café/takeaway, was it | | | | cappuccino, latte etc | | | | Cups or mugs, size of | | | | takeaway e.g. small. | | | | medium | | | | Cook-in sauces | | | | What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or | | | | cheese based; does meat or veg come in sauce; jar or can | | | | Spoons, size of can or jar | | | | Cream | | | | Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, | | | | UHT/Longlife; imitation cream e.g. Elmlea | | | | Spoons | | | | Crisps | | | | What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; low-fat or | | | | low-salt; premium variety e.g. Kettle chips, Walker's Sensations | | | | Packet weight, standard | | | | or from multipack | | | | Custard | | | | Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, | | | | instant, ready to serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free | | | | Spoons | | | | Egg | | | | Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); | | | | type of oil/fat, milk added | | | | Number of eggs, large, | | | | medium or small | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Fish (including canned) | | | | What sort e.g. cod, tuna; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached | | | | (water or milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in | | | | oil, brine or tomato sauce | | | | Size of can or spoons | | | | (for canned fish) or | | | | picture 7 for battered fish | | | | Fish cakes & fish fingers | | | | Type of fish; plain or battered or in breadcrumbs; fried, grilled, | | | | baked or microwaved; economy | | | | Size, number, | | | | packet weight | | | | Fruit - fresh | What sort; eaten with or without skin | Small, medium or large | | Fruit - stewed/canned | | | | What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice | | | | or syrup eaten | | | | Spoons, weight of can | | | | Fruit - juice (pure) | | | | Glass (size or volume) or | | | | carton size | | | | What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; | | | | pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; freshly squeezed; added | | | | vitamins/minerals, omega 3 | | | | Ice cream | Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium | Spoons/ scoops | | Jam, honey | What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought/brand or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, | | | | or thin or thick spread | | | | Marmalade | Type; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought/brand or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, | | | | or thin or thick spread | | | | Meat (see also bacon, | | | | burgers & sausages) | | | | What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat | | | | removed or eaten; skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or | | | | without gravy | | | | Large/small/medium, | | | | spoons, or picture 6 for | | | | stew portion | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Milk | | | | What sort; whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed or 1% fat; fresh, | | | | sterilized, UHT, dried; soya milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' | | | | milk, rice milk, oat milk; flavoured; fortified with added vitamins | | | | and/or minerals | | | | Pints, glass (size or | | | | volume) or cup. | | | | On cereal: | | | | damp/normal/ | | | | drowned | | | | . In tea/coffee: | | | | a | | | | little/some/a lot | | | | Nuts | What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted | Packet weight, handful | | Pie (sweet or savoury) | What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry | | | Individual or slice, or | | | | picture 8 | | | | Pizza | | | | Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; | | | | stuffed crust | | | | Individual, slice, fraction | | | | of large pizza e.g. ¼ | | | | Porridge | | | | Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk | | | | and/or water; added sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream | | | | Bowls, spoons | | | | Potatoes | | | | (see also chips) | | | | Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed | | | | (with butter/spread and with or without milk); fried/chips (type of | | | | oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter | | | | Mash - spoons, number | | | | of half or whole potatoes, | | | | small or large potatoes | | | | Pudding | | | | What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant | | | | desserts; milk puddings | | | | Spoons, picture 10 for | | | | slice of sponge | | | | Rice | | | | What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or | | | | brown; boiled or fried (type of oil/fat) | | | | Spoons or picture 2 | | | | Salad | Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) | | | Amount of each | | | | component | | | ## | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Sandwiches and rolls | | | | Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of | | | | filling; including salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, | | | | where from? | | | | Number of rolls or slices | | | | of bread; amount of | | | | butter/margarine (on both | | | | slices?); amount of filling | | | | Sauce - cold (including | | | | mayonnaise) | | | | Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, | | | | mayonnaise; low fat; | | | | Spoons | | | | | | | | Spoons | | | | Sauce - hot (see also | | | | cook-in sauces) | | | | What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; for gravy - made with | | | | granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices | | | | Sausages | What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat | Large or small, number | | Sausage rolls | Type of pastry | | | Size - jumbo, standard, | | | | mini | | | | Scone | Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour; homemade | Small, medium or large | | Savoury snacks - in | | | | packet | | | | What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels | | | | Size (standard or mini | | | | variety), packet weight | | | | Smoothies | | | | If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. | | | | fruit, milk/yoghurt, fruit juice | | | | Glass or bottle (size or | | | | volume) | | | | Soft drinks - squash/ | | | | concentrate/cordial | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified | | | | with added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass (size or volume) | | | | Soft drinks - | | | | carbonated/fizzy | | | | Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free | | | | Glass, can or bottle (size | | | | or volume) | | | | Soft drinks - ready to | | | | drink | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; real fruit juice? If | | | | so, how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass, carton or bottle | | | | (size or volume) | | | ## | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Soup | | | | What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending | | | | machine. If home-made, give recipe | | | | Spoons, bowl or mug | | | | Spaghetti, other pasta | | | | What sort; fresh/chilled or dried; white, wholemeal; canned in | | | | sauce; type of filling if ravioli, cannelloni etc | | | | Spoons (or how much | | | | dry pasta) or picture 3 | | | | Spirits | What sort: e.g. whisky, gin, vodka, rum | Measures as in pub | | Sugar | | | | Added to cereals, tea, coffee, fruit, etc; what sort; e.g. white, brown, | | | | demerara | | | | Heaped or level | | | | teaspoons | | | | Sweets | What sort: e.g. toffees, boiled sweets, diabetic, sugar-free | Number, packet weight | | Tea | With/without milk (see section on milk); decaffeinated, herb | Mugs or cups | | Vegetables (not | | | | including potatoes) | | | | What sort; how cooked/raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce | | | | Spoons, number of | | | | florets or sprouts, weight | | | | from tins or packet | | | | Wine, sherry, port | White, red; sweet, dry; % alcohol or low-alcohol | Glass (size or volume) | | Pot size or spoons | | | | Yoghurt (inc drinking | | | | yoghurt), fromage frais | | | | What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, | | | | very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; | | | | fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic | | | | Home-made dishes | | | | Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if | | | | you can in the section provided) and how many persons it serves | | | | Spoons - heaped or | | | | level, number, size, or | | | | proportion of recipe e.g. | | | | ½ of recipe | | | | Ready-made meals | | | | Full description of product; does it contain any accompaniments | | | | e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven | | | | cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label | | | | and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag | | | | Packet weight (if didn't | | | | eat whole packet | | | | describe portion | | | | consumed) | | | | Food/Drink | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Take-away food or food | | eaten out | | Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you | | can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonald's | | Spoons, portion size e.g. | | small/medium/large | bowl, 6.3 inches (16cm). information is required about them. Remember that the pictures are much smaller than life size. Use the pictures to help you indicate the size of the portion you have eaten. The tables on pages 23-29 also give examples of foods that you might eat and how much Write on the food record the picture number and size A, B or C nearest to your own helping. The actual size of the dinner plate is 10 inches (25cm), the side plate, 7 inches (18cm), and the ## Typical Quantities Of Drinks In Various Containers Measured In Millilitres (Ml) | Small | Average | Large | Vending | |------------|------------|----------|------------| | glass | glass | glass | cup | | Soft | 150 | 200 | 300 | | drinks | | | | | Wine | 125 | 175 | 250 | | Hot drinks | 170 | 190 | 260 | Glasses come in different shapes and sizes. On the next page is a life size glass showing approximate volumes. You can use this picture as a guide for estimating how much volume of drink the glass you are drinking from holds. ## Day 1 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? Portion size or With Whom? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am 9am to 12 noon quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Less | | | | than usual | | | | More | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | |  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: **Serves:** | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |-------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## Day 2 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? Portion size or With Whom? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 6am to 9am 9am to 12 noon quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Less | | | | than usual | | | | More | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | |  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | |-------------------------------------| | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: **Serves:** | Ingredients | |-------------------------------------------------------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | Brief description of cooking method ## Day 3 Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-29 Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Less | | | | than usual | | | | More | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | |  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Yes No Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## Day 4 Please remember to complete the general questions on pages 69-74! Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Portion size or quantity eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name? With Whom? TV on? At table? Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | |---------------------------------------------------|-----|-----| | Less | | | | than usual | | | | More | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | |  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | | | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Alcoholic drinks o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Milk o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | |-------------------------------------| | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | NAME OF DISH: **Serves:** Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Brief description of cooking method ## General Questions About Your Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did You Follow A Special Diet During The Recording Period? (Please Tick And Provide More Information If Necessary) a) To lose weight b) To gain weight c) For medical reasons e.g. to lower cholesterol. Details: d) Other e.g. vegetarian. Details: e) No special diet ## Milk 2. Which Type Of Milk Did You Use Most Often During The Recording Period? | Whole, fresh, | | Semi-skimmed fresh, | | |-------------------|-------------|-------------------------|-------------| | pasteurised | pasteurised | pasteurised | pasteurised | | | | | | | | | | | | Dried | | | | | Type | | | | | Soya | | | | | Type | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | Type | | | | | Did not | | | | | use | | | | | | | | | Tea and coffee 3. How much milk did you usually have in coffee/ tea? Coffee A lot Some A little None/did not drink Tea A lot Some A little None/did not drink 4. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with sugar? | | | Coffee | Yes | How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | |-----|-----|----------------------------------|---------|-------------------------------------|-----|----------------------| | | | | | | | | | Tea | Yes | How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | | | 5. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with artificial sweetener? | | | | Coffee | Yes | | How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------|----------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | Tea | Yes | | How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6. Did you drink decaffeinated coffee/ tea during the recording period? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Coffee | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tea | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Breakfast cereals 7. How much milk did you usually have on breakfast cereal? Drowned Average Damp None/did not eat 8. How did you usually make your porridge? | | With all water | | With all milk | | With milk and water | Did not eat | |-----|-------------------|-----|------------------|-----|-------------------------|-----------------| 9. Did you usually sweeten or salt your porridge? With sugar With honey With salt Neither/did not eat 10. How did you usually make your instant oat cereal? | | With all water | | With all milk | | With milk and water | Did not eat | |-----|-------------------|-----|------------------|-----|-------------------------|-----------------| 11. Did you usually sweeten or salt your instant oat cereal? With sugar With honey With salt Neither/did not eat Name: None Fats for spreading and cooking 12. Which type of butter, margarine or other fat spread did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name and fat content e.g. Flora Omega 3 plus, low fat spread, 38% fat, polyunsaturated 13. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers etc? Thick Medium Thin N/A Name: None 14. Which type of cooking fat/oil did your household use most often over the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. *Sainsbury's sunflower oil* Bread 15. Which type of bread did you eat most often during the recording period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other *Type* Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 16. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? Large Small 17. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? Thick Medium Thin Unsliced N/A ## Meat 18. If You Ate Meat During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Visible Fat? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat meat 19. If you ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat poultry ## Fruit And Vegetables 20. If You Ate Apples During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 21. If you ate pears during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 22. If you ate new potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 23. If you ate baked/jacket potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat ## Salt 24. Do You Add Salt To Your Food At The Table? | | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | |-----|------------|-----|--------------|-----|----------|-----| 25. Do you add salt substitute to your food at the table? e.g. LoSalt | | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | |-----|------------|-----|--------------|-----|----------|-----| Water 26. Which type of water did you drink most often during the recording period? | | Tap | | |-------|---------|-----| | brand | | | | | Did not | | | drink | | | | | | | | | | | ## Cordial/Squash/Diluting Juice 27. Which Type Of Squash/Cordial Did You Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie 28. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: 29. How much do you usually dilute your squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: If you are able to, please use a measuring jug to measure your usual drinking vessels e.g. mug, glass, cup etc. and provide the volumes below ## Thank You For Completing This Diary. Acknowledgements Thanks for permission to use pictures from: Nelson, M., Atkinson, M. & Meyer, J. (1997). A Photographic Atlas of Food Portion Sizes. London, MAFF Publications. ## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary ## Children Aged 4 To 15 Years (V2) How To Fill In Your Diary It is very important that you do not change what you normally eat or drink just because you are keeping a diary. Try to write down what you are eating or drinking as soon as you can and not leave it until the end of the day. Record food and drink eaten at home and away from home, such as at school or at a friend's house. Whenever you have something to eat or drink write down: When: Each day is divided into time slots from first thing in the morning until late at night until the following morning. Find the appropriate time slot and record the exact time when you eat or drink something in the "time" column. Where: This could be Home Bedroom Away Street, Car/Bus, Café/ Restaurant (specify McDonald's, Pizza Hut etc.) School Canteen, Classroom, Playground With Whom: This could be Alone With family With friends At table: Were you sitting at a table whilst eating or drinking? If yes, record **At table.** If no, record Not at table. Watching TV: Were you watching TV whilst you were eating or drinking? If yes, record **TV on.** If no, record No TV. ## What: Describe your food and drink giving as much detail as you can. Include any **extras** like sugar and milk in your tea or cereal, butter or other spreads on your bread and sauces such as ketchup and mayonnaise. **Do not forget to include drinking water**. If you know how the food was cooked (e.g. roast, baked, boiled, fried), please record this. If you're unsure about how the food was cooked, please ask the person who prepared the food if possible. On pages 20 - 25 you will find help with the sort of detail that is useful. If you have eaten any **homemade dishes** e.g. a stew or sponge cake, please make sure the ingredients and cooking method are recorded in the space provided. You may need to ask the person who prepared the dish to help you with this. If another person at home is also keeping a diary and has recorded the recipes for the same dishes as you in their diary (the ADULT diary), you do NOT need to record these recipes again, just write in your diary "see adult diary". If you have eaten any **take-aways** or any made up dishes not prepared at home such as at a friend's house or in a restaurant, please record as much detail as you can about what was in the dish e.g. vegetable curry containing chickpeas, aubergine, onion and tomato. ## Brand: Please make a note of the **brand name** (e.g. Heinz, Walkers, Hovis) if you know it. Most packaged foods will list a brand name. ## Amount Eaten: You can specify packet (e.g. Crisps, Yogurt), or number of individual items (e.g. biscuits), or slices (e.g. cake, pizza, ham), or teaspoons (e.g. sugar), or dessertspoons (e.g. peas). Be careful when describing amounts in spoons. Compare the spoon you are using with the life size spoons on page 27 of this diary so you use the correct name. You can also write S (small), M (medium) or L (large) portion. For drinks you can write glass (tell us the size of the glass or volume using page 26 as a guide), cup or mug. You can also write the weight or volume from the labels on the packaging. On page 25, we have included a space for you to measure your usual drinking cup (you can do this by filling your cup with water to the level you normally have and then emptying the water into a measuring jug). On pages 20 - 25 you will find help with describing how much you had to eat or drink. We would like to know the **amount that you actually ate**, so you need to think about how much you **leftover**. You can do this in 2 ways: 1. Record how much you were served and then how much you ate e.g. 3 dessertspoons of peas, only 2 dessertspoons eaten; 1 large sausage roll, ate only half 2. Only record how much you actually ate i.e. 2 dessertspoons of peas; half a large sausage roll ## Food Labels/Wrappers: Please keep the labels or packaging from snacks, sweets, bought sandwiches and ready meals and put them in the plastic bag provided. ## Was It A Typical Day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a usual day or whether there were any reasons why you ate and drank more or less than usual, e.g. I did eat less because I was sick; I drank a lot because I did sports. Please tick the correct box for your intake. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. ## Supplements At the end of each recording day you need to tell us about any supplements you took. If you didn't take any just tick NO. If yes, then please tell us the name of the supplement (e.g. vitamin C), brand (e.g. Boots), strength (it will tell you on the label - e.g. 50 mg) and how many you took (e.g. 1 tablet). If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS team on freephone 0800 652 4572 between 8.30am and 5.30pm. On pages 4-13 of the diary we have filled in two whole days to show you what to do. Day EXAMPLE Day: Thursday Date: March 31st Time What Brand Name Amount eaten Where? With whom? TV on? Table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 20-25 6am to 9am 7.30am Kitchen Family No TV At table Orange juice, unsweetened, UHT Tea Milk, fresh semi skimmed Sugar white Weetabix Milk as above Sugar as above Toast wholemeal, large loaf Butter unsalted Strawberry Jam 9am to 12 noon 11am School playground With friends Coca cola diet Potato crisps, Salt and Vinegar 12noon School corridor Alone Water from water cooler Mars Bar 12 noon to 2pm 12.45pm School canteen With friends At table Sandwich, from home White bread, large loaf Spread Ham unsmoked Cheddar cheese Branston Pickle Apple with skin from home Ribena Light, Ready to Drink, Blackcurrant, from canteen Kitkat from home 1.50pm School corridor Alone Chewing gum Tesco Tesco Tesco Silverspoon Hovis Anchor Co-op Large glass Mug A little 2 level teaspoons 2 Drowned 2 heaped teaspoons 2 thin slices thick spread on both 1 teaspoon on one slice Coca Cola Walkers 330ml can 25g packet from a multipack small plastic cup 1 kingsize Kingsmill Flora Light Tescos 2 med slices thin spread on both slices 1 slice 2 medium slices 1 teaspoon 1 (left core) 220ml carton 2 fingers Orbit Sugar Free 1 piece | | Day | | |------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----| | | EXAMPLE | | | Day: | | | | Thursday | | | | Date: | | | | March 31 | | | | st | | | | Time | | | | What | | | | Brand Name | | | | Amount eaten | | | | Where? | | | | With whom? | | | | TV on? | | | | Table? | | | | 2pm to 5pm | | | | | | | | 3.45pm | Bus | | | Alone | Wine gums | | | 4.30pm | | | | Tea (as above) | | | | Chocolate Hob Nobs | | | | Home, sitting room, | | | | With family | | | | TV on | | | | Not at table | | | | 5pm to 8pm | | | | | | | | 6.30pm | Friend's kitchen | | | With friends | | | | No TV | | | | At table | | | | Chicken in tomato sauce made by friend's mum | | | | Tomato fresh | | | | Sweetcorn tinned | | | | Peach yoghurt low fat | | | | Lemon squash No Added Sugar | | | | 8pm to 10pm | | | | | | | | 8pm | Satsuma | | | Cream Crackers (no spread) | | | | Home, sitting room | | | | Alone | | | | TV on, Not at table | | | | 9.30pm | | | | Kitchen | | | | Alone | | | | No TV, At table | | | | Thick cut, frozen chips fried in vegetable oil | | | | Brown sauce | | | | 10pm to 6am | | | | | | | | 10.30pm | Hot chocolate drink made with water | | | 2am | Water tap | | | Bedroom | | | | Alone | | | | TV on | | | | Not at table | | | | Bedroom (in bed) | | | | Alone | | | | No TV | | | | Maynards | 140g packet | |----------------|------------------------------| | Mcvitites | | | mug | | | 3 | | | See recipe | | | Mullerlight | | | Sainsbury's | | | 3 tablespoons | | | 3 slices | | | 1 dessertspoon | | | 200g pot | | | medium glass | | | Jacob's | | | 1 | | | 4 | | | McCains | | | HP | | | small portion | | | 1 dessertspoon | | | Cadbury's | Mug (made with 4 tsp powder) | | ½ small glass | |  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Ate dinner at a friend's house If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | | | | No | |---------|-----|-----|-----|-------| If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? Yes No If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | Name (in full) including strength | |------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | | teaspoons | | | | Bassetts | Soft and chewy vitamins A (800µg), C (60mg), D (5µg) and E (10mg) | 1 pastille | | Haliborange | | | | DHA Omega-3 blackcurrant chewy caps (each capsule contains | | | | 200mg fish oil providing 130mg omega-3) | | | | 2 capsules | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | NAME OF DISH: | Chicken in tomato Sauce | | Serves: | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|------------| | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | Pieces of chicken | 3 pieces | Olive oil | 2 tbsp | | Sauce made with: | | | | | Tinned tomatoes | 1 tin | | | | Green pepper | 1 medium | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | Chicken pieces fried in olive oil, then mixed in with tomato and vegetable sauce. | | | | Day EXAMPLE Time What Brand Name Where? With whom? TV on? Table? How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 20-25 6am to 9am Special K Bliss Strawberry and Chocolate Whole milk Banana Smoothie, made with semi-skimmed milk 7.45am Dining Room Family No TV At table 9am to 12 noon 11.30 am School playground School friends Orange Juice, UHT, unsweetened Mars Bar 12 noon to 2pm 1pm School canteen School Friends At table Roast Chicken Roast Potatoes Boiled Carrots Boiled Peas Gravy Plain sponge pudding with jam Warm chocolate custard | Day: | | |-----------------------|-------| | Friday | | | | | | Date: | | | April 1st | | | | | | | | | Amount eaten | | | Kelloggs | | | Tesco's | | | | | | Homemade see recipe | | | 6 dessertspoons | | | Drowned | | | | | | 1 medium glass (whole | | | recipe) | | | Libby's | | | Mars | | | | | | 200ml carton | | | 2 fun size | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Don't know | | | | | | 3 slices | | | 2 potatoes | | | 1 tablespoon | | | 1 tablespoon | | | 2 tablespoons | | | | | | Small portion | | | 2 dessertspoons | | | | | Day EXAMPLE What Brand Name Time Where? With whom? TV on? Table? 2pm to 5pm 3.30pm 4.30pm Bottle of water Grapes, green, seedless Ready salted Crisps Car Family Living room Sister TV on Not at table 5pm to 8pm 7pm Dining room Family No TV At table Cheese and tomato pizza, thin base Green beans, boiled Broccoli, boiled Chocolate Mousse, low fat Orange High Juice Squash - standard 8pm to 10pm Semi-skimmed milk Tesco's Small glass 9pm Bedroom Alone TV on Not at table (in bed) 10pm to 6am | Day: | | |--------------------------------|------| | Friday | | | | | | Date: | | | April 1st | | | | | | | | | Amount eaten | | | ½ bottle - 500mls | | | 10 grapes | | | | | | About 15 crisps | | | Evian | | | | | | | | | Pringles | | | | | | ½ pizza (500g) uncooked | | | | | | 2 tbsp | | | 2 florets | | | 55g pot | | | 250ml (1/3 squash & 2/3 water) | | | Pizza Express (cook at | | | home) | | | | | | | | | Cadburys | | | Robinson's | | | | |  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Felt unwell If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Felt unwell If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | | | | No | |---------|-----|-----|-----|-------| If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | |----------------------------|-----| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | teaspoons | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. | NAME OF DISH: | Banana Smoothie | Serves: | 1 | |-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------| | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | Banana | 1 small | | | | | | | | | Tesco semi-skimmed milk | 150ml | | | | | | | | | Gales honey - from Tesco | 1 tsp | | | | | | | | | Tesco natural unsweetened yogurt | 1 tbsp | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | Mix all together with blender | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13 | | | ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Day: Date: | Time | |------------| | Brand Name | | Where? | | With whom? | | TV on? | | Table? | | | | 2pm to 5pm | | | Practice Page 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page Amount eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | | | | No | |---------|-----|-----|-----|-------| If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | |----------------------------|-----| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | teaspoons | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |----------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Amount | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------| | Bacon | | | | Back, middle, streaky; smoked or unsmoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or fried in oil/fat (type | | | | used) or grilled rashers | | | | Number of rashers | | | | Baked beans | Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar | Spoons, tin size e.g. 244g | | Beefburger | | | | (hamburger) | | | | Large or small, ounces or in | | | | grams if info on package | | | | Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of oil/fat), | | | | microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, with or without salad e.g. | | | | lettuce, tomato | | | | Biscuits | | | | What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or half coated), | | | | shortbread, home-made | | | | Number, size (standard or mini | | | | variety) | | | | Bread | | | | (see also sandwiches) | | | | Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or small loaf; sliced or | | | | unsliced loaf | | | | Number of slices; thick, | | | | medium or thin slices | | | | Bread rolls | Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft | Size, number of rolls | | Breakfast cereal (see | | | | also porridge) | | | | What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; Muesli - with added | | | | fruit, no added sugar/salt variety | | | | Spoons | | | | Buns and pastries | | | | What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type of pastry; | | | | homemade or bought | | | | Size, number | | | | Butter, margarine & | | | | fat spreads | | | | Give full product name | | | | Thick, average, thin spread on | | | | bread/crackers; spoons | | | | Cake | | | | What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; type of filling e.g. | | | | buttercream, jam | | | | Individual or size of slice, | | | | packet weight | | | | Cereal bars | | | | What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified with | | | | vitamins/minerals | | | | Weight/size of bar; from | | | | multipack | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Amount | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------| | Cheese | Name and type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat | Slices, spoons | | Chips | | | | Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); thick/straight/crinkle/fine | | | | cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking | | | | Spoons, portion size, number | | | | of chips | | | | Chocolate(s) | What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling; give brand name | Number, weight/size of bar | | Coffee | | | | With milk (see section on milk); half milk/half water; all milk; ground/filter, instant; | | | | decaffeinated. If café/takeaway, was it cappuccino, latte etc | | | | Cups or mugs, size of takeaway | | | | e.g. small, medium | | | | Cook-in sauces | | | | What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or cheese based; does meat | | | | or veg come in sauce; jar or can | | | | Spoons, size of can or jar | | | | Cream | | | | Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, UHT/Longlife; | | | | imitation cream e.g. Elmlea | | | | Spoons | | | | Crisps | | | | What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; flavour; low-fat or low-salt; | | | | premium variety e.g. Kettle chips; baked variety | | | | Packet weight, standard or | | | | from multipack | | | | Custard | | | | Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, instant, ready to | | | | serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free | | | | Spoons | | | | Egg | | | | Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); type of oil/fat, milk | | | | added | | | | Number of eggs, large, medium | | | | or small | | | | Fish (including | | | | canned) | | | | What sort e.g. cod, tuna, haddock; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached (water or | | | | milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in oil, brine or tomato sauce | | | | Size of can (e.g. 80g or spoons | | | | for canned fish) or size of | | | | fillet | | | | Fish cakes/fish | | | | fingers | | | | Type of fish; fried, grilled, baked or microwaved; economy; battered or coated in | | | | breadcrumbs | | | | Size, number | | | | Fruit - fresh | What sort; with or without skin | Small, medium or large | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Amount | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Fruit - | | | | stewed/canned | | | | What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice or syrup eaten | Spoons | | | Fruit - juice (pure) | | | | What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; | | | | freshly squeezed | | | | Glass (size or volume) or | | | | carton size | | | | Hot chocolate, cocoa | | | | malted drinks etc | | | | Type; standard/low calorie/lite; instant; all water / half milk half water / all milk (see | | | | section on milk); any sugar added | | | | Cup or mug plus how much | | | | powder e.g. teaspoons, weight | | | | on packet | | | | Ice cream | Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium | Spoons/ scoops | | Jam, honey | What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, or | | | | thin or thick spread | | | | Marmalade | What sort; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, or | | | | thin or thick spread | | | | Meat (see also bacon, | | | | burgers & sausages) | | | | What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat removed or eaten; | | | | skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or without gravy | | | | Large/small/medium, spoons, | | | | slices | | | | Milk | | | | What sort; whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed or 1% fat; fresh, sterilized, UHT, dried; soya | | | | milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' milk, rice milk, oat milk; flavoured; fortified with | | | | added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Pints, glass (size or volume) or | | | | cup. On cereal: damp/average/ | | | | drowned. In tea/coffee: a | | | | little/some/a lot | | | | Milkshake | | | | Fresh or long life/UHT; dairy or non-dairy alternative e.g. soya; if powder, made up with | | | | whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed milk; flavour; fortified with vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass (size or volume) cups or | | | | volume on bottle/carton | | | | Nuts | What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted | Packet weight, handful | | What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry | Individual or slice | | | Pie (sweet or | | | | savoury) | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Amount | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Pizza | Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; stuffed crust | | | Individual, slice, fraction of | | | | large pizza e.g. ¼ | | | | Porridge | | | | Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk and/or water; added | | | | sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream | | | | Spoons or bowl size (small, | | | | medium, large) | | | | Potatoes (see also | | | | chips) | | | | Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed/creamed (with | | | | butter, milk etc); fried/chips (type of oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter | | | | Spoons for mash, number of | | | | half or whole potatoes | | | | Pudding | What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant desserts; milk puddings | Spoons, slices | | Rice | | | | What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or brown; boiled or fried | | | | (type of oil/fat) | | | | Spoons | | | | Salad | Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) | | | Amount of each component; | | | | slices, leaves; spoons | | | | Sandwiches and rolls | Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of filling; including | | | salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, where from? | | | | Number of rolls or slices of | | | | bread; amount of | | | | butter/margarine (on both | | | | slices?); amount of filling | | | | Sauce - hot (see also | | | | cook-in sauces) | | | | What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; give brand or recipe; for gravy - made with | | | | granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices | | | | Spoons | | | | Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, mayonnaise; low fat | Spoons | | | Sauce - cold | | | | (including | | | | mayonnaise) | | | | Sausages | What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat; economy | Large or small, number | | Sausage rolls | Type of pastry | | | Number, size e.g. jumbo, | | | | standard, mini | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Amount | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------| | Scone | Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour | Number, size | | Savoury snacks - in | | | | packet | | | | What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels | | | | Size (standard or mini | | | | variety), packet weight | | | | Smoothies | | | | If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. fruit, milk/yoghurt, | | | | fruit juice | | | | Glass or bottle (size or volume) | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified with added | | | | vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass (size or volume) | | | | Soft drinks - | | | | concentrated/squash | | | | /cordial | | | | Soft drinks - | | | | carbonated/fizzy | | | | Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free | | | | Glass, can or bottle (size or | | | | volume, e.g. 330ml) | | | | Soft drinks - ready | | | | to drink | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; does it contain real fruit juice, if so, | | | | how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass, carton or bottle (size or | | | | volume, e.g. 200ml) | | | | Soup | | | | What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending machine. If home- | | | | made, give recipe | | | | Spoons, bowl or mug | | | | Spoons (or how much dry | | | | pasta) | | | | Spaghetti, other | | | | pasta | | | | What sort; fresh or dried; white, wholemeal; boiled, canned in sauce; type of filling if | | | | ravioli, cannelloni etc | | | | Sugar | Added to cereals, tea, coffee, fruit, etc; what sort; e.g. white, brown, demerara | Heaped or level teaspoons | | Sweets | What sort: e.g. toffees, boiled sweets, diabetic, sugar-free | Number, packet weight | | Tea | with/without milk (see section on milk); decaffeinated, herb | Mugs or cups | ## Food/Drink Description & Preparation Amount Vegetables (not including potatoes) What sort; how cooked or raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce Spoons, number of florets or sprouts, weight from tins or packet Pot size (e.g. 150g) or tablespoons Yoghurt (inc drinking yoghurt), fromage frais What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic Home-made dishes Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if you can in the section provided) Spoons or proportion of the recipe e.g. ½ the recipe Ready-made meals Packet weight, portion size Please give brand name and full description of product; did it contain any accompaniments e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag Take-away food or food eaten out Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonalds Spoons, portion size e.g. small/medium/large Typical quantities of drinks in various containers measured in millilitres (ml) | Cup | Mug | Small | |-------------|--------|----------| | Glass | | | | Average | | | | Glass | | | | Large | | | | Glass | | | | Vending | | | | Cup | | | | Soft Drinks | 150 | 200 | | Hot Drinks | 170 | 190 | Here is a life size glass showing what typical quantities look like. You can use this picture as a guide for estimating how much volume of drink the glass holds you are drinking from. Day 1 Time What Brand Name Where? With whom? TV on? Table? 2pm to 5pm Amount eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | Name (in full) including strength | |----------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | | teaspoons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: **Serves:** | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |-------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | What Brand Name Where? Amount eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | Name (in full) including strength | |----------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | | teaspoons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: **Serves:** | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |-------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | What Brand Name Where? With whom? Amount eaten  Was the amount of **food** that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | Name (in full) including strength | |----------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | | teaspoons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. | NAME OF DISH: | | Serves: | | |-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------| | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## Remember To Complete The General Questions On Pages 49-54! | Was the amount of | food | that you had today about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? | |---------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | Usual | | | | | | | | | | | | If your intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount you had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks [and alcohol], about what you usually have, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If your intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did you **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did you take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements you took below** | Brand | | Name (in full) including strength | |----------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------| | Number of pills, capsules, | | | | teaspoons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Please record on the next pages details of any recipes or (if not already described) ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes. ## Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Name Of Dish: **Serves:** | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |-------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brief description of cooking method | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## General Questions About Your Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did You Follow A Special Diet During The Recording Period? (Please Tick) | | To lose weight | | Other e.g. vegetarian (please give more details below) | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------| | | To gain weight | | No special diet | | | For medical reasons e.g. diabetes (please give more details below) | | | ## Further Details: Milk 2. Which Type Of Milk Did You Use Most Often During The Recording Period? Whole, fresh, Semi-skimmed fresh, Skimmed (fat free) 1% fat milk, fresh pasteurised pasteurised fresh, pasteurised pasteurised Dried Name Soya Name Other Name Did not use ## Water 3. Which Type Of Water Did You Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? Tap Filtered Bottled brand Did not drink Tea and coffee 4. How much milk did you usually have in coffee/ tea? Coffee A lot Some A little None/did not drink Tea A lot Some A little None/did not drink 5. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with sugar? | | | Coffee | Yes | How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | |-----|-----|----------------------------------|---------|-------------------------------------|-----|----------------------| | | | | | | | | | Tea | Yes | How many teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | | | 6. Did you usually sweeten your coffee/ tea with artificial sweetener? | | | | Coffee | Yes | | How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------|----------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | Tea | Yes | | How many tablets or teaspoons in a mug/cup? | | No/did not drink | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7. Did you drink decaffeinated coffee/ tea during the recording period? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Coffee | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tea | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 50 | | | | | | | | | Breakfast cereals | | |------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | 8. How much milk did you usually have on breakfast cereal? | | | | | | | | 9. How did you usually make your porridge? | | With all water | | With all milk | | With milk and water | Did not eat | |------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------|------------------|-----------|-------------------------|---------------------| | 10. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Did you usually sweeten or salt your porridge? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With sugar | With honey | | With salt | | Neither/did not eat | 11. How did you usually make your instant oat cereal? e.g. Ready Brek | | With all water | | With all milk | | With milk and water | Did not eat | |--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------|------------------|-----------|-------------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | | | | 12. Did you usually sweeten or salt your instant oat cereal? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With sugar | With honey | | With salt | | Neither/did not eat | Fats for spreading and cooking Name: None 13. Which butter, margarine or fat spread did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name and fat content e.g. Flora Omega 3 plus, low fat spread, 38% fat, polyunsaturated 14. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers etc? | | Thick | |------------------------------------------------------------------|----------| | | | | None | | | Name: | | | None | | | | | | | | | 15. Which cooking fat/oil did your household use most often over | | | the recording period? Please record the full product name. | | e.g. Sainsbury's sunflower oil ## Bread 16. Which Type Of Bread Did You Eat Most Often During The Recording Period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other Type Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 17. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? | | Large | | Small | | |-----|----------|-----|----------|-----| 18. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? Thick Medium Thin Unsliced N/A ## Meat 19. If You Ate Red Meat During The Recording Period, Did You Eat The Visible Fat? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat meat 20. If you ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat poultry Fruit and vegetables 21. If you ate apples during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 22. If you ate pears during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 23. If you ate new potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat 24. If you ate baked/jacket potatoes during the recording period, did you eat the skin? Always Sometimes Never Did not eat Salt 25. Do you add salt to your food at the table? | | Always | | Sometimes | | Never | | |-----|------------|-----|--------------|-----|----------|-----| 26. Do you add salt substitute to your food at the table? e.g. LoSalt Always Sometimes Never Cordial/squash/diluting juice 27. Which type of squash/cordial did you drink most often during the recording period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie Did not drink 28. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: Single concentrate Double concentrate 29. How much do you usually dilute your squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: Other soft drinks 30. For other soft drinks such as ready-to-drink juices and carbonated drinks, which type did you have most often during the recording period? Standard No added sugar /diet/low calorie Did not drink ## If You Are Able To, Please Use A Measuring Jug To Measure Your Usual Drinking Vessels E.G. Mug, Glass, Cup, Beaker, Bottle Etc. And Provide The Volumes Below ## National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Children Aged 1.5 To 3 Years (V2) National Diet And Nutrition Survey Food And Drink Diary Children Aged 1.5 To 3 Years Pages Instructions……………………………………………………………………………... 2-3 Diary examples………………………………………………………………………. .. 4-15 Practice pages…………………………………………………………………………16-22 Examples and advice on food descriptions……………………………………..23-28 Pictures for spoon size………………………………………………………………30-31 "The 4-day diary" …………………………………………………………………... 32-63 General questions about the eating frequency outside the home…………….. 64 General questions about your toddler's food over the recording period... 65-71 If you have any queries about how to complete the diary please contact a member of the NDNS team on freephone **0800 652 4572** between 8.30am-5.30pm. We would like you to record in this diary **everything your toddler eats and drinks**, at meal times and in between, day and night for **4 days**. Please include all food consumed **at home and outside the home**. Time spent in the care of other If your toddler spends time in the care of others during the recording period then we would very much appreciate if those carers (e.g. crèche staff, childminder, friend) would provide details of the food and drink consumed. For this purpose you have been given a pack to pass on to carers explaining about the study and asking for their support in gathering the required information. ## Please Provide The Following Information For Each Day Of Recording: Day and Date Please write down the day and date at the top each time you start a new day of recording. Time Slots Please note the time of each eating occasion into the space provided. For easy use each day is divided into sections, from first thing in the morning to late evening and through the night. Where and with whom? Please tell us what room or **part of the house** your toddler was in when eating, e.g. kitchen, living room. If s/he ate outside the home please write that location down. We would also like to know **who your toddler ate with**, e.g. whether s/he ate alone or with others. If they ate with others please describe their relationship to the child e.g. parents, siblings, or friends. We would also like to know **when they ate at a table** and when they were watching television whilst eating. For those occasions where they were **not** at a table or watching TV please write 'Not at table' or 'No TV' rather than leaving it blank. What does your toddler eat? Please describe the food your toddler ate in as much detail as possible. Include all meals and all snacks. Be as specific as you can. Pages 23 - 28 will help with the sort of detail we need, like **cooking methods** (fried, grilled, baked etc) and any additions (fats, sugar/sweeteners, sauces, pepper etc).  Recipes/Homemade dishes If your toddler has eaten any **homemade dishes** e.g. chicken casserole, please record the name of the recipe, ingredients with amounts (including water or other fluids) for the whole recipe, the number of people the recipe is for, and the cooking method. Write this down in the recipe section for each food record day. Record how much of the whole recipe your toddler ate in the portion size column (see examples on pages 9 and 15).  Take-aways and eating out If your toddler has eaten take-aways or made up dishes not prepared at home such as at a restaurant or a friend's house, please record as much detail about the ingredients as you can e.g. spaghetti with mince, onion and tomato sauce. Brand name Please note the **brand name** (if known). Most packed foods will list a brand name, e.g. Bird's eye, Hovis, or Supermarket own brands. Labels/Wrappers Labels are an important source of information. It helps us a great deal if you enclose, in the plastic bag provided, labels from all **ready meals,** from foods of lesser known brands and also from any **supplements** your toddler takes. Portion sizes Examples for how to describe the quantity or **portion size** your toddler had of a particular food or drink are shown on pages 23 - 28. For foods, quantity can be described using:  household measure e.g. one level teaspoon (tsp) of sugar, two thick slices of bread, 1 dessertspoon (dsp) of peas, ½ cup of gravy. Be careful when describing amounts in spoons that you are referring to the correct spoon size. Compare the spoons you use with the life size photos on pages 30 - 31 of this diary.  weights from labels - use the weight marked on canned or packet foods, e.g. quarter of a 420g tin of baked beans, one 125g pot of yoghurt  number of items, e.g. 2 fish fingers, 2 pieces of chicken nuggets, 1 regular size jam filled doughnut  fruit, indicate whether the piece of fruit is small, medium or large For drinks, quantity can be described using:  the **size of glass, cup etc** (e.g. large) or the **volume** (e.g. 300ml). Please provide a measurement of your toddler's usual drinking 'cup' on page 31.  volumes from **labels** (e.g. 330ml can of fizzy drink). We would like to know the **amount that your toddler actually ate** which means taking **leftovers** into account. You can do this in two ways: 1. Record what was served and note what was not eaten e.g. 3 dsp of peas, only 2 dsp eaten; 1 weetabix, ate only ½ 2. Only record the amount actually eaten i.e. 2 dsp of peas; ½ weetabix Was it a typical day? After each day of recording you will be prompted to tell us whether this was a typical day or whether there were any reasons why your toddler consumed more or less than usual. We have provided a list of commonly forgotten food and drink to help jog your memory at the end of each day for anything you may have forgotten to record. Supplements At the end of each recording day there is a section for providing information about any supplements your toddler took. Brand name, full name of supplement, strength and the amount taken should be recorded. When to fill in the diary Please record your toddler's eating as you go, **not from memory** at the end of the day. Use written notes on a pad if you forget to take the diary with you. Each diary day covers a 24hr period, so please include any food or drinks that your toddler may have had during the night. Remember to include foods and drinks between meals (snacks) including water. Overleaf you can see 2 days that have already been filled in. These examples show you how we would like you to record your toddler's food and drink, for example a meal from a jar and a homemade dish. ## It Only Takes A Few Minutes For Each Eating Occasion! T T Th h ha a an n nk k k y y yo o ou u u f f fo o or r r y y yo o ou u ur r r t t ti i im m me e e – – - w w we e e r r re e ea a al l ll l ly y y a a ap p pp p pr r re e ec c ci i ia a at t te e e i i it t t! ! ! | Day 1: | Thurs | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------| | 2007 | | | | Time | | | | Where? | | | | Food/Drink description & preparation | | | | | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | | With whom? | | | | TV on? | | | | Table? | | | | | | | | How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 | | | | 6am to 9am | | | | Follow on Milk | SMA Progress | 240ml bottle | | (as pack | | | | instructions) | | | | 8am | | | | Living Room | | | | Family | | | | TV on | | | | Not at table | | | | 9am to 12 noon | | | | 10am | Weetabix | | | Full fat milk | | | | Kitchen | | | | Mother | | | | No TV | | | | At table | | | | white sugar | | | | bread | | | | 11.30 | | | | am | | | | Living Room | | | | Family | | | | TV on | | | | Not at table | | | | margarine | | | | pure apple juice | | | quantity eaten Weetabix 1 biscuit Sainsbury's drowned (about 1 dsp milk leftover) 2 tsp Tate and Lyle 1 slice Granary from bakers, medium cut medium spread Flora light spread Sainsbury's 200ml carton (drank ½ of it) Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name With whom? TV on? Table? 12 noon to 2pm 1pm Kitchen Family No TV At table Chunky Vegetable Risotto Peeled apple Strawberry and Raspberry Yoghurt 2pm to 5pm 4pm Lounge Grandfather No TV Not at table Very weak black tea (in plastic trainer cup with lid) Semi-skimmed milk Fairy cake (see recipe) Portion size or quantity eaten Heinz Mum's Own Petit Filous 230g- only ate 2/3 of jar 3 slices 4 heaped tsp PG tips Sainsbury's ¾ cup mixed with ¼ cup (1/2 leftover) ¾ of one cake eaten Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? TV on? Table? 5pm to 8pm Broccoli, Pear and Peas Puree 6.15 pm Kitchen Family No TV At table Vegetables with Noodles and Chicken (12months) Water 8pm to 10pm 10.20 pm Follow on Milk SMA Progress 240ml bottle (as usual); 1/2 leftover) Bedroom Father No TV Not at table 10pm to 6am quantity eaten Ella's Kitchen 3 tsp HIPP 250g jar Tap about 100ml (small glass)  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Bassets Soft and chewy multivitamins (label in zip bag) 1 pastille Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes NAME OF DISH: Fairy Cakes **SERVES:** makes 20 cakes Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Tate & Lyle caster sugar 175g Silver Spoon icing sugar 140g Anchor butter, unsalted 175g Yellow food colouring 3 drops Market eggs 3 water 2 tablespoons Homepride self-raising flour 175g Baking powder 1 teaspoon Brief description of cooking method Mix together and bake for 15 min. Mix icing sugar with water and add colouring. Approx. 1 teaspoon of icing on each cake | Day: | Friday | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Time | | | Where? | | | Food/Drink description & preparation | | | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | With whom? | | | TV on? | | | Table? | | | | | | How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 | | | 6am to 9am | | | 6.30 | Biscuit for Babies + Toddlers | | am | | | Bedroom | | | Mother | | | No TV | | | Not at table | | | 7.00 | | | am | | | Kitchen | | | Family | | | No TV | | | At table | | | | | | Rice Krispies | | | Whole milk | | | Frutapura, Plum and Apple | | | Pure apple and blackcurrant juice | | | diluted with tap water | | | 9am to 12 noon | | | 9.30 | Banana | | am | | | Great stuff mini raisins | Asda | | Playroom | | | Childminder and 3 | | | other children | | | No TV | | | At table | | quantity eaten Cow and Gate 1 Kelloggs Asda Cow and Gate Heinz 7 dsp damp 1x 100g pot 60ml juice 240ml (drank most of it by lunch - about ¼ leftover) Medium size, ½ eaten 14g pack | Time | Where? | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------| | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | With whom? | | | TV on? | | | Table? | | | | | | 12 noon to 2pm | | | 12.00 | | | pm | | | Prepared packed lunch: | | | White bread, thick cut | | | Butter unsalted | | | Dining room | | | Childminder and 3 | | | other children | | | No TV | | | At table | Cheese triangle | | Ham, honey roast | | | Cheese curls | | | green seedless grapes | | | Fromage frais with layer of peach puree | | | Semi-skimmed milk | | | Fruit shoot apple, no added sugar | | | 2pm to 5pm | | | 3.15 | Apple, peeled | | pm | | | Playroom | | | Childminder and 3 | | | other children | | | No TV | | | At table | Milky way | | Water | | quantity eaten Kingsmill Lurpak Dairylea Asda Quakers 2 slices Thinly spread on one slice only Ate 1/2 ½ slice 8 pieces Yoplait 8 grapes 60g (ate half) Sainsburys 160ml (drank all) Robinsons 200ml Granny smith Medium size, ¼ eaten 1 fun size tap about 100ml (numerous sips) | Time | Where? | Food/Drink description & preparation | |---------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | | | | | Brand Name | Portion size or | | | With whom? | quantity eaten | | | TV on? | | | | Table? | | | | | | | | 5pm to 8pm | | | | 6.00 | Homemade sausage casserole (see recipe) | 1 tbsp | | pm | | | | Penne pasta, boiled | Sainsbury's | | | Dining room | | | | Family | | | | No TV | | | | At table | | | | 2 tbsp | | | | (about half a tbsp | | | | pasta leftover) | | | | 8pm to 10pm | | | | 8.15 | | | | pm | | | | Whole milk | Asda | 250ml bottle (about | | 25 ml left over) | | | | Living room | | | | Mother | | | | TV on | | | | Not at table | | | | 10pm to 6am | | |  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual Feeling unwell If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Abidec Multivitamin syrup with omega 3 5ml (1 teasp) ## Please Record Over The Page Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes NAME OF DISH: Sausage casserole *SERVES:* 4 Ingredients Amount Ingredients Amount Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! Butchers Choice pork sausages 4 sausages Cornflour 2 tsp Onion 1 medium size Mixed herbs About ½ tsp Mushrooms, Champignons 1/4 of 500g pack Sainsbury's vegetable oil 1.5 tbsp Napoli chopped tomatoes 1 x 400g tin Sainsbury's mixed salad beans 1 x 125g tin Oxo gravy 1 cube in ½ pint of water Heinz tomato ketchup 1 tbsp Brown onions and sausages in vegetable oil. Add mushrooms, tomatoes, beans and gravy and simmer. Thicken with cornflour and add herbs. ## Practice Pages Use this space to practise recording in the diary with your interviewer Please do not use these pages for the recording period Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or quantity eaten How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 6am to 9am Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm Practice Page 2pm to 5pm Practice Page Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With Whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 5pm to 8pm Practice Page 8pm to 10pm Practice Page 10pm to 6am Practice Page  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |----------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Spoon Size Does Matter!!!! When Describing Amounts Check The Spoons You Use With The Life Size Pictures On Page 30 Of This Diary | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Bacon | | | | Back, middle, streaky; smoked or un-smoked; fat eaten; dry-fried or | | | | fried in oil/fat (type used) or grilled rashers | | | | Number of rashers | | | | Baked beans | Standard, reduced salt or reduced sugar | Spoons, weight of tin | | Beefburger | | | | (hamburger) | | | | Home-made (ingredients), from a packet or take-away; fried (type of | | | | oil/fat), microwaved or grilled; economy; with or without bread roll, | | | | with or without salad e.g. lettuce, tomato | | | | Large or small, ounces or | | | | in grams if info on | | | | package | | | | Biscuits | | | | What sort e.g. cheese, wafer, crispbread, sweet, chocolate (fully or | | | | half coated), shortbread, home-made | | | | Number, size (standard | | | | or mini variety) | | | | Bread | | | | (see also sandwiches) | | | | Wholemeal, granary, white or brown; currant, fruit, malt; large or | | | | small loaf; sliced or unsliced loaf | | | | Number of slices; thick, | | | | medium or thin slices | | | | Bread rolls | Wholemeal, white or brown; alone or with filling; crusty or soft | Size, number of rolls | | Breakfast cereal (see | | | | also porridge) | | | | What sort e.g. Kellogg's cornflakes; any added fruit and/or nuts; | | | | Muesli - with added fruit, no added sugar/salt variety | | | | Spoons or size of bowl | | | | Buns and pastries | | | | What sort e.g. iced, currant or plain, jam, custard, fruit, cream; type | | | | of pastry; homemade or bought | | | | Size, number | | | | Butter, margarine & fat | | | | spreads | | | | Give full product name | | | | Thick/average/thin | | | | spread; spoons | | | | Cake | | | | What sort: fruit (rich), sponge, fresh cream, iced, chocolate coated; | | | | type of filling e.g. buttercream, jam | | | | Individual or size of slice, | | | | packet weight | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Cereal bars | | | | What sort; with fruit/nuts, coated with chocolate/yoghurt; fortified | | | | with vitamins/minerals | | | | Weight/size of bar; from | | | | multipack | | | | Cheese | Type e.g. cheddar, cream, cottage, soft; low fat | | | Number of slices, | | | | number of spoons | | | | Chips | | | | Fresh, frozen, oven, microwave, take-away (where from); | | | | thick/straight/crinkle/fine cut; type of oil/fat used for cooking | | | | Spoons or number of | | | | chips | | | | Chocolate(s) | What sort e.g. plain, milk, white, fancy, diabetic; type of filling | Weight/size of bar | | Cook-in sauces | | | | What sort; pasta, Indian, Chinese, Mexican; tomato, white or | | | | cheese based; does meat or veg come in sauce; jar or can | | | | Spoons, size of can or jar | | | | Cream | | | | Single, whipped, double or clotted; dairy or non-dairy; low-fat; fresh, | | | | UHT/Longlife; imitation cream e.g. Elmlea | | | | Spoons | | | | Crisps | | | | What sort e.g. potato, corn, wheat, maize, vegetable etc; low-fat or | | | | low-salt; premium variety e.g. Kettle chips, Walker's Sensations | | | | Packet weight | | | | Custard | | | | Pouring custard or egg custard; made with powder and milk/sugar, | | | | instant, ready to serve (tinned or carton); low fat, sugar free | | | | Spoons | | | | Egg | | | | Boiled, poached, fried, scrambled, omelette (with or without filling); | | | | type of oil/fat, milk added | | | | Number of eggs, large, | | | | medium or small | | | | Fish (including canned) | | | | What sort e.g. cod, tuna; fried (type of oil/fat), grilled, poached | | | | (water or milk) or steamed; with batter or breadcrumbs; canned in | | | | oil, brine or tomato sauce | | | | Size of can or spoons | | | | (for canned fish) or size | | | | of fillet | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Fish cakes & fish fingers | | | | Type of fish; plain or battered or in breadcrumbs; fried, grilled, | | | | baked or microwaved; economy | | | | Size, number, | | | | packet weight | | | | Fruit - fresh | What sort; eaten with or without skin | Small, medium or large | | Fruit - stewed/canned | | | | What sort; sweetened or unsweetened; in fruit juice or syrup; juice | | | | or syrup eaten | | | | Spoons, weight of can | | | | Fruit - juice (pure) | | | | Glass (size or volume) or | | | | carton size | | | | What sort e.g. apple, orange; sweetened or unsweetened; | | | | pasteurised or UHT/Longlife; freshly squeezed; added | | | | vitamins/minerals, omega 3 | | | | Ice cream | Flavour; dairy or non-dairy alternatives e.g. soya; luxury/premium | Spoons/ scoops | | Jam, honey | What sort; low-sugar/diabetic; shop bought/brand or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, | | | | or thin or thick spread | | | | Marmalade | Type; low-sugar; thick cut; shop bought/brand or homemade | | | Spoons, heaped or level, | | | | or thin or thick spread | | | | Meat (see also bacon, | | | | burgers & sausages) | | | | Large/small/medium, | | | | spoons, slices | | | | What sort; cut of meat e.g. chop, breast, minced; lean or fatty; fat | | | | removed or eaten; skin removed or eaten; how cooked; with or | | | | without gravy | | | | Milkshake | | | | Fresh or long life/UHT; dairy or non-dairy alternative e.g. soya; if | | | | powder, made up with whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed milk; | | | | flavour; fortified with vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass (size or volume) | | | | cups or volume on | | | | bottle/carton | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Milk | | | | Type (whole, semi-skimmed, skimmed, 1% fat); fresh, sterilized, | | | | UHT, dried; soya milk (sweetened/unsweetened), goats' milk, rice | | | | milk; flavoured; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; | | | | formula milks for toddlers | | | | Pints, glass (size or | | | | volume) or cup. On | | | | cereal: | | | | damp/average/ | | | | drowned or fluid | | | | ounces/ml. | | | | In tea/coffee: | | | | a little/some/a lot | | | | Formula: | | | | proportion of | | | | formula to water | | | | Nuts | What sort; dry roasted, ordinary salted, honey roasted; unsalted | Packet weight, handful | | Pie (sweet or savoury) | What sort/filling; one pastry crust or two; type of pastry | Individual or slice | | Pizza | | | | Thin base/deep pan or French bread; topping e.g. meat, fish, veg; | | | | stuffed crust | | | | Individual, slice, fraction | | | | of large pizza e.g. ¼ | | | | Porridge | | | | Made with oats or cornmeal or instant oat cereal; made with milk | | | | and/or water; added sugar, honey, syrup or salt; with milk or cream | | | | Bowls, spoons | | | | Potatoes | | | | (see also chips) | | | | Old or new; baked, boiled, roast (type of oil/fat); skin eaten; mashed | | | | (with butter/spread and with or without milk); fried/chips (type of | | | | oil/fat); instant; any additions e.g. butter | | | | Mash - spoons, number | | | | of half or whole potatoes, | | | | small or large potatoes | | | | Pudding | | | | What sort; e.g. steamed sponge; with fruit; mousse; instant | | | | desserts; milk puddings | | | | Spoons | | | | Rice | | | | What sort; e.g. basmati, easy cook, long or short grain; white or | | | | brown; boiled or fried (type of oil/fat) | | | | Spoons | | | | Salad | Ingredients; if with dressing what sort (oil and vinegar, mayonnaise) | | | Amount of each | | | | component | | | | Food/Drink | Description & Preparation | Portion size or quantity | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Sandwiches and rolls | | | | Type of bread/roll (see Bread & Rolls); butter or margarine; type of | | | | filling; including salad, mayonnaise, pickle etc. If shop-bought, | | | | where from? | | | | Number of rolls or slices | | | | of bread; amount of | | | | butter/margarine (on both | | | | slices?); amount of filling | | | | Sauce - cold (including | | | | mayonnaise) | | | | Tomato ketchup, brown sauce, soy sauce, salad cream, | | | | mayonnaise; low fat; | | | | Spoons | | | | Spoons | | | | Sauce - hot (see also | | | | cook-in sauces) | | | | What sort; savoury or sweet; thick or thin; for gravy - made with | | | | granules, stock cube, dripping or meat juices | | | | Sausages | What sort; e.g. beef, pork; fried (type of oil/fat) or grilled; low fat | Large or small, number | | Sausage rolls | Type of pastry | | | Size - jumbo, standard, | | | | mini | | | | Scone | Fruit, sweet, plain, cheese; type of flour; homemade | Small, medium or large | | Savoury snacks - in | | | | packet | | | | What sort: e.g. Cheddars, cheese straws, Twiglets, Pretzels | | | | Size (standard or mini | | | | variety), packet weight | | | | Smoothies | | | | If homemade give recipe. If shop-bought, what does it contain e.g. | | | | fruit, milk/yoghurt, fruit juice | | | | Glass or bottle (size or | | | | volume) | | | | Soft drinks - squash/ | | | | concentrate/cordial | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; "high" juice; fortified | | | | with added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass (size or volume) | | | | Soft drinks - | | | | carbonated/fizzy | | | | Flavour; diet/low-calorie; canned or bottled; cola - caffeine free | | | | Glass, can or bottle (size | | | | or volume) | | | | Soft drinks - ready to | | | | drink | | | | Flavour; no added sugar/low calorie/sugar free; real fruit juice? If | | | | so, how much?; fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals | | | | Glass, carton or bottle | | | | (size or volume) | | | | Food/Drink | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Soup | | What sort; cream or clear; fresh/chilled, canned, instant or vending | | machine. If home-made, give recipe | | Spoons, bowl or mug | | Spaghetti, other pasta | | What sort; fresh/chilled or dried; white, wholemeal; canned in | | sauce; type of filling if ravioli, cannelloni etc | | Spoons (or how much | | dry pasta) | | Toddler foods | | Food in jars: description and ingredients (e.g. vegetable risotto, fruit | | puree); Dry Foods: description (e.g. baby rice, cauliflower cheese); | | made up with milk and/or water | | Size of jar or packet, | | spoons for powdered foods | | (volume of water/milk | | used to mix with cereal or | | powder) | | Vegetables (not | | including potatoes) | | What sort; how cooked/raw; additions e.g. butter, other fat or sauce | | Spoons, number of | | florets or sprouts, weight | | from tins or packet | | Pot size or spoons | | Yoghurt (inc drinking | | yoghurt), fromage frais | | What sort: e.g. natural/plain or flavoured; creamy, Greek, low-fat, | | very low fat/diet, soya; with fruit pieces or fruit flavoured; twinpot; | | fortified with added vitamins and/or minerals; longlife/UHT; probiotic | | Home-made dishes | | Please say what the dish is called (record recipe or details of dish if | | you can in the section provided) and how many persons it serves | | Spoons - heaped or | | level, number, size, | | amount of recipe | | consumed e.g. ¼ | | Ready-made meals | | Full description of product; does it contain any accompaniments | | e.g. rice, vegetables, sauces; chilled or frozen; microwaved, oven | | cooked, boil-in-the-bag; low fat, healthy eating range. Enclose label | | and ingredients list if possible in your plastic bag | | Packet weight (if didn't | | eat whole packet | | describe portion | | consumed) | | Take-away food or food | | eaten out | | Please say what the dish is called and give main ingredients if you | | can. Give name of a chain restaurant e.g. McDonalds | | Spoons, portion size e.g. | | small/medium/large | ## Day 1 How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten At table?  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Brief Description Of Cooking Method Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes Ingredients How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table?  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? | Yes | |-------------------------------------------------------| | If no, please | | go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers | | |  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons ## Please Record On The Next Pages Details Of Any Recipes Or (If Not Already Described) Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes. Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes | Ingredients | |-------------------------------------------------------| | Don't forget to include any oil or water/stock used!! | | | Ingredients How to describe what you had and how much you had can be found on pages 23-28 Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table?  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Amount Ingredients ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Write In Recipes Or Ingredients Of Made Up Dishes Or Take-Away Dishes | Ingredients | Amount | Ingredients | Amount | |----------------|-----------|----------------|-----------| Please remember to complete the general questions on pages 64-71! Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or With whom? quantity eaten TV on? At table? 12 noon to 2pm 2pm to 5pm Time Where? Food/Drink description & preparation Brand Name Portion size or quantity eaten  Was the amount of **food** that your toddler had today about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? | Usual | | | | |--------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----| | Less | | | | | than usual | | | | | More | | | | | than usual | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If the intake was not usual, please explain why: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  Was the amount your toddler had to **drink** today, including water, tea, coffee and soft drinks, about what s/he usually has, less than usual, or more than usual? Usual Less than usual More than usual If the intake was not usual, please explain why:  Did your toddler **finish all the food and drink** that you recorded in the diary today? Yes No If no, please **go back to the diary and make a note of any leftovers**  There are some foods that people often forget o Coffee, tea, soft drinks, water o Biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, other confectionary o Milk o Crisps/nuts/other snacks o Sauce, dressing If you have forgotten to record any food or drink today, please go back and **add them to the diary**.  Did your toddler take any **vitamins, minerals or other food supplements** today? If yes, **please describe the supplements s/he took below** Brand Name (in full) including strength Number of pills, capsules, teaspoons Amount Ingredients Write in recipes or ingredients of made up dishes or take-away dishes ## Brief Description Of Cooking Method Please Complete The Questions Over The Page General Questions About The Frequency Of Eating Outside The Home Is your toddler regularly cared for outside the home e.g. child minder, nursery, relative? If YES 1(a) How many *meals* would she/he have in 'out-of-home care' *per week*? Please specify 1(b) Are these out-of-home meals prepared by yourself? Please specify 2 What type of soft drinks (e.g. squash, ready to drink, carbonated) does she/he usually have in 'out-of-home care'? STANDARD NO ADDED SUGAR/DIET/LOW CAL EITHER (see below) If either, please specify e.g. has No Added Sugar at nursery but standard at the childminder's If your nursery provides a **copy of the nursery menu** for the recording period we would appreciate if you could give this copy to the interviewer. This will help us later with the analysis of your toddler's diet. ## General Questions About Your Toddler'S Food/ Drink During The Recording Period. Special Diet 1. Did your toddler follow a special diet during the recording period e.g. vegetarian, milk-free, other? 2. What type of milk does your toddler usually drink? Tick only one | Infant formula | 1% fat milk | |-------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Soya formula | Follow-on formula | | Whole milk (cow's milk) | Soya milk | | Semi skimmed milk (cow's milk) | Goat's milk | | Skimmed milk (cow's milk) | Other | | Please specify the brand/type if not cow's milk | | ## Breakfast Cereals 3. How much milk does your toddler usually have on breakfast cereal? | Drowned | Average | Damp | None/did not eat | |------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------|---------------------| | 4. How do you usually make porridge for your toddler? | | | | | With all water | With all milk | With milk and water | Did not eat | | 5. Did you usually sweeten or salt the porridge? | | | | | With sugar | With honey | With salt | Neither/did not eat | | 6. How did you usually make instant oat cereal for your toddler? | | | | | With all water | With all milk | With milk and water | Did not eat | | 7. Did you usually sweeten or salt the instant oat cereal? | | | | | With sugar | With honey | With salt | Neither/did not eat | ## Fats For Spreading And Cooking most often for your toddler during the recording period? 9. How thickly did you spread butter, margarine on bread, crackers for your toddler? often during the recording period? Please record the ## Bread 11. Which type of bread did your toddler eat most often during the recording period? White Granary Wholemeal Brown 50/50 bread e.g. Other Type Did not eat Hovis Best of Both 12. Was it a large loaf or a small loaf? Large Small 13. If the bread was shop bought, how was it sliced? | Thick | Medium | Thin | Unsliced | |----------|-----------|---------|-------------| ## Meat 14. If your toddler ate meat during the recording period, did s/he eat the visible fat? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat meat | |-----------|--------------|----------|---------------------| 15. If your toddler ate poultry (e.g. chicken, turkey) during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat poultry | |-----------|--------------|----------|------------------------| ## Fruit And Vegetables 16. If your toddler ate apples during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat | |-----------|--------------|----------|----------------| 17. If your toddler ate pears during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat | |-----------|--------------|----------|----------------| 18. If your toddler ate new potatoes during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat | |-----------|--------------|----------|----------------| 19. If your toddler ate baked (jacket) potatoes during the recording period, did s/he eat the skin? | Always | Sometimes | Never | Did not eat | |-----------|--------------|----------|----------------| ## Salt 20. Do you add salt to your toddler's food at the table? | Always | Sometimes | Never | |-----------|--------------|----------| 21. Do you add salt substitute to your toddler's food at the table? e.g. LoSalt | Always | Sometimes | Never | |-----------|--------------|----------| ## Cordial/Squash/Diluting Juice 22. Which Type Of Squash/Cordial Did Your Toddler Drink Most Often During The Recording Period? | | Standard | | No added sugar /diet/low calorie | | Did not drink | | |-----|--------------|-----|--------------------------------------|-----|------------------|-----| 23. Which squash did you use most often during the recording period? Please record the full product name e.g. Robinsons Peach Fruit & Barley no added sugar Name: Single Concentrate Double Concentrate 24. How much do you usually dilute your toddler's squash (e.g. half squash/half water, or 1 part squash with 4 parts water)? Please tell us: __________________________________________________ Other soft drinks 25. For other soft drinks such as ready-to-drink juices and carbonated drinks, which type did your toddler have most often during the recording period? | | Standard | | No added sugar /diet/low calorie | | Did not drink | | |-----|--------------|-----|--------------------------------------|-----|------------------|-----| Water 26. Which type of water did your toddler drink most often during the recording period? | | |-------| | brand | | | ## Tea 27. How Much Milk Does Your Toddler Usually Have In Tea? A lot Some A little None/did not drink 28. Do you usually sweeten your toddler's tea with sugar? | Yes | Number of teaspoons | None/did not drink | |--------|--------------------------|------------------------| ## Drinks In General 29. Does your toddler finish all their cup/bottle each time you make it up? Yes No If No, please tell us how much of it they usually drink e.g. half, three-quarters: _____________________________ If you are able to, please use a measuring jug to measure your toddler's usual drinking vessels e.g. mug, glass, cup, bottle, beaker etc. and provide the volumes below ## Thank You For Completing This Diary.

en

3450-pdf

## Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire: Final 2018 Data Publication Date: 10 October 2019 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical Breakdown: None The Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) collects data on removals, production and trade of wood and wood products. Statistics are collected annually and the collection is co-ordinated by a number of international organisations: Eurostat, UNECE, FAO and ITTO. 1. In the JQ1 and JQ1 OB tables, "removals" data is as delivered to processors and others. 2. The product codes tables are provided as guidance by international organisations, the exact list of commodity codes used by Forest Research for specific JQ categories can differ. List of Tables JQ1 OB: Removals over bark JQ1: Removals and production JQ2: Trade JQ3: Trade in secondary processed wood and paper products Glulam and X-lam ECE-EU: Trade in roundwood and sawnwood by species EU1: Trade with countries outside the EU EU2: Removals by type of ownership Conversion factors Product codes for the JQ2 and EU1 tables Product codes for the JQ3 table UK data that is submitted to international organisations via the JFSQ is published twice a year, in May (provisional data) and September/ October (final data) at: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-bytopic/international-returns/joint-forest-sector-questionnaire/ Next update: 14 May 2020: provisional results for 2019 September/ October 2019: final results for 2019 Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/ Removals Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS OVERBARK 1 ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 12,246 12,635 1.1 WOOD FUEL, INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL 1000 m3 2,360 2,790 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1,760 2,090 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 600 700 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3 9,886 9,846 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3 9,754 9,712 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 133 133 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 1.2.1 SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS 1000 m3 7,533 7,360 1.2.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 7,456 7,282 1.2.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 78 78 1.2.2 PULPWOOD (ROUND & SPLIT) 1000 m3 1,788 1,940 1.2.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1,788 1,939 1.2.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 1 1.2.3 OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 566 546 1.2.3.C Coniferous 1000 m3 511 491 1.2.3.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 55 55 Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark) 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3ub 10,921 11,267 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 1000 m3ub 2,096 2,478 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1,571 1,866 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 525 613 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 8,825 8,788 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 8,709 8,672 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 116 117 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3ub 0 0 1.2.1 SAWLOGS AND VENEER LOGS 1000 m3ub 6,725 6,570 1.2.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 6,657 6,502 1.2.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 68 68 1.2.2 PULPWOOD, ROUND AND SPLIT 1000 m3ub 1,596 1,732 1.2.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1,596 1,731 1.2.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 0 1 1.2.3 OTHER INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 504 487 1.2.3.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 456 439 1.2.3.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 48 48 PRODUCTION 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 1000 mt 5 5 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 1000 m3 3,260 3,336 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 1000 m3 2,445 2,502 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) 1000 m3 815 834 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD 1000 mt 3,700 3,750 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 287 279 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 1000 mt 287 279 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 0 0 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 1000 m3 3,763 3,715 6.C Coniferous 1000 m3 3,721 3,674 6.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 42 41 6.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 7 VENEER SHEETS 1000 m3 0 0 7.C Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 7.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 1000 m3 3,176 3,079 8.1 PLYWOOD 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 0 0 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 0 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD 1000 m3 2,501 2,355 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 1000 m3 .. .. 8.3 FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 675 724 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 1000 m3 0 0 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 1000 m3 675 724 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 0 0 9 WOOD PULP 1000 mt .. .. 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt .. .. 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 1000 mt 0 0 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 1000 mt 0 0 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 0 0 Unit Product Product 2017 2018 Code Quantity Quantity 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 2,725 2,713 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 7 7 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 2,718 2,706 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 7,772 7,547 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 3,858 3,894 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 918 962 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt .. .. 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt .. .. 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 734 738 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 1,935 1,904 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt .. .. 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt .. .. 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 270 291 Note: .. denotes data not available. | 1000 UK £ (Sterling) | | |------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | I M P O R T | E X P O R T | | Product | | | 2018 | 2017 | | code | Product | | quantity | | | | | | 1 | ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) | | 1.1 | WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) | | 1.1.C | Coniferous | | 1.1.NC | Non-Coniferous | | 1.2 | INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD | | 1.2.C | Coniferous | | 1.2.NC | Non-Coniferous | | 1.2.NC.T | of which: Tropical | | 2 | WOOD CHARCOAL | | 3 | WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES | | 3.1 | WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES | | 3.2 | WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) | | 4 | RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD | | 5 | WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES | | 5.1 | WOOD PELLETS | | 5.2 | OTHER AGGLOMERATES | | 6 | SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) | | 6.C | Coniferous | | 6.NC | Non-Coniferous | | 6.NC.T | of which: Tropical | | 7 | VENEER SHEETS | | 7.C | Coniferous | | 7.NC | Non-Coniferous | | 7.NC.T | of which: Tropical | | 8 | WOOD-BASED PANELS | | 8.1 | PLYWOOD | | 8.1.C | Coniferous | | 8.1.NC | Non-Coniferous | | 8.1.NC.T | of which: Tropical | | 8.2 | PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD | | 8.2.1 | of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) | | 8.3 | FIBREBOARD | | 8.3.1 | HARDBOARD | | 8.3.2 | MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) | | 8.3.3 | OTHER FIBREBOARD | | 9 | WOOD PULP | | 9.1 | MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP | | 9.2 | CHEMICAL WOOD PULP | | 9.2.1 | SULPHATE PULP | | 9.2.1.1 | of which: BLEACHED | | 9.2.2 | SULPHITE PULP | 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 48 35,231 40 28,076 0 3 1 172 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 19 43,183 20 42,200 2 3,236 3 2,499 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 18 42,059 17 39,924 0 425 0 373 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,124 3 2,276 2 2,810 2 2,126 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 107 14,067 120 21,224 4,733 648,701 4,540 570,363 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 5,610 3,417,680 5,525 3,414,864 788 997,126 771 1,021,786 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 2,858 1,738,696 2,887 1,663,953 304 466,454 367 460,729 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt 538 211,161 494 188,287 162 123,065 203 127,065 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt 310 160,655 357 171,632 8 41,057 8 38,829 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt 898 637,321 916 628,039 56 213,974 62 206,567 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt 1,111 729,559 1,120 675,995 78 88,358 94 88,269 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 389 305,391 391 314,431 11 36,018 33 50,647 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 2,226 1,307,336 2,212 1,373,295 352 415,508 355 424,131 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt 1,099 407,369 1,045 466,249 192 79,015 101 68,247 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt 814 642,902 852 653,386 104 207,662 173 215,914 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt 237 217,006 237 218,605 38 112,082 55 122,608 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt 77 40,060 79 35,055 19 16,749 27 17,361 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 137 66,257 36 63,185 122 79,145 16 86,279 ## Secondary Processed Wood And Paper Products: Trade 1000 UK £ (Sterling) Product Product I M P O R T V A L U E E X P O R T V A L U E code 2017 2018 2017 2018 13 Secondary wood products 13.1 Further processed sawnwood 177,946 149,932 22,352 29,123 13.1.C Coniferous 47,272 58,236 13,426 18,277 13.1.NC Non-coniferous 130,674 91,696 8,925 10,846 13.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 8,308 7,686 179 457 13.2 Wooden wrapping and packing material 167,689 171,436 47,411 50,226 13.3 Wood products for domestic/decorative use 149,414 136,967 31,110 30,594 13.4 Builder's joinery and carpentry of wood 734,751 684,471 53,114 66,374 13.5 Wooden furniture 3,459,001 3,148,113 443,133 481,251 13.6 Prefabricated buildings of wood 43,628 58,934 7,618 7,687 13.7 Other manufactured wood products 252,425 238,756 43,884 38,407 14 Secondary paper products 14.1 Composite paper and paperboard 40,855 42,456 13,870 11,864 14.2 Special coated paper 313,876 339,112 282,945 283,409 14.3 Household and sanitary paper, ready for use 32,750 31,371 12,315 13,561 14.4 Packaging cartons, boxes, etc. 759,940 740,724 300,065 325,859 14.5 Other articles of paper or paperboard 758,889 763,600 597,366 570,368 14.5.1 of which: printing & writing paper, ready for use 23,343 28,730 3,661 3,046 14.5.2 of which: articles, moulded or pressed from pulp 25,493 24,452 11,137 13,413 14.5.3 of which: filter paper & paperboard, ready for use 21,610 24,811 108,118 98,930 Flow Extra-EU Import Product Year Total Export Total Import Extra-EU Export Production 1000 mt 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 1000 mt 1000 NAC 2017 Glulam .. 2 1,682 42 34,664 0 104 3 3,717 2018 .. 2 1,663 20 21,462 0 99 3 4,033 2017 X-lam .. 1 4,716 6 10,919 0 669 1 3,253 2018 .. 1 2,573 62 81,042 0 410 23 41,352 ## Definitions: Glulam: Builders' carpentry also includes glue-laminated timber (glulam), which is a structural timber product obtained by gluing together a number of wood laminations having their grain essentially parallel. Laminations of curved members are arranged so that the plane of each lamination is at 90 degrees to the plane of the applied load; thus, laminations of a straight gluman beam are laid flat. [from HS 4418, Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels, assembled flooring panels, shingles and shakes] X-lam: Panels consisting of laths of roughly sawn wood, assembled with glue in order to facilitate transport or later working. [from HS4421, Other articles of wood] .. denotes data not available. | 1000 UK £ (Sterling) | | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | I M P O R T | E X P O R T | | | | | 2017 | 2018 | | ProductClassification | | | Classification | | | Unit of | | | Code | HS2007 | | Quantity Quantity | | | Value | Quantity | | 1.2.C | 4403.11/21/22/23/24/25/26 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 383 | 541 | | ex4403.11 | Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 304 | 459 | | 4403.23/24 | 4403 23 10 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 278 | 381 | | ex4403 11 00 4403 23 90 | 4403 24 00 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 26 | 77 | | ex4403.11 | Pine (Pinus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 78 | 62 | | 4403.21/22 | 4403 21 10 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 15 | 0 | | ex4403 11 00 | 4403 21 90 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 64 | 62 | | ex4403.11 | Other / Non-specified | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 1 | 20 | | 4403.25/26 | 4403 25 10 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 0 | 1 | | ex4403 11 00 | 4403 25 90 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 1 | 20 | | 1.2.NC 4403.12/41/49/91/93/94 | 4403.95/96/97/98/99 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 45 | 80 | | ex4403.12 | 4403.91 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 4 | 13 | | ex4403.12 | 4403.93/94 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 1 | 1 | | ex4403.12 | of which: Birch (Betula spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 21 | 33 | | 4403.95/96 | 4403 95 10 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 0 | 0 | | ex4403 12 00 | 4403 95 90 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 21 | 33 | | ex4403.12 | 4403.97 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 0 | 1 | | ex4403.12 | 4403.98 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 2 | 5 | | 6.C | 4406.11/91 4407.11/12/19 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 7,088 | 6,626 1,304,319 1,421,390 | | ex4406.11/91 4407.12 | of which: Fir/Spruce (Abies spp., Picea spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 3,751 | 3,538 | | ex4406.11/91 4407.11 | of which: Pine (Pinus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 2,050 | 2,032 | | 6.NC | 4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/95/96/97/99 | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 575 | 587 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.91 | of which: Oak (Quercus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 153 | 166 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.92 | of which: Beech (Fagus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 13 | 16 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.93 | of which: Maple (Acer spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 0 | 5 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.94 | of which: Cherry (Prunus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 0 | 1 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.95 | of which: Ash (Fraxinus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 1 | 15 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.97 | of which: Poplar/Aspen (Populus spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 19 | 44 | | ex4406.12/92 4407.96 | of which: Birch (Betula spp.) | | 1000 m | | | 3 | | | 50 | 53 | Note: "ex" codes indicate that only part of that trade classication code is used 1000 UK £ (Sterling) I M P O R T E X P O R T Product Unit of 2017 2017 2018 2018 code Product quantity Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 1000 m3ub 13 2,406 26 6,567 11 2,469 13 3,015 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 1000 m3ub 10 929 5 1,036 0 140 0 128 1.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 6 433 1 328 0 133 0 121 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 4 497 3 708 0 7 0 7 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3ub 3 1,477 22 5,531 11 2,329 13 2,888 1.2.C Coniferous 1000 m3ub 1 176 18 3,589 1 176 4 735 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3ub 2 1,301 3 1,942 10 2,153 10 2,153 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3ub 2 1,291 3 1,889 8 2,196 7 1,782 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 1000 mt 83 26,152 87 29,250 0 439 1 390 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 1000 m3 1 496 4 741 80 4,109 30 5,060 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 1000 m3 1 496 1 638 80 4,107 30 5,056 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) 1000 m3 0 0 3 103 0 1 0 5 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD 1000 mt 0 41 4 70 0 6 0 2 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 5,700 824,025 6,597 933,040 0 44 0 372 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 1000 mt 5,697 822,746 6,591 931,235 0 21 0 10 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 1000 mt 3 1,279 6 1,805 0 24 0 362 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 1000 m3 659 278,648 673 258,793 13 9,196 11 10,546 6.C Coniferous 1000 m3 424 102,891 466 106,886 3 685 3 934 6.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 235 175,757 207 151,907 10 8,511 8 9,612 6.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 83 56,789 67 46,493 0 164 0 288 7 VENEER SHEETS 1000 m3 3 6,915 3 6,377 1 2,927 1 2,155 7.C Coniferous 1000 m3 1 1,361 0 1,360 0 391 0 424 7.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 3 5,555 2 5,017 0 2,536 0 1,731 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 0 286 0 4 0 402 0 35 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 1000 m3 1,318 413,621 1,402 463,067 39 11,723 37 13,703 8.1 PLYWOOD 1000 m3 1,254 385,189 1,297 427,707 7 3,491 5 3,337 8.1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 410 104,953 437 123,712 1 252 0 137 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 1000 m3 844 280,236 859 303,995 6 3,239 5 3,201 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 1000 m3 179 67,695 220 87,268 2 823 1 647 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) AND SIMILAR BOARD 1000 m3 7 1,776 12 3,227 27 6,155 30 8,894 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 1000 m3 1 114 6 1,386 20 3,348 7 3,363 8.3 FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 57 26,655 93 32,132 6 2,077 2 1,471 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 1000 m3 12 9,480 5 4,524 0 59 0 80 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 1000 m3 26 10,299 55 19,153 4 1,373 1 799 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD 1000 m3 19 6,877 33 8,456 2 645 0 593 9 WOOD PULP 1000 mt 372 180,994 310 175,968 0 162 1 730 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 1 566 3 1,854 0 153 0 550 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 1000 mt 328 149,070 276 152,344 0 7 0 13 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 1000 mt 328 147,982 276 151,414 0 2 0 9 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 1000 mt 325 146,610 275 150,729 0 0 0 7 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,088 1 930 0 5 0 4 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 1000 mt 43 31,358 30 21,770 0 3 1 167 10 OTHER PULP 1000 mt 14 38,070 13 31,870 1 479 0 87 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 1000 mt 13 37,055 10 30,145 0 289 0 49 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 1000 mt 1 1,015 2 1,726 0 190 0 38 11 RECOVERED PAPER 1000 mt 2 1,710 19 5,226 3,980 530,704 3,830 470,475 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 1000 mt 1,246 757,820 1,047 700,073 231 369,763 264 376,819 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 1000 mt 694 348,963 572 321,003 162 244,066 180 228,385 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 1000 mt 366 140,408 303 129,375 70 48,736 69 42,532 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 1000 mt 21 13,087 29 18,856 3 12,559 3 10,242 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 1000 mt 261 163,283 199 141,300 38 125,598 33 114,450 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 1000 mt 47 32,186 41 31,472 51 57,172 75 61,161 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 1000 mt 181 157,676 155 153,261 2 3,546 2 2,995 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 1000 mt 356 232,358 310 211,206 59 85,579 70 96,573 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 1000 mt 113 56,786 117 64,158 2 2,601 2 2,369 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 1000 mt 207 139,706 164 116,901 33 41,504 42 46,623 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 1000 mt 35 34,682 26 28,364 19 38,449 19 43,563 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 1000 mt 1 1,184 2 1,782 5 3,026 7 4,018 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. (NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED) 1000 mt 14 18,823 10 14,602 9 36,573 12 48,865 Removals by type of ownership Produc Unit 2017 2018 t code Ownership Quantity Quantity ROUNDWOOD REMOVALS (under bark) 1 ROUNDWOOD 1000 m3 10,921 11,267 1.C Coniferous 1000 m3 10,280 10,537 1.NC Non-coniferous 1000 m3 641 729 State forests 1000 m3 4,847 4,517 Coniferous 1000 m3 4,775 4,442 Non-coniferous 1000 m3 72 76 Other publicly owned forests 1000 m3 .. .. Coniferous 1000 m3 .. .. Non-coniferous 1000 m3 .. .. Private forest 1000 m3 6,074 6,749 Coniferous 1000 m3 5,505 6,096 Non-coniferous 1000 m3 569 654 Note: Ownership categories correspond to those of the Forest Resources Assessment. State forests: Forests owned by national, state and regional governments, or government-owned corporations; Crown forests. Other publicly owned forests: Forests belonging to cities, municipalities, villages and communes. Private forests: Forests owned by individuals, co-operatives, enterprises and industries and other private institutions. The unit should be solid cubic metres, under bark. ## The Following Factors Have Been Used To Convert Between Cubic Metres (M3) And Metric Tonnes: Product m3 / tonne Fuelwood, including wood for charcoal 1.38 Wood chips, sawdust, etc 1.48 Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - softwood 1.43 Industrial roundwood (wood in the rough) - hardwood 1.25 Sawnwood - softwood 1.82 Sawnwood - hardwood 1.43 Veneer sheets 1.33 Plywood, particleboard 1.54 Hardboard 1.053 MDF (medium density fibreboard) 1.667 Insulating board - density 0.35-0.5 g/cm3 1.667 Insulating board - other 4 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product Code HS2017 HS2012 SITC Rev.4 1 ROUNDWOOD (WOOD IN THE ROUGH) 4401.11/12 44.03 4401.10 44.03 245.01 247 1.1 WOOD FUEL (INCLUDING WOOD FOR CHARCOAL) 4401.11/12 4401.10 245.01 1.1.C Coniferous 4401.11 ex4401.10 ex245.01 1.1.NC Non-Coniferous 4401.12 ex4401.10 ex245.01 1.2 INDUSTRIAL ROUNDWOOD 44.03 44.03 247 1.2.C Coniferous 4403.11/21/22/23/24/25/26 ex4403.10 4403.20 ex247.3 247.4 1.2.NC Non-Coniferous 4403.12/41/49/91/93/94/95/96/97/98/99 ex4403.10 4403.41/49/91/92/99 ex247.3 247.5 247.9 1.2.NC.T of which: Tropical ex4403.12 4403.41/49 ex4403.10 4403.41/49 ex4403.99 ex247.3 247.5 ex247.9 2 WOOD CHARCOAL 4402.90 4402.90 ex245.02 3 WOOD CHIPS, PARTICLES AND RESIDUES 4401.21/22 4401.40 4401.21/22 ex4401.39 246.1 ex246.2 3.1 WOOD CHIPS AND PARTICLES 4401.21/22 4401.21/22 246.1 3.2 WOOD RESIDUES (INCLUDING WOOD FOR AGGLOMERATES) ex4401.40 ex4401.39 ex246.2 4 RECOVERED POST-CONSUMER WOOD ex4401.40 ex4401.39 ex246.2 5 WOOD PELLETS AND OTHER AGGLOMERATES 4401.31/39 4401.31 ex4401.39 ex246.2 5.1 WOOD PELLETS 4401.31 4401.31 ex246.2 5.2 OTHER AGGLOMERATES 4401.39 ex4401.39 ex246.2 6 SAWNWOOD (INCLUDING SLEEPERS) 44.06 44.07 44.06 44.07 248.1 248.2 248.4 6.C Coniferous 4406.11/91 4407.11/12/19 ex4406.10/90 4407.10 ex248.11 ex248.19 248.2 6.NC Non-Coniferous ex248.11 ex248.19 248.4 4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/9 5/96/97/99 ex4406.10/90 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29/91/92/93/94/95/ 99 6.NC.T of which: Tropical ex4406.12/92 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29 ex4406.10/90 4407.21/22/25/26/27/28/29 ex4407.99 ex248.11 ex248.19 ex248.4 7 VENEER SHEETS 44.08 44.08 634.1 7.C Coniferous 4408.10 4408.10 634.11 7.NC Non-Coniferous 4408.31/39/90 4408.31/39/90 634.12 7.NC.T of which: Tropical 4408.31/39 4408.31/39 ex4408.90 ex634.12 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product 8 WOOD-BASED PANELS 44.10 44.11 4412.31/33/34/39/94/99 44.10 44.11 4412.31/32/39/94/99 634.22/23/31/33/39 634.5 8.1 PLYWOOD 4412.31/33/34/39/94/99 4412.31/32/39/94/99 634.31/33/39 8.1.C Coniferous 4412.39 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.39 ex4412.94 ex.4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.1.NC Non-Coniferous 4412.31/33/34 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.31/32 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.1.NC.T of which: Tropical 4412.31 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 4412.31 ex4412.32 ex4412.94 ex4412.99 ex634.31 ex634.33 ex634.39 8.2 PARTICLE BOARD, ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) and SIMILAR BOARD 44.10 44.10 634.22/23 8.2.1 of which: ORIENTED STRANDBOARD (OSB) 4410.12 4410.12 ex634.22 8.3 FIBREBOARD 44.11 44.11 634.5 8.3.1 HARDBOARD 4411.92 4411.92 ex634.54 ex634.55 8.3.2 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY FIBREBOARD (MDF/HDF) 4411.12/13 ex4411.14 4411.12/13 ex4411.14 ex634.54 ex634.55 8.3.3 OTHER FIBREBOARD ex4411.14 4411.93/94 ex4411.14 4411.93/94 ex634.54 ex634.55 9 WOOD PULP 47.01/02/03/04/05 47.01/02/03/04/05 251.2 251.3 251.4 251.5 251.6 251.91 9.1 MECHANICAL AND SEMI-CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 47.01 47.05 47.01 47.05 251.2 251.91 9.2 CHEMICAL WOOD PULP 47.03 47.04 47.03 47.04 251.4 251.5 251.6 9.2.1 SULPHATE PULP 47.03 47.03 251.4 251.5 9.2.1.1 of which: BLEACHED 4703.21/29 4703.21/29 251.5 9.2.2 SULPHITE PULP 47.04 47.04 251.6 9.3 DISSOLVING GRADES 47.02 47.02 251.3 10 OTHER PULP 47.06 47.06 251.92 10.1 PULP FROM FIBRES OTHER THAN WOOD 4706.10/30/91/92/93 4706.10/30/91/92/93 ex251.92 10.2 RECOVERED FIBRE PULP 4706.20 4706.20 ex251.92 11 RECOVERED PAPER 47.07 47.07 251.1 12 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 48.01 48.02 48.03 48.04 48.05 48.06 48.08 48.09 48.10 4811.51/59 48.12 48.13 48.01 48.02 48.03 48.04 48.05 48.06 48.08 48.09 48.10 4811.51/59 48.12 48.13 641.1 641.2 641.3 641.4 641.5 641.62/63/64/69/71/72/74/75/76/77/93 642.41 ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq2 (Supp. 1) Primary Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Product Product 12.1 GRAPHIC PAPERS 48.01 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58/61/62/69 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 641.1 641.21/22/26/29 641.3 48.01 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58/61/62/69 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 12.1.1 NEWSPRINT 48.01 48.01 641.1 12.1.2 UNCOATED MECHANICAL 4802.61/62/69 4802.61/62/69 641.29 12.1.3 UNCOATED WOODFREE 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58 4802.10/20/54/55/56/57/58 641.21/22/26 12.1.4 COATED PAPERS 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 48.09 4810.13/14/19/22/29 641.3 12.2 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPERS 48.03 48.03 641.63 12.3 PACKAGING MATERIALS 641.41/42/46 ex641.47 641.48/51/52 ex641.53 641.54/59/62/64/69/71/72/74/75/76/77 4804.11/19/21/29/31/39/42/49/51/52/59 4805.11/12/19/24/25/30/91/92/93 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/32/39/92/99 4811.51/59 4804.11/19/21/29/31/39/42/49/51/52/59 4805.11/12/19/24/25/30/91/92/93 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/32/39/92/99 4811.51/59 12.3.1 CASE MATERIALS 4804.11/19 4805.11/12/19/24/25/91 4804.11/19 4805.11/12/19/24/25/91 641.41/51/54 ex641.59 12.3.2 CARTONBOARD 4804.42/49/51/52/59 4805.92 4810.32/39/92 4811.51/59 4804.42/49/51/52/59 4805.92 4810.32/39/92 4811.51/59 ex641.47 641.48 ex641.59 641.75/76 ex641.77 641.71/72 12.3.3 WRAPPING PAPERS 4804.21/29/31/39 4805.30 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/99 4804.21/29/31/39 4805.30 4806.10/20/40 48.08 4810.31/99 641.42/46/52 ex641.53 641.62/64/69/74 ex641.77 12.3.4 OTHER PAPERS MAINLY FOR PACKAGING 4805.93 4805.93 ex641.59 641.24 ex641.47 641.56 ex641.53 641.55/93 642.41 12.4 OTHER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD N.E.S. 4802.40 4804.41 4805.40/50 4806.30 48.12 48.13 4802.40 4804.41 4805.40/50 4806.30 48.12 48.13 The term " ex" means that there is not a complete correlation between the two codes and that only a part of the HS2012/HS2017 or SITC Rev.4 code is applicable. For instance " ex4401.40" under product 3.2 means that only a part of HS2017 code 4401.40 refers to wood residues coming from wood processing (the other part coded under 4401.40 is recovered post-consumer wood). In SITC Rev.4, if only 4 digits are shown, then all sub-headings at lower degrees of aggregation are included (for example, 634.1 includes 634.11 and 634.12). ## Forest Sector Questionnaire Jq3 (Supp. 1) Secondary Processed Products Trade CORRESPONDENCES to HS2017, HS2012 and SITC Rev.4 | | | |------------------------------------|----------------------------| | C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s | | | Product | Product | | Code | | | HS2017 | HS2012 | | | | | 13 | | | SECONDARY WOOD PRODUCTS | | | 13.1 | | | FURTHER PROCESSED SAWNWOOD | 4409.10/22/29 | | 13.1.C | | | Coniferous | 4409.10 | | 13.1.NC | | | Non-coniferous | 4409.22/29 | | 13.1.NC.T | | | of which: Tropical | 4409.22 | | 13.2 | | | WOODEN WRAPPING AND PACKAGING | | | MATERIAL | | | 44.15/16 | 44.15/16 | | 13.3 | | | WOOD PRODUCTS FOR | | | DOMESTIC/DECORATIVE USE | | | 44.14 4419.90 44.20 | 44.14 | | 13.4 | | | BUILDER'S JOINERY AND CARPENTRY OF | | | WOOD | | | 4418.10/20/40/50/60/74/75/ | | | 79/99 | | | 635.31/32/33 | ex635.34 | | ex635.39 | | | 4418.10/20/40/50/60 | | | ex4418.71 ex4418.72 | | | ex4418.79 ex4418.90 | | | 13.5 | | | WOODEN FURNITURE | | | 821.16 | ex821.19 | | 821.51/53/55/59 | ex821.8 | | 9401.61/69 | ex9401.90 | | 9403.30/40/50/60 | | | ex9403.90 | | | 9401.61/69 | ex9401.90 | | 9403.30/40/50/60 | | | ex9403.90 | | | 13.6 | | | PREFABRICATED BUILDINGS OF WOOD | 9406.10 | | 13.7 | | | OTHER MANUFACTURED WOOD PRODUCTS | 44.04/05/13/17 4421.10/99 | | 44.04/05/13/17 4421.10 | | | ex4421.90 | | | 634.21/91/93 635.91 | | | ex635.99 | | | 14 | | ## Secondary Paper Products 14.1 COMPOSITE PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 48.07 48.07 641.92 14.2 SPECIAL COATED PAPER AND PULP PRODUCTS 4811.10/41/49/60/90 4811.10/41/49/60/90 641.73/78/79 14.3 HOUSEHOLD AND SANITARY PAPER, READY FOR USE 48.18 48.18 642.43/94 14.4 PACKAGING CARTONS, BOXES ETC. 48.19 48.19 642.1 14.5 OTHER ARTICLES OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, READY FOR USE 48.14/16/17/20/21/22/23 48.14/16/17/20/21/22/23 641.94 642.2 642.3 642.42/45/91/93/99 892.81 14.5.1 of which: PRINTING AND WRITING PAPER, READY FOR USE ex4823.90 ex4823.90 ex642.99 14.5.2 of which: ARTICLES, MOULDED OR PRESSED FROM PULP 4823.70 4823.70 ex642.99 14.5.3 of which: FILTER PAPER AND PAPERBOARD, READY FOR USE 4823.20 4823.20 642.45 The term " ex" means that there is not a complete correlation betw een the tw o codes and that only a part of the HS2012/HS2017 or SITC Rev.4 code is applicable. For instance " ex811.00" under " Prefabricated buildings of w ood" means that only a part of SITC code 811.00 refers to buildings prefabricated from w ood, as that code does not distinguish betw een the materials buildings w ere prefabricated In SITC Rev.4, if only 4 digits are show n, then all subheadings at low er degrees of aggregation are included (for example, 892.2 includes 892.21 and 892.29).

en

1691-pdf

## Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 6: Social Release date: 24 September 2020 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical breakdown: Country Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ ## Contents | Introduction 3 | | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Key findings 4 | | | 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys 5 | | | 6.1.1 England 7 | | | 6.1.2 Wales | | | 6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors | | | 6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group | 16 | | 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys | | | 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey | 18 | | 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors | 19 | ## Introduction This chapter contains statistics on: - the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys; and - the number and profile of visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodlands from onsite surveys and administrative sources. The statistics in this chapter need to be viewed in the context of broader changes in the UK population, with an increasing and ageing population. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increase in visits to the outdoors. Initial studies are providing some information on these changes, but these have not been incorporated into this release yet. For further information, see: - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-surveyfor-england (see monthly interim indicators); - https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020 - https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-duringcoronavirus-lockdown and - http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlightsimportance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/. Geographical coverage for social statistics varies. Estimates are presented at country level and, where possible, UK or GB totals are included. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter. Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Social section of the Sources chapter. The frequency with which the estimates in this chapter are updated varies depending on the data sources used. Whilst some of the information presented is now several years old, it represents the latest available data and has been included to provide a more rounded picture of the social use of forests in the UK. Further information on the advantages and disadvantages of household surveys and of on-site surveys is provided in the Social section of the Sources chapter. A copy of all social tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/statistics/data-downloads/. ## Key Findings The main findings are: - There were an estimated 368 million visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19. - Around one half (49%) of visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19 were within 2 miles. - "Health and exercise" and "fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather" were important reasons for visits to woodlands in England and Wales. - Walking was the most common activity on visits to woodland in England. - Around 465 thousand people visited Forest Service sites where a charge is made in Northern Ireland in 2019-20. ## 6.1 Visits To Woodland - Household Surveys The information shown below in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys. - Scottish Recreation Survey (2009 to 2012) - Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2011, 2014) - Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England, 2009-10 onwards) - Scotland's People and Nature Survey (2013, 2017/18) It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. The figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. Further information on the differences between surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter. In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys. Results from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2018- 19 estimate a total of 368 million visits to woodlands in England (Table 6.1). This is a statistically significant decrease from the 2017-18 figure of 437 million visits. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey 2014 estimated a total of 68 million visits to woodlands by Welsh residents. This is a statistically significant decrease from the estimated total of 86 million in 2011, but similar to the 2008 estimate (64 million). Scotland's People and Nature Survey 2017/18 reports an estimated total of 117 million visits to woodlands in Scotland. This is a statistically significant increase from the 2013 estimate of 90 million visits. ## million visits Year England Wales Scotland 2009 317 .. 57 2010 326 .. 63 2011 358 86 65 2012 357 .. 62 2013 378 .. 90 2014 417 68 .. 2015 446 .. .. 2016 439 .. .. 2017 437 .. 117 2018 368 .. .. Sources: England 2009 on: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS; Wales 2011, 2014: Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey carried out by TNS; Scotland 2009 - 2012: Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), carried out by TNS; Scotland 2013, 2017: Scotland's People and Nature Survey (SPANs), carried out by TNS. Notes: 1. MENE covered trips taken in England, including those from holiday bases, by respondents living in England. Results relate to 12 month periods from March to February. 2. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey totals shown are for trips with woodland as the main destination. 3. The Scottish Recreation Survey ran from July 2003 until December 2012. It was replaced by Scotland's People and Nature Survey that ran from March 2013 to February 2014 and from May 2017 to April 2018. Both surveys covered visits to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in Scotland by people living in Scotland. The total shown is for all trips that included a visit to woodland. 4. In each survey, visits to overseas destinations are excluded. 5. .. Denotes data not available. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.1 England Household surveys in England In March 2009 fieldwork commenced on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, which includes collecting information on visits to the outdoors in England. Further information on the survey, including copies of annual reports and online data viewers to access more detailed results, is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-ofengagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results. Tables 6.2a to 6.2e shows the main characteristics of visits to woodlands over the most recent 5 years. In 2018-19, walking was the main mode of transport for almost one half (47%) of visits to woodland. per cent of respondents Main mode of transport 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 **2018-19** On foot 60 60 54 53 47 Car / van 36 36 42 44 45 Bicycle 2 2 2 1 1 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Around one half (49%) of visits to woodland were within 2 miles. per cent of respondents Distance travelled (one way) 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 **2018-19** Less than 1 mile 39 32 28 29 25 1 to 2 miles 25 31 28 27 24 3 to 5 miles 19 20 21 23 26 6 to 10 miles 9 8 11 11 10 Over 10 miles 9 10 12 10 16 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Health or exercise was the most popular reason for visiting woodlands in England in 2018-19 (70%). per cent of respondents Motivation for visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 **2018-19** For health or exercise 53 60 55 56 70 To exercise your dog 66 65 60 53 53 39 41 39 41 46 For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather To relax and unwind 35 42 37 37 40 To enjoy scenery 32 38 34 36 34 To be somewhere you like 23 26 25 26 29 For peace and quiet 22 27 33 26 29 To enjoy wildlife 27 30 28 28 28 To spend time with family 17 14 15 16 28 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. 2. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. 3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Walking (with or without a dog) was the most popular activity on visits to woodland in England in 2018-19. per cent of respondents Activities during visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 **2018-19** Walking without a dog 22 23 31 56 56 Walking with a dog 68 66 59 36 36 Playing with children 6 6 8 10 15 Eating or Drinking Out 5 6 8 10 15 Cycling/ mountain biking 4 3 6 4 6 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. 2. Excludes other activities, each reported by fewer than 5% of respondents in 2018-19. 3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## Most visits to woodlands in England (62%) lasted up to 2 hours in 2018-19. 2018-19 per cent of respondents Duration of visit 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Up to 1 hour 51 50 43 45 39 1+ to 2 hours 28 29 29 26 23 2+ to 3 hours 8 9 11 12 18 Over 3 hours 5 4 9 7 11 Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes: 1. All trips that included a visit to woodland. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.2 Wales Household surveys in Wales The National Survey for Wales began in March 2016 and replaced a number of separate surveys of households in Wales, including the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (WORS). The survey is completed by around 12,000 people each year and covers a wide range of topics. Further information on the survey, including copies of reports and data, is available at https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales. Table 6.3 shows the reasons provided for their visit to the outdoors by respondents who stated that the main destination of the visit was woodland. "Health and exercise" and "fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather" were the most important reasons reported for visits to woodlands in Wales. per cent of respondents Reason for visit 2016-17 2018-19 For health or exercise 47 55 For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather 50 47 For pleasure / enjoyment 42 42 To spend time with family 39 41 To relax and unwind 34 41 To enjoy scenery and wildlife 38 39 To exercise the dog 38 30 For peace and quiet 22 29 To spend time with friends 16 22 Source: National Survey for Wales (Welsh Government). Notes: 1. Visits where the main destination was woodland. 2. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%. 3. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. ## 6.1.3 Public Opinion Of Forestry Survey - Woodland Visitors The Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is carried out every two years and obtains people's attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland. Copies of reports and detailed data tables are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-bytopic/public-opinion-of-forestry/. The results shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 and Figure 6.1 have been taken from the UK and country reports on the latest surveys in 2019 and from surveys in earlier years. The reports also include other recreation-related results, such as whether the woodlands visited were in towns or the countryside and any reasons given by survey respondents for not visiting woodlands. In the UK 2019 survey, over three fifths (63%) of respondents said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.4). per cent of respondents Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 2003 66 62 64 77 67 2005 65 69 50 67 65 2007 76 79 75 62 77 2009 77 .. 57 .. 77 2010 .. .. .. 72 .. 2011 68 68 75 .. 67 2013 65 64 76 .. 66 2014 .. .. .. 75 .. 2015 55 64 78 .. 56 2017 62 72 84 .. 61 2019 63 77 .. 78 63 Source: UK/GB, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys Base: UK/GB = 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007), 2,000 respondents (2009 to 2019); Scotland and Wales = 1,000 respondents each; Northern Ireland = 120 respondents (2003), 1,000 respondents (all other years). Notes: 1. Those stating that they had visited woodland in the last few years. 2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±4.7% (for surveys with around 1,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) and at least 7 percentage points (for surveys each with around 1,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference. 3. .. Denotes data not available (survey not run that year or question not asked). These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Survey respondents were asked how frequently they had visited during the previous summer and winter. Figure 6.1, which presents aggregated UK results for the 2015 to 2019 surveys, shows that respondents visited much more often during the summer, with 44% of respondents visiting at least once a month in the summer compared to around one quarter (27%) in the winter. Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 2015 to 2019. Base: Average visit frequencies from last three UK surveys: 2,000 respondents per survey. Notes: 1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any individual year and no more than ±1.1% for the 3 surveys combined. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.1.4 Public Opinion Of Forestry Survey - Woodland Visitors By Age Group In the UK 2019 Public Opinion of Forestry survey, 71% of respondents aged 35 to 54 said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.5). This compares with around three fifths (61%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 and 56% of those aged 55 or over. per cent of respondents Year Aged 16 to 34 Aged 35 to 54 Aged 55 and over Total 1999 73 74 55 67 2001 75 77 63 72 2003 71 72 60 67 2005 66 74 56 65 2007 79 82 69 77 2009 78 84 69 77 2011 65 74 63 67 2013 62 75 60 66 2015 54 62 53 56 2017 60 68 55 61 2019 61 71 56 63 Source: UK and GB Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 1999 to 2019. Base: 2,000 respondents (1999, 2001, 2009 to 2019); 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007). Notes: 1. Those stating they had visited woodland in the last few years. 2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±2.3% (for surveys with around 4,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 6.2 Visits To Woodland - On-Site Surveys The previous section provided information on visits to all woodlands (regardless of ownership), based on data from household surveys. This section provides information on visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodland only, based on data from on-site surveys and administrative sources. The information provided in this section covers: - Visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland (Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands) from the All Forests Scotland surveys run from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13. An updated estimate of total visits in 2016 is also provided. - Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made. ## 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey All Forests surveying in Scotland has been undertaken on two occasions. The first All Forests Survey in Scotland was carried out across a three-year period from June 2004 to June 2007, and estimated that around 8.2 million visits are made annually to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. An estimated 150-200 thousand visits to events in forests and around 300 thousand visits during the hours of darkness (when fieldwork was not undertaken) were also made, giving an overall total of around 8.7 million visits per year. The second All Forests Survey was carried out from November 2012 to October 2013, and estimated an annual total of 9.1 million visits (including visits to events and in the hours of darkness) to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. This represents a 5% increase on the estimated overall total of 8.7 million visits from the 2004-2007 survey. The estimated number of visits has been updated using data from 224 automatic counters at 165 sites. For sites without counters, estimates have been produced using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers. This gives an overall estimate of 10.2 million visits to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland in 2016, a 12% increase from 2012-13. Further information is available on the Forestry and Land Scotland website at https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/tourism-andrecreation/research-resources-guidance. ## 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service Day Visitors Information on visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland is provided by the Forest Service and relates only to sites where an admission charge is made. In Northern Ireland in 2019-20, 465 thousand people visited those Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made (Table 6.6). This represented a 13% decrease from the previous year, and is reflective of new partnership agreements with local councils for the management of recreation facilities in Forest Service forests coming into effect. thousands Year Visitors to Forest Service sites 2010-11 468 2011-12 430 2012-13 340 2013-14 364 2014-15 397 2015-16 432 2016-17 584 2017-18 509 2018-19 532 2019-20 465 Source: Forest Service Notes: 1. Number of people visiting sites where an admission charge was made, excluding campers. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.

en

3636-pdf

## Conference Room A The National Archives Kew 10:.15-10.30 Arrival 10.30-11.15 Update to the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations Malcolm Todd, TNA 11.15-12.00 Complaints process John Williams, TNA. Steve Wood, ICO 12.00-12.30 Free Discussion 12.30-13.15 Lunch 13.15-13.45 Poachers and Gamekeepers - TNA reflections on being regulated by ICO Stuart Abraham, TNA 13.45-14.15

en

2849-pdf

FOOD we can TRUST Food Standards Agency Strategic Plan 2015-20 ## Contents | INTRODUCTION | 4 | |--------------------|-----| | STRATEGIC OUTCOMES | | | 8 | | | THE STRATEGIC PLAN | 10 | ## Key Activities 20 Working Towards Food We Can Trust 22 FOOD IS SAFE 24 FOOD IS WHAT IT SAYS IT IS 26 GATHERING AND USING SCIENCE, 28 EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION EMPOWERING CONSUMERS 30 ALIGNING INCENTIVES 32 BEING THE BEST ORGANISATION WE CAN BE 34 ## Introduction In 2014 the Board approved the strategy for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for 2015-2020. 1 The strategy focuses on why we exist - our purpose and mission, and our big objectives. In developing the strategy we reviewed a large amount of evidence and engaged with consumers, colleagues within the FSA, and a very wide range of stakeholders (academic and scientific, consumer organisations, industry representatives, local authorities, and other government departments (OGDs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ), to identify the key themes that the FSA would use to inform its planning for the period 2015-2020. A number of critical themes emerged that inform our strategic plan. The most important relates to our unique role within government as set out in our founding legislation: The main objective of the FSA in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. Focusing on this purpose, set for us by Parliament, and having considered the likely environmental factors that face the UK over the next strategy and beyond, the Board agreed to refresh and reinvigorate the FSA pledge: We will put consumers first in everything we do. We came to the conclusion that given challenges to food safety, authenticity, and food security we needed to consider "the interests of consumers" in the round, and after significant work with consumers and others we agreed a definition of consumer interests that will underpin our strategic plan. Food is safe and what it says it is, and we have access to an affordable healthy diet, and can make informed choices about what we eat, now and in the future. We identified that the FSA would concentrate its own efforts and resources on "food is safe and what it says it is" because those are the areas in which we are well placed to make the biggest contribution to consumer interests. We also said that we would explore whether we could use our science and evidence based approach and our credibility and independence to support consumers to consider the inter-relationship between their immediate and medium/ longer term interests in relation to food in the context of innovation in the food system. We know there are growing challenges around safety, affordability, security and sustainability. We also know that some of the current and future innovations possible in food production will conflict with some people's values. As a society we will need to be clear on the extent to which harnessing innovation will be necessary and acceptable in meeting those challenges. We believe the role of the FSA, where there are innovations which could deliver net consumer benefit across the range of consumers' interests, is to help frame the public debate and to advocate for adoption of those technologies. In consultation with consumers we identified three consumer rights to underpin our work: • The right to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk. • The right to make choices knowing the facts. • The right to the best food future possible. Consumers sometimes tell us that they feel powerless in their relationship with food. We want consumers to be and feel powerful - able to contribute effectively to shaping a food system that protects their interests and respects their rights. We have roles in protecting, informing and empowering consumers as part of helping them secure these rights. Section 7(2) of the Food Standards Act states that the Agency has the function of "ensuring that members of the public are kept adequately informed about and advised in respect of matters which the Agency considers significantly affect their capacity to make informed decisions about food". We also recognise that consumers have responsibilities as well as rights and we want to create an environment in which consumers are encouraged to be active players in creating the best food future possible. Safe and what it says it is We acknowledged that affordability, choice, food security and sustainability are issues where others have much greater ability to make a difference than we do. We do not want to spread ourselves too thinly, and by trying to do too much, achieve less for consumers. But we do want to contribute to the work that others do in these areas where we can to support the best outcomes for consumers. We also acknowledge that when we take decisions or try to make a difference in our key areas of focus, we potentially affect other key aspects of consumers' interests in relation to food. So we commit to think more carefully about all our own activities and assess each of them through the lenses of their impact on affordability, choice, nutritional quality, food security and sustainability. Within our key areas of focus ("safe and what it says it is") we need to be clear about our role and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities of others. It is the responsibility of people producing and supplying food to ensure it is safe and what it says it is … and the Food Standards Agency has a key leadership role in making sure they step up to that responsibility. As well as rights, consumers also have responsibilities - contributions that only they can make to improving the food system and its impacts on them and their families. It is a responsibility of consumers to manage the risks relating to food that they can. They have a right to be informed and supported in taking on these responsibilities and we are committed to doing everything we can to help them do so. ## Strategic Outcomes We will identify a series of indicators for each of the strategic outcomes, and we will monitor and report on these as part of our regular business and performance management cycle. The strategic outcomes, against which we will measure our impact, are aligned to the definition of consumer interests in relation to food, as set out in the strategy: The FSA has a joint responsibility with others - including industry, consumers, and other areas of government - to improve these food related outcomes for consumers. The outcomes are co-produced and result from many factors; the FSA alone cannot achieve them. Only by everyone working together and playing their part will we be able to deliver food we can all trust. We will ensure we play our part and set ourselves targets for those factors which we can take responsibility for delivering. • Food is safe. • Food is what it says it is. • Consumers can make informed choices about what to eat. • Consumers have access to an affordable healthy diet, now and in the future. ## The Strategic Plan The strategic plan identifies the major themes that will inform how we will set about building the organisation and its capabilities to achieve the purpose and objectives that are set out in the strategy. The FSA Strategy 2015-20, identifies why we exist, what our purpose and mission is, and how that relates to the changing environment in which we operate. In formulating our strategy, the Board recognised that the food system is going to come under increasing pressure over the next ten to twenty years, and that we cannot be sure at what pace changes will happen. So they agreed an approach to the plan for 2015-2020 that focuses on dealing with the challenges of today while seeking to build our readiness for the threats and opportunities of the future. We will use science, evidence and information both to tackle the challenges of today, and to identify and contribute to addressing emerging risks for the future. In our discussions with stakeholders they have reiterated the importance of us continuing to develop and apply a robust evidence base in our work to protect consumers' interests. Sound evidence, openly published and well communicated is one of the foundations of trust. Our continued commitment to developing the evidence base provides a critical underpinning that enables consumers to access and understand the science behind decisions, and encourages industry to comply with our requests and advice because they know that they are rational in their basis. We will gather and use evidence to identify and understand the biggest risks and challenges to consumers' interests, so that we can make sure we focus our efforts on areas where we can make or cause others to make the biggest impacts. We will develop our strategy and plan for science, evidence and information working closely with stakeholders. We will use legislative and non-legislative tools highly effectively to protect consumer interests and deliver consumer benefits - influencing business behaviour in the interests of consumers In all our discussions about our strategy everyone we have spoken to - from the food industry as well as consumers and academics - has reiterated the need for a strong regulator, independent of the food industry and its advocates. People are aware of the resource pressures on local and central government and the need to find sustainably resourced ways of working that protect consumers for the long term in this context. In ensuring that businesses step up to their responsibilities and consumers are supported and informed to meet theirs, the FSA has access to two main sets of tools. There are traditional regulatory tools such as making legislation and regulations and enforcing them; and there are communication based tools, such as providing greater transparency on business standards, which can incentivise rapid and more comprehensive improvement, and reward responsible businesses as well as better informing and empowering consumers. We will follow the principles in the Regulatory Strategy,2 which were agreed by the Board in January 2015. These include: • We will put consumers first in everything we do. • We will seek to align incentives and disincentives for food businesses with the interests of consumers. • Our focus will be on the outcomes we are seeking to achieve, keeping an open mind about the means by which those outcomes are achieved. • Our future regulatory approach should be truly risk-based and assessed in terms of impacts. • We will use our powers to deliver our strategic objectives - which go beyond our regulatory responsibility in respect of verifying compliance with food law. • Government intervention (including legislation) is warranted where its benefits to the public are proportionate to the costs/ disbenefits of its application. • The costs to businesses of regulation should be no more than they need to be. • It is not the FSA's or local authorities' role to achieve compliance - that is clearly defined in law as the responsibility of business. Consumers deserve the protection of food law enforcement that delivers for them by matching resources to risk, and using and improving the effectiveness of the full range of enforcement tools. Our new Food Crime Unit will focus on tracking down and putting out of business those operators who are wilfully breaking the law and placing consumers at risk. In targeting enforcement resources we will give greater recognition to businesses who do the right thing for consumers and we will continue to concentrate on finding cost effective ways to support businesses to do so, building on the success of our "Safer Food, Better Business" pack for small businesses, for example. We will use a "campaigning approach" to deliver benefits for consumers - by which we mean that we will focus clearly on what changes are in the interest of consumers and why; we will seek to persuade consumers and businesses to make those changes that will benefit consumers in the long run; we will align our resources to achieve them; and we will build coalitions with other organisations, parts of government, and opinion formers to deliver benefits to consumers. ## We Will Be Genuinely Open And Engaging, Finding Ways To Empower Consumers Both In Our Policy Making And Delivery, And In Their Relationship With The Food Industry At our foundation the FSA was in the vanguard of initiatives to improve openness and transparency and we have a heritage on which we can build, and need to build given changes in the expectations of society, and the environment we operate in. We believe that consumers are able to engage with complex issues relating to their interests in relation to food if they are given the right support and opportunities to do so, and we will seek to give them those opportunities, share the insights that emerge, and encourage others to engage with consumers openly and make information accessible to them about the food system and how it works. We will find and trial new ways of engaging with consumers and other stakeholders The right to make decisions knowing the facts requires much greater transparency in the food system. The information collected by industry about the food that people buy, and where and how it is produced, goes far beyond that which appears on labels and menus. The success of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme shows it is possible to take a range of information, in this case about premises, plans and hygiene practices, and distil them into a simple index that is understood by consumers and allows them to make better informed decisions. We will drive an agenda of transparency in the food system, setting clear expectations about the information that industry and regulator should publish, and working with consumers to understand and articulate the issues that matter to them so that we and other interested parties can develop new tools and applications that help support consumers to take greater responsibility for the food decisions they make and their impacts. We will find and trial new ways of engaging with consumers and other stakeholders at the very earliest stage so they help us form the questions and challenges that we want policy to address; new ways of engaging people throughout the policy making process not just during formal consultation; and ways of testing potential solutions with stakeholders - policy prototyping to help us refine policy solutions and optimise their delivery. We will create an environment in which our people are highly capable, effectively supported, and consistently choose to make outstanding contributions to protecting, informing and empowering consumers Consumers and other stakeholders, including the food industry, have told us they want an FSA which is strong, appropriately resourced, and credible. As well as requiring us to work on sustainable models of funding, prioritisation, and the acquisition and application of evidence, this critically depends on our ability to attract and effectively deploy the best people. As our approach becomes one which is about delivering impact from our expertise and influencing others we become more and more dependent on the quality, skills, motivation and alignment of our people. We believe that we are at our best when: • We are trustworthy and professional. • We are well managed and work with integrity. • We are consumer focused and creative campaigners. • We are flexible and resilient and hard working. • We work really well together across the whole organisation and with others. • We understand business and how to get them to do things. • We focus on outcomes and the processes that support them. • We are innovative. Our people plan will focus on making sure we have the: • Right people with • The right skills, knowledge and behaviours, and • The right engagement • Supported by the right ways of working. Over the course of the strategic plan period a measure of this will be how we move our people's engagement and alignment with the FSA up to amongst the best in the civil service, achieving the high performing benchmark in the Civil Service People Survey. We will consider the best ways of working for the future, enabling people to contribute from the locations and in the ways that suit them best and work across and beyond the organisation's boundaries collaboratively. ## We Will Develop An Organisation That Leverages Great Impact From Small Resources Our strategy emphasises the importance of viewing the food system as a whole and empowering consumers by giving them information about that system and how well it is protecting their interests. This means that we need to think not only of how we monitor and report on our own performance and how we are doing in terms of delivering the outcomes we can control, but also to identify ways of reporting on the performance of the system as a whole, shining a spotlight on issues where consumers' interests need to be safeguarded and identifying where there are failures or concerning trends. We will seek to identify indicators which demonstrate where there are performance problems or vulnerabilities in the system as a whole, in terms of its capability to deliver against the broad definition of consumers' interests. This will help us know where to focus our energy and influence to support change, and help consumers and others be empowered to demand change themselves. Given the constraints on resource that face all parts of government, and the importance of us maximising the benefits to consumers that we cause to be delivered and minimising the costs, we will also place an even greater emphasis on the efficiency and effectiveness of our own work - including the policy processes that underpin our role as a Government department, our operational delivery activities, and the corporate resources that enable and support our work. We will develop a reporting framework and set of KPIs at a strategic level that enable our Board and stakeholders to understand how we are performing, and at an operational level which ensures that we are able to continuously improve the value for money of what we do. Since our inception we have been a UK-wide body with representation in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, from April 2015 Scotland will have a new food body and we will ensure we manage a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continue to work closely with Scotland to maintain consumer protection. We recognise the benefits for consumers from the FSA sharing skills and expertise across Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and believe that while each will have their own issues to deal with, in the context of a highly globalised food system, there is real benefit in us continuing to operate as a single entity. We will demonstrate this in the way we work. In consultation with the relevant stakeholders we will also produce specific plans covering the work of the FSA in Northern Ireland and Wales and consider the production of a plan for England. ## Activities Key Key activities for the FSA in the strategic plan period The activities on the following pages describe some of the things we intend to do year by year to deliver progress towards our strategic outcomes and protect consumers' interests in relation to food. Between 2015 and 2020 we will take as many opportunities as we can to move in the direction outlined in our strategy. There are many specific actions we intend to take - some individually very small, some large and complex. Strategic coherence and maximum progress will be achieved by constantly focusing on the impact of everything we do, rather than by identifying a handful of large "initiatives" to focus on and imagining that the rest of our activities can carry on unaffected or be "deprioritised" and stopped - our work on allergies, chemicals, and incident management remains as important as ever, for example. There will be some particularly significant programmes of work, however, which we believe will be critical in underpinning the successful implementation of the strategy. They overlap and have multiple impacts - for example the work on surveillance and horizon scanning identified under science and evidence is important to safe food and to our efforts to ensure that food is what it says it is. Major projects and programmes will sit within the FSA's portfolio and provide monthly progress reports to the Portfolio Board. The Portfolio Board will ensure that the inter-dependencies within the portfolio are effectively managed. The following represent the significant priority pieces of work in which we currently anticipate investing time, effort and resources over the next two to three years to move forward the delivery of the strategy. The food system is complex, with many different actors operating in it. No one can predict the future, and we cannot know with confidence what actions we will need to prioritise in the future. It is inevitable that over time the list will need to change. Therefore, as part of our business planning cycle, the Executive Team will review our work programme every quarter and the Board will review the priorities annually to make sure that our activities remain the most appropriate to deliver the greatest possible benefits for consumers and progress towards our strategic outcomes. Given this, the plan is more developed for the first two years, and later years will be fleshed out in future planning cycles. FOOD we can TRUST ## Safe Food Is Consumers have the right to be protected from unacceptable levels of risk. Campylobacter is the most common cause of human bacterial food poisoning in the UK. Each year it is estimated to be responsible for around 280,000 cases of food poisoning and at its worst, campylobacter can kill. We continue to analyse the impact of campylobacter, but the most recent FSA estimates suggest that the total impact on the UK economy could be about £900m per year. Up to 80% of cases can be attributed to raw poultry meat. More information on our current **Campylobacter Programme** can be found at http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/campaigns/campylobacter/actnow More information on our current **Listeria Risk Management Programme** can be found at http://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/listeria Listeria monocytogenes, which causes listeriosis, is the one of most lethal of all food pathogens. It has a high fatality rate among vulnerable groups (i.e. people with reduced immunity, pregnant women, unborn and newborn babies, people aged over 60 years and patients with specific underlying medical conditions), and causes the most deaths per population in vulnerable groups. • Campylobacter campaign - ensure business delivers less than 10% of whole birds at end of production line with more than 1000 cfu/g. • Develop and agree Listeria reduction plan. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Begin work on relative measurements of risk and impact to enable us to compare and engage with consumers in comparing different forms of consumer detriment in relation to food. • Campylobacter campaign - review progress and agree next steps. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Implement Listeria reduction plan. • Continue implementation of Listeria reduction plan. • Conclude work on relative measurements of risk and impact and identify and take forward applications. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards ## Food Is What It Says It Is Consumers have the right to make informed decisions about their food and this is only possible when it is correctly and accurately identified, and appropriately labelled. The work we did in developing our strategy reinforced our awareness of the risks to consumers associated with authenticity and with food fraud and crime, in which consumers are deliberately misled. We will continue to work with local authority, industry and other colleagues to identify areas of risk and agree actions to reduce them on behalf of consumers. • Consolidate the newly established Food Crime Unit - establish effective measures for intelligence gathering, management and analysis, case building, collaboration with other agencies, and reporting mechanisms. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Review our major cross-government Incident Management exercise, improving our capability to respond to a major incident. • Food Crime Unit - assess the need and produce the Business Case for Phase 2 of the Elliott review proposals to enable ministers to decide on next steps to protect consumers. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Review our surveillance and sampling deployment in the light of identified risks and incidents. ## Gathering And Using Science, Evidence And Information We will continue to develop, apply and openly communicate a robust evidence base in our work to protect consumers' interests, as a critical underpinning to all we do. We will build our science capabilities to ensure our use of science is: • Focused on the biggest risks and challenges to consumers' current and future interests, and how we can make the biggest impacts. • Forward looking and innovative. • Connected across programmes, disciplines and data to gain added value and new insights. • Outward-looking to harness the power of working with and through others. • Supported to develop our own skills, capabilities and engagement across the FSA and with the wider science community. • Science, Evidence and Information Strategy delivery plan agreed by Board. • Build and apply horizon scanning and emerging risks analytical capability. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Convene a conference on the food system from the perspective of the strategy's definition of "consumer interests" to engage with others and build partnerships and identify where there are concerns and "transparency gaps". • Continue to build and apply horizon scanning and emerging risks analytical capability. • Define and agree our approach to targeted, effective surveillance. • Define and bring on stream the main programmes of work on data and on new technologies, to be delivered through strategic science partnerships. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Conclude systematic review of anti-microbial resistance risks in the food chain and identify, agree, and begin to implement any actions required to address any risks identified. • Complete initial programme of work on behaviour change models to identify those that provide the most useful frameworks to help design interventions and identify measures to evaluate them. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards • Use our assessment of behaviour change models, and robust evidence on consumer attitudes and practices, to frame, pilot and evaluate our approaches to effective interventions, including flexible or segmented approaches for different groups of people. ## Consumers Empowering The FSA strategy identifies that consumers have rights and responsibilities with regard to the food that they eat. We want to support them to ensure that their rights are respected and that they are able to take up their responsibilities and make informed decisions about the food that they eat, thus influencing the food system as well as their own well-being and that of their families and communities. We are committed to both being open and engaging ourselves and also to encouraging industry to be transparent about the issues of importance to consumers, so that consumers can have power and influence based on a knowledge of what is happening in the food system. • Establish new fora for effective consumer engagement - including an on-line panel that enables us to build a dialogue with a diverse group of consumers. • Make better use of the information we and others hold on consumers and their views on food issues, so that we can target our information and advice more effectively, helping to deliver behaviour change where appropriate. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Identify where information on consumers' interests in food issues can be actively used to influence others to deliver consumer benefits. • Press for Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) mandatory display in England. • Transparency campaign - in light of consumer research from Year 1, identify what food businesses ought to put into the public domain in order to empower consumers, and begin campaign to make it happen. • Implement first stages of citizen science approach. • Identify opportunities to work with others (e.g. NGOs, OGDs) to build new collaborations with schools, catering colleges and other educational settings to develop the skills and confidence of younger consumers to take decisions about the food they eat and influence other decision makers. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Develop and then implement plans for how we will excel in public dialogue, participatory decision-making and effective consumer protection through: • being open to the views of consumers and others when framing questions; • engaging early and effectively in the process of identifying and assessing options for action; and • bringing together the appropriate range of tools and approaches to campaign for action and advocate on behalf of consumers. • Review and evaluate the effectiveness of our consumer communications, building our understanding of how consumers get access to information on food and the food system. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards ## Incentives Aligning Aligning Incentives For Businesses To Ensure Consumer Interests Are Protected - Implementing The Regulatory Strategy. We will support the current delivery model where this is under stress, ensuring a focus on risk-based priorities. We will also seek ways to reduce the administrative and reporting burdens that we place on our delivery partners, while improving for the longer term the information and intelligence we gather, making sure that our regulatory functions do not repeat what is already being done effectively by others. Our future regulatory role, including how delivery is funded in future, will be influenced by the new EU Regulation on Official Food and Feed Controls, so our work in Europe to re-negotiate this Regulation and then implement it will be important to underpin our future approach. • Identify and implement improvements to the framework agreement, Codes of Practice and reporting mechanisms. • Develop a suite of proportionate and deterrent sanctions, including work on sentencing guidelines, and developing and using more tools around reputational sanctions. • Develop a framework to enable us to more rigorously assess 'confidence in management' in food businesses. Year 1 - 2015/16 • Identify where there is more flexibility in food law, and determine how we could apply that for the benefit of consumers. • Begin a broad based debate with local authorities, consumers, industry, and other key stakeholders about complementary or alternative delivery models including their sustainable funding - for meat and other food businesses. • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. • Develop food safety and authenticity criteria for public sector food and catering provision. Year 2 - 2016/17 • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. • Review how we work with partner agencies across the world on global food challenges. • Continued negotiation in the EU on Official Food and Feed Controls. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards • Work up and agree implementation plans for any changes to delivery and funding models identified in Year 2. ## Being The Best Organisation We Can Be Given the scale of the challenges we have identified to the food system and the small amount of regulatory resource available to us to play our part in tackling those challenges, it is critical that as an organisation we excel at leveraging impact from small resources. While being alert to value for money and cost effectiveness in everything we do, we will focus on two areas in particular - our people; and our IT and information management systems and capabilities. • People engagement - implement action plan based on 2014 feedback and deliver further 3 point improvement. • Design, working with people across the FSA, a Ways of Working programme to move towards civil service best practice by Year 3. • Implement an organisation wide strategic learning and development plan including a management development programme for front line managers. Year 1 - 2015/16 • IT infrastructure - continue to put in place a new IT infrastructure to improve efficiency, resilience, flexible working capability etc. • Improve our Information Management, including mapping our business requirements for information, developing common data standards and baselining our information management model. • Develop and deliver people engagement action plan based on 2015 feedback and achieve civil service best practice benchmark. • Continue work on Ways of Working, learning and development and management development. • Develop social media skills and presence across the whole FSA team. Year 2 - 2016/17 • IT infrastructure in place to improve efficiency, resilience and flexible working capability. • Extend the use of business intelligence tools. • Continue our Information Management improvement by developing open data sharing across government. • Conclude Ways of Working project. Year 3 and beyond - 2017 onwards For further information and advice about food, or to download this publication, visit the Food Standards Agency's website: food.gov.uk ## Connect With Us | | Like us on Facebook | | food.gov.uk/facebook | |---------------------|-----------------------|---------------------|------------------------| | | Join our conversation | @foodgov | food.gov.uk/twitter | | | | | | | Watch us on YouTube | | food.gov.uk/youtube | | | | | | | | Get our news by RSS | | food.gov.uk/rss | | | | Get our news by email | | food.gov.uk/email | © Crown Copyright 2015 The content of this publication is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information in this publication (not including the Food Standards Agency logos and photographs that are the copyright of a third party) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence at: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ Any enquiries regarding the use and re-use of this information resource should be emailed to: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk

en

0770-pdf

## Bat And Bird Activity Survey Report High Peak, Derbyshire. SK23 0QU June 2017 ## Notice To Readers This report has been prepared by Charnia Ecology with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.ieem.org.uk). No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Charnia Ecology. Client Details: Mr. and Mrs. S. Dawson Application area: Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, Derbyshire Postcode/ OS Grid Ref: SK23 0QU./ SK077811 Issue No: Final Issue 1 Date Issued: June 2017 Author: Mark Weston BSc, GradCIEEM, AMRSB ## Surveyor Capability The Principle Ecologist is a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS10722 - Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and an associate member of the Royal Society of Biology (AMRSB). The ecologist has a First Class Honours degree in Conservation Biology, and Vice Chancellors award for academic excellence. He has undertaken protected species surveys for over seven years, and is actively involved in scoping, presence/absence surveys and Natural England EPS licence applications with regard to planning and the law. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of written reports are undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). ## Non-Technical Summary  Report Rationale 1. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, This report has been prepared at the request of the clients Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at Pinfold Farm, Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 0QU [NGR: SK078811). 2. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). ##  Proposed Works 3. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered. ##  Site Description 4. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le- Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation. ##  Building Inspection 5. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats. 6. No evidence of roosting bats was recorded during the building inspection. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having LOW TO MODERATE potential for roosting bats. Subsequently two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently assigned to the structure. ##  Activity Surveys 7. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) were recorded in-situ within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species. 8. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present. This bat was seen circumnavigating around this region, landing once on the wall before vacating off site in a NW direction.  Foraging and commuting habitat 9. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctules were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area/ ZoI itself. ##  Impact Assessment 10. Based on activity surveys no impact to any high conservation status bat roosts is considered. In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is speculated although not considered as being absolute. 11. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.  Survey constraints 12. No survey constraints were encountered and assessment was considered as being robust overall, and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.  Further survey 13. NO further survey recommendations are considered for protected bat and bird species (including Barn Owl).  Mitigation recommendations 14. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England. 15. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time. It is therefore recommended that a number of site-safeguard measures **are implemented, which should be made a condition of the Planning consent.** 16. Key consideration should be given to timing of works; soft demolition under supervision and roost compensation to minimize any inadvertent impact on protected bat and bird species (See Section 5). 17. IMPORTANT: In the unlikely event that individual bats are encountered during works (or suspicion arise about the possible presence of bats), then ALL work must cease immediately and a licensed bat ecologist should be consulted if not already present onsite. Thereafter, the named ecologist should reassess the structure, and determine whether works can continue without licence from Natural England. 18. Mitigation should also consider European Swallow and individual passerine nesting birds. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no further recommendations are made with regard to this species. ## Contents 1. Introduction o Site description o Proposed works o Aims of survey ## 2. Survey Methodology o Summary of survey methods o Pre-survey data search o Surveyor information o Field surveys o Habitat survey o Roost survey o Activity surveys ## 3. Results o Pre-survey data search o Designated sites o Protected species o Field surveys o Habitat description o Roost survey o Activity survey ## 4. Impact Assessment o Constraints on survey information o Constraints on equipment used o Potential impacts of development o Designated sites o Roosts o Foraging and commuting habitat o Legislation and Policy guidance ## 5. Recommendations o Further survey o Mitigation measures o Mitigation licence o Preliminary mitigation outline recommendations ## 6. References 7. Appendices 8. Conditions And Disclaimers 1. INTRODUCTION 1. This report has been prepared at the request of the client, This report has been prepared at the request of the clients Mr and Mrs Dawson in relation to the identification of protected bat and bird species at "Pinfold Farm" Bagshaw, Chapel en le Frith, High Peak, SK23 0QU [NGR: SK078811). 2. The objective of this report is to provide the client with information on the known and potential bat roosts and birds nesting within the building, and to outline recommendations on how to proceed with the works in a legal and ecologically sensitive manner should bats and birds be resent. 3. Bat and bird activity surveys were undertaken in accordance to current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and carried out during May/June 2017 by a Natural England class 2 licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).  Site description 4. The surveyed building comprises of an attached one-storey cinderblock and two-storey disused stone barn located close to Pinfold Farm. The site is situated amongst a wider agricultural area ca.1.16km on the eastern outskirts of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of "Pinfold Farm" itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of "J Dawson's Sheds". ##  Proposed Works 5. It is proposed to retain the original block stone farm building whilst removing the cinderblock section to make way for a residential dwelling. Works will include stripping of the roof section and renewing of the roof section, with repointing of stone work also considered. ##  Aims Of Survey 6. The main objectives of this report activity surveys is to provide initial advice at the pre-acquisition stage with regards to any potential ecological impacts through development regarding protected bat and bird species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and/or the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (2); including species listed in the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). 7. The scope of this appraisal has been determined in line with the proportional approach to ecological survey, assessment and subsequent recommendations for avoidance and mitigation of impacts, which is encouraged in the emerging 'BS 42020: Biodiversity - Code of practice for planning and development'. 8. This report has been prepared with due consideration for various best practice guidance and methodologies including those of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM (2012)1, the emerging BS 42020 and BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) 2016. ## Bats  Probability of bats and their roost sites being present at the proposed redevelopment site i.e. buildings and trees  To assess the roost status should bats be present.  To assess commuting and foraging habitat that may be subject to impact from proposed development.  To provide an overall impact assessment. 9. All species of bat are listed in Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and as such receive protection under Section 9 of this Act. This means a criminal offence will be committed if you:  Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;  Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time);  Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost. 10. A bat roost is interpreted as 'any structure or place, which any wild bat uses for shelter or protection' (i.e. buildings, trees, bridges, tunnels etc.). Bats tend to show a high fidelity to roosts; subsequently, legal opinion regards a roost to be protected whether or not the bats are present at the time. There are many types of roost used by temperate bats during their annual cycle: Any structures found having evidence of bats will be further evaluated to assess which of the following roost categories may be present onsite (if any): ## Roost status Description Maternity / Nursery Roost Used by breeding bats, where pups are born and raised to independence (Anecdotal evidence may support this prospect despite sub-optimal survey period). Hibernation Site Where bats may be found during the winter. (This is assessed within the context of this report). Daytime Summer Roost Used by males and/or non-breeding females (Seasonal limitations prevent robust analysis of this). Night Roost Where bats rest between feeding bouts during the night but are rarely present during the day. Feeding Roost Where bats temporarily utilize feeding perches and stations to eat an item of prey. Transitional (or Swarming) Site Where bats may be present during the spring or autumn (This cannot be assessed within the context of this report). 11. The survey protocol also considers all common wild birds that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). This protection extends to bird nests during the breeding season, which makes it an offence to damage or destroy nests or eggs. ## Birds - Establish if birds are using the site. - Locate nest sites, if present. - Assess what types of activities were shown within the redevelopment site. - Assess suitable food resources and habitat requirements. - Provide an impact assessment, if nests are found. 12. Certain rare breeding birds such as Barn Owl *Tyto alba*, are listed on Schedule One of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). Under this legislation they are afforded the same protection as common wild birds and are also protected against disturbance whilst building a nest or on or near a nest containing eggs and unfledged young. Survey protocol considers the following: Barn Owl (Tyto alba) - Establish presence onsite. - Establish potential nest sites (PNS). - Locate any active roost sites (ARS). - Locate any temporary roost sites (TRS) - Assess potential feeding and dispersal habitats (PFH) - Provide an impact assessment, should barn owl(s) be present ## - Valued ecological receptors (VERs) 13. Assessment also considers potential effects on Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and Zones of Influence (ZoI) during pre and post development, both onsite and off- site. The term Zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts of a proposed development. 14. Should a likely significance of negative impacts to bats and/or birds be identified during the survey period, then further surveys, mitigation and enhancement measures may be necessary to prevent, offset or reduce the degree of impact that may occur should development commence. Should bats be present onsite, then a European Protected Species (EPS) development license issued by Natural England (NE) may be required prior to any works taking place. ##  Mitigation 15. The purpose of this report will only provide a preliminary outline of a bat mitigation strategy. A detailed method statement will need to be determined through consultation with an appropriately qualified and experienced bat ecologist thereafter, to fully support the aforementioned licence application. 16. Mitigation should be proportionate, justifiable and avoid or minimize any harm to species found during works, whilst ensuring the Favourable Conservation Status of local bat populations is maintained. Mitigation should be proportionate to:  Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats  Size, nature and complexity of the development site  Likelihood of bats being present or affected  Species and numbers of individuals concerned  Type of roost and/or habitat affected. ## 2. Survey Methodology 17. In accordance with BCT 3 rd edition (2016) guidelines, the following survey protocol is considered appropriate to provide a full ecological evaluation of the site in order to determine the following criteria:  What impact the redevelopment is likely to have on any protected species found at the site.  The need for any Natural England development licence application to be made in respect of activities concerning protected species.  Recommendations for any mitigation measures that would be required.  Pre-survey data search 18. Pre-survey data search provided historical records of any protected bat and bird species found within a 2km radius of the application area. Additional ecological data has been sourced to understand any constraints that the proposed planning application may have on species and habitat in the wider landscape. The National (UK) and local (Derbyshire) Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also scrutinized for protected habitats and species relevant to the application area. 19. A number of electronic sources sites were also consulted including; www.magic.gov.uk; www.naturalengland.org.uk; Google Earth and www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk. ##  Field Survey 20. A walkover survey, including visual inspection of building and any trees, was undertaken to determine the availability of required resources for the protected species in the immediate area. The building was inspected both externally and internally for:  Presence or absence of bats onsite (i.e. hibernating bats)  Evidence and/or potential of bat roosts onsite (i.e. summer roosts)  Whether additional surveys are required 21. Phase 2 bat and bird activity surveys were conducted during an optimal time of the year (Temp: >8, when bats are in summer maternity or bachelor roosts. The survey inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of binoculars, torch, endoscope and ladders where necessary. There were no access or survey constraints during the survey period(s). ##  Surveyor Information 22. Ecological assessment on-site was overseen by **Mark Weston**, a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS00836 - Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Assistant ecologist(s):  Louise Cox BSc (Hons)  Jade Leese BSc, MSc ##  Habitat Survey 23. The survey assessed habitat onsite in context to the wider landscape with regard to any important bat roosts, commuting/foraging areas that may be affected by the proposed development. ##  Roost Survey 24. All potential roost structures (i.e. buildings) onsite or within the Zone of Influence of the proposed development were assessed, based on standard methodologies set out by Natural England, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). External inspection considered suitable ingression points where species such as bats and birds could gain entry into any structures to roost and/or nest.  Condition of roof i.e. missing or raised roof tiles;  Condition of windows and doors i.e. broken panes;  Potential ingression points around ridges and apex of the buildings;  Any anecdotal evidence of bats I.e. droppings, grease marks, feeding remains;  Any evidence of birds i.e. nest material, droppings. 25. The external inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of torch, endoscope and ladders to ascertain the following:  Any potential internal roost features i.e. non-illuminated areas, joints, crevices, beams and cavities.  To locate potential roost/nest sites;  To listen for any bats and birds;  To examine floors, walls and structural elements for anecdotal evidence i.e. droppings, urine stains, corpses and feeding remains. ## Building Rating 26. In the absence of any evidence, trees and structures were assigned a rating of suitability from negligible to high potential for supporting bats. The rating is based on the number and type of features suitable for use by bats (such as rot holes, cavities and raised bark), location of the structure in the surrounding landscape and surveyor's experience (e.g. a structure with a high level of regular disturbance with few opportunities for access by bats, that is in a highly urbanized area with few or no mature trees, parkland, woodland or wetland would generally equate to having negligible potential. Conversely, a pre 20th century or early 20th century building with many features suitable for use by bats close to good foraging habitat would have high potential). ##  Activity Surveys 27. Under new BCT guidelines (2016), the number of prescribed activity surveys are based on initial overall building rating and suitability to support roosting bats: 28. Activity surveys combined an overall assessment of any *in-situ* roost onsite, and any other Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) considered to be within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) of the development, whilst considering any important commuting and foraging routes used by bats. 29. All activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with the guidelines published by the BCT 3rd edition 2016 to ascertain the following:  Determine the presence/absence of species, i.e. the species present in a given area  Determine the intensity of bat activity both spatially and temporally  Determine the type of activity i.e. foraging (by feeding buzzes);commuting (by high directional pass rates); mating (by mating social calls)  Find roosts by tracking back bat flight paths or observing commuting range 30. Evidence will be used to determine whether a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required to ensure legal compliance during development. This will also include identifying which mitigation measures [if any] would be most appropriate. ## Dusk Emergence Bat Survey 31. The object of this survey is to detect active bats leaving possible roost sites identified in the external and internal surveys. This was achieved by:  Being at the site 1 hour before sunset.  Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.  Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any emerging bats and egress points.  Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas.  Carrying out survey up to 1.5 - 2 hours after sunset to holistically consider interspecific differences between different bat species ## Dawn Re-Entry Bat Survey  Being at the site 2 hours before sunrise.  Listening for social calls at potential roost sites.  Standing at different transect points around the buildings, to record any swarming behaviour around potential re-entry points.  Standing at different transect points to assess foraging/commuting areas. 32. Bat ultrasound data was gathered using a number of heterodyne units (Batbox Duet and SSF Bat2) and real-time recording devices (*EcoObs* Batcorder). Real time recordings were subsequently analyzed using BatSound v4.03 and statistical algorithm analysis was carried out using *EcoObs* BcAdmi, BatIdent and BcAnalyze software to provide an unbiased discrimination of species onsite. ## Weather Conditions And Timing 33. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions weather (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / <1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over space and time. ## 3 Results  Designated Sites 34. There are no international or national statutory designations within 2km of the application site, although a number of non- statutory designations and woodland inventories were recorded within the search radius.  Protected species 35. National Biodiversity Network and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) records show that 12 of the 17 resident UK bat species occur in the county, although none are recorded within a 2km radius, However the landscape is highly suitable for bats and considered as being under-recorded rather than absent. Pre-survey data finds seven British bat species are currently given UK BAP (2007) Priority Species Status. UKBAP Common name Species County  BROWN LONG-EARED BAT Plecotus auritus   BARBASTELLE BAT Barbastella barbastellus   BECHSTEIN'S BAT Myotis bechsteinii   NOCTULE Nyctalus noctula   GREATER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus ferrumequinum   LESSER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus hipposideros   SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pygmaeus  36. A further four/five bat species that are not currently given UK BAP consideration are also recorded within the county.  NATTERER'S BAT Myotis Nattereri   DAUBENTON'S BAT Myotis daubentonii   WHISKERED/ BRANDT BAT Myotis mystacinus/brandtii   COMMON PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pipistrellus  ## 37. Derbyshire Ecological Data Records Show No Red And Amber Lists Of Birds Of Conservation Concern (BoCC) present within 2km of the application area or Schedule 1 listed birds including Barn owl. ##  Habitat Description 38. The application area falls within the Peak District National Park Management Plan which consists of a highly diverse area of land that ranges from ancient semi-natural and replanted woodland, moorland, lowland meadows, wet heath moor & boglands, stream valleys and washlands. Over a third of the national park has SSSI designation and 95% of these designated sites are now in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition, compared with 28% of sites in 2003. 39. As part of the wider landscape, the site is located north of the small hamlet Bagshaw to the east of Chapel-en-le-Frith in the Peak District of Derbyshire. The site is accessed along a main track off Blackbrook Lane via Bagshaw and comprises of "Pinfold Farm" itself, and a series of curtilage buildings including the two storey surveyed building with an attached cinderblock single story section on the eastern aspect forming part of "J Dawson's Sheds". 40. There is good connectivity to the surrounding landscape, which is composed of agricultural land, connected by hedgerows with several valuable resources, such as woodland blocks, Ancient woodland (Birchenlow Plantation 850m to N) and lowland meadows (in a 2km radius of the proposed application area for local bat and bird populations). ##  Roost Survey 41. The proposed planning application considers a main two-storey stone building with pitched roof and an attached flat roof single storey cinderblock extension on the west elevation. The overall dimensions of the building is ca. 23.05m x 6.5m. 42. The roof section was found to be formed entirely of corrugated asbestos sheet roofing, which is not considered as being conducive for the thermoregulation requirements of crevice-dwelling bat species, being highly labile to thermal fluctuations on a daily basis. 43. Conversely, the building was noted as having numerous gaps and crevices present around external stone work and roof verges, with a number of ventilation brick-slits present on the south elevation. 44. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded on the external inspection. 45. The building can be accessed internally by the doorways on both east and western elevations (the latter leading into the cinderblock section). The cinderblock section is in current use for stabling livestock. 46. The area was seen to be well illuminated with a flat corrugated sheet roof exposed on the underside. The original section of the stone farm building is largely open to roof height, with an open first floor roof void present above a tack room on the southern elevation. 47. The open section was found to be voluminous with timber truss work exposed at height, providing high potential as a feeding station or sheltered swarming areas for pre-emergent void dwelling bat species (i.e. brown long-eared bat). Once again, the internal roof void was seen to be highly illuminated by natural daylight ingress through window / skylight areas along the east and western elevations, with evidence of missing sections of corrugated roofing. 48. The underside of the corrugated roof was found to be exposed with no intermediary layers present, limiting potential and overall suitability for any roost permanency in this area. The farm building was also found to be utilized by domestic 'farm' cats thus reducing potential further due to increase potential of predation. 49. No evidence of bats or Barn owl was recorded during the internal inspection. Minor historic evidence of individual nesting passering birds and European Swallow were recorded. ##  Overall Building Rating 50. Overall the building unit(s) subject to development is considered as having LOW TO MODERATE potential for roosting bats overall. Whilst, the original building pertains to a large number of crack and crevices in-and-around the original stone-work, the overall roof fabrication is not considered conducive to the thermoregulation requirements of roosting bats. Furthermore, the building is well illuminated, subject to frequent disturbance/visitation and is also used to house five domestic farm cats, thus reducing overall potential for roosting bats. ##  Activity Surveys 51. Based on current legislation and guidelines, two activity surveys (1 x dusk / 1 x dawn) were subsequently carried out around the structure. All surveys were carried out during optimal survey conditions (Temp: >8°C / Nil Precipitation / <1 wind), with a minimum interval of two weeks between surveys to allow for stochastic events over time and space. SUNSET: 21:39hrs TEMP START 14°C CLOUD COVER START 20% START TIME 21:20hrs TEMP FINISH 12 °C CLOUD COVER FINISH 20% FINISH TIME 23:15hrs WIND SPEED <1 PRECIPITATION NIL SUNRISE: 04:53hrs TEMP START 10°C CLOUD COVER START 30% START TIME 02:15hrs TEMP FINISH 11.5°C CLOUD COVER FINISH 20% FINISH TIME 04:10hrs WIND SPEED <1 PRECIPITATION NIL ##  Roosts 52. No evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded *in-situ* within the building subject to development. Regular internal inspection of the roof void during the dusk survey period recorded no evidence of pre-emergent, void-dwelling bat species. 53. Conversely, a single common pipistrelle was visually seen as showing some affinity to an external wall on the SW facing cinderblock mono-pitched roof section shortly before dawn, where a prominent cavity is present (Fig. 11). This bat made circumnavigated around this area, landing once on the wall before then vacating off site in a NW direction. 54. Activity surveys recorded low levels of solitary commuting and foraging common pipistrelle briefly around site during both survey periods. Most notably, common noctule were visually recorded commuting and foraging in tandem over site, during both survey periods. Early presence around dawn and dusk would strongly infer the presence of roost nearby, although not considered as being present within the application area itself. Given the number of impressive mature trees present around the area, it is considered a tree roost is highly likely, although not within the ZoI. 55. No evidence of Schedule 1 listed birds were recorded during the survey periods. ## 4 Impact Assessment  Constraints On Survey Information 56. No survey constraints were encountered during the survey periods, and overall assessment was considered as being robust and representational of the building(s) current potential for bats and birds.  Designated sites 57. The scheme retains the existing size and physical form of the existing building (s) footprint with no additional land up-take considered. There are no Statutory or Non-Statutory designated sites considered being immediately within the zone of influence of the proposed development, and no impact to conservation sites or the wider landscape is predicted. ##  Roosts 58. Whilst the report is confident that no bat roosts of high conservation status are currently present onsite, there was evidence of single common pipistrelle showing a degree of affinity to the cinderblock section shortly before dawn, although not confirmed as roosting. Pipistrelle bats show lower fidelity to their roosts than other synanthropic species and are known to roost-switch (Dietz et al. 2009). In the absence of mitigation low impact on a transient day roost for solitary pipistrelle bats over space and time is considered possible but not absolute. Synanthropic species such as Pipistrelle bats for example are crevice roosters, and are known to move between roost sites (such as maternity roosts). These bats may find it easier to locate suitable new roosts as their requirements are not as specific as other species ). ## Mitigation Assessment Type and scale of works and predicted impacts on bats Redevelopment / partial removal with roofing works considered - In the absence of mitigation short-term LOW IMPACT to individual, transient crevice dwelling bat species is predicted but not considered certain. Size, nature and complexity of the development site A single phased small-scale development of low complexity LOW Likelihood of bats being present or affected Type of roost and/or habitat affected. NEGLIGBIBLE TO LOW IMPACT considered for transient common pipistrelle "Day roost" although no permanent roost recorded permanently onsite. No impact is to major foraging and commuting habitat for bats is predicted under the proposed scheme, although consideration should be given to any post development lighting that may have deleterious effects on the adjacent habitats through light pollution 59. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and no impact is predicted.  Foraging and commuting habitat 60. It is considered that the scale of the proposed redevelopment would have negligible impact on foraging and commuting habitat for bats overall, with no alteration to existing landscape / habitat proposed. Conversely, the air space above the site was found to be used as a main flight route for common noctule thus consideration should be given to any post development lighting and deleterious effects caused through sky glow and light spill onto adjacent habitats (see recommendations). ## 5 Recommendations  Further Survey 61. Assessment onsite was undertaken during an optimal survey period and considered to be robust and representative of protected species currently onsite. NO further survey effort regarding bats is considered. 62. **NO** further survey recommendations are considered for protected bird species (including Barn Owl).  Mitigation licenses 63. As no evidence of any high conservation status bat roost(s) was recorded in the building subject to development, it will not be necessary to apply for a mitigation licence from Natural England. However, as there is tentative evidence that the building may have some transient use by individual pipistrelle bats over space and time, it is recommended that the following site-safeguard measures are made a condition of the Planning consent. ## Site Safe-Guard Recommendations  Timing Of Works 64. Best practice guidelines recommend that any works which encroach into the roof section area should ideally be carried out during autumn/winter (late Sept to Oct) to early spring (Jan to March) to avoid the likelihood of individual roosting bats. In this instance, starting such works late September end would allow any individual bats to naturally disperse under their own volition, should they be present, whilst there are still sufficient resources in the surrounding landscape for bats to utilize prior to the onset of winter. 65. Before ANY work commences, ALL building contractors would be made aware of the possible presence of ## Bats Within The Building Subject To Redevelopment, Their Legal Protection And Of Working Practices To Avoid Harming Bats. Soft Demolition Under Supervision 66. It is proposed that a soft demolition approach of the cinderblock building section and inspection of any cavities before any re-pointing is carried out under supervision by a suitably qualified Ecologist until he/she considers the building to be free of any bats. 67. Thereafter , should individual roosting bats be encountered (or suspicion arise of their whereabouts), then ALL works must cease immediately. The acting ecologist should then reassess the structure and determine whether a mitigation licence from Natural England will be required before any further works can commence thereafter.  Receptor box 68. In the unlikely event that bats are encountered during works, a **receptor bat box** (Schwegler 2FN) should be suitably installed onsite, being well outside the zone of influence of the proposed development and prior to any works commencing. Depending on the circumstances, the use of standard capture and exclusion methods may be necessary for safe-guarding. This should be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist only. ##  Roost Compensation 69. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, development proposals should seek, where possible, to enhance opportunities available to local bat populations. To compensate for any inadvertent loss of roosting features for crevice-dwelling bats, it is recommended that two (2no.) Schwegler 1FQ external bat boxes are fitted at height onto opposing SW and NE elevations. 70. Further information of increasing biodiversity prospects for roosting bats can be found on the Bat Conservation Trust website: http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/new_build.html. ##  Foraging And Commuting Habitat 71. Should the application consider any additional post development lighting onsite, then the use of low energy LED lighting to minimize light spill around the building should be incorporated where possible. Alternatively, Low-pressure sodium lamps (SOX) are recommended, which should be fitted with hoods to direct the light below the horizontal plane to minimize light-spill. Any security lighting should be less than 200 lumens (150 watts) and placed on a timer setting and faced down to reduce sky glow. Height of any columns around the development should not exceed eight metres. ## Birds 72. Consideration should be given to nesting birds which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Works should ideally be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). Where this is not possible, then a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by an ecologist prior to works. 73. Should any active bird nests be found, then these should be left undisturbed until offspring have fully fledged. It may be necessary to enforce an exclusion work zone of 5m to reduce disturbance and minimize potential displacement of nesting birds. 74. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and NO further recommendations are considered. 75. It is recommended that a minimum of five pre-formed "cup-shaped nests" are integrated within the design of the development where possible for European Swallow. These should be placed internally at height (preferably on beams), being at least 1m apart. Provision can also be made in open-fronted logsheds, car ports or porches. 76. If this is not possible then installation of external eaves/ridge overhang boxes with an open bottom and ledges for swallows to nest on should be implemented as an alternative. Further guidance from a suitably qualified ecologist should be sought in this event. 77. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, it is also recommended that a minimum of four bird nesting boxes (suitable for different species) should also be incorporated into the final scheme, being fitted to either mature trees or to external elevation of buildings where possible 78. Bird nesting boxes should be positioned at ca. 2-4m above ground level where possible. 79. Further information regarding nest boxes can be found on the RSPB website: http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/helpingbirds/nestboxes/smallbirds/siting.aspx  Landscaping 80. Should any landscaping be considered at a later date, then it is recommended that only native tree and shrub species are planted. In particular, no plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be planted during any landscaping around the conversions. - For further details of Schedule 9 plants visit the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifepets/non- native. ## References - Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London. - Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37). London: HMSO. - Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. & Nill, D. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London: A. C. Black. - HMSO (1995): Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, Volume 2:Action Plans, London. - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation . The Stationery Office, Norwich. - RSPB (2002) The Population Status of Birds in the UK 2002-2007 - Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology, Zool. Soc. Lond. Symposium abstracts. - The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 . SI 2010/490. SI 2007/1843, London: HMSO. - UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007). UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on 20th October 2010]. ## Appendices Appendix 3 - Policy Guidelines PAS 2010 The published 'PAS 2010' 'Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity' which is the government's new policy aimed at all authorities and developers involved in the planning process in the UK to halt biodiversity decline by 2010 and deliver net biodiversity gains as part of the green infrastructure provisions. ## National Planning Policy Framework, Section 11: The recently published framework in 2012, replaces the previous Planning Policy Statement 9. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining green belt protections and preventing urban sprawl, retains the protection of designated sites and preserves wildlife, aims to improve the quality of the natural environment, and halt declines in species and habitats, protects and enhances biodiversity and promotes wildlife corridors. ## Article 10 Of The Ec Habitats Directive: The published Article requires government to develop features such as 'stepping stones' on the landscape, such as clusters of ponds, tracts of rough grassland or scrubland and vegetated railway line embankments. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the European Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal to possess or control any live or dead specimens, to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter, protection or breeding, and to intentionally disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. ## Conservation Of Habitats And Species Regulations (2010) Natural Environment And Rural Communities Act (2006) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, in respect of England and Wales. It is an offence to possess, sell or offer, or transport for sale any European species of bat or any part derived from such a species. These Regulations also remove the 'incidental result defence'. In other words, it is no longer a defence to show that the killing, capture or disturbance of a species covered by the Regulations or the destruction or damage of their breeding sites or resting places was the incidental and unavoidable result of a lawful activity. Natural England can grant European Protected Species (EPS) licences in respect of development to permit activities that would otherwise be unlawful. Bird legislation Most resident nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects birds, nests, eggs and nestling's. Some rarer species, such as barn owls, are afforded extra protection. Table A. Policy guidelines. Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), public bodies, including Local and Regional Planning Authorities, have a duty to 'have regard' to the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications. In compliance with Section 41 of the Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England. This is known as The England Biodiversity List, all of which make up the UK BAP Priority Species. Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species that should be afforded priority to maintain, restore and enhance species and habitats.

en

1064-pdf

## તૈયાર થઈ અને યથાસ્થાને ગોઠવો સૂચનાઓ શરૂ કરતા પહેલાં, ખાતરી કરો કે તમે... અમારી સૂચનાઓનો વિડિઓ જૂઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample આ સંપૂર્ણ સૂચનાઓ વાંચો તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ કેવી રીતે કરવી તે જૂઓ જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample ## તમારી કિટમાં શું છે? ઢાંકણ ઘણુ બધુ પાણી પીઓ તૈયારી સમયે જલયોજિત (હાઈડ્રેટેડ) થવાનું કરી શકો તે તમારા માટે શ્રેષ્ઠ કહેવાય - તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટની ઓછામાં ઓછી 30 મિનિટો પહેલાં 2 ગ્લાસીસ પાણી પીઓ. ## એલ્કોહોલ લૂછણિયુ (વાઈપ) સંગ્રહ કરવા માટેનું ટબ પ્લાસ્ટર્સ X 2 CLEANSING WIPE શનિવારે, તમારી કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ કરશો નહિ, અથવા પોસ્ટ કરશો (નહિ), - તે પોસ્ટમાં લાંબો વખત પડી રહેશે. કોઈ પણ બીજો દિવસ સારો રહે. પૂર્વચૂકવણીવાળુ સાફ કરવાનું લૂછણિયુ લાન્સિટ (ચીરવા માટે મેડિકલનું પરબીડિયુ અણીવાળુ સાધન) x3 સ્વચ્છ પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ કાર્ડબોર્ડ બોકસ ## રવાના કરવાના ફોર્મ ઉપર ટયૂબનું લેબલ 1. તૈયાર રહો 1. શરૂ કરતાં પહેલાં તપાસ કરો કે કિટ તમને સંબોધિત ## કરવામાં આવેલ છે. તમે શરૂ કરો તે પહેલાં ગરમ પાણીનો બોલ કે વાટકો અને સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ લો રવાના કરવા માટેનું ફોર્મ 2. કોઈ એક નીચા (લો) ટેબલ ઉપર તમારી કિટ રાખો. 3. કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ અને ગરમ પાણીનો બોલ લો. 4. 20 સેકન્ડો માટે તમારા હાથો સાબુ સાથે ધૂઓ અને કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટોવેલથી સૂકા કરો. V2.5p - છેલ્લી સમીક્ષા નવેમ્બર 2020 માં કરેલ બીજી ભાષાઓમાં પ્રશ્નો અથવા સૂચનાઓ માટે, અહીં જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-blood-sample પૂરતો સમય બાજુએ રાખો તૈયાર થવા આશરે 30 મિનિટસનો તમારો સમય માટે આપો, યથાસ્થાને ગોઠવો કે મૂકો અને તમારો નમૂનો એકત્રિત કરો - ખાસકરીને જો આ તમાર ું પહેલીવખત હોય. થોડીક હળવી કસરત કરો જમ્પિંગ જેકસ કરો, અથવા તમારા હાથ ઝુલાવી (સ્વિંગ) અને એક મિનિટ માટે મુષ્ટિ (ફિસ્ટ) સજ્જડ કરો (જો તેમ કરવાનું તમારા માટે સલામત હોય તો) - આથી તમાર ું લોહી ફરવામાં મદદરૂપ બને છે. 2. 324-ul 3 316491 3. 4164 434 41 1. તમારા આખા હાથને ગરમ પાણીના બોલમાં 1. ટયૂબમાંથી ઢાંકણને દૂર કરો. 2. કાર ્ડબોર ્ડ બોકસના ઉપરના ભાગમાંના સ્લોટ કે (આશરે નહાવાના ઉષ્ણતામાને હોય) 2 મિનિટો માટે મૂકો. ત્યારબાદ કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂથી તમારા હાથ સૂકા કરો. નિયત કરેલ જગ્યાનો ઉપયોગ કરી ટયૂબને ઉભી- સીધી રાખો. 2. સમગ્ર પ્રક્રિયા માટે ઊભા રહો (પણ જો તમને મૂર્છા 3. પ્લાસ્ટર તૈયાર કરો કે જેથી તે તમારી આંગળી ઉપર ફટ દઈને (પોપ અપ) આવવા તૈયાર રહે. જેવુ લાગે તો, બેસી જાઓ - અને જો તમે કોઈ એક સાથે રહેતા હો તો, તેઓની મદદ માટે વિનંતી કરો). લાહીને વહેવા દેવા માટે તમરા હાથ અવશ્ય તમારી કોણી કરતાં નીચા રાખો. નીચે દબાવો x ## 3. ટ્યૂબને મિશ્ર કરો 2. ટયૂબ કે નળીને ભરો 1. કોઈ એક સ્વચ્છ ટિશ્યૂ સાથે લોહીના પહેલા ટીંપાને લૂછી ## 1. લાન્સિટનો (ચીરવા માટે મેડિકલનું અણીવાળુ સાધન) ઉપયોગ કરો નાખો. 1. એલ્કોહોલના લૂછણિયા સાથે તમારી આંગળી સાફ કરો 2. દર 3 થી 4 સેકંડે તમારા હાથને નીચેની ગતિમાં જોરથી ટયૂબમાં **600 લાઈન** કે લીટી સુધી ભરો. જો તમે ફકત 400 લીટી સુધી ભરશો તો, તે ઓકે બરાબર રહેશે. કેપને ટયૂબ ઉપર રાખો. **જયાં સુધી તે ક્લિક થાય** ત્યાં સુધી તેને દબાવો. 1. હળવેથી ટયૂબને ઊ ંધી કે ઉપરના ભાગને ફેરવો. ટયૂબમાં - અમે ભલામણ કરીએ છીએ કે તમારા ઉપયોગમાં નહિ લેવામાં આવતા હાથની ત્રીજી આંગળીનો ઉપયોગ કરો. 2. લાન્સિટના નીચેના ભાગમાં રક્ષણાત્મક ટિપ કે અણીને મસાજ કરો. તમારા હાથની હથળેથી શરૂઆત કરી તમારી આંગળી સુધી નીચે આવો. પણ જયાં છેદ કે વિંધવામાં આવ્યુ હોય ત્યાં દાબશો નહિ અથવા તે તમારા નમૂનાને કદાચ બગાડી શકે. દૂર કરવાઃ ટિપને વળ ચડાવો કે ટવિસ્ટ (એક સંપૂર્ણ વળાંક કે ટર્ન) અને ત્યારબાદ તેને આખી બહાર ખેંચો. 600 લાઈન કે લીટી સુધી ભરો. જો તમે ફકત 400 લીટી સુધી ભરશો તો, તે ઓકે બરાબર રહેશે. કેપને ટયૂબ ઉપર રાખો. જયાં સુધી તે ક્લિક થાય ત્યાં સુધી તેને દબાવો. 1. ઓછામાં ઓછી 10 વખત ટયૂબને ઊ ંધીચતી કરશો. 3. જો લોહી વહેતુ બંધ થાય તો, લોહીના પ્રવાહને ઉદીપ્ટ 3. કોઈ એક કઠણ સપાટી ઉપર તમારા હાથનો ઉપરનો ખાતરી કરશો કે લોહી ટયૂબની બાજુએ સ્પર્શ કરે છે. ભાગ (ટેબલના ઉપરના ભાગ માફક) મૂકો. 2. જયારે મિશ્ર કરવામાં આવે ત્યારે જો લોહીનું ધનીકરણ ## 4. તમારી આંગળીની ટોચના બહારના કેન્દ્ર ઉપર લાન્સિટને નીચે દબાવો (સોલિડિફાઈ) થાય તો ચિંતિત બનશો નહિ. આવુ બનવાની ધારણા રાખવામાં આવે છે. 5. **જયાં સુધી તમે ક્લિક અવાજ સાંભળો ત્યાં સુધી** કરવા (સ્ટિમ્યૂલેટ) છેદ કરવામાં આવેલ આંગળીને લૂછવા દબાણનો ઉપયોગ કરો. જો આ કાર્ય ન કરે તો, અને તે **2 મિનિટો કરતા વધારે સમય** થયો છે તો, તમારા **હાથને ફરીથી ગરમ- હુંફવાળા** કરી અને બીજી આંગળીને છેદ કરવા નવા લાન્સિટનો ઉપયોગ કરો. 3. લોહી વહેવાનું બંધ કરવા માટે આંગળી ઉપર દબાણ જાંબૂડિયા (પર્પલ) **બટન ઉપર જોરથી દબાવો**. તમે દરેક લાન્સિટનો ફકત એકજ વાર ઉપયોગ કરી શકો. લાવો, સ્વચ્છ કરતા લૂછણિયાથી સાફ કરી, અને પ્લાસ્ટર લગાવો. 4. ઢોળાયેલ કે વેરાયેલ લોહીને તાત્કાલિક સાફ કરી અને આજુબાજુના વિસ્તારને જંતુમુકત કરશો. ## લેબલ અને પોસ્ટ 1 4 1. પરત કરેલ ફોર્મમાંથી **તમારા ટયૂબ લેબલને ઉખાડી** અને અને સ્ટિકી બેકીંગ ઉપર ફ્લેપને **ફોલ્ડ-કરો કે** વાળો. મધ્યમાંથી બહાર સુધી દબાવી સારી રીતે સીલ કરો. 4. પૂર્વચૂકવણીવાળા પરબીડિયામાં બોકસને મૂકો. 5. NHS લોગો સાથે અગ્રતાવાળા પોસ્ટબોકસમાં 3 તમારી ટયૂબની આજુબાજુમાં **વીંટો** કે લગાવો. ખાતરી કરો કે છાપેલ કોડ જોઈ શકાય તેમ હોય છે. ## 3. તમારા પરત કરવાના ફોર્મ ઉપર સમય અને તારીખ 2. નમૂનો ટ્રેનસ્પોર્ટ કરવા માટે 95 kPa લેબલવાળી સ્વચ્છ ભરો. જે બોકસમાંથી તમારી કિટ આવેલ હોય તેમાં ફોર્મ અને સ્વચ્છ પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ (ટયૂબના સમાવેશ સાથે) મૂકી અને બંધ કરો. તમારો નમૂનો મૂકો. તમારા સૌથી નજીકના અગ્રતાવાળા બોકસ માટે www.royalmail.com/servicesnear-you. માહિતી મેળવો. જો તમને સુરક્ષિતરીતે અગ્રતાવાળા બોકસ સુધી જઈ ન શકો તો, તમારા સ્થાનિક પોસ્ટબોકસનો ઉપયોગ કરશો. પ્લેસ્ટિક બેગ મેળવો. લાન્સિટ અને ટયૂબ સ્લોટ મારફતે મૂકો - કે જે યલો - પીળા સ્ટિકર વચ્ચે મળશે. આવી બેગનો ઉપરનો ભાગ સપાટ હોવાથી, સ્ટિકરને દૂર કરી ## 6. તમામ ઉપકરણોનો સલામત રીતે નિકાલ કરો. ચિહ્નો | સૂર્યપ્રકાશથી દૂર રહો | ઉપયોગ માટે સૂચનાઓની સલાહ લો | |------------------|-----------------------| | વરસાદથી દૂર રહો | યૂરપિઅન અનુસરણ (કોનફોર્મિટિ) | | ફરીથી ઉપયોગ ન કરવો | ઉત્પાદક | | ઉષ્ણતામાન મર્યાદા 25ºC | બેચ કોડ | ઈન વિટ્રો ડાયગ્નોસ્ટિક તબીબી સાધન તારીખ સુધીના ઉપયોગ માટે ટયૂબો તપાસો • આ એક ઈન વિટ્રો ડાયગ્નોસ્ટિક તબીબી સાધન છે. • તમારી કિટમાં પૂરા પાડવામાં આવેલ સાધનનો ફકત ઉપયોગ કરો. • આ કસોટી કે ટેસ્ટ ઓર્ડર કરનાર વ્યક્તિ દ્વારા અવશ્ય હાથ ધરવામાં આવવી જોઈએ અને લેબલ થવું જોઈએ. • ચેપના ચિહ્નો માટે ધ્યાન આપવુ જોઈએ. જો તમારા ધાની જગ્યા લાલ, ગરમ, અથવા સોજો થાય તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • આ કિટ 18 અને તેનાથી ઉપરની વયના લોકો માટે છે. • જો લોહી બંધ ન થાય તો જોરથી દબાણ આપી તમારા હાથ ઊચા કરો. જો આ કામ ન કરે તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • જો તમને મૂર્છા લાગે તો, સૂઈ જાઓ અને તમારા પગો ઊચા કરો. જો તમને અસ્વસ્થતા લાગવાનું ચાલુ રહે તો, તબીબી સલાહનો પ્રયત્ન કરો. • જો તમે એન્ટિકોએગ્યુલેશન (પ્રતિસ્કંદક) દવા લેતા હો તો વધારે લોહી નીકળવાનો જોખ - ભય રહે છે. • કિટને બાળકો, પ્રાણીઓ, સૂર્યના પ્રકાશ, આગ અને ધૂમાડાથી દુર રાખો. • જો બહારનું ઉષ્ણતામાન 25ºC થી ઉપર હોય તો તમારા નમૂનાને પોસ્ટ કરશો નહિ. • તે ખૂબજ અસંભવિત છે, પણ ગૂંચવણો થવાનો થોડોક જોખમ- ભય હોય છે - કે જેમાં ડાઘનો, હેમેટોમા (લોહીનો સંગ્રહ), જ્ઞાનતંતુને નુકસાન, અને નેક્રોસિસનો (ત્વચાના કોષોનું અકાળ મૃત્યુ) સમાવેશ થાય છે. ## પૂરતુ લોહી મળી શકે તેમ નથી? મદદ- સહાય માટે જાઓ www.gov.uk/taking-antibody-bloodsample. જો તમને નમૂનાના ભાગ- અંશનો નિકાલ કરવાની જરૂર રહે તો, સામાન્ય નમૂના માટે જેમ કરો તે પ્રમાણે પેક કરવા સૂચનાઓનો ઉપયોગ કરી (કે જેમાં પરબીડિયાનો સમાવેશ થાય છે). ત્યારબાદ ઘરગથ્થુ કચરામાં તે બધાનો નિકાલ કરો.

fi

3520-pdf

## | | | Tax | | Profit | | Rate | |------------------------------------|------------|-----------|---------|-----------|--------|--------------------| | Corporation tax | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | On policyholders' share of profits | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2016 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20.00% | | | 2017 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tax on policyholders' profit | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | nil | | | | | | | (A8) | | | | | | | | nil | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | On shareholders' profits | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2016 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 21,016.20 | | 105,081 | 20.00% | | | | 2017 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 60,957.70 | | 320,830 | 19.00% | | | | | | | | | | | | Tax on shareholders' profits | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 82,063.90 | | | | | | | (A8) | | | | | | | | 425,911 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tax before DTR | | 82,063.90 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | DTR relief | | | | | | | | (B) | | | | | | | | (1,112) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (3,556.10) | | | | | Income Tax set off | | | | | | | | | | Corporation tax liability | | | | | | | | 77,395.80 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

en

2234-pdf

## 1 April - 30 June 2011 Meetings With External Organisations1 Permanent Secretary Department of Health, Una O'Brien Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Biomedicine Forum Regular Dinner meeting May 2011 Russell Reynolds To discuss current appointments May 2011 Stanton Marris Catch-up May 2011 Russell Reynolds To discuss current appointments May 2011 Stanton Marris To discuss current appointments NHS Chief Executive, David Nicholson Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Richmond Group comprising Rethink Mental Illness, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support, Alzheimer's Society, Age UK, Diabetes UK, British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation May 2011 Russell Reynolds Update Discussion June 2011 Mayor of London's Office Discussion on London Health June 2011 Russell Reynolds Update Discussion Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies DBE Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting April 2011 Academy of Medical Royal Colleges April 2011 MIND Discussion of Mental Health Issues May 2011 Wellcome Trust Update Research Capability Programme May 2011 British Medical Council Update on Clinical Excellence Awards May 2011 ASH and The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies June 2011 Southampton University General Update June 2011 Wellcome Trust General Update June 2011 Diabetes UK Discussion on rates of Diabetes June 2011 Faculty of Public Health Discussion on Pet Travel June 2011 Royal College of Physicians Discussion on Pet Travel June 2011 Royal College of General Practitioners 1 Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments and Agencies, non- ## Discussion on NHS Services for Patient Users Introductory Meeting Discussion on the Tobacco Plan Discussion on Pet Travel

en

2252-pdf

## Direct Payments City Of York Council Internal Audit Report 2017/18 Business Unit: Adult Social Care Responsible Officer: Assistant Director Adults and Social Care Service Manager: Head of Safeguarding & Mental Health Head of Adult Social Care Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services | Date Issued: 6 April | |------------------------| | Status: Final | | Reference: 11480/007 | | | ## Summary And Overall Conclusions Introduction Direct Payments are local health and social care payments for people who have been assessed as needing help from social services and who would prefer to arrange and pay for their own care and support rather than to receive services directly from the local authority. The aim of Direct Payments is to allow the service user greater choice and control through the flexibility of being able to purchase their own care package. The Care Act (2014) mandated Direct Payments for the first time in certain circumstances, effective from April 2015. Sections 31 to 33 of the Act set out the duties of local authorities in respect of these payments. Over £5 million in Direct Payments were made during 2016-17. As of 15 June 2017, the council has 264 Direct Payment customers. Of these 264 customers, 90 have self-managed accounts with 82 receiving payments via prepaid cards and eight receiving payments into a designated bank account. Following the move to a Personal Budget Model in October 2016, the remaining 174 customers have a managed account with a support provider on the council's approved provider list. Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system ensure that:  Self-managed, prepaid card accounts;  Designated personal bank accounts; and  Accounts managed by third party support providers are monitored and reconciled appropriately and support plans are reviewed to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the customer. The previous audit carried out in 2015-16 received a Limited Assurance opinion. This audit followed up the actions that were agreed to ensure that the issues and control weaknesses had been satisfactorily addressed. Key Findings It was found that Direct Payment accounts are not consistently monitored according to council policy. While reconciliations for managed and selfmanaged prepaid card accounts had been performed, they were not always timely. Reconciliations were largely accurate but some minor errors were observed with contingency items being omitted. The accounts of customers receiving their Direct Payment into a designated bank account are not subject to appropriate levels of monitoring. Just one of the nine accounts reviewed had been reconciled in line with policy and for four accounts there was no evidence available on Mosaic that any reconciliation had been performed. Some additional weaknesses in the carrying out of monitoring processes were also observed. Newly commissioned Direct Payments are monitored more consistently than was the case at the time of the previous audit but still only half of the accounts tested had been monitored at the intervals required by the Direct Payments policy. Furthermore, account surpluses and deficits are routinely identified but are not always acted upon. Finally, it was found that customer support plans are not routinely reviewed on an annual basis as is required by council policy with some reviews having been delayed for between four and 13 months. Overall Conclusions The arrangements for managing risk were satisfactory with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Reasonable Assurance. ## 1 Timeliness Of Reconciliations For Prepaid Card Accounts Issue/Control Weakness Risk The accounts of customers with prepaid cards are not monitored in accordance with council policy. Customers may misuse their Direct Payment or fail to pay their assessed contribution. Budget provision may be affected by the accrual of account surpluses or failure to recover funds. Of the ten managed accounts tested, three had not been reconciled by October 2017 and thus were delayed at the time of audit testing. A further ten self-managed accounts were tested and none of these reconciliations had been completed within 12 months of the period up to which the previous reconciliation had been performed. While reconciliations for five accounts were not significantly delayed, for the remaining five reconciliations delays were significant (more than three months for one recently completed reconciliation) or were overdue at the time of audit testing with no evidence on Mosaic that they had been performed. The scheduling of account reconciliation will be managed by the Income Services Manager. Cases will be allocated to officers one month in advance of the review date. The working practice within Income Services has been to reconcile all accounts, including managed accounts. However, it is the responsibility of the support provider to undertake the reconciliation and delays in resolving managed account reconciliations has had the effect of delaying the commencement of self-managed account reconciliations. Income Services will no longer reconcile managed accounts. ## 2 Designated Bank Account Reconciliations Issue/Control Weakness Risk The accounts of customers who receive Direct Payments into a designated bank account are not reconciled in accordance with council policy. Based on the data provided there were nine Direct Payment customers who received the payments into a designated bank account at the time of audit testing. For five of these accounts there were no reconciliations available on Mosaic (although one account was opened in April 2017 and so the first reconciliation was not due at the time of audit testing). A further two accounts had been reconciled most recently in 2014 and 2015. Therefore, just one account had been reconciled in accordance with the council's Direct Payments policy. The Direct Payments policy will be presented to the Direct Payments Group for review and clarification will be sought regarding roles and responsibilities. Customers may misuse their Direct Payment or fail to pay their assessed contribution. Budget provision may be affected by the accrual of account surpluses or failure to recover funds. 2 Responsible Officer Head of Service - Adult Safeguarding, DoLS, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities May 2018 ## 3 Allowance For Agreed Contingencies Issue/Control Weakness Risk | Agreed contingency items are not routinely accounted for in reconciliations. | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | be able to meet employer obligations. | Of the 20 Direct Payment accounts tested, six did not employ a personal assistant and so a DP2 reconciliation report had not been submitted. In a further two cases, customers employed a personal assistant but had not submitted a DP2. No reconciliations were on file for one customer. This left a population of 11 accounts for which a DP2 form had been submitted and the full range of contingency costs could be reviewed. Of these 11 accounts, employers' liability insurance had not been factored into the reconciliation on four occasions despite being recorded on the DP2 form (employee holidays provided were also not factored into one of these reconciliations). More generally, support costs and other contingencies were found not to have been included on the DP2s submitted. This issue was observed in the 2015/16 audit but it is the responsibility of the customer, nominated person or support provider to provide this information. DP2s will be checked and returned to the customer, nominated person or support provider if information appears to be missing or where the DP2 and Audit Reconciliation worksheet do not match. An additional seven days will be allowed for the return of this information. ## 4 Account Monitoring Issue/Control Weakness Risk Newly commissioned Direct Payment accounts are not monitored with the frequency required by council policy. Financial loss to the council as the Direct Payment is used to pay for items which are not included in the customer's support plan. The customer fails to manage their finances correctly and thus has insufficient funds to meet their care needs. Only one of the 10 accounts initially tested had been monitored at two, four and sixth months after the Direct Payment was commissioned as per the Direct Payments policy. However, all accounts had at least been monitored once within six months from commissioning and nine accounts had been monitored twice within this period. Although not fully compliant with the policy, this represents a marked improvement from the previous audit whereby no new accounts were monitored before six months after commissioning. During the audit Income Services advised that the Direct Payment Monitoring workstep (the workflow item within the system which schedules account monitoring tasks) had not been configured until May 2017. Re-testing performed showed an increase in the performance of account monitoring from June 2017 onwards but still half of new or amended accounts had not been monitored at the frequency required by the Direct Payments policy. Action undertaken at 1.1 should go some way to improving this issue and a system will be put in place to check, on a weekly basis, that all new Direct Payments are correctly scheduled for monitoring every two months for the first six months. Approval has been obtained from the Assistant Director - Adults and Social Care and the Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services to remove the requirement for intensive monitoring during the first six months where a customer has previously had a successful Direct Payment in place. ## 5 Surplus Reclaims Issue/Control Weakness Risk Failure of Care Management to notify Income Services on a timely basis as to whether or not account surpluses can be reclaimed. If a surplus of over £50 after contingencies remains in a Direct Payment account following reconciliation, Income Services is required to notify Care Management as per the Escalation Policy. Care Management are expected to advise Income Services as to whether or not the surplus funds can be reclaimed (and, if not, reasons must be provided) within 28 working days. Responses to surplus notifications had been received from Care Management in seven instances of the ten identified surpluses tested. Six of these responses had been received within the 28 working day timescale while a response to one notification took 66 working days. A further two notifications had not received a response at the time of audit testing and five months have elapsed for both. In one case, Care Management was not required to send notification to Income Services as the Direct Payment had in fact ended. Therefore, three of nine surplus notifications did not receive a timely response from Care Management and, as such, surpluses have remained in the account for an extended period of time. The Direct Payments policy will be presented to the Direct Payments Group for review and clarification will be sought regarding roles and responsibilities. Direct Payment accounts accrue excessive surpluses, affecting the provision of the Direct Payments budget. ## 6 Communication Around Failure To Pay Customer Contribution | Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Failure to ensure that all customers pay their assessed contribution. | The care needs of the customer may not be able to be met if | | insufficient funds are in the account. | | The Direct Payment Escalation Policy requires that Income Services makes telephone contact with the customer or appointed person and then formal contact via letter where assessed contributions are not being paid. In eight of nine accounts identified as failing to pay the contribution, there was evidence to support the fact that this had been identified and challenged. However, this was not always directly to the customer (for example, a nominated person) as per the Escalation Policy and notifications to Care Management were not always provided or were not timely (after failure to pay the contribution had been confirmed following the most recent reconciliation). The accounts of seven of the customers had not been brought up to date at the time of audit testing. Identification of non-payment will have been as long ago as November 2016 for two of these accounts. The most recent reconciliations for the five other accounts were performed in February, May and June 2017 so have not been brought up to date for between three and seven months. The Escalation Policy requires that Income Services contact the customer to discuss failure to pay their contribution. If the contribution is not paid the case is then escalated to Care Management. However, Care Management has been unwilling to accept escalated cases unless Income Services has written to the customer. This has caused significant delay in the escalation process and in the resolution of account finances. The collection of contributions by invoice has been approved by Directorate Management Teams and is to be phased over the 2018/19 financial year to be fully implemented by 31 March 2019. All customer contributions from newly commissioned DPs will be collected by invoice from the start. ## 7 Annual Support Plan Review Issue/Control Weakness Risk | Support plans are not routinely reviewed every 12 months. | |--------------------------------------------------------------| | is no longer appropriate or proportionate. | For three of the 10 Direct Payment accounts tested it was observed that a review of the customer's support plan had not been undertaken on an annual basis and had in fact been significantly delayed by between four and as much as 13 months. Review of case notes and other correspondence on the customers' Mosaic files revealed that scheduling issues had been encountered by the Social Care Manager (e.g. due to customer illness) and that this had contributed to the delay in review. A further three reviews were technically delayed but each by less than one month and so these were considered acceptable. Overall, it appears that annual reviews are not always timely but that this can be complicated by difficulties experienced with scheduling meetings with customers. Nonetheless, some of the delays identified were unreasonable despite the difficulties encountered. It will be ensured that the importance of the annual support plan review is reflected in any review of the Direct Payment policy undertaken by the Direct Payments Group. Head of Service - Adult Safeguarding, DoLS, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities May 2018 ## Audit Opinions And Priorities For Actions Audit Opinions Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit. Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below. Opinion Assessment of internal control | High Assurance | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | Substantial | | Assurance | | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in | | operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | | | Reasonable | | Assurance | | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control | | environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major | | improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of | | key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. | | | ## Priorities For Actions Priority 1 A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. Priority 2 A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. Priority 3 The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.

en

1682-pdf

## Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 1: Woodland Area And Planting Release date: 24 September 2020 Coverage: United Kingdom Geographical breakdown: Country Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ ## Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 Key findings ........................................................................................ 4 1.1 Woodland Area ............................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Area of Woodland: 2020 ............................................................ 6 1.1.2 Area of woodland: changes over time .......................................... 8 1.1.3 Woodland area by ownership ..................................................... 11 1.2 Certified woodland area .................................................................. 13 1.3 Land use ....................................................................................... 16 1.4 National Forest Inventory ............................................................... 18 1.4.1 Woodland area by age: conifers ................................................. 18 1.4.2 Woodland area by age: broadleaves ........................................... 20 1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary .............................................. 22 1.4.4 Woodland area by species: conifers ............................................ 23 1.4.5 Woodland area by species: broadleaves ...................................... 25 1.4.6 Woodland area by species: summary .......................................... 28 1.4.7 Growing stock by species: conifers ............................................. 30 1.4.8 Growing stock by species: broadleaves ....................................... 32 1.5 Area of Farm Woodland .................................................................. 35 1.6 New planting and publicly funded restocking ..................................... 37 New planting .................................................................................... 37 Restocking ....................................................................................... 37 1.6.1 New planting ........................................................................... 39 1.6.2 Restocking .............................................................................. 44 1.7 Felling .......................................................................................... 48 Felling ............................................................................................. 48 Woodland loss .................................................................................. 49 1.7.1 Felling licences ......................................................................... 50 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices ................................................... 51 ## Introduction This chapter contains statistics on: - UK woodland area; - certified woodland area; - areas of new planting and restocking; and - felling. Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included in addition to UK totals. International comparisons are provided in the International Forestry chapter. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter. Figures on woodland area and certified woodland area at March 2020 and on new planting and restocking for the period 2019-20 were previously published in "Provisional Woodland Statistics: 2020 edition", released on 14 June 2020. Some figures for new planting in 2019-20 and for Statutory Plant Health Notices in Scotland have been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Woodland Areas and Planting: Felling section of the Sources chapter. A copy of all woodland area and planting tables, along with longer time series (where available) can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/statistics/data-downloads/. ## Key Findings The main findings are: - The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland. - Of the total UK woodland area, 0.86 million hectares (26%) is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Northern Ireland Forest Service. - The total certified woodland area in the UK at 31 March 2020 is 1.39 million hectares, including all Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales/Forest Service woodland. Overall, 43% of the UK woodland area is certified. - 13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20, with conifers accounting for 57% of this area. ## 1.1 Woodland Area Woodland is defined in UK forestry statistics as land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20%, or having the potential to achieve this. The definition relates to land use, rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are awaiting restocking are included as woodland. Further information, including how this UK definition compares with the international definition of woodland, is provided in the Sources chapter. Statistics on woodland area are used to inform government policy and resource allocation, to provide context to UK forestry and land management issues and are reported to international organisations. They are also used in the compilation of natural capital accounts. Increases in woodland area result from the creation of new woodland. This can be achieved through new planting or by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Further information is available in the section on New Planting. Decreases in woodland area result from the conversion of woodland to other land uses. Regulatory approval is usually required before trees can be felled. Felling approval will normally require the area to be restocked, but there are some cases in which trees may be permanently removed, generally for environmental reasons. The permanent removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development. Most public sector woodland is managed by Forestry England (FE), Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Forest Service (FS) in Northern Ireland. Other public sector woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) is included with privately owned woodland as "private sector" in this release. The Natural Resources Wales woodland areas relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures. ## 1.1.1 Area Of Woodland: 2020 The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2020 is estimated to be 3.2 million hectares (Table 1.1). Of this total, 1.5 million hectares (46%) is in Scotland, 1.3 million hectares (41%) is in England, 0.3 million hectares (10%) is in Wales and 0.1 million hectares (4%) is in Northern Ireland. Conifers account for around one half (51%) of the UK woodland area, although this proportion varies from around one quarter (26%) in England to around three quarters (74%) in Scotland. thousand hectares Forest type and ownership1,2 England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers FE/FLS/NRW/FS 151 98 426 55 730 Private sector 190 54 653 8 905 Total 340 152 1,079 64 1,635 Broadleaves FE/FLS/NRW/FS 64 19 41 7 131 Private sector 907 138 347 48 1,440 Total 971 158 388 55 1,571 Total FE/FLS/NRW/FS 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector 1,097 192 1,000 56 2,345 Total 1,311 309 1,467 118 3,206 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 4. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 5. Broadleaves include coppice and coppice with standards. ## 1.1.2 Area Of Woodland: Changes Over Time The 3.2 million hectares of woodland in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.1) represents 13% of the total land area. This comprises 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland (Table 1.2). per cent of land area1 Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 10862 ~15 .. .. .. .. c13502 ~10 .. ~4 .. .. 17thC2,3 ~8 .. ~4 ~1.5 .. 19053 5.2 4.2 4.5 1.1 4.7 1924 5.1 5.0 5.6 1.0 5.0 19473 5.8 6.2 6.6 1.7 5.9 1965 6.8 9.7 8.4 3.1 7.4 1980 7.3 11.6 11.8 4.9 9.0 1995-99 8.4 13.8 16.4 6.0 11.3 19984 9.5 14.4 16.7 6.0 12.0 20205,6 10.1 14.9 18.8 8.6 13.2 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. Percentage of the total surface area excluding inland water. The total surface areas, excluding inland water, are taken from the UK Standard Area Measurements (published by the Office for National Statistics). 2. Estimates for England and Scotland before 1905 come from a variety of sources, including the Domesday Survey of England, Scottish Woodland History (TC Smout ed, 1997) and Roy maps c1750. 3. For Northern Ireland, 17th century figure is estimate for all Ireland, 1905 figure is estimate for Province of Ulster 1908, 1947 figure assumes no change from 1939-40 Census. 4. 1998 figures shown for England, Wales and Scotland have been revised from those originally published to produce estimates that are consistent with subsequent data from the National Forest Inventory. 5. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 6. Figures for Northern Ireland are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 7. .. Denotes data not available. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. UK has risen by around 290 thousand hectares since 1998, an increase of 10% over the period. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. Woodland areas for England, Wales and Scotland shown in this figure are based on data from the National Forest Inventory. The trends shown take account of areas of new planting and identifiable permanent woodland loss. Areas of woodland loss that are not yet identifiable (e.g. conversion of woodland for the restoration of open habitats) are not accounted for. Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. 2. Figures for 1998 to 2009 for England, Wales and Scotland were revised from those initially published, to produce results that are consistent with the National Forest Inventory and enable comparisons over time. ## 1.1.3 Woodland Area By Ownership Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland owned or managed 27% of the total woodland area in the UK in 2020 (Table 1.3). This proportion ranged from 16% of the woodland area in England to 53% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Ownership England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FE/FLS/NRW/ FS woodland1 2016 215 117 470 62 864 2017 214 117 469 62 863 2018 214 117 470 62 863 2019 215 117 468 62 862 2020 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector woodland2 2016 1,091 190 965 50 2,295 2017 1,092 191 968 50 2,301 2018 1,093 192 976 50 2,311 2019 1,094 192 988 51 2,326 2020 1,097 192 1,000 56 2,345 Total woodland 2016 1,305 307 1,435 112 3,159 2017 1,306 308 1,438 112 3,164 2018 1,307 309 1,446 113 3,175 2019 1,309 309 1,456 113 3,187 2020 1,311 309 1,467 118 3,206 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, National Forest Inventory. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to woodland formerly owned/managed by FC Wales. 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland. 3. Figures for England, Wales and Scotland are based on data obtained from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and adjusted for new planting, but at present no adjustment is made for woodland recently converted to another land use. Further information on how the figures have been estimated is available in the Sources chapter. 4. Northern Ireland figures are obtained from the Northern Ireland Woodland Register. 5. Areas as at 31 March. ## 1.2 Certified Woodland Area Certified woodland in the UK has been independently audited against the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. Forestry certification schemes are owned by international non-governmental organisations and exist to promote good forest practice. They offer product labels to demonstrate that wood or wood products come from well-managed forests. Figures for certified woodland areas are often used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. However, it should be noted that woodland that is not certified may also be managed sustainably. Most changes to the certified woodland area figures over time are a result of new areas being certified or certificates not being renewed upon expiry. Temporary changes can also occur if there is a time lag between expiry and renewal. Statistics on certified timber are provided in Chapter 2. 1.39 million hectares of woodland in the UK were certified in March 2020 (Table 1.4). This represented 43% of the total UK woodland area, 25% in England, 47% in Wales, 59% in Scotland and 55% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Ownership England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FE/FLS/NRW/FS woodland1 215 117 467 62 861 Private sector woodland2 109 29 392 3 533 Total woodland area certified 323 146 859 66 1,394 Source: Forest Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privately owned woodland. 3. All certified woodland in 2020 is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes. 4. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. 5. All Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales WGWE/Forest Service woodland is certified. The Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/ Welsh Government Woodland Estate /Forest Service areas are the latest areas, as shown in Table 1, rather than the areas shown on certificates. Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads webpage. Figure 1.2 presents certified woodland area by country since December 2001, with figures for earlier years revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. This shows an increase in certified woodland area of around 330 thousand hectares (31%) since December 2001, with most of this increasing occurring in the early 2000s. The 1.39 million hectares of certified woodland in the UK at March 2020 represents a 0.4% decrease on the previous year. Notes: 1. All certified woodland is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme, with many woodlands certified under both schemes. 2. The estimates are based on UK data published by FSC and PEFC, supplemented by data from individual certificates and other sources. Where possible, figures are for the woodland area certified, rather than the land area certified. 3. Figures for earlier years were revised for consistency with results from the National Forest Inventory. ## 1.3 Land Use Not all land that is owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland is woodland; other land uses include agricultural land, mountain areas and moorland. The woodland areas and land areas shown for Natural Resources Wales relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. There is approximately 900 hectares of woodland on National Nature Reserves and other land managed by Natural Resources Wales that is not included in the Natural Resources Wales figures. Woodland accounted for 79% of all Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service land in the UK at 31 March 2020 (Table 1.5). This proportion was highest in Wales (95%) and lowest in Scotland (74%). thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Woodland 2016 215 117 470 62 864 2017 214 117 469 62 863 2018 214 117 470 62 863 2019 215 117 468 62 862 2020 215 117 467 62 861 Other land2 2016 38 7 170 13 228 2017 39 7 169 13 227 2018 39 6 169 13 227 2019 39 6 166 13 224 2020 39 6 166 13 224 Total land area 2016 253 124 640 75 1,092 2017 253 124 638 75 1,090 2018 253 123 639 75 1,090 2019 253 123 634 75 1,085 2020 253 123 634 75 1,085 Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales, FS: Forest Service (Northern Ireland). NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. "Other land" includes agricultural land and areas of moorland and mountain. 3. Areas as at 31 March. ## 1.4 National Forest Inventory This section contains interim results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI). The statistics are based on field survey data combined with information from the NFI woodland map, which is a spatial representation of woodland areas in Great Britain. Figures presented in this chapter are interim estimates at 31 March 2012, published in the NFI "50-year forecast of softwood timber availability" and "50- year forecast of hardwood timber availability" reports, released in April 2014. Both reports are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-andresources/national-forest-inventory/. The figures presented in Tables 1.6 to 1.9 (and Figures 1.3, 1.4a and 1.4b) relate to stocked areas. These differ from the woodland areas presented in earlier tables, as stocked areas exclude felled areas and (for private sector land) areas of integral open space. The figures on growing stock presented in Tables 1.10 and 1.11 form the basis for the softwood and hardwood availability forecasts (see Tables 2.4a and 2.4b). Further information on the National Forest Inventory is available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. ## 1.4.1 Woodland Area By Age: Conifers Table 1.6 presents the area of conifers, broken down by age class, ownership and country. 61% of the coniferous woodland area in Great Britain was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.6). A further 9% of stands were aged over 60 years. thousand hectares Age class (years) England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 0-20 33 24 76 134 21-40 38 25 145 208 41-60 39 25 111 176 61-80 12 7 25 44 81-100 4 1 6 11 100+ 1 0 3 4 All age classes 128 82 367 576 Private sector2 0-20 17 8 126 151 21-40 54 22 231 306 41-60 83 15 116 214 61-80 19 1 18 38 81-100 3 2 6 11 100+ 3 1 9 12 All age classes 179 47 505 732 Total 0-20 51 32 202 285 21-40 92 46 376 514 41-60 123 39 227 389 61-80 31 8 43 82 81-100 7 2 12 22 100+ 3 1 12 16 All age classes 307 129 872 1,308 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.2 Woodland Area By Age: Broadleaves Table 1.7 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by age class, ownership and country. Around one half (53%) of the broadleaved area was occupied by stands of 40 years old or younger (Table 1.7). More than one quarter (28%) of stands were aged over 60 years. thousand hectares Age class (years) England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 0-20 8 7 11 25 21-40 6 2 5 13 41-60 13 2 4 19 61-80 13 2 4 19 81-100 4 1 2 7 100+ 10 3 5 18 All age classes 54 16 32 102 Private sector2 0-20 217 30 84 332 21-40 227 33 84 344 41-60 145 22 58 225 61-80 117 15 22 154 81-100 92 11 9 112 100+ 51 10 7 67 All age classes 849 121 265 1,235 Total 0-20 225 37 95 357 21-40 232 36 90 357 41-60 157 24 63 244 61-80 130 17 26 173 81-100 97 12 11 119 100+ 61 12 12 85 All age classes 902 137 297 1,337 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 1.4.3 Woodland area by age: Summary Figure 1.3 presents the age profile of woodland in Great Britain for conifers and for broadleaves. It shows that broadleaves are more evenly distributed across the age classes than conifers. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014), (supporting data). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.4 Woodland Area By Species: Conifers Table 1.8 presents the area of conifers, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. Sitka spruce accounts for around one half (51%) of the conifer area in Great Britain (Table 1.8), followed by Scots pine (17%) and larches (10%). Sitka spruce is less dominant in England, accounting for just one quarter (26%) of the conifer area there. thousand hectares Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Sitka spruce 49 50 225 323 Scots pine 17 2 45 64 Corsican pine 27 2 2 30 Norway spruce 7 5 11 23 Larches 10 12 26 48 Douglas fir 10 5 5 20 Lodgepole pine 4 3 49 56 Other conifers 5 3 3 11 All conifers 128 82 367 576 Private sector2 Sitka spruce 32 27 282 341 Scots pine 45 1 109 154 Corsican pine 14 0 1 15 Norway spruce 21 3 15 38 Larches 30 8 39 78 Douglas fir 15 3 7 25 Lodgepole pine 3 1 39 44 Other conifers 19 2 8 29 All conifers 179 47 505 732 Total Sitka spruce 80 77 507 665 Scots pine 61 3 154 218 Corsican pine 40 2 3 46 Norway spruce 27 8 25 61 Larches 40 20 66 126 Douglas fir 25 9 12 46 Lodgepole pine 8 4 88 100 Other conifers 24 5 11 40 All conifers 307 129 872 1,308 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.5 Woodland Area By Species: Broadleaves Table 1.9 presents the area of broadleaves, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The most commonly occurring broadleaved species in Great Britain are birch (accounting for 18% of broadleaf woodland), oak (16%) and ash (12%) (Table 1.9). Birch is more dominant in Scotland, accounting for 43% of the broadleaf area there. thousand hectares Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Oak 16 3 3 21 Beech 13 2 1 15 Sycamore 1 0 0 2 Ash 3 1 0 4 Birch 6 2 11 19 Sweet chestnut 1 0 0 1 Hazel 0 0 0 1 Hawthorn 0 0 0 0 Alder 1 0 1 1 Willow 0 0 0 0 Other broadleaves 14 9 15 38 All broadleaves 54 16 32 102 Private sector2 Oak 151 23 23 198 Beech 59 5 15 78 Sycamore 74 9 21 105 Ash 120 18 15 153 Birch 90 11 116 217 Sweet chestnut 28 0 0 28 Hazel 64 14 8 86 Hawthorn 57 8 8 73 Alder 30 10 16 56 Willow 41 11 13 65 Other broadleaves 133 12 29 174 All broadleaves 849 121 265 1,235 Total Oak 167 26 26 219 Beech 72 6 15 94 Sycamore 75 9 22 106 Ash 123 19 16 157 Birch 96 12 128 236 Sweet chestnut 28 0 0 29 Hazel 65 14 8 87 Hawthorn 57 8 8 73 Alder 31 10 17 58 Willow 41 11 13 65 Other broadleaves 146 21 44 212 All broadleaves 902 137 297 1,337 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 4. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.6 Woodland Area By Species: Summary Figures 1.4a and 1.4b show that, whilst the conifer area is dominated by a small number of species (Sitka spruce and Scots pine together account for around two thirds of the conifer area), broadleaves are more varied. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. Stocked area only: excludes felled areas and (for private sector land) open space. 2. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.7 Growing Stock By Species: Conifers Growing stock is the volume of timber in living trees. It is also often referred to as the standing volume. Table 1.10 presents the volume of coniferous growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The total volume of coniferous growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 355 million m3 overbark standing (Table 1.10). Sitka spruce accounted for around one half (51%) of the conifer growing stock, followed by Scots pine (15%) and larches (10%). This largely reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.8). million m3 overbark standing Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Sitka spruce 8.9 11.1 52.1 72.0 Scots pine 4.0 0.5 8.8 13.3 Corsican pine 5.5 0.6 0.4 6.4 Norway spruce 1.7 1.5 3.5 6.7 Larches 1.7 2.7 4.8 9.2 Douglas fir 2.7 1.3 1.4 5.4 Lodgepole pine 0.8 0.6 8.2 9.6 Other conifers 1.5 1.1 1.0 3.6 All conifers 26.8 19.4 80.2 126.4 Private sector2 Sitka spruce 11.4 9.5 88.0 108.9 Scots pine 14.7 0.3 24.5 39.4 Corsican pine 4.7 0.2 0.3 5.3 Norway spruce 7.1 1.3 5.9 14.4 Larches 10.7 3.3 12.3 26.3 Douglas fir 6.4 1.6 3.5 11.5 Lodgepole pine 1.0 0.3 7.4 8.7 Other conifers 7.6 1.1 3.0 11.7 All conifers 63.7 17.9 146.7 228.4 Total Sitka spruce 20.3 20.6 140.0 180.9 Scots pine 18.6 0.8 33.3 52.7 Corsican pine 10.2 0.8 0.7 11.7 Norway spruce 8.8 2.8 9.4 21.1 Larches 12.4 6.0 17.1 35.6 Douglas fir 9.1 2.9 4.9 16.9 Lodgepole pine 1.8 0.9 15.5 18.3 Other conifers 9.1 2.2 4.1 15.4 **All conifers** 90.5 37.4 226.9 354.7 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of softwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.4.8 Growing Stock By Species: Broadleaves Table 1.11 presents the volume of broadleaved growing stock, broken down by principal species, ownership and country. The total volume of broadleaved growing stock in Great Britain in 2012 was 245 million m3 overbark standing (Table 1.11). Oak (28%), ash (16%) and beech (12%) accounted for the majority of the broadleaved volume. To some extent, this reflects the distribution of species by area (see Table 1.9). million m3 overbark standing Principal species England Wales Scotland GB FE/FLS/NRW1 Oak 3.3 0.5 0.6 4.4 Beech 2.8 0.4 0.1 3.4 Sycamore 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Ash 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 Birch 0.5 0.1 1.7 2.3 Sweet chestnut 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hazel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hawthorn 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alder 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Willow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other broadleaves 1.3 0.8 1.2 3.3 All broadleaves 8.7 1.9 3.9 14.5 Private sector2 Oak 51.7 7.7 5.6 65.0 Beech 19.8 1.6 5.2 26.6 Sycamore 16.2 2.4 4.8 23.4 Ash 30.1 6.9 2.8 39.8 Birch 11.3 1.2 8.5 20.9 Sweet chestnut 7.7 0.2 0.0 7.9 Hazel 5.0 0.9 0.4 6.4 Hawthorn 2.8 0.4 0.3 3.4 Alder 6.8 2.1 1.9 10.8 Willow 4.9 0.8 0.9 6.5 Other broadleaves 16.0 1.1 2.6 19.6 All broadleaves 172.3 25.4 32.9 230.6 Total Oak 55.0 8.1 6.3 69.4 Beech 22.6 2.0 5.3 29.9 Sycamore 16.4 2.4 4.9 23.6 Ash 30.5 7.0 2.8 40.3 Birch 11.8 1.3 10.1 23.2 Sweet chestnut 7.8 0.2 0.0 8.0 Hazel 5.1 0.9 0.5 6.5 Hawthorn 2.8 0.4 0.3 3.4 Alder 6.9 2.2 1.9 11.0 Willow 4.9 0.8 0.9 6.5 Other broadleaves 17.2 1.8 3.8 22.9 All broadleaves 181.0 27.3 36.8 245.1 Source: National Forest Inventory: 50-year forecast of hardwood availability (Forestry Commission, April 2014). Notes: 1. FE: Forestry England, FLS: Forestry and Land Scotland, NRW: Natural Resources Wales. NRW estimates only relate to the Welsh Government Woodland Estate (WGWE). 2. Private sector: all other woodland. Includes woodland managed by NRW outside the WGWE, other publicly owned woodland (e.g. owned by local authorities) and privatelyowned woodland. 3. Areas at 31 March 2012. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.5 Area Of Farm Woodland Agricultural Censuses run by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and the devolved administrations collect annual information on the land-use of farms. Table 1.12 below shows the area of woodland on farms. The area of farm woodland in the UK has increased from 0.8 million hectares in 2010 to 1.0 million hectares in 2019 (Table 1.12). Slightly over one half (51%) of all farm woodland was in Scotland in 2019, with a further 37% in England, 11% in Wales and the remaining 2% in Northern Ireland. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK 2010 295 69 400 10 774 2011 305 44 426 11 786 2012 308 63 445 11 827 2013 325 63 467 10 865 2014 331 76 479 11 897 2015 348 78 524 11 961 2016 370 89 502 16 978 2017 369 93 560 16 1,037 2018 372 97 532 16 1,016 2019 379 109 529 16 1,033 Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive. Notes: 1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. 2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. Source: June Agricultural Census - Defra, The Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive. Notes: 1. Changes in the area of farm woodland over time indicate a change in the area of farm land that is reported as woodland and do not necessarily indicate a change in woodland area. 2. Figures include estimates for farm woodland that is not in receipt of grant aid. ## 1.6 New Planting And Publicly Funded Restocking New Planting New planting is the creation of new areas of woodland by planting trees on land that was not previously woodland. The statistics presented here also include new woodland that is created by natural colonisation of trees on land near existing woodland. Statistics on new planting are used to inform government policy and resource allocation and are used in producing annual estimates of woodland area. There are a number of factors that can affect the level of new planting in the UK. These include: - choices by landowners reflecting their own motivation and needs; - the costs and availability of land for conversion to woodland; - the availability of grants for new planting, the level of grant payments available and the awareness of grants among potential recipients; - the tax benefits available from owning woodland; - expected future markets for wood products such as timber and woodfuel; - income from payments for ecosystem services, particularly carbon storage; - national and local initiatives, for example on biodiversity, green infrastructure and water management. ## Restocking Restocking is the replacement of trees on areas of woodland that have been felled; this can be done either through replanting or natural regeneration. The statistics presented here include felled areas that have been restocked by both natural regeneration and replanting. As restocking takes place on woodland that has been previously harvested and it is a condition of most felling licences that the area is restocked, restocking rates are mainly driven by harvesting levels (with a time lag, usually of around 2 years, between harvesting and restocking). Figures for timber harvesting (wood production) are available in the UK-Grown Timber chapter. Economic factors, including grant rates, may have some effect on the species choice at restocking. In addition, the precise timing of restocking may be affected by weather conditions. This release only covers publicly funded restocking, that is: - restocking of Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service Woodland and - grant aided restocking of private sector woodland. Grant support for restocking of conifers changed with the introduction of Rural Development Contracts in Scotland in 2008 and again with the introduction of the Forestry Grant Scheme in 2015. This will have led to a reduction in the proportion of private sector restocking that is grant aided and therefore reported for Scotland. Grant support in England is now provided by the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which opened for applications in early 2016. Funding for restocking under Countryside Stewardship is only available under limited circumstances (through the tree health grant). The restoration (and restocking with native species) of PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites) is also supported by the HS2 Woodland Fund. No estimate has been made for restocking in England that is no longer supported by grants and therefore restocking in England in recent years is under-reported in this release and other statistics. ## 1.6.1 New Planting 13.7 thousand hectares of new woodland were created in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.13a). Conifers accounted for 57% of the new planting area in 2019- 20. thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers 2015-16 0.00 0.03 1.90 0.00 1.93 2016-17 0.10 0.17 3.22 0.08 3.56 2017-18 0.24 0.10 4.68 0.11 5.13 2018-19 0.42 0.32 7.27 0.10 8.12 2019-20 0.24 0.04 7.43 0.06 7.77 Broadleaves 2015-16 0.82 0.08 2.73 0.05 3.68 2016-17 1.05 0.24 1.54 0.13 2.96 2017-18 1.26 0.10 2.46 0.10 3.92 2018-19 1.00 0.35 3.94 0.14 5.42 2019-20 2.10 0.04 3.61 0.14 5.90 Total 2015-16 0.82 0.11 4.63 0.05 5.61 2016-17 1.15 0.41 4.76 0.21 6.52 2017-18 1.50 0.20 7.14 0.21 9.05 2018-19 1.42 0.67 11.21 0.24 13.54 2019-20 2.34 0.08 11.05 0.20 13.66 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. In 2019-20 most new planting (97%) took place on private sector land (Table 1.13b). thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FC/FLS/NRW/FS 2015-16 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 2016-17 0.02 0.00 1.06 0.00 1.08 2017-18 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 2018-19 0.03 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.06 2019-20 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.05 0.42 Private sector 2015-16 0.82 0.10 3.93 0.05 4.90 2016-17 1.13 0.41 3.70 0.21 5.45 2017-18 1.50 0.20 6.27 0.21 8.18 2018-19 1.39 0.67 10.19 0.24 12.48 2019-20 2.24 0.08 10.78 0.15 13.24 Total 2015-16 0.82 0.11 4.63 0.05 5.61 2016-17 1.15 0.41 4.76 0.21 6.52 2017-18 1.50 0.20 7.14 0.21 9.05 2018-19 1.42 0.67 11.21 0.24 13.54 2019-20 2.34 0.08 11.05 0.20 13.66 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector new planting figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2018-19. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Figure 1.6 shows areas of new planting by country since the year ending March 1976. Trends in new planting rates have been influenced by changes to regulations and the incentives available to land owners. In recent years, areas of new planting in the UK have dropped to lows of under 6 thousand hectares in 2009-10 and in 2015-16 and have risen to highs of around 13 thousand hectares in 2011-12, 2013-14, 2018-19 and 2019-20. These fluctuations are likely to have been influenced by changes in grant schemes across the UK. At 13.7 thousand hectares in 2019-20, the current level of new planting is similar to the level reported in 2018-19. This current level does represent an increase of 0.8% from the previous year. This is the smallest increase recorded since levels rose sharply after the 2015-16 planting season. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector figures are based on grant-supported new planting and (where possible) with estimates for areas planted without grant aid. 2. Figures for grant-aided planting relate to areas for which grants were paid during the year. 3. Estimates for areas planted without grant aid are believed to be under-reported and, as a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. For England, woodland planting funded by sources other than the Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation Grant, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund include planting supported by the Woodland Trust, by the Environment Agency, by Natural England and land acquired by the National Forest Company. For Scotland, a small amount of new planting without grant aid was included for 2016-17 to 2019-20. 4. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 5. Includes woodland formed by natural colonisation (where known). ## 1.6.2 Restocking A total of 14.8 thousand hectares of publicly funded restocking were reported in the UK in 2019-20 (Table 1.14a). thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Conifers 2015-16 2.17 1.19 5.99 0.74 10.09 2016-17 2.03 1.16 9.09 1.15 13.42 2017-18 1.58 0.97 8.14 0.85 11.53 2018-19 1.26 1.04 9.12 0.72 12.14 2019-20 2.11 0.92 8.19 0.69 11.91 Broadleaves 2015-16 1.14 0.58 1.83 0.07 3.62 2016-17 0.97 0.54 1.99 0.17 3.66 2017-18 0.47 0.70 1.52 0.08 2.77 2018-19 0.39 0.66 2.07 0.11 3.23 2019-20 0.63 0.58 1.69 0.03 2.92 Total 2015-16 3.31 1.76 7.82 0.81 13.71 2016-17 3.00 1.70 11.07 1.31 17.09 2017-18 2.04 1.67 9.66 0.94 14.30 2018-19 1.65 1.70 11.19 0.83 15.37 2019-20 2.74 1.50 9.88 0.71 14.83 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid. 2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. thousand hectares Year (ending 31/3) England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK FC/FLS/NRW/FS 2015-16 2.30 1.47 6.55 0.75 11.06 2016-17 2.39 1.44 6.67 1.25 11.74 2017-18 2.04 1.55 5.78 0.86 10.23 2018-19 1.57 1.22 7.15 0.79 10.72 2019-20 2.48 1.48 5.35 0.62 9.93 Private sector 2015-16 1.02 0.30 1.27 0.06 2.65 2016-17 0.61 0.26 4.41 0.06 5.34 2017-18 0.00 0.12 3.87 0.08 4.07 2018-19 0.08 0.48 4.05 0.04 4.65 2019-20 0.26 0.02 4.52 0.09 4.89 Total 2015-16 3.31 1.76 7.82 0.81 13.71 2016-17 3.00 1.70 11.07 1.31 17.09 2017-18 2.04 1.67 9.66 0.94 14.30 2018-19 1.65 1.70 11.19 0.83 15.37 2019-20 2.74 1.50 9.88 0.71 14.83 Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. No estimates are available for restocking without grant aid. 2. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March, and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 3. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration (where known). Data: Longer time series of the above table are available from the Data Downloads web page. Figure 1.7 shows reported areas of restocking by country since the year ending March 1976. It indicates an increase in restocking rates during the period. Over the same period, there has been a general increase in UK wood production (see UK-Grown Timber chapter). The reported area of restocking fell significantly after a peak of 19 thousand hectares in 2006-07. This followed changes to grant support for restocking in Scotland, that resulted in some non-grant aided Sitka spruce restocking being excluded from the estimates. Results from the Forestry Commission's Nursery Survey (an annual survey of forest nurseries in Great Britain) indicate that, following a dip in the 2009/10 planting year, sales of Sitka spruce plants to Scotland have been relatively stable in recent years. The chart shows a dip in the area of restocking in 2015-16, following changes to grant schemes across the UK. Reported restocking has continued to fall in England, where grant aid is now only available in very limited circumstances. The reported area of publicly funded restocking in the UK in 2019-20 represents a 4% decrease from the previous year and remains below the level reported for 2016-17. For further information, see the New Planting and Restocking section of the Sources chapter. Source: Forestry Commission, Forestry England, Scottish Forestry, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service, grant schemes. Notes: 1. Private sector figures are based on areas for which grants were paid during the year. 2. Estimates of areas planted without grant aid are also included (where possible) up to 2009- 10, but no estimates are available since then. As a result, the reported figures are likely to under-estimate the true level of planting activity. 3. The planting season lies both sides of 31 March and the weather can cause planting to be advanced or delayed. 4. Includes woodland restocked by natural regeneration. 5. Restocking by natural regeneration in non-clearfell areas may be under-represented. ## 1.7 Felling Felling Approval for the felling (cutting down) of trees in the UK is granted through felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland. Felling licences may be conditional (where felling approval is granted subject to replanting) or unconditional (where tree felling is approved without the requirement to replant). Unconditional licences are routinely issued for silvicultural thinning operations and in these cases no woodland loss takes place. However, an unconditional felling licence without the requirement to replant may be issued if there are overriding environmental considerations, for example to enable the restoration of important habitats. The removal of trees may also be authorised under planning regulations, to enable development (including for windfarms). In this case, a felling licence is not required. The removal of trees might also be required through a Statutory Plant Health Notice (SPHN). A SPHN may require the felling and destruction of infected trees or containment of infested material on site, and is issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. Similar actions are also required within the public woodland estate managed by these organisations. There is no legal requirement for woodland to be restocked after felling under a SPHN. Since 2010/2011, SPHNs have mainly been issued to attempt to slow down the spread of Phytophthora ramorum, first found in the UK in 2002 on viburnum, and in 2009 on Japanese larch, a significant sporulating host resulting in a dramatic upsurge in the disease. Statutory felling of infected P. ramorum infected larch does not apply within the designated P. ramorum management zone in south west Scotland where the high levels of infection and proportion of larch in the area make this unfeasible. However, felling licences are still required, and movement licences are required to stop spread out of this area. In Wales' P. ramorum Core Disease Zone SPHNs are still served to contain material on site, but felling still requires a felling licence. Further information on felling and Statutory Plant Health Notices is provided in the Sources chapter. ## Woodland Loss Information on unconditional felling licences that do not relate to thinning may be seen as an indication of the level of woodland loss on land that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service. However, the data relates only to felling licences issued, so does not provide information on whether the felling actually took place (or the timing of the felling). In addition, felling licences do not cover woodland loss that is authorised under planning regulations. The National Forest Inventory report "Preliminary estimates of the changes in canopy cover in British woodlands between 2006 and 2015" (August 2016) has reported: - 3.3 thousand hectares of observed permanent woodland loss between 2006 and 2015; - a further 0.7 thousand hectares of ground under development and 0.2 thousand hectares of newly established habitats; - 69% of the clearfelled area observed in 2006 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 33.9 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas; - 63% of the area observed as clearfelled between 2006 and 2009 had been restocked by 2012, leaving around 28.6 thousand hectares of woodlands in transition and open areas. These are interim estimates that are likely to underestimate the final position; updated estimates will be available when results from the NFI second cycle field survey are released. Further information is available in the report at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/national-forest-inventory/. ## 1.7.1 Felling Licences Table 1.15 shows the area covered by unconditional felling licences issued by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and Natural Resources Wales in the last 10 years. The figures do not include unconditional felling licences issued to permit thinning of woodlands. The table covers woodland in England, Scotland and Wales that is not owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland or Natural Resources Wales only; it does not cover felling that is exempt from felling licence approval (such as authorisations for felling under planning regulations, felling required under a Statutory Plant Health Notice or felling that is approved on condition that the area is restocked). A total of 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in England, 0.3 thousand hectares of woodland in Scotland and 0.1 thousand hectares in Wales was covered by unconditional felling licences (with no requirement to restock) in the year to March 2020. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland GB 2010-11 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 2011-12 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 2012-13 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.9 2013-14 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 2014-15 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 2015-16 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 2016-17 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2017-18 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2018-19 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.8 2019-20 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.6 Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales Notes: 1. Felling licences issued in the period. Excludes areas exempt from felling licence approval and licences issued for thinning. 2. From April 2019 Felling Permissions, issued under the Forestry and Land Management Act (Scotland )2018, have replaced Felling Licences in Scotland These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. ## 1.7.2 Statutory Plant Health Notices Table 1.16a shows the number of sites where a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served in the UK between 2010-11 and 2018-19. For Scotland, the figures now show the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued, rather than number of sites. All woodland, including sites owned or managed by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland, Natural Resources Wales or the Forest Service in Northern Ireland are covered. As Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued in the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, the figures presented here do not cover all felling of infected larch. A total of 635 sites were served with Statutory Plant Health Notices between April 2018 and March 2019. | Year | England | Wales | Scotland | |----------|------------|----------|-------------| | Northern | | | | | Ireland | | | | | UK | | | | | 2010-11 | 114 | 46 | 1 | | 2011-12 | 131 | 90 | 15 | | 2012-13 | 168 | 89 | 44 | | 2013-14 | 244 | 272 | 55 | | 2014-15 | 140 | 71 | 17 | | 2015-16 | 73 | 57 | 32 | | 2016-17 | 75 | 53 | 65 | | 2017-18 | 43 | 153 | 70 | | 2018-19 | 136 | 215 | 284 | Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Note: 1. The number of sites where infection of larch by Phytophthora ramorum has been confirmed, or where there is sufficient suspicion of infection and a Statutory Plant Health Notice has been served on the landowner. For Scotland, figures relate to the number of Statutory Plant Health Notices issued. 2. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Areas requiring felling under Statutory Plant Health Notices totalled 3.9 thousand hectares in 2018-19 (Table 1.16b). Around one half (49%) of the area to be felled in 2018-19 was in Wales, 36% was in Scotland and 15% in England. thousand hectares Year England Wales Scotland2 Northern Ireland UK 2010-11 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.3 2.3 2011-12 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.1 2012-13 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 2.5 2013-14 0.8 4.6 0.3 0.5 6.1 2014-15 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 2015-16 0.1 1.5 0.9 0.0 2.6 2016-17 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 2017-18 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.7 2018-19 0.6 1.9 1.4 0.0 3.9 Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Natural Resources Wales, Forest Service. Note: 1. The area that is required to be felled within the Statutory Plant Health Notice. 2. Felling areas in Scotland relate to larch only. 3. Excludes felling within the Phytophthora ramorum management zone in south west Scotland, where Statutory Plant Health Notices are not issued. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.

en

2746-pdf

From : 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Procurement Museum of Science and Industry 12/05/2016 113363 503 5114 96 1,969.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Banks Sadler 12/05/2016 2385 370 7671 39 1,000.00 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog McCorquodale 2005 (uk) Ltd 12/05/2016 M3453 986 3399 55 656.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 57.15 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 120.48 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 1.41 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 118.12 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Painting & Joinery Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-PM00021611295 470.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 65.45 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 32.00 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AT03021611220 518.45 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.03 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.02 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 150.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 296.02 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MK01021611289 0.75 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 322.05 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 0.66 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 179.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611280 306.28 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 195.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 150.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 17.89 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 59.43 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 15.54 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 23.56 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 19.90 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CZ00021611237 32.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 330.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 487.20 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 SI160240774 110 6415 23 112.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111293326 809 7077 06 2,130.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 182.44 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 182.44 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 24.63 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 3,983.04 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 130.80 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 22.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 8.33 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 500.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 85.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB13021611216 3,710.53 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 7.53 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 3.35 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 168.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF03021611225 383.47 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 46.63 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 14.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 125.89 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 10.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 52.49 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 46.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 111.47 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 111.47 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 25.13 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 37.37 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 5.00 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-BG02021611235 13.25 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 48.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 14.89 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 1.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 22.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 366.90 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 433.95 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Media Relations Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CK00021611236 8.67 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 46.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 155.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 89.10 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 66.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 15.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 65.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 92.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 24.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 15.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611252 18.60 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 462.40 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 27.10 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 3.10 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 3,613.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611254 17.77 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 242.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 225.98 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 167.75 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-GA02021611256 404.95 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 1.65 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 12.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 90.83 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 74.25 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 74.25 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 6.78 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 98.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EM00021611261 169.50 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 36.80 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 29.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 99.97 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 191.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 74.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 7.81 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB14021611274 1,874.62 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 66.04 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 282.05 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 43.93 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 73.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 100.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 93.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 17.59 DCMS Advertising 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 248.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 264.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 493.74 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 71.26 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 11.71 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 225.03 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 36.15 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 10.04 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 23.12 DCMS Other Taxes / Import Duties Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 77.85 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 18.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 155.82 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 107.35 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 407.85 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 359.84 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 25.73 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 19.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 112.57 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 251.65 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 1,246.18 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 117.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 214.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 492.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 68.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 135.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 372.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 376.65 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 -57.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 16.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 24.34 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 28.05 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 52.73 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 74.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 188.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 46.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 467.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JM10021611276 736.59 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 530.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 388.10 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 395.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 355.30 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 25.49 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 67.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 332.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JT07021611278 283.46 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 79.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 60.48 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 270.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 87.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 6.23 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 15.50 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 6.48 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611287 9.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 458.03 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 35.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 15.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ML01021611290 5.92 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 138.21 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 165.75 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 14.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 25.65 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 290.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Learning Engagement Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 431.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RJ02021611301 37.85 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 2,216.40 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 60.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Membership Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SM06021611311 24.80 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Management Dacorum Borough Council 12/05/2016 90220949-JUN16 209 0426 90 2,340.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Wassells Arboricultural Services 12/05/2016 1490-2016 923 8355 13 840.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre PMI Analytical Ltd 18/05/2016 001544 989 0741 67 4,850.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre PMI Analytical Ltd 18/05/2016 001544 989 0741 67 125.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 76.73 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 264.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 37.20 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 37.20 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -34.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 44.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Science Administration Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 86.19 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 39.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 77.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 205.63 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 87.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -87.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 50.39 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 43.98 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 52.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 346.44 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 62.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 75.76 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 59.00 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 -18.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 70.90 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AH07021611226 23.44 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 66.92 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 141.57 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 53.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 13.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 1,039.90 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 28.04 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 5.04 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 16.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 16.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 36.53 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 218.32 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 3.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum L&A Digital Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 28.98 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Content Design Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JD04021611268 193.80 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 37.10 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Core Research Labs Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.08 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Core Research Labs Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 1,920.40 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 106.58 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 30.88 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 112.91 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 114.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 110.77 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 450.88 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 48.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 109.37 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 358.67 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 7.72 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 111.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 23.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611271 358.67 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Publishing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 34.34 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 6.15 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 17.23 DCMS Postage & Couriers 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Procurement Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 24.98 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 2,556.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 368.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-RO00021611303 1,936.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 70.31 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 13.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 24.96 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 9.16 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 150.96 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 682.29 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 19.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AP06021611231 13.84 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 350.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 109.90 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 12.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 420.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 1.67 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Events (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HR02021611285 34.80 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 1.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 35.94 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 765.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 284.50 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Central Project Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CA00021611305 16.65 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 28.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 99.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 14.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 208.59 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 13.11 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 32.48 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 32.47 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 46.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 40.44 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 21.47 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 40.09 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 2,500.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Learning Strategy & Research Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 1,532.50 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Content Development - Science Comms Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-MW05021611291 374.36 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 112.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 29.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 11.38 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 3.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 112.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 3.47 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 63.75 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 671.38 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum PEG Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SO01021611267 321.57 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 16.95 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 7.54 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 24.98 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 11.07 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Content Development - Interpretation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 36.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 254.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 38.99 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611284 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Development - Online Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 28.34 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 16.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 8.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 33.99 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 11.98 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 41.56 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.43 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 9.61 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 35.83 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 391.25 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 33.40 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.94 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 239.70 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 1,761.60 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 158.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 220.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 12.99 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 104.15 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 174.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 265.08 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 36.67 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 95.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 80.00 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Marketing Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611253 183.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Photographic Unit (Image Resources) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 19.17 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 11.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 5.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 13.55 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 125.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 405.42 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 186.15 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 51.04 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 9.80 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 153.82 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 31.65 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring WPY Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611269 26.03 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 7.80 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 4.32 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 5.38 DCMS Staff Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 64.74 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 62.94 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 238.70 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Internal Affairs Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-NR03021611292 866.10 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.36 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 36.72 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 17.07 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 460.98 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 115.09 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 7.15 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 30.49 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 28.94 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 14.02 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 9.12 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HG01021611312 2.14 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 3,050.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 14.55 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 94.04 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JB04021611265 18.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 323.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 4,110.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 558.12 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 41.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 2,240.03 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 3.58 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 158.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 2,098.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 1,320.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 275.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 435.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 120.13 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 103.60 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 100.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 105.17 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 4,110.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-SB02021611266 995.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 102.38 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 500.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 302.34 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 434.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Content Production Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LH00021611283 74.40 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 953.75 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 30.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 28.75 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 69.50 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 43.70 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 689.90 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AF01021611329 -7.00 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 708.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 595.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 18.59 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 32.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.24 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.95 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 480.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 44.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 500.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 540.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 76.05 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 65.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 182.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 646.23 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 500.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 93.55 DCMS Other Taxes / Import Duties Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 12.00 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 480.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 20.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 1,100.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611229 24.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 673.20 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 1,301.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 36.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-EJ01021611250 1,727.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Directorate Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611249 39.90 DCMS Client Entertainment & Gifts Natural History Museum Cultural Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-FA03021611249 803.50 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 23.56 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 24.80 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 35.30 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 162.26 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 21.34 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 14.66 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 135.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 153.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 57.32 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 20.37 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 113.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 50.71 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 67.27 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 38.18 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 13.99 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 62.12 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 10.65 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JR01021611263 30.90 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 19.56 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 498.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 767.63 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LR02021611279 675.34 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 111.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 103.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 801.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 1.34 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 20.09 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 21.38 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 84.38 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 19.98 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 -15.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 0.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 47.97 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 3.39 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-KD01021611281 4.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Management Wandsworth Borough Council 12/05/2016 11055561 JUN16 8,272.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 9.95 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 50.59 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 16.67 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 2.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 162.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 39.54 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 6.33 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 130.41 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 127.83 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 57.04 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 87.46 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 21.88 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 168.02 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 138.56 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 5.92 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AB07021611223 4.36 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 46.88 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 46.75 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 72.40 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 74.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 2,135.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 2,135.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 65.53 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 1.39 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 9.38 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 688.45 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 421.55 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CR00021611242 750.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 31.74 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 140.61 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 -3.48 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 28.48 DCMS Publicat/Book (non-coll) purch. Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JA01021611243 196.48 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 179.50 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 45.53 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 81.59 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 19.65 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 16.66 DCMS Special Event Costs From : 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 19.95 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 51.92 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 34.42 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 29.84 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 13.55 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 73.92 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 36.52 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 2.19 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 136.55 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 6.46 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 2,144.95 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 91.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 10.39 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 55.17 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 16.40 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 213.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 28.94 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 34.86 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 11.57 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 96.36 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 374.17 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 536.45 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 340.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 14.60 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 -11.57 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 1.30 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 6.26 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS11021611282 8.41 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 1,956.95 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 38.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 97.39 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 147.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 557.96 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 557.96 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 148.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 128.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 128.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 2.04 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 4.30 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 10.40 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 8.44 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 11.20 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 63.70 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 196.45 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OB00021611294 16.90 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 144.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 17.58 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 923.12 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 665.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 13.20 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 90.00 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 90.00 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 7.99 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Commerce Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HH02021611307 466.86 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Management Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelse 12/05/2016 629799352-JUN16 238 6993 10 76,516.00 DCMS Estates Property Rates Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning Versapak International Ltd 12/05/2016 SOV240199 299 4942 86 580.75 DCMS Office Stationery Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46 546 1680 37 4,480.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 40.18 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 5.38 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 12.90 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 15.83 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 39.96 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 16.67 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 380.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 610.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 380.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Touring Robotics Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AG07021611222 579.60 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 286.81 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 89.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 24.00 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 67.23 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 99.55 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 487.83 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 35.34 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 26.33 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 368.97 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 7.43 DCMS Subsistence 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 37.89 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611219 427.65 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 12.40 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 95.71 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 34.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 1,305.00 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 88.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 318.50 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 131.46 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 447.73 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 56.24 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 736.59 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 742.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 9.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 4.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 35.33 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 29.90 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 29.69 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 15.14 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 20.79 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 9.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 15.73 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 87.17 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 43.21 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.41 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 35.33 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 14.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 30.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 41.39 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 39.75 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 221.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 27.07 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum LS Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 6.57 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 821.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 90.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 406.59 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 406.59 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 141.33 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 112.50 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-ZS01021611317 78.14 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Membership Uni-mail 26/05/2016 U/510/6889 768 3188 86 5,269.20 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 43.80 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 55.92 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,456.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,426.74 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 49.83 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 81.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 91.98 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 25.90 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 15.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 321.47 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 1,673.11 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 188.57 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Department Mgmt Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 57.95 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 896.92 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 756.58 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 44.91 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 42.50 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 696.67 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 38.86 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 109.77 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 48.82 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 115.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 97.32 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 105.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 63.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 32.73 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 69.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 550.55 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 227.05 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-JG00021611306 69.25 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01913994 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01913994 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 9,948.21 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 7,009.88 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 18,693.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Illumina UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 7020107862 726 0351 59 9,948.21 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 216.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 38.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 72.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 73.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 136.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 74.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 38.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 91870765 716 5389 16 166.46 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Fisher Scientific UK 12/05/2016 4151695971 844 2904 24 1,444.24 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Membership Ethical Direct Ltd t/a Office Coffee Co 12/05/2016 SI-10360 116 9000 43 1,950.52 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 525.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 1,029.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections VWR International Ltd 12/05/2016 5053593193 823 8532 25 399.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Geoworld EU 04/05/2016 B6100052 02540280308 685.42 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Geoworld EU 04/05/2016 B6100052 02540280308 102.67 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 35.67 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 48.33 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 59.13 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 35.25 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 56.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 160.82 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 74.99 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum National Public Programmes Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 66.66 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 232.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-HN00021611258 19.28 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 35.45 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 30.54 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 64.80 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 735.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 360.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 257.09 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 337.85 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 71.23 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum Estates Management Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-AL08021611228 100.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 42.70 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 656.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 255.20 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 71.13 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 14.86 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 18.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 298.05 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 15.20 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 1,757.40 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 475.10 DCMS Exceptional Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 180.03 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.01 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 199.98 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 179.44 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 160.04 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-OI00021611293 148.70 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 1,550.65 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 467.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 25.07 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 17.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 32.90 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 28.47 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum ES Consultancy Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-CS04021611240 32.90 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences Key Travel 12/05/2016 50354286 362 3348 61 848.67 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office BBSRC 12/05/2016 BBSR13277 3,817.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 4,484.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Oxford Instruments 12/05/2016 110745 1,839.20 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Content Development - Learning Prog J. A. Preece 12/05/2016 2016/0009 1,250.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 4,130.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 210.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 280.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 90.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Publishing Toppan Leefung Printing Limited 04/05/2016 EB1603329 6.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 444.60 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 444.60 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 677.70 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667184 769 7393 59 405.90 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 90.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 634.92 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 624.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 1,050.66 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Millipore (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 24667185 769 7393 59 823.68 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Britannic Technologies 12/05/2016 0000178156 529 1677 22 650.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414394RI 188 4140 46 5,210.20 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414395RI 188 4140 46 1,030.05 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414396RI 188 4140 46 1,501.92 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414397RI 188 4140 46 2,908.85 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414398RI 188 4140 46 3,219.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414399RI 188 4140 46 1,835.56 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414400RI 188 4140 46 4,355.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414401RI 188 4140 46 1,255.68 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning Scan Coin Ltd 12/05/2016 IN156650CT 519 5946 08 1,308.22 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414402RI 188 4140 46 691.06 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414403RI 188 4140 46 880.87 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414404RI 188 4140 46 1,337.26 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414405RI 188 4140 46 3,484.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414406RI 188 4140 46 1,323.26 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414407RI 188 4140 46 3,196.56 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414408RI 188 4140 46 1,853.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414409RI 188 4140 46 742.29 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414410RI 188 4140 46 4,890.72 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414411RI 188 4140 46 873.34 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414412RI 188 4140 46 891.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414413RI 188 4140 46 609.83 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00414414RI 188 4140 46 1,865.38 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Special Funds - Ops Key Travel 12/05/2016 50335849 362 3348 61 1,021.11 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Key Travel 12/05/2016 50335849 362 3348 61 1,021.11 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188529 892 2071 22 1,363.82 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188529 892 2071 22 7.15 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Membership bottomline Technologies Ltd 12/05/2016 INV472107 724 5482 31 1,500.00 DCMS Licences (Non IT) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Taylor Pearce Limited 12/05/2016 17/012 437 1083 44 6,560.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Donald Insall Associates Ltd 12/05/2016 25152 240 3358 92 1,542.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5373521 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5373520 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374363 232 3479 75 679.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 12/05/2016 456195 429 7961 03 939.00 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Teacrate Rentals Ltd 12/05/2016 421493 503 5476 62 849.20 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204645 696 8691 51 4,293.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204646 696 8691 51 4,293.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 86.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 13.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 10.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 63.90 DCMS Subsistence 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 66.20 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 16.50 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 2.46 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 4.21 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 13.32 DCMS Subsistence Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 20.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division Paul Pearson 12/05/2016 CA00-826-95 322.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024847 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Genomics & Microbial Biodiversity Division WCMC 12/05/2016 0002447 995 9354 46 1,247.50 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum LS Collections Pracownia Stolarska Marek Majkowski 04/05/2016 01/2016 6792671232 12,257.63 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362420 362 3348 61 590.02 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections Petr Banar 04/05/2016 19/04/16 3,587.00 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum ES Vertebrates & Anthropology Palaeobiology Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362943 362 3348 61 1,351.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50362088 362 3348 61 626.07 DCMS Travel Other Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Oculus Building Consultancy Ltd 12/05/2016 4013 713 4893 28 550.00 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 12/05/2016 6456 974 8884 42 700.41 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) E Christian & Co Limited 12/05/2016 059226 956.25 DCMS Storage Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 27445671 232 3479 75 1,957.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 12/05/2016 53526 118 9313 10 6,458.11 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 12/05/2016 53526 118 9313 10 1,074.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12036014 754 5322 32 746.88 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12036014 754 5322 32 206.66 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 529809 813 0527 65 840.00 DCMS Storage Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 529809 813 0527 65 117.00 DCMS Storage Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114002 1,285.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114003 795.00 DCMS Estates Systems Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Remsdaq Ltd 12/05/2016 114004 993.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Aridlands 04/05/2016 19/4/16 POLASZEK ACCOM 808.37 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 12/05/2016 1187 885 8551 64 550.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Open Text 12/05/2016 SUK08156010 771 5920 16 2,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Visitor Events Benugo 12/05/2016 I8081010006572 765 3217 26 1,190.14 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Computers In Personnel Ltd 26/05/2016 41601 363 4997 13 63,193.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402282750 635 8235 28 584.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375106 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188773 892 2071 22 1,363.82 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 12/05/2016 188773 892 2071 22 7.15 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 389.10 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 138.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 11.60 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Axminster Power Tool Center 12/05/2016 4134146 161 4679 00 9.98 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006433877 773 6958 71 815.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Dacorum Borough Council 12/05/2016 723057 1373595 209 0426 90 672.00 DCMS Cleaning & Waste Disp (non Cont) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Onecall 26/05/2016 4322609 169 6803 22 506.92 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Publishing What on Earth Publishing Ltd. 12/05/2016 WH5113 994 8769 28 279.00 DCMS Royalties Natural History Museum Publishing What on Earth Publishing Ltd. 12/05/2016 WH5113 994 8769 28 259.50 DCMS Royalties Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation BDK Industrial Products Ltd 12/05/2016 0000212204 627.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation BDK Industrial Products Ltd 12/05/2016 0000212204 9.95 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024647 377 3451 31 6,125.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 713.50 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 385.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Management TMP (UK) Ltd 12/05/2016 100001088419 872 9045 02 400.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415305RI 188 4140 46 606.85 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415305RI 188 4140 46 60.69 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Directorate Brunswick Group LLP 12/05/2016 609043 743 8063 28 15,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Directorate JCA Group Ltd 26/05/2016 1479 8,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Visitor Events Say Fromage Limited 12/05/2016 1250 105 7974 01 600.00 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50365960 362 3348 61 763.94 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 631.14 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 411.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 549.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374116 232 3479 75 233.41 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204647 696 8691 51 773.10 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204649 696 8691 51 949.90 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 360.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 185.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum ES Economic & Environmental Earth Sciences TA Instruments–A Division of Waters Ltd 12/05/2016 292609148 648 7540 03 3,930.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374869 232 3479 75 730.62 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) SVM Consulting Engineers 26/05/2016 L5175 596 2541 11 1,200.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375110 232 3479 75 725.93 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Adrian Cox Associates Ltd 12/05/2016 3217 602 5096 70 2,125.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Vodafone Limited 12/05/2016 79863993 569 9532 77 2,870.18 DCMS Telecoms Direct Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Metro Imaging 12/05/2016 SIN571055 342 1081 02 2,202.40 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Metro Imaging 12/05/2016 SIN571055 342 1081 02 27.85 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Casson Mann 12/05/2016 2121 446 0116 79 19,527.43 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50367253 362 3348 61 588.95 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Key Travel 12/05/2016 50366900 362 3348 61 589.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Development Prospecting for Gold Ltd 12/05/2016 5477 819 3029 30 600.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team LM Information Delivery 12/05/2016 1512464 112 6270 53 1,031.73 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum LS Angela Marmont Centre Wex Photographic Ltd 12/05/2016 51353771 231 9471 12 555.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Finance Zurich Municipal 12/05/2016 19/04/16 INSURANCE POLICY 79.86 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Finance Zurich Municipal 12/05/2016 19/04/16 INSURANCE POLICY 840.67 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006420425 773 6958 71 990.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024915 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 1,040.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 585.44 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374874 232 3479 75 477.55 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Nissen Richards studio Ltd 12/05/2016 007 985 2194 84 4,570.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development The Clore Leadership Programme 12/05/2016 2001 2,000.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Baker Mallett 12/05/2016 T/6902 238 4185 51 1,020.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops My Civil Service Pension 12/05/2016 6685 128 7543 93 5,475.00 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops My Civil Service Pension 12/05/2016 6685 128 7543 93 12.00 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Baker Mallett 26/05/2016 T/6903 238 4185 51 1,650.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 319.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 159.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 159.90 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Jacobs Massey 12/05/2016 19306 820 4218 69 172.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024506 377 3451 31 2,160.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Certes Computing Ltd 12/05/2016 SIN024506 377 3451 31 2,700.00 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Wilson James Ltd 12/05/2016 90031256 546 1539 38 611.37 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Cover it Up Ltd 12/05/2016 41558 751 7479 07 2,050.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Cover it Up Ltd 12/05/2016 41544 751 7479 07 1,460.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 12/05/2016 21208 644 8760 08 1,297.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 526.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 39.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 12/05/2016 12791 846 9261 90 814.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Mineral & Planetary Sciences Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50367892 362 3348 61 1,012.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071938 927 4051 29 99,735.13 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071946 927 4051 29 7,527.49 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Gazprom Marketing & Trading Retail Ltd 12/05/2016 4071945 927 4051 29 4,318.02 DCMS Gas Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Thames Water Utilities Ltd 12/05/2016 62050-34453 APRIL 2016 537 4569 15 8,982.44 DCMS Water/Sewage Natural History Museum Content Development - Broadcast Square Box Systems Ltd 03/05/2016 3562 739 5208 14 2,755.25 DCMS IT Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375870 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain EDF Energy Cust Field Services 12/05/2016 600004963 523 0412 02 760.00 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375878 232 3479 75 615.36 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Vertebrates Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368393 362 3348 61 1,242.85 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00413442RI 188 4140 46 1,325.44 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 545.16 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 61.02 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 50.22 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375877 232 3479 75 58.14 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374362 232 3479 75 20,627.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 555.92 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 1,040.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Membership Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 52.47 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 143.10 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 610.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 959.70 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 12/05/2016 INV0035540 934 2836 14 448.43 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402283634 635 8235 28 1,548.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Constantine Ltd 12/05/2016 1160407 2,100.00 DCMS Freight Transport Natural History Museum Estates Management The Management Recruitment Group 12/05/2016 13339 762 7158 14 6,066.67 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369280 362 3348 61 1,325.22 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369363 362 3348 61 710.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375605 232 3479 75 726.17 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Key Travel 12/05/2016 50369533 362 3348 61 667.61 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374115 232 3479 75 637.73 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Content Development - Online Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375876 232 3479 75 851.60 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) SVM Consulting Engineers 26/05/2016 L5176 596 2541 11 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Finance PricewaterhouseCoopers 26/05/2016 1354522683 3,000.00 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12812 846 9261 90 1,685.10 DCMS Work In Progress The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 12/05/2016 21229 644 8760 08 635.25 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.48 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.49 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Key Travel 12/05/2016 50368897 171 5690 00 327.48 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Intelligent Counting Ltd 12/05/2016 4259 17,846.31 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Refix Maintenance Limited 12/05/2016 00023538 3,993.60 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416177RI 188 4140 46 176,252.00 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 188986 892 2071 22 1,336.18 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 188986 892 2071 22 6.99 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) British Fossils 12/05/2016 SIN023364 423 8505 60 3,227.48 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43254 501 7702 81 553.80 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153069 531 9887 12 3,318.97 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43283 501 7702 81 520.80 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12819 846 9261 90 2,312.70 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Rated Solutions Limited 12/05/2016 1213 178 5599 41 1,600.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Creswell Heritage Trust 12/05/2016 001847 509 4898 05 600.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6010 319 3971 35 8,487.20 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6009 319 3971 35 4,178.65 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales TOR Systems Ltd 12/05/2016 6008 319 3971 35 24,540.25 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Collections Preservation Equipment Ltd 12/05/2016 0000348540 491 0421 69 1,036.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum ES Collections Preservation Equipment Ltd 12/05/2016 0000348540 491 0421 69 84.00 DCMS Freight Transport Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 12/05/2016 6501 974 8884 42 690.95 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50369847 362 3348 61 759.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50370102 362 3348 61 802.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Technology Solutions SoftwareONE UK Ltd 12/05/2016 GB-PSI-155451 942 5301 43 258.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development SoftwareONE UK Ltd 12/05/2016 GB-PSI-155451 942 5301 43 258.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Key Travel 26/05/2016 50370360 362 3348 61 944.84 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Focus Consultants 2010 LLP 12/05/2016 16A/175 996 7534 48 900.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416374RI 188 4140 46 583.33 DCMS Cabling Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416374RI 188 4140 46 58.33 DCMS Cabling Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5372760 232 3479 75 637.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374843 232 3479 75 795.68 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 204.83 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 157.50 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 7.30 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 11.98 DCMS Grounds Maintenance Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 466.25 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 1,212.50 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Barclays HMG Procurement Card 03/05/2016 EXP-LC01021611244 568.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5374873 232 3479 75 943.12 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN024951 377 3451 31 6,210.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415484RI 188 4140 46 8,142.30 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum CRL Dept Mgmt Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415485RI 188 4140 46 1,408.28 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects TMP (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 100001089969 872 9045 02 584.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Pete Smith Inspections Ltd 12/05/2016 3131NHM 916 3994 90 539.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering TMP (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 100001089482 872 9045 02 584.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Niall McLaughlin Architects 26/05/2016 016/018 719 2974 02 1,975.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Niall McLaughlin Architects 26/05/2016 016/017 719 2974 02 65,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 12/05/2016 00051697 647 6600 22 635.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tyrrell Katz Ltd 12/05/2016 76269 835 5314 31 727.18 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Insect Lore Europe 12/05/2016 N188779 650 6107 63 994.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 12/05/2016 00051979 647 6600 22 3,681.14 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 12/05/2016 0000206026 299 2526 13 1,566.88 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tyrrell Katz Ltd 12/05/2016 76370 835 5314 31 732.12 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 12/05/2016 39489 28.98.51.18 586.77 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Lagoon Group 12/05/2016 169104 493 4100 57 1,481.98 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Ravensden PLC 12/05/2016 OP/I101124 486 5098 02 2,988.87 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Insect Lore Europe 12/05/2016 N198454 650 6107 63 604.20 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 12/05/2016 4159759I 205 5053 05 1,028.44 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 12/05/2016 89521243 220 9036 43 516.25 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 12/05/2016 89701489 220 9036 43 1,327.34 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57860769 205 5053 05 3,445.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57894582 205 5053 05 411.38 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57894582 205 5053 05 333.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Orca Book Services 12/05/2016 IE3045784 787 4454 78 874.78 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 12/05/2016 57892830 205 5053 05 636.21 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 12/05/2016 4200607I 205 5053 05 502.23 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 530079 813 0527 65 1,580.00 DCMS Decant / Moving / Recant costs Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Johnsons Moving Services LTD 12/05/2016 530079 813 0527 65 158.00 DCMS Insurance Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) D Frampton 26/05/2016 1819 570.00 DCMS Collections purch. (Non-Capex) Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 4,871.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 612.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 828.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Factory Settings Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-1821 14,152.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Development Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371094 362 3348 61 691.95 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371926 362 3348 61 643.15 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Collections Pavel Prudek 18/05/2016 29/04/16 MOUNT COLEOPTERA 1,824.42 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Centre for Strategy & Communication Ltd 12/05/2016 PI001697 681 1653 34 1,100.00 DCMS Training The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 12/05/2016 200699 711 8625 45 6,219.24 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 12/05/2016 200699 711 8625 45 184.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 26/05/2016 200713 711 8625 45 876.31 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Spectrum Photographic Limited 26/05/2016 200713 711 8625 45 172.49 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12847 846 9261 90 1,187.50 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 26/05/2016 L1 205057 696 8691 51 600.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Development Richmond Associates 12/05/2016 2642 653 4303 55 2,666.67 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN025061 377 3451 31 1,000.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum of London Archaeology 12/05/2016 SIN014709 123 3647 34 530.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Sci Directorate Key Travel 26/05/2016 50372577 362 3348 61 782.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373175 171 5690 00 175.69 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum LS Collections New Alchemy 26/05/2016 4165 575.00 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5372494 232 3479 75 765.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Content Development - Broadcast Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5374351 232 3479 75 958.05 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Linkedin Ireland 12/05/2016 780722028A 9740425P 1,750.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cortina 18/05/2016 23A 8062 78 870 B01 1,101.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.02 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.02 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Objects IP Ecsite aisbl 19/05/2016 16715030A 0443.655.135 953.03 DCMS Advertising The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 12/05/2016 39065A 28.98.51.18 767.52 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153102 531 9887 12 2,185.21 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 12/05/2016 37900 625 5142 57 3,989.07 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 12/05/2016 37987 625 5142 57 5,080.90 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Gardners Books Ltd 26/05/2016 0251760V 628.04 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brainstorm Ltd 12/05/2016 150550 657 4917 93 2,483.28 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bachmann Europe Plc 12/05/2016 SIN0153277 531 9887 12 4,816.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brainstorm Ltd 12/05/2016 150595 657 4917 93 1,192.08 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops CGI IT UK Ltd 26/05/2016 GB2460022211 232 6151 94 3,626.83 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Certes Computing Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN025085 377 3451 31 7,765.59 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402283868 635 8235 28 1,070.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum L&A Dept Management Benugo 12/05/2016 I8081010006679 765 3217 26 4,554.12 DCMS Hospitality Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006476894 773 6958 71 815.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 26/05/2016 6550 974 8884 42 681.48 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Audience Development Management Key Travel 26/05/2016 50374167 362 3348 61 1,272.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Ithaka Harbors Inc 18/05/2016 SO080099 2,047.36 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team Ithaka Harbors Inc 18/05/2016 SO080099 1,160.17 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376390 232 3479 75 730.62 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Focus Consultants 2010 LLP 26/05/2016 16A/192 996 7534 48 1,500.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 12/05/2016 038150 100 1371 91 1,098.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402284544 635 8235 28 848.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum ES Invertebrates & Plants Division Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 12/05/2016 7402284544 635 8235 28 121.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376615 232 3479 75 788.43 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376611 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50373360 362 3348 61 969.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Learning Engagement Scientific Laboratory Supplies Ltd 26/05/2016 SI115483001 572 6920 21 1,798.80 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375610 232 3479 75 724.32 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376387 232 3479 75 590.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376388 232 3479 75 708.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 12/05/2016 1006451717 773 6958 71 1,650.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006459892 773 6958 71 1,650.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 105.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 148.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 148.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 97.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Preservation Equipment Ltd 26/05/2016 0000348745 491 0421 69 14.95 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Atkins Ltd 12/05/2016 15053092 209 8612 53 10,947.11 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Brandart Ltd 26/05/2016 38059 625 5142 57 1,370.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) The NHM Trading Company LTD LS Consultancy Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371900 171 5690 00 550.45 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 12/05/2016 1188 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 26/05/2016 1189 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Neat PR 26/05/2016 1473 110 0129 96 2,430.91 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Neat PR 26/05/2016 1473 110 0129 96 40.00 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keenpac 26/05/2016 OP/I139367 286 0142 66 781.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) PCS Cleaning 12/05/2016 150822 404 6707 66 5,934.58 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Media Relations Rhubarb Food Design Ltd 12/05/2016 15909 676 3425 14 586.40 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9558 340 1674 74 708.33 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Plaster Creative Communications 26/05/2016 5897 729 6927 81 2,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9391 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring Robotics Emcor Facility Services Ltd 12/05/2016 00415483RI 188 4140 46 566.80 DCMS Freight Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9382 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9334 340 1674 74 708.35 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 12/05/2016 27451326 232 3479 75 822.50 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Adecco UK Ltd. 26/05/2016 27456686 232 3479 75 809.34 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12039163 754 5322 32 732.16 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 12/05/2016 12039163 754 5322 32 210.92 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Esprit Group 12/05/2016 88897-88910 608 0609 56 10,437.00 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12046690 754 5322 32 711.94 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12046690 754 5322 32 179.98 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Junior Geo Ltd 12/05/2016 214375 572.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rory Dobner Ltd 12/05/2016 1816 117 6279 05 848.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 12/05/2016 NHM0177 1,270.80 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 12/05/2016 NHM0177 48.92 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2135 842 6797 88 1,269.60 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43307 501 7702 81 2,599.70 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2139 842 6797 88 911.10 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rockshop Wholesale 12/05/2016 55238 183 6395 33 3,421.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317427 4,167.18 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cornflower Limited 12/05/2016 43229 678 7954 52 1,442.68 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) RGM Products Limited 12/05/2016 2140 842 6797 88 869.70 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cotswold Fayre Ltd 12/05/2016 247483 653 4530 44 510.75 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Capital Souvenirs Ltd 12/05/2016 1561 974 8896 35 850.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keycraft 12/05/2016 195166 140 1547 10 4,544.64 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 12/05/2016 0000206155 299 2526 13 1,503.84 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Tobar Group Trading Ltd 12/05/2016 3333495 672.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Paul Lamond Games 12/05/2016 INV81910 645 4857 07 754.44 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317667 3,428.40 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 12/05/2016 SI317727 3,538.08 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Dowman Imports 12/05/2016 43306 501 7702 81 548.16 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Temple Island Collection 12/05/2016 12-0420-25359 838 4490 95 752.40 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wild Republic Aps (USE NEW ACCOUNT) 26/05/2016 SI317981 1,827.90 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46A 546 1680 37 3,200.00 DCMS Site Preparation / Demolition Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Mansfield Wahl 12/05/2016 A46A 546 1680 37 1,280.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 188.25 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 144.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 136.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Sci Post-Graduate Training Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891458 716 5389 16 144.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 375.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 157.50 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91891459 716 5389 16 74.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,342.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,542.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 1,147.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 771.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 952.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum LS Collections Veolia Water Technologies 12/05/2016 52066156 207 8034 79 771.00 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Publishing Saxon Digital Services 26/05/2016 12852 846 9261 90 1,121.80 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416959RI 188 4140 46 3,034.56 DCMS Science Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416960RI 188 4140 46 2,347.62 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416961RI 188 4140 46 3,978.35 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416962RI 188 4140 46 763.10 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416963RI 188 4140 46 2,888.50 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416964RI 188 4140 46 654.00 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416965RI 188 4140 46 2,521.82 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416966RI 188 4140 46 1,788.04 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416967RI 188 4140 46 2,168.66 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00416968RI 188 4140 46 592.06 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 189218 892 2071 22 1,336.18 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Risk & Assurance Marks Sattin (UK) Limited 26/05/2016 189218 892 2071 22 6.99 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events London Hair & Beauty Ltd 26/05/2016 2818 115 5766 11 595.00 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development DV Talent Ltd 12/05/2016 14939 810 5501 76 1,095.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50375652 362 3348 61 2,030.35 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Nick J. Hawkins 26/05/2016 1605/01 750.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Production Services Engineering Weldmet Ltd 26/05/2016 172749 318 4879 24 525.08 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Atec Security Ltd 26/05/2016 45192 431 3211 10 30,975.00 DCMS Estates Systems Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 12/05/2016 SA 111663833 553 7696 03 20,053.85 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 251430940/0066 553 7696 03 32,631.03 DCMS Electricity 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 26/05/2016 41430504/0068 553 7696 03 4,336.52 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Southern Electric 26/05/2016 701431584/0070 553 7696 03 6,667.92 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 201616442/0024 553 7696 03 33,787.19 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 91431762/0066 553 7696 03 7,014.34 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum SS HV Ringmain Southern Electric 26/05/2016 981457605/0059 553 7696 03 29,599.42 DCMS Electricity The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) NoaPoa Asia Pte Ltd 18/05/2016 2016.0409 780.73 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cavallini Papers & Co Inc 18/05/2016 221223 673.92 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01925306 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01925306 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Membership Custom Card Services Int Ltd 26/05/2016 DD/574692 834 6263 23 1,501.28 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Marketing Open Dawe London Ltd 12/05/2016 275 138 8960 65 4,380.00 DCMS Advertising 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204417 696 8691 51 1,121.12 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204416 696 8691 51 2,451.40 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204415 696 8691 51 2,242.24 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204414 696 8691 51 3,203.06 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204413 696 8691 51 1,501.46 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 12/05/2016 L1 204419 696 8691 51 8,671.16 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical Carl Zeiss Limited 26/05/2016 5140335587 232 5089 78 67,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50371199 362 3348 61 903.64 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Softcat Ltd 26/05/2016 INV01366932 491 8485 03 50,865.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 750.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 650.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 70.66 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Molecular Biology Labs Starlab (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 91892650 716 5389 16 129.91 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Publishing Frances Lincoln Ltd 26/05/2016 18732 237 5657 37 1,647.15 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Publishing Frances Lincoln Ltd 26/05/2016 18732 237 5657 37 1,745.15 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Jerram Falkus 26/05/2016 JC14224 446 9008 37 125,749.50 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 395.54 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 201.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Café Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375611 232 3479 75 262.92 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum LS Parasites & Vectors Division KE Software (UK) Ltd/Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803923 757 8581 72 4,996.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Titan Containers A/S 26/05/2016 1616485 941 1109 61 780.00 DCMS Building & Engineering PPM Natural History Museum Production Services Special Effects Black Cat Displays Ltd 26/05/2016 983 912 0648 51 801.00 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Step Ahead Employment Ltd 12/05/2016 00118628 181 8430 04 535.13 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Step Ahead Employment Ltd 26/05/2016 00118913 181 8430 04 535.13 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375603 232 3479 75 920.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375880 232 3479 75 509.88 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 12/05/2016 5375602 232 3479 75 575.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376617 232 3479 75 509.88 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376385 232 3479 75 920.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Touring Objects IP Kate Whittington 26/05/2016 NHMAO01 620.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Adams Environmental Ltd 26/05/2016 22446 437 3387 34 2,120.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Business & Commercial Trading Atlantic Productions Ltd. 26/05/2016 CS5623 625 7763 15 10,313.78 DCMS Trading Activities-3rd P Sales The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Music & Arts Security Ltd 26/05/2016 20160205 644 8760 08 2,156.00 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD NHM Consultancy Key Travel 26/05/2016 50375659 171 5690 00 635.34 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375883 232 3479 75 594.86 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Book Service Ltd 26/05/2016 K17644IV 102 8389 80 554.27 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37469169 102 8389 80 1,946.63 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37469169 102 8389 80 137.35 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37520563 102 8389 80 474.36 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 37520563 102 8389 80 94.35 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Gardners Books Ltd 26/05/2016 0252022V 1,106.81 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) The Book Service Ltd 26/05/2016 K06732IV 102 8389 80 1,337.72 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 3761987X 102 8389 80 3,625.12 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Penguin Books Ltd 26/05/2016 3761987X 102 8389 80 111.06 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Health & Safety Services Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust 26/05/2016 H0131249 1,937.26 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Titan Containers A/S 26/05/2016 1616345 941 1109 61 540.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Still HR 26/05/2016 743 925 3265 27 895.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Audience Development Management The Museums & Heritage Show Ltd 26/05/2016 1124 234 4707 16 1,520.00 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 159.49 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 69.55 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376398 232 3479 75 556.40 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Displayways Ltd 26/05/2016 INV20706 735 6701 27 990.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Production Services Exhibition & Conservation Pete Smith Inspections Ltd 26/05/2016 3115NHM 916 3994 90 1,554.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Euronova Ltd 26/05/2016 2349 729 1829 09 980.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 49.44 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 25.04 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 791.60 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum CRL Imaging & Analytical VWR International Ltd 26/05/2016 5063092853 823 8532 25 2,528.00 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum LS Insects Division Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378322 362 3348 61 685.72 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Adams Environmental Ltd 26/05/2016 22456 437 3387 34 1,300.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Comcen 26/05/2016 INV177646 540 9977 10 4,454.78 DCMS Equip. Purch. & Hire (non IT / office) Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00417123RI 188 4140 46 2,714.41 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378346 362 3348 61 668.94 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Development Richmond Associates 26/05/2016 2643 653 4303 55 1,223.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 244.72 DCMS Accommodation 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 90.27 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 61.18 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 158.37 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 75.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum LS Insects Division University of Aberdeen 12/05/2016 800107776 267 3290 44 285.78 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ensemble Systems Inc 26/05/2016 26034145-A 979 4283 58 1,859.38 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 326.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 377.50 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 254.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 496.16 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 780.35 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Keystone Employment Group LLP 26/05/2016 INV0035562 934 2836 14 287.65 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Emcor Facility Services Ltd 26/05/2016 00412853RI 188 4140 46 44,281.89 DCMS Furniture The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9397 340 1674 74 300.35 DCMS Accommodation The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition The Regency Hotel 26/05/2016 9397 340 1674 74 408.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Environment Agency 26/05/2016 2005880 2,550.00 DCMS Statutory Inspections The NHM Trading Company LTD Touring WPY Charles Kendall Packing 26/05/2016 17000929 563 2027 64 753.60 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Cultural Consultancy Earnest (London) Limited 26/05/2016 102049 981 8039 90 5,250.00 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects High Voltage Partial Discharge Ltd HVPD 12/05/2016 3437 904 3283 45 1,690.48 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 JX0209IW 102 8389 80 2,034.24 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287312 635 8235 28 7,844.60 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402286506 635 8235 28 628.50 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 629.72 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 65.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Stone Computers Ltd 26/05/2016 985852 747 8788 57 119.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Chelsea Glass Ltd 26/05/2016 65595 494 2810 30 975.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31569 823 8446 18 122,154.90 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31569 823 8446 18 182.89 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Royal Entomological Society 26/05/2016 116 240 0276 12 1,000.00 DCMS Conference (Delegate) Fees Natural History Museum Publishing Bobby and Co Design 26/05/2016 0566 882 1780 05 2,016.00 DCMS Work In Progress Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803922 610 5069 78 70,048.00 DCMS IT Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Heritage Books 26/05/2016 127892 219 4621 65 612.41 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376621 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376622 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Deluxebase Ltd 26/05/2016 00052345 647 6600 22 751.43 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 629.10 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 157.98 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 69.90 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 358.80 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum Visitor Experience Management Burlington Uniforms Limited 26/05/2016 456698 429 7961 03 120.93 DCMS Other Staff Welfare costs Natural History Museum LS Invertebrates Division University of Southampton 26/05/2016 44176287 568 6304 14 9,554.50 DCMS Studentship Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100440491 524 1612 80 19,833.02 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100441806 524 1612 80 2,160.19 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Ricoh UK Ltd 26/05/2016 100441806 524 1612 80 742.29 DCMS Equip. Lease Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316285 809 7077 06 1,944.80 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31609 823 8446 18 2,295.48 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Media Relations Gorkana Group Ltd 26/05/2016 GB_46139 757 1580 12 1,543.75 DCMS Subscriptions & Corp. Mbrships The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 JX2050IW 102 8389 80 1,980.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474330 259 6397 06 921.39 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Grantham Book Services (TBS Ltd) 26/05/2016 K06135IW 102 8389 80 1,735.77 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Lindsay Sekulowicz 26/05/2016 120 300.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Lindsay Sekulowicz 26/05/2016 120 3,100.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31564 823 8446 18 2,114.16 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31565 823 8446 18 1,585.53 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Housekeeping SK Servest (Sherwood) Ltd 26/05/2016 31571 823 8446 18 4,519.38 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Directorate Compass Partnership 26/05/2016 1945 784 2224 26 5,850.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Marlin Training Ltd 26/05/2016 1980 1,745.00 DCMS Training 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Loyal Retainers Ltd 26/05/2016 072 209 6628 90 180.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Loyal Retainers Ltd 26/05/2016 072 209 6628 90 1,950.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Picture Library (Image Resources) Capture Limited 26/05/2016 23332 491 6754 12 10,000.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316268 809 7077 06 2,315.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 19,811.85 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 4,435.49 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Total Gas Contracts Limited 26/05/2016 TGC9714/16 689 6389 49 5,322.59 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Vital Energi 26/05/2016 SI-16921 764 5182 15 67,626.76 DCMS Energy Services Unitary Charge Natural History Museum SS CHP Boilerhouse Vital Energi 26/05/2016 SI-16981 764 5182 15 1,008.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Rosamund Kidman Cox 26/05/2016 0319 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17268 407 4846 44 1,637.59 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,901.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 862.40 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 916.50 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 292.50 DCMS Assets under Construction 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 351.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,291.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,511.25 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,964.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 7,020.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 2,964.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects W.E. Marson & Company Limited 26/05/2016 8148 220 3303 34 1,253.85 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Content Design Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375452 232 3479 75 653.94 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 290.70 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,570.32 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,635.23 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,885.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum VC Donations & Maps Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 880.06 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales - Cloakroom Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5375604 232 3479 75 1,860.98 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Media Relations Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377067 232 3479 75 708.84 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377070 232 3479 75 739.53 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Visitor Services Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377076 232 3479 75 389.48 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Tring Retail Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377076 232 3479 75 153.01 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Development Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377291 232 3479 75 721.13 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2025 979 0817 67 3,059.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Cyborg Arts Ltd 26/05/2016 CYB16-24 1,500.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Cyborg Arts Ltd 26/05/2016 CYB16-24 422.10 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316262 809 7077 06 2,505.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316262 809 7077 06 415.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Toyota Material Handling UK Limited 26/05/2016 105089273 669 2842 89 514.30 DCMS Build & Eng Reactive Maintenance Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Historic England 26/05/2016 0000095048 5,800.09 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377287 232 3479 75 567.00 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031702 546 1539 38 148,936.35 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Estates Security SK Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031702 546 1539 38 21,584.24 DCMS Estates Outsourced Services Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Lux Lucis Ltd 26/05/2016 587-0590 2,475.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111296639 809 7077 06 3,420.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 78.92 DCMS Hospitality 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 20.20 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition HaarbergPhoto 18/05/2016 664 165.55 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 70.00 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 22.88 DCMS Travel-Bus & Rail Transport The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Klaus Nigge Photography 18/05/2016 1604 15793139 8 20.68 DCMS Hospitality The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Bruno D'Amicis 18/05/2016 12.16 1,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803911 610 5069 78 3,741.44 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Axiell ALM Ltd 26/05/2016 803911 610 5069 78 424.45 DCMS IT Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377295 232 3479 75 849.80 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474299 259 6397 06 3,702.84 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102474299 259 6397 06 279.85 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102501382 259 6397 06 120.31 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102501382 259 6397 06 792.49 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Harper Collins Publishers 26/05/2016 102507011 259 6397 06 1,896.55 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD WPoY Competition Lewis Blackwell 26/05/2016 09/05/16 WPY16 1 1,375.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Technology Solutions - Telecoms (NHM) Verizon 26/05/2016 W010576642 823 8170 33 1,235.37 DCMS Telecoms Direct Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Xact Consultancy and Training Limited 24/05/2016 16-1253 855 4570 04 1,807.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Key Travel 26/05/2016 50378362 362 3348 61 2,092.25 DCMS Travel-Air Passenger Transport Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2100 979 0817 67 2,226.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Directorate Brunswick Group LLP 26/05/2016 609076 743 8063 28 15,000.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038381 100 1371 91 11,468.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038382 100 1371 91 2,313.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038383 100 1371 91 770.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17227 407 4846 44 329.89 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum L&A Collections & Services Team NHBS 26/05/2016 Q17227 407 4846 44 519.66 DCMS Library Serials Natural History Museum Visitor Events Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031626 546 1539 38 987.42 DCMS Special Event Costs Natural History Museum Visitor Events Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031619 546 1539 38 1,629.68 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Bookings & Sales Langdale Attraction Solutions Ltd 26/05/2016 326 224 0607 47 968.75 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Bookings & Sales Langdale Attraction Solutions Ltd 26/05/2016 326 224 0607 47 90.00 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53573 118 9313 10 5,569.55 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53573 118 9313 10 649.42 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53556 118 9313 10 4,846.24 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Target Group 26/05/2016 53556 118 9313 10 602.56 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Esprit Group 26/05/2016 89202-89215 608 0609 56 11,113.50 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 5,522.63 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 49.20 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5377293 232 3479 75 1,576.29 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 5,252.03 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 49.20 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5376619 232 3479 75 2,506.95 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cybertill Ltd 26/05/2016 14376 786 6539 66 1,664.99 DCMS Equip. Maint. & Repairs (non IT) The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) E Christian & Co Limited 26/05/2016 059278 774.00 DCMS Storage Costs 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12055468 754 5322 32 932.63 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DPD UK 26/05/2016 12055468 754 5322 32 49.19 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Wymount 26/05/2016 1190 885 8551 64 825.00 DCMS Freelancers / Self Empld cont Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316282 809 7077 06 5,585.00 DCMS Assets under Construction Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) Equals Consulting Limited 26/05/2016 2099 979 0817 67 2,545.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127564 183 5130 19 3,182.25 DCMS Cost of Goods Sold The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127564 183 5130 19 1,474.00 DCMS Rechargeable Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127745 183 5130 19 905.50 DCMS Cost of Goods Sold The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Prodigi UK Limited 26/05/2016 127745 183 5130 19 474.85 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Estates Utilities Southern Electric 26/05/2016 SA111663833 553 7696 03 20,053.85 DCMS Electricity Natural History Museum Human Resources - Ops Childcare Vouchers Ltd 24/05/2016 IN126342222 649 5035 20 220.70 DCMS HR Outsourced Services Contracts Natural History Museum NHM Governance & Admin Childcare Vouchers Ltd 24/05/2016 IN126342222 649 5035 20 11,035.00 DCMS Child Care Vouchers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Marbel Ltd 26/05/2016 SIN47386 903 3393 52 761.52 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Little Tees Ltd 26/05/2016 1110 150 5654 24 1,383.90 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) H Grossman Limited 26/05/2016 0000206241 299 2526 13 532.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Nature Planet ApS 26/05/2016 39638 28.98.51.18 1,101.54 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Towermint Limited 26/05/2016 36787 548 0743 32 1,120.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) DKL Marketing Ltd 26/05/2016 0000130198 599.76 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Fleet Retail Packaging Ltd 26/05/2016 46108 846 7527 88 2,625.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Fleet Retail Packaging Ltd 26/05/2016 46108 846 7527 88 105.30 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Peterkin (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 IN207047 586.32 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) British Fossils 26/05/2016 SIN023601 423 8505 60 855.32 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) 2B DMC UK LTD 26/05/2016 16-UK-014 206 8753 95 1,000.00 DCMS Commission Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX946 618 1841 40 914.63 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 319.80 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Production Services Media Technicians Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 172.20 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Visitor Events Jacobs Massey 26/05/2016 19422 820 4218 69 147.60 DCMS Agency Staff 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX949 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX950 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Harrington Gardens House Ltd 26/05/2016 KH123/16 241 9103 89 1,302.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Sci Resources - Research Coordination Office Harrington Gardens House Ltd 26/05/2016 KH124/16 241 9103 89 1,302.00 DCMS Accommodation Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90028378 546 1539 38 671.40 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Events (South Ken) Wilson James Ltd 26/05/2016 90028212 546 1539 38 680.15 DCMS Rechargeable Costs Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 396.72 DCMS Postage & Couriers Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 584.64 DCMS Consumables / Sundry (non Stat) Natural History Museum Museum Programme Group (PEG) S.J.G. International Ltd 31/05/2016 PR1604601-A 110 6415 23 134.40 DCMS Postage & Couriers The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bookpoint 26/05/2016 4243458I 205 5053 05 1,618.38 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89949294 220 9036 43 559.97 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89755805 220 9036 43 1,786.87 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58081607 205 5053 05 536.63 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58081607 205 5053 05 2,356.72 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58130578 205 5053 05 224.75 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Littlehampton Book Services Ltd 26/05/2016 58130578 205 5053 05 639.38 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum PEG Resources & Planning G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01936549 238 5602 56 572.96 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Tring Management & Admin. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd 26/05/2016 01936549 238 5602 56 240.60 DCMS Bank Charges Natural History Museum Retail (South Ken) Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90028216 546 1539 38 1,138.82 DCMS Special Event Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Macmillan Publishers International Ltd 26/05/2016 89841132 220 9036 43 627.45 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Adare SEC Ltd 26/05/2016 IN0105668 616 6856 14 3,070.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Cranfield Management Development Ltd 26/05/2016 1053933 168 4854 63 800.00 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum Storage Design 26/05/2016 MSD-NHM OFFSITE/01 2,430.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Museum Storage Design 26/05/2016 MSD-NHM OFFSITE/02 3,442.50 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Ruskins Group Consultancy Ltd 26/05/2016 INV-4162 151 8913 05 900.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit 31-May-2016 To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum HR Organisational Development Capita Business Services Ltd 26/05/2016 WX951 618 1841 40 1,030.49 DCMS Training Natural History Museum Finance Longbridge Recuitment 360 Ltd 26/05/2016 6599 974 8884 42 548.97 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Finance Hays Accountancy Personnel 26/05/2016 1006497507 773 6958 71 638.73 DCMS Agency Staff Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Colley Associates Ltd 26/05/2016 2015/015/NHM/STORAGE/02 177 0029 16 1,968.75 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402286520 635 8235 28 584.00 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum CRL Conservation Centre Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 141.76 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 442.24 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287783 635 8235 28 101.99 DCMS IT Costs Natural History Museum Development Graduate Jobs Network t/as Unicorn Jobs 26/05/2016 GJN 1258 918 9625 79 6,600.00 DCMS Recruitment Costs Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316276 809 7077 06 5,872.50 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Deloitte LLP 26/05/2016 1111316273 809 7077 06 2,307.40 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Projects Expedition Engineering Ltd 26/05/2016 3103 927 4879 72 580.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25473 700.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25443 712.00 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25423 706.50 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Programme Group (Temporary Exhibitions) Stratford Butterfly Farm Ltd 26/05/2016 25376 690.48 DCMS Exhibition Construction / Hire Natural History Museum Estates Buildings Ops Larch Consulting Ltd 26/05/2016 5676 660 8915 15 10,800.00 DCMS Prof. Fees excl Legal & Audit Natural History Museum Technology Solutions Dell Computer Corporation Ltd 26/05/2016 7402287330 635 8235 28 7,844.60 DCMS IT Costs The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 26/05/2016 NHM0178 32.54 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) L Deeley Enterprises 26/05/2016 NHM0178 1,080.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Countryside Art Ltd 26/05/2016 50425 129 6609 46 862.50 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Cornflower Limited 26/05/2016 43245 678 7954 52 1,150.65 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Deluxebase Ltd 26/05/2016 00051980 647 6600 22 621.60 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Kingfisher Leisurewear Ltd 26/05/2016 0000121808 655 5300 44 894.45 DCMS Stock 31-May-2016 Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Kingfisher Leisurewear Ltd 26/05/2016 0000121892 655 5300 44 673.20 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Keycraft 26/05/2016 195334 140 1547 10 5,426.64 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Great Gizmos Ltd 26/05/2016 230974 697 4395 69 1,739.88 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Rockshop Wholesale 26/05/2016 55581 183 6395 33 3,229.00 DCMS Stock The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Ravensden PLC 26/05/2016 OP/I101275 486 5098 02 867.60 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 1,361.45 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 1,786.00 DCMS Furniture Natural History Museum LS Collections Stephenson Blake Sheffield 26/05/2016 4432 992 2049 86 758.50 DCMS Furniture The NHM Trading Company LTD Tring Retail Ravensden PLC 26/05/2016 OP/I101629 486 5098 02 612.20 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Finance Farrer &Co 26/05/2016 10133567 232 3892 67 1,526.84 DCMS Legal Fees The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Creativity International Ltd 26/05/2016 0000276292 807 6599 90 834.00 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Marketing AKA Promotions Ltd 26/05/2016 L1 204420 696 8691 51 2,400.00 DCMS Advertising Natural History Museum Visitor Engagement Welcome and Service Wilson James Limited 26/05/2016 90031629 546 1539 38 3,606.08 DCMS Special Event Costs 31-May-2016 ## To : Department Family Amount Entity Date Expense Type Expense Area Supplier Transaction Number VAT Registration Number Natural History Museum Membership Witherbys Ltd 26/05/2016 038379 100 1371 91 657.00 DCMS Prof. Printing & Promo. Matl. Natural History Museum Bookings & Sales Spring Personnel 26/05/2016 5373260 232 3479 75 941.73 DCMS Agency Staff The NHM Trading Company LTD Retail (South Ken) Bertoy 26/05/2016 161090 0464 747 982 1,937.52 DCMS Stock Natural History Museum Finance HM Revenue & Customs 31/05/2016 NIRU 010764H C18199861 888 8481 41 1,765.48 DCMS Exceptional Costs Natural History Museum NHM Governance & Admin HM Revenue & Customs 31/05/2016 NIRU 010764H C18199861 888 8481 41 0.00 DCMS VAT Clearing Control A/c

en

2615-pdf

## Forestry.Gov.Uk/Statistics Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry surveys 2013 to 2017. Average visit frequencies from last 3 surveys. A summary of statistics about woodland and forestry in the UK ## Forestry Facts & Figures 2017 Forest Cover: International Comparisons 2015 Annual Changes In Forest Area: International Comparisons | UK | 18 | 0.6 | 11 | 0.3 | 17 | 0.5 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------|-------| | Europe | | | | | | | | United Kingdom | 3 | 24 | 13 | | | | | EU-28 | 681 | 0.5 | 450 | 0.3 | 369 | 0.2 | | Finland | 22 | 30 | 73 | | | | | Total Europe | 803 | 0.1 | | | | | | 1 127 | 0.1 | 382 | 0 | | | | | Africa | | | | | | | | -3 537 | -0.5 | -3 209 | -0.5 | -2 836 | -0.4 | | | France | 17 | 55 | 31 | | | | | Asia | -221 | 0.0 | | | | | | 2 349 | 0.4 | 791 | 0.1 | | | | | Germany | 11 | 35 | 33 | | | | | Italy | 9 | 29 | 32 | | | | | North & Central | | | | | | | | America | | | | | | | | -394 | -0.1 | 172 | 0 | 75 | 0 | | | Spain | 18 | 50 | 37 | | | | | Oceania | 82 | 0.0 | -564 | -0.3 | 304 | 0.2 | | Sweden | 28 | 41 | 68 | | | | | South America | -4,000 | -0.4 | | | | | | -3 868 | -0.4 | -2 024 | -0.2 | | | | | Other EU | 52 | 159 | 32 | | | | | World | -7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 267 | | | | | | | | -0.2 | | | | | | | | -3 993 | -0.1 | -3 308 | -0.1 | | | | | Total EU-28 | 161 | 424 | 38 | | | | | Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but | | | | | | | | is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. | | | | | | | | Russian Federation | 815 | 1,638 | 50 | | | | | Total Europe | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 015 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 214 | | | | | | | | 46 | | | | | | | | Africa | 624 | 2,987 | 21 | | | | | Asia | 593 | 3,118 | 19 | | | | | North & Central | | | | | | | | America | | | | | | | | 751 | 2,134 | 35 | | | | | | Oceania | 174 | 850 | 20 | | | | | South America | 842 | 1,747 | 48 | | | | | World | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 999 | 13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 049 | 31 | | | | | | Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. ## Softwood Deliveries (Thousands Of Green Tonnes) Hardwood Deliveries (Thousands Of Green Tonnes) | 2012 | 6 073 | 461 | 1 269 | 338 | 1 000 | 154 | |--------|---------|-------|---------|-------|---------|-------| | 9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 831 | | | | | | | | 2012 | 75 | 0 | 2 | 400 | 57 | | | 534 | | | | | | | | 2013 | | | | | | | | 6 407 | 465 | 1 263 | 332 | 1 250 | 191 | 640 | | 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 547 | | | | | | | | 2013 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 58 | | | 532 | | | | | | | | 2014 | | | | | | | | 6 725 | 465 | 1 283 | 317 | 1 500 | 176 | 437 | | 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 903 | | | | | | | | 2014 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 60 | | | 537 | | | | | | | | 2015 | | | | | | | | 6 166 | 435 | 1 334 | 288 | 1 600 | 164 | 276 | | 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 263 | | | | | | | | 2015 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 91 | | | 564 | | | | | | | | 2016 | | | | | | | | 6 511 | 423 | 1 248 | 278 | 1 550 | 178 | 231 | | 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 419 | | | | | | | | 2016 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 122 | | | 597 | | | | | | | Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of softwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes shavings and poles. Figures are based on processing industries' purchases of hardwood grown in the UK and estimates for woodfuel and other uses. Woodfuel reported here is derived from stemwood and includes estimated roundwood use for biomass energy. Other includes round fencing and roundwood exports. Total woodland Total woodland FC/NRW/FS Private sector area certified FC/NRW/FS England 214 122 337 Wales 117 28 145 England 151 63 214 Scotland 470 371 841 Wales 98 19 117 Northern Ireland 62 3 65 Scotland 429 40 470 UK 863 525 1 388 Northern Ireland 56 7 62 UK 733 130 863 All certified woodland in 2017 is under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. Some woodland is also certified under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Scheme. Private sector England 189 903 1 092 Wales 53 137 190 Scotland 632 338 970 Private sector Northern Ireland 11 39 50 500 UK 885 1 418 2 303 400 All woodland 300 England 340 967 1 306 Wales 151 156 307 200 Scotland 1 061 378 1 440 thousands of hectares 100 Northern Ireland 66 46 112 0 UK 1 618 1 547 3 166 Areas as of 31 March, 2017. ## © Crown Copyright Generalists The Forestry Commission will consider all requests to make the content of publications available in alternative formats. Please send any such requests to the Diversity Team at diversity@forestry.gsi.gov.uk or call 0300 067 5046. Statistician: Sheila Ward. Enquiries relating to this publication should be addressed to: statistics@forestry.gsi.gov.uk ## Fcfs217/Fc-Gb(Jw)/Barr-4K/Sep17 - One green tonne is equivalent to approximately 0.98 m3 underbark softwood or 0.88 m3 underbark hardwood, and to approximately 1.22 m3 overbark standing softwood or 1.11 m3 overbark standing hardwood. - Figures in the tables are individually rounded, so the constituent items may not sum to the total given. = Conifers = Broadleaves - FC/NRW/FS = Forestry Commission/Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service. Private sector = all other woodland, including some other publicly-owned woodland. Notes on Forestry Facts & Figures: This booklet includes data provided by Natural Resources Wales (www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk) and by the Northern Ireland Forest Service (www.daera-ni.gov.uk/topics/forestry) The UK Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. For more information visit: www.statistics.gov.uk Forestry Facts & Figures is an annual summary of Forestry Statistics compiled by the Forestry Commission. The full 2017 publication, including full details of the sources used and downloadable spreadsheets of data, can be found online at: www.forestry.gov.uk/statistics ## Wood Removals: International Comparisons 2015 Wood Products: International Comparisons 2015 (million m3) (million m3) | UK | 9 | 2 | 11 | |------|-----|-----|------| | EU-28 | 350 | 99 | 450 | |---------|-------|------|-------| | Total Europe | 578 | 148 | 726 | |----------------|-------|-------|-------| | | | | Africa | 72 | 666 | 738 | |-----------------|-----|-----|----------|------|-------|-------| | UK | 3 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 9 | | Asia | 400 | 729 | | | | | | 1 129 | | | | | | | | EU-28 | 105 | 89 | 61 | 59 | 92 | 81 | | Total Europe | 151 | 107 | 82 | 76 | 104 | 92 | | North & Central | | | | | | | | America | | | | | | | | 516 | 136 | 652 | | | | | | Africa | 10 | 19 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 8 | | Oceania | 63 | 11 | 74 | | | | | Asia | 126 | 171 | 246 | 240 | 191 | 196 | | South America | 215 | 178 | 393 | | | | | World | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 845 | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 866 | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 711 | | | | | | | | North & Central | | | | | | | | America | | | | | | | | 127 | 119 | 48 | 56 | 89 | 86 | | Source: FAO. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. | Oceania | 9 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |---------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | South America | 31 | 25 | 18 | 14 | 16 | 17 | | World | 454 | 449 | 401 | 395 | 407 | 403 | |---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| Source: FAO. Cyprus is included in EU-28 total but is part of FAO's Asia region. These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. ## Import And Export Volumes Sawmilling Panels Pulp & paper Total | 2011 | |--------| | 39 | | 2012 | |--------| | 41 | | 2013 | |--------| | 40 | Business Survey (Office for National Statistics). Import and export values (£ million) Gross value added in forestry and primary wood processing (£ million) | 2011 | 416 | 435 | 197 | 888 | |--------|----------|--------|-------|-------| | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | 936 | | | | | | wood | | | | | | Other | | | | | | wood | paper | paper | | | | panels | & other) | panels | | | | 2012 | 307 | 586 | 226 | 776 | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | 895 | | | | | | 2012 | | | | | | 1 084 | 261 | 791 | 4 266 | 89 | | 2013 | 504 | 518 | 267 | 578 | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | 867 | | | | | | 2013 | 1 180 | 499 | 882 | 4 165 | | 2014 | 540 | 356 | 436 | 596 | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | 928 | | | | | | 2014 | 1 420 | 627 | 936 | 4 196 | | 2015 | 626 | 429 | 323 | 738 | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | 116 | | | | | | 2015 | 1 311 | 868 | 957 | 4 375 | | 2016 | |--------| | 1 307 | Year FC/NRW Private Private (to /FS sector Total FC/NRW /FS sector Total 31/3) Total 2013 0.0 2.6 0.1 0.8 1.7 5.3 0.0 0.2 1.9 8.9 10.8 2012 4 836 5 282 10 118 55 479 534 2014 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.8 2.0 6.3 0.0 0.3 2.2 10.7 12.9 2013 5 084 5 881 10 965 78 454 532 2015 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 5.1 0.0 0.2 2.6 7.7 10.3 2014 4 900 6 628 11 528 71 466 537 2016 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.7 0.0 0.1 1.9 3.7 5.6 2015 4 691 5 968 10 659 73 490 564 2017 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 3.2 1.5 0.1 0.2 3.5 3.0 6.5 2016 5 011 5 716 10 727 68 529 597 Restocking (thousands of hectares) | Year | England | Wales | Scotland | N Ireland | UK | |--------|-----------|---------|------------|-------------|------| Sawnwood Year (to (000 m3) (000 m3) (000 tonnes) 31/3) Total 2013 2.2 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.1 0.9 1.1 0.1 9.7 3.4 13.1 2012 3 409 3 003 4 480 2013 3 581 3 032 4 561 2014 2.6 1.9 1.4 0.8 6.5 1.4 1.0 0.1 11.6 4.2 15.8 2015 2.0 4.4 1.3 0.6 6.6 1.9 0.9 0.1 10.8 7.0 17.8 2014 3 764 3 068 4 397 2016 2.2 1.1 1.2 0.6 6.0 1.8 0.7 0.1 10.1 3.6 13.7 2015 3 494 3 080 3 970 2017 2.0 1.0 1.1 0.5 9.1 2.0 1.1 0.2 13.4 3.7 17.1 2016 3 671 3 033 3 675 wood products (e.g. fuelwood and round fencing), roundwood and intermediate products (e.g. sawmill products, pulp and recovered paper). ## Distribution Of Woodland In The Uk Woodland cover in the UK is now around 3 million hectares, equivalent to 13% of the total land area. The public forest estate makes up almost 30% of total forest area. This map shows the distribution of woodland over 2 hectares in the UK. The information on woodland area presented here uses data from the GB National Forest Inventory, adjusted for new planting, and data supplied by Forest Service in Northern Ireland. Find out more about the National Forest Inventory at: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory ## Uk Imports And Exports wrme = wood raw material equivalent

en

1726-pdf

Childrens Social Care Staff Survey - Privacy Notice We keep the privacy notice for staff surveys under regular review and we have used it to provide the privacy notice specific to the Childrens Social Care Staff survey in April 2020. When we use your personal data, City of York Council (CYC) complies with data protection legislation, and is the registered 'Controller'. Our data protection notification is registered with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) - reference Z5809563. Why will information be collected? The Business Intelligence Hub is commissioned to conduct surveys and collect data, at times including personal information, on behalf of various council services. Many consultations and surveys are completely anonymous and do not ask for personal information. In some cases we will ask for personal data which will be used to help the council improve services. We will explain why we are collecting personal data and will only use it with your explicit and informed consent. Participation is voluntary and you can choose not to answer some of the survey questions. You can withdraw your consent at any time, by contacting: business.intelligence@york.gov.uk or 01904 551550. What information will be collected? Each survey will have different requirements when collecting data and may include personal information, thoughts and opinions. In most cases you will be able to opt-out of sharing your personal data. What will we do with the information? The information we collect will be included in presentations, reports and performance framework. Any data for publication or use outside of the authorised officers will be anonymised and will not identify any individuals. We will not use the data for any other purpose than stated and will not disclose to a third party i.e. other companies or individuals, unless we are required to do so by law for the prevention of crime and detection of fraud, etc. We complete around 50 surveys on behalf of council teams and departments every year. We do not compare or bring together any personalised information returned across these various surveys. Each survey is dealt with independent of other survey taking place. Online data will be collected using SurveyMonkey. To find out how they use your information, please click here. Where will the information be kept We will keep the information you give us and your personal data in the council's secure network drive and make sure it can only be accessed by authorised staff. Where you complete a paper copy of a survey we will transfer the information you have given onto the council's secure network drive and then securely destroy the paper copy once the transfer is complete. How long will we keep the information? We will keep the information you give us and your personal data for up to three years and then will securely destroy it. Where required or appropriate to, at the end of the retention period, we will pass onto the City Archives any relevant information Further Processing If we wish to use your personal data for a new purpose, not covered by this Privacy Notice, we will provide you with a new notice explaining the purpose prior to commencing the processing and the processing conditions. Where and whenever necessary, we will seek your consent prior to the new processing. Your rights To find out about your rights under data protection law, you can go to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/ You can also find information about your rights at https://www.york.gov.uk/privacy If you have any questions about this privacy notice, want to exercise your rights, or if you have a complaint about how your information has been used, please contact us at foi@york.gov.uk or on 01904 554145 or write to: Data Protection Officer City of York Council West Offices Station Rise York YO1 6GA

en

1625-pdf

## Case Study: The Parliamentary Archives January 2014 Abstract This case study covers the Parliamentary Archives and their experience of procuring via the G-Cloud framework and running public cloud storage as part of their digital preservation infrastructure. For extra resilience/an exit strategy they have selected two cloud service providers with different underlying storage infrastructures. The archive is not storing sensitive material in the cloud and is using local storage systems for that material. It has a locally installed preservation system (Preservica Enterprise Edition) which is integrated with cloud and local storage. As such it is an example of an archive using a hybrid set of storage solutions part-public cloud and part-locally installed for digital preservation. ## Organisational Context The Parliamentary Archives manages, preserves, and provides historic access to the archives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and to other records relating to Parliament. They also provide a records management service for both Houses. Its remit is to preserve and make available its collections to the public, and they operate a full archive service and public search room. Digital is part of this equation, and they have an established digital repository and digital preservation policy and strategy. The Parliamentary Archives is a shared service of both Houses of Parliament and is not subject to the Public Records Act. In 2012 Parliament developed a new ICT policy, specifying Cloud First. In future, when procuring new or existing services, Parliament will consider and fully evaluate potential cloud solutions first - before they consider any other option. The Parliamentary Archives became early implementers of the new policy when reviewing their digital preservation storage requirements. They were the first department in Parliament to procure via the G-Cloud framework. The parliamentary procurement office managed this process for them. ## Digital Preservation Significance Digital material is of major significance in their collections and they have support and buy-in for their work in digital preservation from management boards of both Houses. There is a lot of digitisation by Parliament as well as born digital material. The digitisation programmes include original archives and historic editions of publications such as Hansard and other parliamentary printed material. The significance, range and volume of digital material for preservation can only increase. ## Current Approaches They have established Record Disposal Practices which define retention policies of Parliamentary records. The records management team is based within the Archives, so they can coordinate well and they have a joined up approach to selection policy and archiving. They have a locally installed preservation system, Preservica Enterprise Edition, which is integrated with cloud and local storage (see below). ## How They Would Want This To Change Over The Next 3 Years They are now entering the last phase of the digital preservation project, which is delivering enhancements to SDB and will end on 31 March 2014. Following that, digital preservation will move fully on to a "business as usual" footing. Up to now they have been concentrating on ingest, so over the next three years they will be developing a process for preservation planning and will be thinking more about how to promote the use of the material and broaden the range of information systems from which they can ingest. ## Range Of Content Types And Volumes Of Digital Material They currently have about 50 Tb of priority material to ingest. Over the next three years the quantity will only increase, and they will have more complex formats to handle. Digital material currently includes Hansard, web archives, EDRMS records, and Standing Committee papers. Formats are mostly standard office types, as well as PDF, JPEG, TIFF, Audio Visual (AV) and CAD material, plus web archive files, and XML structured data exported from internal systems. The amount of potential AV material is huge, depending on future decisions about selection. There is also a separate analogue AV archive that could be digitised. ## Cloud Storage For Digital Preservation The experience of procuring and managing cloud storage for preservation has been informative. They identified their requirements and reviewed cloud storage options in light of them. The main issues were maintaining their ability to fulfil legal obligations such as Freedom of Information, sovereignty, managing data integrity, information security, and getting the data back in the event of business failure or a decision to change provider, etc. There was some initial concerns about data security in the cloud but they took the decision only to use the cloud for storing open data, which is already in the public domain. Remaining material is stored locally. They may review this decision in future with a view to using relevant cloud service providers which are accredited for storing higher impact level material. There were also concerns over dependencies on a single service provider. For example, in the event of business failure, so for risk management purposes they have chosen to use two cloud providers in parallel with different underlying technologies. One is using Amazon S3, and the other is based on EMC Atmos. They found the process of procurement through G-Cloud itself to be very straightforward. What was more complex first time around was agreeing the contract as the standard terms and conditions available at the time did not have the safeguards they desired on getting the data back in a timely fashion on exit. The G-Cloud framework has since been updated and the procurement for the second cloud service was quicker. They have also realised that while there are a lot of suppliers on G-Cloud, many are re-sellers of the same underlying cloud service e.g. Amazon S3, so there is not as much choice of underlying infrastructure as first appears. They started to use the system operationally with the first cloud provider in August 2013. The second provider is due to come on stream in 2014. ## Technical Infrastructure Main Software Systems Used For Electronic Content Management, Preservation And Access Services For most preservation functions they are using Preservica EE out of the box, but have needed some configuration and enhancements for ingest from specific local systems. Preservica EE integrates with CALM, their archive cataloguing system. As noted above local archival storage is supplemented with that from two cloud service providers. Their Cloud storage is predominantly a deep archive and is not used by end users as they access separate copies. There is a bespoke online delivery system to provide public access to repository content, which integrates with the archive catalogue, Portcullis. They are taking in material from a variety of in house systems but like most public sector bodies Parliament tends to standardise on Microsoft for most office functions so these predominate. ## Business Case And Funding Main Issues In Their Business Case For Cloud Storage For Digital Preservation The wider business case for preservation was already in place before the Cloud First policy was instituted, but had to be revised to reflect the different cost model of less upfront capital investment, but more ongoing revenue expenditure. This wasn't a difficult case to make as Cloud First was a strategic decision Parliament had already adopted. Their initial budget profile needed reworking however in light of experience of use. They needed to predict volumes and usage and found it is important to get good figures here, as typically you pay most for your highest volume direction (in or out). They are mostly ingesting as the Cloud storage is not directly accessed by end users. They have a digital asset register so they can predict what will be coming in, storage demands, and future costs, but a lot depends on how quickly you can ingest. ## Key Lessons They Have Learnt 1. Look carefully at the contractual arrangements for your exit strategy. Note however within framework agreements, you are quite limited in what changes you can make to the terms and conditions as these have already been defined in the pre-selection phase. 2. Spend a lot of time getting your requirements right before you start. 3. Suppliers may cite excellent durability figures, but their claims are not always scientifically based. It can be difficult to define your durability requirements in a way that allows you to assess suppliers against them. 4. The quality of your information about likely usage is fundamental for budgeting for your use of cloud service providers. Try to establish accurate figures for your future storage and activity levels. A digital asset register can help here in assessing future ingest requirements and likely costs if you are primarily using cloud for deep storage. 5. The ongoing revenue commitment for the cloud on the basis of what you use, as opposed to a big upfront capital investment for local IT infrastructure, has pros and cons. It is important for management to understand and endorse the different cost model. 6. Despite early concerns, their experience of the cloud has been very positive. Other archives can take confidence from their success in working through practical approaches to using cloud for digital preservation and to addressing the most common issues raised. ## Future Plans 1. They will be implementing the second cloud storage provider. 2. They are only storing impact level 0 public data in the cloud at the moment, but might consider storing closed data in the cloud when appropriate supplier certification is in place. ## Further Information Parliamentary Archives http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/ Digital Preservation in Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentaryarchives/digitalpreservation/

en

2444-pdf

Elitist Britain 2019 The educational backgrounds of Britain's leading people ## About The Sutton Trust The Sutton Trust champions social mobility from birth to the workplace so that all young people have the chance to succeed in life. It does this through evidence-led programmes, agendasetting research and policy influence. © Sutton Trust & Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Please cite the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission when using material from this research. ## About The Social Mobility Commission The Social Mobility Commission is an advisory non-departmental public body established under the Life Chances Act 2010 as modified by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. It has a duty to assess progress in improving social mobility in the UK and to promote social mobility in England. ## Elitist Britain 2019 Forewords 2 ## Contents Key Findings 4 In numbers: Independent Schools 6 In numbers: Oxbridge 7 Policy Recommendations 8 Introduction 10 Sectors - Politics 17 - Business 27 - Media 37 - Whitehall & Public Bodies 45 - Public Servants 53 - Local Government 61 - Influential Women 69 - Creative Industries 75 - Sport 81 - Conclusions 89 Appendix A 96 Appendix B 98 References 100 Acknowledgements 105 ## Forewords Sir Peter Lampl Founder Of The Sutton Trust And Chairman Of The Education Endowment Foundation Over the last two decades, the Sutton Trust has pioneered research into the educational backgrounds of those at the top of British society. In that time we have covered fields from the legal profession to medicine, from the media to Nobel Prize winners. Across a wide variety of professions we see a similar picture - those educated at independent schools and Oxbridge are over-represented among Britain's elite. This report is published at a critical juncture for this country. We find ourselves an increasingly divided society. Divided by politics, by class, by geography. Social mobility, the potential for those to achieve success regardless of their background, remains worryingly low. The British education system is partly responsible for this divide, but it also has the potential to rectify it. Giving young people from all backgrounds access to the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in life is key to bridging the gap. For this to happen, the country's most "Giving young people from all backgrounds access to the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in life is key to bridging the social mobility gap." successful educational institutions need to open their doors to those beyond a privileged few. Top state schools need to ensure that they are as open to disadvantaged young people as the well-off; those with the means to obtain tutoring for the 11-plus, or to purchase a home in the catchment area of a high-performing school. Our independent sector, which has long been a source of educational and professional success, also should enable access for a wider section of society. Independent schools offer their pupils an array of advantages, from smaller class sizes, to top notch sporting facilities and opportunities for extracurricular development. Opening up independent day schools on the basis of merit, not money, via the Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, has long been an objective of mine. At university level, Oxford and Cambridge have both recently announced ambitious schemes to widen access. It is essential that these great universities deliver on that promise. Elitist Britain 2019 lays bare the lack of opportunities for so many young people across Britain. Amid an atmosphere of political tumult in Westminster, it must not be forgotten that addressing Britain's stubborn social mobility problem remains one of the most important challenges that lies ahead. Dame Martina Milburn Chair, Social Mobility Commission ## The Social Mobility Commission is delighted to be working with the Sutton Trust to look at the "power gap" which separates those who dominate the top of many professions and businesses and those who are left behind. Both organisations know that education lies at the heart of the social divide and people who have the best educational opportunities often get the best, well-paid jobs. Elitist Britain shows little has changed at the top in recent years. Decision makers in government, business and the judiciary are still dominated by the seven per cent of the population who are educated privately and the one per cent who go to Oxford or Cambridge University. But should this small elite have such a big say in running the country? Our analysis does suggest small shifts to address this imbalance. A record number of MPs (52 per cent) went to comprehensive schools and fewer army officers were educated at independent schools than five years ago. "Politicians, employers and educators all need to work together to ensure that Britain's elite becomes much more diverse in gender, ethnicity and social background." Yet still more than a third of the current Cabinet went to private school and over 57 per cent attended Oxbridge. Even newer industries, such as tech firms and PR firms have a high proportion of privately educated CEOs. Geographical differences are also worrying with many of the most prestigious jobs in businesses, journalism, law and politics, based in London, despite unaffordable rents and prohibitive house prices. Ideally more organisations should move their headquarters out of the capital to the regions. Not everyone needs or wants to make it to the top but those who wish to should get the chance to do so. Many sectors including the law, media and the civil service are now taking steps to address the issue through better apprenticeships, paid internships and blind recruitment - but it is a slow process. The Social Mobility Commission will shortly publish practical guidance for employers to help them widen access and improve progression opportunities. Politicians, employers, educators and policy makers all need to work together to ensure that Britain's elite becomes much more diverse, in gender, ethnicity and social background. It is time to close the power gap and ensure that those who hold the reins of power can relate to and represent ordinary people. ## Key Findings → →The United Kingdom in 2019 is an increasingly divided nation. The vote to leave the European Union both reflected and accentuated deep social divisions across the country. The nature of Britain's 'elite' is higher in the national consciousness than ever, with trust between significant sections of the population and those at the highest levels of politics, business and the media, under strain. The latest indications are that social mobility across the UK is low and not improving. This deprives large parts of the population, both socio-economically and geographically, of opportunity. This study, conducted for the first time by both the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission, offers a snapshot of who gets to succeed in Britain in 2019. → →This report looks at the educational backgrounds of Britain's elite across a broad range of sectors. The Sutton Trust's *Leading People (2016),* and the Social Mobility Commission's Elitist Britain (2014) painted a picture of a country whose power structures are dominated by a narrow section of the population: the 7% who attend independent schools, and the roughly 1% who graduate from just two universities, Oxford and Cambridge. Looking at the five years since 2014, Elitist Britain 2019 shows isolated pockets of positive change, but a picture characterised by persistent inequality. → →The broad trajectory of private school over- representation appears to be downwards, but change is happening slowly. Two fifths of the elite examined here (39%) attended independent schools, more than five times as many as the population at large (7%). The prospects of those educated at private schools remain significantly brighter than their peers. The proportion of the elites having attended grammar school (20%) is more clearly on the decline, though this is in the main likely to be a symptom of generational change, reflecting the ending of the selective system in most of England during the 1960s and 70s, and the rise of the comprehensively educated generation. Also a function of generational change is the level of university attendance rising across many sectors, as the increased number of graduates in the population filters upwards. → →Politics In politics, the 2017 General Election returned a parliament with the highest number of comprehensively educated MPs on record, at 52%. Nonetheless, 29% of MPs still come from a private school background, four times higher than the electorate they represent. The House of Lords is even less representative, with 57% of its members having been educated privately. This figure is actually 8 percentage points higher than 2014, potentially owing to the profile of new Lords appointed by David Cameron and Theresa May in the interim. The cabinet, at the time of analysis in spring 2019, was composed of 39% independently educated members. This is in stark contrast with the shadow cabinet, with just 9% - the lowest level of the privately educated in Britain's elite outside professional football. Increasing numbers of MPs have university degrees (up 5 percentage points), with the numbers graduating from Oxbridge (24%) consistent over time. → →Business Business saw some of the highest rates of internationally educated members of the elite, with 43% of FTSE 350 CEOs, and over half (51%) of the Sunday Times Rich List top 100 schooled abroad. Looking at those educated in the UK alone however, there were large numbers who were independently educated - 57% of the Rich List and 48% of FTSE 350 CEOs. Tech firm CEOs and entrepreneurs, a source of business innovation, also had large numbers of privately schooled members, but at 44%, entrepreneurs had the highest rate of non-university graduates outside sport and the creative industries. → →Media The media, alongside politics and the civil service, form a triumvirate of sectors at the top of the socially exclusive list, with all three largely centred in London. Newspaper columnists, who play a significant role in shaping the national conversation, draw from a particularly small pool, with 44% attending independent school and 33% coming through the independent school to Oxbridge 'pipeline' alone. Looking at a variety of roles in the news media, including influential editors and broadcasters, we see a similar picture, with 43% having been privately educated and 36% graduating from Oxbridge. Trends in the sector, including budget cuts, the closure of many local media organisations, the increasing casualisation of work and high numbers of unpaid internships, contribute to the ongoing under-representation of those from less well-off backgrounds across the media. → → Whitehall & Public Bodies In Whitehall and public bodies, which are responsible for enacting government policy and overseeing a wide range of sectors across British society, there is a consistent picture of overrepresentation of those from elite educational backgrounds. Civil service permanent secretaries (59%), Foreign Office diplomats (52%), and Public Body Chairs (45%) have among the highest rates of independently educated in their ranks. Despite efforts to overhaul entry into the Civil Service, its highest levels remain highly exclusive, with 56% having graduated from Oxford or Cambridge, and 39% having attended both a private school and Oxbridge. While the numbers of the comprehensively educated in these roles is on the rise, this is largely at the expense of declining grammar school numbers, reflecting historic reforms in the state education system. → →Public Servants L o o k i n g a t a w i d e r g r o u p o f p u b l i c s e r v a n t s , a c r o s s l a w , d e f e n c e a n d t h e a c a d e m i c w o r l d s h o w e d s o m e o f t h e h i g h e s t r a t e s o f e l i t i s m . S e n i o r J u d g e s w e r e t h e m o s t r a r e f i e d g r o u p , w i t h t w o t h i r d s a t t e n d i n g p r i v a t e s c h o o l s a n d 7 1 % g r a d u a t i n g f r o m O x b r i d g e . I n f a c t o v e r h a l f ( 5 2 % ) o f s e n i o r j u d g e s t o o k t h e s a m e p a t h w a y f r o m i n d e p e n d e n t s c h o o l t o O x b r i d g e a n d t h e n i n t o t h e j u d i c i a r y . W h i l e t h e s e f i g u r e s a r e s l i g h t l y l o w e r t h a n i n 2 0 1 4 , t h e y a r e f a r r e m o v e d f r o m e v e n m a n y f e l l o w m e m b e r s o f t h e e l i t e . T h e a r m e d f o r c e s a l s o h a d h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s o f p r i v a t e l y e d u c a t e d i n t h e i r h i g h e s t r a n k s ( 4 9 % ) , a l t h o u g h t h i s i s d o w n b y 1 3 p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s o n 2 0 1 4 . U n i v e r s i t y V i c e C h a n c e l l o r s i n c o n t r a s t h a d r e l a t i v e l y l o w l e v e l s o f p r i v a t e s c h o o l a n d O x b r i d g e e d u c a t e d m e m b e r s a m o n g t h e i r n u m b e r . → →Local Government T h e p i c t u r e o f p o l i t i c s a t l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t l e v e l i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l . L o c a l g o v e r n m e n t l e a d e r s h a v e a l o w e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h o s e e d u c a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y ( 2 0 % ) c o m p a r e d t o M P s ( 2 9 % ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t C E O s a r e a m o n g t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o h a v e b e e n p r i v a t e l y e d u c a t e d , a t 9 % , a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e i n W h i t e h a l l , w h o s i t a t t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e s p e c t r u m . O x b r i d g e a t t e n d a n c e a m o n g b o t h g r o u p s ( 5 % ) i s a l s o o n e o f t h e l o w e s t o u t s i d e s p o r t . G i v e n t h e s p r e a d o f t h e s e r o l e s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , i t i s p e r h a p s u n s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t a s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t b a c k g r o u n d t h a n t h e r e s t o f t h e p o l i t i c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t c e n t r e d i n L o n d o n . → →Influential Women Women are under-represented across the top professions, making up just 5% of FTSE 350 CEOs, 16% of local government leaders, 24% of senior judges, 26% of permanent secretaries and 35% of top diplomats. For women who do make it to the top, their journeys do not always look the same as those of their male peers. In a variety of sectors, women at the top are less likely to have attended Oxbridge than their male counterparts, including the judiciary (where they are 25 percentage points less likely), the House of Lords (21 percentage points), and those working as newspaper columnists or diplomats (both 17 percentage points less). Nonetheless, women in top roles, including influential female leaders in Britain (43% of whom attended private school), are much more likely to have attended an independent school than women in the population overall. → →Creative Industries Creative industries saw some of the lowest proportions of Oxbridge graduates, with just 2% of top selling pop music artists attending the two universities, and over 70% not attending university at all. Among the wealthiest members of the TV, film and music industries, university attendance was somewhat higher, at 42%, with about a quarter attending Russell Group institutions. They also had substantial numbers of independent school attendees, at 38%, though the number attending comprehensives has risen by 18 percentage points since 2014. Popular music appears more diverse than those at the top of the acting profession (30% independently educated compared to 44%). → →Sport There were big differences across sports, and between men's and women's teams. While 5% of men's football international players attended independent schools, 37% of rugby internationals and 43% of the England cricket team had done so. Rugby showed big differences across the nations: 25% of England internationals attended comprehensives, compared to 81% of Six Nations champions Wales. Women's teams showed similar patterns to their male counterparts in terms of school background, but around 80% of women's internationals across football, cricket and rugby had attended university, compared to small numbers of men. This reflects generally lower levels of financial compensation and career opportunities in the women's game. ## In Numbers Independent School Attendance The 10 Professions With The Highest The 10 Professions With The **Lowest** Independent School Attendance Independent School Attendance Indicates change since 2014 Indicates change since 2014 ## Oxbridge Attendance The 10 professions with the The 10 professions with the highest Oxbridge attendance lowest Oxbridge attendance Indicates change since 2014 Indicates change since 2014 Whole UK population: less than 1% ## Policy Recommendations Across Society 1 Social diversity should be a key mission across the whole of British society to ensure we make use of the talents of people from all backgrounds. Enacting the 'socio-economic duty' clause of the Equality Act 2010 should form the centrepiece of this. Access to opportunities should not be dependent on the social class you grew up in, and socio-economic background should be considered similarly to ethnicity and gender. Enacting Section 1 of the Equality Act, obligating public bodies to give due regard to how they can reduce the impact of socio-economic disadvantage, would send a signal that opportunities should be for everyone. ## In The Workplace 2 Data on the socio-economic background of employees should be collected and monitored by employers in the same way as gender or ethnicity. In order to combat inequalities in the workplace, employers and government need to have better data to identify where the barriers lie. There should be a particular focus on how class background interacts with level of seniority in an organisation. Employers should follow Cabinet Office advice on the best measurements to use, including parental qualifications, occupation, type of school attended, and eligibility for free school meals. 3 Financial barriers to entry to leading industries and professions must be tackled, including unpaid internships of significant length. The culture of expectation of unpaid work from recent graduates and entry level employees must be confronted. This only serves to restrict the talent pool available to employers to those from backgrounds who can afford to subsidise their unpaid or precarious work. Employers should comply with National Minimum Wage Regulations where the intern is effectively a worker. But given the confusion among employers and interns around the law on this, there should be specific legislation which clarifies and tightens the rules around internships. 4 Recruitment practices should be open and transparent. Internships and entry level jobs should be openly advertised to help young people from under-represented groups get a foot on the ladder. Many internships are never advertised, and instead offered through informal networks. This locks out talented young people without connections and limits opportunity. Employers should also look at new routes into their profession, such as apprenticeships, which could open opportunities to a wider group. 5 Employers should adopt contextual recruitment practices that place attainment and successes achieved in the context of disadvantage, including underperforming schools and less advantaged neighbourhoods. There are a growing number of such contextual tools available to employers, from organisations including Rare, PiC and upReach. When considering which qualifications are required, employers should only require those which are actually and demonstrably necessary to perform the job. 6 Class pay gaps, and differences in retention and promotion rates should also be addressed. Better access to jobs is only the beginning; progression within an organisation is also key to real social mobility. Employers should collect and analyse data looking at barriers to progression, and send a message to staff that fostering an inclusive culture is paramount. Employers should also consider providing mentoring or sponsorship schemes for those from under-represented groups and formalise promotion processes to reduce the risk of senior staff bypassing the system and safeguarding progression based on merit. 7 Leading social mobility employers should take a sector leadership role and share best practice. Employers in a variety of sectors have taken a lead on widening access to their organisation and have demonstrated innovative approaches to improving social mobility. For this culture to spread more widely, such organisations should take a role in sharing and promoting best practice within their sector. Senior leadership buy-in is also crucial to effective culture change. ## In Education 8 Universities should revolutionise their practice in relation to disadvantage, by contextualising admissions and reforming their approach to outreach and partnership, both with schools and with other universities. Highly selective universities in particular, where low and moderate-income students are substantially under-represented, should make greater use of contextual admissions, including reduced grade offers, to recognise the differing circumstances faced by applicants. In terms of outreach, universities should ensure their work is effective, evidence-based and conducted in partnership with communities and schools facing significant disadvantage. 9 School admissions processes need to tackle social segregation in schools. High quality teaching is the most important factor for the attainment of disadvantaged young people, providing them with the basis for success later in life. A more even spread of students from different social backgrounds across the system could help to tackle inequalities in access to quality teaching. High performing comprehensives, grammar schools and independent schools should all consider their admissions policies carefully and do more to increase the numbers of pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds. For example, introduction of the Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, which would address financial barriers to independent day school entry, should be considered. 10 High quality careers advice needs to be available to young people from all backgrounds. Good careers advice can be transformative for young people, but despite recent progress made on realising the Gatsby Benchmarks by the Careers and Enterprise Company in England, provision across the country remains inconsistent. All pupils should receive a guaranteed level of careers advice from professional impartial advisers. For those facing disadvantage - or who are at risk of not reaching their potential - there should be further support available. There should be an emphasis on what works in career advice for disadvantaged pupils in particular. ## Introduction The United Kingdom in 2019 finds itself an increasingly divided nation, divided economically, divided politically, and divided geographically. There is a deepening sense of different parts of society living entirely separate, parallel lives, with a frequently profound misunderstanding of each other's worries and concerns. As Britain prepares to leave the European Union after a landmark referendum result in 2016, public trust in those considered to be the country's 'elite' is under strain. This disconnect between those at the top of society and those below is not new, but many see the current breakdown in trust as unprecedented in living memory. Britain has a history of division based on social status and class that strongly persists today. It is this stratification that lies at the root of many of the divides we now see so prominently. Social mobility, the opportunity for people to succeed in life regardless of their background, is both low and showing little sign of improvement. Considerable portions of the population see little opportunity to succeed, either on their own terms or on those valued by society as a whole, and their lives increasingly feel separate to those who have reached the heights of British society. This lack of opportunity also has a geographical, as well as social component, with large swathes of the country feeling left behind by an increasingly London-centric economy. More than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, the implications for wider society are still being felt, and the disconnect between those in charge of Britain's institutions and the wider population is only growing. The Sutton Trust has been working to study and bridge this disconnect for over two decades, highlighting the lack of opportunities faced by young people from low income backgrounds and working on practical projects to spread opportunity and widen access to the knowledge and skills needed to flourish. In 2012, the Social Mobility Commission was established by government in recognition of the dire inequalities in opportunity faced by young people. While opportunities are influenced by a complex web of policy issues, including tax, welfare, housing, transport, the labour market and wider levels of inequality, at the heart of both organisations is the recognition that education lies at the core of the social divide, but also has the power to challenge it. It is more than a decade since the Sutton Trust first started looking at the educational backgrounds of those at the top of British society. Since then, research from the Sutton Trust's Leading People 1 and the Social Mobility Commission's Elitist Britain 2 has revealed the extent to which those from a narrow group - alumni of private fee-paying schools and the country's two most prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge - dominate a range of the country's top professions, from members of parliament to journalists, judges to diplomats. Here, for the first time, the two organisations have worked together to look at the backgrounds of those in the 'elite' professions across British society. As there is no single way to define this group, in this report we have looked across a wide range of different professions, including individuals with the most political power and influence, those with the most wealth and the highest earnings, people working at the top of the country's key institutions and the individuals playing leading roles in our cultural life. We have also been able to look at how the educational backgrounds of this group have changed over time, looking back at the landscape five years ago to build a picture of how the make-up of the country's top professions has, or hasn't, shifted over this period. While success should not be defined only in terms of wealth and power, who rises to the top of fields from politics and business, to media, culture and sport matters, for two main reasons. Firstly, it indicates whether opportunities to reach the most soughtafter positions in society are equitably distributed - and whether those powerful positions draw on the talents of all sections of the population. But it also matters because those who occupy these roles make decisions and take actions on a daily basis that affect everyone in the country. As people are naturally shaped by their background and life experiences, for a healthy society it is vital that these roles reflect all geographical areas and social backgrounds - not least as it is frequently the decisions made by those in the highest positions that can have the deepest impact on opening up opportunities for others. Our report comes at a crucial time in the country's history. Amid increasing division and political polarisation, there is a feeling that those at the top of society are disconnected from the lives of ordinary citizens, and that they don't understand their concerns, worries or frustrations. Tackling this disconnect, and building opportunities for people of all backgrounds to succeed in life is one of the most profound challenges that lies ahead for this country. Background Recent years, particularly since the establishment of the Equality Act in 2010, have seen a welcome push to improve several dimensions of diversity, including gender and ethnicity, in Britain's top jobs. However, despite increasing recognition of Britain's social mobility problem, socio-economic diversity has not been accorded the same level of importance. While the Equality Act did contain a clause called the 'socio-economic duty' , which emphasised the importance of equal treatment for those from different socio-economic backgrounds, it was never enacted in legislation. Facilitating social mobility, so that those in sought-after professions reflect a variety of social backgrounds, should be seen as an equally important part of ongoing efforts to open up opportunities in every part of British society. Everyone with potential who puts in hard work should have the opportunity to reach the top of their profession, regardless of the background they have come from. Society also stands to gain significantly from access to the top jobs being decided on merit, rather than limiting opportunities only to those with financial advantages or networks. Low levels of social mobility mean that much talent is wasted because of artificial barriers to success, and addressing that waste is likely to have significant economic and social benefits. 3 Broadening the talent pool beyond a narrow group of those from well-off homes can provide significant benefits for employers too. Indeed, companies with greater diversity outperform those that are less diverse, ## 4 and are also the most innovative. 5 When barriers are removed for talent, everyone in society stands to benefit. Individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds face significant obstacles throughout their life. Children from poorer backgrounds fall behind their better off counterparts in development before they even start at school. This gap widens throughout young people's time in the education system, 6 and continues to influence 7 whether they attend university, which institutions they attend, and their entry into the workforce. Further still, we know that these disadvantages can be compounded in the form of 'double disadvantage' when those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are from particular ethnic minority backgrounds or geographic areas, are women, or have a disability. 8 Entry to the professions traditionally regarded as 'elite' , positions with significant prestige, and usually high financial remuneration, is known to be particularly heavily stratified by socio-economic background. Figure 1 is from the recently released book The Class Ceiling 9 and shows the class background of the workforce of several elite professions. Across these roles, individuals from professional or managerial backgrounds are consistently over-represented, including 74% of those working in medicine, 64% of journalists and the same percentage of those working in law coming from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Medicine Journalism Law Life Sciences Management Consultancy Academia Advertising Science Finance CEOs Film & TV Architecture Top Jobs Overall Performing Arts ## It Accountancy Corporate Senior Management Public Sector Senior Management Engineering Chiefs of Fire, Ambulance and Police - Working Class Origins Elitist Britain 2019 looks at more than 6,000 individuals at the very top of the country's elite professions. Collecting data on family income and social class background is challenging, especially on such a large scale. Many people are understandably unwilling to share detailed information on their circumstances while growing up. To ensure we were looking at a characteristic which could be collected in a practical, consistent and unintrusive way, this report uses educational background as an indicator of social background. School The type of school someone attends is both a proxy for socio-economic background and is also in and of itself an important part of someone's background, which can have a substantial impact on where they end up in life. From the quality of teachers that students have access to, to the range of extracurricular activities they can take part in, schools play a pivotal role. Schools also have an important part to play in providing advice and support on the next steps in life, especially for young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are less likely to have access to this help at home. Students at private schools, especially those with the highest fees, have access to high quality teaching and facilities, and much greater levels of resource than schools in the state educational sector; an issue which has been explored in detail recently by Francis Green and David Kynaston in the book Engines of Privilege. Just 7% of children attend such schools, 10 and fees are such that the majority of those attending without financial support will be from highly affluent backgrounds. Historically, substantial numbers of pupils gained government funded places at Direct Grant schools (schools where some places were allocated based on academic merit and others paid fees), or at fully independent schools through the Assisted Places Scheme. However, since the abolition of the latter in the late 1990's only very small numbers of those admitted to private schools receive means tested bursaries. According to the Independent Schools Council, just 1 per cent of private school pupils currently have all their fees paid for, and just 4% have more than half their fees covered. Even for those receiving some financial aid, most will have needed to pay fees at levels well out of reach for most low and middle income families. The Sutton Trust's Open Access scheme, piloted at The Belvedere School between 2000 and 2007, went further, with a third of places fully subsidised and another third partly subsidised. This resulted in a free school meal eligibility rate of 33% among those admitted, and a better social mix overall. While the quality of schools can of course vary substantially within sectors, young people in independent schools outperform their peers academically even when other factors such as prior attainment are taken into account. 11 They are also much more likely to attend top universities, with Sutton Trust research having found that independent school pupils applying to higher education in England are seven times more likely to gain a place at Oxford or Cambridge compared to those from non-selective state schools, and twice as likely to gain a place in the Russell Group. 12 13 Many schools provide intensive advice and coaching to pupils in the university application process, and students enjoy far greater levels of support than their comprehensively educated counterparts. Fostering 'essential life skills' such as confidence and motivation, through small class sizes and significant financial resources dedicated to extra-curricular activities such as debating, drama and sport also plays a role. Private schools also concentrate students from 14 similar backgrounds together, helping them to form networks which can aid them in seeking out elite jobs in later life. Indeed, alumni of just nine leading public schools in Britain are 94 times more likely to reach elite positions than those from other schools, and much of that advantage still persists even when they have not attended top universities, suggesting that the 'old boys networks' formed in top private schools play an important role in access to the elite. It is important to keep in mind throughout this report that many children educated in the state sector themselves come from highly advantaged backgrounds. This is particularly the case for grammar schools. Just 2.5% of the students attending England's grammar schools are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), compared to 14% in the state secondary school system as a whole. 15 However, exclusion is not just limited to 16 this group, with research also showing that a wider group of families with low to moderate incomes are also significantly under-represented in grammar schools. Comprehensive school attendance on its own is not necessarily a marker of disadvantage. There are high levels of social segregation even within the comprehensive school system, with many of the best performing schools in the country located in wealthy areas, serving advantaged populations. Previous Sutton Trust research has found that the proportion of FSM eligible students at the very best comprehensive schools is about half of the average across England, Scotland and Wales. 17 While private school attendance, and to a lesser extent grammar school attendance, can on average be seen as an indicator of likely socio-economic privilege, this privilege also extends into parts of the comprehensive sector too. The Social Mobility Commission have recently commissioned a piece of work on this subject, looking at the extent to which the social balance within a school has an impact on educational outcomes. Nonetheless, the reality is that the vast majority of disadvantaged young people are educated in the state sector, and in comprehensive schools in particular - and the vast majority of those educated in private schools are from affluent backgrounds. 18 University While entrance to university is, in theory, on the basis of merit and talent, the reality is often different, due to inequalities earlier on in the system. Educational advantage at school level is largely replicated in higher education, with students from private schools considerably more likely to enter a top university than their state educated counterparts. In the UK, a small number of schools dominate access to Oxford and Cambridge (often referred to collectively as Oxbridge), with just 8 top schools and colleges in the UK sending as many pupils to Oxbridge as 2,900 others put together. Despite gradual increases in the numbers of state school pupils admitted to Oxbridge, it remains around 60%, yet 93% of pupils attend such schools. Similarly, while fewer than 5% of pupils attend grammar schools, they make up 15% of acceptances to the Russell Group, a group of highly selective research-intensive universities. They also make up 21% of acceptances to Oxbridge. The university someone attends goes on to influence their opportunities in the job market, with graduates of higher ranked universities more likely both to be invited to interview and to be offered a higher entry rate salary, 19 and competitive employers targeting the most selective universities when looking for students for their graduate programmes. 20 Given that the most prestigious universities tend to attract applicants with the highest exam results, one might expect that this combination of talent and the education provided by such institutions would unsurprisingly result in success in the working world. Nonetheless, the sheer scale of progression into the elites of British society from universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, who together educate only a small proportion of graduates, is evidence of how narrowly concentrated that opportunity is. This is partially as a result of Oxbridge providing their graduates with two things that go beyond the degree itself: firstly, education can frequently be viewed as a 'positional good' , marking one's rank in comparison with others, and Oxbridge provides this mark of prestige, valued highly by employers, who have often attended themselves. Secondly, it provides graduates with networks and cultural capital that allow them to build connections with successful people of similar backgrounds. University attendance is not an unambiguous indicator of socio-economic privilege, but it has served as an important mediator between family background and the chances of success in life. Less than 1% of the population attend Oxford and Cambridge, and while these universities are world-renowned and highly selective, it is surely not desirable that such a concentration of the nation's elite comes from just two universities, with so many other excellent higher education institutions across the country. Defining the 'elite' This report illustrates how access to some of the most prestigious, influential and well-paid roles in the country is limited to those born with advantages from the very beginning of their life. The roles in this report were chosen primarily for two reasons: - Roles with the highest prestige, and wealth, which are among the most coveted in society. Making such sought-after positions accessible to those from all backgrounds is an essential component of a society which cares about fairness and equity. - Roles with substantial power and influence over people's lives, which make the decisions that affect all of us day to day. There is a danger to society if many of those in such positions of power and influence are from a very similar background and a limited set of life experiences, which do not reflect the lives of the country as a whole. Given the subjective nature of the elite as a concept, it is inevitable that this list is not exhaustive. While more expansive than any previous study conducted, the report does not cover sectors such as banking and finance individually, or influential groups such as think tanks. It also focuses on Westminster politics rather than members of the devolved assemblies. Work by the Sutton Trust has also demonstrated that professions such as medicine show high levels of independent school over-representation, 21 along with Britain's historic list of Nobel Prize winners. 22 We also fully recognise the value of socially purposeful jobs, such as teaching, and that power and wealth are far from the only markers of success. Nevertheless, we hope that it is broad enough to shed light on the state of meritocracy in Britain, and to provide a snapshot of who gets to reach the top positions in society. Patterns of participation School As education policies have altered over time, and correspondingly the proportion of students educated at different types of school has changed, it is difficult to track the exact proportion of the population overall who attended a private, grammar or comprehensive school at a given point. This means that the patterns of educational backgrounds will look different depending on the age profile of the group analysed. Many of the individuals in this report will have been educated when grammar schools were more common, but others will have been to school when attending a grammar school was relatively rare. Attendance at grammar schools was at its peak in the 1960s, when around 25% of all pupils in state secondary schools attended one. That figure fell to 10% by the mid-70s, before falling to 5% by the end of the same decade, a proportion which has remained relatively steady since then. 23 At the same time, comprehensive schools have become much more common, gradually rising to now educate the vast majority of the state secondary school population. Attendance at independent schools has not changed substantially since the 1960s, fluctuating at somewhere between 6-8% over the last few decades. 24 Currently 7% of students in the UK attend private schools, 5% attend state grammars, and 88% attend comprehensives. However, these figures differ substantially between nations. In England, 8% of students attend independent schools, 7% in Scotland, 4% in Wales and less than 1% in Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland do not have grammar schools; England does, but only in some areas, making up 4% of pupils across the nation. In Northern Ireland, a much larger proportion of students (43%), attend grammar schools, which is likely to explain their much lower rate of independent school attendance. In contrast to the educational backgrounds of the population as a whole, looking at the backgrounds of all the professionals we have examined in this report, we see a significantly different picture. Figure 2 compares their backgrounds to the current UK school population. 39% of the professional elites examined here attended independent school, compared to just 7% of current students across the UK. Given private school attendance has remained relatively stable over time, it is clear that privately educated individuals are substantially over-represented in Britain's elites. A fifth of the elites in this report attended grammars, compared to 5% of the current population. Given the likely age profile of those in senior positions, many will have attended school as grammar school numbers were falling from their high of 25% in the 1960s. This is reflected in the declining levels of grammar attendance shown here compared to the first Elitist Britain report in 2014. University University attendance has also altered substantially over time. Participation in higher education has risen from just 3.4% in 1950, to 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990 and 33% in 2000. 26 In 2017, 42% of the working age population had attended higher education in some form, with 19% holding an undergraduate degree or a higher qualification. Just 6% of the working age population have an undergraduate degree from the Russell Group. 27 Equivalent figures are not available 28 for Oxbridge, but figures show that just 1% of 18-year olds in 2017-18 attended one of the two universities. Taking an overall look at the group of elites we have examined in this report; they are unsurprisingly much more likely to have attended university, and to have attended an elite educational institution, than the population overall. As shown in figure 3, while just 19% of the working age population are educated to the level of bachelor's degree or above, 84% of the elites we have examined are. While many of these *All figures are for the UK's working age population, apart from figures for Oxbridge, which are calculated for current 18 year olds. elite roles will require a university degree, others will not. The largest gaps between the elites and the population overall are found in attendance of the most prestigious institutions. Just under a quarter (24%) of elites attended Oxbridge, compared to only 1% of 18-year olds. While only 6% of the population attended the Russell Group for an undergraduate degree, almost half of our elites have done so. ## The Educational Pathways Of Britain'S Elite In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational backgrounds of a key profession in more detail; examining the pathways that individuals have taken, from the type of school they attended and then on to where they went to university. Looking at these pathways allows us to explore in more detail the routes taken by Britain's elites, for example who has taken the path from an independent school and then on to a top university like Oxford or Cambridge. The figure below displays pathways taken by those who reached the positions in our elite group as a whole, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of the group.* On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. Despite the fact that almost nine in every ten students currently attend comprehensives, independent and comprehensive schools represent about equal numbers (around two fifths each) of this elite group. The most common pathway into the elite is attending independent school followed by Oxford or Cambridge, making up 17% of the whole group, and forming a strong 'pipeline' into the highest status jobs. Those who attended independent school and any Russell Group university comprise over one in four of the elite as a whole (27%). Those who went to a comprehensive followed by a non-Russell Group university (12%) form a significant proportion, though of course this represents a much larger group in the population as a whole. In the current English school population, more than three times as many school leavers go on to a non-Russell Group university than a Russell Group institution. The comprehensive to Oxbridge pathway represents just 6% of the whole elite group. The next part of this report takes a detailed look, sector by sector, at Britain's elite. ## 1. Politics attended independent schools attended Oxbridge ## Introduction Where politicians were educated, and how representative their educational experiences are compared to the population overall is an important question in a representative democracy. Politicians are the population's voice in Westminster; both in government and in opposition, and they are the pool from which the government is chosen. If politicians' backgrounds, and therefore their experiences, look very different to the people they seek to represent, it may mean that the concerns and priorities of all parts of society are not adequately reflected in parliament. Politicians are also ultimately responsible for education policy, including the state school system, and for policies which affect the entire university system and technical training routes, including apprenticeships. It is therefore important that many of those responsible for these areas have experience of the state education system, of universities outside of the most selective institutions, and of technical routes into the world of work. 19 23 Members of Parliament Select Committee Chairs House of Lords Discussion 20 24 The Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet Case study - Gloria De Piero, Labour MP 21 25 Junior Ministers and Shadow Junior Ministers The Educational Pathways of MPs 22 26 18 | Elitist Britain ## Politics | Members Of Parliament School attendance University attendance Independent school -4% since 2014 Comprehensive school Attended international schools MP candidates are selected through a variety of processes, depending on the party. Historically the proportion of MPs who were privately educated has been gradually reducing over time, although it has remained far higher than the population at large. 29 The proportion who attended university has risen substantially, as politics has become increasingly professionalised. Indeed, many MPs work in largely graduate level jobs in politics and public affairs before they stand for office, with 25% of MPs having previously worked in politics, and 8% in public affairs before they became a member of parliament. Before the 1990s, it was relatively common for MPs to enter parliament from working class occupations. Doing so now is a rarity. 30 School There have been two elections since the publication of *Elitist Britain* in 2014, but privately educated MPs still make up almost a third of the House of Commons. In that time, there has been a fall in the percentage of MPs who attended a grammar school (by 8 percentage points). A similar fall in grammar school attendance has been seen throughout several sectors examined in this report, likely to reflect generational change, as those educated after the grammar school system was largely abolished in the UK enter the top of their field. Just over half of MPs attended a comprehensive school, a 12 percentage point increase since 2014. The proportion of MPs who attended a private school differs substantially by political party. In the Conservative party, just under half (45%) of MPs attended an independent school, compared to 15% in the Labour party. Conservative and Labour MPs were equally likely to have attended a grammar school (17% in both parties). Looking outside of the two main parties, just 6% of SNP MPs attended a private school, and the clear majority (85%) attended a state secondary school. University Most MPs attended university (88%), with many having attended a highly selective institution. Just under a quarter attended Oxbridge, with very little change over the last five years. A further quarter attended another university in the Russell Group, which has also not changed since 2014. Currently, only 12% of MPs did not go onto higher education, a figure that has fallen by 6 percentage points in the last five years. This rise in university educated MPs has been largely due to an increase in MPs who attended universities outside of the Russell Group. Looking by party, Conservative MPs were more likely to have attended Oxbridge than Labour (31% vs 20%). ## Politics | House Of Lords School attendance University attendance Independent school +8% since 2014 Grammar school Comprehensive school There are several routes to gaining a seat in parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords. The House of Lords Appointments Committee recommends individuals for appointment as non-political party life peers. It also vets the nominations of anyone recommended by UK political parties, with members then approved by the prime minister. Several former prime ministers have been criticised for filling the Lords with their personal contacts, including Tony Blair 31 and David Cameron. 32 There are also 26 Bishops from the Church of England, and 92 hereditary peers. Hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords in 1999; the 92 who remain are elected to their seat by other members of the House. Most hereditary peerages can only be inherited by men. School The educational backgrounds of Lords are substantially different to those of MPs in the Commons, with a much larger proportion of peers having been privately educated; a figure which is actually on the rise. A sizeable majority attended an independent school: 57%, a proportion which has increased by 8 percentage points since 2014. A high proportion of peers from every party or group in the Lords attended independent school, with 61% of Labour and 60% of Conservative peers having been privately educated. The proportions of Liberal Democrats (54%), Crossbenchers (55%) and Bishops (54%) who were privately educated were slightly lower, but still much higher than the general public. Fewer than a fifth (17%) of Lords and Baronesses attended a comprehensive school, although this is up 5 percentage points from 2014. 22% of those sitting in the Lords attended a grammar school, an 11 percentage point decrease over the last five years. Labour peers were slightly less likely to have attended a grammar, with only 16% having done so, compared to 24% of Conservative and 26% of Lib Dem peers. University Baronesses and Lords were considerably more likely than MPs to have attended Oxbridge, with 38% having done so. Indeed, a large proportion of the House of Lords attended either Oxbridge or another Russell Group university (60%), a figure that has barely shifted since 2014. Labour peers (22%) were less likely to have attended Oxbridge than peers from the Conservative party (39%). As with the House of Commons, the proportion of non-graduates in the Lords is declining, now standing at 14%, a 4 percentage point decrease over the last five years. ## Politics | The Cabinet & Shadow Cabinet The Cabinet | School attendance | |----------------------| | 57% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | -3% | | | | since 2014 | | 39% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | +3% | | | | since 2014 | | 17% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -1% | | | | since 2014 | | 43% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | -2% | | | | since 2014 | ## The Shadow Cabinet | School attendance | |----------------------| | 15% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | -19% | | | | since 2014 | | 9% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | -13% | | | | since 2014 | | 15% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | +4% | | | | since 2014 | | 76% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +14% | | | | since 2014 | Attended international schools The cabinet is the collective decision-making body of the government, which is made up of the Prime Minister, along with her most senior government ministers. Likewise, the shadow cabinet is selected by the Leader of the Opposition and plays an important role in scrutinising the work of government. Ministers and shadow ministers are mostly drawn from MPs, although they can also be Baronesses or Lords, though much less common. School The cabinet is currently much more likely to have attended a private school than parliament overall, with 39% of cabinet ministers having attended an independent school, compared to 29% of MPs. This in large part reflects the high proportion of Conservative MPs who attended private school (45%). Just under a fifth (17%) of the cabinet attended a grammar school, a similar 87% attended a Russell Group University | **+10%** since 2014 100% attended University | **+14%** since 2014 41% attended a Russell Group University | **-22%** since 2014 82% attended University | **-14%** since 2014 figure to MPs overall. However, just 43% went to a comprehensive, lower than the 52% of MPs who did so. Over the last five years, there has been a considerable amount of change within the government. In that time, the government has changed from a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to a Conservative majority and then minority administration, including a change of prime minister. Despite these changes, and a high level of ministerial turnover, the educational profile of ministers has changed very little. The biggest change has been in the proportion privately educated, which has increased slightly by 3 percentage points. The educational backgrounds of the shadow cabinet stand in stark contrast however. Shadow cabinet ministers are over four times less likely to have attended an independent school than their counterparts in government, with just 9% having done so. This figure is similar to the proportion of the general population that has attended a private school and is far lower than the proportion of MPs in parliament who did so, including in the Labour party. This figure has fallen substantially since 2014 (by 13 percentage points), during which time the Labour leadership passed from Ed Miliband to Jeremy Corbyn. The proportion of those privately educated in the shadow cabinet is the lowest of any of the groups in the report outside footballers. University The cabinet are also more likely to have attended Oxbridge than MPs overall, with 57% of cabinet ministers having attended one of the two institutions, which has changed very little since 2014. This is much higher than the proportion of MPs overall (24%). More cabinet ministers have now been to a Russell Group university, rising from 77% in 2014, to 87% now. All of the current cabinet attended university, compared to 86% in 2014. ## Politics | Junior Ministers & Shadow Junior Ministers Junior ministers are government ministers who are not full cabinet members and include Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State. They have an important role in the direction of government departments, with shadow junior ministers also playing an important role in scrutiny of government. School The schools attended by junior ministers are even more unrepresentative overall than cabinet ministers. Over half (52%) of junior ministers attended a private school. Under a third (28%) went to a comprehensive. A small proportion (18%) of shadow junior ministers attended private school. However, this is still over twice the proportion in the population overall, and much higher than the shadow cabinet. Two thirds of shadow junior ministers attended a comprehensive school. Members of the shadow cabinet are also much less likely to have attended Oxbridge than the cabinet, with only 15% having done so. Similarly, this figure has also fallen in the last five years, down by 19 percentage points in that time. This figure is now slightly lower than the proportion in the Labour Party overall (20%). Looking more broadly at the Russell Group, only 41% of the shadow cabinet attended one of the universities in the group, less than half the proportion of the cabinet who did so. The proportion of the shadow cabinet who attended a Russell Group university has fallen by 22 percentage points since 2014, largely driven by the reduction in Oxbridge attendance. A sizeable proportion of the shadow cabinet did attend university (82%), but this too has fallen since 2014. It is 14 percentage points lower than five years ago, going against the general trends across this report. In fact, it is the only group with a substantial decrease outside the creative industries. University While junior ministers are more likely to have attended private school than the cabinet, they are less likely to have attended a top university. Just over a third (36%) of junior ministers went to Oxbridge, a figure which has fallen by 9 percentage points since 2014. They are also less likely to have attended a Russell Group university, with 61% having done so, a figure which has also fallen from 72% in the last five years. As with the cabinet, most (91%) junior ministers attended university, a slight fall since 2014. Looking at shadow junior ministers, just 10% went to Oxbridge, less than a third of their governmental counterparts. 44% of shadow junior ministers attended one of the universities in the Russell Group, similarly much lower. ## Politics | Select Committees Select Committee Chairs | School attendance | |---------------------| | 33% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | -4% | | since 2014 | | 33% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | Attended international schools One of the most important ways in which MPs can hold the government to account is through select committees; cross-party groups of MPs, Lords or both who investigate a specific area or issue. This section focuses only on select committees within the House of Commons. The importance of select committees has increased in recent years, with experienced and well-known politicians, including former ministers, taking the decision to stand for election as select committee chairs. A combination of factors, including the requirement that the government must reply to reports written by a select committee within 60 days, several high-profile MPs becoming select committee chairs and increased media coverage means that these committees now often play an influential role in public debate. Most select committee chairs are elected by the 33 House of Commons, but only members of specific parties can stand to become the chair of each select committee. General membership of select committees in the Commons must reflect the composition of the Commons overall, and once this composition has been decided, select committee members are decided by elections held within each party. School Members of select committees are largely reflective of the Commons as a whole, with a quarter having 58% attended a Russell Group University | **-3%** since 2014 93% attended University | +9% since 2014 attended independent schools, compared with 29% of MPs overall, and has decreased by 6 percentage points since 2014. A third (33%) of select committee chairs attended an independent school, but this figure has reduced substantially since 2014, when well over half (57%) of select committee chairs had done so. The proportion of select committee members who attended a grammar school (14%) has also decreased since 2014, falling by 11 percentage points. The fall in members who attended private or grammar schools has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the proportion who went to a comprehensive, which now stands at 58%. A similar pattern is seen for chairs, with the proportion who attended a comprehensive rising by 32 percentage points to now make up just over half (55%) of all chairs. University One third of select committee chairs, and a fifth of select committee members attended Oxbridge, similar to 2014. Half of select committee members attended the Russell Group, a 6 percentage point increase since 2014. The proportion of select committee chairs who attended the Russell Group is only slightly higher at 58%. ## Politics | Discussion The educational backgrounds of politicians in the UK look very different to those of the population that they represent. This is particularly true for the Conservative party, and therefore for the ministers and junior ministers within the current government, who are highly unrepresentative of the population as a whole in terms of educational background. However, across all parties, MPs are more likely to have attended an independent school than the general public. Fundamental to this issue is how people go on to become MPs, with potential access issues at every stage of the pipeline, from exposure to politics at school, to gaining work experience in politics, through to the monetary costs involved in becoming a candidate. ## "Without Money And Connections, It Can Be Extremely Difficult To Gain A Job In Politics." Students at comprehensive schools may be less likely to have opportunities to learn about and engage with politics. While Citizenship has been a part of the national curriculum since 2002, including classes to improve political literacy and to teach students about democracy and government, concerns have been raised that the subject is not being taught well enough in schools. 34 In contrast, many top independent schools have extensive opportunities to learn about politics. For example, last year, student societies at Eton welcomed politicians including former prime minister John Major and the former home secretary Alan Johnson to speak to students. 35 This is extremely far removed from the experiences of students in comprehensive schools, although many individual schools, and initiatives such as Speakers for Schools, are working to address this. Another potential barrier for would-be parliamentarians is gaining experience in politics. Jobs in the area, such as working in an MP's office, can be vital for a potential candidate to gain experience and form contacts within a political party. However, previous Sutton Trust research has shown that unpaid work in Westminster is common, with almost one third (31%) of staffers having previously worked for an MP unpaid. Many of these positions are also not openly advertised. Without money and connections, it can be extremely difficult to gain a job in politics. 36 Then when it comes to running as an MP itself, the high cost of becoming a candidate can be a barrier for many. A survey of over 500 candidates who stood in 2015 found that the average personal cost of running was £11,118, including lost earnings, travel and the cost of attending events. This cost was even higher for those fighting in marginal seats. 37 Crucially, we need more data on socio-economic diversity in parliament. Parties should monitor the socio-economic diversity of their candidates, and collect information on people who work for them, such as the staffers working for MPs in Westminster. Initiatives such as the Speaker's Parliamentary Placement Scheme offer promise in terms of opening up access to parliament, but they need to widen their applicant pool and be run on a much larger scale in order to make real change in politics. It is also deeply concerning that parliament's unelected chamber, the House of Lords, looks so different to the population as a whole, and very different even to parliament itself. Given that these roles are given out by appointment, much greater scrutiny is needed for this process, to ensure that the Lords better resembles the population it is intended to represent, as well as having the expertise it needs, and to open up the highest levels of politics to a broader range of people. There are many other organisations with a substantial impact on British politics which we have not been able to examine here. This includes think tanks, lobby groups and other organisations and groupings within political parties. These groups write reports which often form the basis of parties' policies, and have a large impact both on politicians themselves, and on the wider public. Although outside the scope of this work, it is important that these organisations also consider their socio-economic composition carefully. ## Case Study Gloria De Piero Labour Mp I was brought up in a two up two down terrace in Bradford. My mum and dad had a number of routine jobs but they stopped working due to dad's ill health when I was about nine and we relied on benefits. Most of my childhood memories are of being poor and cold, but my dad would buy second-hand books and he was always going to the library. Our house was full of books. We had more books than most of the middle-class homes I visit today. My school, which has now closed down, didn't really push me, but I didn't really push myself either. I didn't know anyone that had been to university other than my teachers or my doctor. The only people that mentioned this strange place called 'university' were my parents. It was their life's work to get me there. I struggled to get a job working for the Labour Party or the trade union movement after university so I tried for political journalism instead. I met someone through the Labour Party who had worked on the biggest political programmes when I was looking to get in. He suggested I write to the editors of the programmes I worked on and ask to see them. I managed to get a job and eventually became a political reporter for GMTV. I think politics can be a closed shop. If you come from a political family that can be a way in. It opens doors because friends and acquaintances can be pestered into providing work experience or job opportunities. Just as importantly, if you've grown up in a political family you already have a good understanding of how politics works. Historically, trade unions helped hundreds of people who start out representing colleagues in the workplace to organise and agitate. That is still the case, but perhaps less so than in the past. That leaves a lot of people out. In fact, most people wouldn't have a clue how to become an MP. It's our job to change that. My worry with politics is that, for some, it has become a profession in its own right, like law or the media, which strikes me as worrying. The politicians who really make a difference become MPs or ministers because they want to change the world. It's not a way to acquire status or win kudos. I don't want to be too gloomy. There are a fair number of MPs from working class backgrounds - but you don't see nearly enough of them on TV and too many never get handed top jobs by their leaders. I think the fact that most political programmes are hosted by people from a certain background deters some people from going on. It's a debating game rather than something for our constituents to hear about the everyday issues that matter to them. Someone once told me that the way to get ahead was to ask and be cheeky. I thought he was joking, but it must have had some effect as when TV research jobs were advertised, I applied and got the job. Getting that foot in the door was invaluable. I'll never forget the editor who gave me my break despite the fact I didn't go to Oxbridge. Now I'm a small employer, I do my very best to give bright people from ordinary backgrounds a break. ## The Educational Pathways Of Mps In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by the UK's MPs, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. ## 2. Business Attended Independent School Attended Oxbridge On average 31% attended independent schools On average 17% attended Oxbridge FTSE 350 chairs | 34% FTSE 350 chairs | 27% FTSE 350 CEOs | 15% Sunday Times Rich List | 14% Section at a Glance Business ## Introduction This section looks at business in Britain, with a focus on the people running the most financially successful private companies and the individuals with the largest amounts of private wealth. Private businesses have a large impact on the British economy, and society as a whole. The decisions they make about where to place their operations, and the strategies their companies adopt, have the potential to impact the millions of people they employ, as well as those in their supply chains and surrounding businesses across the country. Roles at the top of such companies, including chief executives, are highly coveted, both for their financial compensation, and for their prestige and influence within society. While many top companies have started to look seriously at many aspects of diversity, such as gender or ethnic background, much less work has been done on socio-economic diversity within business. It is important that in the world of business, talent has the opportunity to flourish regardless of family background, both from a sense of fairness, but also so the British economy can make the most of the talent available to it. Work from the Sutton Trust has indicated that low levels of social mobility mean that talent is wasted because of artificial barriers to success, meaning that the best talents are not matched to the best jobs. It argues that a modest increase in the UK's social mobility to the average level across western Europe could be associated with a £39bn boost to the UK economy (in 2016 prices).38 Individuals with large amounts of private wealth can also have a substantial wider impact on civil society through engagement with, and donations to, political parties, charities and other organisations. In the 2018 Sunday Times Rich List, the majority of donations from the wealthiest individuals in the UK went to one party, the Conservatives, with small numbers donating to other political parties.39 Companies themselves also group together to form influential industry organisations and trade associations. British business, and those who occupy the top positions within it, play a key role in British public life. In this section, we look across business in the UK, from top entrepreneurs to the FTSE 350, including those that run some of the country's largest companies and the individuals who have gained the largest wealth from business. We have also, for the first time, looked at less well-studied industries with a big impact on the country, including technology firms, which with the growth of high-tech industry and automation are playing an increasingly important role in the UK's economy. Also included for the first time are PR companies, which play a key role in determining how society views and thinks about business. 29 Sunday Times Rich List Entrepreneurs 30 FTSE 350 companies 30 PR consultancy CEOs 31 28 | Elitist Britain 32 Tech Firm CEOs Discussion 33 Case study - Charlie Mullins, Entrepreneur 35 The Educational Pathways of FTSE 350 CEOs 36 ## Business | Sunday Times Rich List School attendance University attendance Attended international schools The Sunday Times Rich List is a list of the wealthiest people or families in the UK, by net worth. The list includes non-British citizens, such as those who work or live predominately in the UK, or with strong links, such as those who have donated to British political parties or charities. The list has been published each year by the Sunday Times since 1989, with editors estimating each person's wealth based on publicly available information including the value of companies, land or property owned. This report looks at the top hundred entries on the list, including joint entries. School and university background 28% of the Sunday Times Rich List attended an independent school in Britain, a substantial fall since 2014, when the figure was just under half (44%). However, much of the difference owes to a substantial increase (25 percentage points) in the number of those educated abroad. Looking at those educated in Britain only, the picture is substantially different, with 57% educated privately, one of the highest in this report, and significantly higher than the proportion of the population as a whole, at 7%. The proportion of comprehensively educated remains stable and low at 12%. The proportion of the Rich List who attended Oxbridge is similar to the figure in 2014 (14% in 2019 compared to 12%), and while towards the lower end of the spectrum amongst Britain's elite, is influenced by the 36% of members who attended university internationally. A sizeable proportion (28%) of the Rich List did not attend university, a figure which is also stable over the last five years. ## Business | Entrepreneurs | School attendance | |---------------------| | 9% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | 34% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | For the first time, this edition of Elitist Britain also includes entrepreneurs, individuals who have set up a new business, usually at some amount of individual risk, who have then gone on to have a substantial amount of both wealth and influence when their company has become successful. The next section looks at the most influential entrepreneurs in Britain, who have set up some of the country's most famous companies. School and university Just over a third (34%) of the entrepreneurs examined here attended a private school. Just 12% were ## Business | Ftse 350 Companies The Financial Times Stock Exchange 350 is a weighted stock market index, which includes the 350 highest value companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. Here we look at the chief executives (CEOs) and chairs of FTSE 350 companies. CEOs of companies in this group often come from a financial background, frequently working as a chief financial officer (CFO) before taking on the post of CEO. Chairs have usually previously been a CEO themselves, sometimes of the same company, then staying on to offer support and advice to their successor. School and university Just under a third of FTSE 350 CEOs (27%) attended an independent school, a slight increase (by 5 percentage points) since 2014. A large proportion were educated outside of the UK (43%), consistent with 2014, so schooled internationally, the lowest in this section. On the other hand, 39% attended comprehensives, the highest in this section. A large proportion (44%) did not attend university, the highest proportion outside sport and the creative industries. Just 9% attended Oxbridge, one of the lowest proportions of any of the sectors in this report, and just under a third (29%) attended a university in the Russell Group. when just those schooled domestically are taken into account, the independent figure rises to 48%. FTSE 350 chairs were more likely to have attended a private school, at 34% (50% of those educated in the UK), and more likely to have attended a grammar school, with 22% having done so. Chairs were however less likely to have been educated outside of the UK. Almost all CEOs (95%) and chairs (91%) attended university. 15% of FTSE 350 CEOs attended Oxbridge, similar to 2014. A larger proportion of chairs attended one of these two universities, with over a quarter (27%) doing so. Over a third (36%) of CEOs attended a university outside of the UK, slightly lower than the proportion who went to school abroad. A smaller proportion of FTSE 350 chairs attended university outside of the UK (21%). ## Ftse 350 Ceos School attendance University attendance Attended international schools ## Business | Pr Consultancy Ceos University attendance Attended international schools This section also looked at the CEOs of the top Public Relations (PR) firms in the UK, the first time that the either the Sutton Trust or the Social Mobility Commission have looked at this sector. This sector was specifically chosen because PR consultancies help companies, organisations and individuals to build a positive reputation with the public, and are therefore highly influential in the national debate. They do this in a variety of different ways, working with both traditional media such as newspapers and television, and also increasingly through social media. They help to build positive stories about their clients and manage bad news in a way that causes the least amount of reputational damage to their client. PR consultancies work for a wide range of different clients, including political parties and large businesses. School and university A third of top PR consultancy CEOs attended a private school, similar to the other categories in this section. Just under a quarter (24%) were educated outside of the UK, and just under a third (30%) were educated at a comprehensive school. Just 7% of PR consultancy CEOs attended Oxbridge, a substantially lower proportion than found for FTSE 350 company CEOs. Just over a quarter (26%) were educated internationally, a third attended a university in the Russell Group, and just 9% did not attend university. About a third attended non-Russell Group universities, higher than other categories in this section. ## Business | Tech Firm Ceos School attendance University attendance Tech firms are companies at the forefront of modern technology, with the potential to transform the way we live and work. They are often among the fastest growing companies and offer a contrast to some more traditional sectors with well-established firms. The next section looks for the first time at the educational backgrounds of the CEOs of the fastest growing technology companies in the UK, which includes companies focused on innovation and research, operating in sectors including software, the internet, telecoms and biotech. Roles at the top of tech firms are usually well paid and have increasing influence on wider society. Technology companies are often by their very nature disruptive, and so have significant influence in changing the way their industries work. School and university Despite the different nature of these companies, the proportion of tech firm CEOs who attended private school is broadly similar to the percentage of FTSE 350 CEOs who did so, at just over a quarter (27%). A very small proportion (just 3%) attended a grammar school. Again, a substantial proportion (41%) were educated internationally, similar to the FTSE 350. Looking at those educated in the UK only, independent school attendance was 45% and comprehensive 50%. The clear majority (89%) of tech firm CEOs went to university. 12% attended Oxbridge, again broadly similar to the FTSE 350. A third were educated internationally, and a further third attended a Russell Group institution (including those who attended Oxbridge). ## Business | Discussion Throughout several areas of British business, from the FTSE 350 to the fastest growing technology companies, individuals from private schools are consistently overrepresented. While there has been a drive to increase diversity in businesses, including efforts to make both boards and CEOs more representative of the population at large, these efforts have focused primarily on gender and ethnicity, with less attention placed on socioeconomic background, in large part due to the fact that it is not a 'protected characteristic' in legislation. For example, while there are government backed reviews which aim to increase the proportion both of women 40 and of individuals from ethnic minorities 41 on company boards, there is no such initiative to look at the issue of socio-economic diversity in the board room. ## "Many Young People Do not have the opportunity at school to build the skills involved in setting up a business." There are potential access issues at every point of the pipeline for individuals working to rise to the top of any business. However many forward-looking companies have now started to look at how to increase diversity in their graduate intakes. This has included reviewing entry requirements and interview processes, broadening their recruitment pool to a wider range of universities, and recruiting apprentices to create a direct entry point for young people who have not been to university. This work has been promising, but more needs to be done by a wider group of companies to really move the dial on access. Collaboration and sector leadership is key in this, with several promising examples including Access Accountancy, and PRIME in the legal sector, involving firms working together to increase access to their profession. While some companies have started to look at the entry point into their sector, fewer have looked at how to ensure that individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds are able to progress through their businesses. A body of research increasingly shows how gaps in salary, promotion and staff retention based on social background open up, even for those from less well-off backgrounds who manage to get into such jobs. For example, one company which has started to look at progression is KPMG, who, working together with the Bridge Group, has identified several ways in which barriers to progression can be tackled, including looking at how projects of work are allocated and ensuring that processes within the company are not informally bypassed. 42 Similar work is needed in more companies to examine and tackle barriers to access and progression. Work is also ongoing at an industry specific level, including some promising work being carried out in public relations. The industry's trade body, the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) released a report last year on diversity in the sector including socio-economic background. The body called for several measures to be taken by PR firms to improve diversity, including monitoring the diversity of staff, offering quality and paid apprenticeships, and putting in place fair and transparent recruitment processes. The PRCA, together with others, have launched the campaign 'PR Internships for All' , calling on the UK's leading PR agencies to commit to increasing access to internships in the sector, including paying their interns the Living Wage, and taking on interns from universities outside of the Russell Group. 43 They have also put together a list of PR agencies who pay their interns at least the National Minimum Wage. 44 Looking at the people who form their own businesses, which includes many of those included in the Sunday Times Rich List, there are also several potential barriers for budding entrepreneurs on their way to the top, with significant personal financial risk involved in setting up a new company. Indeed, those who are self-employed are more likely to own their homes outright, something which can allow them to take the financial risk involved in setting up a company. 45 Inequality in ownership of these sorts of financial assets is also likely to continue to increase, as rising levels of inherited wealth are likely to deliver the biggest benefits for those who are already financially well-off. 46 ## If Innovation And Entrepreneurship Are Limited To just those from specific social backgrounds, it can serve to limit the type and scope of the problems those innovations seek to solve. A government review on boosting entrepreneurship in deprived communities found that in the 10% most deprived areas in the country, people were almost 50% less likely to be self-employed. 47 Work by the charity Nesta has also identified the lack of diversity in innovation, identifying early exposure to invention and innovation for children, and creating the 'freedom to fail' for adults as key requirements. 48 Commentators have warned that the 49 route to entrepreneurship is becoming more difficult, such as former Dragons' Den panellist Hilary Devey, who commented that the playing field is "no longer level" because a large proportion of businesses need an initial cash injection. "To get Pall-Ex [her freight exporting company] off the ground, I ended up selling my house and car. But how many young, aspiring entrepreneurs today even have their own house or car to sell? Launching a new business shouldn't be a privilege to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth" . There are also concerns that many young people do not have the opportunity at school to build the skills involved in setting up a business. The Sutton Trust has previously highlighted the work of one charity working in this area, Envision, which runs programmes for disadvantaged young people including 'Community-Apprenticeships' , loosely based on the reality TV show 'The Apprentice' . During the programme, young people are given the help of business mentors to develop and implement their own ideas to tackle social problems in their communities. 50 The programme is currently being evaluated by the Sutton Trust's sister charity, the Education Endowment Foundation. This and similar programmes have the potential to open up the skills needed for entrepreneurship to a greater diversity of young people. ## Case Study Charlie Mullins Entrepreneur I was born in Camden, before moving to an estate in Elephant and Castle, South London, at the age of eleven. I lived with my mother, father and three brothers. We were a working class family, my mother working as a barmaid and my father a factory worker. I had a very basic education. I had many days off school, as well as missing a year of education when we moved home. I used to skip school and help the local plumber. He had a nice house and money, which inspired me. I thought that by getting into the plumbing trade I could help myself out of a low socio-economic situation. I left school at fifteen with no qualifications, and began an apprenticeship. The local plumber advised me that if I took up an apprenticeship, I would never be out of work. The contractual nature of apprenticeships means that you are committed to the work, and this gives you a chance to get your foot in the door. I would not be where I am now if I had not listened to him. After my apprenticeship, I was self-employed, and started Pimlico Plumbers with a van and tools. I do not feel that my lack of education hindered my progression, as I think that you get a true education when you go into the world of work. However, I would say that the lack of advice at school regarding apprenticeships would have been problematic if I had not met my local plumber. Back then, you were not expected to do well out of an apprenticeship. I think that where you grow up does impact your career prospects. When you live in a rougher area, it is easy to fall onto the wrong path. When you are around other people with no aspirations it is easy to get sucked in. However, I also think that this can inspire and drive someone to succeed. It is important that you can break away and make something of yourself. I do not think my profession is particularly elitist, as success in my area is based on skill. The skills you learn in the plumbing trade can take you anywhere in the world. Although there is still a shortage, the perception of traders is changing, and many go on to run their own businesses now. People used to look down on entrepreneurs, but now it seems to be more fashionable. Entrepreneurs from backgrounds such as mine often speak at events, serving as examples to others. My one piece of advice would be to take up an apprenticeship and commit yourself to it. Apprenticeships are key to improving social mobility within professions, and I believe in a few years apprenticeship qualifications will be equivalent to degrees. ## The Educational Pathways Of Ftse 350 Ceos In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by FTSE 350 CEOs educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. While a large proportion of CEOs in this group were educated internationally, this graph focuses on those who went to schools and universities in the UK. The independent school to Oxbridge pathway accounts for more than one in five of the group (21%), with a third of the group in total having attended both private school and a Russell Group university. Comprehensive school to Oxbridge accounted for just 3% of the CEOs. ## 3. Media Section At A Glance Introduction The media are a key element of any democracy, informing the public and holding elected representatives and other powerful institutions to account. In this role the media have significant influence in shaping a country's political, social and cultural agenda. Digital, broadcast and print editors decide not only what to cover and how to cover it, but equally importantly what not to cover. In turn newspaper columnists analyse and interpret political decisions, not only with the opinion pieces they write, but also through their television, podcast and radio appearances. Who fills these extremely important positions matters. While most news journalists will aspire to leave their opinions outside their place of work, it is somewhat inevitable that they will bring their experiences with them. Journalists need to know about a story to cover it, but if journalists and others working in the media all come from a similar background and have similar experiences, there is a danger that even with the best efforts to reach out, there are likely to be important stories, nuances or angles that they simply miss. Commentators have previously spoken about this dangerous disconnect between the media and the population in the last five years, particularly in relation to the UK's vote to leave the European Union in 2016, a result which was not expected by much of the UK establishment, including many journalists. Journalists have also been criticised in the aftermath of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, with veteran broadcaster Jon Snow commenting: "Why didn't any of us see the Grenfell action blog? Why didn't we know? Why didn't we have contact? Why didn't we enable the residents of Grenfell Tower - and indeed the other hundreds of towers like it around Britain - to find pathways to talk to us and for us to expose their story? I felt on the wrong side of the terrible divide that exists in present day society. We can accuse the political classes for their failures, and we do. But we are guilty of them ourselves. We are too far removed from those who lived their lives in Grenfell Tower."51 Not only can this disconnect lead to journalists missing important stories, it can also mean they cover some issues out of proportion to their importance to society overall. For example, while less than 1% of the population attend Oxbridge, the two universities are covered extensively in the media,52 often to the exclusion of other education matters, including issues affecting other universities, and particularly the vocational and technical education sector. Newspaper columnists 40 43 BBC Executives 44 40 Discussion Case study - Cait FitzSimons, Editor, 5 News The Educational Pathways of Newspaper Columnists ## Media | News Media 100 The media 100 gives a broad overview of those working in the UK's news media, including newspaper and magazine editors, editors of major digital news outlets and TV and radio news presenters and editors. To identify this group, we used research by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 53 to select the news outlets across broadcast, digital and print media with the biggest reach across the UK. We looked for the individuals in the most senior editorial positions at these outlets. For broadcast outlets with multiple news programmes, we used personal judgement and figures on reach to select the news programmes and stations with the biggest influence. To reflect the growing importance of digital and social news, we have updated this list from 2014 to include digital editors, and have also increased the number of editors from regional titles. 54 While we feel this was important to ensure this list is reflective of the current media landscape, these changes should be kept in mind when making comparisons with 2014's data. School and university background The news media 100 group had among the highest proportions of independent school and Oxbridge alumni among their number. Those with the most influential positions in news media are considerably more likely to have attended a private school than the population at large, at 43%. One fifth of the group went to a grammar school, and just over a third (34%) attended a comprehensive. The proportion of those at the top of the news media who went to a comprehensive school is substantially different to the 2014 list, up from just 16%. The proportion who went to independent schools (down 11 percentage points) and grammar schools (down 6 percentage points) is also lower. The overwhelming majority (92%) of our news media 100 attended university, a small increase on the figure in 2014 (90%). Just over a third (36%) attended Oxbridge, 9 percentage points lower than the 2014 list. Just over 70% attended the Russell Group overall, slightly lower than 2014. ## Media | Newspaper Columnists School attendance University attendance Newspaper columnists have a unique position to shape the political agenda, as they are able to share their views on the political issues of the day on widely read and shared platforms. The next section looks at newspaper columnists writing on politics, policy, news and current affairs for the most influential papers and outlets in the UK. School and university backgrounds Newspaper columnists were even more exclusive in their educational backgrounds than the news media group. 44% of newspaper columnists attended an independent school, with a quarter attending a grammar school, and less than a fifth (19%) going to a comprehensive school. Although the group of newspaper columnists covered here is slightly different to those included in 2014 (in this report we focused on those commenting on politics and ## Media | Bbc Executives The next section takes an in depth look at the top staff at the largest broadcaster in the country, the BBC. As a public broadcaster, paid for by a household TV license fee, it is often held under a greater amount of scrutiny than other similar organisations. The corporation also has the largest viewing share of any broadcaster in the UK. 55 From news coverage, to sports, to children's television, the BBC has a significant impact on all parts of British society. School and university backgrounds Compared to the other categories in this section, the school educational background of BBC executives closely related areas, whereas the 2014 list also included those writing columns on food, sports and television), the proportion who attended independent school is the same as the list examined in 2014. Almost three quarters (72%) of columnists went to a Russell Group institution for their undergraduate degree, and a large proportion (44%) attended one of just two universities, Oxford or Cambridge. These figures have changed very little since 2014, although the proportion who attended university internationally has also roughly doubled (from 6% to 12%). The independent school to Oxbridge pipeline accounts for a third (33%) of all columnists. Grammar school to Oxbridge (13%) and comprehensive to Russell Group (9%) are other common pathways. Comprehensively educated columnists who graduated from a non-Russell Group university account for less than 2% of the total. was less socially exclusive, with 29% having attended independent school. However, this figure is still substantially higher than the population, and has changed little since 2014, when the figure was 26%. 56 A fifth of BBC executives attended a grammar school. The proportion of BBC executives who went to a comprehensive school has risen in the last five years, from just 37% in 2014 to 45% now. Almost a third (31%) of BBC executives attended Oxbridge, a figure that has barely shifted since 2014. Most (70%) attended a Russell Group university, which has actually increased since 2014, by 8 percentage points. ## School Attendance University Attendance Attended international schools ## Media | Discussion The educational backgrounds of people in the top jobs in UK media, with a focus here on those working in news, politics and current affairs, look very different to the general population, with newspaper columnists the least like the audiences they write for. This isn't a new problem. Previous Sutton Trust research going back as far as 1986 has shown that the educational backgrounds of the country's media has, for a long time, looked very different to those of the population as a whole, and painted a picture of a media elite growing more socially exclusive over time. 57 Importantly, the impact of this gap is likely to 58 increase with the ongoing decline of local media; which is both an important first rung on the ladder for many aspiring journalists and a vital source of news stories from diverse communities across the country. Indeed, local news is often first to pick up important stories which otherwise would not be noticed by national papers. But local news is currently facing a funding crisis, with jobs and whole newsrooms being lost. Looking in greater detail at the journalist pipeline, The National Council for the Training of Journalists, the leading training organisation for journalists in the UK, has carried out research on increasing diversity in journalism. 59 That work raised several potential barriers to access, including the increasing need for postgraduate qualifications to enter journalism (grants for which are very rare) and the expectation of unpaid work placements in the industry, an issue the Sutton Trust has also previously highlighted. 60 As economic conditions have tightened in the industry, in recent years many papers have also moved away from having permanent staff writing opinion columns, towards commissioning comment pieces from freelancers. Working as a freelance journalist can be precarious and may act as a barrier for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who lack the financial and social safety nets sometimes required by such unpredictable work. A number of initiatives are attempting to increase access to the industry. One such project is The Student View, a charity which aims to increase the number of schools with student newspapers to give young people a first flavour of journalism. The charity works in schools with groups in which at least 50% of students are eligible for the pupil premium. 61 To tackle the issue of unpaid internships in journalism, the organisation Press Pad connects interns to people who can host them in London. 62 The Spectator has also introduced a fully paid 'no CV' internship scheme, limiting the importance of previous experience to try to increase opportunities in the media for people from a more diverse range of backgrounds. 63 However, while all these initiatives are welcome, they are relatively low level given the scale of the access issue in the media as a whole, and do nothing to deal with declining opportunities outside of London as local papers have closed. 64 Across the media, much more needs to be done to increase access and break down barriers for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In the last few years, the BBC has been taking active steps to improve socio-economic diversity. It was the first broadcaster to monitor and publish the socio-economic background of their employees, including the type of school they attended and the educational backgrounds of staff's parents. According to the BBC's own statistics, 16% of their UK public service staff (not including for example the World Service) attended a private school. While still higher than the population, this figure is much lower than the senior executive group examined here. This figure also differs across the organisation, with a high of 24% of their news staff having attended a private school. They also release figures for their senior leadership, although the group they look at is a much wider group than those included in our figures here. Of senior leaders overall 22% attended private school, and 36% of senior leaders specifically in news did so. 65 ## "Working As A Freelance Journalist Can Be Precarious, A Potential Barrier For Those From Lower Socioeconomic Backgrounds" They also recently launched an apprenticeship programme, with input from the Sutton Trust, to help open pathways into the BBC for young people from a more diverse backgrounds. 66 While the BBC is making progress, having also been named in the top 50 employers by the Social Mobility Index, 67 in recognition of the action they have taken, there is still a substantial amount of work to be done, especially in opening up the most influential roles at the very top of the organisation. Attention to diversity and equality issues is often particularly focused on the BBC, as the main public service broadcaster, but socio-economic diversity is an issue across all major broadcasters. Channel 4 recently carried out detailed research on this issue, which found that its staff are substantially unrepresentative of the general population, with 67% of Channel 4 staff having parents with professional or managerial jobs. 68 The work also looked at some of the reasons behind a lack of progression of staff from lower socio-economic backgrounds within Channel 4 to the top positions in the organisation. Following this work, the broadcaster has now put in place a variety of initiatives to try to improve socio-economic diversity in the organisation, including running an apprenticeship scheme, setting up new bases in Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, 69 and preventing employees from bringing in family members for work experience. However, as with the BBC, much more needs to be done to open up opportunities, especially at the very top. The other major UK broadcasters, ITV and Sky, have done much less to look at this issue. ITV recently carried out a survey looking at the socioeconomic background of its senior leadership team, but have not yet carried this out on among their wider staff. They have also recently signed up to the Social Mobility Pledge. 70 Sky has plans to start monitoring the socio-economic background of its staff in the near future. 71 Such monitoring however, is only the beginning of a process of diversification, and not an end in itself. ## Case Study Cait Fitzsimons Editor, 5 News I was born and grew up in Sunderland, where I attended the local Catholic comprehensive school. My father was one of 14 children, the son of an Irish immigrant. He left school when he was 14 and joined the merchant navy, and when I was growing up he worked as a milkman. My mum was an assistant at the local department store. I was the first person in my family to gain a degree, studying Fine Art at Coventry University. I'm an accidental journalist. In 1997, I moved to London to do a postgraduate course, but needed some money to get by. One of my cousins was an administrator at ITN and knew Channel 4 News needed some freelance runners. I was so lucky to get the opportunity; without it I wouldn't have dreamed of working as a journalist. From there, I went on to work at 5 News, which was set-up as a multi-skilled newsroom. As I was quick to pick-up technical skills, I had the time and space to get the hard bit, journalism. 5 News was a great place to start my working life, friendly and energetic. But to me, it felt quite alien, with lots of people from the south-east of England who were confident and vocal. There were even people who were related to famous reporters and politicians. I've always joked that I was middle class until I worked at ITN, then it felt more like being working class. Throughout my career, across a number of different newsrooms, I've had moments where I've been aware that my northern accent was seen as a negative. I experienced the odd joking comment about my pronunciation of certain words. There was also the occasional assumption that anyone from the north was automatically working class or with limited education. I've never felt that my background held me back but it's only in recent years that I've come to see it as an asset. As an editor, I'm willing to consider stories that more traditional newsrooms might overlook. I'm happy to be challenged and to admit I'm wrong. Newsrooms must adapt to survive, and I think increasing diversity will mean we find new ways for the industry to thrive. I try to make my newsroom a place where not only the me of 20 years ago, but also people who have different life experiences will feel supported and encouraged. The best example of this is being pitched a story I never would have spotted or considered and being surprised by what it delivers. I know I have a responsibility to make the newsroom a place where people feel confident in voicing their ideas, even if they have never had the chance before. I don't think I'd become a journalist if I was starting out now. Newsrooms are smaller and entry level jobs have become much more demanding, candidates often have both a relevant degree and post-graduate qualification. There's still the occasional opportunity to spot and develop someone with potential who might not have followed the usual educational route, but it's something I need to do more. There have been some positive changes in the media recently, like more apprenticeships, but things are not changing quickly enough. I think the challenges of spotting talent and training new journalists are becoming even harder with every local paper or regional radio newsroom which cuts or closes. News organisations should look more closely at how universities recruit students, but we also need to reach out to schools and colleges ourselves to give young people a better insight into what we do and open up new routes into media. ## The Educational Pathways Of Newspaper Columnists In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by newspaper columnists educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The independent school to Oxbridge pipeline accounts for a third of all newspaper columnists, one of the highest in the report. Including other Russell Group institutions brings the figure to close to half. Just 2% of columnists went from a comprehensive to a non-Russell Group university. This is lower even than the number who were privately schooled and did not have a degree. Grammar school to Oxbridge is the second most common pathway among columnists, comprising 13% of the group. Non-Russell Group universities as a whole make up a particularly low proportion of newspaper columnists compared to other professions. ## Introduction Section 1 focused on parliament and government, the decision-making bodies which agree the policies affecting all of us day to day. This section looks at the senior civil servants in Whitehall who advise government and run the departments tasked with implementing their policies, also looking at a wider group of public bodies set up and funded by government. These are 'arm's length' bodies, often previously called 'quangos' , with responsibilities for regulating and overseeing their fields, often holding government to account. The policies that civil servants have responsibility for devising and implementing affect people across the country, from all types of communities and backgrounds. However, as both politicians and civil servants come from very similar backgrounds, they have been criticised for 'group think' .72 This increases the likelihood of seeing challenges from the same perspective and, for example, missing problems with policies which do not come to light until they are rolled out within local communities. In order to make them as effective as they can be, our public bodies require a greater diversity of voices contributing to decision making from the outset. 47 50 Permanent Secretaries Discussion Diplomats The Educational Pathways of Diplomats 48 52 CEOs and Chairs of Public Bodies 48 ## Whitehall | Permanent Secretaries | School attendance | |---------------------| | 56% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | -1% | | since 2014 | | 59% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | +4% | | | | since 2014 | | 14% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -15% | | | | since 2014 | Comprehensive school +11% since 2014 Attended international schools 73 A permanent secretary is the most senior civil servant within any government department, with responsibility for running it day to day. Permanent secretaries also act as senior advisors to their department's Secretary of State and are accountable to parliament for how their department spends public funds. They are normally in place for several years, and most are appointed following a long career within the civil service. School and university background A large majority of permanent secretaries (59%) come from private school backgrounds, the second highest proportion in this report, behind senior 82% attended a Russell Group University | -4% since 2014 100% attended University | +3% since 2014 judges. This number, if anything, has seen a small increase over the last five years. Fewer than a third (28%) attended a comprehensive school. As the proportion who attended grammar schools has decreased, the comprehensive figure has gone up, rising by 11 percentage points since 2014. The top of the civil service is also dominated by alumni of Russell Group universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge. Over half (56%) attended one of the two institutions, again one of the highest across all of the professions in this report. The overwhelming majority (82%) attended either Oxbridge or another Russell Group university. ## Whitehall | Diplomats | School attendance | |----------------------| | 51% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | +1% | | since 2014 | | 52% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | no change since 2014 | | 17% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -14% | | | | since 2014 | | 29% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +18% | | | | since 2014 | British diplomats, including Ambassadors and High Commissioners, are an important part of the UK Civil Service. They act as the country's most senior official representatives abroad, influencing foreign policy, helping to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements, providing information and insight about their host country to the UK and in turn providing information and insight about the UK to their host country. They are also the first port of call in helping British people overseas. Many diplomats have commented the role is a 'lifestyle not a job' , due to the need to work all over the world, move frequently, and work outside of typical working hours, including evenings and weekends. Individuals have usually been in the Civil Service for a long time before becoming a top diplomat, with many entering through the Foreign Office Fast Stream, a highly competitive graduate scheme. This section looks at the country's top diplomats, Heads of UK Missions abroad. ## Whitehall | Ceos And Chairs Of Public Bodies A public body is an umbrella term for a group of organisations which deliver public services but are not government departments. They tend to operate at arm's length from ministers, making the roles that run and oversee them vital positions for the direction and day to day running of the organisations. Chairs of such organisations are prestigious positions, often taken up by former politicians, longstanding public servants, or other high profile persons from business or civil society. These are often post-career appointments, meaning they can look quite different from those who run the organisations day to day. Appointments are governed 84% attended a **Russell Group University** | no change since 2014 98% attended University | +9% since 2014 School and university background Over half (52%) of top British diplomats attended a private school, a figure which has not changed in the last five years. In common with the generational change seen in many sectors in this report, what has reduced substantially in that time is the proportion who went to a grammar school, down by 14 percentage points since 2014. In 2014, the proportion of British Ambassadors and High Commissioners who went to a comprehensive school was very low, at just 11%. While the 2019 figures show it at 29%, it is still low in comparison with other sectors. A very large proportion of British diplomats attended Oxbridge (51%). Almost all attended university, and of those who did, all attended a university in the UK. The vast majority (84%) attended a Russell Group institution. by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Many public bodies play a crucial role in monitoring the quality of public services, including health and education bodies such as Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and Ofqual. Decisions made by these bodies have substantial influence on their sector. Others include research funding councils, museums and conservation organisations; all organisations which have impact on a range of issues from which diseases we focus research funding on, to how we interpret our past and what we do to protect the natural world around us. School and university background Both the chairs and CEOs of public bodies are much more likely to be privately educated than average. 45% of chairs and 30% of CEOs attended a private school, with very little change in these figures since 2014. Just 18% of public body chairs attended a comprehensive school, although this has risen from only 11% in 2014. A larger proportion of chief executives attended a comprehensive school, which has risen by 10 percentage points since 2014. The proportion of both chairs and CEOs who attended a grammar school since 2014 has fallen, by 13 percentage points to 28% ## Public Body Ceos | School attendance | |----------------------| | 25% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | no change since 2014 | | 30% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | -4% | | | | since 2014 | | 27% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -12% | | | | since 2014 | | 31% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +10% | | | | since 2014 | Attended international schools ## Public Body Chairs | School attendance | |----------------------| | 40% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | | | -4% | | | | since 2014 | | 45% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | +1% | | | | since 2014 | | 28% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -13% | | | | since 2014 | | 18% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +8% | | | | since 2014 | Attended international schools for chairs, and by 12 percentage points to 27% for CEOs. It should be noted that school data could only be found for 60% of the chairs group, so results should be taken in that context. A large proportion of public body chairs attended Oxbridge (40%), again higher than the proportion of CEOs (25%), although the figure has come down slightly over the last five years, falling by 4 percentage points. Only a very small number of either chairs or CEOs did not attend university, and most went to one of the Russell Group, 58% of CEOs and 69% of chairs (down 5 percentage points). 58% attended a Russell Group University | +1% since 2014 98% attended University | +6% since 2014 69% attended a Russell Group University | -5% since 2014 94% attended **University** | no change since 2014 ## Whitehall | Discussion Over the last few years, the civil service has taken several steps to diversify the intake of their Graduate Scheme. The Fast Stream is designed to 'equip candidates to become future leaders of the Civil Service' . It is hoped that by increasing the socio-economic diversity of their intake, in the future more senior roles within the civil service, such as permanent secretaries, will be more representative of the general population. In 2016, the civil service carried out, with the Bridge Group, a full independent assessment of access to the Fast Stream by socio-economic background, the first of its kind commissioned by any employer. The report found that the profile of the Fast Stream's intake is 'less diverse than the student population at the University of Oxford' . When looking at the reasons behind the lack of diversity in the scheme, they found that candidates from highly selective universities (who have the least diverse student bodies) are the most likely to apply, and that there is a perception among many students from lower socio-economic backgrounds that the Fast Stream is 'not for them' . Students said that they did not understand enough ## "There Is A Perception among many students from lower socio-economic backgrounds that the Fast Stream is 'not for them' ." about the selection process, and perceived the civil service to be 'white, male and Oxbridge' . 74 In the run up to and following that report, the civil service made several changes to their Fast Stream recruitment processes. University names and UCAS points have been removed from the application process and an assessment centre has been opened outside of London in Newcastle. Additionally, the civil service have increased the amount of outreach work they do on campuses to encourage applications to the Fast Stream; updated how the socio-economic background of candidates is recorded and shorted the application window in a bid to improve candidate engagement. They have also created a 'Fast Pass' for anyone who has completed the civil service Summer Diversity Internship (open to students underrepresented in the Fast Stream, including those from lower socio-economic backgrounds), allowing 75 former interns to skip stages of the application process, improving their success rate. A cross government Social Mobility Network, to tackle issues across the civil service, has also been set up. Following these changes, there have been 76 increases both in the number of applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds to the Fast Stream, and in the number accepted onto the programme. In 2015, applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds made up 8% of applications, a proportion which has since doubled to 16% of applicants in 2018. However, these applicants are still much less likely to be accepted onto the scheme than others, with those from managerial and professional backgrounds twice as likely to get in as those from routine and manual backgrounds. In the diplomatic service specifically, similar efforts are being made to tackle this issue. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) launched 'Foreground' , a social mobility network for staff, in 2016. The network carries out a range of work, including reaching out to people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, supporting staff members facing barriers related to their background, and engaging with policy to reduce existing barriers for people entering the FCO. Foreground also represent the FCO on a cross-government network which aims to improve diversity of background across the civil service. 77 However, of concern going forward is the collapse in modern foreign languages study in recent times, particularly in more disadvantaged schools, which impacts on opportunities to learn about different countries and cultures. 78 The civil service needs to do more to understand why applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to be accepted onto the programme. Additionally, while the changes made to the Fast Stream are positive, any changes will take a long time to feed through the system at higher grades, which is far from guaranteed, given the barriers to career progression faced by those from less welloff backgrounds. 79 Such barriers, and the process behind top appointments, should be examined in detail and measures taken to address these issues. There has been much less scrutiny of the backgrounds of those working for public bodies. However, it is clearly an important issue for government. According to the Cabinet Office; 'Public bodies play an important role in public life, making decisions and delivering the essential services that benefit the communities they serve. To be truly effective, public bodies need to draw from a mix of people with different skills, experiences and backgrounds to serve on their boards.' Findings here clearly show that the educational backgrounds of public body chairs are, however, not very diverse. The same is also true for their chief executives, albeit to a lesser degree. As well as central Whitehall departments, these organisations should also be held to the same high standards, given the importance of their work and their receipt of public funding. While diversity is a criterion in the governance code regulating public appointments, 81 more needs to be done to deliver on this aspiration, including reporting on the socio-economic background of those taking up such roles across sectors. ## The Educational Pathways Of Diplomats In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by diplomats educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. ## 5. Public Servants Introduction Looking beyond Whitehall, local government and public bodies, there are many other prestigious, highly paid and influential positions in public life. The next section begins to paint a picture of some of those, looking at a wider group of public servants working in key positions at the top of justice, defence and academia. As the roles covered in this section cover a range of different professions, more detail on each individual sector is included within the body of this chapter. 55 58 Senior judges Armed Forces 56 59 Vice Chancellors 57 60 Discussion Case study - Mouhssin Ismail, Former lawyer The Educational Pathways of Senior Judges ## Public Servants | Senior Judges Senior judges, namely the Lord Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judges, Lord and Lady Justices of Appeal and High Court Judges, sit on the highest courts in the country. These courts fulfil a number of different roles, including importantly being the courts where cases are appealed from lower down in the system and decisions are made which affect the whole population. Senior judges have previously spoken about the importance of diversity on the benches of these courts, including the current President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, who commented that the public should be able to look at the judges and say "they are our judges" , as opposed to seeing them as "beings from another planet" . 82 School and university background Senior judges are the most socially exclusive groups of all the professions examined here, with the highest numbers of both independent school and Oxbridge alumni. Almost two thirds (65%) of senior judges attended private schools. While this has reduced by 6 percentage points compared to 2014, it is still around ten times higher than the proportion of the population who attend independent schools. Judges who were privately educated dominate the most senior positions in Britain's court system. The proportion who attended grammar schools is 20%. While this has fallen slightly, going down by 3 percentage points since 2014, this is a much smaller reduction than has been seen in some other sectors during the same period. While the educational background of judges is still very different from the whole population, the proportion who attended comprehensive schools is on the increase, having more than tripled from 4% in 2014 to 13%, albeit from an extremely low bar. Alumni of Oxford and Cambridge also heavily dominate the judiciary. Just under three quarters (71%) of senior judges went to one of the two institutions, with little change since 2014. In fact, the independent school to Oxbridge pipeline alone accounts for more than half of all senior judges (52%). All the senior judges included in this report went to university, and even those who did not attend Oxbridge still, in the main, attended a university in the Russell Group, with only 9% attending a non-Russell Group institution. ## Public Servants | Armed Forces School attendance University attendance 49% attended an Independent school -13% since 2014 15% attended a Grammar school -14% since 2014 Comprehensive school The armed forces are comprised of several different parts of the country's defences, including the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. This section looks at officers at the very top of the armed forces in Britain, looking at those at the rank of two stars (Major General) and above. These roles are held by those with senior appointments in military headquarters, including the Ministry of Defence, and are officers who have generally been in the armed forces for a long time before taking up their positions. While politicians hold ultimate responsibility for whether we go to war, and how that war is conducted, decisions made by senior military personnel day to day also have major impacts on frontline troops. The profile of senior personnel is particularly relevant, given that lower levels of the army disproportionately recruit from disadvantaged communities, 83 and the army has previously been accused of specifically targeting young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds for recruitment to such frontline positions. 84 School and university background The armed forces have among the highest proportions of privately educated personnel looked at in this report, with almost half of senior officers educated at independent schools (49%). Just over a third attended a comprehensive school, and 15% a grammar. While these figures show that the top of the armed forces looks very different from the population overall, there has been substantial change over the last five years - some of the most striking in this report. The proportion of senior officers who were educated at a comprehensive school has increased from just 7% in 2014 to 35% in 2019's data. This has been accompanied by falls in the proportions who were educated at both private and at grammar schools. In 2014, just under a third (30%) of senior officers were educated at a grammar school, but this figure has halved over the last five years. Similarly, the proportion of senior officers educated at a private school was previously 62%, but has now reduced by 13 percentage points to 49%. Private school attendance is higher among more senior ranks, with two thirds of four-star generals having attended. While the 2019 group had a slightly higher proportion of two star officers than 2014, this does not account for the significant increase in the proportion educated at comprehensive schools. Most senior officers in the armed forces had attended university (87%). Half of senior officers went to a Russell Group university, and 16% attended Oxford or Cambridge. While this proportion is lower than in many other top professions, it still shows a high level of representation of the two universities amongst senior officers relative to their size. ## Public Servants | Vice Chancellors School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Vice Chancellors are the chief executives of British Universities, responsible for leadership over both the academic and administrative aspects of the institution. Individuals in these positions have had a significant amount of media attention recently, given the high salaries awarded to some VCs. 85 Vice Chancellors are the main figurehead of a university, and act as a representative for the university externally. They have responsibility for thousands of students and staff, as well as millions of pounds in research grants. Universities are also often major employers in their area and support the jobs of many others in the local community. Vice Chancellors have significant influence over 86 the culture of their institution, including efforts around diversity, inclusion and widening participation, and making sure these values are championed throughout the university. Such issues are of particular importance given how unrepresentative the student bodies of many top universities are when compared to young people overall. School Compared to many of the other sectors examined in this report, a relatively low proportion of VCs were educated privately, with 16% having attended an independent school. This proportion has also reduced in the last few years, falling by 4 percentage points since 2014. However, only about a third (34%) of academics attended comprehensive schools. A large proportion of VCs attended grammar schools, with a third (33%) having done so. The picture has improved in the five years since 2014, with the proportion of VCs educated at comprehensive schools rising by 13 percentage points from 21% in 2014, mostly offsetting a drop in the proportion attending grammars. Almost a fifth (17%) of University Vice Chancellors were educated outside of the UK, reflecting the international nature of academia. Looking at just those educated in the UK, 20% attended independent schools, 40% grammar and 41% comprehensive. University As would be expected, most Vice Chancellors completed an undergraduate degree, with only one VC having not obtained an undergraduate degree. 88% of VCs attended a university in the UK, with 14% having studied for a degree abroad, similar proportions to those found in 2014. Just over half of VCs (51%) attended a Russell Group university, the same proportion as in 2014. However, in that time, the proportion of VCs who attended Oxford and Cambridge has increased. In 2014, just 13% had done so, a figure which has since increased by 6 percentage points, now standing at 19%. ## Public Servants | Discussion Across the judiciary, the armed forces and the higher education sector, graduates of Oxbridge and alumni of independent schools are over-represented. The top of the country's judiciary in particular is heavily dominated by private school and Oxbridge alumni. One of the reasons for this is likely to be the age of those holding such positions, reflecting patterns of entry into the profession from several decades ago, and the absence of term limits means that the pace of change is slow. Nonetheless, there remain many barriers for individuals aspiring to these roles. Most judges are barristers before they take up the position. However, a large proportion of barristers have been privately educated and have often attended prestigious universities. Looking at top barristers, those named in the Chambers UK list of the top 100 QCs in the country, in 2015 almost 71% had attended private school and almost 80% went to Oxbridge. 87 Data obtained by the Bar Standards Authority has also shown barristers are substantially more likely to have attended private school than the population at large. 88 Research looking at graduates of the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), which barristers need to complete as part of their training, has shown that graduates whose parents have not been to university are roughly 33% less likely to obtain 'pupillage' (essentially training contracts) than graduates of the course who have a parent educated to degree level. The Bar Standards Board has previously identified several possible barriers to access, including an expectation from some pupillage training organisations that applicants must have previously completed an unpaid "mini-pupillage" before they can apply, and the potential cost barriers for applicants to attend interviews. 90 Previous research carried out by the Sutton Trust found that internships in the legal sector have some of the lowest levels of open advertisement, and a high level of the use of personal contacts to secure placements. 91 Indeed the Legal Services Board have raised issues with both the cost of training and of unpaid and unadvertised pupillages as a barrier to the profession (although such unpaid placements have now been banned by the Bar Standards Board, so should no longer be taking place). 92 While the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary do publish statistics each year on the backgrounds of court judges, these figures do not include any measures of their socio-economic background. 93 Turning to the army, while top positions are less dominated by Oxbridge alumni than other sectors, individuals who attended private schools are highly over-represented at the top of the military. We know very little about socio-economic diversity in routes to top officer positions in the army, and while the Ministry of Defence do publish data on gender, ethnicity, age, religion and sexual orientation in the armed forces, 94 they do not currently publish information on socio-economic background. Particularly concerning however, are the vast discrepancies in education between the higher and lower ranks of the military, with the Sutton Trust's Leading People report pointing out that just 17% of army recruits were reported to have achieved above a C in GCSE English, compared to 45% of school leavers. 95 The army has also recently been criticised for the large amounts of taxpayer money being spent on sending officers' children to elite private schools, an issue that looks particularly stark given the over-representation of the privately educated at the top of the country's military. 96 The process of change in the army is likely to take a long time, as the army recruits junior soldiers and officers, and then develops those individuals internally. Therefore, if intakes diversify now, it will take a long time to feed into senior levels. The army should also look at potential barriers for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to rise to the top of the military, including routes from soldier level to officer level, to ensure they have an equal opportunity to do so. It should also be noted that army officers do not require a degree, and the army pays for individuals to earn a degree while they serve, which may also help to open up opportunities for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. 97 While the government has recently increased the number of cadet units in schools in more deprived areas, which aim to develop skills, including leadership, likely to be sought after at higher levels within the army, 98 the Combined Cadet Force remains dominated by independent schools. Concerns have also been raised as to the cadet model as a recruiting tool in schools. 99 While much more representative of the educational backgrounds of the population than top judges or army officers, Vice Chancellors are also unrepresentative. While there is a large amount of focus in the media on who goes to study at university, much less scrutiny is given to who goes on to study for PhDs and then can take up an academic position. Working in academia increasingly requires working on precarious short-term contracts and moving frequently, both across the UK and internationally, all of which may act as barriers for academics from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Working-class academics have also spoken out publicly about feelings of alienation and a perception of having outsider status within universities. 100 ## Case Study Mouhssin Ismail Former Lawyer I was educated in a state comprehensive school in Ilford, East London. My interest in becoming a lawyer was cultivated by my English teacher and during my time as a lawyer in a City firm, I received fantastic support and training. However, I began to realise there are few lawyers who worked for high profile city firms that came from a similar background to mine. It also became apparent there was a difference in the quality of my 'education' , which at times led me to question whether I actually 'fitted in.' In particular, my affluent peers had an appreciation of the arts, fine dining and theatre which I had not been exposed to as a young person. When I compared my own home life to my more privileged peers, I noticed there were very little discussions about politics, philosophy or the arts. School was seen as the sole place where learning took place. This leads to young people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds being left behind academically (defined in its broadest terms), socially and culturally because they do not possess the 'powerful knowledge' which is taught in more privileged circles. It is against this background that I made the difficult decision to leave the legal profession and return to the area I grew up in to support and prepare students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access high profile career paths. There are great initiatives that attempt to demystify law, but the legal profession continues to be extremely difficult to enter and there is much to be done if the perception of law being an elitist profession is to be eradicated. We need to start by raising the bar of what we expect a primary, secondary and sixth form student to achieve within the state sector. Professionals should constantly be asking themselves whether their most academic students are able to compete with their peers in high performing independent or grammar schools and whether their curriculum is rigorous enough. We should provide young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with the same quality of education that students from a selective independent or grammar school receive. This has to begin with getting the basics right at primary school in maths and English as well as establishing the type of work ethic that parents from middle class backgrounds instil in their children from a very young age. We also need to teach our students knowledge that is valued and is necessary to access and progress within these professions. There is also a role for law firms, who I am pleased to say have taken it upon themselves to introduce initiatives that seek to 'uplift' young people from disadvantaged areas in the hope of encouraging more credible applications from students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The key is not to lower the bar for less privileged students but to be clear about what they need to succeed and then develop a curriculum that provides these students with the knowledge and skills required. ## The Educational Pathways Of Senior Judges In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by senior judges, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The majority of senior judges (52%) attended both an independent school and one of Oxford or Cambridge, by some margin the highest in the report. Grammar school to Oxbridge was the next most common pathway (16%). 7% of senior judges came from comprehensives via Oxbridge, with another 6% through other Russell Group universities. A very small proportion came from non-Russell Group institutions, mostly those who had previously been privately educated. ## 6. Local Government attended Oxbridge Section at a Glance ## Introduction Many important aspects of policy decision making and implementation, on a diverse variety of issues from social care to policing, are taken within local government. However local government has faced substantial financial pressures in recent years, with many councils merging and cutting permanent staff. Nonetheless, council leaders and CEOs, Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Police Officers all play a significant role in how essential services are provided locally within communities. 63 67 Local Government Leaders Case study - Tina Redshaw, British Ambassador to Cambodia Local government CEOs The Educational Pathways of Council Leaders 64 68 Police Chiefs and PCCs 65 Discussion 66 ## Local Government | Local Government Leaders School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Council leaders provide political leadership and set the strategic direction of the local council. They chair council meetings, distribute executive portfolios and work together with the council's staff to deliver their vision for the area. They need to be selected by their local parties, first to be elected as councillors, and then by their fellow councillors to become council leader. The next section looks at local council leaders in England, to allow comparisons with data from 2014. Councils have responsibility for the delivery of a wide variety of services, including social care, many schools, housing, libraries, planning and waste collection. The decisions made by local councils are important to the lives of people across the country, and as is the case with nationally elected politicians, it is important that they are reflective of the communities they serve. School and university backgrounds While national politics is among the most socially exclusive of sectors, local government is very different, with the proportions attending elite institutions among the lowest of any of the areas included in this report. However, despite this, council leaders are still almost three times as likely to have attended an independent school than the population as a whole (20%). Going against the trend in many other sectors, this figure has recently increased, up from 15% in 2014. Only half of local council leaders attended a comprehensive school, a figure which has risen slightly (6 percentage points) since 2014. Grammar school attendance, while high at 28%, has been squeezed, having fallen by 11 percentage points since 2014. In contrast to many of the other sectors examined in the report, over a third (36%) of local council leaders did not attend university. However, as with many other elected positions, a larger proportion now attended university than did in 2014, when the figure was 50%. None of the local council leaders we found information for attended university outside of the UK. Only a small proportion (5%) attended Oxbridge, down by 3 percentage points since 2014. ## Local Government | Local Government Ceos | School attendance | |----------------------| | 5% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | -3% | | since 2014 | | 9% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | +1% | | | | since 2014 | | 28% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -18% | | | | since 2014 | | 62% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +19% | | | | since 2014 | Local council chief executives manage the resources of the council to fulfil the goals set out by the council's leader. They also play a crucial role in providing leadership for council staff and, as with many of the other roles examined in this report, have the potential to play an important role in how diversity initiatives are implemented across the council as a whole. As with national civil servants, local council CEOs play an important role in advising local council leaders and running the day to day operations of the council. Since the last report, many councils have removed their CEO roles when restructuring their senior leadership team and instead replaced them with several roles with responsibility over only a specific part of the council's work. For example, Bristol City Council, a few years after the introduction of a directly elected mayor, replaced its CEO with three directors, each of whom report directly to the mayor. 101 However, the majority of councils retain a CEO or equivalent position. To allow comparisons to 2014, this is still the role examined here. 35% attended a Russell Group University | -5% since 2014 86% attended University | +4% since 2014 School and university backgrounds Only 9% of local council CEOs attended an independent school, broadly similar to the percentage who have done so in the country's population overall, and one of the lowest rates in this report. This makes council CEOs half as likely to have been to a private school than the electorally appointed council leaders. There has been a substantial drop in the proportion who attended a grammar school, falling from just under half (47%) to under a third (28%) since 2014. Correspondingly, the proportion who attended a comprehensive school has increased by a similar amount (19 percentage points) in the same period. A sizable proportion (86%) of local council CEOs attended university. However, similarly to local council leaders, only a small percentage went to Oxbridge (5%), a figure which has also fallen since 2014. Just over a third of council CEOs attended one of the Russell Group universities, which has fallen slightly (by 5 percentage points). ## Local Government | Police Chiefs And Pccs School attendance University attendance Attended international schools Chief Officers are the top police officers in their force. The phrase refers to the chief constable in most areas, but also covers other roles such as the Commissioner, and Deputy and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police in London. They are responsible for leading police operations in their area. This section looks at chief constables and similar roles in England, Wales and Scotland. The work of chief constables is overseen by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), introduced by the coalition government in 2010 and first elected in 2012. PCCs have responsibility over how the police force is run in their area, including how the police budget is spent. 102 PCCs are selected by political parties, who put forward candidates to run for the position. Turnout in elections to select PCCs has been low, with an average of just 27% of the electorate voting for the positions in 2016. 103 The role of PCC exists in England in Wales but does not exist in the rest of the UK. Both chief constables and PCCs play important roles in shaping policing in their area, making who fills these positions an important issue for how policing is delivered and the force's relationship with their local community. Forces have been criticised extensively for not looking like the communities that they serve, especially regarding the representation of those from ethnic minority backgrounds; 104 who are more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds and live in areas where crime is more prevalent. 105 Research by the National Centre for Social Research identified that efforts to increase diversity across the police force, to ensure they look more like the communities they serve, have not made progress due to a lack of buy-in from senior officers. Chief constables and Commissioners can play pivotal roles in this effort. 106 School and university backgrounds Just over half (54%) of Chief Officers and PCCs attended comprehensive schools, a figure which has gone up substantially since 2014, increasing by 17 percentage points. Most of this rise has been due to a decrease in the proportion of those at the top of the police who went to grammar schools, which while still relatively high at 21%, has had a large decrease from 42% in 2014. Almost a quarter (24%) of Chief Officers and PCCs attended a private school, a proportion much higher than in the population overall. This figure has also increased slightly since 2014. Looking at the two groups separately, elected PCCs were found to be more likely to be privately educated than Chief Officers. Of PCCs, 29% were privately educated, 29% attended grammar schools, and only 40% attended comprehensives. In contrast, 19% of Chief Officers attended private schools, only 14% went to a grammar, and a much larger proportion (67%) attended a comprehensive school. Most Chief Officers and PCCs have been to university (83%), which has increased substantially since 2014 when only 62% had done so. Just under half have been to a Russell Group university and 13% went to Oxbridge. Attendance at Russell Group institutions has increased substantially, by 11 percentage points, since 2014. The proportion of Chief Officers and PCCs who attended Oxbridge has more than doubled, standing at just 6% in 2014. In contrast to their school backgrounds, Chief Officers were around twice as likely as PCCs to have attended Oxbridge or another Russell Group institution. ## Local Government | Discussion Top roles in local government, particularly local government CEOs, are some of the most educationally representative of the sectors examined in this report. However, local government leaders, PCCs and Constables still look different to the populations they represent and serve. The positions in this section may better reflect the population overall because of their locations. Previous research has shown that people from lower socio-economic groups are less likely to move away ## "We Risk Local Government Becoming The Exclusive Preserve Of A Privileged Few Who Have The Luxury Of Time And Money To Spare" for university, and those who do are more likely to return to their home region after graduation. 107 Roles like those looked at in this section, which are spread across the country, with their work focused on the local communities in which they are based, are perhaps unsurprisingly more diverse than sectors largely based in London and other metropolitan areas. Issues remain however. There are several potential barriers for individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds looking to stand as representatives in local councils. Councillors do not receive a salary, but instead receive a 'member's allowance' , which should cover the time and expenses they have incurred doing council business, and anyone who holds additional responsibilities (for example, the Leader of the Council, portfolio holders, scrutiny chairs and opposition leaders) will also receive a responsibility allowance for these duties. However, concerns have been raised that the amount local councillors are given as an allowance may be a barrier for access. 108 Other potential financial barriers include councillors not being given enough money to cover care for dependents, and councillors having no right to renumeration during parental leave. These issues are likely to effect women especially, but particularly those women without financial resources to cover the cost themselves. 109 In 2014, councillors lost access to the Local Government Pension scheme, a move which the Local Government Association warned would "risk local government becoming the exclusive preserve of a privileged few who have the luxury of time and money to spare" . 110 Finally, although employers are legally required to allow councillors time off work to fulfil their duties (albeit unpaid), some councils have been criticised for holding meetings during working hours, a barrier for anyone who needs to hold down a job alongside their role as a councillor. 111 In this report, we have not been able to look at the wider group of councillors from which leaders are chosen. There are roughly 20,000 councillors in England and it is not clear whether council leaders are more or less representative than councillors as a whole. So questions remain as to where the barriers lie, and whether the major issues are in becoming a council leader or whether they instead lie in becoming a councillor in the first place. Further work to look at the backgrounds of councillors more generally would be of help in answering that question, along with extending the analysis across the rest of the UK. Generally, roles in local government are put under much less scrutiny than positions in national government. Local and PCC elections have low levels of turn-out and voter engagement. However, without data and attention, it is unlikely these positions will become more representative. If local political parties were to start to monitor the socio-economic background of their council and PCC candidates, they would be much better placed to identify issues and put in place initiatives to improve diversity. ## Case Study Tina Redshaw British Ambassador To Cambodia I grew up in Denton, a village in East Sussex. My dad was a salesman for a local carpet company, later moving up to become a manager there. My mum was a seamstress before becoming a housewife for most of my childhood. Neither of my parents had been to university themselves. I attended a local comprehensive school, before going to York University to study Language and Linguistics. My entry into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) was not through the traditional route, which is applying to the graduate scheme straight or soon after leaving university. At the time, I just didn't consider the FCO as a place to work, I hadn't seen it as a possibility. Looking back, I don't think I would have been selected, I wasn't ready at the time, nor had I considered a civil service career. After university, I went to Nanjing, China on a British Council Scholarship. On return, I worked in the field of British Chinese relations, which included going back to China to work as Country Director for the organisation Voluntary Service Overseas. From there, I was promoted to become the Regional Director for Southeast Asia, and when in that role I saw that the FCO were advertising to recruit mid-career professionals with language skills and oversees experience. I applied and after a long recruitment process was offered a job. I think that the FCO is in the main open to people from all backgrounds, and throughout my career I have worked with a variety of people from different sorts of backgrounds. But at the very top there is still, in my view, amongst a small but vocal minority something of a sense of the 'old boy's network' , although this is improving as more women get into the top jobs. At leadership events within the FCO, a small group of men appear to think it's ok to take up all of the speaking space. You would hope they would be a bit more diplomatic at times! Ensuring the FCO is representative of the population in terms of gender and ethnicity is discussed frequently, and changes are being made, but I've rarely heard people discuss someone's educational background. I'm aware of fairly large numbers of Oxbridge graduates across the organisation but far less sighted about who might have attended private schools. I think that my background has helped in my professional life to keep me grounded. It has certainly helped me to relate to people from all backgrounds, both overseas and in UK. This is important for a job that is all about relationship building. When I joined the Foreign Office, it was the first time the organisation had ever recruited people mid-career, and the cohort who joined the FCO with me was very mixed. I think that having the opportunity to move into an organisation like the FCO part the way through your career is definitely important for ensuring diversity. Now, there aren't the same opportunities for mid-career professions to enter the FCO in the way that I did, and competition for places on their graduate scheme is as hot now as it always has been. ## The Educational Pathways Of Council Leaders In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by local government leaders, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The pathways of local government leaders look substantially different to other categories in the report. The biggest group is formed of those who ended their education after comprehensive school (23%). One in five (19%) attended a comprehensive followed by a non-Russell Group university, similar to politicians in Westminster, with both sets of politicians showing much higher numbers from this group than other elite professions. Just 2% came from independent schools and Oxbridge, the most common route among the elite as a whole. Grammar school alumni attending other Russell Group universities, or attending no university at all (both 11%) were also common pathways into local government leadership. ## Section At A Glance Introduction Across several of the sections examined in this report, women are substantially underrepresented. Women make up only 5% of FTSE 350 CEOs, 8% of tech firm CEOS, 16% of local government leaders, 24% of senior judges, 26% of permanent secretaries and 35% of top diplomats; the gender composition of most 'elite' professions in the UK does not match the population overall. Many individual women, despite a large amount of talent and hard work, are not able to reach the top of their professions at the same rate as their equally qualified male counterparts. This can have serious consequences for women more generally, as issues that affect women specifically can often be overlooked by decision makers at the top of the sectors examined here, including politicians, business leaders and those working in the media. Importantly, the limits that women experience due to their gender do not act in isolation but can also intersect with the challenges and obstacles which come from other parts of their identity, including socio-economic background. Indeed, women from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to move up the social ladder, while men are more likely to remain at the top. 112 And if women do get to the top, those from less advantaged backgrounds face a double pay gap, both for their gender, and for their socio-economic background. In the top professions, the gender pay gap is around £10,000 year, and the socio-economic pay gap is £6,400. However, the pay gap in these professions between the most privileged men and the least privileged women is a huge £18,900, over £2,000 more than the two gaps added together. 113 Previous research has also shown that men experience a direct advantage from being privately educated, in the form of increased earnings, above and beyond that explained by their higher educational attainment alone when compared to their comprehensively educated counterparts. The same is not however true for women, who if privately educated do not receive the same additional non-qualification related earnings boost.114 Clearly, gender and socio-economic background together play an important role in someone's ability to reach the top. It is important that the effort to improve social mobility is as inclusive as possible. Given that gender and socio-economic background serve as a double disadvantage, it is vital we look at ways to tackle both issues in combination. This section looks at the educational background of women in the top professions in two ways. First, by looking specifically at the women in many of the other top professions featured elsewhere in this report. Secondly, by looking at a group of the UK's most influential female leaders. Women in the top professions 71 Influential female leaders 72 Discussion 73 The Educational Pathways of Influential Women 74 ## Women | Women In The Top Professions Many of the professions we have looked at in this report have very low levels of female representation. In many cases, including tech firms, FTSE 350 CEOs and popular musicians, there are so few women that we cannot robustly look at breakdowns by gender and educational background. For the professions where such breakdowns are possible, the picture in terms of schooling is not straightforward. In several professions, men at the top of the sector are more likely to be privately educated than their female counterparts. Male senior judges are 19 percentage points more likely to have attended a private school than their female counterparts, male newspaper columnists 10 percentage points and male MPs 8 percentage points more likely. Conversely, in other professions women are more likely to be privately educated. Female diplomats are 7 percentage points more likely to be privately educated than their male counterparts, and in the House of Lords, Baronesses are 6 percentage points ## Independent Schools Oxbridge more likely to have been to private school than Lords. However, it should be noted that where women are more likely to have attended an independent school, the gaps are not as large as those seen in some of the professions where men are more likely. Given this mixed picture, it is difficult to discern whether such patterns are meaningful, or statistical noise. The picture at university level is clearer. Across a variety of the professions examined in this report, women are less likely to have attended Oxbridge than their male counterparts. Female judges are 25 percentage points less likely to have attended Oxbridge than male judges, Baronesses 21 percentage points less likely than Lords, female newspaper columnists and diplomats 17 percentage points less and female MPs 6 percentage points less likely to have attended Oxbridge. Similarly, although local government leaders have a very low rate of Oxbridge attendance, women in these roles are still half as likely (3% vs 6%) to have attended Oxbridge than men in the same positions. ## Women | Influential Female Leaders School attendance University attendance The 2014 edition of Elitist Britain looked at the educational background of women included in the BBC's Woman's Hour 2013 woman's power list, which included leading women from a wide range of sectors. There is unfortunately no equivalent list of influential women now available, as the Women's Hour list changes in scope and purpose from year to year. Instead, this section looks at a similar list put together by Harper's Bazaar, featuring the UK's 150 most influential female leaders across a range of sectors, very similar to those looked at in 2014. This list also has some crossover with women in other sections of this report. School and university background Almost half of the group of influential women examined in this report attended an independent school (43%), with little change since 2014. This is close to the average for all professions across this report, but over six times the population at large. Although it should be kept in mind that differences in this section may be due to changes in methodology since 2014, the proportion of influential women who attended grammar school has, as with many of the other groups looked at in this report, decreased in that time from 20% to 10%. However, the reduction in grammar school attendance has not, as was the case in many other sections of this report, been accompanied by an increase in women educated at comprehensive schools. The proportion who went to a comprehensive is just 23%. The majority of influential women included in this report went to university (87%). The 2019 list has more members educated abroad than the 2014 list however, 21% in 2019, compared to 10% in the previous list. Almost a quarter (23%) of the influential women in this section went to Oxbridge, a figure that has increased slightly since 2014, despite the increased proportion having studied internationally. The proportion who went to a Russell Group university has however decreased, from 60% in 2014 to 41% now. Among those educated domestically, 17% of influential women took the independent school to Oxbridge pathway, less than many other sectors, with substantial proportions of those from independent schools attending non-Russell Group universities, or no university at all. 11% came from a comprehensive and non-Russell Group background. ## Women | Discussion Women are under-represented across the top professions examined in this report. While barriers that women face in the workplace have been examined in detail in a large body of literature, much less work has been done on the interaction between gender and socio-economic background. For the women who do make it to the top, their journeys do not always look like the men who have done the same. The starkest difference in many sectors is fewer women having attended Oxbridge compared to their male counterparts. Although Oxford and Cambridge both started admitting women as full members in the 1920s, women made up only 10% of students at Cambridge and 15% at Oxford in the mid- 1950s. This rose only gradually and still stood at just 19% ## "Barriers Include The High Costs Of Childcare And The Interaction Of Both Sexist As Well As Classist Attitudes Around Professional Success And Leadership." at Oxford and 13% at Cambridge in the 1970s, around 40% at both in the 1990s, and eventually reached parity in the early 2000s. 115 This lack of access to the prestige and connections gained by those attending Oxbridge will have no doubt influenced some of the disparities seen here, and this change just may not yet have fed through to the top of these professions. There are other factors which may differ between senior men and women. For example, women may be newer entrants to these roles, as gender diversity has improved, and therefore be younger on average than their male counterparts; or alternatively some may take longer to reach these roles due to career breaks, and therefore be older. Importantly, evidence from the US suggests that the impact of socio-economic background and gender is not limited to the elite professions, but occurs at all levels; finding that women are at a higher risk of being downwardly mobile than men across the income spectrum, and that women find it harder to escape from the bottom income group if they are born to parents in that group. While only 35% of men born to parents in this bracket remain there themselves, 47% of women do. 116 Clearly, more work is needed to look in detail at 117 the ways in which socio-economic background and gender can interact to hold a woman back on her way to the top. Potential issues include the high costs of childcare and the interaction of both sexist as well as classist attitudes and expectations around professional success and leadership. Tackling these issues may help to break down barriers for women's progression in the professions. Childcare specifically is a challenge, not just because women tend to shoulder most of the childcare in families, but it is a particular issue for single parents (who are more likely to be women) with only one income to cover these costs while either working or in training. Looking in more detail at training at all levels, apprenticeships are an important vehicle for social mobility, but women face some specific challenges in accessing them. Research carried out by the Young Women's Trust found that apprentices with children are more likely to report financial difficulties, and that many report experiencing maternity discrimination during their apprenticeships. 118 At all levels, women face potential barriers where challenges due to their gender and economic background converge. Many of the industry specific challenges facing individuals discussed in other chapters are in many cases likely to be magnified for women. For example, in the politics section we discussed the high personal cost of standing as an MP, including lost earnings and the cost of travel to attend events. However, for many women this cost is likely to be higher, due to the need to pay for childcare. Women are more likely to be in low paid work with inflexible hours, additional issues that make it harder to stand as a candidate because of the interaction of their gender and socio-economic background. Additionally, work by the Fawcett Society, a gender equality charity, has found that female MPs are more likely to have had multiple roles typically associated with the professional path to become an MP than men, perhaps to help them to form the networks needed to stand, which they are less likely to have than men. 119 As discussed earlier in this report, access to these roles often requires unpaid work in an MPs' office to secure. If women rely on this professional route into politics more often, and there are financial barriers to access this route, it's likely to have a larger impact on women from lower socio-economic backgrounds. ## The Educational Pathways Of Influential Women In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by influential women educated in Britain, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The group of influential female leaders were largely typical of the elite group overall. 17% had found success through the independent school to Oxbridge pathway, 30% including other Russell Group institutions. 7% attended a comprehensive followed by Oxbridge. One major feature is the number of those privately educated who did not attend university (13%). More comprehensively educated women in the influential group had come through non- Russell Group universities (11% of the total) than through the Russell Group. ## 8. Creative Industries Introduction The next section looks at the creative industries, including the popstars with the highest selling and most downloaded and streamed albums, and the richest stars across TV, film and music. These roles are not just well remunerated, but also highly desirable; many young people dream of becoming a popstar or an actor. As with all the professions covered in this report, such dreams of achieving artistic success should not be dependent on the family background you are born into. The creative arts also play an important role in shaping the society we all live in. Art can play a vital role in providing a platform for exploring ideas and experiences from across society. Representation and diversity in the arts is thus crucial in terms of the impact and connection that the visual representation of diversity can have on under-represented audiences, particularly those of a young age. But also what stories are told, and whose experiences are reflected, be it through television, cinema, music or digital streaming, has substantial impact on the cultural and social life of a country. Outside of art itself, many top stars also use their fame to raise awareness of social issues, such as the work that Emma Watson has done on gender equality,120 Idris Elba on youth crime121 or Michael Sheen on access to the arts.122 However, access across the creative industries is not equal for all. Just 13% of those working in publishing, 12% of those in film, TV and radio, and 18% in music, performing and visual arts come from working class origins.123 77 Popstars TV, film and music 78 Discussion 79 The Educational Pathways in TV, Film and Music 80 ## Creative Industries | Popstars This section looks at solo artists and band members who have had a UK top 40 album over the last four years. Popularity here is determined by album sales, downloads and streams, and we have looked only at artists who are either from the UK or are primarily based here. School and university background The proportion of popular musicians examined here who attended a private school is relatively small compared to many of the other sections examined in this report, at 20%. However, this is still almost three times the proportion of the general population who attended a fee-paying school. A relatively large proportion attended a comprehensive school (74%). Very few of the artists examined here went to a grammar school, which is likely in large part to reflect the relatively young ages of most big name acts in popular music. Most of the artists included here are in their 20s or 30s, so will have all attended school after grammar schools were abolished in most parts of the UK. These figures have all remained steady since the previous edition of Elitist Britain. Most popular musicians in our list did not attend university; just under a third attended (29%). This figure has dropped in the last five years, falling by 9 percentage points. Many musicians become famous at a relatively young age or spend a great amount of time in their early adulthood pursuing their career, which may explain why such a large proportion did not attend university. Given the small numbers of these musicians going to university, the proportion who attended the Russell Group (17%) and Oxbridge (2%) are also relatively low. In contrast to many other sectors, the most common educational pathway was comprehensive attendance followed by no university (65%). ## Creative Industries | Tv, Film And Music | School attendance | |----------------------| | 6% | | | | attended | | Oxbridge | | | | | -5% | | since 2014 | | 38% | | | | attended an | | Independent school | | -6% | | | | since 2014 | | 18% | | | | attended a | | Grammar school | | | | -10% | | | | since 2014 | | 43% | | | | attended a | | Comprehensive school | | +18% | | | | since 2014 | Next, we look at the richest individuals in TV, film and music, as determined by the Sunday Times Rich List. Many of those included here will have been in their industry for a long time, so this reflects more established stars in these fields, and is less likely to change substantially over time. However, there are a mix of ages included here, with some crossover with currently popular artists in our top album artists section. School and university background A large proportion of the country's richest musicians, film and television stars were privately educated (38%), although this figure has gone down by 6 percentage points since the last edition of Elitist Britain. There has also been a fall in the proportion who attended grammar school, which at just under a fifth has fallen by 10 percentage points. As the proportion attending independent and grammar schools has reduced, 24% attended a Russell Group University | **-7%** since 2014 correspondingly the proportion who attended a comprehensive had gone up, now at just under half (43%), but still very different to the population at large. The richest musicians were less likely to have attended an independent school than those who made their riches through TV and film (30% compared to 44%) and more likely to have attended a comprehensive (46% compared to 40%). A large proportion of the richest people in music, TV and film did not attend university (58%), a figure which has actually increased by 10 percentage points since the 2014 report, in contrast to most other roles analysed in this report. Only a small proportion (6%) attended Oxbridge, a figure which has almost halved in the same time period. Those who made their riches through TV and film were much more likely to have attended Oxbridge (9%) than those who did so through music (3%). ## Creative Industries | Discussion While we have only taken a small snapshot of the creative arts in this report, research by others has shown the impact of socio-economic background across these industries. Previous work by the Sutton Trust found that 67% of British Oscar winners and 42% of British BAFTA winners attended an independent school, 124 125 and research has found that individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds have been found to be over-represented across the arts, including in film, TV, radio, music, performance, visual arts and publishing. Previous research by the Sutton Trust has found that unpaid internships are particularly common in the arts (including placements in theatre, TV, film, fashion and music) compared to other sectors, and it is common for interns in this sector to complete several internships, with 32% of interns having completed three or more. Working class young people were also found to be less likely to carry out internships in this sector, when compared to people from more affluent backgrounds. 126 This culture of unpaid work acts as a substantial barrier to those without the resources to subsidise their career. "Working class actors report being typecast into certain parts and are not able to sustain the long periods of unemployment or free work required." Looking at acting specifically, there are many potential access issues throughout an aspiring actor's journey to the top. At secondary school level, concerns have been raised about the recent decline in the study of creative arts at GCSE and A-Level. Many have linked this trend to the narrowing of the curriculum at school, alongside school funding pressures. There have been impacts both on facilities within schools and opportunities such as theatre trips, where costs are a factor, especially if students live far away from a major cultural centre. After school, the major routes into the profession for top actors are usually either to attend Oxbridge or a top drama school. 127 We have spoken elsewhere in this report about access issues specific to Oxbridge, and concerns have also been raised about the application process for top drama schools such as RADA and LAMDA. Many of these charge application fees of around £50 each to apply (though some offer fee waivers to those from disadvantaged backgrounds), and there is no centralised application process as there are for undergraduate courses at university. Additionally, less scrutiny is put on who gains a place at these institutions. While there is extensive data available for the background of university students through UCAS, the same is not true for students at top drama schools. 128 Once an aspiring actor enters the profession, barriers for individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds persist. Working class actors report being typecast into certain parts and are not able to sustain the long periods of unemployment or free work required on the way to the top. 129 Furthermore, many actors from lower socio-economic backgrounds who aren't based in London struggle to afford the high cost of attending auditions which are mostly held in the capital, even if the filming itself is happening elsewhere in the UK. 130 While popular music was not as socially exclusive as film and TV; popular musicians, especially those who have made the most money from their work, are still disproportionately from advantaged groups. Concerns have been raised about music learning in school, with recent research showing many of the most disadvantaged areas of the country have little in the way of music provision at A level. 131 The Director of the Royal College of Music, Prof Colin Lawson, has described "a crisis in music education. The inequality in provision is now deep within the school system … The conservatoire sector cannot recruit from the greatest pool of talent and, ultimately, the music profession will lose out." Despite isolated successes such as the BRIT school, a state school in Croydon which is one of only a small number of free to attend specialist performing arts schools in the country, barriers in many schools remain. For example, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to continue learning to play an instrument after they have started, because of cost barriers. 132 Looking at access to popular music is however complex, as pop stars can come through multiple routes, and often do not have any formal training. Several of the bands featured in the top album list here were formed through reality shows such as the X Factor. These shows provide such aspiring young musicians with mentoring and access to industry insiders, which can help to break down access gaps, but by its nature, such opportunities are only available to a handful of winners. Technological changes have made music production more accessible, through digital tools that be used at home rather than requiring expensive studio recording time, though cost barriers remain. Furthermore, with reduced budgets across the music industry, the finances of an early career musician have potentially become more precarious, giving an advantage to those who can fund themselves to take the risks required for success. This unpredictability of income across the creative arts is one of the main barriers to more equitable pathways to success. ## The Educational Pathways In Tv, Film And Music In each section through the report, we have taken a look at the educational pathways of a key profession in more detail. The following figure displays the pathways taken by the wealthiest in TV, film and music, with the size of the 'flow' representing the size of each group. On the left side of the graph we see which schools they attended. The flows from left to right then represent the pathways taken from those in each type of school to university. The educational pathways of the wealthiest actors and musicians in Britain are unusual compared to many other professions in the elite. Almost a third (31%) attended a comprehensive school and did not attend university. A further 19% were privately educated and did not attend university. Non-graduates in fact make up more than half of the group as a whole. Small numbers attended independent schools and Oxbridge (6%), along with comprehensive school followed by a Russell Group university (6%). Section at a Glance ## 9. Sport Attended Independent School On average 24% attended independent schools ## Introduction The relationship between sport, education and social class in Britain is a complex, and sometimes fraught one. It also differs substantially across sports. Pathways to elite level participation in some sports include school or university level participation, whereas in others it is largely independent of educational structures. Men's football, for example, has long been a game where professional players leave education as soon as possible during their school years, and the pathways to professionalisation are largely through the club and league structures. However, many other sports, particularly those with a history of amateur participation, include school or university competition as a step on the ladder to success. Access to facilities is a crucial element of this, with many sports which require expensive equipment or special facilities resulting in a more socially exclusive participant base, including rowing, sailing and equestrian sports. Independent schools frequently have the funding to invest heavily in such facilities, and often boast high quality indoor and outdoor facilities in cricket, rugby, hockey and football. In fact, across a variety of school sports, it has been found that 53% of national school competitions were won by state schools and 46% by independent schools, despite 86% of competing schools coming from the state sector.133 As well as the health benefits of regular sport, participation in such activities is frequently hailed as beneficial for the development of teamwork, leadership and other essential life skills.134 However, participation in sporting activity is associated with higher socio-economic status. In fact, the gap in sporting participation between high and low socio-economic groups actually grew in the ten years prior to 2016.135 Education - and specifically the type of school you attend - plays a significant role in this gap, and this is reflected at the highest levels of sport. The Sutton Trust has regularly highlighted the levels of privately educated athletes among Team GB's Olympians,136 and the 2014 edition of Elitist Britain looked at the school backgrounds of top players in men's Football, Rugby Union and Cricket, highlighted as the top three team sports for participation across the country.137 Here, those sports are compared again, with women's national teams included for the first time. | 83 | |-------------| | Rugby (Men) | Olympic Medallists (Rio 2016) 84 86 Football (Women) Discussion 84 87 Rugby (Women) 85 88 Case study - Maggie Alphonsi MBE, Former England Rugby player and current sports broadcaster ## Sport | Men'S Sport Football Cricket School Attendance Across the English, Scottish and Welsh national football teams, the vast majority of players had attended a comprehensive school: 89%, with just 5% attending independent schools. In England, just 4% of internationals attended independent schools, down substantially from 13% in 2014, though of course a small change in individuals can make big differences. There were minor differences between the three nations, primarily with England having a slightly lower comprehensive rate (82%), largely due to attendance at grammar schools (11%). In Scotland and Wales, comprehensive rates were 94%. As a result of the established routes into the men's ## Sport | Rugby (Men) School Attendance Attended international schools professional game - where talented youngsters are fast-tracked through club academy programmes - unsurprisingly, no players had attended university. Cricket had the highest levels of privately educated internationals in the three team sports looked at, with 43% of the English cricket team attending a feepaying school. This was actually up substantially from 33% in 2014, though predominantly at the expense of those who had attended schools abroad. 43% went to comprehensives, similar to 2014. University attendance was much lower than rugby, at 9%. In contrast, 37% of British rugby union internationals had attended fee-paying schools, similar to 2014, while 47% went to comprehensives. This however obscures substantial differences across the three nations. England and Scotland had 44% and 49% respectively of players attending independent schools. England also has a substantial proportion of grammar school attendees (19%), with just 25% attending state comprehensives. In contrast, 81% of ## Sport | Football (Women) The educational dynamics of women's sport are often extremely different to men's. Differences in school backgrounds reflect the geographical and cultural background of the communities the sports draw from, but university attendance in particular reflects the nature of the sport itself, the requirements to compete, and the prospects of long term paid employment in the sport. The smaller sizes of the professional ranks and lower levels of financial remuneration mean that it makes sense for women's players to attain Welsh internationals had attended comprehensives, and 16% independent schools. Scotland lay in between with 37% attending state secondaries. Despite the professionalisation of rugby since the mid-nineties, substantial numbers of players still attend university, with many facilitating the development of players. 38% of rugby internationals attended university, with a quarter of those attending Russell Group institutions. good educational qualifications where possible. The proportion of women football internationals having attended comprehensives is actually slightly higher than men, at 94%. It is also the norm to have attended university, with universities providing facilities and developing grounds for players to grow. In fact, 80% of women's football internationals attended a higher education institution, though only a small number attended a Russell Group university. ## Sport | Rugby (Women) Female rugby union internationals also showed substantially different educational patterns than men, with 82% attending comprehensive schools, 35 percentage points more than their male counterparts, and just 13% attending independent ## Sport | Cricket (Women) Female cricketers had the lowest rate of comprehensive attendance, at just half (50%), with 35% attending fee-paying schools and 15% grammars. Again, university attendance was very high at 82%, with 18% attending Russell Group institutions. schools. University attendance was similar with female footballers, at 79%, and twice as high as the men's internationals. A substantial proportion attended Russell Group universities (29%). ## Sport | Olympic Medallists (Rio 2016) School Attendance The Sutton Trust has been looking at the educational backgrounds of Team GB Olympic medallists since the London 2012 games. In 2012, 35% of British medallists had attended an independent school. By 2016 however, this had reduced to 31%. The proportion attending a comprehensive school rose from 54% to 59% in the 4 years between the London and Rio games. The Olympic Games include a vast array of sporting disciplines, many of which have different cultures, facility requirements and social patterns of participation. There are some Olympic sports that remain dominated by the privately educated. For instance over half (52%) of medal winning rowers attended fee-paying schools in 2016, along with 50% of the winning women's hockey team. ## Sport | Discussion There are substantial differences in the education backgrounds of top athletes across the three team sports. Footballers have the lowest rates of privately educated participants across the entire study of Britain's elite, and in fact is the only profession where the privately educated are under-represented among the groups studied. Rugby union and cricket remain sports with high proportions of independently educated participants, although this is less so the case for female when compared to male players. The reasons for such differences across sports are complex, reflecting historical patterns of social class associations, along with school cultures and access to high quality facilities. The differences between men's and women's teams are instructive about the differing opportunities for financial reward in many of the nation's most popular sports, and the differing cultures within these sports. For example, the England team at the 2019 Women's Football World Cup is the first fully professional team the country has ever had, and the Scottish team still features many part-time players. 138 ## "An Old Etonian Has Won A Medal In 'Sitting Down' Sports At Every Olympic Games Since 1992." School backgrounds were found here to be largely comparable between male and female footballers, reflecting similar social groups playing the game at grassroots level. However, high university attendance amongst women's internationals is likely due to the lower levels of professionalisation and financial compensation in women's sport. Universities can both act as a base to further a woman's playing career (with many attending sports focused universities such as Loughborough) but also to open up career options outside of playing the game professionally. While the rewards for success in men's football are much greater, they are encouraged and incentivised in large numbers to leave education at an early age, and for the many who won't make the grade, they are left with few qualifications. Complexities are also seen in Olympic sport. Team GB have been frequently lauded for their success at 'sitting down sports' , 139 including rowing, cycling, sailing and equestrianism. These all involve specialised and frequently expensive equipment and facilities, and are sports historically associated with higher social classes. The role of independent schools in many such sports is reflected in the fact that an Old Etonian has won a medal in these sports at every Olympic Games since 1992. Funding has been increasingly targeted at such sports, on the basis that they offer the best chance of medals, and this approach has achieved substantial international success. But questions have been raised about whether focusing on boosting Britain's comparative advantage in terms of medals has come at the expense of funding more widely played and accessible sports such as basketball. 140 An extensive report conducted for Ofsted in 2014 showed the education and social class influences on participation in a wide variety of sports. It showed that rates of free school meal eligibility among international athletes were almost a third lower than in the wider population. 141 This link is reflected at all levels, with socio-economic background and education levels shown to be significantly associated with regular sporting activity. 142 The benefits of sporting participation mean that this association is of substantial concern, particularly in light of the questionable sports participation and public health legacy of the London 2012 games. 143 The impact of local authority funding cuts on sporting facilities, including the selling off of publicly accessible playing fields, has also been identified as limiting access to sport. 144 Efforts to combat these trends are ongoing, however. In 2018 Sport England launched a fund aimed at 'Tackling Inactivity and Economic Disadvantage' , with a number of pilot schemes funded as part of an evidence-based approach to expansion, a commitment reiterated by their incoming CEO earlier this year. 145 Britain is a country obsessed by sport, and events such as the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham in 2022 can bring disparate elements of society together in a common experience. Sport is of great value, both individually and to society as a whole, but more needs to be done to ensure it is genuinely accessible to all. ## Case Study Maggie Alphonsi Mbe Former England Rugby Player And Current Sports Broadcaster I was born in Lewisham in South London, and then moved to Edmonton in North London, which is where I spent most of my childhood. I grew up on a council estate with my mum, who was a single parent, and went to school at my local comprehensive. I first started playing rugby after a conversation with one of my teachers, who arrived at school with a black eye after a game. At the time, I was having a lot of problems at school, I had too much energy, and I wasn't focused on studying. My teacher, who played rugby for Wales, suggested I tried putting my energy into the sport instead. Without that conversation and without that teacher, my life would have been very different. As a girl who was black from a football-mad council estate, there just weren't very many people like me at the top of rugby, or at the top of any of the sports that I saw. But when I started playing rugby, and found that I was good at it, I discovered that my background didn't matter. The sport completely changed my life. Following my retirement from professional rugby, I moved into the world of media, and now work as a sports broadcaster and keynote speaker. It has been challenging to try to change people's perceptions around rugby union, as it's often thought of as a male sport, and not as a game that women play. When I first started in my current role, I felt I had to convince people that I was capable of talking about the sport. I feel very proud of my progression, but I am very aware that my success has been achieved in spite of the system, not because of it. I am pleased that, through my actions, I have opened up the door for other women and people from similar backgrounds to mine to be able to follow in my footsteps. Throughout my career, I have always tried to be a good role model for others. I think that my background gives me a different perspective, which appeals to those who have come from a similar background who would not initially have been interested in rugby. While things have become easier than when I first started out, I think it's still a challenge for someone like me to get to where I have today. ## Conclusions When Prime Minister Theresa May first entered Number 10, she promised to end several of the 'burning injustices' in British society, including the fact that "if you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately." 146 However, those who were privately educated remain over-represented in almost all of the professions examined in this report - a stark demonstration of the work that needs to be done to reverse decades of inequality. University also still plays a substantial role in someone's access to the elite, with those in top jobs more likely to have attended a Russell Group university, with Oxbridge in particular supplying large numbers of those in top positions. Opportunities to reach the most sought-after and well-paid positions in Britain are characterised by vast inequalities, with the educational backgrounds of Britain's 'elites' very different to the population as a whole. Given this disparity, socio-economic diversity should be a key mission across the whole of British society. While there has been a welcome drive to increase the numbers of women and individuals from ethnic minorities in top roles (although with limited success), the same focus has not been given to other issues of disadvantage, including someone's social and economic background. But doing so is vital, both for equality of opportunity, and because of the power and influence that these roles hold. The Equality Act 2010, in the 'socio-economic duty' , provides a powerful tool to demonstrate a nationwide commitment to such a mission, but, in most of the UK, remains unenacted in legislation. While many other disadvantaged groups have legal protections under the Equality Act, socio-economic background is not currently a protected characteristic. Section 1 includes a duty on government and public bodies to have due regard for reducing inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage. While this is different to making socioeconomic background a protected characteristic per se, multiple governments have refused to enact this duty in law, despite calls from civil society organisations. 147 Last year, the socio-economic duty was enacted in Scotland, in the form of the Fairer Scotland Duty, 148 but it has not been put in place in the rest of the UK. This should be rectified, as a powerful symbol of a renewed commitment to social mobility. The workplace One major issue that enacting the 'socio-economic duty' would help to address is the collection and monitoring of data. This report has used education as a means to examine socio-economic background. However, to fully understand the barriers to socioeconomic diversity in Britain's elites, we need more comprehensive data, and this data needs to be collected at every part of the pipeline, so that we can identify how and where access and progression issues arise. Only organisations themselves, with full access to their workforce, can make this happen, by collecting data on socio-economic diversity in the same way they are currently doing for ethnicity and gender. Enacting the socio-economic duty would provide a clear mandate for emphasising the importance of socio-economic background, alongside age, sex, race, religion and disability. Compelling public bodies to collect and publish socio-economic data would both catalyse real change within government bodies, whilst also pushing other organisations to take action on this issue. Nonetheless, even without a change in legislation, employers have the opportunity to lead the way and develop themselves as champions of social mobility in this regard. Measuring socio-economic background is more complex than some other characteristics, which may help to explain why this issue has had less traction than other dimensions of diversity. However, the government has now published comprehensive guidance on how best to measure socio-economic diversity in the workforce, including collecting data on parental occupation, type of schooling, free school meal eligibility and parental experience of higher education. 149 Many large organisations, including the Civil Service and the BBC, have already started to collect this data. Now that a consensus on how to measure socio-economic diversity is emerging, it's time for other organisations to follow their lead. While we need a much greater understanding of access issues in the professions, there are changes we already know have the potential to open up opportunity, including ensuring that financial barriers to entering the professions are tackled. This includes ending unpaid internships, which remain an expectation for recent graduates across many of the professions we have examined here, and are often concentrated in London and the South East, making them inaccessible to many. In most cases, these unpaid placements, which effectively treat the intern as a worker, are illegal under current minimum wage law. However, research by the Sutton Trust has found there is a substantial amount of confusion on the law as it stands. We know that young people don't understand their rights to be paid, and that employers are either unknowingly or deliberately taking advantage of this legal grey area to avoid paying their interns. The Sutton Trust has thus advocated for the law around unpaid internships to be tightened, by banning all unpaid internships over four weeks in length. Internships are also too often not advertised, and instead given out through informal networks, which shuts out young people without connections. All internships should be openly advertised to ensure they are accessible to all. 150 Companies and organisations should also take steps to ensure that their recruitment practices are fair and transparent. One such step is to put in place 'contextual recruitment' , in which organisations take into account the circumstances in which a candidate's academic achievements at school and university have been achieved, for example by looking at a student's A level grades in the context of the school they attended, or a lack of financial resources at home. Several contextual recruitment tools are now available, provided by organisations including Rare Recruitment, PiC and upReach, using different indicators and weightings of social background. 151 Organisations should also make sure their graduate recruitment is targeted at a wide range of universities, not focused solely on the Russell Group, to encourage applications from talented young people in other parts of the education sector, given the inequalities in access that exist. Professions should also consider the benefits of offering high quality apprenticeship routes for young people which do not require traditional university attendance and provide the chance to 'earn while you learn' . Once in a professional role, organisations also need to look honestly at where there are barriers to progression for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Too often traits and characteristics which are not linked to performance (for example, the concept of 'polish' , dressing in the 'right' way, and having an air of 'gravitas') are taken as signs of someone being worthy of progression or promotion, rather than looking at competencies necessary for their role. Frank conversations are needed which include staff at all levels of seniority about how any organisation or sector recognises 'talent' or 'merit' . It is also important that organisations formalise processes around hiring, promotion and progression wherever possible. This reduces the risk of senior staff bypassing the system to boost the careers of people that they have affinity with; which can often be formed based on social and cultural similarities rather than on merit. 152 ## Education The other vital element underlying the patterns seen in this report is education. The most prestigious universities open doors to many graduate employment opportunities, but access to them is heavily shaped by socio-economic background. As with employers, universities should also contextualise the previous attainment of students to reflect the circumstances in which those grades were achieved. While it is promising that some Russell Group universities have started to consider candidates' background in the application process, and a small number have made significant grade reductions, much greater change is needed. Universities should consider carefully what grades are necessary to complete their course, rather than setting their offers at the highest point they can based on competition for places. Students admitted contextually should also be given support to help them to thrive once they arrive on campus. 153 Looking to the school system, we know that high quality teaching is the single most important factor for the attainment of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, previous Sutton Trust research has found that more experienced teachers are less likely to work in more disadvantaged schools, 154 and schools with higher proportions of students on free school meals have lower proportions of specialist science 155 and maths teachers. 156 Schools with high proportions of disadvantaged young people are also less likely to offer extra-curricular activities, which can help to build essential life skills like confidence and motivation. 157 Provision of careers advice is also often of lower quality in schools in deprived areas, and needs to be improved, so that all students have access to high quality information and advice on the options open to them. Current research suggests 158 careers education is best when it is individualised and starts early, beginning in primary school, and continuing throughout a student's time in education. Tackling social segregation in schooling has the potential to open up opportunities for disadvantaged young people. Specific focus should be paid to broadening access to high performing comprehensive and grammar schools, both of which are highly socially selective. These schools should ensure that they prioritise the admission of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in their admissions processes. More socio-economically balanced intakes are vital to a healthy state school system, in contrast with the current situation where the socio-economic background of the school intake remains one of the biggest predictors of 'school success' . With more mixed intakes across all schools, this could even out performance, and help to improve standards at schools overall. Ultimately it is also vital that the state school system is resourced properly to provide an education of the highest standard for the largest share of young people. Recent years have seen substantial levels of cuts to teaching staff and facilities at schools across the country. 159 This endangers schools' ability to give their pupils the best start in life, particularly when competing with the levels of resource available to those attending private schools, with access to high quality extracurricular activities. Independent schools themselves however are also in need of reform. Given the advantages they confer to their pupils, opening independent schools up to pupils from a wider range of backgrounds is crucial. While this could be done in part by increasing the number of full, means-tested bursaries on offer in independent schools, the Sutton Trust believes its Open Access scheme, 160 whereby all places at independent day schools are awarded on merit, would constitute a step change in the opportunities open to promising pupils from less well-off backgrounds. The trends highlighted in this report are the product of a complex interplay of factors, including what happens in education, but also what happens at home. In this report we have highlighted some of the barriers that could be tackled and have begun to suggest some of the policy remedies that we believe will begin to open up opportunity more widely. Action will certainly be needed on a number of fronts and over many years. But that should not be a recipe for inaction. Schools, universities, employers and the government all have a role to play in ensuring socioeconomic background is not a barrier to success. It is vital to a healthy society that opportunities are not restricted to a lucky few, and those at the top of society are not drawn from groups radically different to the rest of society as a whole. This report has painted a picture of country where social class continues to play a strong role in success, across a wide variety of professions and fields. Recognising Britain's social mobility problem is a start, but fixing it will be key to the future of the country. ## Case Study Chris Rumfitt Pr Firm Ceo I grew up in Council house in a large family on an estate in Jersey. My parents each had children from previous marriages, and at times there were nine of us sharing a four-bedroom house. In my bedroom we sometimes squeezed three beds. My dad was a postman, and my mum worked part-time on the check-out in the local supermarket. I never conceived of us as 'poor' at the time; but on reflection I guess we were. I remember times when we could not afford fresh milk, and used to use powdered milk until my Dad next got paid. I always did well at school and my parents did a brilliant job in encouraging that. I went to my local primary and then local comprehensive schools. Then at 14 I transferred to my local 14-18 grammar school. For the first time, I was in an environment when going to university became the expectation and I followed that path. But still then, I wasn't pushed as far as I might have been. I got 3 A's in my A-levels but nobody at all ever suggested I apply to Oxbridge. I went to Hull and had a great time, but in hindsight why did my school not suggest I apply higher in my university choices given my grades? I guess kids from my school didn't go to Oxbridge. I do not feel my profession is consciously elitist, but in practice, yes. A huge proportion of people went to private schools for instance. Sadly, things have got worse since I started out. I think the first reason for this is tuition fees. Whilst I get the rational case for fees, I just cannot believe my parents would have encouraged me in the same way if they had thought I was going to run into tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They could never have conceived of such a sum. An ever bigger reason, though, is housing costs. When I moved to London in 1998 you could get a shared flat in zone 3 for about £300 a month. Today, it is probably four times that sum. How would I have moved to London and made my way with rents at today's levels? I believe the third reason is unpaid internships. The preponderance of such internships as the entry level into many sectors, and the fact so many are secured by who their parents know rather than merit. I pay all my interns London Living Wage, but I am conscious that is not the entirety of the solution. It is access to them in the first place. My advice to working class kids would be to always remember that if you are at the same level as others from more privileged backgrounds, it probably means you are better than them, because you have had to work harder to get there. Use the knowledge that you are better than them to give you the confidence to succeed more than them. ## Case Study Valerie Edmond Actor I was brought up in the early 1970's in a single end tenement in Springburn - a notoriously deprived yet industrially important part of Glasgow. It was a treat to see coal burning in the open fire, we couldn't afford a TV and we shared a toilet on the stair landing with neighbours- but there were books from Springburn Library and my mum making time to read them with me along with a radio, playing out music and debate. My mum left Whitehill Secondary School at 14, even though she was gifted academically, and only went back to education almost 20 years later to complete her Highers to get into nursing. Although we couldn't afford a TV I felt informed as a young girl and secure and cherished really. This changed when the council rehoused us in council housing in Balornock/Barmulloch. I attended the local state secondary school, with poor academic results as well as drugs and knife activity commonplace. The pervading culture in the school was negative, and I was bullied because of my enthusiasm for learning and well-spoken manner which was deemed 'posh' and 'snobby' . This culminated in a physical attack one day which was deeply scarring and traumatic and will stay with me for the rest of my life. After that, I felt I needed to make a choice, would I succumb to the attitudes of those around me, or would I escape. Reading and books offered me that escape. An English teacher made a big difference, who allowed me to spend my lunchtimes in an out of use drama studio. I would walk around reading lines from Macbeth and poetry out loud. The messages in these texts gave me the strength to take on the adversity I faced. One of my primary school teachers, who had studied at a drama school, encouraged me to apply and helped me prepare for an audition at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. There was a charge to audition, but it was a much smaller fee then than it is now or I wouldn't have been able to gamble it. I was offered a place. Because of my background, I qualified for a full grant from the Scottish government to attend, although this didn't cover rent, so I had to stay living with my mum, taking the bus back to our council flat while most of my fellow students had flats in the west end of Glasgow. Most had also been on 'gap years' and had 'gone travelling' around India, when I wondered what Indian food tasted like. I did have some problems fitting in initially but going to drama school was like finding dry land after being at sea, I loved it, and I excelled, winning the Best Student of The Year Award in my final year. I found the theatre acting community in Scotland much easier to fit into, it was political and progressive but to get the big parts in television and film, I had to audition in London. Even though many of the series I was in were filmed in Scotland, casting was in London, and I would have to take the bus to make it affordable. I would need to go there and back in the same day to avoid the cost of staying overnight and my mum gave me food vouchers she was given at work, so I could eat during the day. I think my background has had a real impact on my work. I've had to fight more for opportunity and sometimes in an already unfair profession, that feels extra hard- but I feel fortunate to understand that acting is a simple reflection of the human condition which is a struggle that none of us escape. And I feel that I 'see' the truth of a character more clearly perhaps because of my own struggles. But there is always also, a deep down feeling of shame, of not being quite good enough and a sort of 'who do you think you are!' voice echoing around in your head when what you are doing is simply serving the truth. It is a great privilege to be given the chance to do that. I hope things are changing, but awareness is key. I remember the careers officer visiting my school, when I said told her I'd like to be an actress, she replied to get out the room and come back in when I had something realistic to say because 'what gives you the right to say you want to be an actress.' I turned to leave, tears of shame pricking my eyes. But as I reached the door I turned back, sat back down and said 'what gives you the right to say I can't' . I do wonder how many people from my background today would carry on walking and how many more couldn't even bring themselves to dare to say it at all. ## Appendix | 96 | Appendix A | |---|------------------| | 98 | Appendix B | | 100 | References | | 105 | Acknowledgements | Chapter MPs 29% (-4%) 17% (-8%) 52% (+12%) 2% (no Lords 57% (+8%) 22% (-11%) 17% (+5%) 4% (-2%) 792 663 84% Cabinet 39% (+3%) 17% (-1%) 43% (-2%) 0% (-1%) 23 23 100% Junior Ministers 52% (-4%) 18% (+1%) 28% (+2%) 1% (-1%) 96 93 97% Shadow Cabinet 9% (-13%) 15% (+4%) 76% (+14%) 0% (-4%) 35 34 97% Politics Shadow Junior Ministers 18% 15% 66% 1% 93 85 91% Select committee chairs 33% (-24%) 10% (-10%) 55% (+32%) 3% (+3%) 40 40 100% Select committee 25% (-6%) 14% (-11%) 58% (+18%) 2% (no members FTSE 350 CEOs 27% (+5%) 14% (-3%) 16% (+1%) 43% (-4%) 306 183 60%* FTSE 350 Chairs 34% 22% 12% 31% 349 226 65%* Sunday Times Rich List 28% (-16%) 10% (-7%) 12% (-1%) 51% (+25%) 127 94 74% Entrepeneurs 34% 15% 39% 12% 100 85 85% Business PR consultancy CEOs 34% 13% 30% 24% 150 104 69%* Tech firm CEOs 26% 3% 29% 41% 100 68 68%* News Media 100 43% (-11%) 20% (-6%) 34% (+18%) 3% (-1%) 100 79 79% Newspaper columnists 44% (+1%) 24% (-3%) 19% (-5%) 13% (+7%) 199 160 80% Media BBC executives 29% (+3%) 20% (-5%) 45% (+8%) 6% (-7%) 102 80 78% Permanent secretaries 59% (+4%) 14% (-15%) 28% (+11%) 0% (no Public body chairs 45% (+1%) 28% (-13%) 18% (+8%) 8% (+4%) 152 126 83% Public body CEOs 30% (-4%) 27% (-12%) 31% (+10%) 11% (+6%) 166 99 60%* ## Public Bodies Whitehall And Diplomats 52% (no 17% (-14%) 29% (+18%) 1% (-4%) 145 82 57%* change) Senior Judges 65% (-6%) 20% (-3%) 13% (+9%) 2% (-1%) 140 121 86% Vice Chancellors 16% (-4%) 33% (-11%) 34% (+13%) 17% (+2%) 125 92 74% ## Public Servants Armed Forces 49% (-13%) 15% (-14%) 35% (+28%) 0% (-1%) 98 71 72% Local government 20% (+5%) 28% (-11%) 50% (+6%) 2% (-1%) 348 197 57%* leaders ## Local Gov Local government CEOs 9% (+1%) 28% (-18%) 62% (+19%) 1% (-1%) 320 192 60%* Police Chiefs and PCCs 24% (+2%) 21% (-20%) 54% (+17%) 1% (+1%) 94 71 76% Women Influential women 43% (+1%) 10% (-10%) 23% (-1%) 24% (+11%) 149 115 77% TV, film and music 38% (-6%) 18% (-10%) 43% (+18%) 1% (-2%) 90 82 91% ## Creative Popstars 20% (-2%) 5% (+1%) 74% (+2%) 1% (no ## Industries | Football (men) | 5% | 5% | 89% | 2% | 76 | 63 | 83% | |------------------|------|-------|-------|-------|------|--------|-------| | Football (women) | 2% | 0% | 94% | 4% | 64 | 47 | 73% | | Rugby (men) | 37% | (+1%) | 8% | (+6%) | 47% | (-12%) | 8% | | Rugby (women) | 13% | 1% | 82% | | | | | | 3% | 88 | 67 | 76% | | | | | ## Sport Cricket (men) 43% (+10%) 3% (-3%) 43% (-3%) 11% (-4%) 35 35 100% Cricket (women) 35% 15% 50% 0% 27 20 74% Olympic medallists 31% (-4%) 8% (no change) | 650 | 632 | 97% | |---------|-------|-------| | change) | | | | 319 | 308 | 97% | | change) | | | | 40 | 29 | 73% | | change) | | | | 98 | 80 | 82% | | change) | | | | 59% | (+5%) | 2% | | change) | | | Chapter | MPs | 88% | (+5%) | 54% | (no | 24% | (no | |-------------------------|-------|---------|-------|--------|-------|--------| | change) | | | | | | | | Lords | 86% | (+4%) | 60% | (-1%) | 38% | (+1%) | | Cabinet | 100% | (+14%) | 87% | (+10%) | 57% | (-3%) | | Junior Ministers | 91% | (-4%) | 61% | (-11%) | 36% | (-9%) | | Politics | | | | | | | | Shadow Cabinet | 82% | (-14%) | 41% | (-22%) | 15% | (-19%) | | Shadow Junior Ministers | 90% | 44% | 10% | 46% | 0% | 10% | | Select committee chairs | 93% | (+9%) | 58% | (-3%) | 33% | (-4%) | | Select committee | 86% | (+8%) | 50% | (+6%) | 20% | (+3%) | | members | | | | | | | | FTSE 350 CEOs | 95% | (+2%) | 36% | (-7%) | 15% | (-3%) | | FTSE 350 Chairs | 91% | 50% | 27% | 20% | 21% | 9% | | Sunday Times Rich List | 72% | (+1%) | 26% | (-2%) | 14% | (+2%) | | Entrepeneurs | 56% | 29% | 9% | 19% | 8% | 44% | | Business | | | | | | | | PR consultancy CEOs | 91% | 33% | 7% | 32% | 26% | 9% | | Tech firm CEOs | 89% | 35% | 12% | 21% | 34% | 11% | | News Media 100 | 92% | (+2%) | 71% | (-3%) | 36% | (-9%) | | Newspaper columnists | 89% | (+3%) | 72% | (+4%) | 44% | (-3%) | ## Media BBC executives 93% (+1%) 70% (+8%) 31% (-2%) 18% 6% 7% (-1%) 102 90 88% Permanent secretaries 100% (+3%) 82% (-4%) 56% (-1%) 18% (+7%) 0% (no Public body chairs 94% (no 69% (-5%) 40% (-4%) 22% (+5%) 4% (no change) Public body CEOs 98% (+6%) 58% (+1%) 25% (no ## Bodies Diplomats 98% (+9%) 84% (no 51% (+1%) 14% (+9%) 0% (no ## Whitehall And Public change) Senior Judges 100% (+1%) 91% (-4%) 71% (-4%) 9% (+4%) 1% (+1%) 0% (-1%) 140 140 100% Vice Chancellors 99% (no 51% (-2%) 19% (+6%) 34% (-2%) 14% (+4%) 1% (no change) ## Public Servants Armed Forces 87% (+5%) 50% (no 16% (+2%) 36% (+5%) 1% (no change) Local government 64% (+14%) 30% (+1%) 5% (-3%) 34% (+12%) 0% (no leaders ## Local | | | | | | Local government CEOs | 86% | (+4%) | |-----|-------|----|-------|-----|-------------------------|-------|---------| | 35% | (-5%) | 5% | (-3%) | 51% | (+9%) | 1% | (no | ## Gov Police Chiefs and PCCs 83% (+21%) 44% (+11%) 13% (+7%) 39% (+11%) 0% (no Women Influential women 87% (-1%) 41% (-19%) 23% (+2%) 25% (+7%) 21% (+11%) 13% (+1%) 149 142 95% TV, film and music 42% (-10%) 24% (-7%) 6% (-5%) 18% (-3%) 0% (no Creative industries Popstars 29% (-9%) 17% (-10%) 2% (+2%) 12% (+1%) 0% (no Football (women) 80% 7% 0% 63% 9% 20% 64 54 84% Rugby (men) 38% 9% 1% 27% 2% 62% 111 98 88% Rugby (women) 79% 29% 1% 51% 0% 21% 88 77 88% Sport Cricket (men) 9% 0% 0% 9% 0% 91% 35 35 100% Cricket (women) 82% 18% 0% 64% 0% 18% 27 22 81% | 33% | 1% | 12% | (-6%) | 650 | 642 | 99% | |---------|---------|-------|---------|-------|-------|-------| | change) | | | | | | | | (-14%) | 23 | 23 | 100% | | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 9% | (+4%) | 96 | 95 | 99% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 18% | (+14%) | 35 | 34 | 97% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 36% | (+2%) | 28% | (-1%) | 127 | 99 | 78% | | change) | | | | | | | | 0% | (-3%) | 40 | 34 | 85% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 6% | (no | 152 | 140 | 92% | | | | change) | change) | | | | | | | 31% | (+3%) | 8% | (+3%) | 2% | (-6%) | 166 | | change) | | | | | | | | 2% | (-9%) | 145 | 104 | 72% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 125 | 118 | 94% | | | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 13% | (-5%) | 98 | 70 | 71% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 36% | (-14%) | 348 | 217 | 62%* | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 14% | (-4%) | 320 | 243 | 76% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 18% | (-21%) | 94 | 80 | 85% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 58% | (+10%) | 90 | 84 | 93% | | | | change) | | | | | | | | 71% | (+9%) | 98 | 84 | 86% | | | | change) | | | | | | | *Below 70% target ## Appendix B | Methodology School attendance Schools have been classified into one of three main categories, private (also referred to in this report as independent or fee-paying schools), grammar schools and comprehensives. Private schools are classified here as those which are both independent from government, and in which most pupils are fee-paying. Although Direct Grant grammar schools had some spaces paid for by local authorities, they remained outside of government control, and most pupils paid fees, so have therefore been categorised as private schools. These schools represent a small and declining proportion of those in the working age population. All state funded schools have been classified as either grammar or comprehensive, depending on their admissions policies. Grammar schools are schools in which potential pupils sit an entry exam (the 11 plus) which aims to determine whether a student has high academic ability, with admissions decided on the basis of results in this exam. Comprehensive school is used here to cover all state schools which either required no exam for entry, or which did not require a high mark on the 11 plus to attend. This includes secondary moderns and the small number of technical schools which existed under the tripartite system. It also includes non-selective state schools in Scotland, generally not referred to as comprehensives. We have separately categorised those who attended school outside of the UK as having attended an international school. These schools were not separately determined as being state or private, due to the difficulty involved in categorising schools based in different educational systems, where the educational context is often very different to that in the UK. Additionally, a very small number of individuals (less than five in total) were home schooled and have been classified as such. School type was determined for the period in which the individual attended that school. For example, if a school was a grammar during the period in which an individual attended it, but has since become a comprehensive school, it has been categorised as a grammar. If a school became a comprehensive school part of the way through someone's attendance, but they were part of a grammar intake, their school's category was grammar. When looking at type of school attended, we have included the school someone attended for most of their secondary education (for example, if they attended a private school for a year, and then moved to a state comprehensive school, we have categorised their schooling as comprehensive). These figures do not therefore show everyone who has ever *We defined Russell Group attendance as whether someone attended a university which is currently in the Russell Group, rather than whether the attended an independent school, which is likely to be higher than the figures included here. However, we felt that the school someone spent the majority of their secondary education in was a fairer reflection of their experience within the school system. We have used secondary school attendance, rather than primary or college, for a variety of reasons: because this information is more easily accessible, because attendance up to at least age 15 has been universal since World War 2, and because this period is the run up to when someone takes their GCSE exams, a formative time, and an important decision point in their education. University attendance University type was determined by the institutions at which an individual gained their bachelor's degree. University types included whether they attended a Russell Group university* and whether they attended Oxford or Cambridge University. We defined Russell Group attendance as whether someone attended a university which is currently in the Russell Group, rather than whether the university was in the group at the time the individual attended. We classified someone as having attended university if they were awarded a bachelors' degree, including if that was from an institution which was a polytechnic at the time, but has since become a university. If someone clearly attended university, but the institution is unknown, we have classified them as having attended, but have not included them in breakdowns by university type. We have also separately categorised anyone who attended university outside of the UK has having attended an international university. How did we find out information about people's educational backgrounds? We conducted desk-based research using a range of different sources including: • LinkedIn • Who's Who • Local newspaper reports • Facebook • Bloomberg • Wikipedia Where we were unable to find data publicly online, we contacted individuals through email and LinkedIn. As many of those who provided information from direct communication did so on the understanding that their personal details would not ## Appendix B | Methodology be published, we are unable to publish disaggregated information about people's social backgrounds. We aimed to find information for at least 70% of the schools and universities attended by the individuals in each section. This was achieved in the vast majority of sections in this report, but we were unable to find information (as it was not available publicly, individuals chose not to provide us with it, or we could not find contact details for that individual), for a small number of sections. For university attendance, information was found for fewer than 70% of individuals in the local government leaders section (62%). For schools, there was less than 70% coverage in FTSE 350 CEOs (60%), FTSE 350 chairs (65%), PR consultancy CEOs (69%), tech firm CEOs (68%), public body CEOs (60%), diplomats (57%), local government leaders (57%) and local government CEOs (60%). All other sections had 70% coverage or above. | Politics | Group | |-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | | | MPs | All members of Parliament | | Lords | All members of the House of Lords | | Cabinet | UK Government Cabinet Ministers | | Junior Ministers | UK Government Junior Ministers | | Shadow Cabinet and | | | Shadow Ministers | | | UK Government Shadow Cabinet | | | Ministers and Shadow Junior Ministers | | | Select Committees | All Commons Select Committee Members | | Select Committee Chairs | All Commons Select Committee Chairs | | Business | Group | | | | | FTSE 350 CEOs and Chairs | Chief Executives and chairs of companies | | listed on the FTSE 350 | | | The Sunday Times Rich List | The top of the list of the wealthiest | | people in the UK as of 2018, according to | | | the Sunday Times | | | Entrepreneurs | Richtopia's Top 100 most influential | | British Entrepreneurs 2017 | | | PR Consultancy CEOs | CEOs of the Top 150 UK PR consultancies | | as of 2018, according to PR Week | | | Technology Firm CEOs | CEOs of the top 100 fastest-growing | | private technology companies in Britain | | | as of 2018, according to the Sunday | | | Times | | | Media | Group | | | | | BBC Executives | Senior BBC Executives listed on the BBC | | website for transparency purposes | | | News Media 100 | List created by the Sutton Trust, using | | research by the Reuter's Institute at the | | | University of Oxford. | | | Newspaper Columnists | List of UK national newspaper columnists | | writing on news, politics, policy and | | | current affairs (not including columnists | | | who write only on lifestyle, food etc). | | | | | | Group | Whitehall and Public | | Bodies | | | Permanent Secretaries | All Permanent Secretaries of UK | | Government departments | | | Diplomats | Heads of UK Missions Abroad (including | | Embassies and High Commissions) | | | Public Body CEOs and | | | Chairs | | | Chief Executives and Chairs of Non- | | | Ministerial Departments, Executive | | | Non-Departmental Public Bodies and | | | Executive Agencies | | How did we decide who to include in each section? For many of the categories included here, there was a clear group of individuals to include, for example, all MPs or all permanent secretaries. For others, who to include in a list of the 'top' of a profession was more difficult. Wherever possible, we have used established lists created by others, ideally based on an objective measure (for example, someone's level of wealth, or album sales). Where no established list was available, we have created our own, using objective measures wherever possible to draw together a list of individuals to include. A summary table including a brief description of each group is included below. A full explanation of the methodology used for each profession, including links to sources, can be found in the annex to this report, available online. All lists were created or derived between December 2018 and March 2019. | Public servants | Group | |-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | | | Senior Judges | Lord Chief Justice, Supreme Court | | Judges, Lord and Lady Justices of | | | Appeal and High Court Judges | | | Vice-Chancellors | Vice Chancellors of UK Universities | | Armed Forces | All Generals of two star rank (NATO code | | of OF-7) or above | | ## Local Government Group | Local Government Leaders | Political leaders of Local Authorities in | |------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | England | | | Local Government CEOs | Chief Executives of Local Authorities in | | England | | | Constables and PCCs | Chief Constables and Police and Crime | | Commissioners for every Constabulary | | | in the UK and senior Metropolitan Police | | | Officers | | ## Women Group | Influential Women | |---------------------| | 2017 | ## Creative Industries Group | Popular music | UK artists (either born in or currently | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | based in the UK) who had one of the top | | | 40 selling albums of 2018, 2017, 2016 or | | | 2015. | | | TV, Film and Music | Music: Sunday Times Rich List 'top 40 | | music millionaires' | | | TV and Film: Sunday Times Rich List 'top | | | 50 in film and television' | | | Sport | Group | | | | | Great British Olympic | | | Medallists Rio Games 2016 | | | Britain's 130 medallists at the 2016 | | | Olympics games in Rio | | | Rugby Union (men's and | | | women's teams) | | | Women's: Rugby World Cup 2017 teams | | | (Note: Scotland were not in the World | | | Cup so their six nations team from the | | | same year was instead used) | | | Men's: Rugby autumn internationals 2018 | | | Football (men's and women's | | | teams) | | | Men's 2018 football World Cup squad/ | | | qualifiers squad | | | Women's 2017 Euro squads | | | Cricket (men's and women's | | | teams) | | | England squad players who have taken | | | part in an international match over the | | | last year | | ## Appendix | References 1. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 2. Social Mobility Commission (2014) Elitist Britain? Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/elitist-britain 3. Oxera (2017) Social Mobility and Economic Success. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ research-paper/social-mobility-2017-summit-research/ 4. Prince, S. et al. (2015) Why diversity matters. McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey. com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/ Organization/Our%20Insights/Why%20diversity%20 matters/Why%20diversity%20matters.ashx 5. Lorenzo, R. & Reeves, M. (2018) How and Where Diversity Drives Financial Performance. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/01/howand-where-diversity-drives-financial-performance 6. Hutchinson, J. et al. (2018) Education in England - Annual report 2018. Education Policy Institute. Available at: https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ EPI-Annual-Report-2018-Executive-Summary.pdf 7. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018. pdf; Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission (2014) Elitist Britain? 8. Social Mobility Commission (2019) State of the Nation 2018-19: Social Mobility in Great Britain. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/798404/ SMC_State_of_the_Nation_Report_2018-19.pdf 9. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. Reproduced with permission from the authors. 10. Independent Schools Council (2019) Annual Census. Available at: https://www. isc.co.uk/research/annual-census/ 11. Ndaji, F. et al. (2016) A comparison of academic achievement in independent and state schools. Available at: https://www.isc.co.uk/media/3140/16_02_26-cemdurham-university-academic-value-added-research.pdf 12. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. 13. Cullinane, C. (2017) Life Lessons. Sutton Trust. 14. Reeves, A. et al. (2017) The decline and persistence of the Old Boy: Private schools and elite recruitment 1897 to 2016. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/0003122417735742?journalCode=asra 15. These figures are for grammar schools in England 16. Cullinane, C. (2016) Gaps in Grammar. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/12/Gaps-in-Grammar_For-website.pdf 17. Van den Brande, J. et al. (2019) Selective Comprehensives: Great Britain. Access to top performing schools for disadvantaged pupils in Scotland, Wales and England. Available at: https:// www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ SelectiveComprehensives-GreatBritain.pdf 18. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissions to top universities. Sutton Trust. 19. Drydakis, N. (2016) The Effect of University Attended on Graduates' Labour Market Prospects: A Field Study of Great Britain. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9826.pdf 20. Upp Foundation and the Bridge Group (2017) Social Mobility and University Careers Services. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/5c18e090b40b9d6b43b093d8/t/5cd18164f63f5700 0157b2aa/1557234030200/07+Research+2017+UPP.pdf 21. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. 22. Sutton Trust (2003) Nobel Prizes: The Changing Pattern of Awards. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ research-paper/nobel-prizes-changing-pattern-awards/ 23. House of Commons Library (2017) Grammar school statistics. Available at: https://researchbriefings. parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01398 24. House of Commons Library (2012) Education: Historical statistics. Available at: https://researchbriefings. parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04252 25. These figures were calculated using the most up to date figures provided by education statistic offices across the four nations of the UK. As each nation collects data slightly differently, the closest available group in each nation for students in the year group equivalent to Year 11 in England (age 15-16) was used. Figures for England were obtained online at gov.uk. Figures for Wales are obtained online at statswales.gov.wales. All figures for Scotland, other than private school attendance, were obtained from gov. scot, with private school figures provided by the Scottish government via email. All figures for Northern Ireland were provided via email from the Department of Education in NI. 26. Bolton, B. (2012) Historical Statistics - Parliament. uk Available at: https://researchbriefings.files. parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf 27. Clegg, R. (2017) Graduates in the UK labour market: 2017. Available at: https://www.ons.gov. uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017 28. Figure calculated from the number of UK undergraduates studying at Oxford and Cambridge in 2017-2018 (available at - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47296931) and the number of 18-year olds in the UK in the middle of 2017 (available at - https://www.ons.gov. uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jn5q/lms) 29. Montacute, R. & Carr, T. (2017) Parliamentary Privilege - The educational background of MPs. Sutton Trust. Available at - https://www. suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ Parliamentary-privilege-2017 _FINAL_V2.pdf 30. Tilley, J. & Geoffrey, E. (2017) The New Politics of Class - the political exclusion of the British working class. Oxford University Press. 31. The Telegraph (2004) Tony's cronies pack into Lords. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ uknews/1460743/Tonys-cronies-pack-into-Lords.html ## Appendix | References 32. Independent (2015) Packing the House of Lords with Tory peers to pass tax credit cuts would cost £2.6m. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ politics/packing-the-house-of-lords-with-tory-peers-topass-tax-credit-cuts-would-cost-26m-a6709486.html 33. Select Committees - Institute for Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/ parliamentary-monitor-2018/select-committees and Selecting the select committees - what happens next? - Institute for Government. Available at: https://www. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/selecting-selectcommittees-%E2%80%93-what-happens-next 34. Ofsted (2013) Citizenship consolidated? A survey of citizenship in schools. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/citizenshipconsolidated-a-survey-of-citizenship-in-schools 35. Eton College (2018) Summer Half 2018 Societies' Report. Available at: https://www. etoncollege.com/Societiesreport.aspx 36. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 37. Sky News (2018) 'Huge' cost of becoming an MP 'pricing people out of politics' Available at: https:// news.sky.com/story/huge-cost-of-becoming-anmp-pricing-people-out-of-politics-11489543 38. Jenkins, H. et al. (2017) Social mobility and economic success - how social mobility boosts the economy. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/Oxera-report_WEB_FINAL.pdf 39. Rich List 2019: The UK's biggest political donors. (2019) The Sunday Times. Available at: https:// www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunday-times-richlist-uk-biggest-political-donors-rr3nmzc7d 40. FTSE women leaders: Hampton-Alexander review. (2016) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ ftse-women-leaders-hampton-alexander-review 41. Ethnic diversity of UK boards: the Parker review (2016) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ ethnic-diversity-of-uk-boards-the-parker-review 42. The Bridge Group. Case study: KPMG. Available at: https://www.thebridgegroup.org.uk/case-study-3 43. Public Relations and Communications Association (2018) Diversity and Inclusion Guidelines. 44. Public Relations and Communications Association - Campaigns - Better Internships. Available at: https:// www.prca.org.uk/campaigns/better-internships/prand-communications-employers-pay-their-interns 45. Dellot, B. & Reed, H. (2015) Boosting the living standards of the self-employed. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 46. Hood, A. & Joyce, R. (2017) Rising inheritances will deliver biggest benefit for those already well off. Institute for Fiscal Studies. 47. Boosting enterprise in more deprived communities (2016) Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ boosting-enterprise-in-more-deprived-communities 48. Ollard, J. & Gabriel, M. (2018) Blog - Shifting the dial on diversity in innovation: five key ideas from Breaking the Mould. Nesta. Available at: https:// www.nesta.org.uk/blog/shifting-dial-diversityinnovation-five-key-ideas-breaking-mould/ 49. Douglas, L. (2017) Rags to riches? Why the privileged are more likely to become entrepreneurs. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/smallbusiness-network/2017/feb/20/rags-riches-privilegedentrepreneurs-business-resilience-michelle-mone 50. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Life Lessons - Improving essential life skills for young people. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf 51. Jon Snow speech in full: 'I know nothing - but I've experienced a lot' Available at: https:// inews.co.uk/news/uk/jon-snow-speech-fulli-know-nothing-ive-experienced-lot/ 52. New Statesman (2018) The obsession with Oxbridge elitism gives other British universities a free pass. Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/obsessionoxbridge-elitism-gives-other-british-universities-free-pass 53. Reuters Institute for the study of journalism. Digital News Report - United Kingdom. Available at: http://www. digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/united-kingdom-2018/ 54. Unfortunately the response rate for regional editors was lower than for other parts of the media 100, which should be noted when looking at these results 55. Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (2017) The viewing report - our annual exploration of the UK's viewing habits. Available at: https://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Barb-Viewing-Report-2017.pdf 56. It should however be noted that the number of BBC Executives in the BBC's release has reduced since 2014, likely following moves by the BBC to reduce its senior management team, so the new list may not be fully comparable to 2014- https://www.bbc.co.uk/ mediacentre/speeches/2017/tony-hall-ara-2016-17 57. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 58. The Guardian (2019) Read all about it? How local papers' decline is staring communities of news. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2019/may/07/read-all-about-it-how-localpapers-decline-is-starving-communities-of-news 59. Spilsbury, M. (2018) Journalists at work - their views on training, recruitment and conditions. National Council for the Training of Journalists Available at: http://www.nctj. com/downloadlibrary/JaW%20Report%202018%20web.pdf 60. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 61. The Student View - https://www.thestudentview. org/how-we-can-help-your-school/ 62. PressPad - https://presspad.co.uk/ 63. Fraser Nelson - Apply now: The Spectator's political mischief internship (no CVs please). Available at: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/apply-now-thespectators-political-mischief-internship-no-cvs-please/ ## Appendix | References 64. BBC News (2018) The death of the local newspaper? Available at - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43106436 65. BBC (2018) Diversity, Annual Report and Accounts 2017- 2018. Available at: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/ pdf/bbc-equality-information-report-2017-18.pdf 66. Sutton Trust - BBC launch new apprenticeship opportunities. Available at: https://www. suttontrust.com/newsarchive/new-bbclaunch-apprenticeship-opportunities/ 67. For more information on the Social Mobility Index (run by the Social Mobility Foundation), see: http://www.socialmobility.org.uk/index/ 68. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press and the Guardian (2018) Channel 4 is Britain's poshest broadcaster, diversity study finds. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/aug/22/ channel-4-britain-poshest-broadcaster-diversitystudy-finds-staff-working-class-background 69. Channel 4 announces composition of new National HQ and Creative Hubs - https://www.channel4.com/ press/news/channel-4-announces-compositionnew-national-hq-and-creative-hubs 70. For more information on the Social Mobility Pledge, see: https://www.socialmobilitypledge.org/ 71. Ofcom (2018) Diversity and equal opportunities in television - In-focus report on the main five broadcaster. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0019/121681/diversity-in-TV-2018-in-focus.pdf 72. Cabinet Office (2014) The Blunders of Our Governments - review by Sir David Normington GCB. Available at: https://quarterly.blog.gov.uk/2014/07/15/the-blunders-ofour-governments-review-by-sir-david-normington-gcb/ 73. How permanent secretaries reach the top - Institute for Government. Available at: https:// www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ how-permanent-secretaries-reach-top 74. Cabinet Office (2016) Socio-economic diversity in the Fast Stream: the Bridge report. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/socio-economicdiversity-in-the-fast-stream-the-bridge-report 75. Cabinet Office (2018) Building the future civil service for everyone. Available at: https:// quarterly.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/09/buildingthe-future-civil-service-for-everyone/ 76. Civil Service HR (2018) Civil Service Fast Stream: Annual Report 2017 and 2018 http://data.parliament. uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0003/ Civil_Service_fast_stream_annual_report.pdf 77. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2018) Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Diversity and Equality Report 2017-18. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/753934/Diversity_and_Equality_Report_2017-18.pdf 78. 'Language Learning: German and French Drop by Half in UK Schools' , BBC. Available at: https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47334374 79. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 80. Cabinet Office - HM Government Public Appointments. Available at: https:// publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/faq/ 81. Cabinet Office (2016) Governance Code on Public Appointments. Available at: https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/578498/governance_ code_on_public_appointments_16_12_2016.pdf 82. The Guardian (2019) White and male UK judiciary 'from another planet' , says Lady Hale. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/01/ladyhale-supreme-court-president-judges-diversity 83. David Gee (2007) Informed choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Available at: https://www1.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000733.pdf 84. The Guardian (2017) British army is targeting working-class young people, report shows. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/09/british-army-istargeting-working-class-young-people-report-shows 85. Office for Students (2019) Office for Students publishes first annual analysis of senior staff pay. Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blogand-events/press-and-media/office-for-studentspublishes-first-annual-analysis-of-senior-staff-pay/ 86. Montacute, R. (2018) Access to Advantage - The influence of schools and place on admissionsto top universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018. pdf; Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Fairer Fees - Reforming student finance to increase fairness and widen access. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Fairer-Fees-Final.pdf 87. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 88. Bar Standards Board (2019) Diversity at the Bar 2018. Available at: https://www.barstandardsboard.org. uk/media/1975681/diversity_at_the_bar_2018.pdf 89. Bar Standards Board (2017) Exploring differential attainment at BPTC and Pupillage. Available at: https:// www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1910429/ differential_attainment_at_bptc_and_pupillage_analysis.pdf 90. Bar Standards Board news - BSB reviews pupillage recruitment practice at the Bar. Available at: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/mediacentre/press-releases-and-news/bsb-reviewspupillage-recruitment-practice-at-the-bar/ 91. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 92. Legal Services Board (2010) Barriers to the legal profession. Available at: https://research. legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/ media/2010-Diversity-literature-review.pdf 93. Judicial Diversity Statistics (2018) Available at: https:// www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ judicial-diversity-statistics-2018-1.pdf 94. UK armed forces biannual diversity statistics (2018) Available at - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/712124/Biannual_Diversity_Statistics_Apr18.pdf 95. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf ## Appendix | References 96. The I, Robert Verkaik (2018) Taxpayers spend £250m sending army officers' children to elite public schools including Eton and Harrow. Available at: https://inews.co.uk/news/education/etonharrow-army-officers-children-taxpayer/ 97. Education - Army.mod.uk, Available at: https://apply. army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/qualifications 98. Schools Week (2015) Cadet units in state schools to increase five-fold with £50 million budget boost. Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ cadet-units-in-state-schools-to-increasefive-fold-with-50-million-budget-boost/ 99. Schools Week (2017) Is pushing the cadets really in pupils' best interests? Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ is-pushing-the-cadets-really-in-pupils-best-interests/ 100. The Guardian, Melanie Reynolds (2018) Working-class lecturers should come out of the closet. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/ sep/10/university-working-class-divide-academics 101. BBC News (2017) Bristol Council scraps £160k chief executive role. Available at: https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41490862 102. Gov.uk - Police and crime commissioners. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/police-and-crime-commissioners 103. The Electoral Commission. (2016) The May 2016 Police and Crime Commissioner elections. Available at: http:// www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0019/215074/2016-PCC-elections-report.pdf 104. BBC News (2019) Stephen Lawrence: How has his murder changed policing? Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47161480 105. The Guardian (2016) Most UK police forces have disproportionate number of white officers. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2016/jan/01/most-uk-police-forces-havedisproportionate-number-of-white-officers 106. National Police Chiefs' Council. (2018) Police leaders to be held to account over workforce diversity in new strategy. Available at: https://news.npcc.police. uk/releases/police-leaders-to-be-held-to-accountover-workforce-diversity-in-new-strategy 107. Upp Foundation and the Bridge Group (2017) Social Mobility and University Careers Services. Available at: https://thebridgegroup.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/01/BG-Employability-Report-FINAL.pdf and Donnelly, M. & Gamsu, S. (2018) Home and away - Social, ethnic and spatial inequalities in student mobility. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/Home_and_away_FINAL.pdf 108. London Councillors (2018) Remuneration of Councillors in London Boroughs. Available at: https:// www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/33152 109. Fawcett Society (2017) Does local government work for women? Available at: https://www.fawcettsociety. org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=0de4f7f0- d1a0-4e63-94c7-5e69081caa5f 110. BBC News (2014) Scrapping councillor pensions 'a kick in the teeth' Available at: https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26542442 111. Fawcett Society (2017) Does local government work for women? 112. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2014) Women and social mobility: six key facts. Available at: https://www. brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/04/03/ women-and-social-mobility-six-key-facts/ 113. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 114. Sullivan, A. et al. (2016) Social origins, elite education and elite destinations. UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/sites/ioe/files/clssocial-origins-elite-education-and-elite-destinations.pdf 115. House of Commons Library (2019) Oxbridge 'Elitism' . Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament. uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00616 116. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2013) Gender gaps in relative mobility. Available at: https://www.brookings. edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2013/11/12/ gender-gaps-in-relative-mobility/ 117. Reeves, R. & Venator, J. (2013) Gender gaps in relative mobility. Available at: https://www.brookings. edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2013/11/12/ gender-gaps-in-relative-mobility/ 118. Young Women's Trust (2018) The real cost of an apprenticeship: are young women paying the price? Available at: https://www.youngwomenstrust.org/ assets/0001/0282/2018_YWT_Report_The_Cost_v04.pdf 119. Fawcett Society (2018) Strategies for success - women's experiences of selection and election in UK parliament. Available at: https://www.fawcettsociety. org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=b8a66d72- 32a4-4d9d-91e7-33ad1ef4a785 120. Emma Watson's speech to the UN (2014) Gender equality is your issue too. Available at: http://www. unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emmawatson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too 121. Idris Elba: Goodwill Ambassador. Available at: https:// www.princes-trust.org.uk/about-the-trust/celebrityambassadors/goodwill-ambassadors/idris-elba 122. I act so I can afford to help charities, says Michael Sheen as he visits project helping disadvantaged young Londoners (2019). Evening Standard. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/ celebrity-news/i-act-so-i-can-afford-to-helpcharities-says-michael-sheen-a4079261.html 123. Brook, O. et al. (2018) Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries. Panic! It's an arts emergency. Available at: http://createlondon.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Tasteand-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf 124. Kirby, P. (2016) Leading People - the educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/Leading-People_Feb16.pdf 125. Brook, O. et al. (2018) Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries. Panic! It's an arts emergency. Available at: http://createlondon.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Panic-Social-Class-Tasteand-Inequalities-in-the-Creative-Industries1.pdf 126. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 127. Friedman, S. et al. (2016) 'Like skydiving without a parachute,': how class origin shapes occupational trajectories in British acting. Available at: http://eprints. lse.ac.uk/66754/1/Friedman_Like%20skydiving_2016.pdf ## Appendix | References 128. Acting up - Labour's inquiry into access and diversity in the performing arts. (2017) Available at: https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/campaigncountdown/ pages/1157/attachments/original/1502725031/ Acting-Up-Report.pdf?1502725031 129. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Class Ceilings - why it pays to be privileged. Policy Press. 130. Acting up - Labour's inquiry into access and diversity in the performing arts. (2017) Available at: https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/campaigncountdown/ pages/1157/attachments/original/1502725031/ Acting-Up-Report.pdf?1502725031 131. Alberge, A. (2019) Postcode lottery denies poor A-level students a musical career. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/ may/26/poscode-lottery-denies-a-level-studentsmusical-career?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other 132. Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music - The Statistics. Available at: https://gb.abrsm. org/en/making-music/4-the-statistics/ 133. TOP Foundation (2014) National Governing Bodies of Sport Survey: Competitive School Sport. 134. Government and top sports bodies to help children play more sport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/news/government-and-top-sportsbodies-to-help-children-play-more-sport 135. House of Commons Library (2017) Sport Participation in England. 136. https://www.totalsportek.com/list/ popular-sports-united-kingdom/ 137. Sutton Trust (2012, 2016) Educational Backgrounds of Olympic Medallists. 138. The Times (2019) Women's World Cup 2019: Professional England football team face part-time Scotland. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ pro-england-face-part-time-scots-x088sfx8z 139. Why are Team GB so good at standing out while sitting down? The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/aug/05/teamgb-sitting-down-sports-rio-2016-london-2012 140. Team GB funding cuts are killing British basketball. The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/ sport/us-sport/national-basketball-association/team-gbfunding-cuts-are-killing-british-basketball-a6886486.html 141. TOP Foundation (2014) 142. Farrell et al. (2013) The Socio-economic Gradient in Physical Inactivity in England. CMPO. Available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/ cmpo/migrated/documents/wp311.pdf 143. House of Commons Library (2016) London Olympics 2012: A Sporting Legacy?. Available at: http://researchbriefings. files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04868/SN04868.pdf 144. Olympic Legacy Failure. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/05/olympiclegacy-failure-sports-centres-council-cuts 145. Tackling Inactivity and Economic Disadvantage. Sport England. Available at: https://www.sportengland.org/ our-work/health-and-inactivity/tackling-inactivityand-economic-disadvantage/ Sport England's fitness campaigns to target disadvantaged groups. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/sport/2019/mar/04/sport-englands-fitnesscampaigns-to-target-disadvantaged-groups 146. Statement from the new Prime Minister Theresa May (2016) Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may 147. Socio-economic duty. The Equality Trust. Available at: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/socio-economic-duty 148. Fairer Scotland Duty: interim guidance for public bodies. (2018) Housing and Social Justice Directorate. Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/fairer-scotlandduty-interim-guidance-public-bodies/ 149. Civil Service (2018) Measuring Socio-economic Background in your Workforce: recommended measures for use by employers. Available at: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/768371/Measuring_ Socio-economic_Background_in_your_Workforce__ recommended_measures_for_use_by_employers.pdf 150. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2018) Pay as you go? Internship pay, quality and access in the graduate jobs market. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Pay-As-You-Go-1.pdf 151. Rare Contextual Recruitment System https://www. contextualrecruitment.co.uk/, PiC Contextual Recruitment https://pic.is/ and upReach Contextualised Grade Tool https://upreach.org.uk/ manchester-contextualised-grade-tool-launch/ 152. Friedman, S. & Laurison, D. (2019) Blog - 10 ways to break the class ceiling. Available at: https:// policypress.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/10- ways-to-break-the-class-ceiling/ 153. Crawford, C. et al. (2017) Admissions in context - the use of contextual information by leading universities. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www. suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ Admissions-in-Context-Final_V2.pdf 154. Sutton Trust (2016) Best in class: the summit report. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/BESTINCLASSREPORTFINAL.doc-1.pdf 155. Kirby, P. & Cullinane, C. (2017) Science Shortfall. Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Science-shortfall_FINAL.pdf 156. Allen, R. & Sims, S. (2018) How do shortages of maths teachers affect the within-school allocation of maths teachers to pupils? Available at: https:// www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/ files/Within-school%20allocations%20of%20 maths%20teachers%20to%20pupils_v_FINAL.pdf 157. Cullinane, C. & Montacute, R. (2017) Life Lessons - Improving essential life skills for young people. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf 158. Hughes, D. et al. (2016) Careers education: International literature review. Available at: https:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/ files/Publications/Careers_review.pdf 159. 'School funding and pupil premium 2019' , Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/researchpaper/school-funding-and-pupil-premium-2019/. 160. Broughton, N. et al. (2014) Open Access - an independent evaluation. Social Market Foundation and Sutton Trust. Available at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/open-access-report.pdf ## Acknowledgements Elitist Britain 2019 was produced by a team led by the Sutton Trust's Dr Rebecca Montacute. Data collection was conducted by staff at the Social Mobility Commission and the Sutton Trust, for whose work we are extremely grateful, in particular the Trust's Angel Fletcher. We would like to thank all the staff of the Sutton Trust and the secretariat of the Social Mobility Commission, along with the Commissioners themselves, for their input and insight when commenting on, checking, copy editing, and proofreading the report. We would also like to thank all the external reviewers who read and commented on sections of the text relevant to their field. These included: Neil John Griffiths (Arts Emergency), Rosie Campbell (King's College London), Richard Sambrook (Cardiff University), Andrew Bazeley (Fawcett Society), Kuba Stawiski, Jenny Baskerville and Jatin Patel (KPMG), Deirdre Cole (London Marathon Charitable Trust), Benjamin Douglass, and Richard Fishlock (Sporting Assets). ## The Social Mobility Commission Board Comprises: • Saeed Atcha, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Xplode Magazine • Sam Friedman, Associate Professor in Sociology at London School of Economics • Dame Martina Milburn (Chair) • Alastair da Costa, Chair of Capital City College Group • Farrah Storr, Editor-in-chief, Elle • Harvey Matthewson, Aviation Activity Officer at Aerobility and Volunteer • Sammy Wright, Vice Principal of Southmoor Academy, Sunderland • Jess Oghenegweke: Broadcast and Digital Coordinator at The Roundhouse • Sandra Wallace, Joint Managing Director Europe at DLA Piper • Jody Walker, Senior Vice President at TJX Europe (TK Maxx and Home Sense in the UK) • Steven Cooper, Chief Executive Officer C.Hoare & Co • Liz Williams, Group Director of Digital Society at BT • Pippa Dunn, Founder of Broody, helping entrepreneurs and start ups

en

0676-pdf

## What Is Diabetes? Type 1 Diabetes - This is where the amount of glucose (sugar) in the blood is too high because the body cannot use it properly. - This is because the pancreas does not make any. Insulin - Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas. It helps us get energy from food and drink. - It allows glucose to enter the bodies cells where it is used for energy. - Glucose comes from digesting carbohydrate. It is also made by the liver. - People with Type 1 diabetes do not make insulin, so the glucose stays in their blood. ## Types Of Diabetes - There are two main types of diabetes, Type 1 and Type 2 - 90 per cent of all people with diabetes have Type 2. - But the vast majority (97 per cent) of children and young people with diabetes have Type 1. - This presentation will focus on Type 1 diabetes. ## Signs Or Symptoms Of Type 1 Diabetes - Toilet. - Thirsty. - Tired. - Thinner. Treating Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes Needs regular insulin, four or five times a day. This may be managed by a healthy balanced diet and taking more exercise, but it may need tablets, or insulin and tablets. ## Young People And Diabetes - People who have Type 1 usually get it when they are children or young adults. There is nothing you can do to prevent it, and it is not caused by anything anyone has done. - It does not mean they are any different, and it does not stop them doing anything anyone else can do. - But they do need to do certain things to manage their Type 1 diabetes properly. ## What Do Young People With Diabetes Have To Do - Check blood glucose level regularly and note result. - Take insulin, either by using an 'injector pen' or an insulin pump. - Eat a healthy balanced diet and get regular physical activity. - Visit their doctor or nurse regularly. ## Testing Blood Glucose - Children and young people with Type 1 diabetes will need to check their blood glucose levels several times a day, including at school. - Monitoring blood glucose levels is important as it checks blood glucose is at the right level. - It is important to keep blood glucose levels as close to target as possible to make sure the child or young person stays well in the short and long term. ## Taking Insulin - Insulin cannot be taken by mouth because it is a protein, and would be destroyed by the stomach acids. - It needs to be taken by an injection or insulin pump. - Injections are generally taken at each meal, plus in the evening and/or morning too. - An insulin pump is attached 24 hours a day and insulin is given for meals and snacks. ## Eating A Healthy Diet - Young people with diabetes should eat a diet that is low in fat, salt and sugar, with at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day - just like everyone else. - No food is forbidden. - Might need to eat at certain times throughout the day. ## Physical Activity - Young people with diabetes can do any type of sport. - They may need to have a snack before, during and after activity and change their insulin dose or where they inject their insulin. ## Problems (Hypoglycaemia) When blood glucose drops too low, this is called a hypo. This can be caused by: - Missed meal. - Not enough carbohydrate. - Unplanned exercise. - Too much insulin. - Sometimes no obvious cause. ## Signs Of A Hypo - Hunger. - Shakiness. - Mood change. - Clumsiness. - Pale. - Sweating. ## How To Help - Get them to stop activity and sit down. - Get them to check their blood glucose levels if they can. - If it is low, get them to eat/drink something sugary, like lucozade, dextrose sweets or jelly beans. - After 10–15 minutes, check blood glucose levels again. - If it is still low, have some more sugar - After 20–30 minutes, check blood glucose levels again to make sure it is ok. - Some children and young people need a snack after having a hypo, like fruit or biscuits. - Once their blood glucose levels are back to normal, they can resume activity. Problems (hyperglycaemia) This is when blood glucose level is too high, caused by: - Missed insulin. - Too much carbohydrate/sugary food. - Stress or illness. - Sometime no obvious cause. - Signs and symptoms include thirst, needing to pass urine frequently, tiredness, feeling sick. How to help - Check blood sugar level. - Drink plenty of water. - Take extra insulin. - Rest. ## Long Term Health - It is important to look after diabetes to make sure you stay healthy in the future. - Diabetes can make some health problems more likely when you're older. - Looking after it well makes that much less likely. ## Type 2 Diabetes Type 2 Diabetes - About 90 percent of people with diabetes have Type 2. - Usually develops in later life, but worryingly, there are an increasing number of young people with Type 2. - Symptoms are the same but develop gradually. - There is an increased risk of developing Type 2 if it is in your family, you are from BAME or you are overweight. - Type 2 diabetes is treated by keeping physically active, following a healthy balanced diet and keeping to a healthy weight. - But medication, including insulin, may be needed, too. - If your parents or grandparents have diabetes, it's likely to be Type 2 diabetes. ## Summary - It is important for people to look after diabetes to make sure they stay well, both in the short and long term. - Treatment helps to keep glucose levels as close to those of people without diabetes as possible. - Having diabetes does not stop people from doing anything their friends do and does not mean you can't be successful! What do these people have in common? THEY ALL HAVE DIABETES AND IT HASN'T STOPPED THEM BEING SUCCESSFUL! ## And Finally… 1 Remember, people with diabetes are just like you, except for one small thing - they cannot produce their own insulin. 2 People with diabetes can do everything you can do, they just might need to prepare a bit more. 3 If you are worried about any aspect of your own health, talk to your doctor. 4 We all need to eat healthy and get plenty of physical exercise. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING GO TO WWW.DIABETES.ORG.UK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND SUPPORT

en

0328-pdf

# 162Nd Board Meeting 23 July 2019, 09:00 - 15:00 One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN Non-executive members: Declan Collier (Chair), Stephen Glaister, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Graham Mather, Justin McCracken Executive members: John Larkinson (Chief Executive), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety). In attendance: Daniel Brown (Director Strategy and Policy & Railway Markets and Economics), Russell Grossman (Director of Communications), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate Operations), Juliet Lazarus (General Counsel), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary) Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text. Item 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1. The Deputy chair welcomed everyone to the meeting as the Chair had been slightly delayed on public transport. There were no apologies. 2. The Board noted that the order of reports1 would be changed to accommodate presenting colleagues who were also delayed. Item 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. No new relevant interests were declared. Item 3 APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING 4. The Board noted a correction to the minutes. The Chair would sign an amended version. On the action points it was noted that the ECML performance report had been put into the public domain on Monday 22nd July. ## Item 7 Chief Executive'S Report 5. John Larkinson reported on recent Parliamentary engagement including invitations to talk to the Lib Dem peers and the APPG Chair. These meetings were a welcome chance to correct misunderstandings, share evidence and demonstrate expert knowledge. The Chair of the TSC had attended the launch of the Chief Inspector's Annual Report. The board discussed the importance of maintaining and strengthening parliamentary networks as part of our accountability framework. 6. John also reported on meetings with HMT and DfT. He had been challenged at both to justify the perceived additional costs to passengers driven by safety standards on rail. While he had addressed the immediate challenge, it was clear that this perception would continue to need rebuttal. The board discussed how this perception might have arisen and discussed ways to counter it. Ian Prosser said that ORR's practice was that its notices recommended the lowest cost, most effective way to minimise the risk so far as reasonably practicable, without specifying a particular solution. The board noted that there remained a live debate about the personal responsibility of an individual for their own safety and the cost of preventing people putting themselves at risk, but the legal requirement was for a safer railway. There was a clear legal precedent that children should be protected from entering dangerous environments (like depots). 7. The board discussed the different levels of risk which the public accepted between road and rail users - most road deaths did not occur on the Strategic Road Network - and whether the ambition for zero industry caused fatalities was setting the industry up to fail. They also commented on the importance of including technical standards and safety considerations when commissioning rolling stock and infrastructure. John Larkinson clarified ORR had not received costings in relation to the Hitachi fleet alterations and he did not recognise the £25m figure mentioned by the DfT in relation to this. He would raise with the Directors General the importance of factual accuracy in relation to safety standards and costs, particularly, given the likely arrival of new ministers with a new Prime Minister [Action]. 8. John Larkinson also reported on a programme of meetings with each of the Regional MDs of NR at which he had made clear ORR's expectations around financial efficiency. He would bring a report on how ORR would be monitoring the Regions to the September board. [Forward Programme]. 9. John updated the board on ongoing work with TfW and Keolis/Amey on the Welsh CVL. Although this was well appreciated by stakeholders, there were significant challenges to be overcome before the handover could occur, particularly around the financial risk to freight companies. 10. NR continued to cascade its reorganisation and this would take some months to complete. ## Item 4 Health And Safety 11. The board had been notified of the tragic incident at Port Talbot and noted this with regret. 12. Ian Prosser updated the board on three areas: enforcement, LUL, Balham 13. Enforcement: Ian Prosser described for the board the history of his interaction with NR on track worker safety, including with its SHE committee (6 November 2018) and its board (May 2019) which had preceded the improvement notices issued in July this year on track worker safety. He noted that there had been 15 RAIB investigations into track worker incidents over the past 7 years. Paragraphs 14 to 16 to be redacted as relating to policy development. 17. The board noted that PR13 had included funds to develop technology and plan for new, more efficient systems which did not rely on red-zone working. It was not clear what these funds had delivered in spite of support from ORR for NR's development work. The board considered NR's slow progress and asked the executive to consider whether escalation should have been quicker. In this context, the board asked for a regular update to give them better oversight of issues which might lead to safety enforcement and over what period they had been considered. This would also enable board-to-board communication of issues of concern but must not impinge on the independence of inspectors **[Action]**. 18. The chair summarised that ORR's notices had been evidence based, citing the rising level of risk to track workers and the number of near misses. The issue had been raised directly by the Chief Inspector with the NR board in May. ORR expected NR to protect workers and reduce the risk and the ORR board would support work to make sure that this was done in a timely way. The board wanted to see NR work actively to address an issue which had seen an ongoing significant level of risk when it could have been lower. ## Prosecutions 19. Ian Prosser reported on other enforcement including the successful prosecution of GTR following the death of a passenger leaning out of a droplight window. GTR had not had a risk assessment around its rolling stock and received a £1m fine. He also mentioned the long delay in a CPS decision around prosecutions on Sandilands, which the board agreed put additional stress on parties and the families of those involved. 20. The board discussed the picture of poor adherence to process and ontrack discipline suggested by issues in the quarterly report including SPADs, the Balham near miss, red zone working etc. They also discussed the level of reliance on human intervention, the question of whether earlier enforcement would drive improved behaviours and the growing evidence that fatigue was an increasing problem. 21. IP updated the board on concerns with LUL's internal assurance. He was attending a meeting there on 8 August to discuss the safety management system and overall the executive understanding and management of risk was more mature than on the mainline railway. He noted the complete absence of red zone working and that LUL's last track worker fatality was more than 25 years ago. The role unions could play in educating members about safety was noted. ## Item 5 Board Information Pack 22. Graham Richards updated the board on: costs agreed and paid by Eurostar on their abortive judicial review and Highways England's new safety campaign aimed at drivers - particularly safety on smart motorways. 23. The board asked for more analysis on the NR scorecard comparison charts. Having more data by region would allow more complex and nuanced discussion in CP6 but the executive were still exploring what this data could tell us so this report would continue to evolve. 24. The Chair reported on a meeting of the Wales Route Supervisory Board which had been well run, had good attendance and where the members were engaged in devolved issues and planning for the December 2019 timetable. This could not be taken as typical of meetings as there was no consistency of membership or administration across the routes. 25. The board discussed ORR's relationship with the RSBs which currently included SROs meeting. The board suggested that RSB chairs could meet annually with the ORR board or ORR NEDs could attend regional meetings. Graham agreed to consider how this could be incorporated into the new arrangements **[Action]** ## Timetable Changes: 26. The board noted an anecdotal report of an issue on GWR fleet resilience. This would be picked up with Catherine Williams later in the meeting. The board also noted that LNE was showing a red risk which was not reflected in the December timetable register. This was because it was not seen as relevant to December 2019. Item 6 QUARTERLY BUSINESS REVIEW 27. Freya Guinness reported on a current 10% underspend, mostly as a result of vacancies (16% underspent on pay) and work in hand by directors to consider how best to address this. In addition, the late signing of the lease on Cabot Square meant that there would be a windfall sum available which might also be **increased** by the ending of a provision on dilapidations on Kemble Street (total up to £600,000). Investments for the future such as a staff conference, integrated HR and finance system, consumer agenda consultancy, managing market sensitive information were some of the ideas under discussion. The senior leadership group would discuss ideas and Exco would set priorities later this week. 28. She also reported that ORR had met 10/10 service standards in the first quarter, though there were also some delays on business plan deliverables. 29. The board agreed that a staff conference toward the end of the financial year would be timely and looked forward to hearing the executive's plans on the rest. ## Item 8 Other Executive Reports 30. Juliet Lazarus reported on progress with the employment tribunal and updated the board on the outcome of an action at the Competition Appeals Tribunal against NR. NR had changed their safety assurance requirements to have a single assurance provider and the previous supplier had challenged the anti-competitive nature of the stipulation. Importantly, the Tribunal had accepted that there could be a legitimate case for special treatment around safety assurance, but they had found that case was not sufficiently made in this situation. Damages had yet to be awarded against NR. Ian Prosser had given evidence in support of NR and noted that NR would have to update its SMS and that there would be a revenue impact on RSSB. 31. Graham Richards reported on successful completion of recruitment to all eight new posts in the current business plan (four Route lead, two asset management and two information and analysis posts). 32. Graham updated the board on the work in hand to review delay attribution (agreed as part of PR18), including a major meeting with the industry to sort out technical details. The aim was to drive better behaviours in the TOCs and NR. 33. Graham notified the board of an approach by Heathrow airport for some assurance work. They are considering whether to contribute funding to an NR scheme on western access to the airport, but were unclear how they could get assurance on efficient cost now that DfT has a direct role. This is a role that ORR does in Scotland and the board agreed that this was in line with ORR's role in providing support to parties wishing to invest in the sector, but noted that such advice would be commercially valuable and would draw resources from business as usual. On this understanding the board suggested the work could be provided on a 'paid for' basis and asked to be told how such charges would be set. [Action] 34. Dan Brown reported on activity this month on the Williams Review noting that ORR's public position had received a very positive reception and reflected a major step change in passenger rights. The directorate would draw down on consultancy resource to take the next steps forward. 35. He also updated the board on current open access applications, of which Grand Central was working toward the December 2019 timetable. 36. On Brexit, Dan reported that DfT were again ramping up preparations for the UK to leave the EU in October. 37. Russell Grossman updated the board on the rescheduled publications and plans to promote our work over the summer. The CIAR launch was now a major annual event and had gone very well. Other publications had been positively received. 38. Freya Guinness reported to the board on the three key risks to London Accommodation reported in June. The leaks had apparently been fixed, key wayleaves were now signed (one had been done overnight) and facilities management providers were confident that a service could be in place for the move. Moves were now likely to be in the first half of October but there was an option to stay in OKS until January if it became necessary to delay the move. The OKS landlord had agreed not to require dilapidations so this provision could now be released. Item 9 NR - LICENCE BREACH Catherine Williams and Davie Reed joined the meeting for this item 39. In April, the board had considered NR's response to the Final Order issued in respect of the breach of its licence to run an efficient and effective timetable process, and asked for further evidence that the PMO process had become properly embedded. Catherine Williams reported that it was possible to see the cultural change happening in the relationships around the PMO and the executive were content that the final order had been complied with. 40. The board welcomed the report and agreed that the Final Order had been complied with. 41. On Timetabling risk (as reported in the board information pack and see para 27 above) the board asked Catherine about the potential fleet resilience risk on GWR's introduction of IEPs in the December 2019 timetable. T-12 for December would occur before the next board meeting. 42. Catherine reported that the PMOs latest report to the Secretary of State did not suggest that the operation of IEPs would be a problem and also that fitment of filters was not highlighted as a risk. She would check and follow this up **[Action]**. John Larkinson was attending the First Group executive meeting on 24/7 and would also raise this2. **[Action]** Item 10 CONSUMERS David Kimball Marcus Clements and Stephanie Tobyn attended for this item 43. David Kimball presented the report. New guidance on assisted travel policies would require measures to improve reliability, better staff training, shorter notice periods and redress for failure to provide service. Consultation responses (some of which had been challenging) had helped refine the guidance in draft. 44. The guidance was challenging for operators but did not go as far as some passengers and passenger groups wanted. 45. The board discussed the aspiration for a 2 hour notice period for all travellers. This was recognised as a significant challenge for operators, particularly for example on long distance routes where trains might already have set out before a request was submitted. The balance needed to be struck in order to set a period that was challenging but also reasonably achievable. The board also noted the other practical challenges for operators around the number of available wheelchair spaces, getting passengers with reduced mobility onto crowded trains, the fit of mobility scooters into rolling stock and so on. There were particular challenges around unscheduled rail replacement bus services. The board noted that TOCs would have the opportunity when talking to someone requesting assisted travel to suggest alternative, less crowded services. 46. Operators needed to set out what they would commit to and what could be delivered in their policy. The clarity around what was actually being offered would bring helpful transparency to the different approaches of operators. There had been no evidence offered by operators around additional costs. There would be additional costs imposed by this requirement and this should be acknowledged. 47. The board reiterated its aim to drive significant improvements through this work, and noted the compromises which had been struck and the remaining risks to successful implementation. Communication with operators around this would need to be sensitively handled. 48. The board noted that this was continuing to build on the passenger experience research conducted last year and would also push operators closer to compliance with the Equalities Act. ## 49. Board Approved The Publication Of The Guidance. Item 11 Highways Panel 50. Stephen Glaister reported that the process had yielded a strong panel of applicants with ambition. Several had strong technical knowledge and active links in the industry. 51. The board endorsed the outcome of the recruitment process. The Board asked for ideas on how it could have some engagement with the panel - and with the other expert panels on which ORR relied. **[Action]** Item 12 RIS2 QUARTERLY UPDATE ## This Item To Be Redacted Until Publication Of Ris2 As Policy Development 52. Graham Richards reported on a meeting of the DfT BICC which he had attended with David Hunt when the committee considered the RIS2 advice. He had been reassured that DfT decision makers were receiving ORR's advice clearly and without modification. He had reiterated the advice that identified cost savings should be held by HE to mitigate risks. DfT would now work with HMT to agree the level of investment. 53. The Board noted external feedback on the relatively low additional efficiency ORR had identified (0.5%) over HE's original proposal of 8%. Graham responded by acknowledging that this is feedback he had also received but pointed out that efficiency was only one part of our advice and in total we had identified £660m of potential cost reduction (about 2.5% of expenditure). He also reported that the IPA had recently scrutinised our work and he understood that they had not proposed any further reductions. He also restated that we had recommended that these reductions should be recycled within HE in the context of major risks to the portfolio (quantified as P50). 54. There were two outstanding issues for government in terms of RIS2 funding: HMT needed to agree treatment of VAT (worth £800m) and the alternative to PFI/PPP for major project finance had not yet been announced. The Roads programme was not protected from the main spending review as Rail funding was. 55. The board also noted that while priorities for the RIS would be set by government, resultant removal of projects from the programme would be governed by the change control process and would therefore be transparent through ORRs reporting. This would also be important in bringing clarity on where risks had crystallised. Item 14 HS1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Steve Dennis and Debbie Daniels attended for this item 56. The board discussed the report, particularly the likely level of renewals where discussions continued about exactly what would be included and the possible funding of advance works for CP3. The report would be published by 31 July. 57. The board noted the level of unregulated income reported and asked for further detail on turnover **[Action]**. 58. The board noted that while HS1 had been well maintained the natural ageing of the asset and the future demands on the network require a shift from maintenance to renewals and agreed that this should be brought out more prominently in the report. 59. Graham reported that the AEFA report showed underperformance on efficient enhancement delivery since the Hendy realignment and the removal of ORR from the assurance processes. ITEM 13 ORR COMMUNICATIONS Charlie Haddon, Simon Belgard, Jo Randell joined the meeting for this item. ## 60. Russell Grossman Summarised The Stakeholder Survey Results. Paragraphs 61-64 Have Been Redacted As Policy Development 65. Overall the board agreed that ORR should continue to be more confident in sharing our evidence and analysis, including broadening the evidence base around whole industry. Continual assertion and demonstration of independence was important and clarity around our roles and those of our regulatees would eventually build better understanding of the real contribution ORR made in applying independent assurance to a public good. 66. The board discussed the evidence that personal contact led to improved stakeholder perceptions of the organisation. It agreed that more effort should be made to build even better relationships with key stakeholders, particularly in Parliament and government, drawing on NEDs as appropriate. Recent experience was that new ministers and advisors needed targeted briefing to understand the complex roles ORR filled, and the wider evidence base that it had access to which could enable us to become even more relevant as an expert and authoritative body. 67. The board asked for a further conversation in the autumn about where to focus communications efforts after the result of Williams is known. [forward programme] Item 16 WILLIAMS REVIEW 68. ORR's advice to the William's Review setting out short, medium and long term improvements on issues regarding passenger accessibility and redress had been well received and our position as a source of expert and technical advice established through the publication of that advice alongside Keith Williams' speech. 69. Dan Brown updated the board on the latest thinking of the Williams review team. The board discussed issues around the creation of a new rail body, particularly in terms of how such a body would be held to account for its delivery to customers. 70. Dan reported on the wide range of ideas still being explored by the team and by the department. He noted that some of the ideas reported last month had been discarded. The challenges for reform of the industry were formidable and the ORR team had been working hard to help identify them as well as explore solutions. Much would depend on the views of the (potentially new) Secretary of State. 71. It was encouraging that ORR was involved in these important conversations and the board endorsed the approach of supporting the department to think through all the implications of its ideas. Early understanding of the challenges of implementation would be critical in designing a deliverable framework. 72. Dan undertook to keep the board informed of developments across the summer break. **[Action]** Item 17 FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEES AND PANELS ## Audit And Risk Committee 73. Bob Holland reported on a good meeting, noting that the latest internal audit report on an IT project gave far better assurance than previous IT project reports. There had been a comprehensive progress report on the accommodation project. The quarterly risk report had been circulated with the board papers: the system was working well and the discussion on risk management had been positive. 74. He mentioned that ARC had asked Exco to think about how Strategic objectives could be measured and consider discussing with the board at the strategy day in November **[Forward programme]**. The chair agreed that reporting on achievement of strategic objectives was important. Consumer Panel - 75. Anne Heal reported on a visit to HE to hear from customer service leadership team about how they were taking a more strategic approach to customers, and noted an increased focus on customer satisfaction. ## Any Other Business 76. The Chair reported on meetings with Lilian Greenwood, the CIAR launch, and a Felixstowe port visit (Freightliner) including cab rides. He had attended the Wales Route Stakeholder Board and with John met Andrew Jones rail minister. 77. Over 60 applications had been received for board positions. 11 had been long listed for interview and interviews would be held after the September board. 78. The board noted the forward programme and risk report circulated below the line.

en

4642-pdf

| | | Variable | Description | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | ID | | Application Reference Number | | | DateReceived | | Date application received | | | ReceivedQ | | Quarter application received - to select applications received in any quarter or the full year, | | | this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications received in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, Q3, | | | | | Q4" for all applications received in the financial year | | | | | DateValid | | Date application made valid | | | Authority | | District Council Authority or Department | | | LPA19CD | Local Planning authority code | | | | LPA19NM | Local Planning authority name | | | | Constituency | | Parliamentary Constituency of application | | | AppType | | Application Type e.g. Full, Reserved Matters | | | Classification | | Application Classification i.e. Regional, Major, Local | | | StatsCategory | | Statistical Category e.g. Residential, Industrial, Commercial | | | Urban_Rural | | Marker to show if an application is urban or rural (NISRA definition) - defined as urban if | | | application within SDLs >= 5,000 population, rural settlements if within SDLs < 5,000 and | | | | | rural countryside if outside SDLs | | | | | HousingType | | Housing type of application e.g. new single dwelling, housing development - including rural | | | settlements and countryside breakdowns | | | | | RenewableType | | Type of Renewable Energy e.g. Single Wind Turbine, Wind Farm, Solar Panels | | | Proposal | | Description of the Application's proposal | | | SiteAddress | | Site address of the application | | | Easting | | Easting Co-ordinate of application | | | Northing | | Northing Co-ordinate of application | | | Status@31Mar | | Status of application at end of reporting period i.e. Decided/Withdrawn/Pending | | | Decision_Withdrawal | | Description of the Authority's decision (including withdrawn) | | | DecisionIssuedDate | | Date application decided | | | DecidedQ | | Quarter application decided - to select applications decided in any quarter or the full year, | | | this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications decided in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, Q3, | | | | | Q4" for all applications decided in the financial year | | | | | DateWithdrawn | | Date application withdrawn | | | WithdrawnQ | | Quarter application withdrawn - to select applications decided in any quarter or the full | | | year, this variable can be filtered e.g. select "Q1" for applications decided in Q1, or "Q1, Q2, | | | | | Q3, Q4" for all applications decided in the financial year | | | | | processingtime_wks | | Time in weeks to process a decision or withdrawal | | | Live@31Mar | | | | | Marker to show if an application is live at the end of the reporting period - this variable can | | | | | be filtered i.e. select "1" for live applications at the end of the financial year | | | | | timeinsystem | | The time live applications have been in the system at end of the reporting period | | | | | | |

en

1229-pdf

Highlights Guide This document contains details of how to navigate through the newly released files. We have included bookmarks in each of the PDF files of key stories and reports highlighted by Dr David Clarke. This will make it easier to navigate through the files. For information on the history of government UFO investigations and where these files fit in please read Dr David Clarke"s background guide to the files. Navigating the files using the bookmarks To view the bookmarks, click on the "Bookmarks" tab on the upper left hand side of the PDF window, the bookmarks tab will expand - as shown below. 1. Click on "Bookmarks" tab The "Bookmarks" tab will then expand and a list of relevant bookmarks will be displayed - as shown below. ## 2. Bookmark Tab Will Expand. Clicking On A Bookmark Will Take You To The Pages Of The File Related To That Particular Story. To See The Details Of Each Bookmark - Hover Over The Red Or Blue Icon That Appears On The Top Left Hand Corner Of The Relevant Page Of The Pdf Document - As Shown Below. 3. Hover or click on bookmark icons to see detail ## Below is information on the key stories and reports of UFO activity contained in these files. It includes a list of the bookmarks contained in each file, with a short summary of each bookmark. Please note that not all files contain bookmarks. Key stories and events featured in the files (red text): Rendlesham Forest incident, December 1980 The file **DEFE 24/1948** covers the Rendlesham incident, Britain"s best-known UFO incident. It involves several sightings of lights in the forest, outside the perimeter fence of RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, by United States Air Force personnel in December 1980. They claimed a UFO had landed in the forest, leaving traces including markings on the ground and radiation. The events were detailed in a famous memo to the MoD by Lt Col Charles Halt (USAF deputy base commander), who was present during one of the sightings. Halt"s memo opens this file (p6), which consists largely of correspondence between the MoD and members of the public from 1983-1995. Note: This file has previously been released to individuals requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act. Details of this are given on p4 of the file. Further material can be found in **DEFE 24/1970** (UFOs: Parliamentary correspondence 1985-1995). This file includes background material covering a range of Parliamentary Questions and private inquiries to the Ministry of Defence from MPs, often forwarding letters from constituents, on UFO matters. The file contains the Ministry of Defence"s final position statement on the Rendlesham incident in a briefing for the House of Lords Defence Debate (p10-11), along with a letter from the late Lord Hill-Norton, a former Chief of Defence Staff, to the Rt Hon Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for Defence, where he described the incident as, "a potential "banana-skin" looming for the MoD" (p366-367). UFOs reported over Belgium - 1989-1990 A story which appears in a number of the files concerns a wave of sightings that occurred in Belgium during 1989-90. The files reveal how in March 1990 the Belgian Air Force scrambled F-16 fighters to intercept UFOs reported by police officers and others. An official statement from the Belgian Air Force sent to the MoD in November 1993 is at DEFE 24/1970 p86-87. A letter from Malcolm Rifkind to Lord Hill-Norton explains the MoD was not informed of the incident at the time and concluded there was no threat to the UK **DEFE 24/1970** p58-59. In addition see (not an exhaustive list): DEFE 24/1970 p66, p70-71, p75-76 and p86-87 DEFE 24/1960 (p320-324) - a four-page account of the UFOs detected by NATO radars and F-16 fighters over Belgium in 1990, which remain unexplained. The account, from General Wilfried de Brouwer, Chief of Operations, Belgian Air Staff confirms that F-16 pilots obtained "lock-ons" with their radars but were unable to explain the phenomena. DEFE 24/1962 (p177-179) DEFE 24/1965 (p272) Cosford incident, 31 March 1993 The file **DEFE 24/2086** covers sightings of bright lights seen across central England in the early hours by police officers and military witnesses (including a police patrol at RAF Cosford, near Wolverhampton). The file includes more than 30 sightings during a sixhour period. The MoD"s UFO desk asked the RAF to replay radar tapes but this found nothing unusual had been detected. However, the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (ACAS), Sir Anthony Bagnall, was briefed that there was evidence a UFO had evaded UK defences. It soon emerged that the majority of sightings were caused by the Russian rocket that launched the Cosmos 2238 satellite, re-entering the earth"s atmosphere. UFO sightings in London, 1993-94 Dozens of sightings of a brightly illuminated oval object were reported over London, caused by what was actually a Virgin airship advertising the launch of the Ford Mondeo. Some accounts include sketches and several people refused to believe the UFO was the airship (see DEFE 24/1963, 1959, 1960 - more details of pages are given in the regional highlights for **London**, below). Aircraft encounters A number of reports of UFOs sighted by pilots and air crews, along with near-misses between UFOs and airliners, are included in these files.  DEFE 24/1961 (p381) - a "lit object" passed close to an aircraft approaching Manchester in January 1995  DEFE 24/1960 (p294) - a "black lozenge-shaped UFO" passed close to an aircraft over Berkshire in August 1994  DEFE 24/1963 (p198) - a UFO Solar balloon was blamed for an incident at Gatwick in July 1991  DEFE 24/1970 (p86-87), DEFE 24/1960 (p320-324) - UFOs seen by Belgian Air Force F-16 fighter pilots in March 1990  DEFE 24/1960 (p424-425) - An air crew flying from Moscow to Tokyo in March 1994 reported seeing a huge object was seen entering the Earth"s atmosphere over the Arctic that created a shockwave 200 miles long. The crew reported that the UFO came in over the [North] pole at an estimated speed of 10-15,000mph. They initially believed it must have been a Space Shuttle, but subsequently found it was already down. ## Ufos On Radar  DEFE 24/1970 (p125) - Ministry of Defence statement from 1993: "I am not aware of instances where radar operators have detected an object, judged it to be solid, and not been able to identify it…" continuing, "..we have never detected a structured aircraft in UK airspace, that has remained unidentified". ## Crop Circles Parliamentary Questions In 1989 And 1990 Regarding Crop Circles Are Found At:  DEFE 24/1970 (p175-178, p229-231, p275-278) ## Attempted Alien Abductions  DEFE 24/1961 (p191-207) - Staffordshire Police report May 1995 on two youths who claimed they saw a UFO land in a field at Chasetown. A face appeared and a voice said: "We want you, come with us." ## Ufo Attack On Cemetery  DEFE 24/1976 (p180) - Cheshire police report from July 1996. A young man returning home near Widnes ran after seeing a UFO over a cemetery. He reported that beams of light were projected onto the ground, a wailing noise was heard and smoke rose from the ground. Investigations at the scene found a hole burned in a railway sleeper still smouldering when police arrived. ## Glastonbury Festival Ufo  DEFE 24/1960 (p295-305) - two female festival-goers reported a UFO over the jazz field in June 1994. ## Scotland Ufo Sightings  DEFE 24/1959-1961 (a number of Scottish sightings are included in these files) - Bonnybridge, near Stirling, was featured in the national press during 1994-1995 as Britain"s hotspot for UFO sightings. A local councillor wrote to John Major asking for an inquiry and tried to twin the town with Roswell. Reports of UFO activities according to regions (blue text): Note: These regional bookmarks are a rough guide only and may not include all of the reports related to the region featured in this release. Berkshire DEFE 24/1960 (p294) Birmingham DEFE 24/1970 (p287) DEFE 24/1976 (p240-241) Buckinghamshire DEFE 24/1961 (p14) Cambridgeshire DEFE 24/1964 (P152-164) Cheshire DEFE 24/1976 (p180) Cornwall DEFE 24/1959 (p114, p213) DEFE 24/1975 (p25) Derbyshire DEFE 24/1960 (p46) Devon DEFE 24/1965 (p83-86, p330, p333-334) Essex DEFE 24/1960 (p85-86) DEFE 24/1974 (p62) Hampshire DEFE 24/1963 (p8-11) Jersey DEFE 24/1964 (p138-142) Lincolnshire DEFE 24/1959 (p23-25) DEFE 24/1975 (p237) London DEFE 24/1970 (p192-203) DEFE 24/1959 (p101-110, p282-283) DEFE 24/1962 (p67-69) DEFE 24/1963 (p49-54, p112-117) DEFE 24/1964 (p9-11, p12-13, p308-310) DEFE 24/1965 (p8-9, p91-92, p94, p216-247, p262-265) Manchester DEFE 24/1961 (p381) DEFE 24/1975 (p172) Middlesex DEFE 24/1976 (p109-110) Northern Ireland DEFE 24/1974 (p5) Northamptonshire DEFE 24/1964 (p240-242) DEFE 24/1959 (p220) Norwich DEFE 24/1960 (p101) Portsmouth DEFE 24/1960 (p186-187) Reading DEFE 24/1960 (p137) Scotland Please note DEFE 24/1960 contains numerous reports from Scotland (see Key Files notes above) including: DEFE 24/1960 (p10, p21, 149, p162, p362, p447) DEFE 24/1961 (p241, p343, p312) DEFE 24/1975 (p227) DEFE 24/1976 (p113-115) DEFE 24/1962 (p274-275) DEFE 24/1963 (p249-250) Somerset DEFE 24/1960 (p295-305) DEFE 24/1964 (p188) Southampton DEFE 24/1960 (p265-267) Staffordshire DEFE 24/1961 (p191-207) DEFE 24/1970 (p299-300, p301-303) Suffolk DEFE 24/1974 (p104-106) Sussex DEFE 24/1976 (p51) Teesside DEFE 24/1963 (p255-257) Wales DEFE 24/1975 (p174-176) West Midlands DEFE 24/1961 (p332) Wiltshire DEFE 24/1959 (p54-55) DEFE 24/1961 (p319-321) DEFE 24/1975 (p83-84, p172) DEFE 24/1976 (p200) Worcestershire DEFE 24/1959 (p249) DEFE 24/1975 (p12) Yorkshire DEFE 24/1959 (p288, p368) DEFE 24/1961 (p88-89, p216) DEFE 24/1965 (p20)

en

0378-pdf

Disclosure ref: 35 Sent: 26th June 2019 ## Freedom Of Information Act 2000 Request Freedom Of Information Requests In Regards To Hate Crimes Request Foi Request 1 1. The total number of race hate crimes which were received between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld? 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought? 1. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months. 1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crime cases which were received between April 2018- 2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to a successful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 2, what was the nature of the charges that were upheld? 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many led to an unsuccessful prosecution, broken down by months. a. Further to question 3, what is the nature of the charges that were brought? SW1H 9AJ United Kingdom 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many cases were not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months. FOI Request 3 1. The total number of race hates crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. FOI Request 4 1. The total number of race hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the victim(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded? Please ensure the 'Asian' category has a breakdown by Pakistani and Bangladeshi victims. 1. The total number of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim's choice, broken down by months. 6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months. 1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018- 2019, broken down by months. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide a breakdown of the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on how many were passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by months. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to lack of evidence, broken down by months. 5. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases were no further action was taken due to the victim's choice, broken down by months. 6. Further to question 1, of these please provide the number of cases that lead to community resolution, broken down by months. 1. The total numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes which were recorded between April 2018-2019 and where the primary, or secondary, location tag was 'mosque' (or any other religious institution tag that describes a building used by the Muslim communities for, but not limited to, worship). Please provide this information broken down by months. a. Examples of locations tag include, but may not be limited to: Mosque, Madrasa, Islamic Schools, Islamic Prayer rooms. 2. Further to question 1, of these please provide information on the types of criminal acts which occurred, broken down by months (e.g. vandalism, arson, harassment, etc.). 3. Further to question 1, of these please provide the name of the city/town/village where each attack occurred. Grouping data under one category for each month is fine. 4. Further to question 1, of these please provide the following data for the suspect(s) involved in the case: ## a. please could you include a breakdown of the data by gender for each month; b. please could you include a breakdown of the data by age for each month; c. Please could you include a breakdown by ethnicity Response Section 12(1) of the FOI Act provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit is specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. The nature of the information requested in your seven requests has an overarching theme and common thread relating to detailed information for hate crime. A manual review of each case held would have to be undertaken to answer your detailed questions within your requests .As a guide, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) completed total number of 14,151 cases files of hate crime prosecutions for 2017 to 2018 financial year. For this reason we have aggregated the requests as they relate to the same information as set out in section five of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. Please refer to the link below: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/5/made We believe that the cost of responding to all seven of these requests would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, the CPS is not obliged to comply with any of your requests in accordance with section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please be advised that this cost limit will apply to any new requests that can be considered under the same theme as those seven mentioned above. The cost limit will apply to similar requests received in 60 consecutive working days from 26 June 2019. The cost limit will therefore apply until 19 September 2019 Requests received that are considered not to fall under the same theme as the current seven requests will be dealt with as normal. Under section 16 of the FOI Act there is a duty to provide advice and assistance; you may find it helpful and worthwhile to refer to our CPS published data on hate crimes for 2017 to 2018 financial year via link below: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/hate-crime-reports - page 21 020 3357 0899 IMU@cps.gov.uk

en

1745-pdf

We will send you a return towards the end of each tax month (a tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the 5th of the next). We will fill in the return with the information that we hold about your business and the subcontractors that have been verified or you have paid recently. You must check information on the return, add any new subcontractors not already shown, enter details of all payments with details of deductions and consider and sign the declarations. You must send the return to reach us by the 19th of the month, otherwise you will incur a penalty. ## Cis300 Page 1 Contractor's monthly return Month ending 05 06 2006 This return is for payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above. Your name and address details held on our file. If you prefer, you can fill in your monthly return online. To do this, please go to **www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis** for further information. 123PA123456780606 You are required by law to fill in and sign a return and send it back in time to reach us by the 19th of the month shown above. You will be charged a penalty if we do not receive your return by the 19th of the above month. REPRINT-REFERENCE--X 999 If the address we have shown is not correct, phone the CIS Helpline immediately on **0845 366 7899**. Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR) 12345 54321 You only need to fill in boxes 1 or 2 if your name or contact telephone number changes. Accounts Office reference 123PA12345678 RECIPIENT NAME LINE 1 ------------X RECIPIENT NAME LINE 2 ------------X ADDRESS LINE 1 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 2 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 3 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 4 -------------------X ADDRESS LINE 5 -------------------X POSTCODE CIS Helpline 0845 366 7899 Help We are happy to help if you have any questions about your return. You can • use the guidance notes included in your Contractor Pack - further copies are available from the CIS Orderline on **0845 366 7899**, or • go to **www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis**, or • phone the CIS Helpline on 0845 366 7899 – if you need further information about filling in this return – if you realise you have made a mistake after you have sent in your return – if you need a replacement return. How to fill in this return - Only write inside the boxes. Use **black ink** and capital letters. - If you make a mistake, please cross it out and write the correct information underneath. - Leave blank any boxes that do not apply to you - please do not strike through anything irrelevant. - Do not fold the return. Send it back to us unfolded in the envelope provided. Photocopies are not acceptable. Your monthly return CONTACT DETAILS Supplying the following information will help speed things up if we need to talk to you about your return. We will pre-print this information for you in the future. This means you will only need to fill in boxes 1 and 2 if the details change. This return is for payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above. If you prefer, you can fill in your monthly return online. To do this, please go to **www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis** for further information. 2 1 Contact name (if not shown or needs to change) Contact phone number/mobile number (if not shown or needs to change) If you have not paid any subcontractors during the month, you must still make a nil return. You are required by law to fill in and sign a return and send it back in time to reach us by the 19th of the month shown above. You will be charged a penalty if we do not receive your return by the 19th of the above month. If the address we have shown is not correct, phone the CIS Helpline immediately on **0845 366 7899**. If you tell us by phone, Internet or by EDI, you do not have to send us your return. ## Nil Return 3 If you have not made any payments to subcontractors in the construction industry for the month shown above, you must make a nil declaration. Do this online at **www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis**, by phoning the CIS Helpline on **0845 366 7899**, or go to 'DECLARATION AND CERTIFICATE' at the top of page 4 and start to fill in the return from there. Help We are happy to help if you have any questions about your return. You can • use the guidance notes included in your Contractor Pack - further copies are available from the CIS Orderline on **0845 366 7899**, or • go to **www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis**, or • phone the CIS Helpline on 0845 366 7899 – if you need further information about filling in this return – if you realise you have made a mistake after you have sent in your return – if you need a replacement return. If you post your return send it to: HMRC CIS, Comben House, Farriers Way, BOOTLE, L69 9ZX. - Only write inside the boxes. Use **black ink** and capital letters. - If you make a mistake, please cross it out and write the correct information underneath. - Leave blank any boxes that do not apply to you - please do not strike through anything irrelevant. - Do not fold the return. Send it back to us unfolded in the envelope provided. Photocopies are not acceptable. ## Cis300 Page 2 Will Contain Details Of Subcontractors You Have Previously Paid Or Verified. If You Haven'T Paid A Subcontractor Leave The Box Blank. Cis300 Page 3 Fill In When You Want To Tell Us Of Payments Made To Subcontractors Who Do Not Appear On Page 2 Or Cis300(Cs) - Continuation Sheet 123PA123456780606 PAYMENTS TO SUBCONTRACTORS Please **do not change** any of the details we have printed. If any of the details are wrong, please phone the CIS Helpline. Use **black ink** to fill in the white boxes below. Only fill in the details for those subcontractors you have paid. If you haven't paid the subcontractor, please leave the boxes blank. Name of subcontractors you have previously paid or verified. Enter the subcontractor's name or business name given during verification in 4.1 and the reference number given by the subcontractor in 4.2. Reference number as confirmed by HMRC. Number supplied at verification as confirmed by HMRC. on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Enter the verification number given by HMRC but only for subcontractors we could not match to our records. Enter the total amount paid to the subcontractor in the month in 4.4. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. You only need to fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax. Enter the total cost of materials paid in the month in 4.5 and the total amount deducted in the month in 4.6. If the subcontractor is an individual and gave their National Insurance number at verification enter it. If the subcontractor is a company and gave you their CRN at verification enter the number. We will send continuation sheets with your return if we hold details for five or more subcontractors you have verified or paid previously. If we have sent you any continuation sheets, please look at them before filling in page 3. ## Cis300 Page 4 Declaration And Certificate As the contractor you may be liable for any deductions you should have made but have not declared on a monthly return to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). If you **have not** paid any subcontractors for the month shown on this return, go to box 5. If you **have** paid subcontractors for the month shown on this return, go to box 6. 5 Nil return I confirm that no payments have been made to subcontractors in the construction industry in this period. Put 'X' in the box below. If you make a mistake cross out the wrong information and write the correct information underneath. Page 2 only includes details for 4 subcontractors, if we hold details for more we will send you continuation sheets CIS300(CS). Please look at them before filling in page 3. If you do not plan to pay subcontractors for a while place an 'X' in the box and we can stop sending you returns for the next six months. IMPORTANT - You must tell us as soon as you start paying subcontractors again as it is your responsibility to ensure a monthly return is submitted when one is due. Now go straight to box 8. If you want to tell us that you have not paid any contractors in the month using the return form, place an 'X' in the box. If you tell us by phone, Internet or EDI, you do not have to send us your return. 6 Employment status The **employment status** of each individual included on this return, and any continuation sheets, has been considered and payments have not been made under contracts of employment. Put 'X' in the box below. 7 Verified subcontractors You must consider the employment status for each individual you have included on the return and place a 'X' in the box to confirm that payments have not been made under contracts of employment. Every subcontractor included on this return, and any continuation sheets, has either been **verified** with HM Revenue & Customs, or has been included in previous CIS returns in this, or the previous two tax years. Put 'X' in the box below. ## What To Do Next • If you fill in any continuation sheets you must send them back at the same time as your main monthly return otherwise your monthly return is incomplete. • Please do not fold or staple any sheets together - keep them flat and use the envelope provided. • Please send your completed return, including any continuation sheets, to: HM Revenue & Customs, Construction Industry Scheme, Comben House, Farriers Way, BOOTLE, L69 9ZX. If you have verified every subcontractor included on this return or have included them on a previous return in this tax year or the two previous tax years you must place an 'X' in the box. • If a payment is due, send it to your HMRC Accounts Office and not with this return. See your P30BC - Payslip Booklet for notes on how to pay. CIS300(Man) Only use when you have lost your original pre-populated CIS300. Phone **0845 366 7899** to get a manual return. CIS300(CS) Pre-populated continuation sheet - sent with your CIS300 Contractor's monthly return if we hold details for more than four subcontractors. C1 01 Contractor's monthly return ## Payments To Subcontractors Continued References And Month Ending CIS Helpline 0845 366 7899 We need these details so we can be sure we have received your return for the correct month. What is your Accounts Office reference number? Take this from the front of your Payslip Booklet What is the month ending for this return? (The tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the P What is your Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR)? This is the 10-digit number at the top of your Tax Return Your monthly return Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. Only fill in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 if you have made a deduction on account of tax from what you paid the subcontractor. You need to tell us the correct month so that we can update your records. The month should reflect when payments were made. When filling in a CIS300(Man) you need to tell us your Accounts Office reference number and your UTR. Month to which the return relates. Use these references when contacting us. Call this number if you - need further information about filling in a return - have made a mistake after you have sent a return - need a replacement return. You can register to fill in your monthly return online at www.hmrc.gov.uk/new-cis Please turn over 123PA123456780606 ## Payments To Subcontractors Continued If you made payment to any subcontractors we have not listed on your monthly return, or on a continuation sheet, please fill in the white boxes below. Only fill in details for those subcontractors you have paid. If you have more than two, you need to fill in blank continuation sheets, CIS300 (CS) (Man), and send to us with your monthly return. Supplies of these forms were enclosed with your Contractor Pack. You can get further supplies from the CIS Orderline on **0845 366 7899**. Enter the total amount paid to the subcontractor in the month. Enter the total cost of materials for the month. Enter the total amount deducted in the month. If you have paid more than two subcontractors we have not listed, please fill in blank continuation sheets CIS300 (CS) (Man) and send to us with your monthly return. You can get supplies from your Contractor Pack or, if you have run out, from the CIS Orderline on **0845 366 7899**. If you need to tell us of payments made to other subcontractors please use the CIS300(CS)(Man) continuation sheet. Please turn over 8 If you do not anticipate paying subcontractors in the next six months, put 'X' in the box below. This means we will not send you a monthly return unnecessarily. But, you must let us know when you start to pay subcontractors again by phoning the CIS Helpline or writing to your HMRC office. 9 Please sign below to confirm the declaration made at either box 5 or boxes 6 and 7. We may penalise or prosecute you if you make false statements. The information I have given on this return is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Unsigned returns will not be accepted and will be sent back to you. If we receive your return later than the 19th of the month you will incur a penalty. 11 Please send your return to this address by the 19th of the month otherwise you will incur a penalty. You should get your return back to us by this date regardless of whether you are in discussion with us about any issues concerning the return. ## Cis300(Cs)(Man) Blank Continuation Sheet Contractor's monthly return PAGE 4 Blank continuation sheet Contractor's monthly return Blank continuation sheet ## References And Month Ending We need these details so we can identify you on our records. You can copy all this information from the front page of your Contractor's monthly return. Please fill in these boxes for each continuation sheet you use. What is your Accounts Office reference number? P What is the month ending for this return? (The tax month runs from the 6th of one month to the 5th of the next.) 0 5 M M 2 0 Y Y What is your Contractor's unique tax reference (UTR)? ## Payments To Subcontractors For each continuation sheet you use enter the Accounts Office reference shown on the CIS300 or from the front of your *Payslip booklet* along with your UTR. Don't forget to enter the month that is shown on the CIS300 as well.

en

3994-pdf

## Memorandum Of Understanding # Between The Health And Safety Executive (Hse) And The Office Of Rail And Road (Orr) Signed by Richard Judge, Chief Executive on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive on 19 January 2017 Signed by Joanna Whittington, Chief Executive on behalf of the Office of Rail and Road on 15 December 2016 ## C O N T E N T S Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Health And Safety Executive And The Office Of Rail And Road | Topic: | Page/Annex | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | PART I | 4 | | Framework of understanding | 4 | | Introduction | 4 | | Purpose of this MoU | 5 | | Liaison Arrangements | 5 | | Central Contact Points | 5 | | Resolving disagreements | 6 | | Liaison | 6 | | MoU Review Arrangements | 6 | | PART II | 7 | | Arrangements for the provision of mutual advice and support in policy development | 7 | | and enforcement activity | | | Principles | 7 | | Nature of support between HSE and ORR | 7 | | Arrangements for the provision of specialist support | 8 | | Procedure for requesting specialist resource | 8 | | Policy development | 8 | | Research | 9 | | Exemptions and other policy processes | 9 | | Statutory notifications and complaints | 9 | | The reporting of railway-related occupational road fatalities | 9 | | Sharing statistical information. | 9 | | Financial arrangements | 9 | | Civil contingencies | 10 | | Out of hours response | 10 | | Clarification of investigation arrangements | 10 | | Enforcement | 10 | | Liaison with emergency services | 11 | | Access to HSE's internal advice and guidance on health and safety legislation and | 11 | | enforcement | | | Training and Development | 11 | | Appendix A | 12 | | Enforcement responsibilities: relationship between ORR and HSE | 12 | | General approach to the allocation of enforcement responsibilities | 12 | | What is the extent of ORR's enforcement authority? Regulations 3(1) and 3(2) | 14 | | Regulation 3(3) - duties of designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers | 14 | | Regulation 3(6) - effect of EARR on provisions in EA 98 | 15 | | Regulation 3 - effect of allocations for particular activities | 15 | | Stations occupied by a railway undertaking | 15 | | Training activities | 16 | | Light Maintenance | 16 | | Entities in charge of maintenance | 16 | | Factories | 17 | | Signalling, electrical and operational control centres | 17 | | Non-railway premises | 17 | | Museums and heritage centres not part of a 'heritage' railway | 17 | | Railway systems in military establishments | 17 | | Devonport Royal Dockyard | 18 | | Railways at airports | 18 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Channel Tunnel UK concession area | 19 | | Carriage of dangerous goods | 19 | | Radiation emergencies | 19 | | British Transport Police (and security of railways) | 19 | | Regulation 4 exceptions | 20 | | Cableway installations | 20 | | Fairground equipment | 20 | | Guided buses | 20 | | Railway-related occupational road safety | 21 | | Provision of bus substitution services | 21 | | Miniature railways | 21 | | Harbours | 21 | | The operation of pier railways and tramways | 22 | | Railway systems within industrial sites | 22 | | Mines | 22 | | Quarries | 22 | | Railway systems within inter-modal depots | 23 | | Level crossings | 23 | | Construction Work Regulation 5 | 24 | | ORR's enforcement role | 25 | | HSE's enforcement role | 25 | | Situations where both EAs are required to reach an agreement on allocation of | 26 | | responsibility based on the circumstances of the case | | | Major infrastructure projects (new-build railways) | 26 | | Bridges spanning the railway | 27 | | Bridges spanning the railway where there is no construction activity | 27 | | Work with asbestos | 28 | | Gas Safety | 28 | | HSE's liaison with ORR on RAIB's recommendations | 28 | | Annex 1: Road Vehicle Incursions - new Agreement on Enforcement Authority | 29 | | Annex 2: ORR's new strategic road network monitoring role | 30 | | 31-34 | Annex 3: Agency Agreement between HSE and ORR on Enforcement Functions in | | relation to the Design of Railways, Tramways and Other Systems of Guided | | | Transport | | | Annex 4: cross-referenced A-Z listing of railway-related enforcement topic areas | 35 | | | | ## Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Health And Safety Executive And The Office Of Rail And Road Part I Framework Of Understanding Introduction 1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is made between the Chief Executives of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). Its purpose is to ensure effective coordination and cooperation between these organisations in relation to the regulation of health and safety, including policy matters and the enforcement of health and safety law, on all Britain's railways, tramways and other guided transport systems. This version includes a new Annex 3 dealing with the enforcement functions relating to the Design of Railways, Tramways and Other Systems of Guided Transport. It replaces the previous MoUs, including the most recent 2015 version. 2. HSE and ORR recognise each other's status as independent health and safety regulators. In accordance with the better regulation principles, we are committed to work closely together to achieve our health and safety objectives, and to ensure coordinated and consistent jointworking where appropriate. 3. HSE considers, in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), that this MoU facilitates the performance of its functions under part 1 of HSWA. ORR considers, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 (RA 2005), that this MoU contributes to the provision of appropriate arrangements for fulfilling its duties in relation to the *railway safety purposes*. 4. HSE and ORR undertake to cooperate to enable each other to carry out their responsibilities and functions, and to maintain effective working arrangements for that purpose. This MoU describes the arrangements HSE and ORR will put in place to assist this. 5. HSE and ORR undertake to:  secure through their regulatory activity, including enforcement, consistent standards of protection for people at work and members of the public affected by work activities;  share knowledge and avoid duplication of effort to maximise efficiency in government and minimise burdens on business;  cooperate to ensure that the allocation of responsibilities set out in the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (EARR) works effectively and provides clarification for duty holders as necessary;  ensure that the development of general health and safety policy takes account of issues relevant to the railways and that mutual research interests are considered; and  provide mutual expertise and assistance to enable the two organisations to fulfil their functions. ## Purpose Of This Mou 6. The RA 2005 transfers responsibility for railway-related health and safety matters from HSE to ORR by giving ORR responsibility for the application of HSWA Part 1 in respect of 'railway safety purposes'. This means that ORR has policy responsibility for any health and safety risks that either exclusively or primarily concern the construction or operation of railways, tramways or other guided transport systems. RA 2005 (Schedule 3, paragraph 10) requires ORR and HSE to enter into arrangements to secure 'cooperation and the exchange of information, in connection with the carrying out of safety functions'. 7. The Railways Act 2005 (Amendment) Regulations 2006 remove 'guided bus systems' and 'trolley vehicle systems' from the definition of 'railway safety purposes', so these systems remain with HSE. These Regulations also make it clear that 'transport system' does not include fairground equipment as defined in section 53 of HSWA. 8. EARR allocates enforcement functions to ORR and defines who the enforcing authority (EA) is for particular activities and in relation to certain premises. **Appendix A** (page 12) of this MoU describes how this will work in practice. ## Liaison Arrangements 9. The following liaison arrangements will be adopted: ORR HSE Frequency Purpose Chief Executive Chief Executive Annual To review the success of the MoU in ensuring an effective partnership between ORR and HSE. ORR operational Workplace Road and/or policy Transport Team twice a year (or more as necessary) (JET) representative(s) (to be determined) To discuss current and emerging or important legal and enforcement issues. ## Central Contact Points 10. Each organisation will have a named single central contact point responsible for monitoring the practical implementation and effective working of the MoU and to assist good working relationships between the organisations. The contact should be made aware of major issues relating to how the MoU works, and will participate in the preparation of briefing for the annual liaison meetings. 11. The role of the central contact points will be to: a. act as a gatekeeper to help colleagues make contact with the right people in ORR and HSE. This includes maintaining up to date contact details for HSE's Heads of Specialist Groups, HSE Construction Division, ORR Area Field Teams and ORR National Expertise Teams; b. monitor how well the MoU is working and provide briefing on this for the senior-level liaison meetings; c. monitor the level of demand for support made throughout each year, making regular contact with their opposite number if necessary to compare and confirm levels of demand by each organisation; d. assist in resolving any disputes between ORR and HSE; and e. champion the interests of the other party so that knowledge of the MoU, and the mutual needs of both ORR and HSE, is maintained. ## Resolving Disagreements 12. Any disagreements will normally be resolved at working-level. If this is not possible, the central contact points will seek to settle the issue and ensure a mutually satisfactory resolution. Senior management of both parties at appropriate levels will be involved as necessary. ## Liaison 13. In practice, most contacts between ORR and HSE will arise in the context of day-to-day operations, often at regional principal inspector-level. It is the responsibility of individuals in both organisations to identify topics requiring liaison between the two organisations, and ensure that they are dealt with efficiently and effectively. 14. A separate MoU exists between ORR and Local Authorities. A separate MoU also exists between ORR and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). ## Mou Review Arrangements 15. This MoU will be reviewed and updated using the following principles: a) reviewed approximately every five years or sooner if a substantive need arises; b) the arrangements for the provision of mutual advice and support described in Part II (see page 7) and the collaborative work set out in all the annexes of this document can be reviewed and amended through the agreement of both parties at working-level from time-to-time, as appropriate and needed. This includes scrutiny of actual resources used against predicted usage. c) key findings and any proposals for changing the MoU will first be considered as part of routine ORR/HSE liaison arrangements; and d) the detailed working arrangements set out in Appendix A may be clarified or amended from time-to-time outside the formal procedures for reviewing this MoU, but must secure the agreement of both parties in writing. ## Part Ii Arrangements For The Provision Of Mutual Advice And Support In Policy Development And Enforcement Activity 16. In the railway context, ORR is responsible for enforcing non-railway-specific health and safety legislation relating to risks, such as noise and manual handling. HSE has enforcement responsibility in respect of certain railway activity, as described in EARR, such as within industrial sites. Therefore, both HSE and ORR have an interest in the development of each other's policy and regulations, and technical knowledge relating to those areas, and will require advice, information and support from each other. 17. Both HSE and ORR will give advice to one another on their own areas of expertise as part of the normal working relationships between two government departments. However, both will need to communicate proactively with and seek more substantive support from each other from time-to-time, in particular where expertise in support of enforcement activity and/or policy development is needed. ## Principles 18. As enforcing authorities of health and safety law, HSE and ORR: a) recognise the importance of their close working relationships, formal consultation and mutual support in health and safety policy development, enforcement and research; b) agree to provide annual outline estimates of the specialist resources each will seek from the other based on regulatory priority areas, in good time, and in accordance with each other's planning cycle, recognising the need for flexibility in order to respond to the demands of reactive work; and c) will make adequate arrangements for the reimbursement of significant costs for the provision of mutual advice and support to each other on an, as near as possible, monthly basis and will monitor the demands each makes of the other, and maintain appropriate records centrally. ## Nature Of Support Between Hse And Orr 19. HSE will provide support to ORR's health and safety functions which extends, but is not necessarily limited to: a) 'railways' - which includes tramways and other guided transport systems throughout the rest of this MoU, where applicable - health and safety policy development; b) the provision of specialist support and advice *- see paragraph 21 -* to assist formal enforcement action and in connection with the railway; and c) the investigation and monitoring of occupational fatalities, injuries, industrial diseases, ill-health or harm and dangerous occurrences in connection with the railway1. 20. ORR will provide policy input from a railway perspective to support HSE's work-related health and safety functions, as it relates to ORR's health and safety work on Britain's railways which will include, but is not limited to: a) occupational health and safety policy development as they relate to the railway; b) the provision of specialist advice and opinion in support of enforcement action in connection with the railway; and c) the investigation of occupational fatalities, injuries and industrial dangerous occurrences in connection with the railway. ## A**Rrangements For The Provision Of Specialist Support** 21. HSE will provide specialist ergonomist and psychologist support to ORR on risks from occupational health risks (such as occupational hygiene, noise and vibration, ergonomics and stress), ionising radiation, construction and civil, mechanical and electrical engineering, pesticides and other health and safety hazards, such as on manual handling and hand-arm vibration issues; and appropriate support from HSE Scotland on Scottish legal matters. ORR will provide specialist support to HSE on risks from railway activity remaining within HSE's remit, for example, railways within industrial sites, cableways and fairground equipment. 22. ORR and HSE agree in principle to provide reciprocal specialist support in response to major incidents as needed and recognise the potential need to provide support in response to major incidents on an ad-hoc basis. ## Procedure For Requesting Specialist Resource 23. To gain access to HSE's Specialist Group resource, ORR's Principal Inspectors, or more appropriate ORR personnel, should inform the ORR's central contact point before contacting the appropriate head of specialist group resource provider in HSE. 24. In agreeing with ORR about the nature of the specialist support required, HSE's head of specialist group or specialist unit will consider the level of hazard and risk associated with the issues, in the same way as for a request from within HSE and take appropriate account of its operational and strategic priorities. Details of the level of resource supplied to each job will be confirmed on its conclusion and recorded by ORR's and HSE's central contact points. 25. To gain access to support from HSE's operational teams, ORR's Principal Inspectors should contact the relevant HSE Head of Operations. Details of the level of resource supplied for each job will be confirmed on its conclusion and recorded by the ORR's and HSE's central contact points. 26. To gain access to support from ORR's operational teams, HSE's team managers must contact the relevant ORR Principal Inspector, or more appropriate ORR personnel, and inform the HSE central contact point. Details of the level of resource supplied for each job will be confirmed on its conclusion of and recorded by HSE's and ORR's central contact points. ## Policy Development 27. HSE and ORR agree to involve proactively one another as appropriate in relevant policy development. This may cover, for example:  policy issues where the two organisations have a common interest in legislation and a consistent approach is necessary, such as dealing with international regulation;  cross-departmental policy initiatives, such as better regulation, where mutual legal and policy issues may exist and coordination of response would be desirable;  determining strategies and targets to improve generic health and safety standards, and developing programmes or other coordinated cross-industry initiatives to help achieve them;  developing statistical or other information systems on health and safety, and the sharing of such information; and  responding to formal consultation exercises on health and safety matters; each will normally include the other as statutory consultees. Where changes to legislation are involved, informal consultation should precede the publication of a consultation document (CD) to allow both regulators to raise and discuss any implications for regulatory activity before publication of the CD. ## Research 28. HSE and ORR will also consult one another, as appropriate, when proposals for health and safety research to be funded by either organisation may have relevance to the other. ## Exemptions And Other Policy Processes 29. Applications from the railway industry for exemption from general (i.e. not railway-specific) health and safety legislation will be dealt with by HSE, who will consult ORR where practicable and inform ORR of the outcome of its deliberations. 30. Similarly, where employers make use of other HSE policy processes, such as appeals against a doctor's decision under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, HSE may inform ORR of the appeal and its outcome. ## Statutory Notifications And Complaints 31. Legislation makes arrangements for certain persons to notify enforcing authorities of certain events or concerns, such as accidents and dangerous occurrences. It is likely that from time to time notifications about health and safety will be sent to the wrong EA. 32. When HSE or ORR receive an incorrectly directed notification, they will arrange for it to be supplied promptly in an agreed format and delivery medium to the appropriate organisation through their nominated central policy-level contact point. Periodic provision will be made to review whether the sign-posting provided to industry for notify reportable incidents is operating effectively. ## The Reporting Of Railway-Related Occupational Road Fatalities 33. HSE will ensure that all railway-related occupational road fatalities are reported to ORR in an agreed format and delivery medium. ## Sharing Statistical Information 34. HSE has to report annually on incidences of ill-health, injuries and numbers of working days lost across all industries. To help monitor cross-industry progress it will need to obtain statistical information from ORR. 35. HSE's Corporate Medical Unit appoint, monitor and support the work of HSE-Appointed Doctors, who undertake statutory medical surveillance of employees whose work with specified hazards requires that they be supervised under certain health and safety legislation. For statutory enforcement purposes, HSE will provide ORR's Information and Analysis team with the case details of railway employees whose blood lead-levels exceed those that require them to be suspended from working with lead under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. Any sharing of personal data and sensitive personal data for such purposes shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, so far as it is applicable. 36. In order to maintain consistent recording of health and safety statistics for Great Britain, ORR will provide end of year statistics (provisional and final) for HSE's annual report as required. ## Financial Arrangements 37. HSE and ORR recognise that the cost of providing significant levels of support from technical and other specialists must be measured, recorded and reimbursed. HSE and ORR will recover the full costs of reciprocal services in accordance with HM Treasury guidelines in Managing Public Money. Invoices will be raised on a twice yearly basis with a reconciliation towards the end of each financial year. Any exceptional resource requirements, over and above Business As Usual (BAU) at historic levels, will need to be agreed in advance and more regular invoicing arrangements put in place. 38. In Scotland, ORR or HSE will, when requesting the other party to provide expert witness opinion in criminal and civil health and safety cases, underwrite the expert witness costs of the other party as appropriate and on a case-by-case basis. ## **Civil Contingencies** 39. HSE is a category two responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which requires it to provide support during emergency planning and in response to any major civil contingency event. 40. As Network Rail, Transport for London and all train and railway infrastructure operating companies are also included on the list of category two responders, they are able to provide the necessary advice when planning for or responding to emergencies involving railway transport. 41. ORR will provide HSE with any additional advice on matters within its field of expertise as necessary to enable HSE to fulfil its duties under this legislation. ## Out Of Hours Response 42. ORR's and HSE's Out-of-Hours Duty Officers will hold each other's contact details, and will maintain appropriate guidance liaison arrangements as appropriate. ## Clarification Of Investigation Arrangements 43. The respective enforcement responsibilities are set out in EARR. In cases where both HSE and ORR have enforcement responsibilities at the same site, such as at harbours or intermodal depots, ORR will be responsible for any incident connected with the operation of the railway, while HSE will be responsible for all other at-work activities. ORR and HSE will apply their own specific criteria and priorities to inform decisions about whether to investigate or not; neither organisation can mandate the other's investigation decisions, but there is an overall expectation of mutual co-operation and liaison. 44. Where an incident occurs at the interface between activities enforced by HSE and ORR, discussions at local principal inspector-level should be used to allocate enforcement lead roles and responsibilities, and to decide what action, if any, will be taken. For example where a failure occurs during loading or unloading operations at a multi-modal container depot, the technical or organisational issues around the failure of the lifting equipment or process would be for HSE, but railway-related issues, such as a load striking a shunter, would be for ORR. 45. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) has the prime responsibility for investigating serious incidents involving train movements, and there is a separate ORR/RAIB MoU which describes this. RAIB's role is limited to establishing the technical causes of an incident and making recommendations overseen by ORR, as Britain's national railway safety authority, including those directed at other parties. ORR retains the responsibility for investigating accidents with a view to establishing any legal breaches of health and safety and railwayspecific law and taking appropriate enforcement action against railway employers. ## Enforcement 46. HSE and ORR have the same powers under HSWA, for their respective areas of enforcement, which includes powers to issue improvement and prohibition notices, formal cautions and to bring legal proceedings. HSE and ORR are guided by their own respective published enforcement policy statements, of which both set out expectations and performance standards. 47. Where either HSE or ORR inspectors observe *matters of evident concern* in areas of the site being visited for which they are not the EA, these should be brought to the attention of the applicable EA in the following way:  where a risk of serious personal injury appears to be involved, notify the EA immediately by telephone so that the EA can consider issuing a prohibition notice. The EA should inform the other authority of the action decided; or  in other less serious and immediate cases, notify the EA in writing. 48. Both HSE and ORR will provide each other with supporting information and expertise, if necessary, to support any notice subsequently issued by the EA. 49. If these matters are within the responsibility of another EA, the receiving authority will forward the notification as appropriate and advise the original inspector. The initiative for any further action to rectify any inadequacy then rests with the appropriate EA. 50. Where HSE and ORR have a shared interest, they should keep each other informed about issues of interest to both parties, such as identified weaknesses in a company's health and safety management system. ## Liaison With Emergency Services 51. HSE is the EA for the premises occupied by the emergency services, and their activities. However, ORR will liaise closely with the emergency services when they are carrying out their operational duties on the railway, mostly during operational responses to incidents. Any causes for concern, which relate to the emergency services' practices or procedures, will be referred to HSE. 52. ORR will provide support on railway-related issues for any interventions carried out by HSE. ## Access To Hse'S Internal Advice And Guidance On Health And Safety Legislation And Enforcement 53. HSE will provide ORR's inspectors with access to its internal advice on interpretation of health and safety legislation. This will be by advice from, among others, HSE Sectors and policy teams. HSE will bring to ORR's attention any significant changes in its key operational procedures, such as the Enforcement Management Model. ## Training And Development 54. As there are many common inspector competence requirements, the participation of ORR inspectors in joint training sessions with HSE inspectors is desirable where this is appropriate and relevant, including the involvement of new ORR inspectors on the Regulator's Training Programme (RTP). HSE will work with ORR managers to exchange learning and development strategies and plans. HSE and ORR will identify and make available opportunities to share or cooperate in training activities wherever this is desirable and practical. HSE and ORR will identify and make available opportunities to share or cooperate in training activities wherever this is desirable and practical. HSE and ORR will meet reasonable costs for participation in such events either through transfer of funds or through an agreed contribution in kind. Cooperation in staff development may include arrangements for the exchange of inspectors. ## Enforcement Responsibilities: Relationship Between Orr And Hse General Approach To The Allocation Of Enforcement Responsibilities A1. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport systems) Regulations 2006 (EARR) (as amended) made ORR the health and safety enforcing authority (EA) for the operation of railways, tramways and other systems of guided transport in place of HSE2. A2. Irrespective of the allocation of EA responsibilities, ORR has regulatory (i.e. overall policy) responsibility for all 'railway safety purposes', as defined by the Railways Act 2005 (RA 2005)3, in connection with the construction or operation of railways, tramways, or transport systems using any other mode of guided transport. The definition of 'railway safety purposes' specifically excludes fairground equipment (as defined by s.53 HSWA), guided bus systems and trolley vehicles. HSE regulates (i.e. develops overall policy) on all generic health and safety matters, such as working at heights or exposure to dangerous chemicals. A3. The allocation of enforcement responsibilities in EARR enshrines some broad principles, namely:  ORR would deliver the enforcement responsibilities formerly delivered within HSE by HMRI, unless there are overriding reasons otherwise;  wherever possible, there should be a single EA for railway industry duty holders and stakeholders, particularly avoiding circumstances where HSE and ORR both enforce at the same location; and  the EA should be determined by the principal nature of the activity which is being carried out and is causing the risk; and should take account of the relevant expertise available to both HSE and ORR. In other words, the EA is established on the basis of the operation that creates the risk and not on where the effects of the risk may be felt. ORR will be the EA where a risk is part of a railway operation, even where an incident then causes effects outside the railway. For example, an incident with a train results in damage to non-railway premises. Equally, operations enforced by HSE will remain within HSE's enforcement remit, even if the risks affect the railway. For example where masonry from an HSE-enforced construction site could fall on to the railway line. ## A4. Earr Makes Orr The Ea For The 'Operation Of A Railway'4 Which Includes:  railway infrastructure integrity and its use;  railway vehicle or rolling stock safe design, maintenance and use; ##  train preparation;  train movements and carriage of goods; and  the operation of stations or light maintenance depots. A5. In all other cases enforcement falls to HSE, except where allocated to local authorities (LAs) under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998 (EA 98), or alternative EAs under other regulations made under section 15(3)(c) of HSWA. From 1 April 2014 the Office of Nuclear Regulation has an enforcement role for Britain's nuclear sites and ORR is developing a separate MoU with ONR. A6. Where either HSE or ORR is described as the EA, this means in respect of all health and safety legislation. For ease of reference, this document also refers to the enforcement responsibilities of LAs, although they are not a party to this MoU. A7. EARR uses the term 'operation of a railway' as a description of the activities for which ORR is the EA. 'Operation of a railway' includes the use of railway infrastructure. It also includes activities carried out within railway premises, including the common parts of stations, and may include activities being carried out elsewhere, such as premises used for the operation and monitoring of railway communications, even when that centre is not within operational railway premises. This term is defined widely and is not limited solely by the specified activities in regulation 2 of EARR *- see paragraph A11*. ORR is also the EA for section 6 of HSWA as it relates to articles and substances exclusively or primarily for railway usage - *see paragraphs A15-A16*. A8. ORR's enforcement role is limited by EARR regulation 4, which lists exceptions to the activities for which ORR is the EA. In most cases, HSE is the EA for these excepted activities, other than where LAs are the EA under EA 98. There are some premises where both ORR and HSE have enforcement responsibilities - see paragraph A69-70, for example. In these interface areas, HSE's and ORR's responsibilities are set out in EARR. A95. The following paragraphs describe how EARR allocates the EA and provides guidance and clarification on areas where there is a potential for ambiguity. There is no provision under EARR for enforcement allocations to be transferred between HSE and ORR by mutual agreement (i.e. the local transfer agreements allowed for under EA 98 are not possible for activities covered by EARR). In instances where, having read the relevant paragraphs in the MoU, an ambiguity about the EA still remains, then HSE and ORR inspectors should use their collective knowledge to work together transparently and quickly to reach a common understanding of which organisation has enforcement responsibility under EARR. The starting point for inspectors will be the definition within EARR for the 'operation of a railway' and the non-exhaustive list of examples, as well as considering whether one of the exceptions in EARR applies. If HSE and ORR inspectors cannot reach a common understanding, then ORR inspectors should swiftly seek additional advice from ORR's RSD Policy Team, who may in turn recommend seeking advice from the ORR Legal Team. For HSE Inspectors, advice should be sought from HSE's Transport Sector team. The frequency and type of situations where inspectors seek additional advice will be captured, and may in time inform future clarifications or guidance. In seeking to resolve ambiguity, HSE and ORR inspectors should also note the Out of Hours response arrangements noted elsewhere in this MoU. Additionally, both ORR and HSE are signatories to the Work Related Death Protocols for England and Wales, and Scotland. Inspectors should apply the multi-agency liaison arrangements set out in these protocols in instances where there are fatalities, noting the protocols can also be the basis for arrangements in any serious, non-fatal, multi-agency investigations. ## What Is The Extent Of Orr'S Enforcement Authority? *Regulations 3(1) And 3(2)* A10. Regulation 3(1) of EARR makes ORR the EA for all relevant statutory provisions under HSWA to the extent that they relate to the operation of a railway, tramway or other guided transport system. This is the case even if, by virtue of EA 98, those activities take place at premises where HSE or an LA is the EA, and includes activities at premises occupied by the Crown6. A11. Under EARR, ORR is the EA for any railway which either has a gauge of at least 350mm, or crosses a carriageway, (whether or not at the same level), and for any tramways7. The term 'operation of a railway' is defined in regulation 2 of EARR by reference to a non-exclusive list of activities. It is not limited to particular premises and, therefore, may extend beyond the physical boundary of a railway. This means that some activities at railway access points, such as railway employees unloading goods from lorries on the public highway for use on the railway, would be within the meaning of 'operation of a railway'. A12. ORR's enforcement remit is subject to the exceptions in EARR regulations 4 and 5 - see paragraphs A53–A93. A13. The enforcement of the mainline railway, metro and light railway systems, minor railways, tramways, and guided transport systems, such as monorails and people movers, is allocated to ORR by EARR regulation 3(2). Guided bus systems are not included8. ## Regulation 3(3) - Duties Of Designers, Manufacturers, Importers And Suppliers A14. Under the RA 2005, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, ORR's regulatory (i.e. overall policy) responsibility for 'railway safety purposes' includes developing policy with a view to securing the proper construction of transport systems and the proper construction of locomotives, rolling stock or other vehicles used, or to be used, on such systems. A15. Complementary to this function, regulation 3(3) of EARR makes ORR the EA for section 6 of HSWA in respect of articles and substances for use in transport systems. This is limited to articles that are designed or constructed, either exclusively or primarily, for use on a transport system, or have been specifically adapted or modified for use on such a system. Similar considerations apply to the manufacture, import or supply of substances. A16. An example would be a road/railway vehicle designed as a piece of construction plant, but then adapted for use on the railway infrastructure. ORR would be responsible for following up any issues about the railway running part (e.g. how the brakes work when switching from one mode to the other on the railway), while HSE would have the lead in pursuing section 6 enquiries for a brake failure which could equally well have occurred on the road. So, HSE will continue to have enforcement responsibility for some failures of equipment not exclusively used on the railway, even if the failure occurs while the equipment is used on the railway. A17. ORR inspectors deal with manufacturers and suppliers, including visiting their premises as appropriate to enforce railway-related design and supply issues only, but not other occupational health and safety legislation, which are enforced by either HSE or LAs as appropriate. In discharging its duty under s.6 of HSWA, ORR may take enforcement action at premises outside of the operation of a railway where elements of railway design and supply activities take place in those premises. ORR's inspectors can use the established mechanism *– see Part II paragraph 47 -* to raise matters of evident concern about any workplace health, safety and welfare issues with other relevant EAs identified by site visits. A18. Similarly, EARR regulation 3(4) makes ORR the EA for section 6(3) of HSWA with regard to the erection or installation of articles for use in the operation of a railway. ## Regulation 3 (6) - Effect Of Earr On Provisions In Ea 98 A19. Regulation 3(6) of EARR ensures that the allocation to ORR in regulation 3 has effect, regardless of anything to the contrary in various provisions of EA 98. For example, under EA 98, the LA is the EA for office-based activities9. However, under EARR, ORR is the EA for railway offices within the same premises, such as signalling control centres or centres used for the operation of communications systems or for monitoring the 'operation of the railway'10. Likewise, regulations 3(3) and 3(4) of EARR take precedence over regulation 4(4)(a) of the EA 98 in respect of matters relating to the 'operation of a railway'. A20. ORR enforces relevant statutory provisions in respect of county councils, LAs and the Crown and their premises to the extent that they come under the activities in regulation 3(2)11, i.e. the operation of a railway, tramway or other guided transport system. ## Regulation 3 - Effect Of Allocations For Particular Activities Stations Occupied By A Railway Undertaking And Non-Railway Premises A21. ORR is the EA for stations12, including the common parts, station car parks, railway offices, ticket offices, left luggage and lost property facilities, but excluding those parts of stations occupied by a separate business engaged in office, retail, catering or other consumer services13. The relevant LA is the EA for these separate businesses. The exceptions to this are: dry-cleaning establishments, which could be found at large stations; radio and TV repairs (highly unlikely to be found on station premises); and walk-in health centres, for which HSE is the EA. ORR is the EA for some activities of non-railway duty holders at stations, e.g. movement of goods across a station concourse for loading/unloading of a train. This activity is covered by the term 'operation of a railway'. A22. Separately, occupied parts of operational premises in which non-railway related activities are carried out are not part of operational railways premises. For example, LAs remain the EA for newsagents, even where they are located within a railway station14. LAs are also the EA for any railway-related office or catering activities not carried out on operational premises. For example, in office buildings occupied by railway companies but separate from a station15. ## Training Activities A23. ORR is the EA for any training that forms part of the operation of a railway, or if it takes place within operational railway premises, including signal cabins and control centres16. For example, personal track safety training or possession management training. A24. Where training takes place in operational railway premises, including signal cabins and control centres, ORR will be the EA. Where training takes place elsewhere, ORR will be the EA for the training, but HSE or the LA will be the EA for the premises. ## Light Maintenance A25. 'Light maintenance depots' are premises normally used for light maintenance services, whether or not they are also used for other purposes. 'Light maintenance services' are defined in regulation 2 as refuelling, cleaning and planned maintenance normally carried out at intervals of up to twelve months. 'Maintenance' includes the detection and rectification of faults. ORR is the EA for light maintenance depots even where the depot is not connected to the network, or owned or operated by a railway undertaking. A26. ORR is the EA for the parking, sheltering, maintenance and repair of any rail, tram or other guided transport vehicle including its inspection, cleaning, fuelling and preparation for use17. ## Entities In Charge Of Maintenance A27. An entity in charge of maintenance (ECM) is any person or organisation that is responsible for the safe maintenance of a railway vehicle and is registered as an ECM in the national vehicle register18. This can include people or organisations such as a train operator, an owner or a maintenance organisation. A28. Regulation 4(4A) of EARR makes ORR the EA in relation to maintenance work by an ECM on a vehicle to be put in service on the mainline railway. This applies where ever that maintenance work is carried out, including  harbours;  factories;  mines;  GB nuclear sites;  quarries;  warehouse premises; and  establishments to which the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 apply. ## Factories A29. Activities in factories except activities of ECMs, are enforced by HSE, irrespective of whether or not the site is occupied by a railway undertaking or connected to the network19. This includes those premises that build or renovate railway vehicles or rolling stock, or manufacture or repair components for use on the railway. Note that under EARR there are some exceptions (by virtue of Regulation 2 of EARR) as to what might be otherwise considered a factory and in these cases ORR is the EA as explained below. A30. ORR is the EA for light maintenance depots and for any renovation, refurbishment, repair or reconstruction work to locomotives or railway vehicles carried out at heritage railway premises, if the premises form part of the heritage railway and are used exclusively or primarily by the heritage railway. ## Signalling, Electrical And Operational Control Centres A31. ORR is the EA for the activities of signalling, electrical and operational control centres operated from within administrative buildings, or from other premises, whether adjacent to or remote from the railway20. ## Non-Railway Premises A32. EARR identifies certain premises on the railway as 'operational premises'. These include the permanent way, stations, light maintenance depots and land next to the permanent way that is used, occupied or held for railways purposes. However, separately occupied parts of operational premises, in which non-railway related activities are carried out, are not operational premises. For example, as covered in A21, LAs remain the EA for newsagents, even where they are located within a railway station. A33. LAs are also the EA for any railway-related office or catering activities not carried out on operational premises. For example, in office buildings occupied by railway companies but which are separate from a station21. ## Museums And Heritage Centres Not Part Of A 'Heritage' Railway A34. Where a railway is operated at a museum or heritage attraction, ORR is the EA for the operation of the railway. This will include museums where running vehicles are exhibited and which may be moved on a railway system around and/or out of the museum site. Any surrounding and associated activities would also fall to ORR, in so far as they form a part of the operation of the railway. A35. When a railway at a museum is operated on a seasonal basis, ORR is the EA even when the railway is dormant. However, where a museum houses static exhibits which are not operated then ORR will not be the EA. As an example, if a museum decided to steam a locomotive to demonstrate the operation of the boiler but it did not move, ORR would not be the EA. ORR would, however, be EA for the steaming of a locomotive or operation of the boiler in preparation for the operation of a railway vehicle22. ## Railway Systems In Military Establishments A36. To provide consistency of approach, under EARR, ORR is the EA for all railways in military establishments, with the exception of Britain's nuclear sites which includes certain naval dockyards23 which as of 1 April 2014 are regulated by ONR. However, ORR is the EA on a GB nuclear site in relation to the activities of an ECM24. ORR is the EA for any activity covered by the term 'operation of a railway', e.g. maintenance and safe operation, train preparation and train movements, the interface with the mainline railway network, and the safe design and use of vehicles and rolling stock. A37. ORR is also the EA in respect of the condition and distribution of the wagon loading, to the extent that this could affect the safe running of the train and the importation of risk onto the mainline railway25. HSE is the EA for the activities of loading and unloading of goods on or from trains at premises owned or operated by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for Defence26. These activities are specifically excluded from the term 'operation of a railway'. A38. Military establishments include sites under the direct control of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or run by private companies on their behalf. ## Devonport Royal Dockyard A39. *Devonport Royal Dockyard* is a unique and complex establishment that can be used to show how the above principles will apply in practice. The naval base dockyard is a nest of separate sites each of which has to be considered individually in terms of their allocated EA. At its core, it is a dockyard owned by Babcock Marine (Devonport) Ltd. The dockyard is operated by Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DRDL) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Babcock Marine (Devonport) Limited. Part of the dockyard is a GB nuclear site and the surrounding area is the larger naval dockyard owned by MOD, but contains facilities run on their behalf by DRDL. A railway connected to the national infrastructure runs across the whole site. A40. Under regulation 4(3) of EARR:  ORR is the EA for the operation of the railway throughout the remainder of the site owned by or operated on behalf of MOD; and  HSE is the EA for all other activities, except those within the nuclear licensed site where ONR is the EA and ORR is the EA in relation to the activities of an ECM. ## Railways At Airports A41. Under regulation 3 of EA 98, HSE is the EA for the common parts of airports, which are either not within a building or where only passengers (and not the general public) are admitted. LAs are the EA for the common parts within airport terminals to which any member of the public can access. A42. ORR is the EA for any railway or system of guided transport (including people movers) at an airport. The one exception to this is Birmingham Air-Link, a cableway installation, which is enforced by HSE, as are all cableways. A43. The Civil Aviation Authority has specific responsibilities for 'air-side' aircraft and passenger safety that are not affected by this MoU. ## Channel Tunnel Uk Concession Area27 A44. The demarcated site known as 'the UK Concession Area' includes the terminal and three tunnels up to the mid-point of the tunnel between Britain and France. ORR and HSE have no jurisdiction for the 'UK-control zone' in France. The UK Concession Area operates under specific arrangements authorised by the Intergovernmental Commission for the Channel Tunnel (IGC), established under the Treaty of Canterbury 1986. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (CTSA) provides advice and assistance to the IGC on all matters concerning safety. A45. ORR is the EA for activities relating to the operation of a railway in the UK Concession Area within the meaning of Regulation 2 of EARR. HSE is the EA for activities which do not relate to the operation of a railway in the UK Concession Area, except for those instances where Local Authorities are the EA (eg. station retail premises). A46. Regulation 2 of EARR defines the term 'operation of a railway' by reference to a nonexhaustive list of activities. In addition, regulations 4 and 5 of EARR set out exclusions to ORR's EA responsibilities. A47. Safety inspections in relation to the UK Concession Area are carried out by inspectors using their national powers. ORR and HSE will keep each other informed where they carry out an inspection, or use their enforcement powers, in the UK Concession Area (including where either is requested by the CTSA carry out an inspection). ## Carriage Of Dangerous Goods A48. The carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail is regulated by The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 as amended (CDG 2009). CDG 2009 implements the EU Dangerous Goods Directive and apply the international regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail and road (known as RID and ADR respectively). HSE is the EA under CDG 2009 except in relation to railways for which ORR is the EA in accordance with the provisions of EARR. The other exception is that ONR is the EA for Class 7 Radioactive Materials. ## Radiation Emergencies A49. The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR) establish a framework for the protection of the public through emergency preparedness for radiation accidents with the potential to affect members of the public and ensure the provision of information to the public. REPPIR places duties on operators of premises which hold, or contain facilities to hold radioactive substances over certain thresholds, and to carriers who transport such substances by railway. HSE is the EA except where the goods are being handled as part of the operation of a railway, in which case ORR will enforce requirements related to duties on railway carriers. A50. Certain radioactive sources and packages containing radioactive substances are exempted from REPPIR, but under current practice in this sector, the types of transport packages and quantities of radioactive substances generally carried by railway are unlikely to fall within the scope of REPPIR. ## British Transport Police (And Security Of Railways) A51. HSE is the EA for the British Transport Police when they are carrying out their duties on the operational railway, as they are a police service and not part of the operation of a railway. This includes their occupation of police stations on railway premises, as this activity is not considered to come under the definition of 'operation of a railway.' Enforcement in respect of a police authority is reserved to HSE under EA 98. As many of the risks BTP officers are exposed to arise from the operation of the railway, ORR inspectors will work closely with HSE to provide the necessary expertise. ## Railway Security Services A52. Private security companies that operate on Britain's railways are considered to be part of the 'operation of a railway' and ORR is the EA. ## Regulation 4 Exceptions Cableway Installations A53. HSE is the EA for cableway installations, defined in full in regulation 2 of the Cableway Installation Regulations 2004, made under the Cableways Directive (European Directive 2000/9/EC)28. Cableways include cable-drawn cliff railways. However, where cable-drawn the installation is also a part of tramway, such as at Great Orme, or a rack railway, then ORR is the EA. ORR and HSE should co-operate and share expertise as necessary in the case of systems using both railway and cable technologies. ## Fairground Equipment A54. HSE is the EA for the operation of any system that is defined as fairground equipment under section 53 of HSWA29. This will include rides in parks where other health and safety matters are enforced by LAs. If a railway or system of guided transport at a fairground falls outside the definition of 'fairground equipment', then enforcement will fall to ORR. If a railway or system of guided transport is similar to a fairground ride, but is nonetheless designed to carry passengers from one part of the park to another, or even if the journey is designed to see exhibits and begins and eventually ends at the same location, then this also takes it outside the definition of fairground equipment (because it was designed as a transport system rather than for entertainment purposes) and it too will be enforced by ORR. ## Guided Buses A55. HSE is the EA for guided bus systems30 that use vehicles that can operate both on road, under the guidance of a driver, or by means of external guidance such as tracks, buried cables etc. A56. Overall, these vehicles look and operate like buses rather than trains, and are also subject to relevant road traffic legislation. DfT take the policy lead and the EAs are either the police, VOSA, Traffic Commissioners or Highways Agency. HSE is the EA for any residual health and safety issues outside of more specific road safety legislation enforced by other EAs. ## Railway-Related Occupational Road Safety A57. ORR's approach to railway-related occupational road safety issues reflects HSE's existing approach: the police take the lead in investigating road traffic incidents; ORR's enforcement action will be confined to where the police identify evidence of serious health and safety management failures which may have led to or been a significant contributory factor to the incident. ## Provision Of Bus Substitution Services A58. A bus substitution service is a bus service provided as an alternative to a railway or tramway service. ORR is the EA for a bus substitution service while it is on railway operational premises, but not otherwise. ORR's enforcement role is confined to ensuring railway operators select a suitable bus company and manage safely the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers from buses within railway operational premises. However, there are more specific road traffic safety law enforced by other EAs, such as the traffic police, which relate directly to the road safety aspects of operating substitute bus services on the public highway. ## Miniature Railways A59. Most miniature railways, which operate within a site such as an amusement park or fairground, are enforced by HSE or LAs. ORR is the EA for miniature railways with a track gauge of 350mm or wider; and those miniature railways that cross a public highway31. ## Harbours A60. ORR is the EA for the operation of any railway where the railway operates exclusively within a harbour and carries members of the public32 or where it also operates outside the harbour and is transporting goods or passengers to and from the harbour33.This includes any activity within the definition of 'operation of a railway'. A61. HSE is the EA for any railway within a harbour that is not connected to the mainline network and/or carries no members of the public or for any railway carried out at a harbour within any of the premises listed in regulation 4(3)(c) to (h)34. This includes railways where there is movement of materials to and from factories and associated storage facilities, such as tank farms on the harbour site. HSE will be the EA for all activities within the harbour, including the loading and unloading of trains35. A62. The exception is where an ECM's activities take place inside these harbours, in which case ORR is the EA in relation to the ECM's activities. ## A63. Railways transferring goods or passengers to and from harbours and onto the mainline railway network, can therefore be contrasted with railways associated exclusively with industrial processes. This split of responsibility is considered appropriate because such harbours, unlike other industrial sites, are an integral part of the national transport network, and involve significant railway movements, often using level crossings over the public highway. ## The Operation Of Pier Railways And Tramways A64. ORR is EA for pier railways and tramways, i.e. railways and tramways on a pier that are used by the public as a means of transport. However, HSE remains the enforcing authority where the pier railway is defined as a miniature railway *- see A59*. ## Railway Systems Within Industrial Sites A65. Under EARR regulations 4(3)(c) to 4(3)(h), railway operations carried out at certain listed sites are exceptions to the operation of a transport system, except if it relates to the activities of an ECM. This means that ORR is not the EA for railway operations within:  an establishment to which the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 applies;  a factory36 (including a power station37);  a mine or quarry;  a GB nuclear site; or  warehouse premises. However, ORR is the EA in relation to the activities of an ECM at all of these premises. A66. At these sites the transport of materials tends to be primarily for processing locally, and railway movements are likely to be limited. HSE and ONR are the EAs within these sites. Once a train exits from them on to the mainline railway network, enforcement passes from HSE or ONR to ORR. A67. When an incident occurs solely in relation to railway-related activities within the site (e.g. internal shunting of wagons), but has consequences which impact on activity on the mainline railway network, the EA will be that for the location where the original incident occurred, e.g. HSE if the failure occurs within the factory premises, and ORR if the failure occurs outside the factory premises. ## Mines A68. Under the Mines and Quarries Act 195438, a railway serving a mine and owned by a mining company is deemed to be part of the mine. However, for the purposes of EARR, the definition of a mine has been amended so that railways serving and owned by a mine, but outside the mine's curtilage, are not deemed to be part of the mine39. Under the definition in section 180 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, ORR is the EA for any:  specialist mines regulations which could apply to any such railway outside of the mine's curtilage; and  any activity of an ECM. ## Quarries A69. Enforcement responsibilities for the operation of a railway at quarries will be ORR's responsibility where the railway line is exclusively under the control of either:  a railway company40; or  a person who carries on an undertaking which consists of, or the main activity, or one of the main activities of which consists of, the management of a network within the meaning of section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993. A70. In all other circumstances, enforcement in relation to the operation of a railway in connection with a quarry will fall to HSE. Where enforcement matters arise relating to the safe design, construction, operation and maintenance of such a railway, ORR will provide technical support and advice to HSE in line with protocols existing at that time. The exception to this is in relation to the activities of an ECM, in which case ORR is the EA. ## Railway Systems Within Inter-Modal Depots A71. Inter-modal depots are usually either part of a dock's complex or connected to the mainline railway network by short sidings or with road freight-handling facilities. They handle freight containers, which are transferred from rail to road to sea and vice versa, generally by the use of straddle carriers. EARR does not define 'container', so this is taken to mean any box, container, tank or tank container, vessel or platform capable of being used to store and move freight items and transferred between different types of modal vehicles. This may cover not only containers, as defined in international transport standards, but also vessels for gases or liquids or non-standard designs. Goods handling and transfer facilities which are properly part of railway operations, such as transferring materials from road to engineering trains working in possessions, are not classified as inter-modal depots because the work undertaken there is primarily a part of the operation of a railway and is enforced by ORR. A72. ORR is the EA for the 'operation of a railway' within an inter-modal depot in relation to railway infrastructure maintenance and safe operation, train preparation and train movements, the interface with the mainline railway network, the safe design and use of rolling stock and the condition and distribution of the load (the load-examiners' duties)41. A73. HSE is the EA for loading and unloading on or from trains at intermodal depots42. Inter-modal sites can include facilities shared by road and railway workers. ORR is the EA for issues that arise from the operation of a railway and/or affect railway workers. HSE is the EA for all other non-railway issues related to the other work activities at intermodal sites. ## Level Crossings A74. ORR is the EA for all locations where railways cross public roads and other public rights of way, such as footpath and bridleway crossings, or cross private access ways, such as crossings between farm fields. HSE is the EA for crossings on railways within a range of industrial premises, including factories, mines, quarries, warehouses and certain harbour railways, in line with regulation 4 of EARR. ONR is the EA for crossings in GB nuclear sites, but ORR is the EA for any in-force level crossing orders made under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983, regardless of whether the crossing is within licensed nuclear premises. A75. The enforcement allocations described in A78 mean that only ORR can take enforcement action in the event of a breach of a level crossing order, wherever the crossing may be. These orders specify controls which must be in place at a particular crossing. The duty to comply with such an order is set out in regulation 3 of the Level Crossings Regulations 1997. Good liaison is required between ORR, HSE and ONR in dealing with level crossing on industrial premises, including licensed nuclear sites, which has an order; in such cases ORR will confirm to HSE and ONR whether an order is in force. A76. Enforcement action may be required in circumstances where a level crossing order is not in force, or that have nothing to do with an order's requirements, such as where a crossing is misused. These cases are often primarily enforced by the police, but following a police investigation both ORR and HSE can take enforcement action using general HSWA provisions. A77. Situations may arise where HSE is the EA for a duty holder whose premises include a level crossing for which ORR is the EA. For example, when a farmer uses an accommodation crossing between two fields, and access is by a private road or track over his land rather than a public right of way. An incident at such a crossing may well involve both ORR and HSE looking at issues of possible crossing misuse and the duty holder's wider health and safety management arrangements. In such cases, ORR and HSE inspectors will need to cooperate closely and determine who the appropriate EA is for any enforcement action considered necessary. A78. ORR inspectors have powers under HSWA section 20 to pursue inquiries with a nonrailway duty holder and, if relevant, require the non-railway duty holder to implement a safe system of work for the use of that crossing and to ensure the safety of the railway network and relevant railway, non-railway and other employees. ## Construction Work Regulation 5 A79. Regulation 5 of EARR sets out the type of construction work which is included in the definition 'operation of a railway' and is therefore enforced by ORR. Construction work is defined by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015)43; HSE is the EA for construction work which is not included within the term 'operation of a railway'. A80. Good communication and proactive liaison between HSE and ORR is essential to ensure clarity as to who is the appropriate EA in relation to construction work for a particular project. A81. In cases where the EA is clarified following discussion between HSE and ORR, it will be good practice to record the agreed enforcement roles electronically and to communicate these to the duty holders involved. For projects that should be notified to the relevant EA under CDM 2015, duty holders are encouraged to use HSE's on-line construction work notification form (the commonly known F-10 form). Such notifications will be regarded as having been made to the relevant EA as required by CDM 2015 as ORR has an agreement with HSE to access HSE's F10-notifiable construction projects database. A82. The following paragraphs summarise ORR's and HSE's enforcement roles for construction work in relation to any relevant transport system. Where the term 'railway' is used the arrangements specified would also equally apply to tramways and other guided transport systems. ORR's enforcement role A83. ORR is usually the EA for construction work in the following circumstances: (i) for the maintenance, repair, renewal or improvement of existing infrastructure as defined by EARR44. Infrastructure includes:  the permanent way, which includes: the track; level crossings; viaducts, tunnels, culverts and bridges or other structures used for the support of, or otherwise in connection with, the permanent way, and boundary walls or fences;  bridges or structures spanning the permanent way which are maintained by the owner, operator or manager of the railway, or someone working on their behalf. This would include bridges over the railway which are maintained by Network Rail, LUL, or any other infrastructure manager, or someone acting on their behalf e.g. a contractor; and  electrical and mechanical installations used for signalling, electrical installations used for supplying power to vehicles and any other plant, equipment or electrical or mechanical installation. In the case of a tramway this does not include road lighting or traffic signals/signs unless they are used for the operation of the tramway and maintained by the owner/operator/manager of the tramway or someone acting on their behalf. (ii) for the extension or enlargement of the infrastructure, where the construction work is in such close proximity to the operation of the railway that there is risk to workers engaged in that work from the railway. (iii) construction work carried out on the permanent way, within stations, light maintenance depots or on land adjacent to or adjoining the permanent way and used, occupied or held for the railway and relates to the maintenance, repair, renewal or improvement of any fixed asset (other than the infrastructure) of a railway. ## Hse'S Enforcement Role A84. Hse Is The Ea For Construction Work In Relation To:  work on any structure or premises whose primary function is unrelated to the operation of a railway, or forms parts of a station separately occupied as a business, such as retail premises *–see paragraph A21*;  work on a bridge, or other structure spanning, or adjacent to operational premises where it is carried out by someone other than the railway owner, operator or manager, or someone working on their behalf, for example work carried out by a local authority;  where normal railway activities in the operational premises have been suspended and the work is physically segregated from the railway infrastructure and the construction contractor can exclude people from the construction area;  where normal railway activities continue, and, in addition to the segregation and exclusion points above, there is only emergency access between the segregated area and the rest of the operational premises;  new build railways up to the point that they become 'operational railways'. A handover point should be agreed between HSE and ORR based on when both regulators agree that the railway has become operational- see paragraphs A87, A88; and  the extension or enlargement of existing infrastructure, if there is no risk to the construction workers from the operation of a railway. The proximity of the work to the operational railway comes into consideration here *- see paragraph A87(ii)*. ## Situations where both EAs are required to reach agreement on allocation of responsibility based on the circumstances of the case A85. There is no provision in EARR or HSWA, for ORR and HSE to mutually transfer enforcement functions or, where the position is unclear, assign enforcement responsibility between them. Instead, agreement must be reached on who is the correct EA in accordance with the provisions of EARR and HSWA. A86. This section gives further guidance on the respective enforcement roles and deals with some of the more complex situations which can arise and may require both EAs to agree on who is the appropriate EA in that particular circumstance. It includes examples of how the enforcement allocation has been interpreted in the past and is intended to act as a guide to assist both HSE's and ORR's inspectors in making decisions in future. However, these examples do not preclude different interpretations or outcomes as the circumstances of each particular case must be considered afresh each time. ## Major Infrastructure Projects (New-Build Railways) A87. Under EARR HSE is the EA for construction work on a new-build railway infrastructure project, such as Crossrail, up to the point at which the system becomes an operational railway, when ORR becomes the EA. However, ORR and HSE have entered into an agency agreement which delegates certain EA functions to ORR during the design of railway infrastructure and before the railway has become operational. Annex 3 provides more detail on this agency agreement and ORR's role in this regard. A88. There should be agreement between HSE and ORR as to the point at which the new system becomes operational for the purpose of EARR - in practical terms this is usually the point at which functional connection is made between the new-build railway and the existing system, or the point at which test train running begins before the railway is connected to the existing system. This should be recorded, for example, by an exchange of e-mails, so that both EAs are clear about when HSE's enforcement role ends and ORR's enforcement role under EARR starts. The agreed arrangements should be explained to all the relevant duty holders. ## Example 1 - The Crossrail Enforcement Handover In the case of London's newly-built Crossrail central section, ORR and HSE have discussed and agreed that the construction work will be enforced by HSE up to the start of commissioning the system, i.e. operation of trains testing the signalling and control systems. At this point the railway is considered to be operational and enforcement will handover to ORR. ## Bridges Spanning The Railway A89. Where there is construction activity on a bridge spanning or adjacent to the railway the EA is, in most cases determined by whether the work is being carried out by someone other than the owner or the operator of the railway. EARR specifies that construction activity carried out in relation to a bridge which spans or is adjacent to operational premises by persons "other than the owners, operator or manager of the [railway] or persons acting on behalf of one or more of them" does not fall within the "operation of a railway" and is therefore not within ORR's enforcement remit. A90. In most cases in order to determine who is the EA it should be sufficient to find out whether the work on a bridge is being carried out by Network Rail, LUL, or any other railway infrastructure manager, or someone acting on their behalf eg a contractor. If so, ORR is the EA. A91. In situations where the position is not entirely clear under EARR, HSE and ORR should consider all the relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis and reach an agreed view on how EARR applies to the situation and who is the responsible EA. ## Example 2 - Construction Work On A Road Bridge Over The Railway Construction activity took place on a bridge that was part of a wider project of railway line electrification. The main site of construction activity in this case was considered to be about 'improvement of existing infrastructure' because it was electrical installation work. The demolition and replacement of a road bridge over the railway formed a key part of the work to enable installation of new overhead line electrification equipment. All of this work was being undertaken on Network Rail's behalf by contractors. In this situation ORR and HSE needed to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case and mutually agree on who the EA was according to the EARR. It was decided that ORR was the EA, primarily because the work was being done on behalf of the railway infrastructure manager and the work itself was about enhancing the 'operation of the railway'. It was not necessary to consider who normally maintains the bridge. Separately, this case also included separate excavation construction work by a contractor working for a utility company to relocate cables. For this aspect of the construction activity, it was mutually agreed by HSE and ORR that HSE was the EA because it was not carried out by a railway infrastructure manager or someone on their behalf, and the work was not directly related to the 'operation of a railway'. ## Bridges Spanning The Railway Where There Is No Construction Activity A92. There may be situations where there is no construction activity underway but there are concerns about the safety of a bridge's structure in relation to trains running underneath it. In these circumstances, the EA allocation is determined by whether the bridge falls within the term 'use of the infrastructure', because it would then fall within the 'operation of a railway'. To be covered by "use of the infrastructure", a bridge would need to be part of the "permanent way". According to EARR, a bridge could be part of the permanent way if it spans the permanent way and is maintained by the railway owner, operator, or manager, or someone on their behalf. A93. This means that, in most cases, ORR will be the EA for bridges that are maintained by Network Rail or LUL or another railway infrastructure manager. In previous circumstances, ORR and HSE have interpreted 'maintained by' as referring to the person who has legal responsibility for maintaining the structure. ## Work With Asbestos A94. HSE is the EA for any work with asbestos that requires a licence under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 201245 (COAR), whether or not such work is also 'construction work' as defined in CDM 2015. Asbestos-related work requiring a licence also requires notification to the appropriate EA (made at least 14-days before the work begins or as agreed with the EA), which for asbestos-related licensable work, including on Britain's railways, is HSE. A95. ORR is the EA for any other work with asbestos that does not require a licence and that is carried out at light maintenance depots, operational premises or elsewhere on the railway system46. ORR is also the EA for the duty on occupiers of railway premises to manage the presence of asbestos in their buildings. However, HSE is the EA at sites requiring a COAR licence. ## Gas Safety A96. HSE is the EA for the installation, maintenance or repair of any gas system (or any work in relation to a gas fitting) where the work is being carried out in premises by people who do not normally work in those premises. This would include most work being carried out by Network Rail's gas fitters. ORR is the EA for the installation, maintenance or repair of gas systems (or any work in relation to a gas fitting) when it is being carried out by people who normally work in the premises where the work is being carried out. ## Hse'S Liaison With Orr On Rail Accident Investigation Branch'S Recommendations A97. Under the Railway (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005 (as amended) (the RAIB Regulations), ORR has a role, as the Safety Authority for Britain's railways, to coordinate the implementation of recommendations addressed to ORR by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) under the RAIB Regulations47. Under regulation 12(2) of the RAIB Regulations, RAIB can directly address recommendations to HSE; HSE's response to those RAIB recommendations should also be copied to ORR. ## Annex 1 Road Vehicle Incursions - New Agreement On Enforcement Authority 1. There has been uncertainty over whether ORR or HSE is the correct Enforcing Authority in respect of risks arising from the incursion of a road vehicle from a road onto the railway. In the most serious cases a road vehicle may come to rest across the railway causing an obstruction which could lead to a train derailment. The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 ('EARR') are not clear as to which body has enforcement responsibility for road vehicle incursions that could affect the safe operation of the railway. 2. As there is the potential for this risk to cause a serious rail accident ORR and HSE have decided to enter into a formal agreement to put beyond doubt the allocation of the enforcement responsibility for road vehicle incursion risks. The Road Vehicle Incursion Enforcement Agreement (the 'agreement') has been drawn up using the power in Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 and section 13(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 ('HSWA'). It recognises that there is uncertainty as to who is the correct EA under the current legal framework. 3. To the extent that the responsibility for the enforcement for road vehicle incursion risks have not been transferred to ORR under EARR and consequently remain with HSE under HSWA, the agreement provides that ORR will assume all of HSE's enforcement functions in relation to road vehicle incursions. ORR will exercise these enforcement functions in line with its published Enforcement Policy. This will include giving advice and guidance, issuing improvement or prohibition notices where appropriate, and taking decisions on formal enforcement action where necessary. 4. The agreement means that ORR is the EA for situations where there is a health and safety risk to the operation of the railway arising out of or in connection with an actual or potential road vehicle incursion. The agreement also enables ORR to deal with situations where a road vehicle may damage a bridge or other structure which could create a health or safety risk to the railway. ORR will actively encourage action by Local Highways Authorities to mitigate the risks of road vehicle incursion where these are known to be significant. 5. HSE will continue to act as the EA for premises of relevant undertakings adjacent to the railway which are not allocated to ORR for enforcement under EARR, including in relation to the risk of a road vehicle incursion to the railway from such premises e.g. a factory or farm. In these situations ORR and HSE will work closely together sharing information as necessary. 6. HSE and ORR will keep each other informed of issues which arise from road vehicle incursion events, and will share information to encourage improvements in the management of this risk. The experience of both regulators will be taken into account when the agreement is reviewed at regular intervals. ## Annex 2 Orr'S New Strategic Road Network Monitoring Role 1. From 1 April 2015 ORR took on responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the performance and efficiency of Highways England. 2. Unlike the railways this role does not include regulation of health and safety under HSWA. However, ORR will work with relevant stakeholders, including HSE, to take into account the effect of its monitoring role on England's strategic road network. ## Annex 3 Agency Agreement Between Hse And Orr On Enforcement Functions In Relation To The Design Of Railways, Tramways And Other Systems Of Guided Transport What The Agreement Covers 1. HSE and ORR have entered into a new agency agreement (the **agreement**) on enforcement in relation to the design of railways, tramways and other systems of guided transport. The agreement has been made using the powers in paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 and section 13(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The effect of the agreement is that ORR will assume certain enforcement functions during the design stage of railway48 infrastructure projects. ORR will, therefore, become the enforcing authority (EA) for the enforcement of existing relevant health and safety law as it applies in relation to aspects of the design of railway infrastructure. This delegation does not shift the ultimate statutory responsibility from HSE for making adequate arrangements for enforcing health and safety law (HSWA section 18) and therefore involves a shift of work, not a shift of responsibility. The objective is to ensure that designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway, or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the railway. 2. The key pieces of relevant legislation are:  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (**HSWA**);  Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;  Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006;  Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (**CDM 2015**). 3. The agreement does not create any form of approval process in relation to the design of railway infrastructure. Nor does the agreement alter the allocation of enforcement functions for railway construction activities set out in the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (**EARR**). 4. ORR does not have an enforcement remit in respect of buildings built over or around a new railway station which are separately occupied for another purpose, for example offices or domestic dwellings. 5. ORR and HSE have arrangements to manage, train and support their inspectors to ensure that they will deliver their enforcement functions in line with their published enforcement policies, so that both EAs will take a consistent approach to enforcement under HSWA. These policies share consistent wording and principles for the exercise of enforcement functions, in particular that such enforcement should be proportionate, targeted, consistent and transparent and that there should be accountability. In fact ORR's policy shares almost identical text having been developed from the HSE policy originally. Both EAs make enforcement decisions in line with HSE's Enforcement Management Model and comply with the Regulator's Compliance Code. Therefore, duty-holders can expect ORR and HSE to follow consistent approaches to enforcement activity and decision making. 6. ORR and HSE will co-ordinate their enforcement activities at the design stage of railway infrastructure projects and ensure that their roles are clear to the duty-holder. This will include:  Keeping each other informed of any issues which may be relevant to both EAs;  Communicating with each other if formal enforcement action is under consideration. In particular, if ORR is considering formal enforcement action, under this agreement it will inform HSE in advance;  Both EAs being represented at meetings with the duty holder as appropriate;  Setting up liaison arrangements at an operational level on a case by case basis to ensure good communication channels. 7. HSE and ORR will keep these working arrangements under review in order to assess the effectiveness of the liaison arrangements between the EAs, and to consider the impact of the agreement on enforcement arrangements. HSE and ORR are required to review the terms of the agreement at least once each year from the date that it comes into effect and will consult stakeholders, as appropriate, as part of that review to ensure any necessary and mutually agreeable changes are reflected in the agreement. ## Why We Have Entered Into An Agreement 9. The current period of significant growth and major new projects in the railway sector has highlighted the need for ORR to have an enforcement role in relation to the design of all railway infrastructure at an earlier stage. HSE and ORR both agree that it is appropriate for ORR to be the EA in respect of aspects of the design which are relevant to operational health and safety. 10. Under EARR, ORR's enforcement role begins when there is an operational railway. This means that HSE is the EA for the design and construction phases of a new build railway. HSE and ORR make arrangements to hand-over enforcement functions as a project moves from construction phase to operational phase. HSE is also the EA for certain construction activity on existing railways, for example HSE will be the EA for the extension or enlargement of railway infrastructure where the construction work is not in close proximity to the operation of the existing railway and consequently there is no risk from the operational railway to the health and safety of the construction workers. HSE could, therefore, be the EA for a construction project to extend the railway or a station. 11. Under the agreement, ORR will carry out certain enforcement functions on behalf of HSE. These functions relate to the design of infrastructure, operational premises or other fixed assets relating to a railway in so far as the design may adversely impact health and safety during the future operation of the system. HSE will retain its enforcement functions in relation to construction safety, i.e. ensuring that designs for the construction of railway infrastructure eliminate, reduce and/or mitigate health and safety risks during the construction phase. In practice this means that HSE's role in relation to construction safety on major railway projects such as Crossrail will not change. ## Application Of Agreement To Enforcement Roles On Construction Projects For New Railway Infrastructure 12. ORR will undertake a new role at the early stages of new railway construction projects such as HS2 or Crossrail 2 to ensure that the general principles of prevention49 are applied early in a project so that opportunities are taken to design out health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway. In particular, ORR will encourage designers to produce design options for the elimination or reduction of such risks which may arise during the operation and maintenance of the railway. For example, infrastructure should be designed so as to reduce the need for maintenance workers to access the operating railway, thereby limiting their exposure to health and safety risks. 13. HSE will continue to be involved at the design stage of new railway construction projects but its enforcement role will be in relation to ensuring that the designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which may otherwise arise during the construction phase. 14. Notwithstanding the principles set out in this MoU in relation to enforcement of CDM 2015 and HSWA by HSE and ORR, both EAs may wish to explore alternative coordination arrangements with further regulators which may suit the needs of a particular project. 15. The following list gives some examples of projects for which ORR will be the EA for the purpose of ensuring designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the system:  Railway or tramway systems including tunnels, bridges, viaducts, supporting structures, level crossings;  Signalling installations;  Electrical installations for supplying power to vehicles;  Plant and equipment or electrical or mechanical installations;  Stations;  Light Maintenance depots and;  Proposals for innovative guided transit systems. ## Application Of Agreement To Enforcement Roles For Construction Projects On The Existing Railway 16. The Agreement Also Clarifies That Orr Has An Enforcement Role In Respect Of The Design of infrastructure, operational premises (e.g. stations) or other fixed assets relating to or on the existing railway. This role will apply with respect to ensuring that the designs eliminate or reduce health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway, or which could adversely affect the safe operation of the railway. 17. For those construction projects on the existing railway for which HSE is the EA (see paragraph 11), ORR will also have an EA role in relation to ensuring that the general principles of prevention are applied early in a project so that opportunities are taken to design out health and safety risks which could otherwise arise during the operation of the railway. ## Annex 4 Cross-Referenced A-Z Listing Of Railway-Related Enforcement Topic Areas | Topic area | page | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | (working with) asbestos | Page 28 | | | | | Bridges spanning the railway | Page 27 | | | | | Bridges spanning the railway where there is no construction activity | Page 27 | | | | | British Transport Police (including security of railways) | Page 19 | | | | | Bus substitution services | Page 21 | | | | | Cableway installation | Page 20 | | | | | Carriage of dangerous goods | Page 19 | | | | | Construction work | Pages 24 - 28 | | | | | Channel Tunnel UK Concession Area | Page 19 | | | | | Entities in charge of maintenance | Page 16 | | | | | Devonport Royal Dockyard | Page 18 | | | | | Factories | Page 17 | | | | | Fairground equipment | Page 20 | | | | | Gas safety | Page 28 | | | | | Guided buses | Page 20 | | | | | Harbours | Page 21 | | | | | Level crossings | Page 23 | | | | | Light maintenance | Page 16 | | | | | Major railway infrastructure projects (new-build railways) | Page 26 | | | | | Mines | Page 22 | | | | | Miniature railways | Page 21 | | | | | Museum and heritage centres not part of a 'heritage' railway | Page 17 | | | | | Non-railway premises | Page 17 | | | | | ORR's monitoring of the strategic road network | Annex 2 | | | | | Pier railways and tramways | Page 22 | | | | | Quarries | Page 22 | | | | | Radiation emergencies | Page 19 | | | | | Railways at airports | Page 18 | | | | | Railway-related occupational road safety | Page 21 | | | | | Railway security services | Page 19 | | | | | Railway systems within industrial sites | Page 22 | | | | | Railway systems within inter-modal depots | Page 23 | | | | | Railway systems in military establishments | Page 17 | | | | | Road vehicle incursion on to the railway infrastructure | Annex 1 | | | | | Safety by design - ORR agency agreement with HSE | Annex 3 | | Signalling electrical and operational control centres | Page 17 | | | | | Stations occupied by a railway undertaking and non-railway premises | Page 15 | | | | | Training-related railway activities | Page 16 |

en

2219-pdf

## Report On The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Prepared by Sheila Dixon, Department of Health May 2009 ## Dh Information Reader Box Estates Performance IM & T Finance Partnership working Policy HR/Workforce Management Planning Clinical Document Statistical publication ROCR ref: n/a Gateway ref: n/a Title: Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Author: Sheila Dixon May 2009 Publication d Public and NHS Target di On-line publication only Circulation list: Description: Statistical publication of the results of the National Patient Choice survey for referrals made in December 2008. Cross ref: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publication s/PublicationsStatistics/DH_ 094013 n/a Superseded docs: n/a Action required: Timing: May 2009 Sheila.Dixon@dh.gsi.gov.uk Contact details: For recipient's use: © Crown copyright 2009 First published May 2009 Published to DH website, in electronic PDF format only. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics Table D.1 Percentage of patients aware of choice by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date .................................................................................................... 33 Table D.2 Percentage of patients offered choice by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date .................................................................................................... 34 Table D.3 Percentage of patients able to go where they wanted by age, sex and ethnic group, surveys to date............................................................................... 35 ## Results Of The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England. Introduction Since January 2006, all eligible1 patients referred by their GP should have been offered clinically appropriate choices for their elective care, initially from a list of four or more providers commissioned by their PCT. Since April 2008, patients can choose any clinically appropriate hospital provider that meets NHS standards and costs in England. As set out in the NHS Constitution, from April 2009 patients have a legal right to choose the organisation that provides their NHS care when referred for their first outpatient appointment. The Department of Health commissioned a series of national patient choice surveys to assess the implementation of choice at PCT level. Previous reports gave the results of earlier surveys, for referrals made from May/June 20062 to September3 2008, using an extended questionnaire from November 2007. This report gives summary results of around 76,000 responses to the sixteenth such survey, for referrals made in December 2008. Key findings - The percentage of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was 46% in December 2008, the same as in September and up from 30% in the first survey (May/June 2006). - 50% of patients were aware before they visited their GP that they had a choice of hospitals for their first appointment, up from 48% in September and 29% in the May/June 2006 survey. - 61% of patients who were aware of choice recalled being offered choice, whereas 32% of those not aware of choice recalled being offered it, similar to the September survey (61% and 33% respectively). - 68% of patients were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 23% having no preference and 7% unable to go where they wanted, compared with 67%, 23% and 8% respectively in September. - 90% of patients offered choice were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 4% having no preference. This compares with 48% of patients not offered choice able to go where they wanted and 40% having no preference. - 80% of patients were satisfied with how long they had to wait from the time their GP referred them to when they saw the hospital specialist. - Hospital cleanliness and low infection rates were selected most often (by 74% of patients) as an important factor when choosing a hospital. Choice of hospital The percentage of patients who recalled being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was 46% in December. This compares with between 43% and 47% doing so in surveys from May 2007 to September 2008 and 30% in the first (May/June 2006) survey. The percentage of patients aware of choice has kept rising, see Figure 1 and Annex Table A.2. In addition, 41% of patients in December said they discussed which hospital they might go to with their GP. Awareness of choice The percentage of patients who said that they knew before visiting their GP that there is now choice of hospital for a first hospital appointment was 50% in December 2008, up from 48% in September and 29% in the first (May/June 2006), see Figure 1 and Annex Table A.2. The 50% of patients who were aware of choice were more likely to say that they were offered a choice of hospital than those who were unaware of choice. 61% of patients who knew about choice recalled being offered it, whereas only 32% of those not knowing about choice recalled being offered it (Annex Table A.1). This difference is similar to previous surveys (eg 61% and 33% respectively in September). Going to the hospital of choice 68% of patients were able to go to the hospital they wanted, with a further 23% having no preference and 7% unable to go where they wanted. This is similar to the September survey, when 67% of patients went to the hospital they wanted, 23% had no preference and 8% were unable to go where they wanted. For patients offered choice, 90% were able to go where they wanted whilst 5% were not and 4% had no preference. This was different from patients not offered choice, 48% of whom went where they wanted but 40% did not have a preference, see Figure 2 and Annex Table A.3. This may imply that the process of being offered and discussing choice helps patients to decide a preferred hospital. ## Sources Of Information On Choice Almost half the patients (48%) who were offered choice said they used the GP as a source of information to choose their hospital, with a third (33%) saying they used their own experience or that of friends and family. A booklet about choice was used by 8% patients, whilst 5% used the NHS Choices website, see Figure 3 and Annex Table A.4. Factors influencing choice Hospital cleanliness and low infection rates were given most often (by 74% of patients) as an important factor when choosing a hospital. Of all the factors listed for patients to select (as many as apply), six were given by more than half the patients, see Figure 4 and Annex Table A.5. The factors listed were all those that had been commonly identified in previous surveys. Patients selected 5.4 factors on average. The same six factors were selected most often in December as in the previous surveys. The other five are quality of care (given by 64% of patients), waiting times (63%), the friendliness of staff (57%), the reputation of the hospital (55%) and location or transport considerations (54%). ## Booking The First Appointment 37% of patients booked their first hospital appointment when the hospital contacted them following a letter from the GP, the same as in the September survey. Of the others, 29% patients telephoned an appointments line, 20% were booked on screen (by the GP or other practice staff) and 4% used the internet, again similar to September. Nearly half the patients (49%) who did not recall being offered choice booked their appointment when the hospital contacted them, whilst only a quarter (25%) of patients who were offered choice booked this way, see Annex Table A.3. Waiting for the first appointment 80% of patients were satisfied with how long they had to wait from the time their GP referred them to when they saw the hospital specialist, compared with 77% in September. The level of satisfaction was higher amongst those who were offered choice (85%, with 12% dissatisfied) than amongst those who weren't (77%, with 17% dissatisfied), see Annex Table A.3, which may indicate a benefit of offering choice. Results by type of provider The proportion of patients offered choice whose first outpatient appointment was in an Independent Sector (IS) provider was higher than for patients going to NHS organisations: 66% compared with 46%, see Figure 5 and Annex Table A.6. This compares with 62% for those going to IS and 46% for NHS providers in the September survey. However, only 792 (1%) patients taking part in the survey went to IS providers. As before, the difference between the proportions of patients from IS and NHS providers who were aware of choice before visiting their GP was small. Variation by SHA The proportion of patients who recalled being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment, 46% nationally, varied by SHA as shown in Figure 6 and Annex Table A.9. Most SHAs showed an increase in the percentage of patients offered choice in December compared with the May 2008 survey, but did not show an increase compared with the September 2008 survey. The proportion of patients who were aware that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment, 50% nationally, varied by SHA as shown in Figure 7 and Annex Table A.10. Most SHAs continue to show a sustained increase in patient awareness of choice over the surveys to date. Variation by PCT In 16 out of 152 PCTs (11%), over 60% of patients were offered choice, see Figure 8 and Annex Table A.8. This compares with 13 PCTs in the September survey with over 60% of patients offered choice. The proportion of patients aware of choice was under 40% in 7 (5%) PCTs, down from 10 (7%) in the September survey and 33 (22%) in the March 2008 survey. The percentage of patients able to go to the hospital they wanted, 68% nationally, varied by PCT as shown in Figure 9 and Annex Table A.7. Most of the remaining patients had no preference (23% nationally), although more than 10% patients said they were not able to go where they wanted in 33 (22%) PCTs. PCTs where fewer patients were able to go where they wanted tended to have lower levels of choice being offered. The geographic variation in the percentage of patients who said they were offered a choice of hospital in December and in September is illustrated in the PCT maps in Figure 10, see also Annex Table A.7. However, some PCT figures are based on few responses, with the possibility of response bias, so results for individual PCTs should be treated with caution. 60% or more 50 to <60% 40 to <50% 30 to <40% 20 to <30% Under 20% # Annex A: Tables Of Results Of The National Patient Choice Survey - December 2008 England Numbers and percentages1 Q1 Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment? Total2 Yes No Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 75,878 100% 37,758 50% 37,625 50% Q2 Did you discuss which hospital you might go to with your GP? Yes 30,763 41% 20,674 55% 10,034 27% No 42,597 56% 16,300 43% 26,195 70% Don't know 1,864 2% 605 2% 1,249 3% Not stated 654 1% 179 0% 147 0% Total 75,878 100% 37,758 100% 37,625 100% Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Yes 35,209 46% 23,090 61% 12,052 32% No 37,416 49% 13,248 35% 24,065 64% Don't know 2,398 3% 1,092 3% 1,298 3% Not stated 855 1% 328 1% 210 1% Total 75,878 100% 37,758 100% 37,625 100% 1. Apart from Q1, percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total within each column. 2. Total columns include responding patients who did not state whether they knew they had a choice of hospitals before visiting their GP. This accounts for 495 (1%) responses. Percentages Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted 3 Survey Total 4 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference May/June 2006 78,773 29% 69% 30% 64% July 2006 70,084 32% 67% 35% 59% September 2006 70,580 32% 67% 38% 57% November 2006 56,928 35% 64% 41% 53% January 2007 73,000 36% 63% 45% 50% March 2007 75,290 37% 62% 48% 47% May 2007 75,191 38% 61% 44% 50% July 2007 62,264 38% 61% 43% 50% September 2007 92,545 39% 60% 45% 49% November 2007 77,804 41% 58% 44% 52% 65% 7% 25% January 2008 72,153 43% 57% 46% 50% 67% 7% 23% March 2008 109,331 43% 56% 47% 48% 67% 7% 23% May 2008 89,903 45% 54% 45% 50% 66% 8% 24% July 2008 93,528 47% 53% 46% 49% 66% 8% 23% September 2008 93,003 48% 51% 46% 50% 67% 8% 23% December 2008 75,878 50% 50% 46% 49% 68% 7% 23% 1. Response to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 2. Response to Q3 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 3. Response to Q5 (introduced November 2007) 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to?' 4. Total valid responses, weighted by age and sex (see Annex B); includes patients who replied 'don't know' or did not respond to the question. Numbers and percentages1 Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Total2 Yes No Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 75,878 100% 35,209 46% 37,416 49% Q5 Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? Yes 51,478 68% 31,664 90% 17,933 48% No 5,497 7% 1,851 5% 3,497 9% I didn't have a preference 17,140 23% 1,372 4% 14,951 40% Not stated 1,763 2% 323 1% 1,034 3% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% Q6 How did you book your first hospital appointment? GP wrote and hospital contacted me 28,145 37% 8,726 25% 18,245 49% Telephoned a call centre 22,374 29% 15,074 43% 6,636 18% On screen (with GP or practice staff) 15,206 20% 7,310 21% 7,290 19% Via internet 3,404 4% 2,528 7% 817 2% All other responses 6,748 9% 1,572 4% 4,428 12% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% Q7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long you had to wait from the time your GP referred you to a hospital to when you actually saw the hospital? Very satisfied 34,687 46% 17,724 50% 15,797 42% Fairly satisfied 26,193 35% 12,055 34% 13,071 35% Not very satisfied 6,959 9% 2,886 8% 3,789 10% Not at all satisfied 4,103 5% 1,419 4% 2,540 7% No appointment date yet 2,377 3% 758 2% 1,464 4% Don't know / not stated 1,560 2% 368 1% 753 2% Total 75,878 100% 35,209 100% 37,416 100% 1. Apart from Q3, percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total within each column. 2. Total columns include responding patients who did not know or did not state whether they were offered a choice of hospital. This accounts for 3,253 (4%) responses. ## Numbers and percentages Sources listed1 No. patients Percent of responses My GP 16,956 48% Friends/family members/own experience 11,727 33% A booklet or leaflet about my choices 2,841 8% NHS Choices website 1,842 5% Staff at Clinical Assessment or Referral Centre 1,485 4% Someone at GP surgery 1,334 4% Other internet site 350 1% Local patient organisation 334 1% Other 4,345 12% None of these 2,920 8% Don't know 276 1% 1. Patients who said they had been offered choice were invited to select, from a list of sources, those they used when choosing the hospital. On average, patients selected 1.2 sources. Numbers and percentages Most important factors listed1 No. patients Percent of responses Cleanliness / Low levels of infection 55,961 74% Quality of care 48,453 64% Length of wait to appointment 47,596 63% Friendliness of staff 42,952 57% Reputation of hospital 41,394 55% Location / Transport / Easy to get to 41,051 54% Car parking 35,637 47% Reputation of consultant 33,936 45% Good personal experience 31,125 41% Convenience of appointment time 28,808 38% Other 884 1% None of these 187 0% Don't know 392 1% 1. Patients were invited to select, from a list of factors, those they considered most important to them when choosing a hospital (whether they were offered a choice on this occasion or not). On average, patients selected 5.4 factors. ## Numbers and percentages Type of provider of outpatient service Total1 Independent Sector2 NHS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Q1 Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment? Yes 37,758 50% 389 54% 37,369 50% No 37,625 50% 333 46% 37,292 50% Not stated 495 1% 2 0% 493 1% Total1 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q3 Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment? Yes 35,209 46% 476 66% 34,733 46% No 37,416 49% 225 31% 37,191 49% Don't know 2,398 3% 18 3% 2,380 3% Not stated 855 1% 4 1% 850 1% Total1 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q5 Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? Yes 51,478 68% 562 78% 50,917 68% No 5,497 7% 28 4% 5,469 7% I didn't have a preference 17,140 23% 125 17% 17,015 23% Not stated 1,763 2% 9 1% 1,754 2% Total 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% Q7 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how long you had to wait from the time your GP referred you to a hospital to when you actually saw the hospital? Very satisfied 34,687 46% 566 78% 34,121 45% Fairly satisfied 26,193 35% 118 16% 26,075 35% Not very satisfied 6,959 9% 18 3% 6,940 9% Not at all satisfied 4,103 5% 14 2% 4,089 5% No appointment date yet 2,377 3% 4 1% 2,373 3% Don't know / not stated 1,559 2% 4 1% 1,556 2% Total 75,878 100% 724 100% 75,154 100% 1. Responses may not sum to total due to rounding following age and sex weighting of the survey results. 2. Some Independent Sector providers have taken part in the survey, issuing survey forms to their patients, since the November 2006 survey, see Annex B. Percentages 3 Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted to go PCT 4 SHA 5 Total 6 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference England 75,878 50% 50% 46% 49% 68% 7% 23% Ashton, Leigh and Wigan NW 354 57% 43% 59% 38% 75% 3% 19% Barking and Dagenham Lon 203 48% 52% 54% 40% 60% 19% 20% Barnet Lon 420 53% 45% 51% 41% 68% 11% 16% Barnsley YH 159 63% 37% 60% 37% 74% 8% 17% Bassetlaw EM 92 65% 35% 60% 38% 80% 5% 13% Bath and North East Somerset SW 407 57% 43% 49% 48% 75% 4% 19% Bedfordshire EoE 437 50% 49% 37% 58% 67% 4% 25% Berkshire East Teaching SC 176 45% 55% 44% 50% 61% 14% 22% Berkshire West SC 134 58% 41% 68% 28% 84% 3% 10% Bexley Care Trust Lon 256 55% 45% 49% 46% 68% 9% 20% Birmingham East and North WM 84 56% 43% 56% 42% 69% 11% 20% Blackburn with Darwen Teaching NW 143 62% 38% 57% 40% 76% 13% 10% Blackpool NW 307 56% 44% 48% 48% 73% 5% 20% Bolton NW 375 59% 40% 55% 42% 78% 5% 17% Bournemouth and Poole SW 388 54% 45% 57% 39% 84% 4% 10% Bradford and Airedale Teaching YH 628 48% 52% 36% 59% 56% 9% 31% Brent Teaching Lon 239 42% 56% 44% 47% 64% 7% 25% Brighton and Hove City Teaching SEC 246 40% 59% 26% 68% 53% 7% 37% Bristol Teaching SW 403 43% 57% 49% 46% 72% 8% 18% Bromley Lon 73 48% 52% 48% 47% 64% 12% 22% Buckinghamshire SC 873 51% 48% 48% 47% 71% 5% 22% Bury NW 120 56% 43% 58% 42% 77% 4% 17% Calderdale YH 427 54% 45% 48% 48% 79% 6% 13% Cambridgeshire EoE 834 48% 51% 36% 59% 75% 6% 17% Camden Lon 229 55% 44% 55% 39% 79% 3% 17% Central & Eastern Cheshire NW 1,107 55% 44% 45% 51% 71% 6% 21% Central Lancashire NW 216 57% 42% 56% 40% 70% 13% 16% City and Hackney Teaching Lon 235 35% 64% 37% 55% 57% 9% 32% Cornwall and Isles of Scilly SW 702 47% 51% 46% 49% 55% 19% 24% County Durham NE 986 67% 32% 67% 31% 77% 8% 14% Coventry Teaching WM 645 60% 39% 53% 42% 78% 3% 17% Croydon Lon 88 56% 43% 50% 48% 69% 9% 22% Cumbria NW 1,419 61% 38% 51% 44% 72% 8% 17% Darlington NE 223 59% 40% 44% 52% 76% 6% 16% Derby City EM 576 49% 51% 41% 54% 66% 7% 25% Derbyshire County EM 1,208 63% 36% 58% 39% 79% 4% 15% Devon SW 1,590 54% 45% 45% 51% 75% 6% 17% Doncaster YH 317 63% 36% 46% 50% 75% 5% 17% Dorset SW 825 63% 36% 61% 34% 78% 5% 14% Dudley WM 255 54% 45% 29% 66% 56% 7% 34% Ealing Lon 382 56% 44% 42% 52% 64% 9% 24% East and North Hertfordshire EoE 320 58% 41% 49% 47% 66% 10% 21% East Lancashire NW 620 61% 38% 65% 32% 72% 11% 15% East Riding of Yorkshire YH 708 45% 54% 36% 60% 57% 10% 30% East Sussex Downs and Weald SEC 709 50% 50% 39% 57% 70% 5% 22% Eastern and Coastal Kent Teaching SEC 1,115 49% 50% 49% 46% 65% 9% 22% Enfield Lon 465 55% 45% 54% 41% 70% 9% 18% Gateshead NE 542 63% 36% 57% 41% 72% 6% 19% Gloucestershire SW 954 48% 51% 53% 44% 72% 7% 18% Great Yarmouth and Waveney EoE 69 67% 33% 68% 32% 78% 6% 12% Greenwich Teaching Lon 349 52% 48% 52% 44% 69% 9% 22% | | | | Aware of | |------------------------------|-------|-------|-------------| | choice | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | | | Offered | | | | | choice | | | | | 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Able to go where wanted | | | | | to go | | | | | 3 | | | | | | | | | | PCT | | | | | 4 | | | | | SHA | | | | | 5 | | | | | Total | | | | | 6 | | | | | %Yes | %No | | %Yes | | %No | | | | | preference | | | | | Halton and St Helens | NW | 723 | 55% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | Lon | 245 | 49% | | Hampshire | SC | 2,021 | 51% | | Haringey Teaching | Lon | 198 | 41% | | Harrow | Lon | 183 | 47% | | Hartlepool | NE | 56 | 61% | | Hastings and Rother | SEC | 489 | 47% | | Havering | Lon | 239 | 48% | | Heart of Birmingham Teaching | WM | 110 | 45% | | Herefordshire | WM | 421 | 46% | | Hillingdon | Lon | 557 | 40% | | Hounslow | Lon | 181 | 44% | | Hull Teaching | YH | 487 | 46% | | Isle of Wight Healthcare | SC | 366 | 40% | | Islington | Lon | 88 | 55% | | Kensington and Chelsea | Lon | 114 | 47% | | Kingston | Lon | 58 | 43% | | Kirklees | YH | 732 | 49% | | Knowsley | NW | 184 | 47% | | Lambeth | Lon | 174 | 47% | | Leeds | YH | 1,439 | 48% | | Leicester City Teaching | EM | 566 | 40% | | Leicestershire County and | | | | | Rutland | EM | 974 | 48% | | Lewisham | Lon | 289 | 46% | | Lincolnshire Teaching | EM | 2,066 | 60% | | Liverpool | NW | 422 | 54% | | Luton Teaching | EoE | 15 | 40% | | Manchester | NW | 728 | 48% | | Medway Teaching | SEC | 70 | 50% | | Mid Essex | EoE | 677 | 43% | | Middlesbrough | NE | 232 | 72% | | Milton Keynes | SC | 647 | 39% | | Newcastle | NE | 384 | 55% | | Newham | Lon | 274 | 42% | | Norfolk | EoE | 1,190 | 55% | | North East Essex | EoE | 887 | 46% | | North East Lincolnshire | YH | 290 | 60% | | North Lancashire | NW | 793 | 61% | | North Lincolnshire | YH | 332 | 62% | | North Somerset | SW | 558 | 47% | | North Staffordshire | WM | 503 | 57% | | North Tees | NE | 144 | 56% | | North Tyneside | NE | 486 | 60% | | North Yorkshire and York | YH | 1,577 | 52% | | Northamptonshire Teaching | EM | 1,295 | 60% | | Northumberland Care Trust | NE | 624 | 58% | | Nottingham City | EM | 384 | 54% | | Nottinghamshire County | | | | | Teaching | | | | | EM | 1,328 | 60% | 40% | | Oldham | NW | 51 | 59% | | Oxfordshire | SC | 805 | 57% | | Peterborough | EoE | 297 | 41% | | Plymouth Teaching | SW | 272 | 55% | | Portsmouth City Teaching | SC | 392 | 53% | | Redbridge | Lon | 419 | 53% | | Redcar and Cleveland | NE | 267 | 66% | | Richmond and Twickenham | Lon | 42 | 31% | | Rochdale, Heywood and | | | | | Middleton | NW | 47 | 47% | 3 Aware of choice 1 Offered choice 2 Able to go where wanted to go PCT 4 SHA 5 Total 6 %Yes %No %Yes %No %Yes %No %No preference Rotherham YH 74 70% 27% 61% 34% 80% 4% 14% Salford Teaching NW 344 62% 38% 50% 48% 80% 4% 15% Sandwell WM 88 50% 49% 55% 41% 75% 9% 13% Sefton NW 356 46% 53% 39% 58% 62% 4% 32% Sheffield YH 1,156 51% 48% 39% 56% 65% 7% 25% Shropshire County WM 84 56% 43% 58% 38% 73% 8% 15% Solihull WM 33 64% 33% 73% 27% 76% 12% 12% Somerset SW 547 62% 37% 62% 35% 73% 8% 17% South Birmingham WM 331 39% 60% 30% 64% 61% 2% 34% South East Essex EoE 93 48% 51% 58% 39% 73% 4% 16% South Gloucestershire SW 364 46% 53% 43% 53% 67% 10% 21% South Staffordshire WM 715 60% 39% 48% 47% 70% 6% 21% South Tyneside NE 273 72% 28% 44% 52% 72% 5% 21% South West Essex Teaching EoE 573 50% 49% 53% 45% 70% 8% 20% Southampton City SC 342 32% 67% 20% 73% 48% 9% 39% Southwark Lon 92 40% 60% 46% 48% 68% 7% 21% Stockport NW 444 54% 45% 53% 42% 77% 4% 17% Stoke on Trent Teaching WM 248 60% 39% 60% 36% 75% 5% 18% Suffolk EoE 612 48% 50% 33% 62% 66% 5% 25% Sunderland Teaching NE 741 65% 34% 45% 50% 74% 4% 19% Surrey SEC 1,855 50% 49% 47% 49% 70% 7% 20% Sutton and Merton Lon 502 46% 54% 42% 52% 64% 11% 23% Swindon SW 289 48% 51% 33% 64% 72% 1% 24% Tameside and Glossop NW 459 63% 37% 62% 36% 79% 4% 17% Telford and Wrekin WM 6 50% 50% 83% 17% 67% 33% 0% Torbay Care Trust SW 410 54% 45% 42% 55% 77% 5% 16% Tower Hamlets Lon 41 54% 46% 56% 37% 66% 12% 17% Trafford NW 224 45% 54% 43% 51% 68% 11% 19% Wakefield YH 757 52% 48% 50% 47% 65% 9% 23% Walsall Teaching WM 268 59% 40% 40% 52% 70% 5% 22% Waltham Forest Lon 428 47% 53% 44% 50% 65% 10% 23% Wandsworth Lon 46 52% 48% 50% 46% 70% 15% 11% Warrington NW 433 54% 46% 39% 57% 71% 3% 24% Warwickshire WM 490 57% 43% 63% 35% 77% 7% 15% West Cheshire NW 386 52% 47% 44% 51% 76% 5% 17% West Essex EoE 283 57% 42% 46% 52% 72% 4% 21% West Hertfordshire EoE 965 41% 58% 39% 57% 61% 9% 26% West Kent SEC 509 42% 56% 39% 55% 67% 6% 24% West Sussex Teaching SEC 957 51% 48% 50% 45% 74% 8% 16% Westminster Lon 115 37% 63% 33% 57% 65% 10% 23% Wiltshire SW 688 56% 43% 50% 46% 76% 4% 17% Wirral NW 192 57% 42% 52% 44% 69% 6% 22% Wolverhampton City WM 436 45% 54% 32% 65% 70% 3% 25% Worcestershire WM 123 55% 43% 50% 44% 63% 11% 24% 1. Response to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 2. Response to Q3 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 3. Response to Q5 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to?' 4. Responsible Care Trusts and Primary Care Trusts based on reconfigured (post 1 October 2006) organisations, see Annex B. PCT results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. 5. SHA is based on a mapping of responsible PCTs to Strategic Health Authorities: NE (North East), NW (North West), YH (Yorkshire & the Humber), EM (East Midlands), WM (West Midlands), EoE (East of England), Lon (London), SEC (South East Coast), SC (South Central) and SW (South West). 6. Total valid responses, including patients who replied 'don't know' or did not respond to the question. The national total is weighted and includes 3,482 (5%) weighted cases not listed by responsible PCT because the PCT was not clear. Results for PCTs with fewer than 50 responses should be treated with some caution (see Annex B Issues for PCT results). Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 No. of PCTs2 % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs No. of PCTs % of PCTs Percentage of patients offered a choice of hospital3 60% and over 14 5% 10 7% 18 12% 11 7% 7 5% 14 9% 13 9% 16 11% 50% to <60% 17 6% 39 26% 39 26% 49 32% 50 33% 50 33% 52 34% 48 32% 40% to <50% 34 11% 53 35% 60 39% 61 40% 58 38% 52 34% 51 34% 53 35% 30% to <40% 71 23% 39 26% 27 18% 28 18% 31 20% 28 18% 29 19% 26 17% 20% to <30% 104 34% 10 7% 8 5% 3 2% 6 4% 8 5% 7 5% 7 5% 10% to < 20% 59 19% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% <10% 4 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 303 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 152 100% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Prior to PCT reconfiguration on 1 October 2006, there were 303 organisations (Care Trusts and Primary Care Trusts), compared with 152 subsequently. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 England 78,773 30% 77,804 44% 72,153 46% 109,331 47% 89,903 45% 93,528 46% 93,003 46% 75,878 46% North East 4,238 28% 5,141 44% 4,225 44% 6,824 51% 5,587 47% 3,922 52% 5,577 50% 4,958 50% North West 11,252 39% 11,774 49% 9,865 52% 14,117 52% 12,751 51% 13,139 52% 13,084 52% 10,447 51% Yorks & Humber 9,321 26% 10,203 39% 9,235 42% 12,486 44% 9,831 41% 10,699 41% 12,165 43% 9,083 42% East Midlands 7,240 38% 7,518 52% 7,168 54% 10,269 56% 8,514 52% 9,701 52% 10,113 52% 8,489 51% West Midlands 7,355 30% 5,531 44% 6,333 46% 8,605 45% 8,208 43% 8,002 43% 7,119 44% 4,840 46% East of England 8,580 24% 7,597 37% 7,663 39% 11,442 40% 8,976 37% 8,295 39% 8,764 40% 7,252 42% London 9,350 30% 8,071 43% 7,857 45% 11,563 45% 10,433 45% 10,318 45% 8,634 43% 7,224 45% South East Coast 7,490 20% 4,962 40% 5,005 43% 8,642 44% 7,530 44% 6,880 43% 7,797 44% 5,950 44% South Central 5,204 34% 5,011 44% 4,305 45% 6,486 47% 6,051 44% 7,001 46% 6,150 45% 5,756 42% South West 8,747 27% 6,278 46% 5,629 50% 10,690 49% 8,455 48% 11,177 50% 8,274 49% 8,397 49% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Total valid responses. From November 2006, total includes cases not identifiable by SHA (see Annex B). 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 4. SHA results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. Numbers and percentages May/June 2006 November 2007 1 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 December 2008 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 England 78,773 29% 77,804 41% 72,153 43% 109,331 43% 89,903 45% 93,528 47% 93,003 48% 75,878 50% North East 4,238 30% 5,141 45% 4,225 46% 6,824 47% 5,587 49% 3,922 55% 5,577 58% 4,958 63% North West 11,252 34% 11,774 46% 9,865 48% 14,117 47% 12,751 50% 13,139 53% 13,084 54% 10,447 56% Yorks & Humber 9,321 30% 10,203 42% 9,235 43% 12,486 45% 9,831 46% 10,699 49% 12,165 51% 9,083 51% East Midlands 7,240 36% 7,518 51% 7,168 51% 10,269 51% 8,514 53% 9,701 53% 10,113 56% 8,489 57% West Midlands 7,355 31% 5,531 45% 6,333 48% 8,605 47% 8,208 48% 8,002 51% 7,119 52% 4,840 54% East of England 8,580 31% 7,597 42% 7,663 41% 11,442 43% 8,976 43% 8,295 45% 8,764 47% 7,252 48% London 9,350 32% 8,071 40% 7,857 42% 11,563 43% 10,433 46% 10,318 46% 8,634 46% 7,224 48% South East Coast 7,490 28% 4,962 38% 5,005 39% 8,642 41% 7,530 43% 6,880 45% 7,797 46% 5,950 48% South Central 5,204 32% 5,011 43% 4,305 41% 6,486 43% 6,051 46% 7,001 48% 6,150 48% 5,756 49% South West 8,747 31% 6,278 44% 5,629 46% 10,690 47% 8,455 50% 11,177 49% 8,274 51% 8,397 53% 1. For results of the July 2006 to September 2007 surveys, see previous reports. 2. Total valid responses. From November 2006, total includes cases not identifiable by SHA (see Annex B). 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to: 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 4. SHA results are not weighted for any age or sex bias among respondents. ## Annex B: Notes On The Survey Methodology Background This is the sixteenth National Patient Choice Survey conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Department of Health, in a series of surveys planned to monitor patient awareness of choice and recall of having been offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment. The surveys are designed to provide a national overview of choice and summary results at PCT level. After piloting the methodology with six NHS hospital trusts in February 2006, national surveys have been conducted for referrals in May/June, July, September and November 2006, January, March, May, July, September and November 2007, January, March, May, July, September and now December 2008. Methodology Patients who had been referred by a GP for a first outpatient appointment in any of 141 major acute NHS trusts or 14 Independent Sector (IS) organisations during the two-week period 15 to 28 December 2008 were invited to take part in the survey. Patients aged under 16 or referred for specialties exempted from choice were omitted from the survey (including urgent referrals, two week wait cancer patients, antenatal patients and those referred to rapid access chest pain clinics or mental health specialties - see footnote on Page 6). These providers of care together account for over 95% of NHS GP referrals to first outpatient appointments. Although the Independent Sector units receive relatively few referrals, their inclusion in the survey (from November 2006) helps to ensure representation of these patients, who might have a different experience of choice. The providers were asked to issue the survey questionnaire within a week of the two-week period. Around 218,000 questionnaires were issued. Patients were invited to complete the questionnaire and return it using the pre-paid Ipsos MORI reply envelope. The questionnaires were anonymous except for the information pre-completed regarding the issuing Trust and the responsible PCT of the patient (see below for issues regarding the PCT information). All responses were treated as completely confidential. The questionnaire for the December 2008 survey was the same as that used for the previous six surveys, following questionnaire redesign in November 2007 (see Annex C for the questionnaire). Response A total 75,916 patients responded to the survey, a response rate of 35%. Of these, 38 responses did not clearly indicate the code of the issuing Trust or IS provider (despite pre-printing of the organisation code) and were omitted as invalid. In addition, 3,335 (4%) responses did not clearly indicate the responsible PCT. Such cases have been included in national analysis since the November 2006 survey, as they have a valid provider code. This resulted in an effective national response rate of 35% (75,878 valid responses). This compares with valid response rates of between 25% and 33% in all surveys to January 2008 except 40% in September 2007, 50% in March 2008 and between 37% and 38% in May to September 2008. Although the survey results were weighted for age and sex bias among respondents (see below), they may be subject to other response bias for which no adjustment can be made. Weighting for non-response The age and sex of respondents to the survey was compared with Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Outpatients data sourced from the Information Centre for Health and Social Care (IC)1. The HES data related to 8.9 million first attendance outpatient appointments in 2006-07 for patients with known sex and age 16 and over where the source of referral was a General Medical Practitioner and the specialty was not one of those excluded from choice (cancer, obstetrics and mental health). There was a lower proportion of younger patients among the survey respondents than in the overall HES distribution, for both males and females, see Figure B.1. Although many of the survey results differed only slightly by age and sex, this sample difference is sufficiently marked that the decision was made to weight the national data to adjust for this response bias. No weighting was done by ethnic group since the HES outpatient data did not have an ethnic group recorded for the majority of patients. The national weighting was not applied to PCT or SHA results because the age and sex distribution differs by PCT and the HES outpatient data was not universally complete enough to provide a robust comparison. Analysis by age, sex and ethnic group Results of the survey by age, sex and ethnic group were last presented in the report for referrals made in March 20081. The report compiled results for the first twelve surveys, since the differences observed by age, sex and ethnic group were generally consistent over all the surveys and otherwise small samples for some groups made comparisons inconclusive. This analysis has been updated to include the subsequent four surveys and is presented in Annex D. Issues for PCT results Survey forms were marked with the commissioning organisation (Care Trust or Primary Care Trust, PCT) prior to issue. In most cases, issuing organisations identified the responsible PCT on the basis of contemporary PCTs, ie those following reconfiguration from 303 to 152 commissioning organisations on 1 October 2006. In the December survey, 97% of responses were marked with either new PCT codes (67%) or PCTs unaffected by reconfiguration (30%). The remaining 3% of responses had a discontinued PCT code. These were mapped to their new codes (where generally two or more of the 303 PCTs aggregated into one of the 152 reconfigured PCTs) for inclusion in the PCT level results of the survey. SHA results were aggregated from the PCT data (also unweighted). The number of valid responses received varied by PCT, from fewer than 60 patients in ten PCTs (where there were local problems with the survey process) to more than 1,000 in 14 PCTs, as shown in Annex Table A.7. If responses were unbiased, the average confidence interval2 around the percentage of patients offered choice in each PCT would be ± 6%, but in some cases this is as low as ± 2% or, in the worst case, as high as ± 32%. The variable response, possibility of response bias and lack of weighting for age and sex bias at a local level means that PCT results should be treated with some caution. ## Annex C: Survey Questionnaire Annex D: Combined Survey Results By Age, Sex And Ethnic Group Background Results of the survey by the age, sex and ethnic group of respondents were last presented in the report for referrals made in March 20081. That report compiled results for the first twelve surveys. These were aggregated for comparison, since the differences observed by age, sex and ethnic group were generally consistent over all the surveys and otherwise small samples for some groups made comparisons inconclusive. This annex updates that analysis by presenting the analysis of all sixteen surveys to date, combining these into groups of four successive surveys2. Age and sex results The proportion of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was nearly 2% higher for women than for men, see Figure D.1 and Table D.2. The proportion also varied by age, although this became less marked as the general level of recall of choice rose. The highest proportion of patients offered choice was for 35-54 year olds and 55 to 64 year olds, whilst there were lower proportions for 16-34 year olds and those aged over 65. The proportion of patients aware before visiting their GP that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment increased with age, see Figure D.2 and Table D.1. This trend was maintained across all the surveys to date, despite the general increase in awareness. Women generally had a greater awareness of choice, except in the over 65 age band where men had a greater awareness. The proportion of patients who were able to go to the hospital they wanted increased with age, whilst the proportion who had no preference decreased with age, see Figure D.3 and Table D.31. Men were somewhat less inclined to have a preference than women, slightly more of whom said they went to their hospital of choice. Combined results of surveys 10 to 12 Combined results of surveys 13 to 16 Ethnic group results The proportion of patients recalling being offered a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients1, see Figure D.4 and Table D.2. The Asian or Asian British and Black or Black British ethnic groups were on average 12% below the overall proportion of patients offered choice in the latest four surveys, as was the Other group (based on less than 0.5% of responses, see Table D.2). Those with Mixed ethnicity were slightly closer to average, whilst the Chinese group showed most variability and was not always below average (but also based on less than 0.5% of responses and omitted from Figure D.4). The variation by ethnic group lessened in the latest four surveys. ## The proportion of patients aware before visiting their GP that they had a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients, see Figure D.5 and Table D.1. Of all BME patients, those considering themselves in the Mixed and Asian or Asian British groups had the highest awareness of choice. Nevertheless, awareness has risen over time across all groups. The proportion of patients who were able to go to the hospital they wanted was higher for patients in the White ethnic group than for Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) patients, see Figure D.6 and Table D.31. All BME groups were less likely to have a preference of hospital than White patients (even when offered a choice). Numbers and percentages Surveys 1 to 4 20061 Surveys 5 to 8 20071 Surveys 9 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total 276,369 32% 285,736 37% 351,834 42% 352,316 47% 89,903 45% 93,528 47% 93,003 48% 75,878 50% By age and sex: Male 16-34 18,601 23% 19,237 27% 22,851 31% 20,237 36% 5,162 36% 5,371 35% 5,335 35% 4,368 37% 35-54 31,699 26% 32,784 31% 40,461 34% 39,431 39% 10,050 37% 10,468 38% 10,399 40% 8,514 42% 55-64 19,124 34% 19,779 38% 24,479 43% 24,004 50% 6,120 47% 6,371 50% 6,330 50% 5,183 53% 65+ 35,105 40% 36,306 45% 44,885 50% 43,896 56% 11,193 53% 11,651 55% 11,575 57% 9,477 58% Total4 107,761 32% 111,677 37% 134,298 41% 128,169 46% 32,694 44% 34,028 46% 33,790 47% 27,658 49% Female 16-34 36,415 25% 37,661 29% 50,405 34% 57,961 38% 14,780 36% 15,386 38% 15,282 39% 12,512 41% 35-54 51,872 32% 53,647 36% 68,115 41% 70,646 47% 18,015 45% 18,751 47% 18,628 48% 15,252 50% 55-64 24,102 35% 24,927 41% 30,932 47% 30,519 54% 7,780 52% 8,102 53% 8,048 55% 6,589 57% 65+ 45,060 37% 46,602 43% 57,584 48% 56,242 55% 14,340 52% 14,929 54% 14,830 55% 12,142 58% Total4 160,152 32% 165,791 37% 208,456 42% 216,041 48% 55,114 45% 57,342 47% 56,968 49% 46,617 51% By ethnic group: White 244,948 33% 251,765 38% 312,955 42% 311,425 48% 79,095 46% 82,511 48% 82,256 49% 67,563 51% All BME 24,138 26% 26,237 30% 30,925 34% 33,661 39% 8,841 38% 9,270 38% 8,670 39% 6,881 40% Mixed 3,430 28% 3,605 31% 7,648 36% 10,373 42% 2,747 41% 2,737 41% 2,856 42% 2,034 44% Asian or Asian British 10,655 26% 12,049 32% 12,489 35% 12,555 39% 3,281 37% 3,567 39% 3,084 39% 2,622 40% Black or Black British 5,986 25% 6,236 27% 7,297 32% 7,732 35% 1,998 34% 2,177 35% 1,967 34% 1,591 39% Chinese 1,192 26% 1,309 30% 1,340 31% 1,323 36% 365 39% 343 33% 333 36% 282 36% Other 2,874 29% 3,038 31% 2,151 31% 1,678 37% 450 36% 446 37% 430 39% 351 35% 1. Surveys 1 to 4 are for referrals made in May/June, July, September and November 2006. Surveys 5 to 8 are for referrals made in January, March, May and July 2007. Surveys 9 to 12 are for referrals made in September and November 2007 and January and March 2008. Surveys 13 to 16 are for referrals made in May, July, September and December 2008. For a breakdown by survey for surveys 1 to 12, see the *Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - July 2007 England* and the *Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England.* 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to Q1 'Before you visited your GP, did you know that you now have a choice of hospitals that you can go to for your first hospital appointment?' 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group. Numbers and percentages Surveys 1 to 4 20061 Surveys 5 to 8 20071 Surveys 9 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total2 %Yes3 Total 276,369 35% 285,736 45% 351,834 46% 352,316 46% 89,903 45% 93,528 46% 93,003 46% 75,878 46% By age and sex: Male 16-34 18,601 32% 19,237 41% 22,851 44% 20,237 43% 5,162 42% 5,371 43% 5,335 45% 4,368 43% 35-54 31,699 36% 32,784 46% 40,461 45% 39,431 45% 10,050 45% 10,468 44% 10,399 45% 8,514 46% 55-64 19,124 36% 19,779 46% 24,479 46% 24,004 47% 6,120 47% 6,371 47% 6,330 47% 5,183 48% 65+ 35,105 34% 36,306 44% 44,885 44% 43,896 44% 11,193 43% 11,651 44% 11,575 45% 9,477 45% Total4 107,761 35% 111,677 45% 134,298 45% 128,169 45% 32,694 44% 34,028 45% 33,790 45% 27,658 45% Female 16-34 36,415 34% 37,661 43% 50,405 45% 57,961 45% 14,780 44% 15,386 45% 15,282 44% 12,512 45% 35-54 51,872 39% 53,647 49% 68,115 49% 70,646 49% 18,015 48% 18,751 49% 18,628 49% 15,252 49% 55-64 24,102 38% 24,927 48% 30,932 49% 30,519 50% 7,780 49% 8,102 51% 8,048 49% 6,589 49% 65+ 45,060 35% 46,602 44% 57,584 44% 56,242 45% 14,340 44% 14,929 45% 14,830 46% 12,142 46% Total4 160,152 36% 165,791 46% 208,456 47% 216,041 47% 55,114 46% 57,342 47% 56,968 47% 46,617 47% By ethnic group: White 244,948 36% 251,765 46% 312,955 46% 311,425 47% 79,095 46% 82,511 47% 82,256 47% 67,563 47% All BME 24,138 30% 26,237 37% 30,925 40% 33,661 41% 8,841 42% 9,270 42% 8,670 41% 6,881 41% Mixed 3,430 33% 3,605 39% 7,648 42% 10,373 42% 2,747 43% 2,737 42% 2,856 42% 2,034 39% Asian or Asian British 10,655 30% 12,049 37% 12,489 39% 12,555 41% 3,281 41% 3,567 41% 3,084 40% 2,622 40% Black or Black British 5,986 29% 6,236 38% 7,297 40% 7,732 41% 1,998 41% 2,177 41% 1,967 39% 1,591 41% Chinese 1,192 32% 1,309 36% 1,340 43% 1,323 47% 365 45% 343 44% 333 47% 282 54% Other 2,874 30% 3,038 37% 2,151 39% 1,678 40% 450 38% 446 41% 430 44% 351 39% 1. Surveys 1 to 4 are for referrals made in May/June, July, September and November 2006. Surveys 5 to 8 are for referrals made in January, March, May and July 2007. Surveys 9 to 12 are for referrals made in September and November 2007 and January and March 2008. Surveys 13 to 16 are for referrals made in May, July, September and December 2008. For a breakdown by survey for surveys 1 to 12, see the *Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - July 2007 England* and the *Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England.* 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes to the question: 'Were you offered a choice of hospital for your first hospital appointment?' 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group. Numbers and percentages Surveys 10 to 12 2007-081 Surveys 13 to 16 20081 May 2008 (13) July 2008 (14) September 2008 (15) December 2008 (16) Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes Total2 %Yes 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. 3 % No3 pref. Total 259,289 66% 24% 352,316 67% 23% 89,903 66% 24% 93,528 66% 23% 93,003 67% 23% 75,878 68% 23% By age and sex: Male 16-34 16,632 61% 30% 20,237 62% 28% 5,162 61% 28% 5,371 62% 28% 5,335 62% 27% 4,368 62% 29% 35-54 29,861 63% 27% 39,431 63% 27% 10,050 62% 28% 10,468 62% 27% 10,399 63% 26% 8,514 65% 26% 55-64 18,084 67% 23% 24,004 67% 23% 6,120 66% 24% 6,371 67% 22% 6,330 67% 23% 5,183 69% 21% 65+ 33,147 70% 21% 43,896 70% 21% 11,193 70% 21% 11,651 69% 21% 11,575 71% 21% 9,477 71% 20% Total3 98,165 66% 25% 128,169 66% 24% 32,694 65% 25% 34,028 65% 24% 33,790 66% 24% 27,658 67% 23% Female 16-34 38,228 63% 28% 57,961 63% 28% 14,780 62% 29% 15,386 62% 28% 15,282 63% 28% 12,512 65% 26% 35-54 50,771 67% 23% 70,646 67% 23% 18,015 66% 23% 18,751 67% 23% 18,628 67% 23% 15,252 67% 23% 55-64 22,873 69% 21% 30,519 69% 20% 7,780 68% 21% 8,102 69% 19% 8,048 69% 20% 6,589 71% 19% 65+ 42,517 70% 20% 56,242 71% 19% 14,340 70% 20% 14,929 70% 19% 14,830 71% 19% 12,142 72% 19% Total3 154,877 67% 67% 23% 56,968 68% 23% 46,617 68% 22% By ethnic group: White 231,024 23% 67% 311,425 68% 23% 79,095 67% 24% 82,511 67% 23% 82,256 68% 23% 67,563 69% 22% 23% 216,041 67% 23% 55,114 66% 24% 57,342 All BME 22,825 60% 27% 33,661 61% 26% 8,841 61% 26% 9,270 61% 26% 8,670 61% 27% 6,881 62% 26% Mixed 6,605 62% 26% 10,373 63% 25% 2,747 63% 24% 2,737 62% 24% 2,856 62% 25% 2,034 63% 26% Asian or Asian British 8,834 60% 28% 12,555 62% 26% 3,281 61% 26% 3,567 61% 26% 3,084 62% 26% 2,622 63% 25% Black or Black British 5,308 59% 28% 7,732 59% 28% 1,998 59% 28% 2,177 59% 27% 1,967 57% 29% 1,591 60% 28% Chinese 834 62% 29% 1,323 63% 28% 365 62% 26% 343 60% 32% 333 64% 28% 282 68% 28% Other 1,244 58% 28% 1,678 60% 26% 450 59% 28% 446 62% 23% 430 63% 25% 351 58% 27% 1. The question was introduced from Survey 10 (November 2007). For a breakdown by survey for surveys 10 to 12, see the *Report on the National Patient Choice Survey - March 2008 England.* 2. Total valid responses. All figures are weighted, ie adjusted for national age and sex bias in the responding sample. 3. Percentage of patients who said Yes or that they had No preference respectively to Q5 'Were you able to go to the hospital that you wanted to go to? 4. Male and Female totals include those of unknown age. Overall totals also include those of unknown sex or ethnic group.

en

3027-pdf

# Follow Up Of The Agreed Actions From The 2015/16 Health & Safety Audit Report City Of York Council 2017/18 # Memorandum For: Assistant Director, Customer Services & Digital, Head of Health & Safety Status: Final Date Issued: 25/1/2018 Where information resulting from investigation and/or audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential. ## 1 Introduction 1.1 The council has responsibilities for the health and safety of its employees, customers accessing services and people in the city. To meet these responsibilities, the council undertakes a broad and diverse range of activities. 1.2 Following a request by the Audit & Governance Committee, it was agreed that the main part of this year's Health & Safety audit would focus on the council's arrangements for ensuring safety at public events. This has been reported separately to management. 1.3 The 2015/16 audit reviewed progress against actions raised in the 2013/14 and 2014/15 Health & Safety audits. It was found that there were a total of 11 outstanding actions for which the target implementation dates needed to be revised or the action reviewed. These actions have therefore been followed up as part of this year's audit. Due to the extent of the work involved in following up these actions, it was considered to be appropriate to report the findings separately to the main part of the audit. Scope and Objectives 1.4 The first objective of this audit was to establish the progress made towards achieving the actions identified as part of the 2015/16 Health & Safety audit. 1.5 The second objective was to agree further actions or revised target dates where necessary to address any outstanding issues. ## Key Findings 1.6 At the time of the audit the Health & Safety team (H&S team) were in the process of combining with the H&S Team of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) to form a Shared Health and Safety Service. The intention is to align and where practicable to merge H&S systems, but work on this was at an early stage. 1.7 Many of the risks identified during the previous audits have now been mitigated and the H&S Team are undertaking work that will address the remaining actions. It was found that sufficient progress has been made to achieving six of the actions. 1.8 In five cases, work is ongoing to address the risks previously identified. In some cases, the H&S Team have changed their approach to the risks, resulting in the need for new actions. Issues regarding identifying significant corporate and non-domestic property risks (action 4 in the 2015/16 audit report) and Site Asbestos Liaison Officers (SALOs) and Site Legionella Representatives (SLRs) (action 9) are now being addressed differently. Officers said that properties are now being assigned a health and safety risk rating (action 6), but clear evidence to support this was not available as the premises register (see 2.9-10 below) was not complete. A gap analysis has been undertaken by the H&S Team for all corporate and non-domestic premises to identify where asbestos surveys are required. The review identified 11 premises that require surveys. These have been commissioned for 3 premises and requests for authorisation to carry out surveys have been issued for the other 8 (action 8). Health surveillance (action 11) now comes under the remit of Human Resources, who have raised additional concerns in relation to this. 1.9 Detailed discussion of the findings is set out below. Four new actions are set out in Appendix 1. The issue of overall risk ratings for properties has been combined with the premises register as a single action, which should address both issues. ## 2 Findings Area Reviewed - Lone Working (Actions 1 & 2) 2.1 The 2015/16 audit found that risks were not fully documented for services with an element of lone working. The H&S team were to assess the appropriateness of documentation in high-risk services and raise awareness of the need to complete lone working risk assessments. 2.2 Discussions with the H&S team found that lone working forms are just one part of audits of service areas. Lone-working risks are assessed by services using the lone-working compliance note (updated April 2017). The risk assessments are sent to the H&S team for review. A new checklist to help managers assess the risk of lone working, violence and aggression in their service areas has also been developed. 2.3 The H&S team reviewed the use of Skyguard warning devices and the Staff Warning Register (SWR). It was found that many Skyguard profiles, which contain key contact information for use should the device be activated, were incomplete. In addition the SWR had been used infrequently: out of 300 people with access, only 25 had used it. 2.4 A report was taken to the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) in June 2017 that recommended a review of lone working, violence and aggression risks across the directorates. In addition a report and presentation on the situation as regards lone working was provided to Corporate Leadership Group. Work is currently ongoing to review Skyguard usage and profile information and update risk assessments as appropriate. Once this has been completed, the H&S team will conduct 'dip-sampling' of Skyguard profiles on a rolling basis. 2.5 The work done by the H&S team addresses the issues identified in the previous audit. The actions outlined in the previous audit can be considered complete. The H&S Team also said the SWR will be monitored regularly, but this had not begun at the time of the audit. ## Area Reviewed - Premises Registers (Actions 3 - 5) 2.6 The lack of a single, comprehensive premises register for corporate and nondomestic premises identifying the significant health and safety obligations the council has in relation to these premises had been identified as an issue in both the 2014/15 and 2015/16 audits. Documentation of obligations and risks was being stored in multiple file areas. Several services were involved, but they did not have a coordinated approach. The H&S Team also mentioned difficulties in retrieving property information from Techforge and limitations in Documentum. 2.7 It was found that the Health & Safety Risk Manager now regularly attends meetings with colleagues from Property Services, Housing, and Commercial Services. The meetings provide a discussion forum for the different services, allowing them to keep abreast of health and safety issues at council premises. 2.8 The H&S team are now also receiving updates from Commercial Services as and when properties are acquired or disposed of, leased or a lease is terminated, allowing them to update their records. 2.9 A register of the significant health and safety risks of corporate and nondomestic premises register is currently being developed by the H&S team and a similar register is being developed at NYCC. It will show health and safety responsibilities for services, corporate properties, local authority schools, and commercial properties. It will include a health and safety risk rating in order to inform the health and safety visit programme. Furthermore, it will identify the last advisor visit, the date of the most recent audit visit and due date for the next visit, as well as responsibilities for fire, asbestos, and Legionella, amongst other things. 2.10 At the time of the audit, the H&S team were working to resolve some functionality issues within the register between the NYCC and CYC versions and consequently had yet to populate it with all the relevant data, although efforts had begun in this area (for example, the dates of asbestos surveys at properties had been compiled). Completing the register will enable the H&S team to identify gaps in their records and provide management with a monitoring tool. 2.11 Actions 3 and 5, relating to coordination of services and updates on assets, can be considered complete. Although progress is being made towards completing Action 4 on the premises register, further follow up is required to confirm that issues have been resolved and the register updated with all required information. ## Area Reviewed - Fire Risk Assessments (Actions 6 & 7) 2.12 The 2015/16 audit identified that not all properties had a health and safety risk rating and there was not a formalised follow up and escalation procedure for actions arising from fire risk assessments. 2.13 Discussions with officers found that properties are now assigned an overall risk rating of 'high', 'medium' or 'low'. This is a judgement reached by the responsible health & safety officer based on fire, asbestos, Legionella and other health and safety risks at the property in question. The frequency of fire safety reviews has also been prioritised based on risk. However, due to the issues outlined in 2.10 above sufficient evidence was not available for all properties. 2.14 A formal follow up process is now in place. Once a health and safety audit has been completed, the service or property manager has 30 days to complete and return an action plan addressing the issues raised. If an action plan is not returned, then it is escalated to the relevant head of service and assistant director. This is clearly stated in the health and safety policy. 2.15 Action 6 (risk ratings) cannot be considered complete at this stage, but it is expected that the new premises register will address this issue. Therefore, a separate action has not been raised, but it is included in Action 1 in Appendix 1. As a formal follow up process is now in place, action 7 can be considered complete. ## Area Reviewed - Asbestos Risk Registers (Action 8) 2.16 It was agreed during the last audit that a review of non-domestic council properties would be undertaken to identify those that did not have an asbestos survey or management plan in place. 2.17 As part of the compilation of the new premises health and safety risk register (see 2.9-10 above), a gap analysis has been undertaken as outlined in 1.8 above to identify where asbestos surveys are required. Furthermore, a new asbestos management register is being developed, which will replace the current format and properties with asbestos will receive an annual visit. 2.18 Progress has been made against this action as the service has now identified where asbestos surveys are required. Once surveys have been conducted for properties without them, then this action can be considered complete. An action has been raised regarding the completion of surveys. ## Area Reviewed - Asbestos & Legionella Site Representatives (Action 9) 2.19 The 2015/16 Audit Found That There Were No Up To Date Lists Of Salos And SLRs for council premises and review forms often had the 'responsible officer' field left blank. 2.20 Discussion with the H&S team found that SALOs and SLRs are to be renamed 'nominated persons' in line with North Yorkshire County Council practice. The H&S Team said that responsibility for Legionella and asbestos should sit with a particular level of management (e.g. heads of service or head teachers at schools) as this better reflects the health and safety policy. Therefore, maintaining a list of names is not necessary as the relevant officer or head teacher retains overall responsibility. 2.21 The H&S team are updating the compliance notes for Legionella and asbestos to reflect this position. Consultation has currently commenced with trade unions and affected services. Training will then be provided to nominated persons, either face-to-face (for asbestos) or via e-learning (for Legionella), over the coming months. Ongoing training needs will be identified as part of the regular audit schedule. In order to facilitate this and other safety critical training, the Workforce Development Unit (WDU) are implementing a Learning Management (LMS) System which will assist in the roll out of training programmes, particularly e-learning. 2.22 It is critical that nominated persons understand their role and responsibilities. Although the H&S team have developed a plan to address the issue, it is yet to be fully implemented. The action is therefore outstanding and requires further follow up. ## Area Reviewed - Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome Monitoring (Action 10) 2.23 The 2014/15 And 2015/16 Audits Found That Havs Monitoring Was Inadequate because the paper forms in use were often incomplete, inaccurate, missing or delayed. It was agreed that a decision would be taken on implementing a new monitoring system. 2.24 Discussions with the Planning and Compliance Officer found that a new electronic vibration monitoring system has now been purchased to replace the old paper forms. The new system uses watches worn by users that record vibration levels over a period of time. At the time of the audit, the officer was training users and completing an inventory of machinery requiring monitoring prior to rolling out the system. 2.25 The Planning and Compliance Officer explained that the system includes an online portal to which data from the watches is uploaded automatically when they are placed in their docking station. He will receive automatic email alerts if an employee has breached safe usage levels and can also produce reports showing usage by individual employees. This information will be provided to managers for further investigation as required. 2.26 The paper-based monitoring system has now been replaced and the new system is more robust. The action can therefore be considered complete. ## Area Reviewed - Health Surveillance (Action 11) 2.27 The 2015/16 audit found that the process for keeping the list of employees who require health surveillance up to date was not working. It was agreed then that managers would be required to provide an annual update of employees requiring health surveillance to Business Support. 2.28 Discussion with the H&S team, the Business Support Operations Manager (BSOM) and the Human Resources Wellbeing & Occupational Health Advisor (WOHA) found that a different approach is being taken to resolve the problem, but also that there is a related issue of non-attendance that is particularly prevalent in certain services. 2.29 The BSOM explained that new starters requiring surveillance are now identified through Work Health Assessment Forms (WHAFs) issued by the Recruitment team and added to the health surveillance list. However, Business Support only find out that staff members have left the council or are on long-term sick leave when they try to book appointments and managers decline them, which means staff may not be receiving a final health check. 2.30 The WOHA explained that the 'gold standard' is for employees to have a final health check before they leave as this helps protect the council against future liability claims. One means of identifying leavers would be to include a requirement on the leavers' checklist for managers to inform Business Support that an employee is leaving who required health surveillance. It should be noted that it may be difficult to enforce such a health check of someone leaving the council, but refusal or non-attendance could be recorded on the appropriate record. 2.31 Non-attendance at appointments was highlighted during the audit as a particular issue. At 1/8/2017, there were 276 individuals who required health surveillance. Of these, 79 were overdue appointments, 18 of whom did not have appointments arranged. Of the 79 overdue individuals, 39 were from Waste Services. As of 31/10/2017 the situation had improved, but there were still 22 individuals from Waste Services who were overdue appointments. 2.32 The council is charged for non-attendance at appointments or if the appointment is cancelled within 48 hours of the arranged date. There is a clear financial risk to the council from non-attendance at appointments, as well as the inefficient use of Business Support time in reorganising these appointments. The WOHA suggested re-charging costs to services may incentivise managers to encourage attendance at appointments. This option should be explored as part of the review of occupational health arrangements that is being undertaken. 2.33 The original action requiring an annual update from managers is no longer appropriate and should be superseded with a requirement for managers to notify Business Support of leavers and staff members on long-term sick leave. The option for re-charging costs of non-attendance and the additional time taken by Business Support related to this to services should be explored. An action has been raised regarding these issues. ## 3 Conclusions 3.1 Overall, improvements have been made in the systems for managing the Health and Safety risks previously identified. Review of the actions raised in the 2015/16 audit found that six of the actions raised at that time (actions 1-3, 5, 7, and 10) have been completed or sufficient progress has been made in addressing the issues. 3.2 There are five actions that will need to be superseded with new actions and further follow up work carried out. Firstly, it will need to be confirmed that the new premises health and safety risk register (original action 4, see 2.9-10) has been completed and the outstanding technical issues resolved. Ensuring that it is finalised is important because it will be a key oversight and monitoring tool for a variety of health and safety risks. It will also provide evidence that properties have been assigned overall health and safety risk ratings as required by action 6. 3.3 Secondly, asbestos surveys (original action 8) need to be conducted for premises that do not have them. The H&S team have carried out work to identify these gaps in their records. Once surveys have been conducted, then action 8 from the 2015/16 report can be considered complete. 3.4 The H&S team are no longer maintaining a list of SALOs & SLRs as envisioned in action 9 of the 2015/16 audit. Instead, they are taking a new approach as outlined in section 2.19-22. Therefore, the original action is no longer appropriate and a new action has been raised to assess progress. 3.5 Finally, the action relating to health surveillance (original action 11) is no longer appropriate. As discussed in 2.27-2.33, a different approach is needed to address the issues, and so a new action has been raised. ## Appendix 1 - Actions Agreed To Address Control Weaknesses | Action | Report | |------------------------|-------------| | Number | Reference | | Issue | Risk | | * | | | | | | Responsible | | | 1 | 2.6, 2.9-10 | | The premises | | | register is | | | incomplete. | | | Health and safety | | | responsibilities are | | | not met in a timely | | | manner. | | | 2 | 2.16-2.18 | | Not all premises | | | have asbestos | | | surveys. | | | Asbestos risks are | | | not appropriately | | | managed. | | | 3 | 2.19-2.22 | | Legionella and | | | asbestos | | | compliance notes | | | require updating | | | and training needs | | | to be provided to | | | nominated persons. | | | Asbestos and | | | Legionella risks may | | | not be managed | | | appropriately, | | | increasing the | | | likelihood of exposure | | | to asbestos or | | | Legionella. | | Officer Timescale Head of 2 Health & April 2018 Safety The premises register will be completed and technical issues resolved. This will include entering the overall property risk ratings. Head of 3 Health & April 2018 Safety The H&S team will conduct surveys for those properties that require them and include the results in Techforge. a) The compliance notes for Legionella and asbestos will be updated. A & B - April 2018 Head of 2 Health & C - April b) The appropriate level of training at council premises and schools will be identified. Safety 2019 with interim update October c) Training will be rolled out to officers who require it following the revision of the compliance notes. 2018 Head of 4 2.27-2.33 3 Human July 2018 a) The leavers' checklist will be updated to include a requirement to notify Business Support if appropriate that the leaver requires a final health check. Resources Staff members requiring health surveillance are not attending appointments. Non-attendance has a potential cost to the council, both financially and in staff time. There is also a risk of future liability claims if staff members do not receive final health checks. b) A decision will be taken on re-charging costs of non-attendance to services. Priorities for Actions Priority 1 A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. Priority 2 A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. Priority 3 The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management.

en

3462-pdf

| Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 PACS (IT) | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | ACCENTURE | 766584 | 71,070.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 PACS (IT) | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | ACCENTURE | 774399 | 71,070.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 767749 | 46,789.50 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 769741 | 28,670.86 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 772087 | 55,141.19 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | AMGEN LIMITED | 770222 | 26,028.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 771995 | 31,464.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | BCS ELECTRICS LTD | 779034 | 24,923.40 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY | 768535 | 30,950.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY | 772783 | 30,950.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/07/2014 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 767121 | 70,800.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 775473 | 73,160.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | CALDER C.A.D LTD | 773801 | 54,054.24 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 31344 | 41,723.25 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | AUDIT FEES: INTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 31483 | 137,500.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 31779 | 41,723.25 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | MED & SURG EQUIP DO NOT USE | CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD | 779426 | 243,840.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/07/2014 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 780775 | 3,784,096.97 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 771184 | 83,508.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 771185 | 69,940.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 771186 | 68,070.19 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 773184 | 85,280.71 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775132 | 36,665.46 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775132 | 0.74 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775137 | 67,504.12 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775137 | 33.55 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775276 | 83,551.38 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775277 | 85,455.12 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 775277 | 81.48 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ELI LILLY & CO LTD | 773101 | 69,120.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 CORPORATE CENTRAL COSTS | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | ERNST & YOUNG LLP | 778062 | 504,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 MICROBIOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS | GENMED.ME LIMITED | 766009 | 49,167.36 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | AUDIT FEES: EXT NON-STAT | GRANT THORNTON | 769839 | 31,428.90 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 767878 | 160,385.05 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 769601 | 255,746.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 771170 | 93,584.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 773170 | 240,524.82 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 775172 | 185,436.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 776862 | 148,210.74 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | PREPAYMENT < 1 YEAR | HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES | 771836 | 40,680.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 776426 | 79,701.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 776426 | 4,226.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 RADIOLOGY MEDICAL STAFFING | OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR | INHEALTH LTD | 775120 | 69,445.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 MRI SERVICE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | INHEALTH LTD | 776972 | 67,545.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | JANSSEN CILAG LTD | 772077 | 26,295.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI | SENIOR LECTURER | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31162 | 45,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31186 | 446.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31186 | 35,726.50 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31186 | 2,379.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/07/2014 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31291 | 45,006.89 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 760657 | 175,282.79 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 767889 | 187,964.74 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 767890 | 194,766.02 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | MERZ PHARMA UK LTD | 772753 | 43,200.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 GENERAL OFFICE PGH | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C | 775111 | 30,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 31345 | 104,860.05 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 31347 | 39,462.96 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | OTH PROVN UTILISATION >1YR | NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY | 31561 | 29,758.28 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR | NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY | 31562 | 108,611.68 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2014 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 31661 | 40,388.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2014 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 31662 | 1,016,538.40 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 766451 | 89,329.81 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 766451 | 15,249.78 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------|-------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 768477 | 4,588.95 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 768477 | 106,299.86 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 768478 | 92,193.96 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 768478 | 13,427.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 770371 | 91,751.86 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 770371 | 14,322.83 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 770372 | 23,978.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 770372 | 25,094.58 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 771589 | 38,946.48 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 771590 | 119,840.93 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 773709 | 62,400.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 773723 | 31,919.98 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 773723 | 23,248.71 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 773725 | 88,503.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 773725 | 14,808.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31201 | 148,523.59 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31202 | 62,668.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31263 | 53,920.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31264 | 137,604.45 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31358 | 145,081.77 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31359 | 59,317.57 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31437 | 184,048.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31438 | 54,349.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 31502 | 154,652.54 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 767729 | 84,318.24 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 771707 | 107,026.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | NOVUS HEALTH LTD | 647870 | 42,200.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | NOVUS HEALTH LTD | 778053 | (42,200.00) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 02/07/2014 SLEEP SERVICE | GENERAL MATERIALS | PHILIPS RESPIRONICS | 767259 | 56,130.22 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 A&E PGH & PGI | GENERAL PRACTITIONERS | PRIMECARE | 775131 | 34,110.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 16/07/2014 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | RADIOMETER LTD | 770444 | 31,929.31 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 771988 | 28,009.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 772691 | 197,665.20 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 773950 | 40,247.16 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED | SCC SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES | 768672 | 72,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 PLASTIC SURGERY PGH | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL | 755193 | 22,023.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28/07/2014 UROLOGY PGH | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL | 755193 | 5,900.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/07/2014 LAUNDRY DDH | EXT CONTR LAUNDRY | SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD | 774479 | 36,440.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | UNISON | 32494 | 70,639.45 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 774004 | 236,180.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 09/07/2014 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 774005 | 50,610.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/07/2014 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD | 772786 | 153,806.39 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 776588 | 450.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/07/2014 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 776588 | 37,622.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/06/2014 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | EDENRED | 31378 | 46,591.62 |

en

4156-pdf

## National Disclosure Improvement Plan Phase Two - Embedding Culture Change And Continuous Improvement This has been an exceptionally busy period for work under the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. This report sets out the progress we have made over the course of the last 12 months and the evaluation of the impact our interventions are having. It demonstrates how we have brought together criminal justice partners at a local and national level to improve our collective confidence, performance and develop our capabilities. Our work has supported the drafting of the revised Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure, on which there is to be a public consultation later this year and we have worked with the Transforming Summary Justice Working Groups on changes to the Streamlined Disclosure Certificate which will also be the subject of consultation. The CPS has upgraded its case management system to assist prosecutors with recording decisions taken on disclosure and activities to identify how technology can be used to drive improvements in investigations have continued at pace, coordinated by the cross-agency working group. We have focussed on developing both national and local approaches on issues such as handling sensitive material and extending the use of the Disclosure Management Document. The College, CPS and the NPCC have also faced a significant challenge on the use of the digital processing notice, which was endorsed by the National Police Chiefs' Council as a way of bringing consistency to the approach to examining digital devices that belong to complainants and witnesses. The expansion of digital and mobile connectivity means that very often there will be evidence that is needed to support the prosecution held on a device belonging to the complainant. Equally, there may be circumstances in which it is necessary to examine particular parts of a complainant's telephone because a fair trial may not be possible if this is not done. We have emphasised in guidance to police and prosecutors that this must not ever be undertaken as a matter of course in all cases, must not be speculative and must be confined to pursuing reasonable lines of enquiry. The digital processing notices are intended to make it clear to complainants how their data may be used, who may see it and why. Investigations and trials must be consistent with protecting the rights of all of those involved, including the privacy rights of complainants and witnesses. We are awaiting the report of the Information Commissioner into the appropriate legal basis for processing this data and we will review our approach in the light of any recommendations she makes. We expect the report to be published early in the New Year. We are confident that the management of unused material both as part of the investigation and at the post charge stage across all crime types is in a far better place at the beginning of this year than it was at the beginning of 2018. The data we are now collecting on our performance also makes clear that our task is far from complete. Tackling these issues and improving our resilience in dealing with new technological challenges requires a sustained and long term national response. We cannot do this alone. We need to work even more closely together as investigators and prosecutors and with our criminal justice partners, including the defence. These progress reports are a crucial part of this ongoing effort as we work to ensure the commitments to improve disclosure at every level remain strong. ## Key Activity A full list of all of the actions under the NDIP Phase 2 are set out below at Annex A but progress against key measures and initiatives are as follows: Action: Learning from the on-going pilots led by our cross-agency technology working group will be coupled with evidence from a more detailed wider landscape review undertaken by the NPCC Digital Policing Portfolio. As per the Justice Select Committee recommendation, this work will inform the Home Office, in consultation with the CPS, the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing, in their production of a comprehensive strategy to ensure that all 43 police forces are equipped to handle the increasing volume and complexity of digital evidence In June 2019, the Solicitor General and the Minister for Policing jointly hosted a Technology Summit which brought together senior police and prosecutors, representatives from across the criminal justice system, and experts from the technology industry. The summit focused on the handling of digital evidence disclosure in criminal cases and considered how police and prosecutors can be supported to better handle the increasing volumes of digital evidence. The NPCC's Digital Policing Portfolio has published its landscape review (Annex C), assessing the high-level solutions currently available in the technology marketplace. One of the outcomes of this and other inter-related work is investment by the NPCC to address a number of potential gaps - particularly in outlining the requirements for a nationallyscalable solution for the redaction of sensitive material, and in ensuring there is ongoing coordination of e-disclosure activity and investment across the different police forces. Redaction is a critical dependency if we are to implement the rebuttable presumption recommendation from the Attorney General's Review of Disclosure. The NPCC is also working in partnership with TechUK to ensure that systems interoperability is at the forefront of this thinking, and following an industry engagement session last Autumn, in conjunction with the Attorney General's Office, are presenting an Outline Business Case to the Digital Policing Board in January 2020 setting out the technology options for the redaction of documents, still images and video. The pilot activities coordinated by members of the NDIP working group are continuing to explore the use of a range of technical solutions. These tools provide a variety of capabilities, including advanced analysis and artificial intelligence. The pilots are testing both the application of such technology to the criminal justice environment and also the operational requirements and impacts of its use. Particular progress over the last quarter has been made with the pathfinder project run by the Metropolitan Police, where the live application of this software has received positive feedback from police and prosecutors alike. The pilot use of an AI application is currently being undertaken in Surrey with a report due early in 2020. The Home Office, Attorney General's Office, Ministry of Justice, CPS, and Policing all continue to collaborate closely in this space. In particular, joint work has ensured that a consolidated cross-government view of the requirements to support disclosure will be presented into the next reviews of departmental spending. ## Action: Focussing On Disclosure In The Magistrates' And Youth Courts. On-Going We have identified the key barriers to delivering effective case progression as including the quality of evidence and police files which results in more cases being screened out or being sent back for further investigation by the CPS, and the increase in time taken to work through the process leads to higher attrition rates for both victims and witnesses. As we develop an action plan to tackle the issues we will be focussing on; - Police and CPS file quality: How can we adopt best practices on case file preparation from police forces to increase the rate of the National File Standard being met? - Engagement with Victims and Witnesses: How can we improve our processes when engaging with victims and witnesses to ensure they stay involved throughout the course of a case? The National Criminal Justice Board has commissioned a sub-group to examine case progression, led by the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office has also set up a 'task and finish' group to look at case file quality and police and CPS engagement. This group will sit under the sub-group, helping to ensure work is joined up. We welcome both of these work streams as we look to publish a commitment on case progression in the next quarter. We have also been working on the Streamlined Disclosure Certificate (SDC), with police and prosecutor workshops identifying that having two versions of the SDC, one for cases in which there is material to disclose and one where there is not, is confusing for practitioners. We have therefore proposed a single combined version of the SDC, which will be consulted upon as part of the amendments to the CPIA Code of Practice under the Attorney General's Disclosure Review. Whilst we do not want to detract from the "thinking approach", in which decisions about disclosure are carefully considered and not dealt with as a matter of routine, we are also keen to ensure that what is required is clearly signposted for front-line investigators who may complete SDCs only as an infrequent part of their busy duties. ## Action: Continue Working With Hmcts To Develop A Section In The Crown Court Digital Case System Accommodating The Transfer Of Unused Material And A Record Of Disclosure Decisions A revised Plea and Trial Preparation Form was authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to replace the original PTPH form for new cases, commencing on 22 July 2019. An additional question has been added to the Prosecution Information for PTPH: 'Has a Disclosure Management Document been provided?' The form also makes provision for the defence to indicate whether a served DMD is adequate and if not why not, and also to identify reasonable lines of enquiry and what they say is the appropriate "level of extraction" from mobile devices and computers. The court is required to consider whether they should order a Disclosure Management Document (or an updated one). These amendments should ensure that DMDs are fully utilised from the outset of the case. Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service and the CPS are continuing to work on a section on the Digital Case System accessible by the parties in which disclosed material can be served, together with the MG6C. It is anticipated that this will be available for use in Spring 2020. Action: Assessing the training needs of prosecutors - ensuring new starters have the opportunity to undertake disclosure training as part of their induction and that recruits receive training appropriate to their level of experience. Evaluate the training provided to prosecutors and plan accordingly for future training based on organisational assessment of user needs. As part of the Lawyer Induction Programme all new Area prosecutors joining the Crown Prosecution Service receive extended face to face disclosure training over a number of days. In relation to established lawyers, in order to supplement the 2018 proactive disclosure course delivered as part of NDIP phase 1, all lawyers have received a half day training course on the new Code for Crown Prosecutors which is being delivered by Chief Crown Prosecutors and Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutors. This has a particular focus on advising on reasonable lines of enquiry and whether there is any material which might affect the sufficiency of evidence in relation to the Full Code Test. The following training courses have also been developed and delivered: - Think Digital Toolkit Videos - data extraction from telephones; - Use of Disclosure Management Documents in Rape and Serious Sexual Abuse cases. All prosecutors working in Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Units have received training on the use of Disclosure Management Documents. The current figures for completion of the College of Policing training on disclosure record that more than a hundred thousand police personnel from Home Office forces have completed all modules of the training, with many more having completed one or more of the six modules. A disclosure event for Assistant Chief Constables was held, which was well attended. Inputs were designed to update these force strategic leads and CPD was provided via sessions on disclosure handling from both Prosecution and Defence representatives. External academics were involved to encourage alternative approaches and dynamic thinking in relation to approaching cultural reform. ## Action: Rolling Out The Use Of Dmds Across Crown Court Cases And In Magistrates' And Youth Court Cases In Which There Are Significant Volumes Of Digital Material, Communications Evidence Or Third Party Material The Disclosure Management Document sets out the approach the prosecution team has taken to disclosure. It should clearly identify what has been considered to be a reasonable line of enquiry in the case and why, together with an explanation of how all seized electronic material has been dealt with. Transparency of the approach is crucial. It should be used to explain to the defence and the court what enquiries are being pursued, and crucially the enquiries we do not intend to make, and why. The DMD should be reviewed regularly. It must be continually updated throughout the life of the case, to form a record of key prosecution strategy, decision making and an audit trail. The use of the MG3 insert setting out the reasonable lines of enquiry and approach to digital and third party material, together with the DMD has been mandatory in cases dealt with by the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Units and the Complex Casework Units in the CPS since March 2018. The Attorney General's Review of disclosure recommended that these be extended to all Crown Court cases by the Summer of 2019. NDIP Phase Two has considered how these might be effectively rolled out. The NDIP Board initially considered that it would be appropriate to apply some form of criteria to extending the DMD to ensure it is utilised in those cases where it would add value rather than a blanket approach requiring a DMD in all cases. A proposal was discussed with representatives from the judiciary and defence community at the Disclosure Seminar in June 2019 suggesting utilising the DMD in cases where one or more of the following factors were present, regardless of whether they were a Crown Court, Youth or magistrates' court case: - Substantial or complex third party material, including forensics; - Digital material in which parameters of search, examination or analysis have been set (likely to include voluminous CCTV, ANPR data as well as digital devices); - Complex international enquiries which are likely to have a bearing on the case; - Linked operations; - Historical offences, especially where there has been a previous investigation. However, the views from the seminar were that a DMD is capable of adding value in all Crown Court cases, and if the case is very straightforward, then the DMD can also be relatively brief. We are therefore currently piloting the use of the DMD in all Crown Court cases in the CPS Area of Mersey Cheshire. The pilot began in October 2019 and will be for a period of 6 months. We will evaluate the impact of this at the conclusion before making a decision on further extension. Action: Updating and nationalising police guidelines on data protection and the legal basis for data extraction from digital devices. We will work with victims' groups and relevant Commissioners, including the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to create clear explanations so that complainants and witnesses understand when, how and why their information will be accessed and processed The way personal data is used in criminal investigations is an issue of growing significance. Balancing the huge increase in digital information with our duty to respect privacy and ensure all reasonable lines on enquiry are pursued is an important challenge. The lines of enquiry deemed "reasonable" will depend on the circumstances of each case. This was reinforced by the judgment from the Court of Appeal in R v E [2018] EWCA 2426 (Crim), which confirmed that a fair trial was still possible in a case where a mobile phone had not been seized. In many investigations it will be necessary for the prosecution to look at some personal data but this does not mean access is needed to everything or that it will be automatically disclosed to the defence. There are also important safeguards to prevent complainants being cross-examined on irrelevant sexual history. The CPS guidance is clear that police and prosecutors must only request data in order to follow a reasonable line of enquiry, which means when it forms an essential part of a fair investigation and prosecution. We are working with victims' groups to ensure that they understand how, and to what extent, devices will be examined, how data will be used and the circumstances when it will be necessary to share it with the defence. Although much of the publicity surrounding the Digital Processing Notices has been focused on complainants of sexual violence, these are to be used in every case where digital data is a reasonable line of enquiry. We want every victim to have the confidence to come forward knowing it will be fully investigated and, whenever the evidence supports, charged and fairly prosecuted. The Information Commissioner will shortly conclude her inquiry into the lawful basis for the processing of the data of victims and witnesses and we will review the consent forms in light of any recommendations from her report. ## Action: Reviewing Processes For Handling Sensitive Disclosure Outside Specialist Police Units And The Cps Central Casework Divisions. This Will Involve Ensuring Investigators And Prosecutors Have The Knowledge And Skills To Deal With Cases Involving Sensitive Lines Of Enquiry And Sensitive Unused Material. A small working group was set up to review the current processes which are operating in respect of handling sensitive material. It was recognised that different local practices had developed between law enforcement agencies and CPS areas which had the capacity to lead to confusion. Good practice was also identified. In order to clarify the roles and responsibilities between different law enforcement agencies and prosecutors we have produced a Service Level Agreement (SLA) which articulates the way in which all highly sensitive material ought to be handled and clarifies the roles and responsibilities between the prosecutor and the investigator. These will be implemented in forces and CPS Areas over the course of this year. We have also produced template documents to be used when making a Public Interest Immunity application to ensure applications are of a consistently high quality and comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules. The group has reviewed the guidance materials that are available to prosecutors about sensitive material and identified that there was already good legal guidance in place but its positioning meant it was not always easy to locate. These have now all been collated and published on the CPS intranet. We recognised that there was an absence of clear audit trails about disclosure decisions made for highly sensitive material. The group has produced a Highly Sensitive Disclosure Record sheet (DRS) to serve as a record of the rationale for decisions which are taken throughout the life of a case. ## Measuring Progress On Delivery The Code for Crown Prosecutors is the authoritative guide to the decision to prosecute. The CPS prosecutes cases when there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and it is in the public interest to do so. The CPS's role is to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and effectively, paying particular attention to the prosecutor's duties with regard to the disclosure of information to the defence. Careful judgment is required to achieve consistent, high quality decisions throughout the progress of a prosecution. It is an important part of the duty of the prosecutor to keep every case under continuous review and to bring cases to an end if the Code test is no longer met. On each occasion this occurs, the prosecutor is required to record the reason the case was stopped. In November 2018 the CPS introduced five new codes for prosecutors to use at the conclusion of every case in which the outcome was not a conviction. In addition, for every case which does not result in conviction, irrespective of the primary reason, the lawyer must record whether issues with disclosure were a contributory factor in the outcome of the case. These new codes were introduced to improve the data available in order that police and prosecutors can better monitor performance on disclosure, and track the impact of the actions being taken under the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. The sum of the volumes for primary and secondary reasons do not equal the total number of cases which are recorded as having had disclosure issues. This is as a result of a number of cases being finalised with both a primary and secondary disclosure reason being recorded, so they are counted twice for the purposes of the statistics. Disclosure is an integral part of every case, making it more likely that it will be a feature in cases that do not result in a conviction. The categorisation could mean that disclosure was not timely, or that issues came to light that were not known or could not have been anticipated at the point of charge. Please note the CPS Caveats relating to the data, full details can be found in Annex B of this document. | Cases where disclosure was | Cases where disclosure was a | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------| | the primary reason for non- | contributing factor to the | | conviction | reason for non-conviction | | Quarter | | | Number of | | | cases | | | % of all cases | | | Number of | | | cases | | | % of all cases | | | 18/19-Q3 | | | (Nov-Dec only) | | | 618 | 6.0% | | 18/19-Q4 | 751 | | 19/20-Q1 | 592 | | 19/20-Q2 | 545 | This data is to be discussed at a local level by each police force and CPS Area in their joint Prosecution Team Performance Meeting, which are held each month. The data is now broken down by the reason for the disclosure issue, which allows for a close and transparent examination of performance. ## Primary Reasons D78 CPS cause, D77 Police / Investigator including cause, including timeliness and the timeliness quality of and quality of disclosure as a Total disclosure as % % of total primary of total Quarter non-conviction disclosure non-conviction reasons reasons reasons Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % 18/19- Q3 (Nov- 618 407 3.9% 81 0.8% 16 0.2% 104 1.0% 10 0.1% Dec only) 18/19- Q4 751 469 3.0% 113 0.7% 15 0.1% 132 0.8% 22 0.1% 19/20- Q1 592 376 2.7% 98 0.7% 17 0.1% 81 0.6% 20 0.1% 19/20- Q2 545 419 2.7% 78 0.5% 15 0.1% 18 0.1% 15 0.1% Secondary reasons D78 CPS cause, D77 Police / Investigator including cause, including timeliness and the timeliness quality of Total and quality of disclosure as a disclosure Quarter disclosure as % % of total nonfocus of total nonconviction reasons conviction reasons reasons Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume % 18/19-Q3 (Nov- 957 340 3.3% 57 0.6% 95 0.9% 449 4.4% 16 0.2% Dec only) 18/19-Q4 959 411 2.6% 93 0.6% 90 0.6% 345 2.2% 20 0.1% 19/20-Q1 615 316 2.3% 47 0.3% 63 0.4% 177 1.3% 12 0.1% 19/20-Q2 571 362 2.3% 83 0.5% 42 0.3% 81 0.5% 3 0.0% D79 Other party cause (for example the D80 No fault: Timeliness and D81 No fault: failure of a third party to provide quality Public interest requested acceptable but immunity issues disclosure was a as a % of total material), including factor as a % of non-conviction timeliness and total reasons quality of non-conviction disclosure as a reasons % of total non-conviction reasons D80 No fault: D79 Other party Timeliness and cause, including D81 No fault: quality timeliness and Public interest acceptable but quality of immunity issues disclosure was a disclosure as a as a % of total factor as a % of % of total nonnon-conviction total nonconviction reasons conviction reasons reasons As a consequence of collecting more meaningful and granular data, we now have a greater understanding of where issues with disclosure continue to persist. Although there were issues with embedding the use of the new codes, and we are aware of a number of instances in the first quarter of their use where the codes were used incorrectly, the integrity of the data continues to become more reliable as prosecutors become more familiar with when they should be used. Where previously there had been a gap in the provision of clear, comprehensive and trusted information on the handling of unused material by both police and prosecutors, we are now able to target with more precision where further actions are needed. We continue to see progress and are confident that these numbers will continue to reduce. When mistakes do happen our approach will be positive and supportive so that we can learn from them, work through them as investigators and prosecutors, and use them to improve our performance for the future. ## Next Steps We are continually learning lessons and refining our approach, and recognise there is always more to do to improve. Our primary focus is on maintaining momentum to ensure that we maximise the impact of improvement activity across the full breadth of the National Disclosure Improvement Plan. We look forward to the report of HM Crown Prosecution Inspectorate on Crown Court cases and have cautious optimism about the direction of travel. We also anticipate a consultation on amendments to the CPIA Code of Practice and the Attorney General's Guidelines, as well as the report from the Information Commissioner on the appropriate basis for the processing of the data of complainants and witnesses. There is a strong desire across each of our organisations for continued leadership on disclosure and we recognise that any stepping back from this challenge would jeopardise the progress we have made so far. | Item | NDIP actions | Timescale | Status | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------| | | CAPACITY | | | | 1 | Learning from the on-going pilots led by | | | | our cross-agency technology working | | | | | group will be coupled with evidence from | | | | | a more detailed wider landscape review | | | | | undertaken by the NPCC Digital Policing | | | | | Portfolio. As per the Justice Select | | | | | Committee recommendation, this work | | | | | will inform the Home Office, in | | | | | consultation with the CPS, the National | | | | | Police Chiefs' Council and the College of | | | | | Policing, in their production of a | | | | | comprehensive strategy to ensure that all | | | | | 43 police forces are equipped to handle | | | | | the increasing volume and complexity of | | | | | digital evidence. | | | | | 2 | Developing processes to ensure that | | | | when the investigator seeks a charging | | | | | decision, whether from a supervising | | | | | officer or from a prosecutor, information | | | | | on the lines of enquiry that have been | | | | | pursued will be supplied as part of the | | | | | pre-charge file. | | | | | | | | | | Ensuring that investigators document | | | | | what has been considered a reasonable | | | | | line of enquiry in the circumstances of | | | | | the case in all requests to prosecutors for | | | | | charging decisions. | | | | | 3 | Continue working with HMCTS on | | | | developing a section in the Crown Court | | | | | Digital Case System accommodating the | | | | | transfer of unused material and a record | | | | | of disclosure decisions. | | | | | 4 | Evaluating the third party material | | | | protocol in 12 months' time and assess | | | | | whether it is improving the quality of | | | | | third party disclosure handling. | | | | | 5 | Rolling out the use of DMDs across Crown | | | | Court cases and in magistrates' and Youth | | | | | court cases in which there are significant | | | | | volumes of digital material, | | | | | communications evidence or third party | | | | | material. | | | | 6 Exploring standardisation of terminology in the preparation of disclosure schedules and exploring the recommendation of the Attorney General's Review that a | On- going | A Tech Summit took | |-------------------------|-----------------------| | place on 10 June 2019. | | | A landscape review | | | identified key national | | | initiatives that | | | included a new | | | Redaction Project | | | Team and a new | | | eDisclosure co- | | | ordination role. | | | Summer 2019 | An evaluation on the | | effective provision of | | | reasonable lines of | | | enquiry is taking place | | | before these | | | processes are | | | implemented. | | | On- going | The creation of new | | sections on the Digital | | | Case System have | | | been agreed. | | | June 2019 | Complete. | | Summer 2019 | A 6 month pilot | | commenced in | | | October, extending | | | the use of the DMD | | | for all Crown Court | | | cases in a CPS Area. | | | June 2019 | To be taken forward | | via the Disclosure | | | Manual. | | | | | standard system be developed to provide more information about the nature of material and its potential relevance to the case. | | CAPABILITY: | | |----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----| | 7 | Assessing the training needs of | | | prosecutors - ensuring new starters have | | | | the opportunity to undertake disclosure | | | | training as part of their induction and | | | | that recruits receive training appropriate | | | | to their level of experience. | | | | | | | | Evaluate the training provided to | | | | prosecutors and plan accordingly for | | | | future training based on organisational | | | | assessment of user needs. | | | | 8 | Continuing the development of the | | | champions' network across policing and | | | | CPS, making sure that there is sufficient | | | | capacity and capability to drive change. | | | | | | | | Bringing together police and prosecutor | | | | champions with both local events and | | | | national conferences to further embed | | | | the force champions network and link | | | | that into the CPS champions. | | | | 9 | Updating and nationalising police | | | guidelines on data protection and the | | | | legal basis for data extraction from digital | | | | devices. We will work with victims | | | | groups and relevant Commissioners, | | | | including the Investigatory Powers | | | | Commissioner, on informing | | | | complainants and witnesses about how | | | | their information will be accessed and | | | | processed. | | | | 10 | Refreshing the Disclosure Manual to | | | reflect new guidance and process under | | | | the NDIP. | | | | 11 | Developing training and toolkits on digital | | | extraction and tools for analysis for | | | | investigators and prosecutors and raising | | | | awareness of developments with | | | | stakeholders across the criminal justice | | | | system. | | | | 12 | Reviewing processes for handling | | | sensitive disclosure outside specialist | | | | police units and the CPS central casework | | | | divisions. This will involve ensuring | | | | investigators and prosecutors have the | | | | knowledge and skills to deal with cases | | | | involving sensitive lines of enquiry and | | | | Spring/Summer 2019 | Complete. | | | June 2019 | Both local and | | | national events have | | | | taken place across the | | | | country, bringing | | | | together the | | | | champions' network | | | | across policing and | | | | CPS. | | | | Autumn/Winter 2019 | See update. | | | Spring 2019 | Completed. Refreshed | | | disclosure manual was | | | | published in | | | | December 2018. | | | | Spring/Summer 2019 | Complete. | | | June 2019 | A new SLA has been | | | drafted and new | | | | casework products | | | | have been developed | | | | to assist with audit | | | | trails and guidance | | | | materials. | | | sensitive unused material. | June 2019 | Complete. | | 13 | |----------------------------------------------|-------------|-----|-------------------------------------| | Disclosure Standards in the next 12 | | | | | months to assess whether they have | | | | | achieved improvements in the service of | | | | | properly completed and endorsed | | | | | disclosure schedules. | | | | | January 2019 | Complete. | 14 | Considering, in accordance with the | | timescales contained in NDIP1, whether a | | | | | licence to practise could assist to drive up | | | | | police standards in disclosure practice. | | | | ## Leadership: | 15 | Utilising the CPS Disclosure Champions to | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | perform a key role in compliance and | | | assurance at a local level by undertaking | | | local observation to assess change. | | | Spring 2019 | A network of CPS | | Disclosure Champions | | | is fully established, | | | supporting the | | | delivery of high quality | | | casework by | | | embedding disclosure | | | as a core skill. | | 16 Encouraging the inclusion of disclosure as part of Continuing Professional Development for police practitioners and driving learning through all levels within forces. | On-going | The College disclosure | |--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | product allows forces | | | to adopt classroom | | | based or individual | | | training, supporting | | | initial learning and | | | CPD. | | | 17 | Raising awareness of disclosure | | improvement initiatives such as the | | | Disclosure Management Document | | | throughout the criminal justice system. | | | On-going | Disclosure Forums, | | both at a national and | | | local level, continue to | | | engage in disclosure | | | improvement | | | initiatives that impact | | | on the Criminal Justice | | | System. | | | On-going | Complete. Bi-annual | | seminars are taking | | | place. | | | 18 | Maintaining the leadership momentum in | | the CPS by repeating the Disclosure | | | Seminar, chaired by the Director of Public | | | Prosecutions on a bi-annual basis. | | | 19 | Focussing on disclosure in the | | magistrates' and youth courts. | | | Autumn/Winter 2019 | Work is on-going for a | | number of initiatives | | | that focus on | | | improving disclosure | | | performance in the | | | magistrates' and | | | youth courts. | | 20 Making disclosure improvement in the Area a specific objective for Chief Crown Prosecutors against which their performance will be measured. ## Partnership: | 21 | |---------------------------------------------| | obligations forward, for example in the | | provision of schedules at the pre-charge | | stage, has brought significant benefits in | | some case types. Senior police leaders and | | prosecutors will work together to identify | | where this could be achieved in each force. | 22 Exploring the possibility of bringing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. The potential to formalise this process is being considered with input from defence stakeholder groups. | 23 | Replicating the National Disclosure | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | Forum at a local level to facilitate | | | discussions between stakeholders on | | | issues that arise locally. | | | 24 | Working with the judiciary to embed the | | use of the Disclosure Management | | | Document into the Better Case | | | Management processes, including a | | | section on the Plea and Trial Preparation | | | Form. | | | 25 | Building on the experiences of what | | works well in our most complex | | | casework, a streamlined version of the | | | Early Case Planning Conference will be | | | adopted in all Threshold Test charged | | | cases to facilitate communication | | | between the investigative team and the | | | prosecutor. | | ## Governance: | 26 | Delivery against the commitments in this | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | plan will continue to be overseen by the | | | National Police Chiefs' Council, the | | | Director of Public Prosecutions and the | | | College of Policing. An update on | | | progress will be published quarterly. | | | 27 | Improving the granularity of data | | captured in cases which did not result in | | | a conviction but where disclosure was the | | | primary or contributory reason for the | | | Spring 2019 | Complete. This is a | | specific performance | | | objective for the most | | | senior leaders in the | | | CPS. | | | Autumn/Winter 2019 | On-going consultation. | | October 2019 | Draft pre-charge | | engagement | | | Guidelines, will be | | | published for | | | consultation by the | | | AGO later this year. | | | May 2019 | Forums and meetings | | have taken place | | | across the country at a | | | local level. | | | On-going | Complete. | | Spring 2019 | A pilot is being | | formulated to use | | | ECPCs in all Crown | | | Court Threshold Test | | | cases in a CPS Area. | | | On-going | The Delivery Board | | meets monthly and | | | quarterly updates on | | | progress are issued. | | | Autumn/Winter 2019 | Complete. | decision to stop the case. | Autumn/Winter 2019 | |-----------------------| | significant | | development upgrade | | in June 2019 and a | | further enhancement | | will take place in | | Spring 202. | 28 Developing automated data collection in relation to key stages of the disclosure process which will show levels of compliance by both police and CPS such as the identification of reasonable lines of enquiry (pre-charge), creation/management of the Disclosure Management Document/Disclosure Record Sheet and completion of schedules. Annex B: CPS Data Caveats The disclosure dashboard is for internal management purposes only. It, nor any part of it, should be published without direct permissions from the CPS. Any publication would breach the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice (for the release of statistics). 1. CPS data are available through its Case Management System (CMS) and associated Management Information System (MIS). The CPS collects data to assist in the effective management of its prosecution functions. The CPS does not collect data that constitutes official statistics as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. 2. These data have been drawn from the CPS's administrative IT system, which (as with any large scale recording system) is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the CPS. We are committed to improving the quality of our data and from mid-June 2015 introduced a new data assurance regime which may explain some unexpected variance in some future data sets. 3. The official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office (HO) and the official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). Defendant 'outcomes' are counted by the CPS at finalisation. All cases resulting in an outcome other than a conviction are allocated a reason why the case failed. If more than one reason applies the principle reason is chosen. In pre-charge decision cases all cases resulting in a decision to take no further action for either evidential or public interest reasons are allocated a reason for that decision If more than one reason applies the principle reason in chosen. Annex C: e-Disclosure Landscape Review, May 2019 Please see below ## E-Disclosure Landscape Review May 2019 ## Table Of Contents Glossary 4 1. Executive Summary 6 2. Introduction 11 3. Purpose & Approach 13 4. e-Disclosure in Policing 14 5. Technology Landscape 22 6. Gap Analysis 29 32 7. Recommendations and Suggested Next Steps ## Classification Classification | Government Security classification: | Not Protectively Marked | |-----------------------------|---------------------------| | Disclosable under FOIA 2000 | Yes | ## Glossary Of Acronyms Abbreviation Definition | AI | Artificial Intelligence | |------|-----------------------------------------------| | API | Application Programming Interface | | BWV | Body Worn Video | | APCC | Association of Police and Crime Commissioners | | CC | Chief Constable | | CCTV | Closed Circuit Television | | CI | Chief Inspector | | CJ | Criminal Justice | | CJS | Criminal Justice System | | CJU | Criminal Justice Unit | | CoP | College of Policing | | CPIA | Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act | | CPS | Crown Prosecution Service | | DAMS | Digital Asset Management System | | DASA | Defence and Security Accelerator | | DCF | Digital Case File | | DCS | Detective Chief Superintendent | | DDI | Data Driven Insights | | DEMS | Digital Evidence Management System | | DETS | Digital Evidence Transfer Service | | DF | Digital First | | DII | Digital Intelligence and Investigation | | DMD | Disclosure Management Document | | DMI | Digital Media Investigator | | DPA | Data Protection Act | | DPP | Digital Policing Portfolio | | DSTL | Defence Science and Technology | ## Abbreviation Definition | EIA | Early Investigative Advice | |---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | ESI | Electronically Stored Information | | FOIA | Freedom of Information Act | | FTK | Forensic Tool Kit | | HMIC | Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary | | HMICFRS | Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services | | HMCPSI | Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate | | HOSB | Home Office Statistical Bulletin | | IHM | Information Handling Model | | IT | Information Technology | | NDAS | National Data Analytics Solution | | NDDB | National Disclosure Delivery Board | | NDIP | National Disclosure Improvement Plan | | MME | Multimedia evidence | | NPCC | National Police Chiefs' Council | | NTWG | National Technology Working Group | | PCC | Police and Crime Commissioners | | POLE | People, Objects, Locations and Events | | RFI | Request For Information | | RIPA | Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act | | RLOE | Reasonable Lines of Enquiry | | SOC | Scenes of Crime | | SME | Subject Matter Expert | | TAR | Technology Assisted Review | | TWIF | Two-Way Interface | | UK | United Kingdom | | VRI | Video Recorded Interview | ## 1. Executive Summary Disclosure is the process in a criminal case by which someone charged with a crime is provided with copies of, or access to, material from the investigation that is capable of undermining the prosecution case against them and/or assisting their defence. Without this process taking place a trial would not be fair.1 (The Government's Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 sets out the broad framework of disclosure obligations on law enforcement and prosecutors to provide the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against, or of assisting the case for, the accused. This is with specific reference to unused material that may be relevant to the investigation (i.e. which has been retained but does not form part of the case for the prosecution against the accused). Prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material (disclosure schedules), as well as with copies of any disclosable material. It is the police's responsibility to prepare and provide the prosecutor with disclosure schedules, as well as drawing the attention of the prosecutor to any material an investigator has retained which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to ultimately determine whether material is disclosable to the defence. ## Definition: Electronic Disclosure (E-Disclosure) e-Disclosure refers to the disclosure of electronically stored information (ESI). This includes any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices such as memory sticks and mobile phones. As well as documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, it includes documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and documents that have been deleted. It also includes metadata and other embedded data. ## Key Findings: The purpose of this review was to: - • consider the current challenges and review the current e-Disclosure landscape within policing; • provide an overview of the key capability requirements which may be met by technological solutions; and • provide an understanding of the possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace. The key findings of this e-Disclosure Landscape Review are: - ## 1.1 Technology Is Contributing To The Challenges Of E-Disclosure But Can Also Be An Enabler To Solve Them. As much as technology creates challenges with the proliferation, in terms of the volume and types of, information, it is also a necessary part of the solution. Traditional methods for cataloguing and finding information are limited. New technologies are capable of vastly ## 1.2 E-Disclosure Is A High-Profile Symptom Of A Wider Digital Information Management Problem That Is Magnified As The Volume Of Digital Information Continues To Increase. Successful e-Disclosure hinges upon the core capabilities to efficiently, effectively and accurately: improving the way we search, group and review information and they are the only effective way to manage rapidly expanding data volumes. Technologies to manage data on this scale must be implemented holistically, considering the lifecycle of technology adoption and coupled with processes and policies to manage change and the implementation of new services. • Collect relevant information from a wide range of digital devices; • Store the information in a secure way that enables accurate searching, review and analysis; • Determine relevance where this is not immediately clear; • Audit disclosure decisions; The significant range of law enforcement information infrastructure, in terms of maturity, capacity and inherent information management functionality, does not lend itself to a 'one solution fits all' approach. In some cases, the 'information housekeeping' required to gain the most from advanced technical techniques and tools for e-Disclosure can easily outweigh the potential gains. • Control sharing of disclosable information. The review found a range of shortfalls in current capability, the main points of which are: Although it was not possible to provide a complete analysis of e-Disclosure technology through this light touch landscape review, it is clear that a single ideal tool to support the needs of both the technical and investigative elements of digital investigations does not exist in the current marketplace. However, the tools identified did meet many of the key requirements and and could form a significant part of a combined solution. a) At the point of collecting electronically stored information, differing data formats and accuracy of collection processes (i.e. failure to retrieve relevant information) provides immediate weaknesses in the e-Disclosure process; b) There is no standard for compatible data storage infrastructure and consistent data indexing and cataloguing to enable accurate retrieval of all Electrically Stored Information (ESI); c) In relation to data acquisition, there are a number of tools that are adequate, but the diverse number of tools highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach; Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfall is the rollout of several technologies, some currently in use and some new, linked together where possible with common Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of outdated technologies, and provide the ability to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. d) Capability to undertake data search/ discovery across some information and media types is lacking. Various software programmes are in use but not consistently, however concerns over accuracy often exist; e) There is no comprehensive solution to give full confidence in the ability to conduct analysis to a common standard across policing; f) Audit is a key aspect of the review component. Effective and efficient capture of an audit trail is lacking. Systems are incompatible at the information level making it very difficult to maintain an audit trail throughout the e-Disclosure process; and g) There is little support to the disclosure schedule production process which is time consuming and an area where it is easy to introduce additional errors or omissions to the e-Disclosure process. ## 1.3 Spiralling Volumes Of Digital Information Challenges Law Enforcement To Maintain Information Management Strategies And The Process Of Identifying And Producing Electronic Information For Disclosure Purposes. The identified challenges relating to e-Disclosure are not unique to policing in England and Wales and are being experienced by law enforcement and private industry worldwide. Efficient, accurate and timely e-Disclosure is not an add-on function but starts when information is collected and stored. The ability to disclose ESI must not be an afterthought but a continuous aspect throughout the information lifecycle. Therefore, in defining the requirements for e-Disclosure it is necessary to examine the full scope of capability that spans the data capture, storage, acquisition and search components that are usually under the management of the information infrastructure and the analyse, review, produce and release components that are often associated with technology assisted review (TAR). To complicate matters there is no clear boundary between these different information management regimes. While technology alone will not deliver the full capability, it has the potential to make a significant contribution, but that contribution will not be realised without the corresponding people and process elements. ## 1.4 Technology To Address The Problem Will Help, But It Is Likely That There Will Always Be A Gap. Despite the work undertaken by national programmes and local force initiatives, there remain several aspects of e-Disclosure where further technology-based intervention is required. Technical solutions by their very nature have embedded processes within them and assume a level of skill and knowledge of the user. Any technology solution must be evaluated not only on the functionality itself, but the compliance of the embedded processes and the training of the user to utilise the technology in the way it was designed. All these factors must be underpinned by a strong legal and ethical foundation. Questions that already exist in relation to e-Disclosure include how data will be collected and processed, concerns about algorithmic bias & false positives and where the acceptable limits lie in this space. Key areas for further investment to address the remaining shortfalls include: Artificial Intelligence (AI): This is a broad term that encompasses a number of related fields, including machine learning (the ability to predict most likely events to occur) or predictive coding (use of a computer system to help determine which documents are representative of a defined category) and deep learning (pushing the boundaries of understanding what is possible), all of which are used in situations where the task is complex or varied. However, the test applied for disclosure is a particularly difficult one for AI to apply. It is also incredibly difficult to identify the factors used to reach its conclusion. ## 1.5 Hypothesis Advanced Search: There are a number of search techniques that require less specific inputs ranging from the use of search operators such as wild cards or exact phrases to the use of word clouds to highlight most regularly used words or phrases. Full text search, which requires a text indexing engine, enables searching all text inside any text-based file. There are also advances in video and image search technologies that would increase the efficiency of finding all relevant data. Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfalls is the rollout of a number of technologies, some currently in use and some new, with common APIs, linked together where possible with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of out dated technologies, and provide the ability to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. Whilst being cognisant of the necessary differences between forces and in priorities, Alerts: Alerts or notifications are machineto-person communications of important and / or time sensitive information. The use of alerts and notifications to notify the user when new information or data is available against saved searches has particular relevance to e-Disclosure. this rollout should be as wide as possible, and scalable, to encourage consistency in both process and technology across policing to enable better coordination. The most important parts of the solution are likely to be the supporting technology: the common or compatible storage, standards, indexing and cataloguing. Without these the key capabilities of review, search and analysis (which also apply across the rest of the investigation process) cannot be efficient or effective, particularly between forces. Next Steps: Based on the business challenges and statements of need highlighted in this review, as well as the identified gaps and associated recommendations, the suggested next step would be to assess the above hypothesis as part of an e-Disclosure Outline Business Case that will: • Conduct more in-depth reviews with representative police forces, including: • Capturing the 'as is' process • Supporting technologies already in use, and • Assessing any other related funded initiatives; Disclosure is the process in a criminal case by which someone charged with a crime is provided with copies of, or access to, material from the investigation • Engage with the related policing or government initiatives, pilots, proof of concepts to ascertain whether they are addressing any e-Disclosure requirements pertinent to their scope to de-duplicate effort, identify any gaps and maximise any opportunities for collaborative working. • Identify and assess potential options to deliver against the e-Disclosure requirements that have no other identified delivery mechanism. • Following the completion of existing proof of concepts/pilots, to select a preferred solution(s) and identify a funding source(s) to support the delivery of an e-Disclosure solution(s) that addresses the key business needs and capability gaps whilst delivering the required business outcomes and benefits. ## 2. Introduction The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 sets out the broad framework of disclosure obligations on law enforcement and prosecutors to provide the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against, or of assisting the case for, the accused. This is with specific reference to unused material that may be relevant to the investigation (i.e. which has been retained but does not form part of the case for the prosecution against the accused). "The disclosure to the defence of material obtained during a criminal investigation, that the prosecution has not used as part of its case is fundamentally important to ensuring a fair trial. Yet, I suspect that no one who has regular professional involvement with the criminal courts can have avoided the conclusion, often from painful experience, that for too long the system of disclosure has not operated effectively enough."2 (The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC MP) Prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material (disclosure schedules), as well as with copies of any disclosable material. It is the police's responsibility to prepare and provide the prosecutor with disclosure schedules, as well as drawing the attention of the prosecutor to any material an investigator has retained which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to ultimately determine whether material is disclosable to the defence. Several failings in the disclosure process have resulted in the collapse of trials and the successful appeal against unsafe convictions. These failings have resulted in several reviews of disclosure procedures and practice that highlight the need to improve the disclosure process and make a number of recommendations, which in turn has generated a series of key recommendations for change. These reviews include: • Making it Fair - A Joint Inspection of the Disclosure of Unused Material in Volume Crown Court Cases, July 2017 (HMCPSI, HMIC);3 • Mouncher Investigation Report, July 2017;4 • Justice Select Committee inquiry, July 2018;5 • Attorney General review: "Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure in the criminal justice system", Nov 2018.6 Ensuring disclosure is right is a fundamental part of a fair criminal justice system. Trials have collapsed or cases have had to be discontinued specifically due to the prosecution having failed to disclose, in a timely manner, vital information pertinent to the case. These failures have led to there no longer being a realistic prospect of conviction, a fundamental consideration as to whether a suspect should be, or continues to be, prosecuted, as outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. In addition to the impact on victims of crime there are wider consequences of disclosure failings including: • Risk of miscarriages of justice • Reduced public confidence in policing and the Criminal Justice System Coordination of these key recommendations for change is delivered through the National Disclosure Delivery Board (NDDB), via the National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP), with ownership being shared between the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the • Significant waste of time, resource and money across all involved in the justice process 2 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ review-of-the-efficiency-andeffectiveness-of-disclosure-inthe-criminal-justice-system 3 https://www. justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/ inspections/making-it-fair-the- Disclosure-of-unused-materialin-volume-crown-court-cases/ 4 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ mouncher-investigation-report 5 https://www.parliament. uk/business/committees/ committees-a-z/commonsselect/justice-committee/ inquiries/parliament-2017/ disclosure-criminalcases-17-19/publications/ 6 https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/ review-of-the-efficiency-andeffectiveness-of-disclosure-inthe-criminal-justice-system College of Policing (CoP). In its broadest terms, the NDIP sets out: • What has been done to date about this issue, • What further work is required against the recommendations, and • Looks to identify and prepare for anticipated future challenges. To this end, the NDIP is coordinating activities, under the following strategic priority areas: • Strengthening the capacity to deal with disclosure, ensuring we are fit to meet the challenges we face, both now and in the future; • Improving the capability of police and prosecutors and equipping them with the right skills, particularly in the context of handling large volumes of digital material; • Leading the transformation of the culture of the investigative mind-set, so that disclosure is viewed as an integral part of the investigation and any subsequent prosecution; • Engaging more effectively in our partnerships in the criminal justice system and improving communication between the prosecution and defence at the outset of criminal proceedings; and • Embedding the actions taken at a national level into local police forces and CPS areas by robust governance on both national and local improvement plans. The capacity priority includes recognition of the particular challenges of e-Disclosure, which is the disclosure of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). These challenges are reflective of the now ubiquitous nature of digital technology resulting in a rapidly increasing volume, diversity and complexity of potentially relevant ESI. The Attorney General's Review and the Justice Select Committee inquiry identified the unprecedented challenge that this presents to investigators and prosecutors, citing an example that the average mobile phone today is capable of holding the data equivalent of about 5 million A4 pages; " It is clear that the right thing to do in these cases is to adopt new, technologybased approaches to managing this scale of material because its growth is outpacing human capacity to handle it."7 Several national programmes and organisations are working closely with the criminal justice community and focusing on the technology element of the NDIP e.g. Digital First (DF), Digital Intelligence & investigation (DII), Transforming Forensics (Digital Forensics), Defence Science and Technology (DSTL). This Landscape Review was commissioned by NPCC's Criminal Justice lead (AC Nick Ephgrave) to examine and report on the challenges of e-Disclosure. The volume of cases that may require e-Disclosure is also increasing precipitously, as stated by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: ' The ubiquity of digital devices means that digital evidence may be present in almost every crime.'8 ## 3. Purpose & Approach In response to the recognition of these challenges, this Landscape Review will: • consider the current challenges and review the current e-Disclosure landscape within policing; • provide an overview of the key capability requirements which may be met by technological solutions; and • User group review: A review of the output of a user group workshop held at the Major Investigation Digital Insights Conference, chaired and facilitated by the DII team; In addition, the output from a joint workshop organised by the Ditchley Foundation and Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), regarding disclosure was also incorporated within this review. • provide an understanding of the possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace. • Interviews: Interviews were held with police force representative, technology providers and disclosure SMEs. The information gathered has been analysed and summarised in the following sections: • e-Disclosure in Policing: this section provides an overview of e-Disclosure in policing and develops a set of key capability requirements for consideration in review of the current technology landscape. The scope of the review is limited to the technical element of the required capability with the people, process, training and procedures elements addressed under the NDIP. Notwithstanding the limited scope of the review, in considering current capability and shortfalls, it takes note of the user's likely skill base and knowledge and the process and procedures required to ensure a compliant solution. The approach to developing this Landscape Review included the following activities: • Desktop Review: A review of the latest reports and recommendations for improvements in | the disclosure process has been carried out, with specific attention to the points relating to digital material; • Current Technology Landscape: this section provides a high-level overview of technology, particularly supported by the Marketplace Review and Interviews. It considers both those currently in use in policing as well as developing techniques and capabilities and planned delivery, in the context of the key capability requirements and the e-Disclosure process map defined in the previous section. • Gap Analysis: this section highlights the areas in the current e-Disclosure in policing landscape that do not have an existing or planned solution known at the time of writing this review. • Recommendations: this section provides recommendations to address the gaps identified in the previous section. • Marketplace Review: A market place engagement exercise was conducted with techUK, which represents over 900 companies in the tech. industry. A review was carried out of the output from both formal 'Requests For Information' (RFI) and a subsequent roundtable discussion at techUK (attended by global, national and small medium enterprises) regarding possible technological solutions currently available in the marketplace; ## 4. E-Disclosure In Policing 'e-Disclosure' refers to the disclosure of ESI i.e. any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices such as memory sticks and mobile phones. As well as documents that are readily accessible from computer systems and other electronic devices and media, ESI includes documents that are stored on servers and back-up systems and documents that have been deleted. It also includes metadata and other embedded data. The definition of e-Disclosure in this context thus becomes the process of identifying, collecting, processing, analysing and reviewing ESI for criminal legal proceedings. In the context of disclosure, material may be deemed relevant to an investigation if it appears to have some bearing on any offence under investigation or any person being investigated. As well as being broad in scope, this definition applies both to items in isolation or when combined with other material. The process of disclosure, and in particular e-Disclosure due to the rapidly increasing volumes of Data indexing and cataloguing Information handling material involved, therefore hinges upon the key capabilities of efficiently, effectively and in compliance with legislative and procedural requirements doing the following: • Data Review: Review the extracted relevant material from a wide range of digital devices; • Data Search: Searching and/or sifting available material; • Data Analysis: Enriching, analysing, connecting or combining material; • Data Assess: Assessing material, analysis or combinations of material in order to determine relevance; • Data Record: Documenting disclosure decisions; and • Data Reveal: Revealing unused material and schedules to the prosecutor. In turn these capabilities require the correct triaging at ingest, storing, referencing and handling of material or data throughout its retention period, and in this sense, e-Disclosure requirements impact across the entire investigation process. These data lifecycle activities are presented in the following diagram. Data enrichment Recording and sharing of data and / or metadata Data mapping / transformation Data search and / or sift Recording and sharing of data visualisations and / or supporting metadata The following two sections describe the capability requirements and process in more detail. 3. Establish methods/processes to ensure identification, grouping or restructuring of large volumes of material (such as telephone number, vehicles, and addresses) is effective, efficient and productive. ## 4.1 Key Capability Requirements 4. Creation of a coordinated investment approach in advanced data analytics capabilities, especially for mobile phone records to develop nationally consistent applications across investigations. Statements of business need were collated and validated by the National Technology Working Group under the National Disclosure Delivery Board. These business need statements have been reviewed and the following 5 have been identified as relevant to the scope of this e-Disclosure landscape review. 5. Assisting in developing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. 1. Development of nationally consistent standards, common tools, infrastructure or techniques to acquire, store and utilise the increasing amounts of digital material being seized/collected in a legal, ethical and efficient way. These statements can be deconstructed into their constituent parts to identify some of the key capability requirements for e-Disclosure as shown in the table overleaf. 2. Data is currently stored in siloed, unconnected systems or on individual drives. Develop a process that reduces data duplication, allows efficient sharing within forces & between forces, and compliance against management standards is achievable and auditable. 'e-Disclosure' refers to the disclosure of Electronically Stored Information i.e. any document/material held in electronic form, including, for example, emails, text messages and voicemail, word-processed documents and databases, and documents stored on portable devices ## Business Need Statement Key Capability Requirements - There Is A Requirement For (An) Effective And Efficient: 1. Development of nationally consistent standards, common tools, infrastructure or techniques to acquire, store and utilise the increasing amounts of digital multimedia material being seized/ collected it in a legal, ethical and efficient way. • Nationally consistent data standards • Nationally consistent data formats • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent or compatible data enrichment capability • Nationally consistent or compatible data acquisition and ingest techniques • Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure • Nationally consistent or compatible search • Nationally consistent or compatible analytics capabilities • Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material • Nationally consistent or compatible data and material sifting and filtering capability 2. Data is currently stored in separate, unconnected systems or on individual drives. Develop a process that reduces data duplication, allows efficient sharing within forces & between forces, and compliance against management standards is achievable and auditable. • De-duplication across disparate storage • Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure • Cross force data access capability • Nationally consistent or compatible and auditable data access management • Cross force search capability • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent data standards • Nationally consistent data formats • Nationally consistent and auditable data management and standards • Nationally consistent or compatible capability for sharing digital material within and between forces • Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing • Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material 3. Establish methods/processes to ensure identification, grouping or restructuring of large volumes of material (e.g. telephone number, vehicles, etc… ) is effective, efficient and productive. • Nationally consistent data analytics capabilities 4. Creation of a coordinated investment approach in advanced data analytics capabilities, especially for mobile phone records to develop nationally consistent applications across investigations. • Capability for sharing digital material with prosecution and defence • Capability for sharing analysis of digital material with prosecution and defence 5. Assisting in developing a formalised structure to pre-charge engagement between investigators and prosecutors and those representing the suspect, particularly in cases where there is a large volume of digital material that is potentially relevant. ## 4.2 E-Disclosure Process Map To aid understanding of the challenges, and to support the identification of where key capability requirements and existing or developing technologies align to the disclosure process, the following high-level business ## Pre Charge E-Disclosure Activities - Not All Activities Required For All Cases process map diagram has been developed through a review of the latest reports on disclosure procedures and practice. The following mapping between the process maps and the key capability requirements further illustrates this as the majority of these key capability requirements are also relevant to activities in the preceding investigation. The process map was reviewed against the high level scenarios developed as part of the investigation into the context of e-Disclosure. Assessment of the scenarios resulted in the conclusion that the volume, diversity and / or complexity of the ESI would vary, but the high level activities would, on the whole, remain the same, regardless of crime type9. ## Post Charge E-Disclosure Activities - All Activities Required For All Cases Disclosure Process Map Activities | KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS | | |----------------------------------|----------------------------| | FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM | | | STATEMENTS | | | Review | | | material | | | gathered | | | during | | | investigation | | | Search | | | for other | | | / new | | | potentially | | | relevant | | | material | | | Analysis | | | to identify | | | further | | | and / or | | | linked | | | relevant | | | material | | | 1. | Nationally consistent data | | standards | | | X | X | | 2. | Nationally consistent data | | formats | | | X | X | | 3. | Nationally consistent data | | indexing and cataloguing | | | X | X | | X | X | | 4. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible data enrichment | | | capability | | | X | X | | 5. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible data acquisition | | | and ingest techniques | | | X | X | | 6. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible data storage | | | infrastructure | | | 7. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible search | | | X | | | 8. | Nationally consistent | | or compatible analytics | | | capabilities | | | X | X | | 9. | Nationally consistent | | or compatible summary | | | visualisation capability for | | | digital material | | | X | X | | 10. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible data and material | | | sifting and filtering capability | | | X | X | | 11. | Nationally consistent or | | compatible and auditable | | | data access management | | Record output, audit trail of findings and conclusions Assess unused material for disclosure purposes Record material to be disclosed by creating or updating a Disclosure Schedule Share material and Disclosure Schedule with prosecutor X | KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS | |--------------------------------| | FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM | | STATEMENTS | | Review | | material | | gathered | | during | | investigation | | Search | | for other | | / new | | potentially | | relevant | | material | and standards | 13. | |---------------------------------| | compatible capability for | | sharing digital material within | | and between forces | Cross force data access capability Cross force search capability disparate storage requirements and align investment with strategic priorities. The following section provides a high-level review of the current technology landscape. Through mapping these capabilities and capturing the key characteristics required within the e-Disclosure process the information can be used to assess business needs, technology ## Disclosure Process Map Activities Record output, audit trail of findings and conclusions Assess unused material for disclosure purposes Analysis to identify further and / or linked relevant material Record material to be disclosed by creating or updating a Disclosure Schedule Share material and Disclosure Schedule with prosecutor ## 5. Technology Landscape This section provides an overview of the technology landscape by considering the following: • current technology used in policing; • developing techniques and capabilities that could be utilised to assist with disclosure; • relevant planned delivery. ## 5.1 Summary Of Current Technology In Policing A number of core technological solutions are already used in policing today which support key aspects of disclosure, however none of the technologies reviewed for this report provide a comprehensive disclosure capability, and they cannot be scaled sufficiently to provide a national platform. They could however provide or inform part of the future solution. In addition, the improving documentation and auditing of e-Disclosure driven by the introduction and expanding use of the Disclosure Management Document (DMD) encourages consideration of all relevant electronic material but does not in itself improve the capability to review, search for, analyse or assess electronic material for disclosure. The remainder of this section provides a high-level overview of current technologies used in policing to support disclosure based on the information available in the RFI responses and interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs. The specific technologies are not identified to remove any competitive advantage issues. Review: There are a number of tools identified that appear to provide a good level of capability, providing the material has been imported into an accessible system and is easily found for review, which is currently a significant challenge for many forces. The number of tools does however highlight the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. Search: The range of tools identified in this space highlight the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the identification of all relevant electronic material for e-Disclosure, as well as the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is increasingly important to ensure that all relevant material can be found quickly with the rapidly expanding volume of material to be considered. This is relevant not only within a force but across forces as material may have been captured by other forces that is relevant to the case in question. Analysis: Similar to search, the range of tools identified in this space highlight the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the ability to perform effective analysis and identify links or combinations of material relevant for disclosure. It also highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach, and that none of the tools currently in operation appear to provide a sufficiently comprehensive solution to give full confidence in the ability to conduct analysis. Assess: The technologies identified against this stage in the process are used to view the material or redo or review analysis that supports the relevance of the material for disclosure. The effectiveness of this stage relies heavily on the ability of the Search and Analysis technologies to record, find and analyse the relevant material to enable their assessment. Record output of review, search and analysis: Although there are capabilities that provide an audit trail of searches and acquisition activities, this review has not identified any technology that particularly supports the effective and efficient capture of an audit trail of findings ## 5.2 Utilisation Of Technological Techniques And Capabilities and conclusions with any supporting reasoning. The conclusions to be made and recorded here require understanding of any handling caveats or sensitivities of the material which should be captured in the indexing or cataloguing of the material, the completeness of the evidential audit trail, as well as the ability to effectively reference or link to the data so that it can be easily found. Clarity of what analysis has and has not been undertaken is critical to successful passage through the criminal justice system, particularly given that understanding of emerging technologies is often limited. Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Technology can support this through the automatic generation of required documentation based on information captured in the previous Record stage. Only one technology has been identified in this review that supports this activity. The case for the utilisation of new technological techniques and capabilities in disclosure has been recognised in a number of court cases, including the 2015 ruling in the UK High Court endorsing the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR). TAR is a software approach that is increasingly assisting in the identification of relevant material through the use of mathematical algorithms, statistical sampling and machine learning or predictive coding. These court cases are illustrative of the acceptance that although the human element cannot be removed from the disclosure process, the utilisation of these kinds of technology supported approaches is both necessary and appropriate in order to balance the capacity challenge posed by the increasing volume of material. That said, this has not yet been trialled in the field of criminal justice, which may be naturally less predisposed to the use of such technology. It is clear that, at the very least, being able to provide clarity as to the capabilities applied will be no less important than the capabilities themselves. In addition, the appropriate use and ethical considerations associated must underpin all elements when considering utilising technological techniques and capabilities. Reveal: Technologies that support this activity have been identified in this review that appear to provide a level of capability and are fairly widely used, although not across all forces. However, this process is still partially reliant on manual processes such as scanning in paper documents and producing hard copies of digital images in order to compensate for the lack of a completely intuitive digital capability, resulting in wasted cost on all agencies involved, an increased risk of error and undermines the potential benefits that could be realised from digital working. It is important that technology is not considered in isolation. While the required capability will consist of people, process and technology there is a tight relationship between these elements that need to be viewed in a technical context. Technical solutions by their very nature have embedded processes within them and assume a level of skill and knowledge of the user. As depicted in Figure 4 any technology solution must also be evaluated not only on the functionality itself, but the compliance in the embedded processes and the training of the user to utilise the technology in the way it was designed. Due to its time bound nature it should be noted that this review has not undertaken an in-depth review of all technologies used in the e-Disclosure process, only those referenced in the RFI responses and interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs. As such it is recommended that further work is undertaken with policing to identify other relevant technologies currently in use in policing and assess their capability against the requirements. All these factors must be underpinned by a strong legal and ethical foundation. Questions that already exist in relation to e-Disclosure include how data will be collected and processed, concerns about algorithmic bias & false positives and where the acceptable tolerances lie in this space. The remainder of this section considers several new or recent technological techniques and capabilities identified through the RFI responses and the desktop review that could be utilised to address some of these challenges. Artificial Intelligence (AI): This is a broad term that encompasses a number of related fields, including machine learning (the ability to predict most likely events to occur) or predictive coding (use of a computer system to help determine which documents are representative of a defined category) and deep learning (pushing the boundaries of understanding what is possible), all of which are used in situations where the task is so complex or varied that is infeasible to develop an algorithm of specific instructions. It involves the use of algorithms and statistical models that enable computer systems to progressively improve their performance on a specific task through the use of sample or training data in order to make predictions or decisions without being explicitly programmed to perform the task. Examples of applications include data mining, image analysis and recognition, face recognition • Disadvantages: More expensive than simple search capabilities and manual review. and automation of tasks. There are AI tools with proven open APIs (Application Programming Interface) which would support a modular solution. • Advantages: Industry studies have shown that with the right training, predictive coding achieves better and more cost-effective results than the more traditional, Boolean logic-based approach, which requires humans to give detailed, specifically structured instruction sets for searches. Alerts: Alerts or notifications are machine-toperson communications of important and / or time sensitive information. The use of alerts and notifications to notify the user when new information or data is available against saved searches or analytics is becoming more widespread to replace, where possible, the requirement for manually repeating the same searches or analytics. Techniques include batch processing which is a scheduled run of pre-scripted jobs, and the use of more novel streaming analytics technology which supports the almost instantaneous automated analysis of data as it is arrives in the system. • Disadvantages: Machine learning requires large volumes of training data, and any bias or skew in the dataset will impact the performance. The test applied for disclosure (i.e. assisting the defence case or undermining the prosecution case) is a particularly difficult one for AI to apply. It is also incredibly difficult to identify the factors used to reach its conclusion. Complexity of devices due to encryption and decryption on the fly means that data might not be obvious to the tools. • Advantages: The use of AI can assist in the identification of what would be of interest and requires less manual input. Manual selection or setting of alerts is still more efficient than repeating the same activity on a regular basis, and this approach is more easily auditable. Compared to streaming analytics, batch processing is a relatively simple and inexpensive option to implement. Streaming analytics is closer to real time supporting more time sensitive situations. • Disadvantages: The procurement and implementation of alerting capabilities is more expensive than a manual individual search and analysis approach, and the use of AI would result in the issues identified in the AI section above. Advanced searches: As well as key word searches there are a number of search techniques that require less specific inputs ranging from the use of search operators such as wild cards or exact phrase to the use of word clouds to highlight most regularly used words or phrases. Full text search, which requires a text indexing engine, enables searching all text inside any text-based file. There are also advances in video and image search technologies that would increase the efficiency of finding all relevant data. Cloud Computing: This is the provision of software, applications and storage over the internet, and it is still evolving with companies of all shapes and sizes adapting to this new technology. • Advantages: Cloud computing is probably the most cost efficient for organisations to maintain and upgrade, it can scale as required • Advantages: These technologies increase the likelihood of and confidence in finding all relevant data, in particular the word cloud capability may highlight terms that the user may not have thought to search for, and the video and image search capabilities would reduce the time required to review images and video for the relevant files or sections. both in terms of storage and user numbers, and is quick to deploy. Public cloud services also provide a lot of services as standard such as backup and recovery. Key advantages for disclosure occur if the forces use the same cloud to store their data as this will facilitate secure sharing and utilisation of collected digital data across local, regional and national boundaries, as well as reduce duplication. • Disadvantages: Users are reliant on a good internet connection (or intranet if a private cloud) to access cloud. Also, there is often a perceived security risk if a public cloud is used, requiring additional confidence that the provider will keep the information totally secure. In addition, private cloud is significantly more expensive than public cloud. It is expected that it will be necessary to store vast volumes of data. ## 5.3 Planned Delivery There are a number of other initiatives that are planning on developing and delivering capability that could support the disclosure process and that should be engaged and aligned within any further investigation into or delivery in support of e-Disclosure. Those that have been identified in this landscape review are summarised below. National Disclosure Improvement Plan (NDIP): This landscape review is one element of the work managed under NDIP, the next phase of which is planned to focus on: 1. Forging strong local partnerships so that police forces and CPS Areas take responsibility to deliver the changes required at every level; 2. Developing the professionalisation of disclosure as a discipline in every police force; 3. Utilising the opportunities of innovative technological solutions and making these tools available to frontline staff in their work; 4. Ensuring a clear line of sight between local and national expectations to ensure that national changes are embedded and taking effect at a local level; 5. Improving communication between the police, the CPS and the defence, including at the pre-charge stage; 6. Monitoring the impact of improvement measures and measuring their effectiveness in investigations and prosecutions; and 7. Learning the lessons of successes and failures of disclosure in our cases to continuously improve our performance month-on-month and year-on-year. Focus areas 3 and 5 in particular have clear technology links and implications, and as such are particularly pertinent to the technological scope of this review. The breadth of the scope and potential impacts of work planned or in progress is far reaching. As previously described the remit of the NDIP is to identify the necessary activities and coordinate, which will oversee alignment and deduplication of any activities with implications for e-Disclosure. Digital Policing Portfolio: The Digital Policing Portfolio is a national delivery organisation set up by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) to deliver the 'Digital Policing' strand of the Policing Vision 2025 focused on developing nationally consistent services, standards and capabilities, in order to: • Reduce duplication of effort and spend that would occur if all forces developed their own solutions; • Consolidate learning and share knowledge so all forces benefit; and • Reduce the 'service lottery' whilst enabling local tailoring and identity of policing services. The Portfolio is made up of three programmes: • Digital Public Contact (DPC): will change the police's relationship with the public by introducing new intuitive online contact and other services to make policing easier to navigate and more accessible for the public. National Data Analytics Solution (NDAS): This programme was established in West Midlands Police to investigate the possibility of extending a local strategic project it had funded, known as Data Driven Insights (DDI), which it believed could be scaled nationally. It is a proof-ofconcept with the ambition of providing a new scalable and flexible analytics capability to UK law enforcement using advanced analytics to deliver insights to partners on agreed high priority operational and organisational issues. NDAS plans to do the following: • Introduce a new shared, central data and analytics capability that is aimed and directed proportionately by participating UK law enforcement agencies. • Digital Intelligence & Investigation (DII): will enable the police to protect the public by improving forces' digital capabilities to prevent and detect crime and build on those capabilities for future technological advances. This programme's scope includes development and implementation of a national Information Handling Model (IHM), as well as supporting analytical capabilities. • Provide law enforcement agencies with reporting and support to action insights generated to create more evidence-based local interventions. Summary: A mapping of which of the key capability requirements these specific initiatives might support is detailed overleaf. • Digital First (DF): will facilitate better working and information sharing between policing and its criminal justice partners. This programme's scope includes the development and delivery of a Digital Evidence Transfer Service (DETS), a Digital Case File (DCF) and supporting implementation of the Two-Way Interface (TWIF) between the criminal justice system and police systems. KEY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE BUSINESS PROBLEM STATEMENTS DPC DII DF NDAS 1. Nationally consistent data standards X X 2. Nationally consistent data formats X X 3. Nationally consistent data indexing and cataloguing X X 4. Nationally consistent or compatible data enrichment capability X 5. Nationally consistent or compatible data acquisition and ingest techniques X 6. Nationally consistent or compatible data storage infrastructure X 7. Nationally consistent or compatible search X 8. Nationally consistent or compatible analytics capabilities X 9. Nationally consistent or compatible summary visualisation capability for digital material X 10. Nationally consistent or compatible data and material sifting and filtering capability X 11. Nationally consistent or compatible and auditable data access management X 12. Nationally consistent and auditable data management and standards X X X 13. Nationally consistent or compatible capability for sharing digital material within and between forces X 14. Nationally consistent data analytics capabilities X 15. Cross force data access capability X 16. Cross force search capability 17. De-duplication across disparate storage X X 18. Capability for sharing digital material with prosecution and defence X 19. Capability for sharing analysis of digital material with prosecution and defence X Recommendation: The planned delivery initiatives reviewed above are a subset of the planned or ongoing work relating to e-Disclosure across policing identified during this landscape review. Further work is required to identify any other initiatives to enable deconfliction and deduplication where possible. ## 6. Gap Analysis Search: The tools identified provide some capability, however the range highlights the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the identification of all relevant electronic material for e-Disclosure, as well as the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. The analysis undertaken in this review reinforces the key capability requirements identified from the business need statements. It should be noted that the technology landscape section is limited to the technologies identified in the RFI responses and additional interviews with technology providers and disclosure SMEs, and three strategic funded initiatives that are more than likely to be a subset of currently funded related work. However it has allowed the first stage of a gap analysis as well as recommendations for next steps. These are captured below: • The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is increasingly important to ensure that all relevant material can be found quickly with the rapidly expanding volume of material to be considered. This is relevant not only within a force but across forces as material may have been captured by other forces that is relevant to the case in question. • This capability is a more general requirement for the investigation process with some e-Disclosure specific requirement. This review has not identified any related planned delivery. Review: There are a number of tools identified that appear to provide a good level of capability, providing the material has been imported into a system and is easily found for review. The number of tools does however highlight the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. • The consistent extraction, import or ingest of material is critical to e-Disclosure. Process or procedural improvement is out of the scope of this review but is being considered by the wider NDIP. • Technology is advancing in this area with advanced search capabilities, AI supported data mining, and the potential for alerts on saved searches which would support the requirement to keep disclosure under review throughout the life of a case. • Recommendation: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the roll out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Consideration of advancing and new technologies that could provide an enhanced solution should also be included in this investigation. • This capability is a more general requirement for the investigation process with some e-Disclosure specific requirements including the capture of the evidential audit trail for electronic material. The Digital Case File work in the scope of the DF Programme may also deliver supporting capability. i.e. it will not assist with the review, only with the recording of the findings of the review. • Recommendation: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review, along with the work undertaken on the Digital Case File part of the DF Programme and any other relevant nationally funded initiatives should be undertaken to identify if there is a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Analysis: Similar to search, the tools identified provide some capability, however the range highlights the lack of consistent, efficient and effective ingest or import of electronic material that is key to the ability to perform effective analysis and identify links or combinations of material relevant for disclosure in policing. It also highlights the lack of a national solution and consistency of approach. • The consistent import or ingest and storage of material is even more important for analysis as it supports the enrichment of data leading to an increased ability to find links and identify combinations of material relevant for e-Disclosure. • Technology is rapidly expanding in this area, in particular with AI advances, but there are initiatives with a broader remit in this area that should include e-Disclosure use cases. The DII programme has analytical capabilities in its scope as well as enabling aspects such as national IHM and digital material storage requirement standards, and the NDAS programme which is particularly focussed on analytics. • Recommendation: There are a number of aspects across the identified related initiatives that have analytical capabilities and technologies in scope. These should be engaged with, along with any other related funded work to ensure that the needs of e-Disclosure are being considered. Record output of review, search and analysis: Although there are capabilities that provide an audit trail of searches and acquisition activities, this review has not identified any technology that particularly supports the effective and efficient capture of an audit trail of findings and conclusions with any supporting reasoning. This is related to the work being undertaken by Digital First regarding 'Digital Case File' • The conclusions to be made and recorded here require understanding of any handling caveats or sensitivities of the material which should be captured in the indexing or cataloguing of the material, the completeness of the evidential audit trail, as well as the ability to effectively reference or link to the data so that it can be easily found. • The indexing and cataloguing aspect that supports this activity is being considered under the DII programme scope that includes the development of a national IHM (Information Handling Model), and digital material storage requirement standards. The only initiative identified that may be considering the Record aspect of the process is the NDIP. • Recommendation: Further engagement with national programmes and NDDB, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the recording requirements of e-Disclosure are being considered. Assess: The technologies identified against this stage in the process are used to view the material or redo or review analysis that supports the relevance of the material for disclosure. • Key to the efficiency of this activity is the ability to quickly view / review the material and understand any sensitivities or handling caveats that need to be considered. • The indexing and cataloguing aspect that supports this activity is part of the DII programme scope that includes the development of a national IHM. • Recommendation: Further engagement with the DII Programme, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the e-Disclosure assessment requirements are being considered. Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Technology can support this through the automatic generation of required documentation based on information captured in the previous Record stage. Only one technology has been identified in this review that supports this activity. Once again this is highly relevant within the development of a Digital Case File. • Recommendation: Further investigation of this tool and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. systems with varying business processes and backup systems and little progress had been made in the area of transfer or accessibility of data. Since 2016, a number of forces have put in place solutions for the sharing of multimedia evidence (approximately 12, with more with plans to do so). These have primarily been focused on sharing of BWV, as a result of sharing solutions being offered by the manufacturers of the cameras themselves. • Recommendation: Further investigation of the existing capabilities including the work under DF to ensure that any e-Disclosure specific requirements are being met. Share: Technologies that support this activity have been identified in this review that appear to provide a good level of capability, and the DF Programme is also delivering a DETS and supporting the rollout of TWIF to those forces that have not already adopted this. A DF Landscape Review (2016) found that most England and Wales Police Forces still owned their digital storage in-house. Analysis identified that forces had multiple and often disparate ## 7. Recommendations And Suggested Next Steps This section presents the recommendations of this review, a hypothesis on the potential solution, and suggested next steps to address the identified gaps and recommendations. Technology Landscape Recommendations: The recommendations made as part of the Technology Landscape section are as follows: • Current Technology in Policing & Legal profession: Further work is required to identify other relevant technologies currently in use in policing and both criminal/civil legal profession to assess their capability against the requirements. • Planned Delivery: Further work is required to identify any other funded planned or ongoing initiatives to enable deduplication of effort and identify any gaps. Gap Analysis Recommendations: Based on the current technologies and planned deliveries identified and reviewed in this report, the recommendations made in the Gap Analysis are as follows: • Review: Ongoing investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review, along with the other relevant nationally funded initiatives, should be undertaken to identify if there is a preferred solution the rollout of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. • Search: Further investigation of these tools and any others not identified in this review may identify a preferred solution the role out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. Consideration of advancing and new technologies that could provide an enhanced solution should also be included in this investigation. • Analysis: There are a few aspects across the identified related initiatives that have analytical capabilities and technologies in scope. These should be engaged with, along with any other related funded work to ensure that the needs of e-Disclosure are being considered. • Record output of review, search and analysis: The NDDB should continue to engage with national programmes and as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the recording requirements of e-Disclosure are being considered. • Assess: Continued engagement with the DII Programme, as well as any other related funded work, to ensure that the e-Disclosure assessment requirements are being considered. • Record (Disclosure Schedule and Disclosure Management Document (DMD)): Further examination of the tools (along with the work undertaken on the Digital Case File part of the DF Programme) and any others not identified in this review, may identify a preferred solution the role out of which would support a consistent approach to e-Disclosure. • Share: Supplementary investigation of the existing capabilities including the work under DF to ensure that any e-Disclosure specific requirements are being met. Hypothesis: Given the range of capabilities required and the cross-cutting nature of disclosure across policing, the most likely solution to the shortfalls is the rollout of a number of technologies, some currently in use and some new, with common APIs, linked together where possible with a common user interface. This would enable a modular approach to the provision of capability with a full range of advanced features, including audit regime, data analytics and search technology. It would also allow for the agile replacement of out dated technologies, and provide the opportunity to keep up with technological advances, as appropriate. Whilst being cognisant of the necessary differences between forces and in priorities, this rollout should be as wide as possible, and scalable, to encourage consistency in both process and technology across policing to enable better coordination. The most important parts of the technical solution are likely to be the supporting technology, the common or compatible storage, standards, indexing and cataloguing. Without these the key capabilities of review, search and analysis (which also apply across the rest of the investigation process) cannot be efficient or effective, particularly between forces. Next Steps: Based on the business challenges and statements of need highlighted in this review, as well as the identified gaps and associated recommendations, the suggested next step would be to assess the above hypothesis as part of an e-Disclosure Outline Business Case that will: • Conduct more in-depth reviews with representative police forces, including: • Capturing the 'as is' process • Supporting technologies already in use, and • Supporting any other related funded initiatives; • Engage with the related policing or government initiatives, pilots, proof of concepts to ascertain whether they are addressing any e-Disclosure requirements pertinent to their scope to de-duplicate effort, identify any gaps and seize any opportunities for collaborative working. • Identify and assess potential options to deliver against the e-Disclosure requirements that have no other identified delivery mechanism. • Conduct assessments of existing proof of concepts/pilots to select a preferred solution(s) and identify the funding to support the delivery of an e-Disclosure solution(s) that addresses the key business needs and capability gaps whilst delivering the required business outcomes and benefits. Visit our Knowledge Hub pages https://knowledgehub.group/group/ digital-policing-portfolio-dpp On the NPCC website www.npcc.police.uk/ NPCCBusinessAreas/ ReformandTransformation/ Digitalpolicing.aspx Follow us @UKDigitalPol @DIIPolice www.vimeo.com/digitalpolicing

en

3684-pdf

## Questions And Answers Llyn Tegid Safety Works What's the work being planned for Llyn Tegid? The embankments are being investigated for their ability to withstand extreme flood events. This includes an assessment of their height, composition and erosion protection measures such as the stone wave protection on the upstream face. The embankments included in the assessment run along the lake shore from the Bala Adventure and Watersports Centre, around the Enterprise Park bordering the River Dee and Tryweryn, up as far as the A494 bridge. Why is the work necessary? The work is necessary to ensure that Llyn Tegid continues to meet the requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975 and remains safe in the long term. Llyn Tegid is regulated under the Act which requires regular inspections by qualified reservoir Inspecting Engineers. At the last inspection in 2014 some statutory recommendations were made to which this scheme relates. When will it start? Construction work is extremely unlikely to start before Spring/ Summer 2019 depending on planning and other approvals that may be necessary. When will the work be completed? The project is at a very early stage and it is not possible to be definitive about timescales before a solution has been agreed. At this stage it is estimated that the construction may not be completed until 2021. How much disruption can we expect? It is likely that sections of footpaths may have to be closed and diverted for limited periods. There will also be increased construction traffic related to the works. However, the construction phase of the project will be carefully managed to minimise the amount of disruption to the local community. Where possible, work will be phased and affected stakeholders will be consulted on the approach adopted. How are you considering the exceptional environmental quality of the lake and its surroundings? Llyn Tegid is situated in the Snowdonia National Park and the embankments are within environmentally sensitive areas of international importance. Sympathetic solutions will be explored and opportunities identified to enhance the environment in line with the requirements under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. We will be consulting closely with Snowdonia National Park Authority, our own natural resources team responsible for the protected sites affected, and other key stakeholders to ensure that all possible solutions are appropriately assessed, impacts minimised and enhancement opportunities identified. What about the impact on people's recreational use of the lake and shore? Recreational use of the lake itself is very unlikely to be affected by the scheme. However, there may be some disruption to sections of footpaths during the project, which will be minimised as far as possible. What about the impact on tourism? The construction works will be managed sensitively to minimise any potential impacts on tourism. We will consult fully with the local community and other key stakeholders as the solution is developed to make sure that it is delivered in an acceptable way. In the long term, we hope the scheme will have a positive impact on tourism and the local economy. Maintaining the access along the lake shore and its magnificent views are a key consideration during the appraisal process. What will be the first thing we'll see? Over the coming months, you may see increased investigation activity in the area. This is to help provide technical background information on which options can be evaluated and developed. This is likely to include ground investigation works, topographical and environmental surveys. Whilst this will be highly visible, they are all relatively short duration activities. We will have to make some minor footpath diversions to ensure public safety, however this should not adversely affect your enjoyment of the local environment. When can we have our say and learn more? We are engaging with key stakeholders throughout the appraisal process and will be keeping our website page up to date. Once we have identified the extent of the work required, we will hold drop-in sessions for people to learn more about the work and to take on board your views and requirements as we design the work in more detail. Who is doing the work? We have appointed engineering consultancy firm Black & Veatch to undertake the initial appraisal phase of work. Subsequent detailed design work will be competitively tendered at the appropriate time. Who will consent the project? Snowdonia National Park Authority will be responsible for determining planning permission for the project. There are also other permissions that will need to be obtained from Natural Resources Wales. Whilst part of the same organisation, technical and permitting staff operate independently and impartially with respect to their assessments. Will trees be removed? It is possible that some trees may have to be removed depending on the extent of works required at different locations. This will only be done if necessary and environmental mitigation and enhancement opportunities will be identified to offset any potential impact. All trees that could be affected will be fully assessed in an arboricultural survey and other habitat surveys as necessary so that their removal is appropriately managed. Does this affect the planned Railway project We are aware of the proposed extension to the Bala Lake Railway and are working closely with them to understand the requirements of their scheme and how the interactions with this project could be managed. Will the project affect the risk of flooding in Bala? We are managing the risk of flooding to Bala in the long term and improving the safety of the embankments. This project will not increase the risk of flooding in the town and is likely to reduce the overall flood risk in the more extreme events. Will the capacity of the lake be increased? The capacity of the lake will not be increased. Will the embankments be raised? It may be necessary to provide additional resilience in targeted locations, but there are significant sections of the embankment that are likely to remain at their current level. If defence levels do need to be increased in specific areas, this could be done in a number of ways including the construction of wave walls. Embankment raising is a possibility and is being assessed alongside other options at this stage. How does water regulation work at Llyn Tegid? Llyn Tegid, Wales' largest natural lake, first became a reservoir in the 19th Century. To guarantee a supply of water to the Shropshire Union Canal, Thomas Telford built sluices at the outlet of Llyn Tegid. Water released through these sluices was abstracted into the canal at Horseshoe Falls, Llangollen. Then, in the 1950's, the Dee and Clwyd River Board built the Bala Lake Scheme. The lake's natural outlet was lowered (bypassing Telford's original sluices), and new sluice gates were built downstream of the confluence with the Afon Tryweryn. Embankments were built to contain water stored behind the sluice gates and to provide flood protection to the town of Bala. This provided around 21,000,000 m3 (cubic metres) of controllable, stored water in Llyn Tegid. This storage capability means that Llyn Tegid is considered a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. Today this reservoir is operated, alongside Llyn Celyn and Llyn Brenig, to ensure a continuous supply of water for abstraction from the River Dee. This can reach up to around 830 Ml/d (Megalitres per day), by three water companies and the Canal and Rivers Trust. In addition, flood water run-off is detained in Llyn Tegid, in a short-term and controlled way, to greatly reduce the frequency and extent of flooding in the Dee Valley downstream of Bala. March 2018

en

3807-pdf

## 'Measuring Up'Annual Rail Consumer Report 2018/19 At A Glance Summary Ticketing Retailing - Passenger Information - Assisted Travel - Complaints And Redress 'Measuring Up' focuses on the performance of train companies and Network Rail in the consumer areas we regulate. It summarises our key activities designed to secure improvements for passengers, highlights success and shows where progress has been made and where action has been necessary. The full report is available on our website: www.orr.gov.uk ## Office Of Rail And Road Office Of Rail And Road Office Of Rail And Road Ticket Retailing Our Role Is Focused On Ensuring Passengers Get Good Information When Choosing, Buying And Using Rail Tickets. In 2018/19 - Language around season ticket T&Cs was We completed research on passenger awareness and confusing understanding of key ticket restrictions and terms - Concerns about unclear information relating to and conditions (T&C) when buying and using tickets. fees for refunds Key findings: - Off-peak T&Cs had the lowest awareness - The low cost of rail tickets did not merit spending time reading T&Cs - We will work with industry stakeholders to improve the prominence, clarity and understanding of key terms and conditions - We will take steps to raise passenger awareness via social media and our website on key terms and conditions and passenger rights ## Passenger Information Our Role Is Focused On Ensuring Passengers Receive The Right Information At The Right Time To Help Plan Their Journey. In 2018/19 We undertook a formal investigation into whether Northern and GTR, on its Great Northern and Thameslink routes, had breached their passenger information licence obligations in the lead up to and after the 20 May timetable change. Key findings: - For Northern, we found that the company was not in breach of its licence - For GTR, we issued a £5m fine for failing to provide appropriate, accurate and timely information to passengers following the timetable change - We will publish the results of our research and will work with Network Rail, train companies and stakeholders to implement the findings Passengers need good information to help them to plan and make journeys. However, they often remain dissatisfied with how the rail industry performs when it comes to providing this. So we have commissioned research designed to put passengers at the front and centre of train companies thinking so that appropriate information is easily available when and where it is needed. ## Assisted Travel Our Role Is To Make Sure Passengers Needing Assistance To Travel Understand What Help Is Available And Can Use The Railway With Confidence. In 2018/19 There were circa 1.3 million booked assists, an increase of 2% on the year before. We have continued to monitor train companies performance via independent research with those passengers who have booked assistance to understand whether they received it and whether they were satisfied with it. Key findings: of the relevan - Nearly 5,000 passengers interviewed We have publi - 76% received all of the assistance they had to improve th booked information to - We will publish the outcome of our consultation and revised guidance on providing assistance to disabled passengers for train companies, and the timetable for submission of new policies to meet the guidance. - We will establish a regular forum with disabled people's organisations, including users of assisted travel, to consult on accessibility issues ## Complaints And Redress Our Role Is Dedicated To Ensuring Complaints Are Dealt With In A Fair And Effective Way, And When They Aren'T, That Passengers Have Access To A Means Of Independent Redress. In 2018/19 upon new enhanced monitoring data for delay There were 30.1 complaints per 100,000 journeys for compensation and have focused on the variance in franchised train companies, 22.4% of these related performance between companies. to punctuality / reliability. An average of 94.3% of Key findings: complaints were closed within the required 95% - 5.3m claims were closed within 20 working days. - 95.4% claims were closed within 20 working We also consulted on making membership of the days Rail Ombudsman a licence requirement to give passengers long-term certainty of access to binding - 16.4% of closed claims were not approved redress. Train companies consented to making their The proportion of due compensation paid to voluntary participation an obligation. passengers (the difference between due and paid ie For the first time, we have been able to draw 'compensation gap') remained stable since 2017. - We will publish our research on reviewing complaints handling in other regulated sectors where they e receiving from have an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme, and draw upon the new data we ar the Rail Ombudsman. - We will undertake further analysis of delay compensation data, with a focus on the performance in relation to rejection rates. - 85% were satisfied with the process from booking to receiving assistance Securing improvement to the services received by disabled passengers is an important area of focus for us. This year we have engaged extensively with various stakeholders, held workshops, and carried out station visits to ensure we obtained a full picture t issues. shed our consultation proposals e experience of assisted travel and disabled passengers. difference in www.orr.gov.uk @railandroad

en

3132-pdf

## Hm Revenue & Customs Hospitality Register 1 April 2014 - 30 June 2014 ## Lin Homer, Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 14 June ARC Dinner 17 June Warwick Africa Breakfast Edward Troup, Tax Assurance Commissioner & Second Permanent Secretary Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 3 April The President & Association of Taxation Technicians Drinks Reception 21 May CBI Annual Reception, Dinner and Champagne. 11 June Law Society Summer Party - Drinks Reception 17 June Scottish Financial Enterprise Drinks Reception Ruth Owen, Director General, Personal Tax Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 19 June Jaguar Land Rover Dinner and wine - transport was also provided to and from plant to station. Nick Lodge, Director General, Benefits & Credits Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Jim Harra, Director General, Business Tax Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 8 April CATA Glass of Wine and Canapes Jennie Granger, Director General, Enforcement and Compliance Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 28 May Strategic Alliance Group Drinks Reception Simon Bowles, Chief Finance Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil William Hague, Chief People Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Gill Aitken, General Counsel and Solicitor Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Mark Dearnley, Chief Digital and Information Officer Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received 6 April Cloudera Dinner 8 April Adobe Dinner Ian Barlow, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Volker Beckers, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Norman Pickavance, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil John Whiting, Non-Executive Director Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Edwina Dunn, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Paul Smith, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Leslie Ferrar, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Philippa Hird, Non-Executive Director Date Organisation Type of Hospitality Received Nil Does not include attendance at functions hosted by HM Government or the Royal Household; 'diplomatic' functions in the UK or abroad which are hosted by overseas governments; minor refreshments at meetings, receptions, conferences, and seminars; or offers of hospitality which were declined.

en

2889-pdf

# Monthly Report: Surveillance Project Sb4008 Ifng Tests For Bovine Tuberculosis (Tc0651 And Tc0751) Number 164 # Report Period 1St - 30Th April 2020 ## Operational Notes On Terminology, Definitions, Re-Test And Re-Samples Test Outcomes: - "Samples" refers to an individual tube of blood taken from an individual animal which is subsequently submitted for testing. It is generally assumed that the number of samples and the number of animals are analogous as any duplicate sample blood tube from the same animal will not be tested. However, minor discrepancies may occur where the same animal is tested more than once due to a request for a resample or the animal is tested twice under different categories (for example, as a PAR-RAPID and then as part of a PAR-HERD-S). - "Submissions" refers to an individual batch or set of samples received for testing. Submissions may comprise 1 or more samples (for example, if an entire herd is being tested it is usually sent as 1 submission). It is generally assumed that the number of submissions and the number of herds are analogous. - Retests are samples where the first ELISA assay fails and the same sample is retested on a new ELISA plate. Each sample can be retested only once. A retest is not a reportable test outcome. - Resamples are where a sample has been retested and failed a second time, so that the lab requests a new sample. This is a reportable test outcome. - Rejects are samples that are not tested by the lab for one of the following reasons: blood collected into wrong type of vacutainer, samples that have not been maintained at the appropriate temperature range (22±5C), unlabelled samples, broken or cracked tubes, blood that is extensively clotted (small clots are OK), samples received after 4pm on the day after sample collection. Such samples are reported separately in the tables and in figure 5. - POS (pokeweed mitogen) is a sample positive control reagent which provides a measure of the quality/viability of the blood sample. A POS fail (< 0.45 optical density reading) may indicate compromised blood quality as a result of collection/transportation conditions or due the animal having an unusually low/suppressed cellular immune response. - NEG (no-antigen control) is a sample negative control which provides a measure of the background antigen-independent IFN- responses. A NEG fail (> 0.3 optical density reading) may indicate a laboratory procedures problem (normally resolved during re-test) or that an animal has unusually high background levels of IFN-g. ## Test Criteria | Submission Reason | Explanation | |-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Possible Herd Slaughter | | | (PAR-HERD-S) | | | Parallel interferon-gamma blood testing of skin | | | test negative cattle to inform whole or partial | | | herd slaughters decisions | | | Parallel blood testing of skin test-negative cattle | | | in persistently infected herds that have failed to | | | resolve by repeated short-interval skin testing | | | and fulfill a minimum of biosecurity standards. | | | Persistent TB breakdowns | | | (OTF status withdrawn) | | | (PAR-P-CONF) N.B. | | | PAR-PERSIS from 1st April | | | 2017 | | | Parallel - Low Incidence | | | (PAR-LOW-IN) N.B. | | | PAR-NEW-IN from 1st April | | | 2017 | | | Parallel blood testing to maximise the | | | probability of removing all infected cattle in a | | | new herd breakdown as soon as possible after | | | confirmation of TB. | | | Rapid Testing of twice IR's | | | (PAR-RAPID) | | | Parallel blood testing of two-times IRs identified | | | under the severe interpretation of the skin test | | | used in Wales. | | | PAR-CUL-N | | | Parallel blood testing to maximise the | | | probability of removing all infected cattle in a | | | new breakdown as soon as possible after | | | confirmation of TB where herd is situated in | | | badger control areas of England that have | | | completed at least 2 effective culls. | | | PAR-CUL-P | | | Parallel blood testing to maximise the | | | probability of removing all infected cattle in a | | | persistent confirmed breakdown where herd is | | | situated within badger control areas of England | | | that have completed at least 2 effective culls | | | Parallel Other | | | (PAR-OTHER) | | | Other parallel blood testing not covered in any | | | of the other scenarios | | | NO (APHA discretion) | | | 'NSR' Herds (SER-NSR) | | | Modified serial blood testing of individual skin | | | test reactors and/or IRs in unconfirmed TB | | | breakdown herds to clarify their infection status | | | where there is evidence of non-specific | | | sensitisation to bovine tuberculin (the | | | "non-specific reactor" procedure) | | | Suspected Fraud | | | (SER-FRAUD) | | | Modified serial blood test of suspected | | | fraudulent reactors to the skin test (animals with | | | abnormal skin swellings), in confirmed or | | | unconfirmed TB incidents. | | | Serial Other | | | (SER-OTHER) | | | Serial test - other reasons | NO (APHA Discretion) | | SER-FLEXI | | | Extended blood test to provide flexible test | | | readout in a confirmed M. bovis-infected herd | | | where Johne's (M. a. paratuberculosis) infection | | | or vaccination is suspected to be interferring | | | with M. bovis infection detection | | | YES, if APHA are | | | contemplating a herd | | | slaughter | | | NO (APHA discretion) | | | YES in Area of Low | | | Incidence | | | YES (Wales only) | | | YES (in eligible badger | | | control areas of England) | | | NO (APHA discretion) | | | NO (APHA discretion) | | | NO (APHA discretion to | | | firm up or rule out any | | | suspicion of fraud and | | | support any | | | investigations) | | | NO (APHA discretion) | | | % | Total 2020 | % | |-------------------------|--------------------------|----------| | Num | | | | samples | | | | April 2020 | | | | Submissions | 184 | 1112 | | Samples | Total (%) | 10928 | | England | 7482 | 68.47 % | | Wales | 2984 | 27.31 % | | Scotland | 462 | 4.23 % | | Parallel Tests | PAR-CUL-N | 1461 | | PAR-CUL-P | 917 | 8.39 % | | PAR-HERD-S | 28 | 0.26 % | | PAR-NEW-IN | 7338 | 67.15 % | | PAR-OTHER | 133 | 1.22 % | | PAR-PERSIS | 898 | 8.22 % | | PAR-RAPID | 142 | 1.30 % | | Total(% of all samples) | 10917 | 99.90 % | | Serial/Extended Tests | SER-FLEXI | 11 | | SER-FRAUD | 0 | 0.00 % | | SER-NSR | 0 | 0.00 % | | Total(% of all samples) | 11 | 0.10 % | | Total | 10928 | 100.00 % | | Retests | Total (% of all samples) | 687 | | England | 482 | 4.41 % | | Wales | 187 | 1.71 % | | Scotland | 18 | 0.16 % | | Resamples | Total (% of all samples) | 535 | | England | 379 | 3.47 % | | Wales | 142 | 1.30 % | | Scotland | 14 | 0.13 % | | Rejects | Total (% of all samples) | 3 | | England | 0 | 0.00 % | | Wales | 3 | 0.03 % | | Scotland | 0 | 0.00 % | PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other | PAR-CUL-N | 1461 | 13.4 % | |-------------|--------|----------| | PAR-CUL-P | 917 | 8.4 % | | PAR-HERD-S | 28 | 0.3 % | | PAR-NEW-IN | 7338 | 67.1 % | | PAR-OTHER | 133 | 1.2 % | | PAR-PERSIS | 898 | 8.2 % | | PAR-RAPID | 142 | 1.3 % | | SER-FLEXI | 11 | 0.1 % | | Total | 10928 | 100.00 % | Breakdown of Samples submitted by County (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2A. Summary By County For April 2020 | Country | County | |-----------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | England - HRA | Corn & Scilly | | PAR-CUL-P | 2 | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | Devon | PAR-CUL-N | | Dorset | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-CUL-P | 1 | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | Gloucs | PAR-CUL-N | | Shropshire | PAR-CUL-N | | Somerset excl N | PAR-CUL-N | | England - Edge | Berks | | Bucks | PAR-NEW-IN | | Cheshire | PAR-NEW-IN | | Derbyshire | PAR-NEW-IN | | E Sussex | PAR-NEW-IN | | Leics & Rut | PAR-NEW-IN | | Northants | PAR-NEW-IN | | Oxon | PAR-NEW-IN | | Warks | PAR-NEW-IN | | England - LRA | Gr Manchester | | N Yorks | PAR-NEW-IN | | England | | | 67 | 7482 | | Wales - High TB | Carms | | PAR-OTHER | 3 | | PAR-PERSIS | 3 | | PAR-RAPID | 9 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. | Country | County | |-------------------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | Ceredigion | PAR-OTHER | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | PAR-RAPID | 6 | | Gwent | PAR-RAPID | | Pembs | PAR-OTHER | | PAR-PERSIS | 7 | | PAR-RAPID | 16 | | Powys | PAR-HERD-S | | PAR-PERSIS | 3 | | PAR-RAPID | 6 | | SER-FLEXI | 1 | | S Wales | PAR-RAPID | | Wales - Intermediate TB | Carms | | NE Wales | PAR-NEW-IN | | PAR-RAPID | 2 | | SER-FLEXI | 2 | | Powys | PAR-NEW-IN | | S Glamorgan | PAR-RAPID | | Wales - Low TB | Gwynedd | | PAR-RAPID | 1 | | NE Wales | PAR-NEW-IN | | PAR-OTHER | 1 | | PAR-RAPID | 1 | | Wales | | | 112 | 2984 | | Scotland - Scotland | Argyll & Bute | | Kirkcudbright | PAR-NEW-IN | | Wigtown | PAR-NEW-IN | | Scotland | | | 5 | 462 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. | Country | County | |-------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | Grand Total | Sum: | *For test criteria please refer to Operational notes. * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2B. Summary By County For 2020 | Country | County | |-----------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | England - HRA | Corn & Scilly | | PAR-CUL-P | 6 | | PAR-PERSIS | 17 | | Devon | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-CUL-P | 7 | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | SER-FLEXI | 3 | | Dorset | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-CUL-P | 6 | | PAR-NEW-IN | 2 | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | SER-FLEXI | 5 | | Gloucs | PAR-CUL-N | | Heref | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-NEW-IN | 3 | | PAR-PERSIS | 2 | | Shropshire | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-PERSIS | 7 | | SER-FLEXI | 3 | | Somerset excl N | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-CUL-P | 1 | | PAR-PERSIS | 2 | | Staffs | PAR-CUL-N | | Wiltshire | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-CUL-P | 4 | | PAR-PERSIS | 2 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. | Country | County | |-----------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | SER-FLEXI | 2 | | England - Edge | Berks | | Bucks | PAR-NEW-IN | | Cheshire | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-NEW-IN | 68 | | Derbyshire | PAR-NEW-IN | | E Sussex | PAR-NEW-IN | | Hampshire | PAR-CUL-N | | PAR-NEW-IN | 8 | | Leics & Rut | PAR-NEW-IN | | Northants | PAR-NEW-IN | | Notts | PAR-NEW-IN | | Oxon | PAR-NEW-IN | | Warks | PAR-NEW-IN | | England - LRA | Cumbria | | Gr Manchester | PAR-NEW-IN | | Humberside | PAR-NEW-IN | | Lincs | PAR-NEW-IN | | Norfolk | PAR-NEW-IN | | N Yorks | PAR-NEW-IN | | Surrey | PAR-NEW-IN | | England | | | 615 | 73317 | | Wales - High TB | Carms | | PAR-NEW-IN | 1 | | PAR-OTHER | 14 | | PAR-PERSIS | 24 | | PAR-RAPID | 28 | | SER-FLEXI | 2 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 2B. Summary By County For 2020 Cont. | Country | County | |-------------------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | Ceredigion | PAR-HERD-S | | PAR-OTHER | 8 | | PAR-PERSIS | 16 | | PAR-RAPID | 13 | | Gwent | PAR-HERD-S | | PAR-PERSIS | 13 | | PAR-RAPID | 10 | | SER-FLEXI | 3 | | Pembs | PAR-HERD-S | | PAR-OTHER | 36 | | PAR-PERSIS | 54 | | PAR-RAPID | 39 | | SER-FLEXI | 3 | | Powys | PAR-HERD-S | | PAR-OTHER | 9 | | PAR-PERSIS | 28 | | PAR-RAPID | 13 | | SER-FLEXI | 10 | | S Wales | PAR-PERSIS | | PAR-RAPID | 1 | | SER-FLEXI | 1 | | W Glamorgan | PAR-OTHER | | PAR-PERSIS | 2 | | SER-FLEXI | 1 | | Wales - Intermediate TB | Carms | | PAR-OTHER | 4 | | PAR-PERSIS | 3 | | PAR-RAPID | 3 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. | Country | County | |---------------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | Ceredigion | PAR-PERSIS | | PAR-RAPID | 1 | | SER-FLEXI | 2 | | NE Wales | PAR-NEW-IN | | PAR-OTHER | 1 | | PAR-PERSIS | 10 | | PAR-RAPID | 7 | | SER-FLEXI | 7 | | Powys | PAR-NEW-IN | | PAR-OTHER | 1 | | S Glamorgan | PAR-RAPID | | SER-FLEXI | 3 | | Wales - Low TB | Gwynedd | | PAR-OTHER | 1 | | PAR-RAPID | 2 | | NE Wales | PAR-NEW-IN | | PAR-OTHER | 1 | | PAR-PERSIS | 1 | | PAR-RAPID | 1 | | Wales | | | 471 | 17590 | | Scotland - Scotland | Argyll & Bute | | Ayrshire | PAR-NEW-IN | | Berwickshire | PAR-NEW-IN | | Dumfries & G | PAR-NEW-IN | | Kirkcudbright | PAR-NEW-IN | | Wigtown | PAR-NEW-IN | | Scotland | | | 26 | 2662 | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. | Country | County | |-------------|----------------| | Submission | | | Reasons* | | | No. | | | subs | | | Samples | Gamma Positive | | n | % of total | | Grand Total | Sum: | *For test criteria please refer to Operational notes. * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. PAR-HERD-S: potential herd slaughter, PAR-P-CONF (PAR-PERSIS from 1 April 2017): persistent TB breakdown OTFW, PAR-LOW-IN (PAR-NEW-IN from 1 April 2017): parallel low incidence, PAR-RAPID: rapid testing of twice IRs, PAR-CUL-N: new infection in cull area, PAR-CUL-P: persistent infection in cull area, PAR-OTHER: parallel other, SER-FLEXI: flexible extended test in confirmed herds with concurrent Johne's infection/vaccination, SER-NSR: serial non-specific reactor, SER-FRAUD: serial potential fraud, SER-OTHER: serial other ## Table 3A. Summary Of Ifn Gamma Results By Country And Protocol April 2020 | Country | Protocol | |-----------------|--------------| | No | | | submissions | Samples | | n | % of total n | | England | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 0 | | Total | 67 | | Scotland | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 0 | | Total | 5 | | Wales | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 3 | | Total | 112 | | GB | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 3 | | Total | 184 | | 67.00 | | | 112.00 | | | 5.00 | | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. ## Table 3B. Summary Of Ifn Gamma Results By Country And Protocol (Total 2020) | Country | Protocol | |-----------------|--------------| | No | | | submissions | Samples | | n | % of total n | | England | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 13 | | Total | 615 | | Scotland | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 0 | | Total | 26 | | Wales | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 32 | | Total | 471 | | GB | Parallel | | Serial/Extended | 45 | | Total | 1112 | | 615.00 | | | 471.00 | | | 26.00 | | * Sufficient plasma supernatant is collected and stored following the overnight culture stage of the assay such that if the sample fails any of the QC criteria, it is possible for the laboratory to 're-test' the original sample. Depending on the outcome of a retest, a resample (if QC criteria fail to be met), a positive or a negative result will be reported. Therefore, the total number of samples = the sum of positive, negative, resample and reject samples only. Submission Reason No submissions Samples Gamma Positive Gamma Negatives Retest Resample Reject n % of total n % n % n % n % n % GB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 3 11 0.1% 1 9.1% 9 81.8% 2 18.2 % 1 9.1 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 28 0.3% 2 7.1% 25 89.3% 1 3.6 % 1 3.6 % 0 Parallel New Infection 69 7338 67.1% 200 2.7% 6786 92.5% 458 6.2 % 349 4.8 % 3 0.0 % Parallel - new infection cull area 24 1461 13.4% 64 4.4% 1328 90.9% 85 5.8 % 69 4.7 % 0 Parallel - Other 22 133 1.2% 23 17.3% 103 77.4% 8 6.0 % 7 5.3 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 16 898 8.2% 58 6.5% 772 86.0% 82 9.1 % 68 7.6 % 0 Parallel - persistent infection cull area 3 917 8.4% 32 3.5% 860 93.8% 35 3.8 % 25 2.7 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 44 142 1.3% 28 19.7% 99 69.7% 16 11.3 % 15 10.6 % 0 Total 184 10928 100.0% 408 3.7% 9982 91.3% 687 6.3 % 535 4.9 % 3 0.0 % England - HRA Parallel - new infection cull area 24 1461 13.4% 64 4.4% 1328 90.9% 85 5.8 % 69 4.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 2 616 5.6% 42 6.8% 523 84.9% 64 10.4 % 51 8.3 % 0 Parallel - persistent infection cull area 3 917 8.4% 32 3.5% 860 93.8% 35 3.8 % 25 2.7 % 0 England - HRA 29 2994 27.4% 138 4.6% 2711 90.5% 184 6.1 % 145 4.8 % 0 England - Edge Parallel New Infection 33 3946 36.1% 111 2.8% 3630 92.0% 260 6.6 % 205 5.2 % 0 England - Edge 33 3946 36.1% 111 2.8% 3630 92.0% 260 6.6 % 205 5.2 % 0 England - LRA Parallel New Infection 5 542 5.0% 5 0.9% 508 93.7% 38 7.0 % 29 5.4 % 0 England - LRA 5 542 5.0% 5 0.9% 508 93.7% 38 7.0 % 29 5.4 % 0 Wales - High TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 1 1 0.0% 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 28 0.3% 2 7.1% 25 89.3% 1 3.6 % 1 3.6 % 0 Parallel - Other 18 111 1.0% 20 18.0% 85 76.6% 7 6.3 % 6 5.4 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 14 282 2.6% 16 5.7% 249 88.3% 18 6.4 % 17 6.0 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 39 126 1.2% 27 21.4% 87 69.0% 13 10.3 % 12 9.5 % 0 Wales - High TB 75 548 5.0% 65 11.9% 446 81.4% 40 7.3 % 37 6.8 % 0 Wales - Intermediate TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 2 10 0.1% 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 1 10.0 % 0 0 Parallel New Infection 13 1085 9.9% 60 5.5% 965 88.9% 74 6.8 % 59 5.4 % 1 0.1 % Parallel - Other 3 17 0.2% 3 17.6% 13 76.5% 1 5.9 % 1 5.9 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 3 4 0.0% 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 0 0 0 Wales - Intermediate TB 21 1116 10.2% 65 5.8% 990 88.7% 76 6.8 % 60 5.4 % 1 0.1 % Wales - Low TB Parallel New Infection 13 1303 11.9% 15 1.2% 1244 95.5% 68 5.2 % 42 3.2 % 2 0.2 % Parallel - Other 1 5 0.0% 0 0.0 % 5 100.0% 0 0 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 2 12 0.1% 0 0.0 % 9 75.0% 3 25.0 % 3 25.0 % 0 Wales - Low TB 16 1320 12.1% 15 1.1% 1258 95.3% 71 5.4 % 45 3.4 % 2 0.2 % Scotland - Scotland Parallel New Infection 5 462 4.2% 9 1.9% 439 95.0% 18 3.9 % 14 3.0 % 0 Scotland - Scotland 5 462 4.2% 9 1.9% 439 95.0% 18 3.9 % 14 3.0 % 0 Submission Reason No submissions Samples Gamma Positive Gamma Negatives Retest Resample Reject n % of total n % n % n % n % n % GB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 45 1868 2.0% 129 6.9% 1673 89.6% 104 5.6 % 64 3.4 % 2 0.1 % Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 21 307 0.3% 29 9.4% 268 87.3% 21 6.8 % 10 3.3 % 0 Parallel New Infection 376 42815 45.8% 1197 2.8% 38177 89.2% 2693 6.3 % 2167 5.1 % 1274 3.0 % Parallel - new infection cull area 265 29044 31.0% 1180 4.1% 26014 89.6% 1784 6.1 % 1391 4.8 % 459 1.6 % Parallel - Other 76 1755 1.9% 152 8.7% 1471 83.8% 153 8.7 % 132 7.5 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 186 12507 13.4% 757 6.1% 11042 88.3% 871 7.0 % 686 5.5 % 22 0.2 % Parallel - persistent infection cull area 24 4832 5.2% 291 6.0% 4339 89.8% 274 5.7 % 201 4.2 % 1 0.0 % Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 119 441 0.5% 93 21.1% 321 72.8% 30 6.8 % 27 6.1 % 0 Total 1112 93569 100.0% 3828 4.1% 83305 89.0% 5930 6.3 % 4678 5.0 % 1758 1.9 % England - HRA Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 13 1224 1.3% 70 5.7% 1113 90.9% 59 4.8 % 41 3.3 % 0 Parallel New Infection 5 415 0.4% 15 3.6% 363 87.5% 49 11.8 % 36 8.7 % 1 0.2 % Parallel - new infection cull area 261 28630 30.6% 1164 4.1% 25645 89.6% 1735 6.1 % 1364 4.8 % 457 1.6 % Parallel Persistent Infection 32 5574 6.0% 283 5.1% 5025 90.2% 348 6.2 % 263 4.7 % 3 0.1 % Parallel - persistent infection cull area 24 4832 5.2% 291 6.0% 4339 89.8% 274 5.7 % 201 4.2 % 1 0.0 % England - Edge Parallel New Infection 251 30443 32.5% 890 2.9% 27138 89.1% 1899 6.2 % 1525 5.0 % 890 2.9 % Parallel - new infection cull area 4 414 0.4% 16 3.9% 369 89.1% 49 11.8 % 27 6.5 % 2 0.5 % England - LRA Parallel New Infection 25 1785 1.9% 40 2.2% 1364 76.4% 82 4.6 % 67 3.8 % 314 17.6 % England 615 73317 78.4% 2769 3.8% 65356 89.1% 4495 6.1 % 3524 4.8 % 1668 2.3 % Wales - High TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 20 454 0.5% 42 9.3% 398 87.7% 31 6.8 % 14 3.1 % 0 Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 18 277 0.3% 24 8.7% 244 88.1% 18 6.5 % 9 3.2 % 0 Parallel New Infection 1 8 0.0% 2 25.0% 6 75.0% 0 0 0 Parallel - Other 68 1704 1.8% 147 8.6% 1429 83.9% 147 8.6 % 128 7.5 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 138 6211 6.6% 386 6.2% 5415 87.2% 484 7.8 % 391 6.3 % 19 0.3 % Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 104 397 0.4% 86 21.7% 289 72.8% 25 6.3 % 22 5.5 % 0 Wales - Intermediate TB Extended Flexible IFN-GAMMA test 12 190 0.2% 17 8.9% 162 85.3% 14 7.4 % 9 4.7 % 2 1.1 % Parallel - Herd or Group Slaughter 3 30 0.0% 5 16.7% 24 80.0% 3 10.0 % 1 3.3 % 0 ## Table 4B. Summaryof Ifn Gamma Results By Submission Reason (Total 2020) Cont. Parallel New Infection 43 4849 5.2% 143 2.9% 4402 90.8% 351 7.2 % 303 6.2 % 1 0.0 % Parallel - Other 6 45 0.0% 5 11.1% 37 82.2% 5 11.1 % 3 6.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 15 682 0.7% 88 12.9% 570 83.6% 29 4.3 % 24 3.5 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 12 31 0.0% 7 22.6% 22 71.0% 2 6.5 % 2 6.5 % 0 Wales - Low TB Parallel New Infection 25 2653 2.8% 32 1.2% 2508 94.5% 165 6.2 % 110 4.1 % 3 0.1 % Parallel - Other 2 6 0.0% 0 0.0 % 5 83.3% 1 16.7 % 1 16.7 % 0 Parallel Persistent Infection 1 40 0.0% 0 0.0 % 32 80.0% 10 25.0 % 8 20.0 % 0 Parallel - Rapid Testing Two-times IRs 3 13 0.0% 0 0.0 % 10 76.9% 3 23.1 % 3 23.1 % 0 Wales 471 17590 18.8% 984 5.6% 15553 88.4% 1288 7.3 % 1028 5.8 % 25 0.1 % Scotland - Scotland Parallel New Infection 26 2662 2.8% 75 2.8% 2396 90.0% 147 5.5 % 126 4.7 % 65 2.4 % Scotland 26 2662 2.8% 75 2.8% 2396 90.0% 147 5.5 % 126 4.7 % 65 2.4 % | Year | Month | |--------------|---------| | Herds | | | sampled | | | Samples | | | tested | | | IFNg+ | | | samples | | | Wrong | | | Eartags | | | VL No | | | Cult | | | Herds | | | with | | | positives | | | No PM | | | No | | | Cult | | | No PM | | | Cult | | | Pend | | | No PM | | | Cult | | | Neg | | | No PM | | | Cult | | | Mb | | | VL | | | Cult | | | Neg | | | VL | | | Cult | | | Pend | | | VL | | | Cult | | | Mb | | | VL | | | Cult | | | Other | | | NVL | | | No | | | Cult | | | NVL | | | Cult | | | Pend | | | NVL | | | Cult | | | Neg | | | NVL | | | Cult | | | Mb | | | NVL | | | Cult | | | Other | | | No | | | PM | | | Cult | | | Other | | | 2019 | May | | June | 287 | | July | 316 | | August | 262 | | September | 245 | | October | 298 | | November | 272 | | December | 234 | | 2020 | January | | February | 323 | | March | 262 | | April | 184 | | Totals (last | | | 12 months) | | | 3390 | 310034 | Country Herds sampled Samples tested IFNg+ samples VL No Cult Herds with positives No PM No Cult No PM Cult Pend No PM Cult Neg No PM Cult Mb VL Cult Neg VL Cult Pend VL Cult Mb VL Cult Other NVL No Cult NVL Cult Pend NVL Cult Neg NVL Cult Mb NVL Cult Other No PM Cult Other England 1951 245696 1194 8276 158 0 0 0 0 1049 8 2 43 2 6935 4 54 0 1 Scotland 45 4989 25 161 4 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 4 0 111 15 2 0 0 Wales 1394 59349 700 2834 89 0 0 0 0 116 8 5 21 5 1993 47 540 0 6 Totals 3390 310034 1919 11271 251 0 0 0 0 1189 16 7 68 7 9039 66 596 0 7 *Includes all animals with IFNg test negative, resample and reject outcomes | | County | %Resampled %Retested | |---------------|----------|------------------------| | Argyll & Bute | 37.50 % | 37.50 % | | Berks | 6.77 % | 8.83 % | | Bucks | 8.33 % | 12.50 % | | Carms | 5.52 % | 6.63 % | | Ceredigion | 16.13 % | 16.13 % | | Cheshire | 5.01 % | 6.22 % | | Corn & Scilly | 2.39 % | 3.53 % | | Derbyshire | 3.83 % | 4.14 % | | Devon | 4.95 % | 6.07 % | | Dorset | 7.15 % | 9.09 % | | E Sussex | 5.06 % | 5.52 % | | Gloucs | 4.95 % | 5.45 % | | Gr Manchester | | | | Gwent | | | | Gwynedd | 3.48 % | 5.54 % | | Kirkcudbright | 2.35 % | 3.53 % | | Leics & Rut | 3.67 % | 8.72 % | | NE Wales | 4.80 % | 6.58 % | | Northants | 2.78 % | 5.56 % | | N Yorks | 5.37 % | 7.04 % | | Oxon | 8.33 % | 10.42 % | | Pembs | 6.87 % | 7.22 % | | Powys | 4.20 % | 4.20 % | S Glamorgan Shropshire Somerset excl N 5.00 % 5.00 % S Wales Warks 6.92 % 8.85 % Wigtown 1.66 % 2.49 % Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 7439 254 3.4% 7482 254 3.4% Wales 2923 145 5.0% 2984 145 4.9% Scotland 461 9 2.0% 462 9 1.9% GB 10823 408 3.8% 10928 408 3.7% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 23451 918 3.9% 23776 918 3.9% Wales 6535 217 3.3% 6544 217 3.3% GB 29986 1135 3.8% 30320 1135 3.7% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 69064 2769 4.0% 73317 2769 3.8% Wales 16751 983 5.9% 17590 984 5.6% Scotland 2517 75 3.0% 2662 75 2.8% GB 88332 3827 4.3% 93569 3828 4.1% Country No. animals No of IFHg+ animals % Positive animals No. samples No of IFHg+ samples England 86743 4519 5.2% 91395 4519 4.9% Wales 22260 1348 6.1% 23740 1348 5.7% Scotland 366 4 1.1% 366 4 1.1% GB 109369 5871 5.4% 115501 5871 5.1% % Positive samples % Positive samples % Positive samples % Positive samples * Test type Num Submissions Num Samples Num Positives Private % Positive Total 0 0 0 | % Positive | * Test type | |-----------------|---------------| | Num | | | Submissions | | | Num | | | Samples | | | Num | | | Positives | | | Private | | | Cheshire | PRV-SP | | Devon | PRV-SE | | PRV-SP | 1 | | Dorset | PRV-SE | | PRV-SP | 1 | | Gloucestershire | PRV-SE | | Oxfordshire | PRV-SP | | Staffordshire | PRV-SE | | Worcestershire | PRV-SP | | Total | | | 9 | | | 195 | | | 3 | 1.54 % | | Isle of Man | SER-IOM | *SER-IOM: Serial High Specificity test - Isle of Man; PRV-SE: Private High Sensitivity test - England; PRV-SP: Private High Specificity test - England | | Test | County | Num Submissions | Num Samples Tested | Num Positive Samples % Positive | |------------------|-----------------|----------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------| | TC0077 | Carmarthenshire | 4 | 29 | 5 | 17.2% | | Ceredigion | 3 | 19 | 3 | 15.8% | | | North East Wales | 2 | 10 | 1 | 10.0% | | | Pembrokeshire | 12 | 86 | 22 | 25.6% | | | Powys | 2 | 20 | 2 | 10.0% | | | South Wales | 2 | 7 | 4 | 57.1% | | | TC0077 | 25 | 171 | 37 | 21.6 % | | | | Test | County | Num Submissions | Num Samples Tested | Num Positive Samples % Positive | |------------------|-----------------|----------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------| | TC0077 | Carmarthenshire | 12 | 245 | 37 | 15.1% | | Ceredigion | 7 | 26 | 4 | 15.4% | | | Devon | 4 | 1,032 | 95 | 9.2% | | | North East Wales | 14 | 515 | 55 | 10.7% | | | Pembrokeshire | 28 | 443 | 78 | 17.6% | | | Powys | 4 | 103 | 13 | 12.6% | | | South Wales | 10 | 149 | 34 | 22.8% | | | TC0077 | 79 | 2,513 | 316 | 12.6 % | |

en

0493-pdf

nd The number of racially/religiously aggravated offences that reached a first hearing in a Magistrates Court Request Number of racially or religiously aggravated offences under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Part 11 of Schedule 9 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) that reached a first hearing in a Magistrate's Court, by offence classification/type. Response In response to your questions, please find attached, a table of data showing the racist/religious hate crime offences created by the Crime and Disorder (CDA) Act 1998. These are the number of offences which reached a first hearing in magistrates' courts as requested. This data should be read in conjunction with the appended caveats. Information Management Unit 020 3357 0788 IMU@cps.gov.uk Crown Prosecution Service, Information Management Unit, Floor 8, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ

en

1200-pdf

ARCHIVES UNLOCKED RELEASING THE POTENTIAL ## Releasing The Potential Of Archives. Ministerial Foreword. Archives sit at the heart of our collective understanding: who we are, where we came from, and, indeed, where we are going. The materials that archives hold challenge, inspire and transform what we think we know of times, events and people, past and present. In this digital age, with so much focus on the management and security of data, archives and their collections make the national local and the local global. So Archives Unlocked is an ambitious vision. It recognises and celebrates the value of archives within the wider cultural sector and across society. Digital transformation is at its heart: the democratisation of information and knowledge, the boundless creativity and innovation made possible by archival material, and the confidence we can all share in exploring and using the record, supported by world-class archival practice. In part, thanks to the opportunities of new technology, this is an exciting time for archives. For the people that experience and use them, and for those who are dedicated to developing and preserving their uniqueness. Embracing these opportunities will allow archives to thrive and contribute fully to the wellbeing of our nation, culturally, ## Introduction. Imagine a world without archives. Without records, we could not prove where and when we were born, or who owns the property we live in. ## In Short: Archives Matter. Our collections need to be used to be useful. Until they are unlocked, archive records are just papers, images, or sequences of bytes. Once revealed, they can tell us our stories, bringing alive the people, events and decisions that got us here today. Archives have the power to change peoples lives. We could not trace our ancestry, explore our collective and individual identities, or challenge established views of the past. Without this collective memory, the evidence store for our histories, we could not hold governments and organisations to account. The impact of archives is felt across society: inspiring art and literature; influencing product design and branding; enabling insightful and pioneering research; and informing decision-making in organisations of all types. The publics interest in archives and what they have to offer is growing, and digital economically, and intellectually. Archives Unlocked sees a future in which businesses, creative industries, arts organisations, academia, and communities can fully exploit archives. The National Archives, as sector leader, will work with archives, partners and users to make this ambition a reality, and rise to the challenges we face. It is time to unlock the potential. THE RT HON MATT HANCOCK MP MINISTER OF STATE FOR DIGITAL AND CULTURE. technologies are opening up our archives like never before, to local, national and global audiences keen to learn and be inspired. We need an archives sector that can evolve and adapt to change. Working together, we can ensure that the benefits of archives are realised and enjoyed by future generations. ## The Vision Archives Unlocked. Archives will strengthen society through the trust they inspire, the enrichment they offer and their openness to all. We will be the home of world-leading archives, both digital and physical. People will be able to find and navigate collections, and have confidence that reliable archival evidence exists to support their research. Our collections will reflect all of society, so that, whether an individual, community or organisation, archives can tell us who we are and how we got here. ## The Ambitions At The Heart Of The Vision Are. Trust people and institutions trust in the authenticity of archive records, and how they are preserved and presented. ## Enrichment archives enhance and enrich our society intellectually, culturally and economically. ## Openness archives cultivate an open approach to knowledge and are accessible to all. ## Whats Driving The Need For Change? Discussions with stakeholders have highlighted these key drivers of change: CONFIDENCE IN DATA AND INFORMATION People need to have confidence in the integrity of institutions. Organisations need to be open and transparent, and high profile enquiries into the history and culture of public, corporate and charitable bodies have highlighted the evidential value of records. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE Digital technology has fundamentally changed what it means to be an archive. Archivists can help the IT and knowledge management communities by bringing professional archival practice to this digital world. USER EXPECTATIONS Society is changing, opening up new uses for data and records, and posing new questions about what is collected now and in the future, in both paper-based documents and digital formats. ## The Vision. Archives Unlocked. About This Document. This vision is the result of extensive consultation and development work within the archives sector, with our partners and beyond. Further details of those involved can be found at the end of the document. The vision articulates three **ambitions** for the benefits which archives will deliver. Emerging from each of these is a set of outcomes which underpin our **action plan**. We have set out to keep the core of the vision very simple and concise, bringing its ambitions to life with **case studies** and **think-pieces**. The case studies showcase existing good practice and innovation in the archives sector. The think-pieces are from contributors both within and beyond the archives sector and seek to challenge existing practice and provoke new ideas about the future. The document ends with a high-level overview of the action plan which articulates how our partnership of archive institutions and external partners, with support from The National Archives, will help the sector deliver the outcomes we have expressed. ## Think-Piece. Collecting And The Archive Ecology. from interventions, if based on a deep understanding, and supported by long-term, comprehensive and detailed information. We have seen the response of zoos, which have developed from being self-contained sub-sections of the natural world to multi-faceted participants in wildlife conservation. In short, ecologies can and should be nurtured. Over the past few decades, both the archival landscape and the role of archivists have changed fundamentally. There is now a wider definition of archives, which are being created in ways that are more varied, complex and (especially in the digital realm) less visible and tangible. There is also greater diversity in the ways in which archives are preserved and used. Archivists are no longer the sole focus of collecting, but are helping others to do the same. They have become participants in an archive ecology, rather than gatekeepers to it. The term ecology suggests interdependence and organic development, with no single director or predetermined end point. We know that ecologies can be harmed in unpredictable ways by external factors and can benefit We need an equally collective response for an archive ecology, a new vision, in several senses. This starts with an aspiration that it encompasses the entirety of potential archives now being created, as diverse and complex as the society they record. It also requires oversight and foresight: a comprehensive understanding of archives, now and in the future. We need to extend our field of vision and action to those records still at risk of being lost, either because they are not preserved or not visible to potential users. Archivists now share stewardship of archives, but retain a key collective responsibility in ensuring their survival and sustainability. To do that effectively, they need the support of policymakers, employers and funders. Together we need to know a lot more about the archive ecology and to be prepared to act on that knowledge. JUDY BURG HEAD OF ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DURHAM UNIVERSITY ## Trust. Democracy and society are strengthened by scrutiny of the archival record, holding institutions and individuals to account. Archive users have confidence in the integrity and authenticity of records, and in the professionals who support their research. People and institutions trust in the authenticity of archive records, and how they are preserved and presented. Services embrace the opportunities of technological change, ensuring confidence in both digital and physical records. ## Case Study. Protecting Our Digital Memory: E-Ark. and the Digital Preservation Coalition. Discussing the biblical significance of the project name, project leader Professor Janet Delve points out that never before in human history have we been at risk of losing so much knowledge in one go. If you are careless with digital information, it is gone forever. E-ARK is a pioneering global research project, aimed at improving the technologies of digital archiving to ensure that records and databases remain authentic and usable over time. It has brought together international practice to develop the first ever end-to-end digital archive system. This single, scalable, robust system can be used by all memory institutions, public and private, large and small, to meet the challenge of born digital records. It has the potential to be truly transformative. The project partnership of national archives from across Europe, Chile and the United States of America is supported by experts at the University of Brighton The partnership approach makes best use of the existing expertise of each participating archive, and also supports them in learning new skills from others. This provides a better service to users in the long term, and fosters consistent approaches on an international scale. In one example of the projects work, The Danish National Archives developed ## Think-Piece Trust In The Digital Future Its exhilarating, perhaps the most exciting time to be an archivist that theres ever been. The digital challenge for archives today is one of pace. The days of digitally simulating long-established archival practices devised for physical records are behind us. Snapchat, Google Docs, microservices, blockchains, neural networks, all disrupt how information is created, encoded and used. All disrupt archiving, requiring fundamentally new capabilities and approaches. Todays digital archivists must rapidly develop new archival practices, with and for each new generation of technology. The rub is that the digital challenge for archives can never be completely solved. This is not about moving from one relatively steady state of archival practice to a new steady state for digital. We are moving from relative stability to continual change. This raises an important question: as archives move more quickly, how do we retain the legitimacy we confer on the digital evidence we preserve? Ultimately, even in this digital age, it falls to archivists to create and sustain archives. Until now, how we do that, archival theory and practice, has tended to evolve quite gradually over the last 120 years (albeit with the occasional leap, thanks to archive theorists like Jenkinson or Schellenberg). Archival practice is key for rapidly evolving digital archives. The opportunity is to shift the basis of trust, from the authority of the archive as an institution to transparency of archival practice. This trust must be founded on the evidence an open source tool that connects to live databases and migrates data to the appropriate preservation format. This vastly reduces the cost of getting material into archives, and opens up competition in the commercial sector to provide the best solutions. Janet concludes that the strong network of partners means the project is greater than the sum of its parts: instead of each archive having a bit of expertise, every archive can have a whole system to share. That means a massive improvement in terms of cost and skills. we make available about what we do in digital archives. Just like showing your workings in a school maths exam, trust in digital archives should mean demonstrating what we are doing in ways that others can see and verify. The digital archivist, equipped with hashing algorithms and cryptography as their tools of the trade, can remain trusted custodians in this digital future. JOHN SHERIDAN DIGITAL DIRECTOR THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. ## Trust. Archives are not just about things already past; they will capture the histories of the present and the future. People need to trust that the record will be preserved, whether paper or digital, and made available to future generations. ## Case Study. Finding The Evidence: Independent Police Complaints Commission/Hillsborough Investigation. In a devastating tragedy, 96 Liverpool supporters died due to overcrowding at Hillsborough football stadium on 15 April 1989. 27 years later, a jury found the victims had been unlawfully killed. This conclusion was the result of decades of campaigning by families of the deceased, and highlighted that records are a powerful tool for accountability. The ruling was made possible by the release in 2012 of all the material relating to the incident, 450,000 documents from 85 sources. The Hillsborough Independent Panel had recommended that a Permanent Archive be established. While physical records are largely split between Sheffield Archives, Liverpool Archives and The National Archives, digital copies of the material are all available on the panels website. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now carrying out its first historic inquiry into the role of the police, both during and in the aftermath of the disaster. A significant amount of the evidence for the IPCCs investigation comes directly from the historical material, with managed access to the vast collection of records provided by a professional archivist. The archivist supports the needs of the investigative teams, and has introduced robust processes to support collection, collation, cataloguing and access. Managing the archive material in this way ensures its integrity and authenticity. The investigations work with the archive has underlined the importance of maintaining documents which could become vital in future investigations. It demonstrates the value of robust practice: both ## Think-Piece. Telling Stories. Part of the BBC Archives value is that it is the creation of one institution over almost a century, giving it cohesiveness even in its incompleteness. There is an ideology that permeates it, its contents were largely decided upon by the sort of people who work for the BBC, which researchers and users should at least note as they pass among the shelves and search the catalogues. While perhaps not always so apparent, we know that every collection was shaped in some way, and the story of that shaping must be part of our understanding and assessment of the authority of the finished product. When the journalist Joan Didion wrote we tell ourselves stories in order to live (in *The White Album*, 1979), she was expressing a deep truth about how we construct meaning in our lives. Many of our stories come from those relics of the past that live in our archives, libraries and galleries. Some are newly minted; others retell and reframe the past to better understand the present. And the archive too is a story: whether creative fiction, careful scholarship or news journalism, any exploration of an archive must grapple with questions surrounding the collection itself, why and how was this material preserved? Is this all, or is there missing work that will change my perspective? How can this selection of past material have authority? The ways we use archives to tell our stories has shifted with electronic collections as the sheer volume of available data increases exponentially, preserving original records and keeping order in archives are vital. The power and importance of these records for holding individuals and organisations to account for their actions continues to be their lasting legacy. Archive Manager Rebekah Taylor says: Being able to demonstrate that an organisation like the IPCC is committed to preserving the quality and integrity of these important documents, is key to accountability and public confidence. along with the capacity of our drives and tapes. Nothing is accessible without indexes and catalogues, and in the future we will value them as much as the archived object. The choices made as we add metadata will embody the beliefs of the archivists as much as the choice of items to preserve, and we must remember this and expose it, as we tell stories on the backs of these new collections. We have told ourselves stories in order to live: we can use a greater understanding of the choices that shape an archive to build ourselves catalogues that will help us thrive. ## Bill Thompson Head Of Partnership Development Bbc Archive Enrichment. Our culture of knowledge and learning expands through new ways to discover and use archive material. ## Archives Enhance And Enrich Our Society Intellectually, Economically And Culturally. Value in businesses grows through the use of archive material to support change, innovation and efficiency. Peoples lives are enhanced through their engagement with archive collections. ## Case Study. Recovering Our Past: Barnardos Archive. Established in 1867, Barnardos works to transform the lives of the most vulnerable children across the UK. Once famous for its care homes, the charity now supports over 900 services, including fostering and adoption. Barnardos Archive has changed the way in which former residents and their relatives access their personal records, recognising what it means for people to understand their past. The way the archive works is now very user-focused. Archive Manager, Martine King, says: It is a massive decision for people to contact us, as there is no assurance about what they might find and how it matches what they have previously been told. The service gives people choice about how to research, either in the privacy of their home, or in the supportive environment of the charity. Open access to records began in 1995, predating the Data Protection Act, after a BBC documentary fuelled a spike in enquiries. The archive now meets the needs of former residents and their families by enabling access to records, and providing support through the difficult process of receiving what might be painful or confusing information. Among developments to support users, the archive has invested 120,000 pounds to digitise 500,000 photographs. In the absence of a family home, these photographs may be the only images people have of their own childhoods. Ease of use is paramount, so Barnardos Archive is working with the Wellcome Trust to develop an archive catalogue and improve their finding aids. Furthermore, the ## Think-Piece. Are Archives Good For Our Wellbeing? sense of belonging. Perhaps surprisingly, governance and the trust in our collective institutions is a factor in our happiness, and archives are at the heart of this national accountability. Archives give me a sense of joy, as they do for many others; the question, then, is why?. At the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, we are looking at evidence of what can be done to improve wellbeing in the UK. There are clear benefits to this goal; we get ill less and recover more quickly, we are more creative, collaborative, and giving. We perform better at work; and have stronger social networks. So what evidence is there on wellbeing that is relevant to archives? Archives make us think, and learning is one of the five ways to wellbeing.* Of these five ways, learning drops off most dramatically with age in the UK, which suggests a potential role for archives in an ageing population. An understanding of our personal and shared histories, and constructing an intergenerational sense of self, connects us with something much larger than ourselves, giving us a There are social benefits of archives too, providing another of the five ways; the connections, trust and the sense of community that come from everyday interactions are vital for our wellbeing. Studies have suggested that the impact of unwanted social isolation, loneliness, may be as bad for health as smoking, and increases the risk of conditions including dementia. Sharing positive emotions, including the things we experience in an archive, such as feeling interested, engaged or having a sense of accomplishment, makes their effect on us stronger. This is important as we tend to notice negative feelings more strongly than positive ones. A social environment retention policy has now been changed to preserve more case files, recognising the enormous value of these files to the individuals involved and to their families. Martine concludes, We are helping lots of people to understand all variations of experience of being in care, and how important it is to learn from our past, question and improve the way we support and protect children today. Our ongoing legacy of duty to those who were in our care, our long experience of working with our former children, and of course the archive itself, are all powerful tools for informing that debate and recovering precious fragments from the past. that supports ease and choice in opportunities for interaction is also a magic formula for wellbeing. Understanding the connection between things we value and our happiness will help us see how spending decisions can improve wellbeing in the UK. The challenge is for the archives sector to develop its understanding of these and other connections, and harness them to increase our happiness. NANCY HEY DIRECTOR WHAT WORKS CENTRE FOR WELLBEING ## Enrichment. The power of archives is in both their evidential and emotional impact. Whether revisiting national history or telling the story of your own family, they turn names into personalities, give us the arguments behind decisions and reveal the complexity of individuals, communities and societies. ## Case Study. The Dna Of A Business: John Lewis Partnership Archive. Le Creuset ovenware and an updated version of a classic Silver Cross pram. One such product was the revival of a DaisyChain design created by Pat Albeck in the 1960s, which was itself a homage to the work of British designer William Morris, emphasising the importance of heritage to the organisation. The 150th anniversary of retailer John Lewis, in 2014, provided the archive with an opportunity to demonstrate its value, and contribute to innovation. The archive was used to reinforce the brands history and values, and to celebrate its unique partnership model. From the principle of never knowingly undersold, to its famous customer service, the company today remains closely connected to its past and actively uses this knowledge to inspire those working in business now and in the future. The archive helped boost sales during the anniversary period. Furthermore, the work also reinforced the value which teams across the business derive from working with the archive. It highlights the corporate memory which is in the DNA of the John Lewis Partnership culture, as well as inspiring new store designs, and supporting staff training and development. Using John Lewis comprehensive design archive, teams from across the business worked with long-standing suppliers to bring back fresh reinterpretations of iconic designs. Limited edition items were launched, such as a Smeg fridge, ## Think-Piece. Archives And Economic Growth. What do archives contribute towards economic growth or economic development? It is not a question that is very often considered, let alone the technicalities of how this would be measured. While it is undoubtedly a challenge, I am sure that this is a missed opportunity. Returning to economic growth, as Chair of the Business Archives Council, I see many interesting examples of firms benefitting from the use of their historic records. They can be used to develop new product lines based on heritage designs, or packaging might be given a retro theme. Similarly, advertising campaigns can draw upon archive material to help emphasise the history of a firm or to reinforce well-known brands. Economic growth is typically discussed in terms of gross national product. That means increases in the total value of goods and services produced by a country in any one year, making it richer. But there are alternative measures, for example wellbeing or happiness. Experiences, feelings and values, such as discovery, education, justice and truth, all have worth to individuals and to society. All are different forms of richness that archives help deliver. Sales of new products, advertising, the attachment to a trusted brand, this all translates into consumer expenditure, into profits, into jobs and ultimately into growth. Whether that is a retailer selling clothes or cosmetics, or a financial institutions television advert resulting in more customers, it all contributes to the total value of goods and services produced. In addition to the regular work undertaken by the archive team, the building is now open to the public one day a week. A programme of talks, team days, events and craft activities ensure that the archive is now the cultural heart of an international business. Judy Faraday, John Lewis Partnership Archivist, says: The investment in the archive has undoubtedly released greater productivity and value through an ability to offer a great service to the business. The archive is genuinely at the heart of the company, actively influencing its future. Of course, archives have always been able to create these impacts. However, in the digital world there is the opportunity to unlock even more data and information, and in ways that were not possible, or even imaginable, before. This offers even greater potential to promote growth. The challenge is not just to think about how this can be done, but demonstrate the impact. We know that, but we must convince others, and that means advocacy and evidence. Meanwhile, I look forward to a day when I read the headline Archives Make Us Richer. MIKE ANSON ARCHIVIST BANK OF ENGLAND ARCHIVE ## Openness. Archives deliver an excellent user experience, enabling people to find, access and interpret archive records, whether digital or physical. ## Archives Cultivate An Open Approach To Knowledge, And Are Accessible To All. The rich diversity of society is reflected in our archives collections, users and workers. Archives are networked globally to maintain excellent practice and open new possibilities for institutions and users. ## Case Study. Reaching New Audiences: Archives+, Manchester.. used archives before, including young people and people from marginalised groups. Archives + is a partnership of archive collections from across the region, and the home of Manchesters history and heritage services. The documents, photographs and films at the heart of the collection connect people with the story of the city: its industry, its communities, and its history of radical politics. The redevelopment of Manchester Central Library provided the opportunity for Archives+ to transform its relationship with local communities. The centre handed the power to its partners, who jointly curated the striking new exhibition in the buildings entrance, using their own collections. The goal was to reach new audiences, people who may never have The citys reputation for radical thought is reflected in the councils engagement agenda. Through the Activation programme, the public themselves decide where the gaps in collections are, and use the archives to design and deliver their own heritage activities. Participants have included the Coalition of Disabled People, and black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, giving them a unique opportunity to curate a digital exhibition that appears in a library that has 1.4 million visitors a year, in addition to online access. ## Think-Piece. Archiving Journeys To Belonging. For newish migrant-settler communities, there is an accelerated interest in archiving their journeys to belonging as full and valued citizens. For these communities, archives have become a site of struggle against social and political marginalisation and exclusion. There are implications for the professional archivist establishment. Archivists have a vital role in reparative history-making. Cultural Archives, currently, up and down the country, there are groups from these same communities energetically discussing and devising new strategies to challenge that tired, debilitating narrative of inconsistent funding. Recognising that errors of omission in dominant heritage narratives result as much from ignorance as disregard, cultural activists from these communities aim to assist in, as well as demand, the plugging of the gaps. Among Caribbean, South Asian, and African migrant-settler communities, for example, from the last century until now, funding initiatives in support of heritage projects have often been piecemeal, with a tendency to flavour-of-themoment tokenism. Notwithstanding the arrival on the scene of the Black Beyond the bold ambitions and demands coming out of these and other newer migrant-settler communities is the matter of obtaining the active and proactive assistance of established archives and archivists. This assistance will be needed to address major archival challenges The development of collections now comes from proper engagement with communities who can work with many different archives. By working more effectively together, the archives also have a louder voice and bigger influence on the citys cultural programme. Kevin Bolton, the archivist who designed and delivered the project, says: It is no longer always about us continuing to deliver projects, however worthy. It is a big culture change for staff and partners to be willing to cede control to the community. But the rewards are worth the effort. in collecting, evaluating, conserving, interpreting and making records and archival materials accessible and available to educators and cultural animators. Central to all this will be the acquisition of new archival skills by non-professionals, assisted by established professionals. Providing this assistance will bring new kinds of challenge to existing professional practice. These demands and difficulties coming from marginalised constituencies can be viewed as daunting, or, they can be grasped as exciting professional challenges for archivists. ## Colin Prescod Chair Institute Of Race Relations Openness. Archives are for everyone. Just as our language, our culture and our high streets reflect changes in society, our records should too. When future generations look back at today, they need to see the vibrancy of our society and the diversity of our experience. ## Case Study. Seeing Archives Differently: Know Your Place, Bristol. of the First World War, new layers were added, plotting sites of significance for the conflict, such as munitions factories, military hospitals and memorials. Know Your Place is a digital mapping project which allows users to explore their local area online, placing local history and heritage at their fingertips. It is more intuitive and flexible than a traditional archival catalogue, recognising that when it comes to our streets, our towns and our countryside, it is often easiest to find things on a map. The website can be freely used by individuals and groups, leading to exciting projects that build a sense of place. It has been used by Bristols LGBT+ community to map the shifting spaces important to their history. Through the map, you can listen to peoples stories, view photographs, posters and flyers and explore places important to histories of both toleration and oppression. A key project aim was to improve planning applications; by using Know Your Place is a collaboration between Bristol Archives and the citys planning team. The website uses historic maps and street views alongside the councils pin-point mapping software, overlaid with digital surrogates from a wide range of collections. This can lead to bespoke interpretations; for the centenary ## Think-Piece. The Archivist Of The Future. Instead of focusing on digitisation, we will need to curate content and engage new audiences, as the NT has started to do using the opportunities afforded by new technologies such as the Google Cultural Institute, virtual reality and apps. In periods of organisational change, archives remain constant. This is true for governments, companies, or, as we have recently experienced at the National Theatre (NT), a new artistic director. Since it was founded in 1963, the NT has had six artistic directors. Each brings their own leadership and vision, shaping the company in different ways; the archive has an important role in recording those shifts, demonstrating its integral part to play in business continuity and as the authoritative source on performance history. Preservation, conservation and access have always been the backbone of our sector, and so they will continue to be across different formats of materials. This broader outlook on collections should also encourage widespread and more sustained collaborations with libraries, museums, and the education sector to ensure cross-pollination of ideas and projects. The NTs involvement with students has allowed us to open up one of our collections to a much wider researcher base than we would have otherwise thought, not only improving our understanding and appreciation of In the future, digital expertise will become engrained in the traditional archive skillset; approaches to paper, born digital and collections of other media will need to merge. With the increasing levels of digitised archive content available online, the role of archivists will change. screengrabs and prints from Know Your Place, users are now better informed by evidence from the historic record. The archive has seen use of its collections greatly increase, and its success means the project is now expanding to the South West region with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund. City Archivist Julian Warren says, the mapping tool gives you so much data in one place, with such rich context, that would have normally taken ages to assemble in the search room. It is a winwin for users, staff and the council. the materials but also disseminating the collection to wider audiences. Just as the NT strives to represent the nation it serves, our sector must focus on diversifying our workforce across all areas of the population to ensure that we are truly representative of our country. Fairer and more accessible routes into the profession are needed to enrich our sector with diverse skills and knowledge. The sector increasingly needs skills beyond the traditional, ensuring that we can meet the challenges of fundraising, outreach, increasing demand for content and growing enthusiasm for engagement with users. ERIN LEE ARCHIVIST NATIONAL THEATRE ## Action Plan. The National Archives is committed to realising this vision and we have developed an action plan to support it. The plan will be delivered in partnership with the whole archives sector, and partners from the wider cultural, digital, heritage and education spheres. We will revise the action plan on an annual basis. Build the sectors **resilience** to ensure more archives can meet and sustain the Archive Service Accreditation standard, open the sector to new skills and a more diverse workforce, increase income generation capacities, and support innovative service models. To achieve our ambitions of trust, enrichment and openness, we must tackle the barriers to success. To do so, we need to meet the key challenges facing the sector, but also advocate for archives and ensure their value is understood. The action plan will address three vital themes: digital capacity, resilience and impact. The plan will: Develop the **digital capacity** of the archives sector, to preserve digital records and increase discoverability of the paper and digital archive. Demonstrate the **impact** of archives by developing and expanding audiences, piloting approaches to using data and evidence, and influencing thinking in the IT, commercial and knowledge sectors. ## Consultation Process And Who We Worked With. October 2016-January 2017 and we received a further 130 responses to this. We also held six expert panels with our key strategic partners to explore the draft vision in detail. The National Archives leads and supports the sector of over 2,500 archives in England, and has statutory responsibilities for public records held by archive services in Wales, where we work in collaboration with the Welsh Government. While *Archives Unlocked* is focused on archives in England, we will continue to work with partners in the home nations and internationally, to address the challenges and opportunities of using archives in a digital world within a UK context, and to support research and innovation. HOW THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED Throughout our consultation, we were supported by a **reference group** from across the archives sector. Reference group members were: Mike Anson (Bank of England), Rob Baker (Blind Veterans Association), Kevin Bolton (then at Archives +), Judy Burg (Durham University), Sam Johnston (Dorset History Centre), Alex Miller (Wigan Council), Chris Mumby (The National Archives), Arike Oke (Rambert Archive), Geoff Pick (London Metropolitan Archives), Gary Tuson (Norfolk County Council), Chris Webb (York University), and Simon Wilson (Hull History Centre). Archives Unlocked is the result of a process of co-creation. We consulted widely, listening to a very broad range of voices from across the archives sector: a range of funders and partners from the wider culture, heritage and information worlds, and archive users. Expert Panel members came from: Ancestry. com, Archives and Records Association, Arts and Humanities Research Council, Arts Council England, BBC, Borthwick Institute, British Library, Business Archives Council, Chief Archivists in Local Government Group, CILIP, CIPFA, Community Archives & Heritage We ran four roundtables across England, attended by 179 people from across the archives sector, and conducted an online survey which received 235 responses. A public consultation and survey on the draft vision ran To make the plan happen, The National Archives will be supported by a challenge panel comprising leading organisations within the sector, and partners from the wider cultural, digital and education spheres. Group, Creative and Cultural Skills, Digital Preservation Coalition, FARMER, Find My Past, Gale Cengage, Heritage Lottery Fund, Historic Houses Archivists Group, Imperial War Museum, Innovate UK, JISC, Local Government Association, London Metropolitan Archives, National Media Museum, National Theatre, Polonsky Digital Preservation Programme, Pilgrim Trust, Rambert Archive, Religious Archives Group, Research Libraries UK, Tate, University of London Computer Centre, Wellcome Trust and Zooniverse, in addition to academics and representatives from local archive services. Archives Unlocked and the accompanying action plan were developed with the support of Activist Group. ## © Crown Copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is also available on our website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at asd@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk Developed with the support of Activist Group.

en

0330-pdf

# The Office Of Rail And Road 163Rd Board Meeting 24 September 2019, 09:00 - 15:00 One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN Non-executive members: Declan Collier (Chair), Stephen Glaister, Anne Heal, Bob Holland, Michael Luger, Graham Mather, Justin McCracken Executive members: John Larkinson (Chief Executive), Graham Richards (Director Railway Planning and Performance); Ian Prosser (Director Railway Safety). In attendance: Daniel Brown (Director Strategy and Policy & Railway Markets and Economics), Russell Grossman (Director of Communications), Freya Guinness (Director Corporate Operations), Juliet Lazarus (General Counsel), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary) Other ORR staff in attendance are shown in the text. ## Item 1 Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies. ## Item 2 Declarations Of Interest 2. No new relevant interests were declared. Stephen Glaister informed the board that, with the agreement of the Chair, he had accepted an invitation to sit (in a personal capacity) on the Advisory panel for the review of HS2. This had been commissioned by the government to report in the autumn. ## Item 3 Approval Of Previous Minutes And Matters Arising 3. The Board noted a minor correction to the minutes. The Chair would sign an amended version. 4. The board secretary reported some updates on the action list. It was noted that the outstanding delegation approved in November 2018 in relation to the Memorandum of Cooperation with IRG-Rail could only be exercised when this was ratified - after the UK's departure from the EU. ## Item 4 Health And Safety Monthly Report 5. Ian Prosser reported on current understanding of a tragic incident at Waterloo resulting in the death of a cleaning contractor. Investigations were continuing alongside the BTP. It was noted that, since this was not an incident directly relating to trains, HSE might have relevant experience that RSD could draw on. 6. Ian also reported that BTP had handed over primacy on Margam to the ORR and described a recent meeting with the families of those who died in the incident. This was in line with ORR's usual approach to investigating fatalities or major injuries. He understood that NR's CEO would be meeting the families in London. 7. In relation to the improvement notices on trackworker safety, he had been told by NR that they would be withdrawing their appeal against the notices and would write setting out their plans to comply with a three year programme and an annual report on progress. Some routes were moving more quickly to deliver improvements. Ian stressed the importance of the trade unions engaging with this initiative. Justin McCracken reported that HSRC had discussed the emerging findings of the internal review of handling on the notices and the board would receive the final report at its October meeting **[forward programme]**. The committee were content that the review was being done thoroughly and robustly. The board agreed that the chair and CEO should meet their NR counterparts to discuss the review after that meeting. [Action] 8. On trams, DfT had announced publicly that funding was secure for the LSRB for 2021. The board noted with dismay that the CPS were still considering BTPs submission on whether prosecutions should be brought in relation to the Croydon tram fatalities in 2016. However as BTP has primacy at this point there was nothing that ORR can do to unblock this logjam. Ian said that his team were ready to go if the case was handed over. 9. Ian reported on [this content redacted as it is potentially commercially sensitive]. The board asked for clarification on the ORR's role in approving disposals - which was acknowledged to be narrow, and any assurance taken in this case that the access rights were appropriately secured [Action] 10. Finally, Ian reminded the board that 5 October this year would be the 20th anniversary of the Ladbroke Grove train crash. He expected a level of media and public interest. 11. The board asked about the impact of the power blackout at the end of August. In safety terms, the response had been managed reasonably well and the rolling stock had all failed safe. But the impact on customers and the time taken to re-establish the service were very serious. The industry was still working through the issues and the board asked for a report on current understanding of what the issues remaining to be addressed are and particularly whether the rolling stock had behaved as expected by the TOCs **[Action]**. John Larkinson reported that there had been helpful contact from Ofgem in advance of the National Grid report being public. ## Item 5 Board Information Pack 12. The board asked that the presentation of performance by TOC should give a better sense of performance over time and comparisons between operator, noting that over time regional differences might also be informative **[Action]**. 13. The board discussed emerging public concern around the safety of all lane running and **smart motorways,** which had been explored thoroughly at the Highways Committee the day before. ORR's role in safety on the network was limited to reporting on HE's performance and management, but staff had already started work to assure the robustness of HE's evidence base underpinning the policy, as well as emerging evidence from actual operation. Work to review the quality of HE's regular post-opening project evaluation was also in hand. In addition, staff were working with HE to understand how it applied safety considerations and statistics in prioritising its plans for network development. The board welcomed this work. It noted that the upgrade to smart motorways had been underway for some time and that further upgrades were planned in RIS2 as part of expanding capacity at a lower cost. Policy considerations would include not only safety but also issues such as sustainability, future-proofing and efficiency. Motorways continued to be significantly safer than the rest of the road network and evidence on the impact of smart motorways on safety will take time to build, but it was important that any emerging picture of a decrease in actual safety performance was recognised and addressed urgently. Given the level of existing and planned investment in smart motorways it was important that there was transparency around judgements by government and HE on the benefits and the balance of risks in relation to these changes. To this end ORR should satisfy itself that HE is taking all reasonably practicable steps to gather and analyse the safety impact of converting motorways to all lane running, on either a full or part time basis. It was important to public confidence that such evidence should be made public without delay. ORR needed to be prepared to explain its role and its assessment of HE's underlying assurance. [Action/Forward programme - report in October]. ## Item 6 Chief Executive'S Report 14. John Larkinson reported to the board on meetings with the new Secretary of State and the Rail Minister. He described the relationship between Transport Scotland, Abellio and Network Rail Scotland and resulting financial issues and pressures. He planned to write to the NR CEO highlighting his concern on its potential to disrupt the wider regulatory settlement. 15. John also assured the board that the senior team had increased vigilance around business-as-usual decisions that had the potential to provoke negative stakeholder reactions so that they could engage and mitigate such reactions. ## Item 7 Other Executive Reports 16. **Graham Richards** reported on positive meetings with the Road Haulage Association, the Association of Consulting Engineers (commercial directors) and with the network of sub-national transport bodies. The latter group had been particularly interested in any support ORR could give them in understanding and developing their new roles as project clients and members of route supervisory boards for NR. 17. **Dan Brown** noted that Williams and NR efficiency were items already on the agenda. He highlighted two other areas: customers and open access. He updated the board on the legal challenge around rail replacement bus services and ORR's response. A paper on research on passenger information from earlier in the year would be brought in October **[forward programme].** He was continuing to increase resource in the consumer team in advance of next year's business planning. 18. Dan reported a high level of activity around open access, including forthcoming approval of increased services London/Sunderland and a group of potentially competing bids on the West Coast Mainline. The board asked for a simple analysis of what open access applications were in hand and what had been approved over recent years as well as how successful they had been commercially and for passengers. [Action] 19. **Russell Grossman** updated the board on good coverage on the recent change to on-time performance statistics and Q1 SPAD figures. Today's annual safety statistics would show the highest number of public fatalities in many years and an emerging picture of LUL's declining performance. The board said that it was important that ORR's statistical releases were supported with comment and interpretation that aided public understanding of risk. The board also discussed further incidents of exaggerated costings being wrongly ascribed by interested parties to ORR's safety interventions. John Larkinson was considering how best to address this misinformation. [Action] 20. Russell also reported on other media and social media activity and the beginning of work to map key influencers. 21. **Freya Guinness** reported that practical completion on the fit out of Cabot Square had been completed on schedule. She also gave updates on the three remaining major risks (connectivity, facilities management procurement and leaks). The programme remained on track for move dates around mid-October: agreements were in place for the payment to staff of increased travel and carer costs. The exit agreement from OKS was in place. 22. **Juliet Lazarus** reported on progress with the employment tribunal where (following ORR's application for strike out) the court had required the complainant to make a deposit in order to proceed. The court service could not yet tell us whether the associated deadline had been met. ## Item 8 Hs1 - Pr19 - Periodic Review – Most of this item (paras 27-37) has been redacted from the published version as potentially commercially sensitive Steve Fletcher, Carl Hetherington, Laura Majithia, Debbie Daniels, Joe Quill joined the meeting for this item 23. The board confirmed that they were being asked to approve the Executive's recommendations after exercise of appropriate scrutiny of them. 24. Graham Richards introduced the item, reminding the board that ORR's appraisal of the HS1 5YAMS for the purpose of PR19 was in the context of HS1's delivery of the general duty which requires the company "to secure in respect of the HS1 Railway Infrastructure: its operation and maintenance; its renewal and replacement; and the planning and carrying out of any Specified Upgrades and other upgrades, in each case:  in accordance with Best Practice;  in a timely, efficient and economical manner; and  save in the case of the EdF Assets, as if HS1 Ltd were responsible for the stewardship of the HS1 Ltd Railway Infrastructure for the period of 40 years following the date that any such activities are planned or carried out, subject to: - the Safety Authorisation for HS1; and - the Capability Requirements." 25. The board was reminded of which areas of income were regulated by ORR for HS1: it could not take into account the unregulated income or the investment recovery charge. There was no other funding mechanism to address any shortfall in charges, so with the exception of Southeastern, (which was held harmless to changes to charges during its franchise period,) the TOC and FOC charges had to meet HS1's costs including the annuity charge to deliver the right level of increase in the escrow account to maintain asset condition. The recommendations on PR19 are therefore judgements - albeit based on significant levels of analysis and the most robust available evidence. 26. Carl Hetherington explained that considerations about the right level of escrow funding include the required condition of assets on completion, intergenerational equity so that current users pay a fair proportion of lifetime costs, impact on operators, and affordability. There was an evidence based assessment of the cost of the asset investment required. In PR14 the evidence base had not been as robust (because there was less experience operating the assets) and ORR had taken slightly more regard to affordability for operators than long term investment. The proposals for PR19 were based on stronger evidence and were more balanced between current affordability and long term need. [redaction here] 38. John Larkinson summed up that the proposed outcome was a good one which weighted all the various interests reasonably. 39. The board delegated the sign off of the final draft determination to John Larkinson. The final determination would be discussed at the board meeting scheduled for 10 December **[forward programme]**. ## Item 9 Highways Sarah Robinson and Richard Coates attended for this item 40. Richard explained the proposed approach to review the Monitoring and Enforcement policy for Highways and that it would be subject to consultation before the Board was asked to adopt it formally. Paragraphs 41-44 have been redacted from the published version as relating to policy development. 45. The board supported the approach to reviewing the policy. Lunch ## Item 10 Network Rail: Update On Cp6 Efficiency Carl Hetherington and Gordon Cole joined the meeting for this item. 46. Carl Hetherington reported that as a result of increased pressure from ORR over a long period, NR had tightened its focus on efficiency from the start of CP6. This appeared to be delivering good progress against plan, but there was still a significant challenge ahead, particularly in later years of the control period. 47. John Larkinson described a vigorous and intensive internal debate around the issue because staff had applied an appropriate level of scepticism to the available reports which had showed encouraging delivery against their year 1 plan. It was noted that NR tended to use precise figures where a range would be more realistic, but they were also showing a degree of caution in their plans. There remained significant challenges for the rest of the period. 48. The board noted the report and asked that NR's executive be invited to attend the board meeting in January 2020 when more evidence on progress would be available [forward programme]. ## Item 11 Cardiff - Core Valley Lines Catherine Williams and David Reed attended the meeting for this item 49. Catherine Williams introduced the paper and gave an update on progress since circulation including a provisional revised transfer date. She expected to be asked formally to report on the cost assessment in relation to CP6 avoided costs which would add valuable assurance to the parties and give a baseline for future financial performance reporting. TfW were considering how to meet HMT's requirement of long run cost validation and ORR staff were helping them identify what they would need and how it might be met. The board sought assurance that there was adequate resource available for the current work, noting that those staff might also be involved in PR19. It was also important that the process did not set precedents with stakeholders which led to resource pressures in future. ## Item 12 Central Spending Round 50. Freya Guinness reported that she had now received verbal assurance from HMT that the non-discretionary pressures set out in ORR's funding submission would be met. Business planning for 2020-21 would begin on the basis of what was expected, but with clear choices built in so that if the settlement did not meet our needs, plans could be constrained. ## Item 13 Williams Review Rob Cook was on the phone for this item 51. John Larkinson updated the board on recent meetings with DfT officials, the Secretary of State and others around the Williams proposals. ORR continued to offer support and information, and were now included in the working group on implementation. As the proposals were developed it was clear that ORR would need to move to a more active role, making concrete observations and recommendations on how any new structures could be independently assured and reported on. The discussions continued to be highly sensitive for people employed in all the bodies involved and potentially commercially sensitive. ## Item 14 Feedback From Committees And Panels Health And Safety Regulatory Committee 52. Justin McCracken reported on a good meeting noting that the committee had approved the new crowding policy statement. ## Highways Committee 53. Stephen Glaister reported on discussions on RIS2 where the advice to DfT had been well received. He noted that RIS2 still had funding gaps around the VAT and PFI changes. ## Consumer Panel 54. Anne Heal reported that the panel had contributed on the crowding policy and also discussed communicating risk and uncertainty to the wider public. ## Renco 55. Michael Luger reported that he would attend Staff Council as an observer and Renco would meet them after the results of the staff survey were available in January. Item 16 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 56. The board asked whether it had any powers to intervene on the quality of service on a given TOC where social media reports suggested there was a significant issue. The Executive advised that it was looking at safety questions on this TOC, but that addressing the quality of service on a TOC was the responsibility of the franchising authority and not for ORR. Next meeting: the next meeting would be on 30 October 2019 in Bristol.

en

2999-pdf

Community Safety and Violence, Vulnerability and Exploitation Delivery Plan 2018 - 2020 The Community Safety and Violence, Vulnerability and Exploitation Delivery Plan is based around the Council's vision which is to 'work together to make a difference for Harrow'. Each element of this Delivery Plan sits under one of the Strategic Objectives outlined in the overarching Strategy. This Plan has a strong focus on both high volume and high harm crime which reinforce our commitment to tackle crime in the borough, and firmly echoes the current Mayor's priorities, and includes a renewed focus on Anti- Social Behaviour and Youth Violence. We pledge to make Harrow the safest place to live for all those who live, work, and study in the borough and this will be achieved through a distinct set of strategic objectives set out below: High Volume Crimes 1. **Burglary –** To reduce the number of burglaries and fear of crime in the borough and increase public confidence in the police 2. **Non-domestic violence with injury** - To reduce the number of incidents of grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm 3. **Anti-social behaviour (ASB) –** To reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. ## 4. Motor Vehicle Crime – (a) To reduce the number of thefts of a vehicle that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. (b) To reduce the number of thefts from a vehicle that occur in the borough and ensure victims get the support they need. ## High Harm Crime Priorities 1. **Youth violence, weapon based crime and vulnerability & exploitation**(including gang crime, and Child Sexual Exploitation) **–** (a)To reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime and to decrease the number of young people carrying offensive weapons (guns and knives) (b) To embed a cultural shift within the schools on the issues of sexual assault, child sexual exploitation and digital exploitation, and to promote a culture of awareness of child sexual exploitation 2. **Modern Slavery** - To ensure there is an effective and co-ordinated response to modern slavery in Harrow 3. **Domestic and sexual abuse** - To provide critical support to the most vulnerable members of our community who are affected by domestic and sexual violence and female genital mutilation with a focus on the following: o Prevention / Education o Police / Enforcement o Support / Recovery 4. **Drug and alcohol misuse** - (a)To reduce the number of young people involved in the supply of illegal substances and to build resilience in young people so that they are able to spot the signs of dealer grooming; (b) To reduce alcohol and drug-related reoffending via targeted early support and treatment for ex-prisoners 5. **Extremism and hate crime** - To prevent young people from being drawn into terrorism; and to improve hate crime reporting rates. The Strategy and Delivery Plan will be reviewed annually and Measures stated below will be tracked at regular Review Points which occur throughout the year. This will enable Safer Harrow to review the success of each Measure on an ongoing basis until 2020. ## High Volume Crime Strategic Objective 1 - *Burglary:* To Reduce The Number Of Burglaries And Fear Of Crime In The Borough And Increase Public Confidence In The Police Measures & Targets Action Review Point Lead Existing / New Action January 2019 Deliver the 'Be Safe' programme in September 2018 for on-going work (previously known as 'Autumn Nights') Burglaries are reduced September compared to the same period in the Take forward recommendations from the Locality Assessment into community engagement around violence, vulnerability and exploitation, and inegrate into the Delivery Plan last 12 months Continue to work closely with the MET Police and Secured by design team to set principles to 'design out crime'. Continue to work closely with the local community including the youth in order to make sure the Louis Smith Harrow Police Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director 2018 Strategic Commissioning Tobias Goevert Head of Ongoing Regeneration + Design developments take into meaningful consideration their aspirations and concerns. September Disseminate recommendations to businesses and supply chain as well as those engaging in employment support and training Strategic Objective 2 - *Non-domestic violence with injury* : To reduce the number of incidents of grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm Measures & targets Action Review Point Lead Progress (RAG rating) The number of incidents of June 2018 grievous bodily harm are Developing our response to the rise in crime and anti-social behaviour in Wealdstone Town centre through the Wealdstone Action Group reduced compared to the same September Based on success of the Wealdstone Group, consider replicating this for South Harrow period in the last 12 months The number of incidents of March 2019 actual bodily Building awareness across the partnership and frontline staff on serious organised crime Mark Billington Head of 2018 Economic Development Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Set up in Director New Action Strategic Commissioning Ongoing Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director New Action 2019 Strategic Commissioning Safer Harrow & Zara Baker, New Action MET harm are Delivery of workshops reduced compared to the same period in the last 12 months ## Strategic Objective 3 - *Anti-Social Behaviour (Asb)* : To Reduce The Number Of Anti-Social Behaviour Incidents That Occur In The Borough And Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. | Measures & targets | |---------------------------------------| | Progress | | (RAG rating) | | The number of | | repeat anti- | | social | | | | Use of tools and Powers such as | | Public Space Protection Orders to | | reduce incidents of anti-social | | behaviour in identified hotspots | | | | behaviour | | incidents that | | March 2019 | | occur in the | | borough | | are | | Reduce incidents of repeat victims | | of anti-social behaviour by Multi- | | agency response to cases at Anti- | | Social Behaviour Action Group | | | | reduced | | compared to | | the same | | period in the | | March 2019 | | last 12 months | | Continue to use existing and new | | tools to educate tenants and | | leaseholders to resolve incidents of | | anti-social behaviour at the earliest | | point. And to explore powers to take | | evidenced based action against | | tenants and leaseholders who | Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety Richard Le Brun , Head of Community Safety Karen Connell, Head Resident Services December commit anti-social behaviour. Consider designing a consultation on Anti-social behaviour working directly with young people in its design and delivery September Refer victims of ASB to victim support and obtain service user feedback To ensure victims of ASB get the support they need Develop the process for victims satisfaction surveys ensure they have received appropriate support and advice 'Call backs' to victims of ASB, evaluate and analyse the data and surveys ## Objective 4A - *Motor Vehicle Crime* : To Reduce The Number Of Thefts Of A Vehicle That Occur In The Borough And Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director 2018 Strategic Commissioning Richard Le Brun , Head of Community Safety 2018 Karen Connell, Head of Resident Services Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety Richard Le Brun , Head of Ongoing Community Safety ## Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. No Specific Actions, Being Dealt With As Business As Usual (See Page 27/28 Of The Strategy) Objective 4B - *Motor Vehicle Crime* : To Reduce The Number Of Thefts Of A Vehicle That Occur In The Borough And Ensure Victims Get The Support They Need. No Specific Actions, Being Dealt With As Business As Usual (See Page 27/28 Of The Strategy) High Harm Crime Strategic Objective 1A - Youth Violence, Weapon Based Crime And Vulnerability & Exploitation(Including Gang Crime, And Child Sexual Exploitation) - To Reduce The Number Of Young People Involved In Youth Violence And Gang Crime And To Decrease The Number Of Young People Carrying Offensive Weapons | Measures & targets | |--------------------------------------| | Progress | | (RAG rating) | | March 2019 | | Support frontline | | teams to identify | | and deliver more | | effective and | | timely | | interventions. | | Analysis of local data to enable the | | development of a problem profile | | which underpin Harrow's Strategy | | on Violence, Vulnerability and | | Exploitation | | | | | David Harrington, Head of Business Intelligence Measures: Development of a problem profile Establish monitoring system that can be accessed by the partnership June 2019 Ignite Reduce incidents of violent youth crime in Harrow 2 year fixed term FTE appointment of a gangs worker to provide targeted support to reduce the number of young people involved in youth violence and gang crime in the Rayners Lane Estate and South Harrow area Measures: a) Quarter on Richard Le Brun, Head of Ongoing Community The above linking into the daily intelligence meeting (TBA) Safety Richard Le Brun, Head of quarter reduction measured through MPS data. Ongoing Community b) A reduction in Safety Develop a partnership response to tackling knife crime, linked to Mayor's strategy for reducing knife crime Mark Scanlon Head of Service March 2018 for Early children and young people 'coming to notice' through youth Youth Offer, including Street Doctors Programme delivered to enable young people to respond to incidents of knife crime Support and YOT violence for anyone under 18. Youth Offending Service will Evaluate the impact of this Programme and determin whether it can be re-commissioned for a further year , or expanded Mark Billington Head of July 2018 Economic Enable friends & family to seek support for YP through contact with Xcite & Learn Harrow Development March 2019 Synergy Drama project delivered in 4 secondary schools working with young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system March 2019 Harrow MPS Series of primary schools based engagement programmes aimed at raising general awareness around crime and personal safety (for Academic year September 2017) A programme of Mohammed Ilyas activity and funding agreed and in palce New Action December 2018 for 2019/20 and Policy Team March 2019 2020/21 Engage with MOPAC over plans for years 3/4 for the London Crime Prevention Fund projects Agreed funding and programme of activity for April 2019 Analysis of the Monitor the impact of the projects Ongoing Mohammed New Action impact of the projects undertaken and shared with commissioned from the top 30% slice of MOPAC funding and the benefits to Harrow Safer Harrow ## Strategic Objective 1B - Youth Violence, Weapon Based Crime And Vulnerability & Exploitation(Including Gang Crime, And Child Sexual Exploitation) - To Embed A Cultural Shift Within The Schools On The Issues Of Sexual Assault, Child Sexual Exploitation And Digital Exploitation, And To Promote A Culture Of Awareness Of Child Sexual Exploitation Measures &Targets Action Deadline Lead To support schools to deal more effectively with issues of CSE. Measures: a) Progress reviewed March 2019 by surveys and feedback forms; b) Improvement in 2 year fixed term part time worker to generate a cultural shift within schools on the issue of sexual assault, CSE, and digital exploitation violence, and promote a culture of awareness young people's safety from repeat victimisation measured using the Young Persons Core tool. Ilyas Policy Team The Wish Centre & Parmjit Chahal, Head of Service for Children's Access Produce a combined multiagency training package Training package produce and which can be delivered as a single course or split into different levels e.g. (a) March 2019 implemented prevention and identification (b) responding to FGM (and risk of). Guidance produced and disseminated March 2019 across the borough Develop new local FGM guidance and disseminate it across the Borough ## Strategic Objective 2 - *Modern Slavery* - To Ensure There Is An Effective And Co-Ordinated Response To Modern slavery in Harrow Development and Complete a baseline-line document on modern slavery, arising from an information gathering exercise / gap analysis undertaken in conjunction with stakeholders. June 2018 delivery of modern slavery action plan June / July 2018 Develop an action plan to address the gaps identified through the baseline research | New Action | | |--------------------|-----| | Carole Furlong, | | | Director of Public | | | Health | | | New Action | | | Carole Furlong, | | | Director of Public | | | Health | | | Marzuki Haji, | | | Policy Officer | | | New Action | | | Marzuki Haji, | | | Policy Officer | | | New Action | | Deliver the action plan Timescales to be determined Embed the Be Safe, Stay Safe messages and advice in all Employment & Skills July 2018 guidance from the Council. Include Employment Rights in the advice. ## Strategic Objective 3 - Domestic And Sexual Abuse : To Provide Critical Support To The Most Vulnerable Members of our community who are affected by domestic and sexual violence and female genital mutilation with a focus on the following: Modern slavery multi-agency task & finish group Mark Billington Head of Economic Development Reduction in risk of clients by exit and after 6 and 12 months IDVA (Independent Additional Measures: Domestic Violence a) Exit interview/ Quarterly Hestia Advocate) support to 240 new cases per year. RIC (Risk Identification Checklist) /DASH (domestic abuse, stalking and 'honour'-based violence) and PSOCC (Hestia's database) Training with partner organisations to ensure Increase in MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) referrals from partner organisations Quarterly Hestia they are confident in the referral process; six days minimum of MARAC Measures: a) MARAC data on referrals training per year to be provided referring agencies and MARAC members b) Service provider information on number of training sessions Increase in number of social workers who have been provided with specialist Domestic Violence training from Maintain Domestic Violence as significant referral reason for undertaking Children and Young People Services assessment activity. Measures: Quarterly Hestia b) Number of provider; Service Provider to deliver a minimum of six days' training on Domestic Violence to frontline staff in Children's Services each year Schools to identify and implement pastoral support for young people in transition from primary / secondary education families identified through MASH (Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub)/Family Referral Team with Domestic Violence needs c) Children's Services to provide numbers of social workers trained December 2018 Produce an options appraisal for a local perpetrator programme. Consideration for programme to offer service to individuals not convicted of Domestic Violence offence where appropriate Consider how the business case for a local perpetrator programme can be sustainably funded in Harrow Business case to be presented to Safer Harrow re resources/ capacity Future proof Harrow April 2019 Couples Domestic Violence Programme Continue to deliver the Couples Programme, and consider options for sustainable funding of this programme Secure funding for the domestic September 2018 violence contract for 2019 and beyond Investigate all options available for funding services currently provided under the Domestic and Sexual Violence contract; Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum & Rachel Gapp, Head of Policy Parmjit Chahal, Head of Service for Children's Access Rachel Gapp, Head of Policy areas being explored will include MOPAC, Hestia to reduce costs of contract; external funding options etc. I Provide up to date information about domestic abuse Ongoing Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum services to residents and other stakeholders on the Council's website. Explore better opportunities to share information with existing VCS organisations that deliver DSV services in Harrow and other statutory bodies Increase the number of Harrow residents using services March 2019 Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum New Action provided under the Ascent programme (funded by London Councils) Raise awareness of the services through the Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum to encourage an increase in signposting, referrals and usage. Increase in the number of referrals to partner New Action organisations in the September 2018 community, Harrow Domestic and Sexual Violence Forum including the Review the information on the Council's website and make the necessary changes. interfaith forum Ensure employment New Action Make timely referrals to employment/training September 2018 Victoria Isaacs Employment & & training options are included in support to build confidence and independance support & recovery plans Strategic Objective 4a - *Drug and alcohol misuse* : To reduce the number of young people involved in the supply of illicit substances and to build resilience in young people so that they are able to spot the signs of dealer grooming Measures &Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Progress (RAG rating) Conduct a needs assessment using data from Compass An increase in the number of young people currently YPSMS and other local sources including, School health assessment, and carry out engaged in a drug dealing lifestyle community and stakeholder supported to exit this lifestyle and reducing the July 2019 Compass consultation to ascertain and determine the level of need of Young People who are at risk of grooming for supply of substances 3-6 months and to increase knowledge and numbers of young people choosing to or being coerced into supplying understanding of level of under 18's involved in supply of illicit substances in Harrow by sharing service level data throughout the project term. substances. Measure: The number of Skills | | | young | people | |---------------------------------|----------|------------|-----------| | Identify | local | hotspot | areas | | July 2019 | Compass | | | | | | | | | | | | | | referred to the drug | | | | | and alcohol service | | | | | regarding | | | | | preventative | work | | | | where drug dealing is known in | | | | | the borough | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (using local public | | | | | health data). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | July 2019 | Compass | | | | Deliver a series of workshops | | | | | and assemblies to at least 90% | | | | | of High Schools in the Harrow | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Deliver a number of 1-2-1 | | | | | prevention | sessions | on | | | awareness of drug dealing and | | | | | to | include | strategies | and | | mechanism to attain this | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | March 2019 | | | | | Compass | | | | | | | | | | Deliver a number of 1-2-1 | | | | | intervention sessions for young | | | | | people who are involved in drug | | | | | dealing and to provide and | | | | | develop an exit strategy for | | | | | them to leave and access PAYP | | | | | (Positive Activities for Young | | | | People) March 2019 Tanya Sprunks and Paul Gamble Undertake a trial of the DISC information sharing system to help address VVE in the Town centre ## Strategic Objective 4B - *Drug And Alcohol Misuse* : To Reduce Alcohol And Drug-Related Reoffending Via Targeted Early Support And Treatment For Ex-Prisoners Measures & Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Specialist caseload management of all prison Year on year increase in the March 2019 Service Manager, WDP transfer rate from release service users to support through treatment and recovery prison to the community in 2017/18 and the transfer rate from Specialist Prison Link Worker that in-reaches to prison establishments: prison to the  Bridging the gap for community in March 2019 Service Manager, WDP 2018/19 service users between Harrow Substance Misuse Services and HMP. New Action | Assessing, | engaging | and | |------------------------------|-------------|----------| | providing support to service | | | | users | being | released | | prison | to | maximise | | engagement with community | | | | services on release. | | | | | | | | | | | September 2018 Engage Skills & Employment teams for current opportunities and Local Labour market support ## Strategic Objective 5 - *Extremism And Hate Crime* : To Prevent People From Being Drawn Into Terrorism Or Supporting Terrorism; And To Improve Hate Crime Reporting Rates. Measures & Targets Action Deadline / Review Point Lead Prevention of people being drawn March 2019 into terrorism or Delivery of WRAP Training to all statutory partners supporting terrorism and improving March 2019 community engagement Community Engagement activity with Community Leaders Victoria Isaacs Skills & Employment Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead March 2019 Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Delivery of the Local Prevent Programme March 2019 Effective delivery of Channel arrangements Mark Scanlon, Head of Early Support & Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead September 2019 Review arrangements for hate crime reporting Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety & Samia Malik, Community Cohesion Lead Increase in the reporting of incidents of Hate March 2019 Crime Victim Worker support in place to support victims of Hate Crime Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety March 2019 Through victim satisfaction surveys increase confidence to report incidents Richard Le Brun, Head of Community Safety

en

4314-pdf

NATION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Base : All respondents REGION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Base : All respondents URBANITY .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Base : All respondents CABLE AREA.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Base : All respondents DEPRIVATION LEVEL.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Base : All respondents SE. GENDER ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Base : All respondents SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Base : All respondents QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Base : All respondents QZ7 (SG). WORKING STATUS (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Base : All respondents QZ10 (SH). HOUSEHOLD STATUS (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Base : All respondents SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31 Base : All respondents SI (SK). Household size...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 Base : All respondents SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Base : All respondents SK (SM). Can you speak or write in Welsh at all? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38 Base : All respondents in Wales SL (SN). What is you preferred language? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Base : All respondents in Wales QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................42 Base : All respondents QB2. SHOWCARD And do you personally use...? (MULTI CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................48 Base : All respondents QB3 (QB4). SHOWCARD Which games console/s do you or does anyone in your household have at the moment? (MULTI CODE) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Base : Those who have access to a games console at home QB4 (QB5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use your games console for? (MULTI CODE) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................59 Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? ..............67 Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Base : All respondents QC2 (QC2A). Do you ever use this landline phone at home yourself to make and/or receive calls, for internet access or both? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................73 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QC3 (QC10). Thinking of when you use your landline, which one of these uses is the most important to you? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls QC4 (QC30). SHOWCARD How do you pay the line rental for your landline phone service? Please answer about your line renatl only and not charges for calls and other costs. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................77 Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................79 Base : All respondents QC6 (QC28A). SHOWCARD And thinking about when you are at home, which is your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE).....................................................................................................................................................................82 Base : All respondents QC7 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QC8A (QC13A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your home phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with the overall service provided by (MAIN SUPPLIER). (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................89 Base : Those with a landline phone at home QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Base : All respondents QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................96 Base : All respondents QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................100 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD4 (QD24B). Do you personally use a smartphone? IF UNSURE - A smartphone is a phone on which you can easily access emails, download files and applications, as well as view websites and generally surf the internet. Popular brands of smartphone include BlackBerry, iPhone and Android phones such as the Samsung Galaxy S4.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................106 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD5 (QD39). SHOWCARD Which brand or type of smartphone do you have? IF MORE THAN ONE - Which one do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................108 Base : Those with a smartphone QD6 (QD41). Do you have a 4G service? This is a service that enables faster mobile internet access..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................112 Base : Those with a smartphone QD7 (QD27). SHOWCARD How likely is it that you will get a smartphone in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................114 Base : Those without a smartphone QD8 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................118 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD9 (QD11A). When you signed up for your current mobile contract did you get a handset with the contract or did you only get a SIM card? (SINGLE CODE).......................................................................................................................................................................120 Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................122 Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract QD11 (QD32). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes your current situation, now that your minimum contract period for your mobile phone service and handset has ended? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................................126 Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period QD12 (QD33). What type of SIM-only deal are you on? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................128 Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended QD13 (QD34). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes where you got your mobile phone handset from? (SINGLE CODE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................130 Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff QD14A (QD4A). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you use your mobile phone to send or receive text messages? (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................134 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................138 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD14C (QD4C). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to access email or internet services? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................142 Base : Those with a smartphone QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................146 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................162 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD17 (QD28E) SHOWCARD Which of these ways do you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (MULTI CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................179 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet QD18 (QD28C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE) ................................................................................................................................................................................................183 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet QD19 (QD28F). SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use your mobile phone to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................187 Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................191 Base : Those with a smartphone QD21 (QD28H). SHOWCARD And which of these types of apps or applications have you PAID FOR to download on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE)................................................................................................................................................................................197 Base : Those with a smartphone QD22A (QD21A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... The overall service provided by MAIN SUPPLIER. (SINGLE CODE) ....................203 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD22J (QD21J). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Reception/ accessing network. (SINGLE CODE).....................................................207 Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone QD23K (QD21K). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile phone service only, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with (MAIN SUPPLIER) for each of the following... Ability to connect to the internet using the mobile network (3G or 4G). (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................211 Base : Those with a smartphone QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................215 Base : All respondents QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................219 Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household QE3 (QE36). Do you personally use this/ any of these tablet computer/s? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................221 Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household QE4 (QE37). Is your tablet computer 3G or 4G enabled? This means that the tablet could be used - with a SIM card - to go online from anywhere with a signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................223 Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer QE5 (QE38). And do you have a separate mobile subscription for your tablet, which allows you to go online from anywhere with a 3G or 4G signal, without the need for a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)..........................................................................................225 Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer QE6 (QE44). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the mobile signal on your tablet computer to go online - rather than using a Wi-Fi connection? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................227 Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer QE7 (QE1A). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a tablet computer - such as an iPad - in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................229 Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household QE8 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................233 Base : All respondents QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................235 Base : All respondents QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................................................................................................................................................................239 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE11 (QE40). SHOWCARD Which is the most important device you use to connect to the internet, at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................243 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE12 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................247 Base : Those with access to the internet at home QE13 (QE48). Do you pay line rental as part of, or in addition to, your fixed broadband charges?.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................255 Base : Those with fixed broadband at home QE14 (QE22B). You mentioned that your household has a mobile broadband connection (connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built-in 3G connectivity in a laptop or another device). Do you personally access the internet in this way, using mobile broadband? 257 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE15 (QE39). What were the reasons you took up a mobile broadband service? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................259 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet QE16 (QE22C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use mobile broadband to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................263 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet QE17 (QE32). SHOWCARD In which of these places do you use mobile broadband to access the internet outside of the home? (MULTI CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................................267 Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home QE18 (QE3B). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the fixed broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? ........................................................................................................................................................270 Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household QE19 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? .....................................................................................................................................................272 Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................274 Base : Those with access to the internet at home QE21 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................280 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE22 (QE5B) SHOWCARD And, which, if any, of these activities have you used the internet for in the LAST WEEK? (MULTI CODE)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................299 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QE23 (QENEW11) SHOWCARD What was the advertised speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection when you took up your service? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................319 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................325 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE25 (QE11C). Do you know how to find out what speeds you are getting on your computer at home? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................331 Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home QE26A (QE8AA). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The overall service provided by MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE).........................................333 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE26B (QE8AB). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The speed of your service while online (not just the connection)? (SINGLE CODE) ...................337 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE26C (QE8AC). SHOWCARD Thinking about your mobile broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The reliability of the service from MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE)......................................341 Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband QE27 (QE12). SHOWCARD Thinking about the speed of your household's fixed broadband internet, is this faster, slower or about the same as you expected it to be when you first got it? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................345 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28A (QE8A). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The overall service provided by MAIN PROVIDER. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................349 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28B (QE8B). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The speed of your service while online (not just the connection)? (SINGLE CODE).........................353 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE28C (QE8C). SHOWCARD Thinking about your fixed broadband internet service, please use this card to say how satisfied you are with your main supplier for... The reliability of the service from MAIN PROVIDER? (SINGLE CODE)............................................357 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE29 (QE35). READ OUT DESCRIPTION OF WIRELESS ROUTER. Do you or anyone in your household use a fixed wireless internet connection at home (Wi-Fi)? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................361 Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband QE30 (QE11D). SHOWCARD How many of these devices does your household connect to the fixed wireless internet connection (Wi-Fi)? (MULTI CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................363 Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................369 Base : Those without internet access at home QE32 (QE25A). Why are you unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (MULTI CODE) UNPROMPTED...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................373 Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months QE33 (QE25B). And, which one of these reasons is your MAIN reason for not getting internet access at home? (SINGLE CODE) UNPROMPTED..........................................................................................................................................................................................381 Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months QE34 (QENI1). EXPLAIN SATELLITE BROADBAND Were you aware that satellite broadband is available? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................387 Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales QE35 (QE29). EXPLAIN THAT PHONE CALLS CAN BE MADE USING THE INTERNET USING SERVICES SUCH AS SKYPE. Before now, were you aware that you could make voice calls using the internet? (SINGLE CODE)........................................................389 Base : All respondents QE36 (QE30). Have you or anyone in your household ever used one of these services to make voice calls using the internet at home? (SINGLE CODE) ...............................................................................................................................................................................391 Base : All respondents QE37 (QE31). SHOWCARD Which supplier does/ did your household use to make voice calls using the internet? (MULTI CODE)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................393 Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code)......................................................................................................................................................460 Base : Those with a TV in the household ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets 'Smart Tvs'? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. ...............................................................................464 Base : Those with a TV in the household ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your 'Smart Tv' Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................466 Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code)........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................472 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................478 Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere QH18A (QH65A). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ1? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................484 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18B (QH65B). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ2? (SINGLE CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................486 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................488 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QH18D (QH65D). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TG4? (SINGLE CODE) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................492 Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................494 Base : All respondents QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE).........................................................................................................................................................................498 Base : All respondents QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................502 Base : All respondents QG2 (QG3A). SHOWCARD Please could you tell me which services are part of this deal or package you have with the same supplier? (MULTI CODE).................................................................................................................................................................................504 Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package QG3 (QG3D). Which supplier do you use for this package of services? (SINGLE CODE)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................508 Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................514 Base : All respondents QP2A (QP11A). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Radio set with AM receiver - either at home, in the car or on portable radio. (SINGLE CODE)............................................................................................................................................518 Base : Those who listen to radio QP2B (QP11B). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Radio set with FM stereo - either at home, in the car or on portable radio. (SINGLE CODE)...............................................................................................................................................521 Base : Those who listen to radio QP2C (QP11C). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Mobile phone. (SINGLE CODE).............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................524 Base : Those who listen to radio All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Nation Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% England 2236 1089 1147 309 391 765 771 250 213 311 509 613 604 479 539 2236 - - - 84% 84% 83% 85% 83% 84% 83% 79% 82% 87% 87% 86% 84% 82% 82% 100% -% -% -% g gh n pqr 49% 51% 14% 17% 34% 34% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 27% 21% 24% 100% -% -% -% Scotland 233 112 121 29 40 81 83 38 27 25 46 54 65 53 62 - 233 - - 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 12% 10% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% -% 100% -% -% ij oqr 48% 52% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 12% 11% 20% 23% 28% 23% 27% -% 100% -% -% Wales 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% -% -% 100% -% opr 49% 51% 11% 19% 33% 37% 15% 11% 10% 18% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Northern Ireland 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% -% -% -% 100% j opq 48% 52% 15% 18% 35% 32% 12% 8% 12% 7% 22% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Nation Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% England 2236 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 1972 264 1304 922 1229 1007 84% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 73% 84% 83% 85% 82% k o 15% 16% 10% 8% 11% 11% 10% 5% 13% 88% 12% 58% 41% 55% 45% Scotland 233 - - - - - - - - - 194 39 133 100 104 129 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 11% 9% 9% 7% 11% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 57% 43% 44% 56% Wales 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Northern Ireland 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 8% 3% 3% 2% 3% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% North East 114 53 60 15 23 34 41 23 10 14 14 18 32 23 42 114 - - - 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 5% -% -% -% j k pqr 47% 53% 13% 20% 30% 36% 20% 9% 12% 12% 16% 28% 20% 37% 100% -% -% -% North West 302 151 151 41 42 107 112 41 27 64 65 79 85 54 84 302 - - - 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 12% 12% 13% 11% 18% 11% 11% 12% 9% 13% 13% -% -% -% hj pqr 50% 50% 14% 14% 35% 37% 13% 9% 21% 22% 26% 28% 18% 28% 100% -% -% -% Yorkshire 226 105 121 38 30 66 92 43 29 44 46 59 47 56 65 226 - - - 8% 8% 9% 11% 6% 7% 10% 13% 11% 12% 8% 8% 6% 10% 10% 10% -% -% -% d de j j l l pqr 47% 53% 17% 13% 29% 41% 19% 13% 19% 20% 26% 21% 25% 29% 100% -% -% -% East Midlands 189 91 97 24 32 57 76 29 16 25 37 46 49 44 50 189 - - - 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 8% 9% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% -% -% -% pqr 48% 52% 13% 17% 30% 40% 15% 8% 13% 19% 24% 26% 23% 26% 100% -% -% -% West Midlands 237 113 124 39 40 77 81 20 15 13 16 56 65 54 63 237 - - - 9% 9% 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 6% 6% 4% 3% 8% 9% 9% 9% 11% -% -% -% j j pqr 48% 52% 16% 17% 33% 34% 8% 6% 6% 7% 24% 27% 23% 26% 100% -% -% -% East of England 245 112 132 26 51 81 88 35 28 47 65 72 62 52 59 245 - - - 9% 9% 10% 7% 11% 9% 9% 11% 11% 13% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 11% -% -% -% pqr 46% 54% 10% 21% 33% 36% 14% 11% 19% 27% 29% 25% 21% 24% 100% -% -% -% London 338 171 167 54 92 140 52 12 37 43 104 112 111 52 64 338 - - - 13% 13% 12% 15% 20% 15% 6% 4% 14% 12% 18% 16% 15% 9% 10% 15% -% -% -% f f f g g gi mn mn pqr 51% 49% 16% 27% 41% 15% 3% 11% 13% 31% 33% 33% 15% 19% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% South East 359 182 177 46 49 127 137 27 34 37 97 114 94 85 65 359 - - - 13% 14% 13% 13% 10% 14% 15% 8% 13% 10% 17% 16% 13% 15% 10% 16% -% -% -% d gi n n pqr 51% 49% 13% 14% 35% 38% 7% 9% 10% 27% 32% 26% 24% 18% 100% -% -% -% South West 227 110 117 26 32 77 92 22 17 24 65 58 61 59 49 227 - - - 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 10% 7% 7% 7% 11% 8% 8% 10% 7% 10% -% -% -% ghi pqr 49% 51% 11% 14% 34% 41% 10% 8% 11% 28% 25% 27% 26% 21% 100% -% -% -% Wales 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% -% -% 100% -% opr 49% 51% 11% 19% 33% 37% 15% 11% 10% 18% 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Scotland 233 112 121 29 40 81 83 38 27 25 46 54 65 53 62 - 233 - - 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 12% 10% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% -% 100% -% -% ij oqr 48% 52% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 12% 11% 20% 23% 28% 23% 27% -% 100% -% -% Northern Ireland 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% -% -% -% 100% j opq 48% 52% 15% 18% 35% 32% 12% 8% 12% 7% 22% 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% North East 114 - - - - - - - 114 - 106 8 58 55 57 57 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 5% 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% abcdefgi k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 93% 7% 51% 48% 50% 50% North West 302 - - - - - - - - 302 282 20 171 130 166 136 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 12% 6% 11% 12% 11% 11% abcdefgh k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 93% 7% 57% 43% 55% 45% Yorkshire 226 - - - - - - 226 - - 200 26 119 106 115 111 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 9% abcdefhi -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 89% 11% 53% 47% 51% 49% East Midlands 189 - - - 189 - - - - - 157 31 100 88 133 55 7% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 7% 9% 6% 8% 9% 4% abcefghi o -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 53% 47% 71% 29% West Midlands 237 - - - - 237 - - - - 210 27 136 100 124 113 9% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 9% abcdfghi -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 57% 42% 52% 48% East of England 245 - - - - - 245 - - - 198 47 140 104 153 91 9% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 9% 13% 9% 9% 11% 7% abcdeghi j o -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 81% 19% 57% 42% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Region Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% London 338 338 - - - - - - - - 338 - 256 83 74 265 13% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 15% -% 16% 7% 5% 21% bcdefghi k m n 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 76% 24% 22% 78% South East 359 - 359 - - - - - - - 308 51 195 163 250 109 13% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 14% 13% 15% 17% 9% acdefghi o -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% 14% 54% 45% 70% 30% South West 227 - - 227 - - - - - - 173 54 130 95 157 70 8% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 7% 15% 8% 9% 11% 6% abdefghi j o -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 57% 42% 69% 31% Wales 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Scotland 233 - - - - - - - - - 194 39 133 100 104 129 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 11% 9% 9% 7% 11% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 83% 17% 57% 43% 44% 56% Northern Ireland 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 8% 3% 3% 2% 3% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Urbanity Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Urban 2315 1128 1188 334 419 792 771 281 227 310 504 590 645 483 597 1972 194 103 46 87% 87% 86% 92% 89% 86% 83% 88% 87% 87% 86% 83% 90% 83% 90% 88% 83% 78% 63% ef f km km pqr r r 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 33% 12% 10% 13% 22% 25% 28% 21% 26% 85% 8% 4% 2% Rural 360 173 187 31 50 124 156 37 33 48 79 122 75 97 64 264 39 29 27 13% 13% 14% 8% 11% 14% 17% 12% 13% 13% 14% 17% 10% 17% 10% 12% 17% 22% 37% c cd ln ln o o opq 48% 52% 9% 14% 34% 43% 10% 9% 13% 22% 34% 21% 27% 18% 73% 11% 8% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Urbanity Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Urban 2315 338 308 173 157 210 198 200 106 282 2315 - 1349 956 1128 1187 87% 100% 86% 76% 83% 89% 81% 89% 93% 93% 100% -% 87% 86% 78% 96% bcdefghi c c cf cf bcdf bcdf k n 15% 13% 7% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 100% -% 58% 41% 49% 51% Rural 360 - 51 54 31 27 47 26 8 20 - 360 202 157 315 45 13% -% 14% 24% 17% 11% 19% 11% 7% 7% -% 100% 13% 14% 22% 4% ahi abdeghi ahi a aeghi a a a j o -% 14% 15% 9% 7% 13% 7% 2% 6% -% 100% 56% 44% 88% 12% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Cable Area Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% TELEWEST 426 211 214 56 75 155 140 37 47 53 96 97 118 106 104 343 82 - - 16% 16% 16% 15% 16% 17% 15% 12% 18% 15% 16% 14% 16% 18% 16% 15% 35% -% -% g k qr oqr 50% 50% 13% 18% 36% 33% 9% 11% 13% 22% 23% 28% 25% 24% 81% 19% -% -% NTL 929 460 470 141 169 316 303 119 76 136 214 257 255 176 241 862 15 34 18 35% 35% 34% 39% 36% 35% 33% 37% 29% 38% 37% 36% 35% 30% 36% 39% 7% 26% 25% f h h h m m pqr p p 49% 51% 15% 18% 34% 33% 13% 8% 15% 23% 28% 27% 19% 26% 93% 2% 4% 2% NEITHER 1320 629 690 167 225 444 484 161 137 169 273 357 347 298 316 1031 135 98 55 49% 48% 50% 46% 48% 49% 52% 51% 53% 47% 47% 50% 48% 51% 48% 46% 58% 74% 75% c o op op 48% 52% 13% 17% 34% 37% 12% 10% 13% 21% 27% 26% 23% 24% 78% 10% 7% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Cable Area Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TELEWEST 426 82 - 48 - 107 1 47 9 50 425 1 251 173 177 249 16% 24% -% 21% -% 45% *% 21% 8% 16% 18% *% 16% 16% 12% 20% bdfhi bdfh abcdfghi bdfh bdf bdfh k n 19% -% 11% -% 25% *% 11% 2% 12% 100% *% 59% 41% 41% 59% NTL 929 173 208 18 98 21 120 50 53 122 897 32 547 378 438 491 35% 51% 58% 8% 52% 9% 49% 22% 47% 40% 39% 9% 35% 34% 30% 40% cegi ceghi cegi ceg ce ceg ceg k n 19% 22% 2% 10% 2% 13% 5% 6% 13% 97% 3% 59% 41% 47% 53% NEITHER 1320 84 151 160 91 110 124 129 52 131 993 326 753 563 829 491 49% 25% 42% 71% 48% 46% 51% 57% 45% 43% 43% 91% 49% 51% 57% 40% a abdefghi a a a abehi a a j o 6% 11% 12% 7% 8% 9% 10% 4% 10% 75% 25% 57% 43% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Deprivation Level Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Low 1443 697 747 155 221 514 554 125 108 187 370 488 391 314 250 1229 104 77 34 54% 54% 54% 42% 47% 56% 60% 40% 42% 52% 63% 69% 54% 54% 38% 55% 44% 58% 45% cd cd gh ghi lmn n n pr pr 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 38% 9% 8% 13% 26% 34% 27% 22% 17% 85% 7% 5% 2% Medium 1093 536 557 187 219 350 338 162 120 153 195 205 293 243 351 889 117 51 37 41% 41% 41% 51% 47% 38% 36% 51% 46% 43% 33% 29% 41% 42% 53% 40% 50% 38% 50% ef ef ij j j k k klm oq oq 49% 51% 17% 20% 32% 31% 15% 11% 14% 18% 19% 27% 22% 32% 81% 11% 5% 3% High 139 68 71 23 29 52 35 30 32 18 19 19 36 24 60 118 13 4 4 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 4% 9% 12% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 9% 5% 5% 3% 5% f f ij ij k klm 49% 51% 17% 21% 37% 25% 21% 23% 13% 14% 14% 26% 17% 43% 85% 9% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. DEPRIVATION LEVEL Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Low 1443 74 250 157 133 124 153 115 57 166 1128 315 853 585 1443 - 54% 22% 70% 69% 71% 52% 63% 51% 50% 55% 49% 88% 55% 53% 100% -% aeghi aeghi aeghi a aegh a a a j o 5% 17% 11% 9% 9% 11% 8% 4% 11% 78% 22% 59% 41% 100% -% Medium 1093 200 109 70 47 103 91 95 51 121 1048 45 615 474 - 1093 41% 59% 30% 31% 25% 43% 37% 42% 45% 40% 45% 12% 40% 43% -% 89% bcdefghi bcd d bcd bcd bcd k n 18% 10% 6% 4% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 96% 4% 56% 43% -% 100% High 139 64 - - 8 11 - 16 5 15 139 - 84 55 - 139 5% 19% -% -% 4% 4% -% 7% 5% 5% 6% -% 5% 5% -% 11% bcdefghi bcf bcf bcf bcf bcf k n 46% -% -% 6% 8% -% 11% 4% 11% 100% -% 60% 39% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Se. Gender Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Male 1301 1301 - 178 199 427 496 133 117 184 291 363 334 318 285 1089 112 64 36 49% 100% -% 49% 42% 47% 53% 42% 45% 51% 50% 51% 46% 55% 43% 49% 48% 49% 48% b de g g n ln 100% -% 14% 15% 33% 38% 10% 9% 14% 22% 28% 26% 24% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Female 1374 - 1374 186 270 488 431 184 143 174 292 349 386 262 376 1147 121 68 38 51% -% 100% 51% 58% 53% 47% 58% 55% 49% 50% 49% 54% 45% 57% 51% 52% 51% 52% a f f ij m km -% 100% 14% 20% 35% 31% 13% 10% 13% 21% 25% 28% 19% 27% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Se. Gender Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Male 1301 171 182 110 91 113 112 105 53 151 1128 173 783 512 697 604 49% 51% 51% 49% 48% 48% 46% 47% 47% 50% 49% 48% 50% 46% 48% 49% m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 60% 39% 54% 46% Female 1374 167 177 117 97 124 132 121 60 151 1188 187 768 602 747 628 51% 49% 49% 51% 52% 52% 54% 53% 53% 50% 51% 52% 50% 54% 52% 51% l 12% 13% 8% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 56% 44% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 16 - 17 46 28 18 46 - - - 2 1 2 5 14 13 8 11 39 3 2 3 2% 2% 1% 13% -% -% -% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 4% def opq 61% 39% 100% -% -% -% 4% 2% 5% 11% 30% 28% 17% 25% 84% 6% 4% 6% 18 - 24 319 150 168 319 - - - 44 25 31 49 57 101 71 89 270 26 13 9 12% 12% 12% 87% -% -% -% 14% 10% 9% 8% 8% 14% 12% 13% 12% 11% 10% 12% def ij k k k 47% 53% 100% -% -% -% 14% 8% 10% 16% 18% 32% 22% 28% 85% 8% 4% 3% 25 - 34 469 199 270 - 469 - - 51 45 67 127 99 134 114 121 391 40 25 13 18% 15% 20% -% 100% -% -% 16% 17% 19% 22% 14% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 19% 18% a cef g k k k 42% 58% -% 100% -% -% 11% 10% 14% 27% 21% 29% 24% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% 35 - 44 459 211 248 - - 459 - 38 36 75 139 141 128 92 98 377 42 25 14 17% 16% 18% -% -% 50% -% 12% 14% 21% 24% 20% 18% 16% 15% 17% 18% 19% 20% cdf gh gh n 46% 54% -% -% 100% -% 8% 8% 16% 30% 31% 28% 20% 21% 82% 9% 5% 3% 45 - 54 456 216 239 - - 456 - 42 36 71 144 140 108 97 111 388 38 18 11 17% 17% 17% -% -% 50% -% 13% 14% 20% 25% 20% 15% 17% 17% 17% 16% 14% 16% cdf g gh l 47% 53% -% -% 100% -% 9% 8% 16% 32% 31% 24% 21% 24% 85% 8% 4% 3% 55 - 64 388 205 183 - - - 388 49 46 57 79 104 95 94 96 320 35 22 11 15% 16% 13% -% -% -% 42% 15% 18% 16% 14% 15% 13% 16% 15% 14% 15% 17% 15% cde 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 15% 20% 27% 24% 24% 25% 83% 9% 6% 3% 65 - 74 287 157 130 - - - 287 38 34 33 28 78 84 56 68 239 27 15 7 11% 12% 9% -% -% -% 31% 12% 13% 9% 5% 11% 12% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 9% b cde j j j 55% 45% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 11% 10% 27% 29% 19% 24% 83% 9% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 75+ 252 134 118 - - - 252 54 37 23 13 79 57 50 67 212 22 12 6 9% 10% 9% -% -% -% 27% 17% 14% 6% 2% 11% 8% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% cde ij ij j l 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 21% 15% 9% 5% 31% 23% 20% 27% 84% 9% 5% 2% AGE SUMMARY 16-24 364 178 186 364 - - - 46 26 33 54 71 114 79 100 309 29 15 11 14% 14% 14% 100% -% -% -% 15% 10% 9% 9% 10% 16% 14% 15% 14% 12% 11% 15% def ij k k 49% 51% 100% -% -% -% 13% 7% 9% 15% 20% 31% 22% 27% 85% 8% 4% 3% 25-34 469 199 270 - 469 - - 51 45 67 127 99 134 114 121 391 40 25 13 18% 15% 20% -% 100% -% -% 16% 17% 19% 22% 14% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 19% 18% a cef g k k k 42% 58% -% 100% -% -% 11% 10% 14% 27% 21% 29% 24% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% 35-54 915 427 488 - - 915 - 80 72 146 282 281 237 188 209 765 81 44 26 34% 33% 35% -% -% 100% -% 25% 28% 41% 48% 40% 33% 32% 32% 34% 35% 33% 35% cdf gh ghi lmn 47% 53% -% -% 100% -% 9% 8% 16% 31% 31% 26% 21% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% 55-64 388 205 183 - - - 388 49 46 57 79 104 95 94 96 320 35 22 11 15% 16% 13% -% -% -% 42% 15% 18% 16% 14% 15% 13% 16% 15% 14% 15% 17% 15% cde 53% 47% -% -% -% 100% 13% 12% 15% 20% 27% 24% 24% 25% 83% 9% 6% 3% 65+ 539 291 248 - - - 539 92 71 55 40 156 141 106 135 451 48 27 12 20% 22% 18% -% -% -% 58% 29% 27% 15% 7% 22% 20% 18% 20% 20% 21% 20% 17% b cde ij ij j 54% 46% -% -% -% 100% 17% 13% 10% 7% 29% 26% 20% 25% 84% 9% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sf. Age Of Respondent Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 16 - 17 46 4 5 2 8 7 2 5 1 5 42 3 5 41 24 22 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% *% 4% 2% 2% acfh l 8% 11% 5% 17% 14% 5% 12% 2% 10% 92% 8% 11% 89% 52% 48% 18 - 24 319 51 40 24 16 32 23 33 14 37 291 27 185 134 131 188 12% 15% 11% 10% 9% 13% 10% 15% 13% 12% 13% 8% 12% 12% 9% 15% d d k n 16% 13% 7% 5% 10% 7% 10% 4% 12% 91% 9% 58% 42% 41% 59% 25 - 34 469 92 49 32 32 40 51 30 23 42 419 50 369 96 221 248 18% 27% 14% 14% 17% 17% 21% 13% 20% 14% 18% 14% 24% 9% 15% 20% bcdegi bg k m n 20% 10% 7% 7% 9% 11% 6% 5% 9% 89% 11% 79% 21% 47% 53% 35 - 44 459 76 60 33 30 34 38 40 15 53 409 50 371 88 246 214 17% 22% 17% 14% 16% 14% 15% 18% 13% 17% 18% 14% 24% 8% 17% 17% ceh m 16% 13% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 3% 11% 89% 11% 81% 19% 53% 47% 45 - 54 456 64 67 44 27 44 43 26 19 54 382 73 363 88 268 188 17% 19% 19% 19% 14% 18% 17% 11% 17% 18% 17% 20% 23% 8% 19% 15% g g g g j m o 14% 15% 10% 6% 10% 9% 6% 4% 12% 84% 16% 80% 19% 59% 41% 55 - 64 388 20 59 35 32 41 31 40 20 41 320 68 219 168 228 160 15% 6% 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 18% 18% 14% 14% 19% 14% 15% 16% 13% a a a a a a a a j o 5% 15% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% 5% 11% 82% 18% 57% 43% 59% 41% 65 - 74 287 19 44 28 23 17 29 29 11 39 240 48 34 253 178 109 11% 6% 12% 12% 12% 7% 12% 13% 10% 13% 10% 13% 2% 23% 12% 9% a ae a a ae ae l o 7% 15% 10% 8% 6% 10% 10% 4% 14% 83% 17% 12% 88% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SF. AGE OF RESPONDENT Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 75+ 252 13 34 29 21 24 27 23 10 31 212 40 5 246 148 104 9% 4% 10% 13% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 10% 9% 11% *% 22% 10% 8% a a a a a a a a l 5% 14% 12% 8% 9% 11% 9% 4% 12% 84% 16% 2% 98% 59% 41% AGE SUMMARY 16-24 364 54 46 26 24 39 26 38 15 41 334 31 190 174 155 210 14% 16% 13% 11% 13% 16% 10% 17% 13% 14% 14% 9% 12% 16% 11% 17% f k l n 15% 13% 7% 7% 11% 7% 11% 4% 11% 92% 8% 52% 48% 42% 58% 25-34 469 92 49 32 32 40 51 30 23 42 419 50 369 96 221 248 18% 27% 14% 14% 17% 17% 21% 13% 20% 14% 18% 14% 24% 9% 15% 20% bcdegi bg k m n 20% 10% 7% 7% 9% 11% 6% 5% 9% 89% 11% 79% 21% 47% 53% 35-54 915 140 127 77 57 77 81 66 34 107 792 124 734 176 514 402 34% 41% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 29% 30% 35% 34% 34% 47% 16% 36% 33% dgh m 15% 14% 8% 6% 8% 9% 7% 4% 12% 86% 14% 80% 19% 56% 44% 55-64 388 20 59 35 32 41 31 40 20 41 320 68 219 168 228 160 15% 6% 16% 15% 17% 17% 13% 18% 18% 14% 14% 19% 14% 15% 16% 13% a a a a a a a a j o 5% 15% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% 5% 11% 82% 18% 57% 43% 59% 41% 65+ 539 32 78 58 44 40 57 51 21 70 451 88 39 499 326 213 20% 9% 22% 25% 23% 17% 23% 23% 19% 23% 19% 24% 3% 45% 23% 17% a ae a a a a a a j l o 6% 15% 11% 8% 7% 11% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 7% 93% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A 67 41 27 2 9 24 33 - 3 2 34 67 - - - 61 3 3 1 3% 3% 2% *% 2% 3% 4% -% 1% 1% 6% 9% -% -% -% 3% 1% 2% 1% c c g ghi lmn 60% 40% 3% 13% 35% 49% -% 4% 3% 51% 100% -% -% -% 90% 4% 5% 1% B 644 322 322 69 90 257 227 14 29 74 232 644 - - - 552 51 26 15 24% 25% 23% 19% 19% 28% 25% 4% 11% 21% 40% 91% -% -% -% 25% 22% 20% 20% cd cd g gh ghi lmn 50% 50% 11% 14% 40% 35% 2% 5% 12% 36% 100% -% -% -% 86% 8% 4% 2% C1 720 334 386 114 134 237 236 56 62 115 153 - 720 - - 604 65 33 18 27% 26% 28% 31% 29% 26% 25% 18% 24% 32% 26% -% 100% -% -% 27% 28% 25% 24% f g gh g kmn 46% 54% 16% 19% 33% 33% 8% 9% 16% 21% -% 100% -% -% 84% 9% 5% 2% C2 580 318 262 79 114 188 199 38 66 100 119 - - 580 - 479 53 31 18 22% 24% 19% 22% 24% 21% 22% 12% 25% 28% 20% -% -% 100% -% 21% 23% 24% 24% b g gj g kln 55% 45% 14% 20% 32% 34% 7% 11% 17% 21% -% -% 100% -% 82% 9% 5% 3% D 376 177 199 57 71 136 112 66 71 52 37 - - - 376 313 33 20 11 14% 14% 15% 16% 15% 15% 12% 21% 27% 15% 6% -% -% -% 57% 14% 14% 15% 14% ij ij j klm 47% 53% 15% 19% 36% 30% 18% 19% 14% 10% -% -% -% 100% 83% 9% 5% 3% E 284 107 177 43 50 73 119 143 29 16 8 - - - 284 227 29 17 11 11% 8% 13% 12% 11% 8% 13% 45% 11% 4% 1% -% -% -% 43% 10% 13% 13% 15% a e e hij ij j klm o 38% 62% 15% 18% 26% 42% 50% 10% 6% 3% -% -% -% 100% 80% 10% 6% 4% Refused 2 1 1 - 1 * 1 - * - - - - - - 2 - * * *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% 54% 46% -% 40% 8% 52% -% 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% -% 6% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% SOCIAL GROUP AB 712 363 349 71 99 281 260 14 32 76 266 712 - - - 613 54 30 16 27% 28% 25% 20% 21% 31% 28% 4% 12% 21% 46% 100% -% -% -% 27% 23% 22% 22% cd cd g gh ghi lmn r 51% 49% 10% 14% 40% 37% 2% 5% 11% 37% 100% -% -% -% 86% 8% 4% 2% C1C2 1300 652 648 193 247 425 435 94 128 214 272 - 720 580 - 1082 117 65 36 49% 50% 47% 53% 53% 46% 47% 30% 49% 60% 47% -% 100% 100% -% 48% 50% 49% 49% e ef g ghj g kn kn 50% 50% 15% 19% 33% 33% 7% 10% 16% 21% -% 55% 45% -% 83% 9% 5% 3% DE 661 285 376 100 121 209 231 209 100 68 45 - - - 661 539 62 38 22 25% 22% 27% 27% 26% 23% 25% 66% 38% 19% 8% -% -% -% 100% 24% 27% 28% 30% a hij ij j klm o 43% 57% 15% 18% 32% 35% 32% 15% 10% 7% -% -% -% 100% 82% 9% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A 67 17 15 2 2 3 7 7 - 7 59 8 43 25 46 21 3% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% -% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% cdeh cdh h h h o 25% 23% 4% 3% 5% 11% 10% -% 11% 88% 12% 64% 36% 69% 31% B 644 96 99 55 44 53 65 52 18 71 531 114 395 247 441 203 24% 28% 28% 24% 23% 22% 26% 23% 16% 24% 23% 32% 25% 22% 31% 16% h h h h h h h j m o 15% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 11% 82% 18% 61% 38% 69% 31% C1 720 111 94 61 49 65 62 47 32 85 645 75 449 269 391 329 27% 33% 26% 27% 26% 27% 25% 21% 28% 28% 28% 21% 29% 24% 27% 27% g k m 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 6% 4% 12% 90% 10% 62% 37% 54% 46% C2 580 52 85 59 44 54 52 56 23 54 483 97 393 186 314 267 22% 15% 24% 26% 23% 23% 21% 25% 20% 18% 21% 27% 25% 17% 22% 22% a ai a a a j m 9% 15% 10% 8% 9% 9% 10% 4% 9% 83% 17% 68% 32% 54% 46% D 376 52 39 31 24 28 32 39 19 49 343 33 261 114 147 229 14% 15% 11% 14% 13% 12% 13% 17% 16% 16% 15% 9% 17% 10% 10% 19% k m n 14% 10% 8% 6% 7% 9% 10% 5% 13% 91% 9% 69% 30% 39% 61% E 284 11 25 17 25 35 27 26 23 36 254 31 11 271 103 182 11% 3% 7% 8% 14% 15% 11% 12% 20% 12% 11% 9% 1% 24% 7% 15% a abc abc a a abcfgi a l n 4% 9% 6% 9% 12% 9% 9% 8% 13% 89% 11% 4% 95% 36% 64% Refused 2 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 * 2 1 1 *% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 46% 40% -% -% -% -% -% -% 46% 54% 6% 94% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QSEG (QZ8). What is the occupation of the main wage earner in your household. CODE SOCIAL GRADE. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% SOCIAL GROUP AB 712 112 114 58 46 56 72 59 18 79 590 122 438 271 488 224 27% 33% 32% 25% 24% 24% 29% 26% 16% 26% 25% 34% 28% 24% 34% 18% deh eh h h h h h h j m o 16% 16% 8% 6% 8% 10% 8% 2% 11% 83% 17% 62% 38% 69% 31% C1C2 1300 162 179 120 93 118 114 102 54 139 1128 173 842 455 704 596 49% 48% 50% 53% 49% 50% 46% 45% 48% 46% 49% 48% 54% 41% 49% 48% m 12% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 65% 35% 54% 46% DE 661 64 65 49 50 63 59 65 42 84 597 64 272 386 250 411 25% 19% 18% 21% 26% 26% 24% 29% 37% 28% 26% 18% 18% 35% 17% 33% b b ab abcdefi ab k l n 10% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 10% 6% 13% 90% 10% 41% 58% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Working full time (30hrs/wk+) 1120 691 430 130 286 545 159 18 86 184 379 334 331 278 177 930 108 50 32 42% 53% 31% 36% 61% 60% 17% 6% 33% 51% 65% 47% 46% 48% 27% 42% 46% 38% 43% b f cf cf g gh ghi n n n q 62% 38% 12% 26% 49% 14% 2% 8% 16% 34% 30% 30% 25% 16% 83% 10% 4% 3% Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk) 431 93 339 60 83 189 99 49 31 74 114 104 118 115 95 374 25 23 9 16% 7% 25% 17% 18% 21% 11% 15% 12% 21% 19% 15% 16% 20% 14% 17% 11% 18% 13% a f f f h h kn pr p 21% 79% 14% 19% 44% 23% 11% 7% 17% 26% 24% 27% 27% 22% 87% 6% 5% 2% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired 603 318 285 - - 8 595 102 91 59 48 180 159 116 147 507 53 30 13 23% 24% 21% -% -% 1% 64% 32% 35% 16% 8% 25% 22% 20% 22% 23% 23% 23% 18% b cde ij ij j m r 53% 47% -% -% 1% 99% 17% 15% 10% 8% 30% 26% 19% 24% 84% 9% 5% 2% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work) 132 73 59 33 36 42 20 56 17 7 3 11 8 10 102 102 14 10 6 5% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 2% 18% 7% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 15% 5% 6% 7% 9% ef ef f hij ij klm o o 55% 45% 25% 27% 32% 15% 42% 13% 5% 3% 8% 6% 7% 78% 77% 10% 7% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - student 137 71 65 122 5 9 - 19 8 5 15 40 64 16 17 115 13 5 5 5% 5% 5% 34% 1% 1% -% 6% 3% 1% 3% 6% 9% 3% 3% 5% 5% 3% 6% def f f ij mn kmn 52% 48% 90% 4% 7% -% 14% 6% 4% 11% 29% 47% 11% 13% 84% 9% 3% 3% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other 242 50 193 19 55 117 51 71 25 29 23 41 38 45 119 199 22 14 8 9% 4% 14% 5% 12% 13% 6% 22% 10% 8% 4% 6% 5% 8% 18% 9% 9% 10% 11% a cf cf hij j j klm 20% 80% 8% 23% 48% 21% 29% 10% 12% 9% 17% 16% 18% 49% 82% 9% 6% 3% Don't know 10 5 5 - 3 5 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 9 - - * *% *% *% -% 1% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 1% 54% 46% -% 31% 50% 19% 16% 21% 10% 13% 29% 23% 17% 31% 95% -% -% 5% WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING 1552 783 768 190 369 734 258 67 117 258 492 438 449 393 272 1304 133 74 41 58% 60% 56% 52% 79% 80% 28% 21% 45% 72% 84% 62% 62% 68% 41% 58% 57% 56% 55% b f cf cf g gh ghi n n kln 50% 50% 12% 24% 47% 17% 4% 8% 17% 32% 28% 29% 25% 18% 84% 9% 5% 3% NOT WORKING 1114 512 602 174 96 176 667 248 141 99 89 271 269 186 386 922 100 58 32 42% 39% 44% 48% 21% 19% 72% 78% 54% 28% 15% 38% 37% 32% 58% 41% 43% 44% 44% a de cde hij ij j m m klm 46% 54% 16% 9% 16% 60% 22% 13% 9% 8% 24% 24% 17% 35% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Base for % 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Working full time (30hrs/wk+) 1120 200 130 86 60 104 102 76 45 128 984 136 1120 - 599 521 42% 59% 36% 38% 32% 44% 42% 34% 39% 42% 42% 38% 72% -% 41% 42% bcdefghi dg d dg m 18% 12% 8% 5% 9% 9% 7% 4% 11% 88% 12% 100% -% 53% 47% Working part time (8-29 hrs/wk) 431 55 65 45 39 32 38 43 14 43 366 66 431 - 254 178 16% 16% 18% 20% 21% 13% 15% 19% 12% 14% 16% 18% 28% -% 18% 14% h eh h m o 13% 15% 10% 9% 7% 9% 10% 3% 10% 85% 15% 100% -% 59% 41% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - retired 603 30 88 65 49 49 57 61 26 82 503 100 - 603 366 237 23% 9% 24% 29% 26% 21% 23% 27% 23% 27% 22% 28% -% 54% 25% 19% a ae a a a a a a j l o 5% 15% 11% 8% 8% 9% 10% 4% 14% 83% 17% -% 100% 61% 39% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - unemployed (registered/ not registered but looking for work) 132 10 12 11 11 18 7 10 8 15 122 10 - 132 50 82 5% 3% 3% 5% 6% 8% 3% 5% 7% 5% 5% 3% -% 12% 3% 7% abf f k l n 7% 9% 9% 8% 14% 5% 8% 6% 12% 92% 8% -% 100% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz7 (Sg). Working Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - student 137 33 18 4 9 11 11 12 3 15 129 8 - 137 50 86 5% 10% 5% 2% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 5% 6% 2% -% 12% 3% 7% cdefh c k l n 24% 13% 3% 6% 8% 8% 9% 2% 11% 94% 6% -% 100% 37% 63% Not working (i.e. under 8hrs/wk) - housewife/ disabled/ other 242 11 45 14 19 22 29 23 18 17 203 40 - 242 119 124 9% 3% 13% 6% 10% 9% 12% 10% 16% 6% 9% 11% -% 22% 8% 10% aci a a aci a acei l 4% 19% 6% 8% 9% 12% 9% 7% 7% 84% 16% -% 100% 49% 51% Don't know 10 - 2 2 1 1 1 1 * 1 10 * - - 5 5 *% -% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% 15% 19% 11% 13% 14% 9% 4% 10% 99% 1% -% -% 54% 46% WORKING STATUS SUMMARY WORKING 1552 256 195 130 100 136 140 119 58 171 1349 202 1552 - 853 699 58% 76% 54% 57% 53% 57% 57% 53% 51% 57% 58% 56% 100% -% 59% 57% bcdefghi m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 100% -% 55% 45% NOT WORKING 1114 83 163 95 88 100 104 106 55 130 956 157 - 1114 585 528 42% 24% 45% 42% 47% 42% 42% 47% 48% 43% 41% 44% -% 100% 41% 43% a a a a a a a a l 7% 15% 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 5% 12% 86% 14% -% 100% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Being bought on mortgage 811 366 445 95 155 430 131 16 34 110 329 302 231 196 83 667 85 35 24 30% 28% 32% 26% 33% 47% 14% 5% 13% 31% 56% 42% 32% 34% 13% 30% 36% 26% 33% a f cf cdf g gh ghi lmn n n oq 45% 55% 12% 19% 53% 16% 2% 4% 14% 41% 37% 28% 24% 10% 82% 10% 4% 3% Owned outright by household 737 406 331 35 19 112 570 70 79 91 114 252 204 156 125 632 47 40 18 28% 31% 24% 10% 4% 12% 61% 22% 30% 25% 20% 35% 28% 27% 19% 28% 20% 30% 24% b d d cde gj lmn n n p p 55% 45% 5% 3% 15% 77% 10% 11% 12% 16% 34% 28% 21% 17% 86% 6% 5% 2% Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust 517 237 280 74 116 184 142 143 87 75 22 34 91 109 283 413 64 30 10 19% 18% 20% 20% 25% 20% 15% 45% 34% 21% 4% 5% 13% 19% 43% 18% 28% 23% 13% f f f hij ij j k kl klm r or r 46% 54% 14% 23% 36% 27% 28% 17% 14% 4% 7% 18% 21% 55% 80% 12% 6% 2% Rented from Private Landlord 474 224 250 120 157 148 48 68 53 73 103 94 156 88 136 415 31 18 11 18% 17% 18% 33% 34% 16% 5% 22% 20% 20% 18% 13% 22% 15% 21% 19% 13% 13% 15% ef ef f km km pq 47% 53% 25% 33% 31% 10% 14% 11% 15% 22% 20% 33% 18% 29% 88% 6% 4% 2% Other 56 31 25 10 7 19 20 11 1 4 7 12 14 12 19 44 2 4 6 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% *% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 9% hj p opq 55% 45% 18% 12% 35% 35% 19% 1% 7% 12% 21% 24% 21% 34% 78% 3% 8% 11% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 81 37 43 30 14 20 17 9 7 5 8 18 25 21 15 66 5 6 4 3% 3% 3% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 6% def op 46% 54% 37% 17% 25% 21% 11% 8% 7% 10% 23% 31% 26% 19% 82% 6% 7% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Base for % 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Being bought on mortgage 811 93 130 71 46 56 71 66 31 103 707 104 657 154 503 308 30% 28% 36% 31% 25% 24% 29% 29% 27% 34% 31% 29% 42% 14% 35% 25% adeh de m o 11% 16% 9% 6% 7% 9% 8% 4% 13% 87% 13% 81% 19% 62% 38% Owned outright by household 737 46 111 80 75 63 71 74 32 80 608 128 247 487 463 273 28% 14% 31% 35% 40% 27% 29% 33% 28% 27% 26% 36% 16% 44% 32% 22% a aei abefhi a a a a a j l o 6% 15% 11% 10% 9% 10% 10% 4% 11% 83% 17% 34% 66% 63% 37% Rented from Local Authority/ Housing Association/ Trust 517 66 52 40 35 64 54 32 22 48 452 65 252 262 196 321 19% 19% 14% 17% 19% 27% 22% 14% 19% 16% 20% 18% 16% 24% 14% 26% bcdgi bg l n 13% 10% 8% 7% 12% 11% 6% 4% 9% 87% 13% 49% 51% 38% 62% Rented from Private Landlord 474 122 55 17 27 32 37 34 25 66 428 46 332 142 212 262 18% 36% 15% 8% 14% 14% 15% 15% 22% 22% 18% 13% 21% 13% 15% 21% bcdefghi c c c c c cde cde k m n 26% 12% 4% 6% 7% 8% 7% 5% 14% 90% 10% 70% 30% 45% 55% Other 56 - 6 13 - 10 1 9 3 1 48 8 26 27 28 29 2% -% 2% 6% -% 4% *% 4% 3% *% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% ad abdfi adfi adfi adfi -% 11% 23% -% 19% 1% 16% 5% 2% 85% 15% 46% 48% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz10 (Sh). Household Status (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 81 11 6 6 6 11 11 11 1 3 71 9 38 42 42 39 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% h hi hi hi 14% 8% 8% 7% 14% 13% 14% 1% 3% 89% 11% 47% 52% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sh (Si). Total Number In Household (Including Respondent And Any Children) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 1 457 230 227 15 40 95 307 143 52 47 26 100 116 72 170 361 61 22 13 17% 18% 17% 4% 9% 10% 33% 45% 20% 13% 4% 14% 16% 12% 26% 16% 26% 16% 18% c c cde hij ij j klm oqr 50% 50% 3% 9% 21% 67% 31% 11% 10% 6% 22% 25% 16% 37% 79% 13% 5% 3% 2 921 491 430 96 111 223 491 89 111 127 187 259 249 194 218 756 89 52 24 34% 38% 31% 26% 24% 24% 53% 28% 43% 35% 32% 36% 35% 33% 33% 34% 38% 39% 33% b cde gj g 53% 47% 10% 12% 24% 53% 10% 12% 14% 20% 28% 27% 21% 24% 82% 10% 6% 3% 3 519 210 309 99 140 204 77 41 53 76 143 142 159 113 105 432 44 29 14 19% 16% 23% 27% 30% 22% 8% 13% 20% 21% 24% 20% 22% 20% 16% 19% 19% 22% 19% a f ef f g g g n 40% 60% 19% 27% 39% 15% 8% 10% 15% 28% 27% 31% 22% 20% 83% 8% 6% 3% 4 529 260 269 100 123 269 38 30 23 86 167 143 139 154 93 467 28 20 14 20% 20% 20% 27% 26% 29% 4% 9% 9% 24% 29% 20% 19% 27% 14% 21% 12% 15% 20% f f f gh gh n n kln pq p 49% 51% 19% 23% 51% 7% 6% 4% 16% 32% 27% 26% 29% 18% 88% 5% 4% 3% 5+ 248 110 139 55 54 124 15 15 21 22 60 69 57 47 75 220 11 9 8 9% 8% 10% 15% 12% 14% 2% 5% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 8% 11% 10% 5% 7% 10% f f f gi l p p 44% 56% 22% 22% 50% 6% 6% 8% 9% 24% 28% 23% 19% 30% 89% 5% 4% 3% Mean number of people 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.8 a df f f g gh ghi n n ln pq p p Standard deviation 1.35 1.33 1.36 1.31 1.24 1.39 .85 1.25 1.28 1.18 1.21 1.33 1.26 1.28 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.28 1.36 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .05 .04 .02 .05 .06 .06 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .03 .06 .06 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SH (SI). Total number in household (including respondent and any children) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 1 457 24 61 27 31 38 46 43 24 66 397 60 150 306 227 230 17% 7% 17% 12% 16% 16% 19% 19% 21% 22% 17% 17% 10% 27% 16% 19% a a a ac ac ac ac l 5% 13% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 5% 14% 87% 13% 33% 67% 50% 50% 2 921 101 116 98 65 80 76 79 44 96 779 142 464 453 551 370 34% 30% 32% 43% 34% 34% 31% 35% 39% 32% 34% 40% 30% 41% 38% 30% abdefi a j l o 11% 13% 11% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 10% 85% 15% 50% 49% 60% 40% 3 519 67 66 39 36 47 54 43 18 62 453 66 375 143 276 243 19% 20% 19% 17% 19% 20% 22% 19% 16% 21% 20% 18% 24% 13% 19% 20% m 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 10% 8% 3% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 53% 47% 4 529 87 90 45 37 49 44 41 18 56 460 70 402 126 290 240 20% 26% 25% 20% 20% 21% 18% 18% 16% 18% 20% 19% 26% 11% 20% 19% h h m 16% 17% 8% 7% 9% 8% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 55% 45% 5+ 248 60 26 17 20 22 24 19 10 22 227 21 161 86 99 149 9% 18% 7% 8% 11% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% 8% 7% 12% bcdefghi k m n 24% 10% 7% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 9% 91% 9% 65% 35% 40% 60% Mean number of people 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.8 bcdefghi h h k m n Standard deviation 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.28 1.50 1.36 1.40 1.30 1.31 1.31 1.36 1.27 1.28 1.34 1.25 1.45 Standard error .02 .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .03 .04 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Si (Sk). Household Size Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Small (1-2 people) 1378 721 658 111 151 318 798 232 163 174 213 358 365 266 388 1117 150 73 38 52% 55% 48% 31% 32% 35% 86% 73% 63% 48% 37% 50% 51% 46% 59% 50% 64% 55% 51% b cde hij ij j klm oqr 52% 48% 8% 11% 23% 58% 17% 12% 13% 15% 26% 26% 19% 28% 81% 11% 5% 3% Medium (3-4 people) 1049 470 578 198 263 473 115 71 76 163 310 284 298 268 198 899 72 49 28 39% 36% 42% 54% 56% 52% 12% 22% 29% 45% 53% 40% 41% 46% 30% 40% 31% 37% 38% a f f f g gh ghi n n kn p p 45% 55% 19% 25% 45% 11% 7% 7% 15% 30% 27% 28% 26% 19% 86% 7% 5% 3% Large (5+ people) 248 110 139 55 54 124 15 15 21 22 60 69 57 47 75 220 11 9 8 9% 8% 10% 15% 12% 14% 2% 5% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 8% 11% 10% 5% 7% 10% f f f gi l p p 44% 56% 22% 22% 50% 6% 6% 8% 9% 24% 28% 23% 19% 30% 89% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Si (Sk). Household Size Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Small (1-2 people) 1378 126 177 126 95 119 122 122 68 162 1176 202 613 759 779 600 52% 37% 49% 55% 51% 50% 50% 54% 60% 54% 51% 56% 40% 68% 54% 49% a a a a a a abdef a j l o 9% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 85% 15% 45% 55% 56% 44% Medium (3-4 people) 1049 153 156 84 73 96 98 84 36 118 913 136 777 269 566 483 39% 45% 43% 37% 39% 41% 40% 37% 32% 39% 39% 38% 50% 24% 39% 39% h h h m 15% 15% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 74% 26% 54% 46% Large (5+ people) 248 60 26 17 20 22 24 19 10 22 227 21 161 86 99 149 9% 18% 7% 8% 11% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% 8% 7% 12% bcdefghi k m n 24% 10% 7% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 9% 91% 9% 65% 35% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sj. Total Number Of Children In Household (Under 18), Including Respondent (If Respondent Is Under 18) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None 1673 900 773 199 188 395 891 228 177 205 313 439 472 355 406 1376 166 85 46 63% 69% 56% 55% 40% 43% 96% 72% 68% 57% 54% 62% 66% 61% 61% 62% 71% 65% 62% b de cde ij ij or 54% 46% 12% 11% 24% 53% 14% 11% 12% 19% 26% 28% 21% 24% 82% 10% 5% 3% 1 456 176 279 105 128 197 26 45 32 67 114 129 121 98 108 383 37 23 12 17% 14% 20% 29% 27% 21% 3% 14% 12% 19% 20% 18% 17% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 17% a ef ef f h gh 39% 61% 23% 28% 43% 6% 10% 7% 15% 25% 28% 27% 21% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% 2 385 165 220 42 110 226 7 28 25 71 127 103 102 96 85 340 20 15 10 14% 13% 16% 11% 23% 25% 1% 9% 10% 20% 22% 14% 14% 16% 13% 15% 9% 11% 14% a f cf cf gh gh p p 43% 57% 11% 29% 59% 2% 7% 7% 18% 33% 27% 26% 25% 22% 88% 5% 4% 3% 3 113 43 69 11 31 68 2 11 18 12 23 32 16 21 43 100 4 5 3 4% 3% 5% 3% 7% 7% *% 3% 7% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 7% 4% 2% 4% 5% a f cf cf l lm p p 39% 61% 10% 28% 60% 2% 10% 16% 11% 20% 28% 15% 19% 39% 89% 3% 5% 3% 4 36 10 26 5 11 20 - 4 8 3 5 6 6 9 15 28 3 3 2 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% a f f f ij l 27% 73% 15% 30% 55% -% 12% 23% 8% 13% 16% 18% 25% 41% 78% 10% 8% 4% 5+ 13 6 7 2 1 10 - 1 - 1 2 4 2 3 4 10 2 1 1 *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% -% *% -% *% *% 1% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% f f 46% 54% 15% 11% 75% -% 6% -% 8% 16% 29% 17% 20% 33% 72% 18% 6% 4% Mean number of children .7 .5 .8 .7 1.0 1.1 .1 .5 .6 .7 .8 .7 .6 .7 .7 .7 .5 .6 .7 a f cf cf g g gh l l l p p p Standard deviation 1.02 .95 1.08 .97 1.08 1.18 .28 .92 1.10 .98 1.01 1.00 .92 1.02 1.14 1.02 .95 1.09 1.10 Standard error .02 .02 .02 .04 .04 .03 .01 .04 .06 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .04 .02 .04 .05 .05 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SJ. Total number of children in household (under 18), including respondent (if respondent is under 18) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None 1673 181 224 144 112 153 145 147 71 199 1427 246 827 840 932 741 63% 54% 62% 63% 59% 65% 59% 65% 63% 66% 62% 68% 53% 75% 65% 60% a a a a j l o 11% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 85% 15% 49% 50% 56% 44% 1 456 72 46 38 32 39 46 37 19 53 405 51 324 131 243 213 17% 21% 13% 17% 17% 16% 19% 17% 17% 17% 17% 14% 21% 12% 17% 17% b m 16% 10% 8% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 12% 89% 11% 71% 29% 53% 47% 2 385 56 73 33 28 31 39 32 12 36 339 47 299 84 195 190 14% 17% 20% 15% 15% 13% 16% 14% 10% 12% 15% 13% 19% 8% 14% 15% ehi m 15% 19% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 9% 88% 12% 78% 22% 51% 49% 3 113 26 11 8 11 7 9 8 8 11 103 10 75 36 53 60 4% 8% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 3% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% beg be m 23% 10% 7% 10% 6% 8% 7% 7% 10% 91% 9% 67% 32% 47% 53% 4 36 - 5 3 1 7 5 1 3 2 30 5 19 16 16 19 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% *% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% ag a ag -% 13% 10% 4% 19% 14% 3% 9% 6% 85% 15% 55% 45% 45% 55% 5+ 13 3 - 1 3 - 1 1 - 1 12 1 7 6 5 9 *% 1% -% *% 2% -% 1% *% -% *% 1% *% *% 1% *% 1% beh 22% -% 6% 24% -% 10% 4% -% 7% 91% 9% 52% 48% 36% 64% Mean number of children .7 .8 .7 .6 .8 .6 .7 .6 .7 .6 .7 .6 .8 .5 .6 .7 egi gi k m n Standard deviation 1.02 1.06 .99 .99 1.19 1.01 1.07 .92 1.10 .94 1.03 1.00 1.04 .96 .98 1.07 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sj. Total Number Of Children In Household (Under 18), Including Respondent (If Respondent Is Under 18) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Standard error .02 .07 .06 .06 .08 .06 .07 .06 .07 .06 .02 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sk (Sm). Can You Speak Or Write In Welsh At All? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n ~o ~p q ~r Unweighted total 489 231 258 58 76 138 217 76 58 43 66 100 161 104 123 - - 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 301 146 155 36 47 87 142 50 32 27 45 62 105 65 79 - - 301 - Total 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 49% 51% ** ** 33% 37% ** ** ** ** 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% Yes, and fluent 12 7 5 ** ** 3 7 ** ** ** ** 3 3 4 2 - - 12 - 9% 11% 8% ** ** 8% 15% ** ** ** ** 11% 10% 12% 5% -% -% 9% -% 57% 43% ** ** 27% 59% ** ** ** ** 26% 27% 30% 17% -% -% 100% -% Yes, but not fluent 19 9 10 ** ** 5 6 ** ** ** ** 5 4 4 6 - - 19 - 14% 14% 14% ** ** 13% 12% ** ** ** ** 17% 12% 14% 15% -% -% 14% -% 49% 51% ** ** 29% 30% ** ** ** ** 26% 21% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% No 101 48 53 ** ** 35 36 ** ** ** ** 21 26 23 30 - - 101 - 76% 75% 78% ** ** 80% 74% ** ** ** ** 72% 78% 75% 80% -% -% 76% -% 47% 53% ** ** 34% 36% ** ** ** ** 21% 26% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SK (SM). Can you speak or write in Welsh at all? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 489 - - - - - - - - - 240 249 210 279 287 202 Effective Weighted Sample 301 - - - - - - - - - 198 211 135 192 161 145 Total 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% Yes, and fluent 12 - - - - - - - - - 6 7 6 6 8 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 23% 9% 10% 10% 8% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 45% 55% 52% 48% 64% 36% Yes, but not fluent 19 - - - - - - - - - 16 3 9 10 11 8 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 10% 12% 18% 14% 15% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 86% 14% 45% 55% 56% 44% No 101 - - - - - - - - - 81 19 59 42 58 42 76% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 79% 67% 80% 72% 76% 77% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 58% 42% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Sl (Sn). What Is You Preferred Language? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n ~o ~p q ~r Unweighted total 489 231 258 58 76 138 217 76 58 43 66 100 161 104 123 - - 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 301 146 155 36 47 87 142 50 32 27 45 62 105 65 79 - - 301 - Total 132 64 68 15 25 44 49 20 15 13 23 30 33 31 38 - - 132 - 49% 51% ** ** 33% 37% ** ** ** ** 22% 25% 24% 28% -% -% 100% -% PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THOSE WHO CAN SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH English 26 13 13 ** ** 8 10 ** ** ** ** 7 6 6 7 - - 26 - 20% 20% 20% ** ** 18% 20% ** ** ** ** 23% 19% 20% 18% -% -% 20% -% 49% 51% ** ** 30% 37% ** ** ** ** 26% 24% 24% 25% -% -% 100% -% Welsh 4 3 1 ** ** 1 2 ** ** ** ** 1 1 1 1 - - 4 - 3% 4% 1% ** ** 1% 5% ** ** ** ** 3% 2% 3% 2% -% -% 3% -% 74% 26% ** ** 15% 64% ** ** ** ** 29% 23% 27% 21% -% -% 100% -% Don't know 1 1 1 ** ** * 1 ** ** ** ** * * 1 * - - 1 - 1% 1% 1% ** ** 1% 2% ** ** ** ** 1% *% 2% *% -% -% 1% -% 53% 47% ** ** 25% 68% ** ** ** ** 21% 10% 54% 15% -% -% 100% -% CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH 101 48 53 ** ** 35 36 ** ** ** ** 21 26 23 30 - - 101 - 76% 75% 78% ** ** 80% 74% ** ** ** ** 72% 78% 75% 80% -% -% 76% -% 47% 53% ** ** 34% 36% ** ** ** ** 21% 26% 23% 30% -% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. SL (SN). What is you preferred language? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 489 - - - - - - - - - 240 249 210 279 287 202 Effective Weighted Sample 301 - - - - - - - - - 198 211 135 192 161 145 Total 132 - - - - - - - - - 103 29 74 58 77 55 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 58% 42% PREFERRED LANGUAGE FOR THOSE WHO CAN SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH English 26 - - - - - - - - - 21 6 13 14 15 12 20% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 20% 20% 17% 24% 19% 22% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 48% 52% 55% 45% Welsh 4 - - - - - - - - - 1 3 2 2 3 * 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 9% 2% 3% 4% *% j o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 26% 74% 52% 48% 95% 5% Don't know 1 - - - - - - - - - * 1 * 1 1 1 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 15% 85% 37% 63% 44% 56% CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE IN WELSH 101 - - - - - - - - - 81 19 59 42 58 42 76% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 79% 67% 80% 72% 76% 77% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 58% 42% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A standard DVD player 1502 718 784 193 218 545 545 166 147 202 366 426 383 346 346 1262 114 84 41 56% 55% 57% 53% 47% 60% 59% 52% 56% 56% 63% 60% 53% 60% 52% 56% 49% 64% 56% cd d g ln ln p opr 48% 52% 13% 15% 36% 36% 11% 10% 13% 24% 28% 26% 23% 23% 84% 8% 6% 3% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 1130 542 588 235 279 503 114 106 99 162 321 284 311 278 256 939 101 58 32 42% 42% 43% 64% 59% 55% 12% 34% 38% 45% 55% 40% 43% 48% 39% 42% 43% 44% 43% ef f f g ghi kn 48% 52% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% An MP3 player/iPod 844 421 423 150 180 379 135 57 62 121 284 289 241 168 146 719 68 47 9 32% 32% 31% 41% 38% 41% 15% 18% 24% 34% 49% 41% 33% 29% 22% 32% 29% 36% 13% f f f gh ghi lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 18% 21% 45% 16% 7% 7% 14% 34% 34% 29% 20% 17% 85% 8% 6% 1% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 744 348 397 97 119 287 242 41 53 96 232 274 211 165 95 622 58 47 16 28% 27% 29% 27% 25% 31% 26% 13% 20% 27% 40% 38% 29% 28% 14% 28% 25% 36% 22% df g g ghi lmn n n r opr 47% 53% 13% 16% 39% 33% 6% 7% 13% 31% 37% 28% 22% 13% 84% 8% 6% 2% A Blu Ray DVD player 661 346 315 104 129 276 153 39 55 99 216 204 185 151 122 573 49 30 9 25% 27% 23% 28% 27% 30% 16% 12% 21% 28% 37% 29% 26% 26% 18% 26% 21% 23% 12% b f f f g g ghi n n n r r r 52% 48% 16% 19% 42% 23% 6% 8% 15% 33% 31% 28% 23% 18% 87% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 521 230 291 106 120 246 49 50 54 71 147 134 144 129 114 436 43 35 6 19% 18% 21% 29% 26% 27% 5% 16% 21% 20% 25% 19% 20% 22% 17% 20% 19% 26% 9% a f f f g n r r opr 44% 56% 20% 23% 47% 9% 10% 10% 14% 28% 26% 28% 25% 22% 84% 8% 7% 1% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 145 78 67 27 33 65 20 11 12 16 54 52 42 24 27 125 9 10 1 5% 6% 5% 7% 7% 7% 2% 3% 5% 5% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% 4% 8% 2% f f f ghi mn r pr 54% 46% 19% 23% 45% 14% 7% 8% 11% 38% 36% 29% 16% 19% 86% 6% 7% 1% ANY DVD PLAYER 1791 867 924 236 288 654 613 178 175 249 462 513 465 411 401 1501 143 99 48 67% 67% 67% 65% 61% 71% 66% 56% 67% 70% 79% 72% 65% 71% 61% 67% 61% 75% 65% cdf g g ghi ln ln opr 48% 52% 13% 16% 37% 34% 10% 10% 14% 26% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 8% 6% 3% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 44% 43% 45% 68% 62% 57% 13% 35% 40% 47% 56% 41% 45% 50% 41% 44% 45% 45% 44% ef f f g ghi kn 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% None of these 531 269 262 49 87 139 256 92 45 63 53 117 147 94 172 447 48 19 17 20% 21% 19% 13% 19% 15% 28% 29% 17% 18% 9% 16% 20% 16% 26% 20% 21% 14% 23% cde hij j j klm q q q 51% 49% 9% 16% 26% 48% 17% 8% 12% 10% 22% 28% 18% 32% 84% 9% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb1. Showcard Which Of The Following Do You, Or Does Anyone In Your Household, Have In Your Home At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 6 4 2 - * 2 4 2 2 - - - 3 1 3 5 1 - * *% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% j 63% 37% -% 3% 31% 66% 25% 38% -% -% -% 42% 15% 42% 85% 12% -% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A standard DVD player 1502 125 203 133 118 133 171 137 72 170 1284 218 884 611 871 631 56% 37% 56% 59% 63% 56% 70% 61% 63% 56% 55% 61% 57% 55% 60% 51% a a a a abcei a a a j o 8% 13% 9% 8% 9% 11% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 59% 41% 58% 42% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 1130 95 146 105 87 112 113 95 50 135 984 147 810 314 611 519 42% 28% 41% 46% 46% 47% 46% 42% 44% 45% 42% 41% 52% 28% 42% 42% a a a a a a a a m 8% 13% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% An MP3 player/iPod 844 81 113 76 64 73 100 74 44 95 719 125 613 226 503 341 32% 24% 31% 33% 34% 31% 41% 33% 39% 32% 31% 35% 40% 20% 35% 28% a a abei a a m o 10% 13% 9% 8% 9% 12% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 73% 27% 60% 40% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 744 40 102 65 60 92 81 80 32 72 618 127 482 262 476 268 28% 12% 28% 29% 32% 39% 33% 35% 28% 24% 27% 35% 31% 23% 33% 22% a a a abchi ai ai a a j m o 5% 14% 9% 8% 12% 11% 11% 4% 10% 83% 17% 65% 35% 64% 36% A Blu Ray DVD player 661 40 78 80 53 67 74 63 33 84 554 107 463 195 407 255 25% 12% 22% 35% 28% 28% 30% 28% 29% 28% 24% 30% 30% 17% 28% 21% a ab a a ab a a a j m o 6% 12% 12% 8% 10% 11% 10% 5% 13% 84% 16% 70% 29% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 521 52 54 50 40 47 54 44 34 60 456 65 378 142 281 240 19% 15% 15% 22% 21% 20% 22% 20% 30% 20% 20% 18% 24% 13% 19% 19% abcdefgi m 10% 10% 10% 8% 9% 10% 8% 7% 12% 87% 13% 73% 27% 54% 46% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 145 24 17 12 10 10 21 11 6 15 122 23 113 32 81 64 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 3% 6% 5% e m 16% 12% 9% 7% 7% 15% 7% 4% 10% 84% 16% 78% 22% 56% 44% ANY DVD PLAYER 1791 153 236 163 135 161 195 170 87 203 1536 255 1084 698 1032 759 67% 45% 66% 72% 71% 68% 80% 75% 76% 67% 66% 71% 70% 63% 71% 62% a a a a abcdei ab abei a m o 9% 13% 9% 8% 9% 11% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 58% 42% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 44% 33% 41% 47% 47% 49% 48% 43% 47% 46% 44% 42% 54% 29% 44% 44% a a a a a a a a m 9% 13% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB1. SHOWCARD Which of the following do you, or does anyone in your household, have in your home at the moment? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None of these 531 143 60 32 29 48 17 34 19 65 478 53 252 278 233 298 20% 42% 17% 14% 16% 20% 7% 15% 17% 22% 21% 15% 16% 25% 16% 24% bcdefghi f f f f f f cf k l n 27% 11% 6% 6% 9% 3% 6% 4% 12% 90% 10% 48% 52% 44% 56% Don't know 6 3 - 1 1 - 1 * - - 5 1 1 5 3 4 *% 1% -% *% *% -% *% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% l 43% -% 12% 9% -% 13% 7% -% -% 85% 15% 17% 83% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% A standard DVD player 1239 600 639 141 177 444 478 147 130 163 304 355 314 283 286 1043 100 60 36 46% 46% 46% 39% 38% 48% 52% 46% 50% 45% 52% 50% 44% 49% 43% 47% 43% 46% 49% cd cd ln 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 12% 10% 13% 25% 29% 25% 23% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 578 348 230 184 190 173 30 61 45 77 154 132 169 135 141 474 60 27 17 22% 27% 17% 51% 41% 19% 3% 19% 17% 22% 26% 19% 23% 23% 21% 21% 26% 20% 23% b def ef f gh k 60% 40% 32% 33% 30% 5% 11% 8% 13% 27% 23% 29% 23% 24% 82% 10% 5% 3% An MP3 player/iPod 543 284 260 112 133 216 82 39 40 74 197 190 161 100 93 472 41 27 3 20% 22% 19% 31% 28% 24% 9% 12% 15% 21% 34% 27% 22% 17% 14% 21% 18% 20% 4% ef f f g ghi mn mn r r r 52% 48% 21% 25% 40% 15% 7% 7% 14% 36% 35% 30% 18% 17% 87% 8% 5% 1% A Blu Ray DVD player 516 286 230 74 104 213 124 28 41 71 173 164 150 117 85 447 38 24 8 19% 22% 17% 20% 22% 23% 13% 9% 16% 20% 30% 23% 21% 20% 13% 20% 16% 18% 10% b f f f g g ghi n n n r r r 55% 45% 14% 20% 41% 24% 5% 8% 14% 34% 32% 29% 23% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 495 189 306 51 84 197 163 30 32 71 168 180 155 100 59 420 34 29 11 18% 15% 22% 14% 18% 21% 18% 10% 12% 20% 29% 25% 22% 17% 9% 19% 15% 22% 15% a cf gh ghi mn n n pr 38% 62% 10% 17% 40% 33% 6% 6% 14% 34% 36% 31% 20% 12% 85% 7% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 185 103 82 64 59 55 7 17 19 23 51 46 51 43 45 152 18 12 3 7% 8% 6% 18% 13% 6% 1% 5% 7% 6% 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 4% ef ef f r r r 56% 44% 35% 32% 30% 4% 9% 10% 12% 27% 25% 28% 23% 25% 82% 10% 7% 1% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 83 53 29 17 18 37 11 9 4 9 30 28 30 9 16 69 6 6 1 3% 4% 2% 5% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% b f f f h m m r 65% 35% 21% 21% 45% 13% 11% 5% 11% 36% 34% 36% 11% 19% 84% 8% 7% 1% ANY DVD PLAYER 1517 750 767 179 244 552 542 158 151 204 396 444 394 346 332 1277 124 74 42 57% 58% 56% 49% 52% 60% 58% 50% 58% 57% 68% 62% 55% 60% 50% 57% 53% 56% 57% cd cd g ghi ln n 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 36% 10% 10% 13% 26% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 607 356 251 191 193 189 34 64 48 83 165 143 173 141 149 499 62 28 17 23% 27% 18% 52% 41% 21% 4% 20% 18% 23% 28% 20% 24% 24% 23% 22% 27% 21% 23% b def ef f gh 59% 41% 31% 32% 31% 6% 10% 8% 14% 27% 24% 29% 23% 25% 82% 10% 5% 3% None of these 762 345 417 70 135 236 321 116 72 103 102 175 196 149 240 632 70 38 21 28% 27% 30% 19% 29% 26% 35% 37% 28% 29% 17% 25% 27% 26% 36% 28% 30% 29% 29% a c c cde hij j j klm 45% 55% 9% 18% 31% 42% 15% 9% 13% 13% 23% 26% 20% 32% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 12 7 5 1 * 2 8 2 2 - - * 4 1 5 10 1 * 1 *% 1% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% 1% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% j 59% 41% 9% 2% 21% 68% 20% 21% -% -% 4% 38% 12% 46% 84% 7% 4% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% A standard DVD player 1239 104 173 110 93 110 143 123 62 125 1058 182 713 521 723 516 46% 31% 48% 48% 49% 47% 58% 54% 55% 41% 46% 51% 46% 47% 50% 42% a a a a abcdei ai ai a o 8% 14% 9% 7% 9% 12% 10% 5% 10% 85% 15% 58% 42% 58% 42% Video games console connected to a TV (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii or Microsoft Xbox) 578 53 81 49 43 61 60 47 24 55 509 68 402 175 293 285 22% 16% 23% 22% 23% 26% 25% 21% 21% 18% 22% 19% 26% 16% 20% 23% a a m 9% 14% 8% 7% 11% 10% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 70% 30% 51% 49% An MP3 player/iPod 543 54 81 48 42 37 73 56 28 53 465 79 395 146 328 216 20% 16% 22% 21% 22% 16% 30% 25% 24% 18% 20% 22% 25% 13% 23% 18% acei ae ae m o 10% 15% 9% 8% 7% 13% 10% 5% 10% 86% 14% 73% 27% 60% 40% A Blu Ray DVD player 516 36 67 68 41 52 51 47 29 54 434 82 359 154 320 197 19% 11% 19% 30% 22% 22% 21% 21% 26% 18% 19% 23% 23% 14% 22% 16% a abdefgi a a a a a a j m o 7% 13% 13% 8% 10% 10% 9% 6% 11% 84% 16% 69% 30% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb2. Showcard And Do You Personally Use...? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% E-reader - digital book reader (e.g. Kindle, Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, Nook eReader) 495 28 69 48 43 50 54 55 23 51 407 88 325 169 319 176 18% 8% 19% 21% 23% 21% 22% 24% 20% 17% 18% 25% 21% 15% 22% 14% a a a a a ai a a j m o 6% 14% 10% 9% 10% 11% 11% 5% 10% 82% 18% 66% 34% 65% 35% Handheld/ portable games player (e.g. Nintendo DS, Sony PSP) 185 17 20 22 16 14 17 17 11 19 167 18 130 55 91 93 7% 5% 6% 9% 9% 6% 7% 7% 10% 6% 7% 5% 8% 5% 6% 8% a m 9% 11% 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 6% 10% 90% 10% 70% 30% 49% 51% A smart watch - a wearable computer that may be compatible with a smartphone. Brands include Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung and Sony 83 17 9 9 8 5 6 4 3 9 68 14 64 18 41 41 3% 5% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 3% g m 21% 10% 11% 9% 6% 7% 4% 4% 11% 83% 17% 78% 22% 50% 50% ANY DVD PLAYER 1517 131 206 141 110 140 162 152 79 156 1300 218 907 602 879 638 57% 39% 57% 62% 59% 59% 66% 67% 69% 52% 56% 60% 58% 54% 61% 52% a ai a a ai abdi abdei a m o 9% 14% 9% 7% 9% 11% 10% 5% 10% 86% 14% 60% 40% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB2. SHOWCARD And do you personally use...? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% ANY GAMES CONSOLE 607 57 85 52 43 63 64 51 25 59 534 73 422 184 310 297 23% 17% 24% 23% 23% 26% 26% 22% 22% 20% 23% 20% 27% 17% 21% 24% a a m 9% 14% 9% 7% 10% 11% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 70% 30% 51% 49% None of these 762 162 87 52 48 64 37 50 25 108 678 84 391 369 371 391 28% 48% 24% 23% 25% 27% 15% 22% 22% 36% 29% 23% 25% 33% 26% 32% bcdefghi f f f f bcdefgh k l n 21% 11% 7% 6% 8% 5% 7% 3% 14% 89% 11% 51% 48% 49% 51% Don't know 12 3 - 1 1 4 1 * - - 10 2 3 9 4 8 *% 1% -% 1% *% 2% *% *% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% l 24% -% 13% 5% 31% 7% 4% -% -% 82% 18% 22% 78% 35% 65% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Nintendo Wii/ Wii U 362 147 214 68 79 167 47 29 31 57 121 108 111 76 66 310 19 25 8 31% 27% 34% 28% 27% 32% 40% 26% 30% 34% 37% 37% 34% 26% 25% 32% 19% 41% 24% a cd g mn mn p opr 41% 59% 19% 22% 46% 13% 8% 9% 16% 33% 30% 31% 21% 18% 86% 5% 7% 2% XBox 360 339 160 180 72 82 157 28 36 36 49 86 85 82 93 78 270 38 22 9 29% 29% 29% 29% 28% 30% 24% 32% 34% 29% 26% 29% 25% 32% 29% 28% 37% 36% 28% o o 47% 53% 21% 24% 46% 8% 11% 11% 15% 25% 25% 24% 27% 23% 80% 11% 6% 3% PlayStation 3 276 133 143 64 77 114 20 28 27 32 86 69 73 73 61 239 14 17 5 23% 24% 23% 26% 27% 22% 17% 26% 25% 19% 26% 23% 22% 25% 23% 24% 14% 29% 15% f pr pr 48% 52% 23% 28% 41% 7% 10% 10% 12% 31% 25% 26% 26% 22% 87% 5% 6% 2% PlayStation 4 265 131 134 68 63 120 14 14 19 32 85 63 76 73 52 210 30 13 12 23% 24% 21% 28% 22% 23% 12% 13% 18% 19% 26% 22% 23% 25% 19% 21% 29% 21% 37% f f f g oq 50% 50% 26% 24% 45% 5% 5% 7% 12% 32% 24% 29% 28% 20% 79% 11% 5% 4% Nintendo DS/ DSi/ DS Lite/ 3DS 264 103 161 56 63 121 24 25 27 39 71 58 82 69 55 221 19 20 4 22% 19% 26% 23% 22% 23% 20% 23% 25% 23% 22% 20% 25% 24% 21% 23% 18% 33% 13% a r opr 39% 61% 21% 24% 46% 9% 10% 10% 15% 27% 22% 31% 26% 21% 84% 7% 8% 2% XBox One 171 92 79 44 45 70 12 13 12 29 47 28 53 43 47 149 11 7 3 15% 17% 13% 18% 16% 13% 10% 12% 12% 17% 14% 10% 16% 15% 18% 15% 10% 12% 10% f k k 54% 46% 26% 27% 41% 7% 8% 7% 17% 28% 16% 31% 25% 28% 88% 6% 4% 2% PlayStation 2 123 55 68 39 29 36 19 11 16 21 29 24 26 33 41 96 12 13 3 10% 10% 11% 16% 10% 7% 16% 10% 15% 12% 9% 8% 8% 11% 15% 10% 12% 21% 8% de e kl opr 45% 55% 32% 24% 29% 15% 9% 13% 17% 24% 19% 21% 27% 33% 78% 10% 10% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% XBox 78 36 42 14 13 43 9 6 13 9 18 19 19 25 16 69 3 3 4 7% 7% 7% 6% 4% 8% 8% 6% 12% 5% 6% 6% 6% 9% 6% 7% 3% 5% 13% d ij p opq 46% 54% 17% 16% 55% 12% 8% 16% 11% 23% 24% 24% 32% 20% 88% 3% 3% 6% PlayStation Portable (PSP)/ PlayStation Vita 62 38 24 13 14 31 4 9 7 11 9 12 11 18 21 51 6 4 1 5% 7% 4% 5% 5% 6% 3% 8% 7% 6% 3% 4% 3% 6% 8% 5% 5% 7% 2% b j l r 61% 39% 21% 22% 50% 7% 14% 12% 17% 15% 20% 17% 29% 34% 83% 9% 7% 1% Other 13 9 4 2 2 9 - 1 1 4 2 2 2 4 4 10 1 1 * 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 69% 31% 15% 15% 70% -% 4% 5% 28% 19% 15% 19% 32% 34% 81% 10% 4% 4% PS3/ PS4/ Wii/ XBox 360/ XBox/ XBox One 1077 512 565 232 270 474 101 102 95 152 310 273 291 268 244 900 91 55 30 92% 92% 91% 94% 93% 91% 85% 92% 91% 90% 94% 93% 90% 93% 91% 92% 88% 92% 93% f f f 48% 52% 22% 25% 44% 9% 10% 9% 14% 29% 25% 27% 25% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% DS/ PSP/ PORTABLE CONSOLE 297 127 170 64 69 139 26 31 28 46 77 66 87 78 66 249 23 21 4 25% 23% 27% 26% 24% 27% 22% 28% 27% 27% 23% 23% 27% 27% 25% 25% 22% 35% 14% r opr 43% 57% 21% 23% 47% 9% 11% 10% 16% 26% 22% 29% 26% 22% 84% 8% 7% 1% Don't know 46 16 30 8 6 19 14 2 5 5 10 16 14 8 9 35 7 3 1 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 12% 2% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 5% 4% cde 35% 65% 18% 12% 40% 30% 5% 10% 12% 21% 34% 30% 16% 20% 74% 16% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Nintendo Wii/ Wii U 362 ** ** 45 34 23 42 33 17 35 312 49 255 103 209 152 31% ** ** 41% 38% 20% 36% 34% 31% 25% 31% 32% 30% 31% 33% 28% ei ei e e ** ** 12% 9% 6% 12% 9% 5% 10% 86% 14% 71% 28% 58% 42% XBox 360 339 ** ** 40 32 27 32 29 16 43 293 47 247 90 182 158 29% ** ** 37% 36% 24% 27% 30% 30% 31% 29% 31% 29% 28% 29% 29% e ** ** 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 5% 13% 86% 14% 73% 26% 54% 46% PlayStation 3 276 ** ** 34 18 28 27 17 13 26 238 38 195 78 146 129 23% ** ** 31% 20% 24% 23% 17% 25% 19% 23% 25% 23% 24% 23% 24% gi ** ** 12% 7% 10% 10% 6% 5% 9% 86% 14% 71% 28% 53% 47% PlayStation 4 265 ** ** 23 26 30 17 20 11 31 233 32 193 71 136 129 23% ** ** 22% 29% 26% 14% 21% 21% 22% 23% 21% 23% 22% 21% 24% f f ** ** 9% 10% 11% 6% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 73% 27% 51% 49% Nintendo DS/ DSi/ DS Lite/ 3DS 264 ** ** 23 22 18 25 19 15 44 231 33 185 77 152 112 22% ** ** 22% 25% 15% 21% 20% 27% 32% 23% 22% 22% 24% 24% 21% e e ** ** 9% 8% 7% 9% 7% 6% 17% 88% 12% 70% 29% 58% 42% XBox One 171 ** ** 12 17 26 12 19 20 15 148 22 123 47 85 86 15% ** ** 11% 20% 23% 10% 20% 38% 11% 14% 15% 15% 15% 13% 16% cfi f cdefgi ** ** 7% 10% 15% 7% 11% 12% 9% 87% 13% 72% 28% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% PlayStation 2 123 ** ** 14 12 14 14 11 7 6 108 15 84 38 71 52 10% ** ** 13% 13% 12% 12% 11% 13% 4% 11% 10% 10% 12% 11% 10% i i i i ** ** 11% 9% 11% 11% 9% 6% 5% 88% 12% 68% 31% 57% 43% XBox 78 ** ** 8 4 13 16 5 3 8 62 17 54 23 41 38 7% ** ** 8% 4% 12% 13% 6% 5% 6% 6% 11% 6% 7% 6% 7% d dh j ** ** 11% 5% 17% 20% 7% 3% 11% 79% 21% 69% 30% 52% 48% PlayStation Portable (PSP)/ PlayStation Vita 62 ** ** 5 6 2 3 9 2 15 54 7 47 14 31 31 5% ** ** 4% 6% 2% 3% 9% 3% 11% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 6% ef efh ** ** 8% 9% 3% 5% 15% 3% 24% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% Other 13 ** ** 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10 2 7 5 9 3 1% ** ** 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% ** ** 6% 5% 6% 19% 18% 6% 14% 82% 18% 58% 42% 75% 25% PS3/ PS4/ Wii/ XBox 360/ XBox/ XBox One 1077 ** ** 98 86 111 112 87 52 121 939 138 770 302 567 509 92% ** ** 91% 96% 96% 95% 89% 96% 87% 92% 90% 91% 92% 90% 93% i i i i n ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 11% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% DS/ PSP/ PORTABLE CONSOLE 297 ** ** 24 27 19 26 22 16 53 260 37 212 85 173 125 25% ** ** 22% 31% 17% 22% 23% 29% 38% 25% 25% 25% 26% 27% 23% e e cefg ** ** 8% 9% 6% 9% 7% 5% 18% 87% 13% 71% 28% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb3 (Qb4). Showcard Which Games Console/S Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have At The Moment? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Don't know 46 ** ** 8 1 2 3 5 1 3 38 8 33 13 32 14 4% ** ** 7% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3% d o ** ** 16% 3% 5% 6% 11% 3% 6% 82% 18% 71% 27% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Online gaming 421 252 169 137 103 163 18 41 28 55 115 89 117 109 106 340 43 23 15 36% 46% 27% 56% 36% 31% 15% 37% 27% 33% 35% 30% 36% 38% 40% 35% 42% 38% 45% b def f f k o 60% 40% 33% 24% 39% 4% 10% 7% 13% 27% 21% 28% 26% 25% 81% 10% 5% 3% Watching DVDs/ Blu Ray DVDs 260 145 115 77 80 94 10 26 17 43 80 65 72 69 55 220 20 16 4 22% 26% 19% 31% 27% 18% 8% 24% 16% 25% 24% 22% 22% 24% 20% 22% 19% 27% 14% b ef ef f r r 56% 44% 29% 31% 36% 4% 10% 6% 16% 31% 25% 28% 26% 21% 84% 8% 6% 2% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go 249 136 113 85 69 84 10 23 20 31 83 64 73 54 58 218 16 12 3 21% 25% 18% 35% 24% 16% 9% 21% 19% 19% 25% 22% 22% 19% 22% 22% 15% 21% 8% b def ef f r r 55% 45% 34% 28% 34% 4% 9% 8% 13% 33% 26% 29% 22% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Browsing the web/ internet 192 103 89 63 54 67 8 17 15 27 66 41 55 48 48 159 18 11 4 16% 19% 14% 26% 19% 13% 7% 15% 15% 16% 20% 14% 17% 17% 18% 16% 17% 18% 13% ef ef f 54% 46% 33% 28% 35% 4% 9% 8% 14% 34% 21% 29% 25% 25% 83% 9% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. Playstation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. LoveFilm Instant, Netflix) 163 90 73 56 41 61 4 18 10 24 54 47 39 40 36 135 11 9 7 14% 16% 12% 23% 14% 12% 4% 16% 9% 14% 16% 16% 12% 14% 13% 14% 11% 16% 22% b def f f op 55% 45% 34% 25% 38% 3% 11% 6% 15% 33% 29% 24% 24% 22% 83% 7% 6% 4% Watching short video clips online (e.g. YouTube or Dailymotion) 153 92 61 64 27 58 4 14 13 21 52 35 45 39 34 134 11 8 1 13% 17% 10% 26% 9% 11% 4% 13% 12% 12% 16% 12% 14% 14% 13% 14% 10% 13% 4% b def f r r 60% 40% 42% 17% 38% 3% 9% 9% 13% 34% 23% 29% 26% 22% 87% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube or on other sites e.g. Vimeo, South Park Studios) 116 59 57 44 30 39 3 11 7 19 29 30 32 33 21 105 5 5 1 10% 11% 9% 18% 10% 8% 3% 10% 6% 11% 9% 10% 10% 12% 8% 11% 4% 9% 3% def f pr 50% 50% 38% 26% 34% 3% 9% 6% 16% 25% 26% 27% 29% 18% 91% 4% 4% 1% Watching 'live' TV programmes/ content via your internet connection 66 39 27 25 14 22 4 4 4 10 21 18 16 19 13 58 4 3 * 6% 7% 4% 10% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 7% 5% 6% 4% 6% *% b def r r r 60% 40% 38% 21% 34% 6% 7% 6% 15% 32% 27% 24% 29% 20% 88% 7% 5% *% Other 25 11 14 3 5 11 5 2 3 3 9 7 7 5 6 18 5 2 * 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 1% c or 44% 56% 11% 21% 46% 22% 9% 12% 11% 35% 29% 27% 21% 23% 73% 20% 6% 1% WATCHING VIDEO CONTENT 431 226 204 128 123 164 16 45 34 71 130 108 122 101 100 367 30 23 11 37% 41% 33% 52% 43% 31% 14% 40% 33% 42% 39% 37% 38% 35% 37% 37% 29% 38% 34% b def ef f 53% 47% 30% 29% 38% 4% 10% 8% 16% 30% 25% 28% 23% 23% 85% 7% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1581 755 826 355 374 680 172 190 153 209 345 326 479 368 407 966 207 203 205 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 517 574 235 262 472 124 131 106 151 264 240 332 254 274 835 130 124 158 Total 1176 554 622 246 290 520 119 111 105 169 329 293 324 289 268 979 104 60 33 47% 53% 21% 25% 44% 10% 9% 9% 14% 28% 25% 28% 25% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% IPTV 351 183 168 113 99 125 13 33 28 56 105 86 101 83 80 300 24 18 9 30% 33% 27% 46% 34% 24% 11% 30% 27% 33% 32% 29% 31% 29% 30% 31% 23% 29% 28% b def ef f 52% 48% 32% 28% 36% 4% 10% 8% 16% 30% 25% 29% 24% 23% 86% 7% 5% 3% None of these 501 200 301 64 112 250 76 48 53 72 127 125 139 124 113 422 42 26 12 43% 36% 48% 26% 39% 48% 63% 43% 51% 42% 39% 42% 43% 43% 42% 43% 40% 43% 36% a c cd cde j 40% 60% 13% 22% 50% 15% 9% 11% 14% 25% 25% 28% 25% 22% 84% 8% 5% 2% Don't know 39 12 27 5 4 22 8 1 * 5 18 17 10 8 4 33 1 2 3 3% 2% 4% 2% 1% 4% 7% *% *% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 9% a d cd gh n op 31% 69% 12% 9% 58% 21% 1% 1% 12% 46% 45% 27% 19% 9% 84% 3% 5% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Online gaming 421 ** ** 38 34 47 39 40 22 38 373 48 301 118 205 216 36% ** ** 35% 39% 41% 33% 41% 40% 27% 36% 31% 36% 36% 33% 40% i i i n ** ** 9% 8% 11% 9% 9% 5% 9% 89% 11% 71% 28% 49% 51% Watching DVDs/ Blu Ray DVDs 260 ** ** 25 19 32 33 26 10 23 218 42 188 72 147 114 22% ** ** 23% 22% 28% 28% 27% 19% 16% 21% 28% 22% 22% 23% 21% i i ** ** 10% 7% 12% 13% 10% 4% 9% 84% 16% 72% 28% 56% 44% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go 249 ** ** 23 24 26 36 24 10 28 211 38 181 66 132 116 21% ** ** 22% 27% 23% 31% 25% 18% 20% 21% 25% 22% 20% 21% 21% h ** ** 9% 10% 11% 15% 10% 4% 11% 85% 15% 73% 27% 53% 47% Browsing the web/ internet 192 ** ** 16 11 20 21 22 8 18 164 28 146 45 89 103 16% ** ** 14% 12% 17% 18% 23% 15% 13% 16% 18% 17% 14% 14% 19% d n ** ** 8% 6% 10% 11% 12% 4% 10% 85% 15% 76% 23% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. Playstation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. LoveFilm Instant, Netflix) 163 ** ** 16 11 27 23 10 4 25 135 28 120 41 85 78 14% ** ** 15% 13% 24% 19% 10% 8% 18% 13% 18% 14% 13% 13% 14% dgh h h ** ** 10% 7% 17% 14% 6% 3% 15% 83% 17% 74% 25% 52% 48% Watching short video clips online (e.g. YouTube or Dailymotion) 153 ** ** 13 8 16 22 16 5 18 131 22 107 46 78 75 13% ** ** 12% 9% 14% 18% 16% 8% 12% 13% 14% 13% 14% 12% 14% dh ** ** 9% 5% 10% 14% 10% 3% 11% 86% 14% 70% 30% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb4 (Qb5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use Your Games Console For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube or on other sites e.g. Vimeo, South Park Studios) 116 ** ** 10 8 15 17 8 4 13 102 14 80 36 56 60 10% ** ** 9% 9% 13% 15% 9% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 11% 9% 11% ** ** 9% 7% 13% 15% 7% 4% 12% 88% 12% 69% 31% 48% 52% Watching 'live' TV programmes/ content via your internet connection 66 ** ** 7 6 14 10 7 2 4 54 12 49 17 35 31 6% ** ** 7% 7% 12% 9% 7% 4% 3% 5% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% hi ** ** 11% 9% 22% 16% 11% 4% 6% 82% 18% 74% 26% 53% 47% Other 25 ** ** 4 3 3 2 3 1 - 23 2 15 10 8 17 2% ** ** 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% i n ** ** 15% 13% 14% 8% 12% 3% -% 92% 8% 59% 41% 31% 69% WATCHING VIDEO CONTENT 431 ** ** 30 35 50 56 35 16 50 370 61 311 118 219 212 37% ** ** 27% 39% 43% 48% 36% 29% 35% 36% 40% 37% 36% 35% 39% ch ch ** ** 7% 8% 12% 13% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QB4 (QB5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use your games console for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who have access to a games console at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1581 85 99 112 115 117 110 101 113 114 1171 410 1020 554 741 840 Effective Weighted Sample 1090 75 94 108 107 109 105 94 105 105 918 183 726 376 518 593 Total 1176 110 149 108 89 115 117 97 54 140 1024 152 843 327 631 545 ** ** 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 5% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 54% 46% IPTV 351 ** ** 26 29 40 49 28 12 42 302 49 254 95 173 178 30% ** ** 24% 33% 35% 42% 29% 23% 30% 29% 32% 30% 29% 27% 33% ch ** ** 7% 8% 11% 14% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 49% 51% None of these 501 ** ** 53 36 45 43 37 25 76 438 63 357 140 282 219 43% ** ** 49% 40% 39% 37% 38% 46% 54% 43% 42% 42% 43% 45% 40% defg ** ** 11% 7% 9% 9% 7% 5% 15% 87% 13% 71% 28% 56% 44% Don't know 39 ** ** 4 2 2 4 5 3 1 33 6 30 9 27 12 3% ** ** 4% 3% 2% 3% 5% 6% 1% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% i o ** ** 11% 6% 5% 10% 14% 8% 3% 84% 16% 76% 24% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | ~c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 668 | 249 | 419 | 69 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 466 | 179 | 288 | 45 | | Total | 495 | 189 | 306 | 51 | | 38% | 62% | ** | 17% | 40% | | Yes | 181 | 68 | 113 | ** | | 36% | 36% | 37% | ** | 39% | | 38% | 62% | ** | 18% | 39% | | No | 279 | 110 | 169 | ** | | 56% | 58% | 55% | ** | 54% | | q | | | | | | 39% | 61% | ** | 16% | 41% | | Don't know | 36 | 11 | 24 | ** | | 7% | 6% | 8% | ** | 7% | | 32% | 68% | ** | 16% | 37% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qb5 (Qb6) Does Your Household'S E-Reader (Digital Book Reader) Have Built-In 3G Or 4G Access To A Mobile Network? This Means That Books Can Be Purchased Online And Downloaded From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? Base : Those who personally use an e-reader/ digital book reader ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 668 20 46 52 55 48 51 55 48 41 467 201 387 280 378 290 Effective Weighted Sample 466 18 43 50 53 46 49 52 44 38 368 103 279 195 275 200 Total 495 28 69 48 43 50 54 55 23 51 407 88 325 169 319 176 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 82% 18% 66% 34% 65% 35% Yes 181 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 139 41 115 66 116 64 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 34% 47% 35% 39% 36% 37% j ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 77% 23% 64% 36% 64% 36% No 279 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 238 41 187 90 178 101 56% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 58% 46% 58% 53% 56% 57% k ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 67% 32% 64% 36% Don't know 36 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 30 6 23 13 25 11 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 64% 36% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc1. Is There A Landline Phone In Your Home That Can Be Used To Make And Receive Calls? (Single Code) Prompted Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Can use to make and receive calls 2220 1075 1146 247 317 791 866 212 210 295 532 653 588 496 483 1853 197 109 62 83% 83% 83% 68% 68% 86% 93% 67% 81% 82% 91% 92% 82% 86% 73% 83% 84% 83% 84% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Can receive but not make calls/ incoming only 42 19 23 13 18 10 1 3 3 6 10 10 20 6 7 38 3 1 1 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% ef ef f mn 46% 54% 30% 43% 24% 3% 6% 7% 15% 23% 23% 46% 13% 16% 89% 7% 2% 2% Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired 28 14 14 8 6 12 2 8 2 6 5 5 9 7 7 24 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% f f f 50% 50% 28% 21% 43% 8% 27% 7% 21% 18% 19% 33% 23% 25% 84% 5% 9% 3% No, do not have landline phone 382 191 191 95 127 102 58 95 45 51 37 44 103 72 163 320 32 20 10 14% 15% 14% 26% 27% 11% 6% 30% 17% 14% 6% 6% 14% 12% 25% 14% 14% 15% 14% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 50% 50% 25% 33% 27% 15% 25% 12% 13% 10% 11% 27% 19% 43% 84% 8% 5% 3% Don't know 2 1 1 2 * - - - 1 - - * - * 2 2 - * * *% *% *% 1% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% *% ef 59% 41% 96% 4% -% -% -% 37% -% -% 4% -% 4% 93% 93% -% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY 115 56 59 2 7 8 98 31 7 7 4 26 17 22 50 93 12 6 5 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 11% 10% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 7% cde hij j klm o 48% 52% 2% 6% 7% 85% 27% 6% 6% 3% 22% 15% 19% 44% 80% 10% 5% 4% FIXED & MOBILE 2176 1052 1123 265 335 805 771 191 208 300 543 642 599 487 446 1821 189 106 59 81% 81% 82% 73% 71% 88% 83% 60% 80% 84% 93% 90% 83% 84% 67% 81% 81% 81% 80% cdf cd g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 37% 35% 9% 10% 14% 25% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% MOBILE ONLY 379 188 191 97 126 100 56 92 45 51 37 44 103 72 159 318 31 19 10 14% 14% 14% 27% 27% 11% 6% 29% 17% 14% 6% 6% 14% 12% 24% 14% 13% 15% 13% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 50% 50% 26% 33% 26% 15% 24% 12% 13% 10% 12% 27% 19% 42% 84% 8% 5% 3% ALL FIXED 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 86% 85% 86% 73% 73% 89% 94% 70% 83% 86% 94% 94% 86% 88% 75% 86% 86% 85% 86% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% ALL MOBILE 2554 1240 1314 362 460 905 827 284 253 351 579 686 703 558 605 2139 221 126 69 95% 95% 96% 99% 98% 99% 89% 89% 97% 98% 99% 96% 98% 96% 92% 96% 95% 95% 93% f f f g g gh n n n r 49% 51% 14% 18% 35% 32% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% NEITHER 5 4 1 * 1 2 2 3 - - - * - * 5 4 1 * * *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% -% -% -% *% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j klm 76% 24% 1% 22% 41% 35% 57% -% -% -% 1% -% 2% 97% 74% 12% 8% 5% MOBILE ONLY NO FIXED BROADBAND 255 124 131 56 82 69 48 77 34 33 18 22 64 47 122 214 21 14 7 10% 10% 10% 15% 18% 7% 5% 24% 13% 9% 3% 3% 9% 8% 18% 10% 9% 10% 9% ef ef f hij j j k k klm 48% 52% 22% 32% 27% 19% 30% 13% 13% 7% 9% 25% 18% 48% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Can use to make and receive calls 2220 253 328 202 164 190 204 184 88 239 1894 326 1282 931 1270 951 83% 75% 91% 89% 87% 80% 83% 82% 78% 79% 82% 91% 83% 84% 88% 77% aefghi aeghi ahi a j o 11% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% Can receive but not make calls/ incoming only 42 24 1 1 1 2 3 - 3 3 39 3 32 11 13 29 2% 7% *% *% 1% 1% 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdefghi g m n 57% 3% 2% 3% 4% 8% -% 7% 6% 92% 8% 75% 25% 31% 69% Line not working properly/ needs to be repaired 28 2 5 1 2 3 3 1 1 5 28 1 20 8 15 13 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% k 8% 18% 3% 8% 12% 11% 3% 2% 18% 98% 2% 72% 28% 54% 46% No, do not have landline phone 382 59 25 22 22 41 34 40 22 54 353 29 218 162 145 237 14% 18% 7% 10% 12% 17% 14% 18% 20% 18% 15% 8% 14% 15% 10% 19% bc bc b bc bcd bc k n 16% 7% 6% 6% 11% 9% 11% 6% 14% 92% 8% 57% 42% 38% 62% Don't know 2 - - 1 - - - - - 1 2 * * 2 * 2 *% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 37% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 93% 7% 4% 96% 4% 96% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC1. Is there a landline phone in your home that can be used to make and receive calls? (SINGLE CODE) PROMPTED Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 HOUSEHOLD PHONE OWNERSHIP FIXED ONLY 115 15 16 9 12 11 5 6 8 10 103 13 20 95 59 56 4% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 3% 7% 3% 4% 3% 1% 9% 4% 5% f fg l 13% 14% 8% 10% 10% 4% 5% 6% 9% 89% 11% 17% 83% 51% 49% FIXED & MOBILE 2176 264 318 195 155 184 206 179 84 237 1858 318 1314 854 1239 937 81% 78% 88% 86% 82% 78% 84% 79% 74% 78% 80% 88% 85% 77% 86% 76% aeghi aehi h h j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 60% 39% 57% 43% MOBILE ONLY 379 59 25 22 22 41 34 37 22 55 349 29 216 161 145 234 14% 18% 7% 10% 12% 17% 14% 17% 20% 18% 15% 8% 14% 14% 10% 19% bc bc b bc bcd bcd k n 16% 7% 6% 6% 11% 9% 10% 6% 14% 92% 8% 57% 43% 38% 62% ALL FIXED 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 86% 82% 93% 90% 88% 83% 86% 82% 80% 82% 85% 92% 86% 85% 90% 81% aefghi aeghi hi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% ALL MOBILE 2554 323 342 217 177 226 240 216 106 291 2207 347 1530 1015 1384 1170 95% 96% 95% 96% 94% 95% 98% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 99% 91% 96% 95% dh m 13% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 60% 40% 54% 46% NEITHER 5 - - 1 - - - 3 - - 5 * 2 3 * 5 *% -% -% *% -% -% -% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% n -% -% 14% -% -% -% 60% -% -% 97% 3% 30% 62% 6% 94% MOBILE ONLY NO FIXED BROADBAND 255 51 6 15 15 31 15 29 17 37 236 19 138 116 99 156 10% 15% 2% 7% 8% 13% 6% 13% 15% 12% 10% 5% 9% 10% 7% 13% bcdf b b bcf b bcf bcdf bcf k n 20% 2% 6% 6% 12% 6% 11% 7% 14% 93% 7% 54% 46% 39% 61% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes to make calls 2001 963 1038 201 253 709 838 182 188 262 481 617 521 440 423 1687 166 98 51 87% 87% 88% 75% 74% 87% 96% 82% 87% 85% 88% 92% 84% 86% 85% 88% 82% 87% 79% cd cde g lmn pr r 48% 52% 10% 13% 35% 42% 9% 9% 13% 24% 31% 26% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Yes to receive calls 2038 991 1048 215 270 722 832 182 194 271 491 626 545 443 421 1731 158 98 52 89% 89% 89% 80% 79% 89% 96% 82% 90% 88% 90% 94% 88% 87% 85% 90% 79% 87% 81% cd cde g g g lmn pr p 49% 51% 11% 13% 35% 41% 9% 10% 13% 24% 31% 27% 22% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Yes for internet access 1669 803 865 220 281 654 513 129 145 234 466 516 462 381 310 1412 121 84 50 73% 72% 73% 82% 82% 81% 59% 58% 68% 76% 85% 77% 75% 75% 62% 74% 60% 75% 79% f f f g gh ghi n n n p p op 48% 52% 13% 17% 39% 31% 8% 9% 14% 28% 31% 28% 23% 19% 85% 7% 5% 3% TOTAL PERSONALLY USE 2222 1074 1148 248 326 789 859 211 207 300 530 653 600 489 478 1857 193 111 62 97% 97% 97% 93% 95% 97% 99% 95% 96% 97% 97% 98% 97% 96% 96% 97% 96% 98% 97% c cde 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% No do not use landline at home 64 29 34 19 16 21 7 9 8 7 16 11 17 19 17 52 8 2 2 3% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 1% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% ef f f 46% 54% 30% 24% 34% 12% 13% 13% 11% 25% 18% 26% 29% 26% 81% 13% 3% 3% Don't know 6 5 1 - * 2 3 2 - 1 1 3 * 1 2 5 - - * *% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% *% 87% 13% -% *% 43% 56% 32% -% 13% 14% 55% *% 13% 32% 97% -% -% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc2 (Qc2A). Do You Ever Use This Landline Phone At Home Yourself To Make And/Or Receive Calls, For Internet Access Or Both? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Yes to make calls 2001 243 295 187 143 174 190 170 74 211 1697 304 1125 870 1157 844 87% 87% 88% 92% 85% 89% 90% 92% 81% 85% 87% 92% 84% 92% 89% 85% h dhi h h dh j l o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 56% 43% 58% 42% Yes to receive calls 2038 271 300 191 145 172 191 173 79 209 1738 300 1163 870 1172 866 89% 97% 90% 94% 87% 88% 90% 93% 86% 85% 89% 91% 87% 92% 90% 87% bdefhi dehi dhi l o 13% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 57% 43% 58% 42% Yes for internet access 1669 235 244 174 115 125 165 145 52 156 1424 245 1074 590 949 720 73% 84% 73% 86% 69% 64% 78% 78% 57% 63% 73% 74% 81% 62% 73% 72% bdehi ehi bdehi h dehi dehi m 14% 15% 10% 7% 7% 10% 9% 3% 9% 85% 15% 64% 35% 57% 43% TOTAL PERSONALLY USE 2222 276 322 200 160 183 209 184 90 231 1898 324 1290 925 1257 964 97% 99% 96% 98% 96% 94% 99% 100% 99% 94% 97% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% ei ei bdei bdei ei 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% No do not use landline at home 64 1 10 3 7 13 1 1 1 16 57 6 42 21 36 28 3% *% 3% 1% 4% 6% 1% *% 1% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% a afg acfgh acfgh 1% 16% 4% 10% 20% 2% 1% 2% 25% 90% 10% 65% 33% 56% 44% Don't know 6 2 2 1 1 - - - - - 6 - 2 3 5 1 *% 1% 1% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% 41% 32% 11% 13% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 44% 56% 85% 15% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc3 (Qc10). Thinking Of When You Use Your Landline, Which One Of These Uses Is The Most Important To You? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1958 917 1041 243 295 727 693 162 201 265 453 546 632 417 362 1234 220 261 243 Effective Weighted Sample 1366 650 716 162 193 516 502 120 134 191 338 405 429 301 243 1085 134 165 184 Total 1518 731 787 188 231 599 501 104 134 209 432 498 414 342 264 1308 96 73 41 48% 52% 12% 15% 39% 33% 7% 9% 14% 28% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 6% 5% 3% Make/ receive calls 221 103 118 17 15 65 123 20 35 27 40 71 58 45 46 188 15 12 6 15% 14% 15% 9% 7% 11% 25% 20% 26% 13% 9% 14% 14% 13% 17% 14% 16% 16% 14% cde j ij 47% 53% 8% 7% 30% 56% 9% 16% 12% 18% 32% 26% 21% 21% 85% 7% 5% 2% Internet access 685 331 354 113 136 293 144 43 39 118 220 225 193 159 108 589 43 33 20 45% 45% 45% 60% 59% 49% 29% 41% 29% 57% 51% 45% 46% 47% 41% 45% 45% 45% 49% ef ef f h gh h 48% 52% 16% 20% 43% 21% 6% 6% 17% 32% 33% 28% 23% 16% 86% 6% 5% 3% Both are equally important 612 297 315 58 80 240 233 40 59 64 171 201 163 137 110 531 37 28 15 40% 41% 40% 31% 35% 40% 47% 38% 44% 31% 40% 40% 39% 40% 42% 41% 39% 39% 38% c cde i i 48% 52% 10% 13% 39% 38% 7% 10% 10% 28% 33% 27% 22% 18% 87% 6% 5% 2% Don't know * - * - - - * * - - - - - - * * - - - *% -% *% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc3 (Qc10). Thinking Of When You Use Your Landline, Which One Of These Uses Is The Most Important To You? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their landline for internet access and to make or receive calls ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g ~h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1958 171 153 176 131 121 145 133 88 116 1404 554 1126 827 1058 900 Effective Weighted Sample 1366 153 145 169 124 113 138 127 82 108 1113 271 796 585 742 633 Total 1518 230 224 167 101 121 151 134 41 140 1290 228 962 552 881 637 15% 15% 11% 7% 8% 10% 9% ** 9% 85% 15% 63% 36% 58% 42% Make/ receive calls 221 20 47 21 17 15 26 21 ** 17 184 37 86 134 144 77 15% 9% 21% 13% 17% 13% 17% 16% ** 12% 14% 16% 9% 24% 16% 12% ac a a l o 9% 21% 9% 8% 7% 12% 10% ** 8% 83% 17% 39% 61% 65% 35% Internet access 685 75 108 80 29 51 80 83 ** 62 584 101 492 190 399 286 45% 33% 48% 48% 28% 42% 53% 62% ** 44% 45% 44% 51% 34% 45% 45% ad ad d ad abcdei d m 11% 16% 12% 4% 7% 12% 12% ** 9% 85% 15% 72% 28% 58% 42% Both are equally important 612 135 69 66 55 55 46 29 ** 61 521 91 384 228 339 274 40% 59% 31% 40% 55% 45% 30% 21% ** 44% 40% 40% 40% 41% 38% 43% bcefgi g bcfg bfg bfg 22% 11% 11% 9% 9% 7% 5% ** 10% 85% 15% 63% 37% 55% 45% Don't know * - - - - - - * ** - * - - * - * *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% ** -% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% ** -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc4 (Qc30). Showcard How Do You Pay The Line Rental For Your Landline Phone Service? Please Answer About Your Line Renatl Only And Not Charges For Calls And Other Costs. (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3060 1448 1612 337 414 997 1312 342 324 382 566 736 936 667 717 1827 410 394 429 Effective Weighted Sample 2069 982 1088 226 270 690 897 238 213 273 423 537 627 458 465 1580 257 247 312 Total 2220 1075 1146 247 317 791 866 212 210 295 532 653 588 496 483 1853 197 109 62 48% 52% 11% 14% 36% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% On a monthly or quarterly basis, alongside call charges and other costs 2004 978 1025 184 283 740 797 196 192 266 488 585 524 447 448 1656 189 102 56 90% 91% 89% 74% 89% 94% 92% 93% 91% 90% 92% 90% 89% 90% 93% 89% 96% 93% 91% c cd c l or 49% 51% 9% 14% 37% 40% 10% 10% 13% 24% 29% 26% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% 12 months in advance (a lump sum of around £120-£160 for the year) and then pay monthly or quarterly for call charges and other costs 122 54 68 15 15 41 51 7 10 23 35 37 39 29 18 113 3 3 3 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 8% 7% 6% 7% 6% 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% g n p 44% 56% 13% 12% 34% 41% 5% 9% 19% 29% 30% 32% 23% 15% 92% 3% 3% 2% Don't know 94 42 52 48 19 10 18 9 8 6 8 31 25 21 17 83 5 4 3 4% 4% 5% 19% 6% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 5% def ef j 44% 56% 51% 20% 10% 19% 9% 8% 6% 9% 33% 27% 22% 18% 88% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc4 (Qc30). Showcard How Do You Pay The Line Rental For Your Landline Phone Service? Please Answer About Your Line Renatl Only And Not Charges For Calls And Other Costs. (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home that can used to make and receive calls ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3060 188 228 219 214 199 196 193 193 197 2186 874 1548 1504 1572 1488 Effective Weighted Sample 2069 167 216 210 202 185 187 181 179 182 1693 404 1074 1025 1083 1010 Total 2220 253 328 202 164 190 204 184 88 239 1894 326 1282 931 1270 951 11% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 58% 42% 57% 43% On a monthly or quarterly basis, alongside call charges and other costs 2004 216 299 186 146 163 188 169 84 205 1710 294 1166 830 1146 858 90% 85% 91% 92% 89% 86% 92% 92% 95% 86% 90% 90% 91% 89% 90% 90% aei adei 11% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 58% 41% 57% 43% 12 months in advance (a lump sum of around £120-£160 for the year) and then pay monthly or quarterly for call charges and other costs 122 32 12 7 8 14 9 8 2 22 103 19 75 48 68 54 6% 13% 4% 4% 5% 8% 4% 4% 2% 9% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% bcdfgh h bch 26% 10% 6% 6% 12% 7% 6% 2% 18% 84% 16% 61% 39% 56% 44% Don't know 94 5 17 9 10 13 8 8 2 12 81 14 41 53 56 39 4% 2% 5% 4% 6% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 4% a l 6% 17% 9% 10% 13% 8% 8% 2% 13% 85% 15% 44% 56% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc5 (Qc28). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider To Be Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 1822 879 944 344 434 717 327 192 168 260 447 462 505 399 455 1536 148 81 58 68% 68% 69% 95% 93% 78% 35% 60% 64% 73% 77% 65% 70% 69% 69% 69% 63% 61% 78% ef ef f gh gh k q opq 48% 52% 19% 24% 39% 18% 11% 9% 14% 25% 25% 28% 22% 25% 84% 8% 4% 3% Landline phone at home 745 361 384 12 28 160 545 104 80 87 121 232 186 155 171 618 75 39 14 28% 28% 28% 3% 6% 17% 59% 33% 31% 24% 21% 33% 26% 27% 26% 28% 32% 29% 19% cd cde ij j lmn r r r 48% 52% 2% 4% 21% 73% 14% 11% 12% 16% 31% 25% 21% 23% 83% 10% 5% 2% Landline phone at work 54 33 21 4 3 17 29 9 4 7 10 11 14 17 11 39 4 9 1 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 7% 2% cd opr 61% 39% 8% 6% 32% 55% 16% 7% 12% 19% 20% 27% 31% 21% 73% 8% 17% 2% Public payphone 28 11 17 3 3 9 12 5 6 4 - 3 7 6 12 22 3 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% -% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% j j j k 40% 60% 11% 11% 32% 45% 19% 23% 13% -% 11% 24% 20% 45% 81% 12% 3% 4% Internet voice service (VoIP) 3 2 1 - 1 2 1 2 1 - - * 2 * 1 2 1 * - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 78% 22% -% 22% 55% 23% 56% 35% -% -% 3% 58% 6% 33% 71% 19% 9% -% Other 9 6 3 1 - 3 5 2 2 1 1 * 2 2 4 6 1 1 - *% *% *% *% -% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% 70% 30% 10% -% 34% 57% 28% 20% 10% 14% 4% 23% 26% 48% 71% 16% 13% -% Don't know 15 9 6 * - 7 7 4 - 1 4 3 4 1 6 13 1 1 * 1% 1% *% *% -% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 62% 38% 1% -% 49% 50% 25% -% 5% 27% 23% 28% 9% 40% 88% 7% 5% *% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Mobile phone 1822 289 227 132 129 154 164 164 88 190 1619 203 1258 555 910 913 68% 86% 63% 58% 68% 65% 67% 72% 77% 63% 70% 56% 81% 50% 63% 74% bcdefghi c bci bcdefi k m n 16% 12% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9% 5% 10% 89% 11% 69% 30% 50% 50% Landline phone at home 745 31 128 93 52 71 73 54 22 94 599 147 243 501 474 271 28% 9% 36% 41% 28% 30% 30% 24% 19% 31% 26% 41% 16% 45% 33% 22% agh adefghi ah ah ah a a ah j l o 4% 17% 12% 7% 9% 10% 7% 3% 13% 80% 20% 33% 67% 64% 36% Landline phone at work 54 13 1 1 4 7 3 2 1 8 47 7 26 27 31 22 2% 4% *% *% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% bch bc b 23% 2% 2% 7% 13% 5% 4% 1% 14% 88% 12% 49% 51% 58% 42% Public payphone 28 5 - - 2 4 1 3 1 8 26 2 12 15 14 13 1% 1% -% -% 1% 2% *% 1% *% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% bc bcf 17% -% -% 7% 15% 3% 9% 2% 29% 93% 7% 45% 54% 51% 49% Internet voice service (VoIP) 3 - - - - 1 1 - * - 3 * 1 2 1 2 *% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 22% 35% -% 14% -% 91% 9% 41% 59% 44% 56% Other 9 - - 1 2 1 2 1 - - 8 * 2 6 5 4 *% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% -% -% *% *% *% 1% *% *% -% -% 10% 18% 10% 24% 10% -% -% 95% 5% 27% 73% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC5 (QC28). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider to be your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 15 1 3 - - - 2 2 3 2 14 1 8 7 8 6 1% *% 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% cde 8% 23% -% -% -% 10% 16% 17% 13% 94% 6% 53% 47% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc6 (Qc28A). Showcard And Thinking About When You Are At Home, Which Is Your Main Method Of Making And Receiving Telephone Calls? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 1694 832 862 344 417 641 291 189 159 244 394 401 470 378 444 1434 130 75 55 63% 64% 63% 94% 89% 70% 31% 60% 61% 68% 68% 56% 65% 65% 67% 64% 56% 57% 74% def ef f g g k k k pq opq 49% 51% 20% 25% 38% 17% 11% 9% 14% 23% 24% 28% 22% 26% 85% 8% 4% 3% Landline phone at home 924 439 485 18 47 253 606 115 99 108 179 295 238 189 201 755 98 52 18 35% 34% 35% 5% 10% 28% 65% 36% 38% 30% 31% 41% 33% 32% 30% 34% 42% 40% 24% c cd cde ij lmn r or or 47% 53% 2% 5% 27% 66% 12% 11% 12% 19% 32% 26% 20% 22% 82% 11% 6% 2% Internet voice service (VoIP) 17 8 9 - 2 4 11 4 2 - * 3 4 5 5 14 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% c j 46% 54% -% 10% 22% 68% 22% 12% -% 1% 18% 23% 27% 32% 85% 5% 7% 3% Public payphone 15 6 9 2 2 5 5 3 * 1 5 5 3 5 2 13 1 1 * 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 37% 63% 16% 16% 37% 31% 18% 1% 6% 32% 33% 20% 35% 12% 85% 8% 5% 1% Other 5 4 1 1 - 2 3 2 * 1 - * 1 * 3 3 1 1 - *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% o 72% 28% 17% -% 32% 51% 31% 3% 21% -% 6% 23% 3% 67% 53% 28% 19% -% Don't know 21 13 7 * - 10 11 5 - 4 5 8 4 4 5 18 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% *% -% 1% 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% d cd h 65% 35% *% -% 46% 53% 24% -% 20% 24% 37% 19% 19% 24% 87% 5% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC6 (QC28A). SHOWCARD And thinking about when you are at home, which is your MAIN method of making and receiving telephone calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Mobile phone 1694 274 202 110 121 150 156 154 82 184 1514 180 1147 541 819 875 63% 81% 56% 48% 64% 63% 64% 68% 72% 61% 65% 50% 74% 49% 57% 71% bcdefghi c c c bc bcefi c k m n 16% 12% 6% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 11% 89% 11% 68% 32% 48% 52% Landline phone at home 924 60 147 115 63 83 82 66 28 112 751 173 372 547 594 330 35% 18% 41% 51% 33% 35% 34% 29% 25% 37% 32% 48% 24% 49% 41% 27% agh abdefghi ah ah ah a ah j l o 6% 16% 12% 7% 9% 9% 7% 3% 12% 81% 19% 40% 59% 64% 36% Internet voice service (VoIP) 17 1 - - 3 2 1 1 1 6 15 2 6 11 9 8 1% *% -% -% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 2% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% bc 8% -% -% 15% 9% 4% 7% 6% 36% 89% 11% 38% 62% 53% 47% Public payphone 15 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 - - 13 1 11 4 9 6 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% -% -% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 12% 21% 9% 11% 14% 7% 11% -% -% 90% 10% 73% 24% 63% 37% Other 5 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 5 * 1 4 * 5 *% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% n -% 19% -% -% 17% -% 17% -% -% 96% 4% 18% 82% 3% 97% Don't know 21 2 6 1 - - 5 2 2 - 17 3 14 7 12 8 1% *% 2% *% -% -% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% dei dei dei 8% 30% 5% -% -% 24% 10% 10% -% 84% 16% 67% 33% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% BT 889 430 459 73 89 308 420 84 81 102 216 295 216 190 187 735 68 52 34 39% 39% 39% 27% 26% 38% 48% 38% 38% 33% 40% 44% 35% 37% 38% 38% 34% 47% 53% cd cde lmn op op 48% 52% 8% 10% 35% 47% 9% 9% 11% 24% 33% 24% 21% 21% 83% 8% 6% 4% Sky 461 221 239 69 98 192 101 37 54 75 110 118 127 107 108 377 42 25 17 20% 20% 20% 26% 29% 24% 12% 16% 25% 24% 20% 18% 21% 21% 22% 20% 21% 22% 27% f f f g g o 48% 52% 15% 21% 42% 22% 8% 12% 16% 24% 26% 28% 23% 24% 82% 9% 5% 4% Virgin Media 408 214 194 56 63 150 138 34 30 50 117 110 122 93 83 339 58 7 3 18% 19% 16% 21% 18% 19% 16% 15% 14% 16% 21% 16% 20% 18% 17% 18% 29% 6% 5% gh qr oqr 52% 48% 14% 15% 37% 34% 8% 7% 12% 29% 27% 30% 23% 20% 83% 14% 2% 1% TalkTalk 241 111 130 26 38 83 94 37 27 34 41 64 68 48 61 203 18 15 6 11% 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% 11% 17% 13% 11% 8% 10% 11% 9% 12% 11% 9% 13% 9% j j 46% 54% 11% 16% 34% 39% 15% 11% 14% 17% 27% 28% 20% 25% 84% 7% 6% 2% EE/ Everything Everywhere 74 31 43 11 21 25 17 5 3 13 20 20 23 21 10 64 4 5 * 3% 3% 4% 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% f ef h r r 42% 58% 15% 28% 34% 22% 7% 3% 17% 28% 27% 31% 28% 14% 87% 6% 6% 1% Plusnet 72 37 36 4 11 22 36 6 3 12 19 26 18 16 13 69 1 2 * 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% *% c pr r 51% 49% 5% 15% 30% 49% 8% 5% 17% 26% 36% 25% 21% 18% 95% 2% 3% *% Post Office 20 8 12 2 * 4 14 4 2 5 1 4 6 1 9 17 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 2% 2% 1% 2% *% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% de j j m 39% 61% 8% 2% 20% 70% 18% 11% 27% 5% 19% 31% 7% 44% 85% 3% 8% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% KComm 17 7 10 2 1 3 11 2 4 2 3 4 5 5 4 15 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 42% 58% 9% 8% 18% 65% 14% 23% 9% 16% 22% 27% 28% 23% 88% 5% 5% 2% Tesco Telecom 6 2 4 - 1 3 2 1 - 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 - - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% -% -% o 32% 68% -% 22% 42% 37% 23% -% 23% 14% 34% 26% 8% 32% 67% 33% -% -% SSE 4 1 2 - 1 - 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 - 3 - * - *% *% *% -% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% *% -% 37% 63% -% 28% -% 72% 26% 21% -% 28% 28% 15% 56% -% 92% -% 8% -% Primus 3 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 3 - * - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% 64% 36% -% 38% 37% 25% 36% -% -% -% -% 26% 38% 36% 89% -% 11% -% The Phone Co-op/ The Cooperative 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - - *% -% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% Other 45 20 25 8 4 14 20 5 5 9 8 13 13 12 7 40 2 2 1 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 44% 56% 17% 9% 31% 43% 11% 10% 21% 17% 29% 29% 26% 16% 89% 5% 5% 1% Don't know 50 24 26 17 12 8 13 5 5 2 9 11 15 13 11 44 3 2 1 2% 2% 2% 6% 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% ef ef 48% 52% 35% 24% 16% 26% 9% 10% 5% 18% 21% 30% 25% 23% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QC7 (QC21B). SHOWCARD Which of these do you consider is your main supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% BT 889 112 137 84 55 79 87 62 27 94 697 192 457 429 561 328 39% 40% 41% 41% 33% 40% 41% 33% 29% 38% 36% 58% 34% 45% 43% 33% h h h h h j l o 13% 15% 9% 6% 9% 10% 7% 3% 11% 78% 22% 51% 48% 63% 37% Sky 461 65 64 36 35 35 37 38 24 43 416 45 319 141 226 235 20% 23% 19% 18% 21% 18% 18% 20% 26% 18% 21% 14% 24% 15% 17% 24% k m n 14% 14% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 5% 9% 90% 10% 69% 31% 49% 51% Virgin Media 408 46 57 22 40 34 44 29 24 43 394 14 263 144 195 213 18% 17% 17% 11% 24% 17% 21% 16% 27% 17% 20% 4% 20% 15% 15% 21% cg c abcegi k m n 11% 14% 5% 10% 8% 11% 7% 6% 11% 97% 3% 65% 35% 48% 52% TalkTalk 241 29 39 28 15 10 21 22 10 30 211 30 134 106 145 96 11% 10% 12% 14% 9% 5% 10% 12% 11% 12% 11% 9% 10% 11% 11% 10% e e e e e 12% 16% 11% 6% 4% 9% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 55% 44% 60% 40% EE/ Everything Everywhere 74 11 7 9 6 7 3 6 2 13 63 10 53 21 39 34 3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% f m 15% 10% 12% 8% 10% 4% 9% 2% 18% 86% 14% 72% 28% 53% 47% Plusnet 72 3 17 13 5 10 6 8 1 4 53 19 39 33 54 18 3% 1% 5% 7% 3% 5% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 6% 3% 4% 4% 2% ah ahi ah j o 5% 24% 18% 7% 13% 9% 11% 2% 6% 74% 26% 54% 46% 75% 25% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Post Office 20 1 - 1 1 3 2 4 1 5 18 2 6 14 13 7 1% *% -% 1% *% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% b b l 6% -% 5% 4% 15% 9% 20% 3% 23% 88% 12% 30% 70% 64% 36% KComm 17 2 - - 1 1 - 9 - 3 17 * 4 13 13 4 1% 1% -% -% *% *% -% 5% -% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% abcdefh l 11% -% -% 4% 5% -% 50% -% 18% 99% 1% 26% 74% 76% 24% Tesco Telecom 6 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 2 6 - 3 3 1 5 *% *% -% -% -% *% -% *% -% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% 12% -% -% -% 8% -% 13% -% 34% 100% -% 54% 46% 23% 77% SSE 4 1 - 1 - - 1 1 - - 4 - 1 3 1 3 *% *% -% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% 15% -% 26% -% -% 28% 21% -% -% 100% -% 28% 72% 26% 74% Primus 3 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 2 1 2 1 1 2 *% -% -% 1% -% *% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 38% -% 26% -% 25% -% -% 62% 38% 64% 36% 38% 62% The Phone Co-op/ The Co-operative 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 *% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other 45 6 9 5 2 6 8 3 1 - 37 8 23 22 23 22 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 1% 1% -% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% i i i i i 13% 21% 12% 4% 14% 17% 6% 3% -% 82% 18% 51% 49% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc7 (Qc21B). Showcard Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Supplier? (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Don't know 50 2 4 4 8 10 2 3 2 10 42 8 30 19 26 25 2% 1% 1% 2% 5% 5% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% abf abf a 4% 8% 8% 15% 19% 4% 6% 4% 19% 84% 16% 59% 39% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Base for % 2245 1084 1161 254 330 800 861 217 210 304 535 660 605 493 485 1874 198 110 63 48% 52% 11% 15% 36% 38% 10% 9% 14% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Very satisfied 1171 577 594 123 162 395 492 132 115 158 251 319 322 258 272 987 94 55 36 52% 53% 51% 48% 49% 49% 57% 61% 55% 52% 47% 48% 53% 52% 56% 53% 47% 50% 57% cde ij k p 49% 51% 10% 14% 34% 42% 11% 10% 13% 21% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Fairly satisfied 799 383 416 99 120 301 279 62 69 105 220 244 212 183 159 653 83 42 21 36% 35% 36% 39% 36% 38% 32% 28% 33% 35% 41% 37% 35% 37% 33% 35% 42% 38% 34% f gh or 48% 52% 12% 15% 38% 35% 8% 9% 13% 28% 31% 27% 23% 20% 82% 10% 5% 3% TOTAL SATISFIED 1970 960 1010 221 281 696 771 193 184 263 470 563 534 441 430 1639 176 97 57 88% 89% 87% 87% 85% 87% 90% 89% 88% 86% 88% 85% 88% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 91% d 49% 51% 11% 14% 35% 39% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Neither 144 68 76 22 27 56 39 8 15 21 34 52 37 28 27 126 8 6 4 6% 6% 7% 9% 8% 7% 4% 4% 7% 7% 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% f f f 47% 53% 15% 19% 39% 27% 6% 10% 15% 23% 36% 26% 20% 19% 87% 6% 4% 3% Fairly dissatisfied 85 34 51 9 15 26 34 8 9 16 23 29 21 14 21 73 7 4 1 4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 40% 60% 11% 18% 30% 41% 9% 10% 19% 28% 35% 24% 16% 25% 86% 8% 5% 1% Very dissatisfied 46 22 24 2 6 22 16 7 3 5 8 16 13 10 6 36 6 3 * 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% r 49% 51% 4% 12% 49% 35% 16% 6% 10% 17% 35% 28% 23% 14% 79% 13% 7% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3151 1493 1658 365 442 1021 1323 362 330 396 581 751 970 680 745 1885 415 411 440 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 1009 1119 246 290 705 902 251 218 282 434 545 654 466 482 1627 261 257 321 Total 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 131 56 74 11 21 48 51 15 11 20 31 45 34 24 28 109 13 7 2 6% 5% 6% 4% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 2% r r r 43% 57% 9% 16% 37% 39% 12% 9% 16% 24% 35% 26% 18% 21% 83% 10% 6% 1% Don't know 46 24 22 13 12 13 9 5 5 3 11 8 12 15 11 40 3 2 1 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Base for % 2245 279 330 200 160 189 206 182 88 241 1923 322 1304 934 1274 971 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 42% 57% 43% Very satisfied 1171 123 174 99 97 98 85 105 53 153 1031 141 644 525 634 538 52% 44% 53% 50% 61% 52% 41% 58% 60% 64% 54% 44% 49% 56% 50% 55% f acf f af acf abcef k l n 10% 15% 8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 4% 13% 88% 12% 55% 45% 54% 46% Fairly satisfied 799 132 109 67 47 68 84 59 26 62 667 132 484 310 461 338 36% 47% 33% 33% 29% 36% 41% 33% 29% 26% 35% 41% 37% 33% 36% 35% bcdeghi i dhi j 16% 14% 8% 6% 9% 11% 7% 3% 8% 83% 17% 61% 39% 58% 42% TOTAL SATISFIED 1970 254 283 166 144 167 169 164 78 215 1697 273 1128 836 1094 876 88% 91% 86% 83% 90% 88% 82% 90% 89% 89% 88% 85% 86% 89% 86% 90% cf cf cf f k l n 13% 14% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 57% 42% 56% 44% Neither 144 15 33 15 8 17 14 7 3 13 124 20 93 52 99 45 6% 5% 10% 7% 5% 9% 7% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 8% 5% gh o 10% 23% 10% 6% 11% 10% 5% 2% 9% 86% 14% 64% 36% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 85 4 10 14 5 1 17 8 4 9 66 18 52 32 52 33 4% 1% 3% 7% 3% *% 8% 4% 5% 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 4% 3% e ae e abde e e e j 5% 12% 17% 6% 1% 20% 9% 5% 11% 78% 22% 62% 38% 62% 38% Very dissatisfied 46 6 5 5 3 4 6 2 2 3 35 11 31 15 28 18 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 12% 10% 11% 7% 10% 12% 5% 4% 7% 76% 24% 68% 32% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qc8A (Qc13A). Showcard Thinking About Your Home Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With The Overall Service Provided By (Main Supplier). (Single Code) Base : Those with a landline phone at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3151 208 232 221 218 205 203 194 200 204 2262 889 1603 1540 1601 1550 Effective Weighted Sample 2127 184 219 212 205 191 194 182 185 188 1747 409 1113 1048 1099 1055 Total 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 131 10 15 19 8 5 23 10 6 13 102 29 84 47 81 50 6% 3% 4% 10% 5% 3% 11% 6% 7% 5% 5% 9% 6% 5% 6% 5% abe abdei j 7% 11% 15% 6% 4% 18% 8% 5% 10% 78% 22% 64% 36% 62% 38% Don't know 46 - 4 4 7 7 5 3 4 6 38 8 30 15 24 22 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd1. How Many Mobile Phones In Total Do You And Members Of Your Household Use? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% One (1.0) 589 288 301 44 91 126 328 157 87 73 32 122 154 98 215 474 65 34 16 22% 22% 22% 12% 19% 14% 35% 49% 33% 21% 5% 17% 21% 17% 33% 21% 28% 26% 22% ce cde hij ij j m klm o 49% 51% 7% 15% 21% 56% 27% 15% 12% 5% 21% 26% 17% 36% 80% 11% 6% 3% Two (2.0) 1077 515 562 117 241 349 370 85 105 160 284 318 297 238 224 896 99 55 28 40% 40% 41% 32% 52% 38% 40% 27% 40% 45% 49% 45% 41% 41% 34% 40% 42% 42% 38% cef c g g gh n n n 48% 52% 11% 22% 32% 34% 8% 10% 15% 26% 29% 28% 22% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Three (3.0) 456 218 238 78 73 220 85 26 45 71 128 119 137 105 95 387 35 22 12 17% 17% 17% 21% 16% 24% 9% 8% 17% 20% 22% 17% 19% 18% 14% 17% 15% 17% 17% df f df g g g n 48% 52% 17% 16% 48% 19% 6% 10% 15% 28% 26% 30% 23% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Four or more (4.0) 432 219 213 123 55 210 44 16 15 48 136 127 114 118 72 382 23 14 12 16% 17% 15% 34% 12% 23% 5% 5% 6% 13% 23% 18% 16% 20% 11% 17% 10% 11% 17% def f df gh ghi n n ln pq pq 51% 49% 29% 13% 49% 10% 4% 4% 11% 31% 29% 26% 27% 17% 89% 5% 3% 3% None (0.0) 109 53 56 - 3 7 98 34 7 7 2 19 14 22 54 86 12 6 5 4% 4% 4% -% 1% 1% 11% 11% 3% 2% *% 3% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 6% cde hij j j klm o 49% 51% -% 3% 6% 90% 31% 7% 6% 2% 17% 13% 20% 49% 79% 11% 6% 4% Don't know 12 7 5 3 5 3 1 - - - 2 7 3 - 2 11 - * 1 *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% *% -% -% -% *% 1% *% -% *% 1% -% *% 1% f m 58% 42% 21% 39% 28% 12% -% -% -% 15% 60% 24% -% 16% 93% -% 2% 6% Mean mobiles in household 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.2 def f df g gh ghi n n n pq p Standard deviation 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.05 .91 1.02 .96 .96 .92 .98 .91 1.04 1.03 1.09 1.10 1.08 1.02 1.03 1.14 Standard error .02 .03 .02 .05 .04 .03 .03 .04 .05 .05 .04 .04 .03 .04 .03 .02 .05 .05 .05 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% One (1.0) 589 42 81 35 37 50 56 59 30 84 511 78 219 368 302 287 22% 12% 23% 16% 19% 21% 23% 26% 26% 28% 22% 22% 14% 33% 21% 23% a a a a ac ac acd l 7% 14% 6% 6% 9% 9% 10% 5% 14% 87% 13% 37% 62% 51% 49% Two (2.0) 1077 141 145 102 76 84 100 86 46 115 921 157 664 409 618 459 40% 42% 40% 45% 40% 36% 41% 38% 41% 38% 40% 44% 43% 37% 43% 37% e m o 13% 13% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 62% 38% 57% 43% Three (3.0) 456 64 56 41 32 43 48 35 17 50 394 62 332 122 234 222 17% 19% 16% 18% 17% 18% 20% 15% 15% 17% 17% 17% 21% 11% 16% 18% m 14% 12% 9% 7% 10% 11% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 51% 49% Four or more (4.0) 432 77 61 38 32 48 36 36 12 42 382 50 315 116 230 202 16% 23% 17% 17% 17% 20% 15% 16% 11% 14% 16% 14% 20% 10% 16% 16% fhi h m 18% 14% 9% 7% 11% 8% 8% 3% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% None (0.0) 109 4 16 10 12 11 5 9 8 10 96 13 12 97 59 50 4% 1% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 4% 7% 3% 4% 4% 1% 9% 4% 4% a a af a a af l 3% 15% 9% 11% 10% 5% 9% 7% 10% 88% 12% 11% 89% 54% 46% Don't know 12 11 - - - - - - - - 12 * 10 2 1 12 *% 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% 1% *% *% 1% bcdefghi n 93% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 99% 1% 83% 17% 5% 95% Mean mobiles in household 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.2 bcdefghi h h h h h m Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD1. How many mobile phones IN TOTAL do you AND members of your household use? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Standard deviation 1.08 1.02 1.10 1.06 1.13 1.15 1.02 1.10 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.03 .99 1.08 1.07 1.10 Standard error .02 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .02 .03 .02 .03 .03 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd2. Do You Personally Use A Mobile Phone? How Many Mobile Phones With Different Telephone Numbers Do You Use At Least Once A Month? Please Include Any Phones Used For Work Or Other Purposes. (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% No (0.0) 60 36 24 1 4 10 45 6 13 10 2 16 16 10 17 44 9 6 1 2% 3% 2% *% 1% 1% 5% 2% 5% 3% *% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% cde j gj j or or 60% 40% 2% 7% 16% 75% 10% 21% 17% 3% 27% 27% 16% 29% 73% 16% 10% 1% 1 (1.0) 2303 1081 1222 323 422 817 741 267 231 326 510 592 643 509 557 1923 203 112 64 86% 83% 89% 89% 90% 89% 80% 84% 89% 91% 87% 83% 89% 88% 84% 86% 87% 85% 87% a f f f g kn k 47% 53% 14% 18% 35% 32% 12% 10% 14% 22% 26% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% 2 (2.0) 171 113 57 31 33 71 35 9 7 14 62 69 35 38 29 154 7 7 2 6% 9% 4% 8% 7% 8% 4% 3% 3% 4% 11% 10% 5% 6% 4% 7% 3% 6% 3% b f f f ghi ln pr 66% 34% 18% 20% 42% 21% 5% 4% 8% 36% 40% 21% 22% 17% 90% 4% 4% 1% 3 (3.0) 11 5 6 4 1 3 4 1 2 1 3 4 6 * 1 10 1 * 1 *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 47% 53% 34% 10% 23% 32% 9% 20% 5% 27% 32% 54% 4% 10% 85% 8% 2% 5% 4 or more (4.0) 10 5 5 3 - 4 2 - 1 - 3 5 2 2 1 9 * - * *% *% *% 1% -% *% *% -% *% -% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% 47% 53% 35% -% 43% 23% -% 9% -% 32% 50% 22% 19% 9% 96% 1% -% 3% No mobiles in household (0.0) 121 60 61 3 8 10 100 34 7 7 4 26 17 22 55 97 12 6 5 5% 5% 4% 1% 2% 1% 11% 11% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 8% 4% 5% 5% 7% cde hij j klm o 50% 50% 2% 7% 9% 83% 28% 6% 6% 3% 21% 14% 18% 46% 80% 10% 5% 4% Mean mobiles used 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 .9 .9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 .9 1.0 .9 1.0 1.0 df f f g g ghi n n n pqr Standard deviation .42 .46 .39 .45 .32 .38 .47 .40 .41 .31 .41 .48 .39 .39 .41 .43 .37 .39 .43 Standard error .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd2. Do You Personally Use A Mobile Phone? How Many Mobile Phones With Different Telephone Numbers Do You Use At Least Once A Month? Please Include Any Phones Used For Work Or Other Purposes. (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 93% 93% 94% 99% 97% 98% 84% 88% 92% 95% 99% 94% 95% 95% 89% 94% 91% 91% 92% f f f g g ghi n n n pq 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% No 168 89 79 1 7 17 143 40 20 17 3 35 31 32 71 129 22 12 5 6% 7% 6% *% 2% 2% 15% 12% 8% 5% 1% 5% 4% 5% 11% 6% 9% 9% 7% c cde hij j j klm o o 53% 47% 1% 4% 10% 85% 23% 12% 10% 2% 21% 18% 19% 42% 77% 13% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% No (0.0) 60 5 5 6 6 3 5 5 2 6 52 7 13 46 42 18 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 3% 1% l o 9% 8% 10% 10% 5% 8% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 21% 78% 70% 30% 1 (1.0) 2303 275 314 196 157 205 214 203 95 264 1988 315 1372 923 1241 1062 86% 81% 88% 86% 83% 87% 88% 90% 84% 87% 86% 88% 88% 83% 86% 86% ad m 12% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 60% 40% 54% 46% 2 (2.0) 171 41 18 15 12 14 20 7 8 20 150 21 136 35 90 80 6% 12% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 3% 7% 6% 6% 6% 9% 3% 6% 7% bcdegi g m 24% 10% 9% 7% 8% 12% 4% 5% 11% 88% 12% 80% 20% 53% 47% 3 (3.0) 11 1 1 - - 3 1 1 1 2 9 3 6 5 5 7 *% *% *% -% -% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% 10% 10% -% -% 23% 6% 12% 6% 18% 76% 24% 52% 48% 42% 58% 4 or more (4.0) 10 1 5 1 1 2 - - - - 8 1 4 5 6 4 *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 12% 48% 9% 11% 16% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 45% 55% 61% 39% No mobiles in household (0.0) 121 15 16 10 12 11 5 9 8 10 108 13 22 99 60 61 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 4% 7% 3% 5% 4% 1% 9% 4% 5% f f l 12% 14% 8% 10% 9% 4% 8% 6% 9% 89% 11% 18% 82% 49% 51% Mean mobiles used 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 .9 1.0 1.0 dgh m Standard deviation .42 .47 .48 .41 .46 .47 .36 .35 .43 .38 .43 .41 .38 .47 .43 .42 Standard error .01 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD2. Do you personally use a mobile phone? How many mobile phones with different telephone numbers do you use at least once a month? Please include any phones used for work or other purposes. (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 PERSONALLY USE MOBILE Yes 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 93% 94% 94% 93% 90% 94% 96% 94% 91% 95% 93% 94% 98% 87% 93% 94% dh m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% No 168 9 22 16 18 14 10 14 10 17 148 20 24 143 101 68 6% 3% 6% 7% 10% 6% 4% 6% 9% 5% 6% 6% 2% 13% 7% 5% a af af l 5% 13% 9% 11% 8% 6% 8% 6% 10% 88% 12% 14% 85% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% EE/ Everything Everywhere 578 271 307 101 124 216 137 50 46 85 156 164 169 122 123 501 38 35 5 23% 23% 24% 28% 27% 24% 18% 18% 19% 25% 27% 24% 25% 22% 21% 24% 18% 29% 7% f f f g gh pr r pr 47% 53% 18% 21% 37% 24% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 29% 21% 21% 87% 6% 6% 1% O2 548 263 285 92 88 203 166 67 56 64 135 150 141 128 129 435 57 15 40 22% 22% 22% 25% 19% 23% 21% 24% 23% 19% 23% 22% 21% 23% 22% 21% 27% 13% 60% d q oq opq 48% 52% 17% 16% 37% 30% 12% 10% 12% 25% 27% 26% 23% 23% 79% 10% 3% 7% Vodafone 448 228 219 67 75 168 138 41 30 54 115 133 133 99 81 383 36 19 9 18% 19% 17% 19% 16% 19% 18% 15% 13% 16% 20% 20% 19% 18% 14% 18% 17% 16% 14% h n n r 51% 49% 15% 17% 37% 31% 9% 7% 12% 26% 30% 30% 22% 18% 86% 8% 4% 2% '3' 207 103 104 31 59 84 34 24 28 28 54 52 58 40 55 171 19 11 5 8% 9% 8% 8% 13% 9% 4% 9% 12% 8% 9% 8% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 9% 8% f f f 50% 50% 15% 29% 40% 16% 12% 14% 14% 26% 25% 28% 20% 27% 83% 9% 5% 2% Tesco 153 74 79 17 15 43 78 25 18 22 29 28 40 42 42 124 20 6 3 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 5% 10% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 6% 8% 7% 6% 10% 5% 5% cde j k k oqr 48% 52% 11% 10% 28% 51% 16% 12% 14% 19% 18% 26% 28% 28% 81% 13% 4% 2% Virgin Media/ Any Virgin 137 66 72 6 19 50 63 20 14 22 21 30 36 33 38 122 12 3 1 6% 5% 6% 2% 4% 6% 8% 7% 6% 7% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 3% 1% c c cde j qr r 48% 52% 4% 14% 36% 46% 14% 10% 16% 15% 22% 26% 24% 28% 89% 8% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Orange 129 59 71 10 20 42 58 18 13 11 23 38 29 28 33 104 10 15 1 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 7% 6% 5% 3% 4% 6% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5% 12% 2% cde r opr 45% 55% 8% 15% 33% 45% 14% 10% 8% 18% 30% 23% 22% 26% 80% 8% 11% 1% T-Mobile 87 47 40 11 20 30 26 7 9 23 18 23 23 16 25 75 5 7 1 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 1% gj r pr 54% 46% 12% 23% 35% 30% 8% 10% 26% 20% 27% 26% 18% 28% 86% 5% 8% 1% Giffgaff 59 29 30 14 14 21 9 7 4 14 14 17 12 10 19 55 3 1 * 2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% *% f f r 49% 51% 24% 24% 36% 16% 11% 7% 23% 23% 29% 21% 17% 33% 92% 5% 2% *% TalkTalk 34 19 14 2 6 7 18 6 2 4 3 8 11 4 10 27 3 2 2 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% e j 57% 43% 7% 18% 21% 54% 19% 5% 13% 10% 25% 32% 13% 30% 82% 8% 6% 5% Lycatel 16 8 8 2 11 1 2 3 2 - 1 2 5 4 5 16 - - - 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% *% *% 1% 1% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% ef 48% 52% 15% 68% 6% 10% 18% 10% -% 9% 10% 34% 24% 32% 100% -% -% -% Talk Mobile 10 4 6 1 * 4 5 1 1 * 1 2 4 4 * 8 1 1 - *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% -% n 40% 60% 8% 3% 38% 51% 12% 9% 3% 13% 21% 37% 41% 1% 84% 7% 9% -% Lebara 6 3 4 - 2 4 - - 1 1 1 3 - - 4 6 - - - *% *% *% -% *% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% -% -% 1% *% -% -% -% f l 42% 58% -% 30% 70% -% -% 15% 13% 14% 42% -% -% 58% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd3 (Qd10). Which Mobile Network Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Other 48 20 27 6 5 17 20 3 12 8 4 10 12 11 14 41 4 2 * 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% *% gj r 43% 57% 13% 11% 35% 41% 7% 25% 17% 9% 21% 25% 24% 29% 86% 9% 5% *% Don't know 36 12 24 1 - 6 28 6 5 4 2 7 13 6 9 29 4 3 * 1% 1% 2% *% -% 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% *% cde j j r r 34% 66% 4% -% 16% 80% 16% 14% 12% 5% 21% 35% 17% 27% 80% 11% 8% *% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% EE/ Everything Everywhere 578 88 66 44 33 67 41 46 26 90 497 81 387 189 307 271 23% 28% 19% 21% 19% 30% 18% 22% 25% 31% 23% 24% 26% 20% 23% 23% bdf bcdfg bcdfg m 15% 11% 8% 6% 12% 7% 8% 5% 16% 86% 14% 67% 33% 53% 47% O2 548 54 68 54 33 37 59 50 23 57 458 89 327 220 283 265 22% 17% 20% 26% 19% 17% 25% 24% 22% 20% 21% 26% 22% 23% 21% 23% ae ae j 10% 13% 10% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 10% 84% 16% 60% 40% 52% 48% Vodafone 448 58 100 37 23 38 45 29 15 40 375 72 298 147 261 186 18% 18% 30% 17% 14% 17% 19% 14% 14% 14% 17% 21% 20% 15% 19% 16% acdefghi m o 13% 22% 8% 5% 8% 10% 6% 3% 9% 84% 16% 67% 33% 58% 42% '3' 207 39 24 10 13 18 23 22 6 16 180 26 133 72 95 112 8% 12% 7% 5% 8% 8% 10% 10% 6% 6% 8% 8% 9% 7% 7% 10% chi c c n 19% 12% 5% 6% 9% 11% 11% 3% 8% 87% 13% 64% 35% 46% 54% Tesco 153 6 23 14 14 15 17 17 8 11 131 22 65 88 78 75 6% 2% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 4% 6% 7% 4% 9% 6% 6% a a a a a a a l 4% 15% 9% 9% 10% 11% 11% 5% 7% 85% 15% 43% 57% 51% 49% Virgin Media/ Any Virgin 137 11 14 15 17 12 15 18 7 13 132 5 69 66 75 62 6% 3% 4% 7% 10% 5% 7% 9% 7% 5% 6% 2% 5% 7% 6% 5% abi a k l 8% 10% 11% 12% 9% 11% 13% 5% 9% 96% 4% 51% 48% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Orange 129 7 9 18 12 14 6 11 9 18 113 16 68 62 76 54 5% 2% 3% 9% 7% 6% 3% 5% 9% 6% 5% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% abf abf a abf a l 5% 7% 14% 9% 11% 5% 8% 7% 14% 88% 12% 52% 48% 58% 42% T-Mobile 87 18 8 2 5 5 11 6 3 17 79 8 60 26 51 36 3% 6% 2% 1% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% c c ce 21% 9% 3% 5% 6% 12% 7% 3% 20% 91% 9% 69% 30% 59% 41% Giffgaff 59 9 11 3 6 9 4 2 2 9 54 5 40 19 30 29 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 15% 19% 5% 9% 15% 7% 4% 4% 15% 92% 8% 67% 33% 51% 49% TalkTalk 34 2 3 4 7 3 1 - 1 5 31 2 17 16 22 12 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2% *% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% g abfg 7% 10% 12% 22% 10% 2% -% 4% 15% 93% 7% 51% 49% 65% 35% Lycatel 16 12 1 - 1 1 - - - - 16 - 14 2 7 8 1% 4% *% -% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% *% 1% 1% bcdefghi m 77% 8% -% 6% 9% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 90% 10% 47% 53% Talk Mobile 10 - 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 - 7 3 2 8 8 2 *% -% *% 1% 1% -% *% 1% 1% -% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% l -% 8% 23% 19% -% 9% 16% 9% -% 67% 33% 23% 77% 80% 20% Lebara 6 5 - - - - - 1 - - 6 - 5 1 - 6 *% 2% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% *% -% 1% n 87% -% -% -% -% -% 13% -% -% 100% -% 87% 13% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD3 (QD10). Which mobile network do you use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Other 48 8 3 7 2 2 6 7 1 6 41 6 21 26 25 22 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% l 16% 6% 14% 5% 5% 12% 14% 2% 12% 87% 13% 44% 56% 54% 46% Don't know 36 2 6 2 3 1 7 2 1 4 33 3 9 26 22 13 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% *% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% e l 5% 18% 5% 9% 2% 20% 6% 4% 13% 92% 8% 26% 74% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy S4. Base : Those Who Personally Use A Mobile Phone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 3425 | 1629 | 1796 | 513 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2318 | 1101 | 1218 | 340 | | Total | 2494 | 1204 | 1290 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 14% | 18% | 36% | | Yes | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 76% | 75% | 77% | 91% | 93% | | ef | ef | f | gh | ghi | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | No | 596 | 301 | 295 | 32 | | 24% | 25% | 23% | 9% | 6% | | cd | cde | ij | ij | j | | 51% | 49% | 5% | 5% | 23% | | Don't know | | | | | | 3 | 1 | 2 | - | 1 | | *% | *% | *% | -% | *% | | 20% | 80% | -% | 46% | 16% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd4 (Qd24B). Do You Personally Use A Smartphone? If Unsure - A Smartphone Is A Phone On Which You Can Easily Access Emails, Download Files And Applications, As Well As View Websites And Generally Surf The Internet. Popular Brands Of Smartphone Include Blackberry, Iphone And Android Phones Such As The Samsung Galaxy S4. Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Yes 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 76% 87% 72% 74% 74% 75% 76% 78% 71% 73% 77% 72% 87% 59% 75% 77% bcdefghi m 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% No 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 24% 13% 28% 26% 26% 25% 24% 22% 29% 27% 23% 28% 13% 41% 25% 22% a a a a a a a a j l 7% 16% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 13% 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% Don't know 3 - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2 * 2 1 * 3 *% -% *% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 46% -% -% -% -% 28% -% -% 87% 13% 54% 46% 10% 90% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | Apple iPhone | 865 | 397 | 469 | 180 | | 46% | 44% | 47% | 55% | 47% | | f | f | f | g | ghi | | 46% | 54% | 21% | 23% | 42% | | Samsung | 606 | 287 | 319 | 86 | | 32% | 32% | 32% | 26% | 34% | | c | ce | j | j | j | | 47% | 53% | 14% | 24% | 37% | | Nokia | 101 | 46 | 55 | 11 | | 5% | 5% | 6% | 3% | 4% | | cde | l | | | | | 46% | 54% | 11% | 17% | 36% | | Sony Xperia | 91 | 41 | 50 | 10 | | 5% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 5% | | 45% | 55% | 11% | 22% | 48% | | HTC | 80 | 52 | 28 | 18 | | 4% | 6% | 3% | 6% | 3% | | b | | | | | | 65% | 35% | 23% | 18% | 40% | | BlackBerry | 37 | 21 | 16 | 7 | | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | | 57% | 43% | 19% | 12% | 45% | | Motorola | 27 | 15 | 12 | 2 | | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | ce | | | | | | 54% | 46% | 9% | 22% | 24% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% LG 19 8 12 3 5 7 4 1 3 4 1 6 5 4 4 16 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% j 40% 60% 15% 25% 38% 22% 5% 17% 19% 6% 29% 26% 23% 22% 84% 6% 5% 6% Nexus 6 3 3 1 1 3 - - - - 4 5 1 - - 5 - 1 - *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% *% -% -% *% -% 1% -% 46% 54% 24% 24% 53% -% -% -% -% 66% 87% 13% -% -% 89% -% 11% -% Other 56 29 27 10 11 19 15 10 4 8 13 13 14 14 14 49 3 4 1 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 1% j r 52% 48% 19% 20% 34% 27% 18% 7% 14% 24% 24% 25% 25% 24% 88% 5% 7% 1% Don't know 6 4 3 - * 1 5 2 * - 2 2 2 * 2 4 1 1 * *% *% *% -% *% *% 1% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% ce 59% 41% -% 5% 19% 76% 36% 2% -% 24% 39% 26% 5% 30% 64% 21% 13% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Apple iPhone 865 113 123 71 58 82 82 64 35 95 749 116 650 211 494 372 46% 41% 51% 45% 46% 49% 46% 39% 48% 45% 45% 47% 49% 37% 49% 42% g m o 13% 14% 8% 7% 10% 10% 7% 4% 11% 87% 13% 75% 24% 57% 43% Samsung 606 120 66 48 32 39 46 61 26 67 541 65 399 206 274 332 32% 44% 27% 31% 25% 23% 26% 37% 36% 32% 33% 27% 30% 36% 27% 37% bcdefi def e k l n 20% 11% 8% 5% 6% 8% 10% 4% 11% 89% 11% 66% 34% 45% 55% Nokia 101 8 14 8 10 10 8 11 3 12 82 19 59 41 60 42 5% 3% 6% 5% 8% 6% 5% 7% 4% 6% 5% 8% 5% 7% 6% 5% j l 8% 14% 8% 9% 10% 8% 11% 3% 12% 81% 19% 59% 41% 59% 41% Sony Xperia 91 4 9 9 12 11 11 8 3 12 78 13 62 28 52 39 5% 2% 4% 6% 9% 7% 6% 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% a abh a a a 5% 10% 10% 13% 12% 12% 9% 3% 14% 85% 15% 68% 30% 58% 42% HTC 80 13 8 5 6 10 5 7 3 10 76 4 56 24 40 40 4% 5% 3% 3% 5% 6% 3% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% k 16% 11% 7% 7% 12% 7% 9% 4% 12% 95% 5% 70% 30% 50% 50% BlackBerry 37 10 3 1 4 7 5 1 1 2 31 6 27 11 16 22 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% cgi 28% 8% 3% 10% 19% 12% 3% 3% 4% 83% 17% 72% 28% 42% 58% Motorola 27 1 8 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 23 4 12 15 19 8 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% l 5% 29% 12% 11% 7% 12% 4% 3% 8% 86% 14% 43% 57% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd5 (Qd39). Showcard Which Brand Or Type Of Smartphone Do You Have? If More Than One - Which One Do You Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% LG 19 2 2 3 1 2 4 3 - - 17 3 11 8 12 7 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 12% 8% 15% 3% 10% 19% 16% -% -% 86% 14% 57% 43% 64% 36% Nexus 6 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 2 6 - 4 1 3 3 *% 1% -% *% -% -% 1% -% -% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% 24% -% 13% -% -% 22% -% -% 30% 100% -% 76% 24% 53% 47% Other 56 1 10 7 2 3 11 6 1 7 43 13 33 23 29 26 3% *% 4% 5% 1% 2% 6% 4% 1% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% a a adeh a a j 2% 18% 13% 3% 5% 20% 11% 2% 13% 77% 23% 59% 41% 53% 47% Don't know 6 - - - - 2 - 2 * - 5 1 1 6 4 2 *% -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% *% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% l -% -% -% -% 33% -% 26% 5% -% 80% 20% 11% 89% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd6 (Qd41). Do You Have A 4G Service? This Is A Service That Enables Faster Mobile Internet Access. Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1275 618 657 260 307 528 180 91 108 204 379 358 391 279 247 1083 94 58 40 67% 68% 66% 79% 72% 70% 47% 54% 69% 73% 73% 66% 73% 67% 60% 68% 57% 68% 77% def f f g g g kn n p p opq 48% 52% 20% 24% 41% 14% 7% 8% 16% 30% 28% 31% 22% 19% 85% 7% 5% 3% No 530 256 274 61 105 192 171 55 38 66 126 157 122 119 131 438 63 23 7 28% 28% 28% 19% 25% 25% 44% 33% 24% 23% 24% 29% 23% 29% 32% 27% 38% 26% 13% c cde ij l l l r oqr r 48% 52% 12% 20% 36% 32% 10% 7% 12% 24% 30% 23% 22% 25% 83% 12% 4% 1% Don't know 90 28 62 7 14 35 34 20 11 11 12 25 20 15 30 72 7 5 5 5% 3% 6% 2% 3% 5% 9% 12% 7% 4% 2% 5% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 6% 10% a cde ij j lm op 31% 69% 8% 15% 39% 37% 23% 12% 12% 13% 28% 22% 17% 33% 80% 8% 6% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD6 (QD41). Do you have a 4G service? This is a service that enables faster mobile internet access. Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Yes 1275 183 155 94 75 117 125 106 55 172 1141 134 939 332 662 613 67% 66% 64% 60% 60% 70% 70% 65% 75% 82% 69% 55% 71% 58% 66% 69% bcd abcdefg k m 14% 12% 7% 6% 9% 10% 8% 4% 14% 89% 11% 74% 26% 52% 48% No 530 89 82 54 45 34 44 43 17 29 436 95 329 198 301 229 28% 32% 34% 35% 36% 20% 25% 26% 23% 14% 26% 39% 25% 35% 30% 26% ei ehi ehi efhi i i i j l 17% 15% 10% 9% 6% 8% 8% 3% 5% 82% 18% 62% 37% 57% 43% Don't know 90 4 6 8 5 17 8 14 2 8 74 16 46 44 41 49 5% 1% 2% 5% 4% 10% 5% 9% 3% 4% 4% 7% 4% 8% 4% 6% a abdhi abh l 4% 6% 9% 6% 19% 9% 16% 2% 9% 82% 18% 51% 49% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f g h ~i ~j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 931 469 462 38 50 203 640 196 141 88 74 156 253 208 313 549 131 151 100 Effective Weighted Sample 615 303 312 28 29 131 430 129 93 61 52 117 170 131 202 469 80 92 75 Total 596 301 295 32 29 139 396 110 84 60 61 130 152 136 179 501 47 33 15 51% 49% ** ** 23% 66% 18% 14% ** ** 22% 25% 23% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% Certain to 7 3 4 ** ** * 3 2 2 ** ** 2 2 2 2 7 - - - 1% 1% 1% ** ** *% 1% 1% 2% ** ** 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% 39% 61% ** ** 3% 47% 22% 27% ** ** 25% 31% 22% 22% 100% -% -% -% Very likely 26 9 17 ** ** 11 8 2 1 ** ** 5 9 4 7 23 2 1 - 4% 3% 6% ** ** 8% 2% 2% 2% ** ** 4% 6% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% -% f 33% 67% ** ** 41% 29% 10% 6% ** ** 21% 35% 16% 28% 88% 10% 3% -% Likely 63 31 32 ** ** 24 23 14 7 ** ** 15 17 15 17 53 6 3 1 11% 10% 11% ** ** 17% 6% 13% 8% ** ** 11% 11% 11% 10% 11% 14% 10% 5% f 49% 51% ** ** 38% 36% 22% 10% ** ** 23% 27% 23% 27% 83% 10% 5% 1% TOTAL LIKELY 96 42 54 ** ** 35 34 18 10 ** ** 22 28 20 26 83 9 4 1 16% 14% 18% ** ** 25% 8% 16% 12% ** ** 17% 19% 15% 15% 17% 19% 12% 5% f r r 44% 56% ** ** 36% 35% 19% 10% ** ** 23% 29% 21% 27% 86% 9% 4% 1% Unlikely 89 46 44 ** ** 17 65 16 10 ** ** 24 29 17 18 75 8 4 2 15% 15% 15% ** ** 12% 16% 14% 12% ** ** 19% 19% 13% 10% 15% 16% 13% 16% n n 51% 49% ** ** 19% 73% 18% 11% ** ** 27% 33% 19% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Very unlikely 127 70 56 ** ** 22 100 22 24 ** ** 26 28 30 43 106 11 7 3 21% 23% 19% ** ** 16% 25% 20% 28% ** ** 20% 19% 22% 24% 21% 24% 22% 18% e 56% 44% ** ** 17% 79% 17% 19% ** ** 21% 22% 23% 34% 83% 9% 6% 2% Certain not to 200 99 101 ** ** 39 150 43 34 ** ** 41 48 41 69 171 15 10 4 34% 33% 34% ** ** 28% 38% 39% 40% ** ** 32% 32% 31% 39% 34% 32% 30% 25% e 49% 51% ** ** 19% 75% 21% 17% ** ** 21% 24% 21% 35% 86% 8% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f g h ~i ~j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 931 469 462 38 50 203 640 196 141 88 74 156 253 208 313 549 131 151 100 Effective Weighted Sample 615 303 312 28 29 131 430 129 93 61 52 117 170 131 202 469 80 92 75 Total 596 301 295 32 29 139 396 110 84 60 61 130 152 136 179 501 47 33 15 51% 49% ** ** 23% 66% 18% 14% ** ** 22% 25% 23% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% TOTAL UNLIKELY 416 215 201 ** ** 77 316 80 67 ** ** 92 106 88 130 352 34 22 9 70% 71% 68% ** ** 55% 80% 73% 80% ** ** 71% 70% 65% 73% 70% 72% 65% 59% e r 52% 48% ** ** 19% 76% 19% 16% ** ** 22% 25% 21% 31% 85% 8% 5% 2% Don't know 83 44 39 ** ** 27 47 12 7 ** ** 16 18 27 23 66 4 8 5 14% 15% 13% ** ** 19% 12% 11% 8% ** ** 12% 12% 20% 13% 13% 10% 23% 36% f l op op 53% 47% ** ** 32% 56% 14% 8% ** ** 19% 21% 33% 27% 79% 5% 9% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 931 35 70 62 62 62 60 58 71 69 641 290 263 664 459 472 Effective Weighted Sample 615 29 67 59 58 58 57 52 65 64 495 128 174 449 306 325 Total 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% Certain to 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7 - 1 6 5 3 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% 19% 81% 64% 36% Very likely 26 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 24 2 15 11 17 9 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% 2% 7% 3% 5% 4% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% 57% 42% 64% 36% Likely 63 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 56 7 30 33 35 28 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% 8% 15% 8% 10% 11% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% 48% 52% 56% 44% TOTAL LIKELY 96 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87 9 47 49 56 40 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17% 10% 23% 13% 17% 16% k m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 91% 9% 48% 51% 58% 42% Unlikely 89 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 75 15 32 58 56 33 15% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15% 16% 16% 15% 17% 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% 17% 36% 64% 63% 37% Very unlikely 127 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 103 24 34 93 66 61 21% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 20% 26% 17% 24% 19% 24% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% 19% 27% 73% 52% 48% Certain not to 200 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 161 38 48 152 106 94 34% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 32% 41% 24% 39% 31% 36% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% 19% 24% 76% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd7 (Qd27). Showcard How Likely Is It That You Will Get A Smartphone In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 931 35 70 62 62 62 60 58 71 69 641 290 263 664 459 472 Effective Weighted Sample 615 29 67 59 58 58 57 52 65 64 495 128 174 449 306 325 Total 596 43 93 55 45 55 58 47 30 76 502 94 201 393 338 259 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 34% 66% 57% 43% TOTAL UNLIKELY 416 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 339 77 114 302 228 188 70% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 68% 82% 57% 77% 68% 73% j l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% 19% 27% 73% 55% 45% Don't know 83 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76 8 41 42 53 30 14% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15% 8% 20% 11% 16% 12% k m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% 10% 49% 50% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd8 (Qd11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes The Mobile Package You Personally Use Most Often? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Prepay/ Pay as you go 722 370 352 73 77 189 383 146 87 73 83 154 164 163 240 597 66 36 23 29% 31% 27% 20% 17% 21% 49% 53% 36% 21% 14% 23% 24% 30% 41% 28% 31% 30% 34% cde hij ij j kl klm o 51% 49% 10% 11% 26% 53% 20% 12% 10% 11% 21% 23% 23% 33% 83% 9% 5% 3% Postpay/ monthly contract 1757 825 933 287 377 700 393 131 153 268 488 509 520 383 344 1485 145 82 45 70% 68% 72% 80% 83% 78% 50% 47% 63% 79% 84% 76% 76% 70% 59% 71% 68% 69% 66% a f f f g gh ghi mn mn n 47% 53% 16% 21% 40% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 29% 30% 22% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Other 10 7 3 * 2 5 2 - * * 7 4 1 2 2 9 * * - *% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% -% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% g 65% 35% 4% 25% 46% 25% -% 4% 1% 74% 44% 9% 25% 21% 95% 2% 3% -% Don't know 5 3 1 - * 1 4 1 * * - 2 1 * 1 4 * 1 * *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 70% 30% -% 3% 24% 73% 15% 2% 3% -% 37% 28% 3% 30% 84% 3% 11% 2% CONTRACT TYPE Subsidised handset 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 60% 57% 62% 70% 75% 66% 40% 38% 51% 67% 74% 64% 66% 59% 49% 60% 59% 56% 60% a f ef f g gh ghi n mn n 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% SIM only 247 123 124 33 34 103 78 24 29 39 57 75 64 57 51 214 19 13 2 10% 10% 10% 9% 7% 11% 10% 9% 12% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% 11% 3% d r r r 50% 50% 13% 14% 41% 31% 10% 12% 16% 23% 30% 26% 23% 21% 86% 8% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD8 (QD11). SHOWCARD Which of these best describes the mobile package you personally use most often? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Prepay/ Pay as you go 722 56 105 66 48 76 60 58 35 92 607 115 267 453 403 319 29% 17% 31% 31% 28% 34% 26% 27% 34% 32% 28% 34% 18% 47% 30% 28% a a a a a a a a j l 8% 15% 9% 7% 11% 8% 8% 5% 13% 84% 16% 37% 63% 56% 44% Postpay/ monthly contract 1757 262 232 141 121 147 173 154 68 189 1535 222 1239 511 930 827 70% 83% 69% 67% 71% 66% 73% 73% 65% 66% 71% 65% 82% 53% 69% 72% bcdefghi k m 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Other 10 - - 2 1 - 2 - 1 3 8 2 8 2 6 4 *% -% -% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% -% -% 22% 11% -% 20% -% 8% 34% 76% 24% 84% 16% 62% 38% Don't know 5 - - 2 1 - - * - 1 5 * 2 3 2 3 *% -% -% 1% 1% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 34% 22% -% -% 7% -% 22% 95% 5% 49% 51% 46% 54% CONTRACT TYPE Subsidised handset 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 60% 73% 61% 54% 59% 57% 56% 59% 52% 59% 61% 54% 71% 42% 59% 61% bcdefghi k m 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% SIM only 247 30 20 26 20 18 38 26 14 21 214 33 144 101 127 120 10% 10% 6% 12% 11% 8% 16% 12% 13% 7% 10% 10% 9% 10% 9% 10% b b abei b b 12% 8% 11% 8% 7% 15% 11% 6% 9% 86% 14% 58% 41% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd9 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2266 1044 1222 386 467 861 552 224 200 324 514 555 767 481 462 1423 277 277 289 Effective Weighted Sample 1577 729 848 265 318 608 393 155 145 238 385 406 532 340 314 1230 179 175 219 Total 1757 825 933 287 377 700 393 131 153 268 488 509 520 383 344 1485 145 82 45 47% 53% 16% 21% 40% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 29% 30% 22% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Handset and contract 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 85% 84% 86% 88% 91% 84% 79% 81% 81% 85% 88% 84% 87% 85% 84% 85% 86% 82% 91% f ef gh oq 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% SIM card only 247 123 124 33 34 103 78 24 29 39 57 75 64 57 51 214 19 13 2 14% 15% 13% 11% 9% 15% 20% 18% 19% 15% 12% 15% 12% 15% 15% 14% 13% 16% 4% d cde j r r r 50% 50% 13% 14% 41% 31% 10% 12% 16% 23% 30% 26% 23% 21% 86% 8% 5% 1% Don't know 19 12 7 2 1 11 5 1 * 1 1 9 5 2 4 13 2 2 2 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% *% *% *% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% o o 63% 37% 10% 5% 58% 28% 7% 1% 4% 3% 45% 24% 12% 19% 69% 10% 11% 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd9 (Qd11A). When You Signed Up For Your Current Mobile Contract Did You Get A Handset With The Contract Or Did You Only Get A Sim Card? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a postpay/ contract mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2266 190 159 148 154 150 164 164 142 152 1697 569 1459 801 1072 1194 Effective Weighted Sample 1577 171 150 142 144 139 156 152 133 139 1329 267 1034 562 760 835 Total 1757 262 232 141 121 147 173 154 68 189 1535 222 1239 511 930 827 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Handset and contract 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 85% 88% 88% 81% 83% 87% 77% 82% 80% 89% 85% 83% 87% 79% 85% 85% fh f f fh m 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% SIM card only 247 30 20 26 20 18 38 26 14 21 214 33 144 101 127 120 14% 12% 9% 19% 16% 12% 22% 17% 20% 11% 14% 15% 12% 20% 14% 14% b abei b abi l 12% 8% 11% 8% 7% 15% 11% 6% 9% 86% 14% 58% 41% 52% 48% Don't know 19 - 7 1 1 1 2 2 - - 16 4 12 8 15 4 1% -% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% ahi o -% 37% 4% 3% 4% 12% 8% -% -% 81% 19% 61% 39% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1899 866 1033 335 419 720 425 180 159 270 447 462 655 401 380 1179 228 228 264 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 599 716 227 285 504 303 123 115 198 337 334 452 283 256 1023 151 144 201 Total 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 1138 523 615 192 268 450 227 86 87 174 333 319 338 248 231 938 116 52 32 76% 76% 77% 76% 78% 77% 73% 81% 71% 76% 77% 75% 75% 77% 80% 75% 94% 77% 78% oqr 46% 54% 17% 24% 40% 20% 8% 8% 15% 29% 28% 30% 22% 20% 82% 10% 5% 3% I am paying a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. lower amount of inclusive minutes, texts or data) 109 46 64 16 20 47 26 3 14 10 31 33 36 26 15 94 3 7 5 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 8% 9% 3% 11% 4% 7% 8% 8% 8% 5% 7% 2% 11% 13% gi p p op 42% 58% 15% 18% 43% 24% 3% 13% 9% 29% 30% 33% 23% 14% 86% 3% 7% 5% I am paying a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. added minutes, texts or data) 122 61 61 26 34 41 21 5 12 22 36 37 31 33 22 116 2 3 1 8% 9% 8% 10% 10% 7% 7% 4% 9% 10% 8% 9% 7% 10% 8% 9% 1% 5% 3% pr 50% 50% 22% 28% 33% 17% 4% 10% 18% 29% 30% 25% 27% 18% 95% 1% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1899 866 1033 335 419 720 425 180 159 270 447 462 655 401 380 1179 228 228 264 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 599 716 227 285 504 303 123 115 198 337 334 452 283 256 1023 151 144 201 Total 1491 689 802 252 342 586 310 106 123 228 430 426 451 324 289 1259 124 67 41 46% 54% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% No, I am out of my minimum contract period 92 44 48 11 18 39 23 7 8 19 26 28 37 13 13 85 2 3 2 6% 6% 6% 4% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 9% 6% 7% 8% 4% 5% 7% 2% 4% 5% m p 48% 52% 12% 20% 42% 25% 7% 9% 21% 28% 31% 40% 15% 14% 93% 2% 3% 2% Don't know 30 15 15 6 2 9 12 5 3 2 4 8 9 4 8 26 1 3 * 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 4% 1% de ij 50% 50% 20% 7% 31% 41% 18% 10% 8% 13% 28% 31% 13% 28% 87% 3% 8% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1899 163 140 118 123 129 126 133 113 134 1418 481 1269 626 898 1001 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 147 132 113 118 120 120 124 106 123 1108 225 894 436 633 696 Total 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 1138 146 154 81 76 100 93 102 43 142 1001 136 828 307 622 516 76% 63% 75% 71% 76% 78% 70% 81% 80% 85% 77% 74% 76% 76% 79% 73% a a a af a acf o 13% 14% 7% 7% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 88% 12% 73% 27% 55% 45% I am paying a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. lower amount of inclusive minutes, texts or data) 109 22 20 12 8 7 10 10 2 3 95 15 81 28 52 57 7% 9% 10% 11% 8% 5% 8% 8% 3% 2% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% i i hi i i i 20% 18% 11% 7% 6% 9% 9% 2% 3% 87% 13% 75% 25% 48% 52% I am paying a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up (e.g. added minutes, texts or data) 122 46 10 5 11 13 5 8 4 13 117 5 94 28 51 72 8% 20% 5% 5% 11% 10% 4% 6% 7% 8% 9% 3% 9% 7% 6% 10% bcefghi f k n 38% 8% 4% 9% 11% 4% 7% 3% 11% 96% 4% 77% 23% 41% 59% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd10 (Qd31). Showcard Are You Still Within Your Minimum Contract Period? If Necessary Contract Periods Tend To Run For 12, 18 Or 24 Months And This Is Agreed When You Take Out The Contyract For The Mobile Phone And Handset. If Yes - Which Of These Best Describes Your Contract? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1899 163 140 118 123 129 126 133 113 134 1418 481 1269 626 898 1001 Effective Weighted Sample 1314 147 132 113 118 120 120 124 106 123 1108 225 894 436 633 696 Total 1491 232 204 114 100 128 133 126 54 168 1306 185 1084 402 787 703 16% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% No, I am out of my minimum contract period 92 14 12 14 5 7 20 4 3 4 66 25 66 26 48 44 6% 6% 6% 13% 5% 6% 15% 3% 6% 3% 5% 14% 6% 6% 6% 6% dgi abdeghi j 16% 13% 16% 5% 8% 21% 5% 4% 5% 73% 27% 72% 28% 52% 48% Don't know 30 4 9 1 - 1 5 1 2 4 27 3 15 14 15 15 2% 2% 4% 1% -% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% d d l 12% 29% 4% -% 3% 15% 3% 5% 15% 89% 11% 49% 46% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd11 (Qd32). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Current Situation, Now That Your Minimum Contract Period For Your Mobile Phone Service And Handset Has Ended? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 107 51 56 15 20 39 33 11 9 22 26 30 47 12 18 83 4 10 10 Effective Weighted Sample 81 37 45 12 13 33 26 8 8 18 18 23 37 9 14 72 3 7 8 Total 92 44 48 11 18 39 23 7 8 19 26 28 37 13 13 85 2 3 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 66 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 72% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a SIM-only cheaper tariff 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up, but not SIM-only 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd11 (Qd32). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Current Situation, Now That Your Minimum Contract Period For Your Mobile Phone Service And Handset Has Ended? (Single Code) Base : Those who got a handset and contract when they signed up for their current mobile contract and are now out of their minimum contract period ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 107 9 9 17 6 7 18 5 8 4 73 34 73 34 55 52 Effective Weighted Sample 81 8 8 16 6 7 17 5 7 4 57 25 54 29 40 42 Total 92 14 12 14 5 7 20 4 3 4 66 25 66 26 48 44 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am paying a similar monthly tariff compared to when I signed up 66 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 72% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a SIM-only cheaper tariff 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a cheaper tariff compared to when I signed up, but not SIM-only 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I am now on a more expensive tariff compared to when I signed up 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd12 (Qd33). What Type Of Sim-Only Deal Are You On? (Single Code) Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 13 | 3 | 10 | 1 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 11 | 3 | 8 | 1 | | Total | 10 | 2 | 8 | * | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 30 day | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 12 month | | | | | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 18 month | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd12 (Qd33). What Type Of Sim-Only Deal Are You On? (Single Code) Base : Those now on a SIM-only tariff now that their minimum contract period has ended ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 13 2 1 3 1 1 1 - 3 - 8 5 10 3 7 6 Effective Weighted Sample 11 2 1 3 1 1 1 - 3 - 7 4 9 2 6 5 Total 10 2 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 6 4 9 1 6 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** 30 day ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - ** - ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** 12 month ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - ** - ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** 18 month ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - ** - ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - ** - ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% ** -% ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 1468 | 730 | 738 | 173 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 980 | 484 | 497 | 113 | | Total | 970 | 493 | 476 | 106 | | 51% | 49% | 11% | 11% | 30% | | PROMPTED RESPONSES | | | | | | An independent retailer - either high | | | | | | street or online (e.g. Amazon, | | | | | | Carphone Warehouse, Simply | | | | | | Electronics, etc.) | 369 | 190 | 179 | 45 | | 38% | 39% | 38% | 43% | 41% | | i | i | r | r | | | 51% | 49% | 12% | 12% | 29% | | Your current mobile phone network | | | | | | operator | 260 | 127 | 133 | 27 | | 27% | 26% | 28% | 25% | 28% | | opq | | | | | | 49% | 51% | 10% | 12% | 29% | | A previous mobile phone network | | | | | | operator | 69 | 40 | 30 | 6 | | 7% | 8% | 6% | 6% | 5% | | 57% | 43% | 8% | 7% | 35% | | Directly from the phone handset | | | | | | manufacturer (e.g. Apple, Samsung, | | | | | | etc.) | 47 | 24 | 23 | 4 | | 5% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 5% | | ghj | | | | | | 51% | 49% | 9% | 11% | 21% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 1468 | 730 | 738 | 173 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 980 | 484 | 497 | 113 | | Total | 970 | 493 | 476 | 106 | | 51% | 49% | 11% | 11% | 30% | | UNPROMPTED RESPONSES | | | | | | Hand me down/ second hand/ | | | | | | passed on to me/ eBay | 71 | 35 | 36 | 8 | | 7% | 7% | 8% | 7% | 6% | | klm | or | | | | | 49% | 51% | 11% | 10% | 32% | | A gift/ present | 33 | 12 | 21 | 3 | | 3% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 2% | | k | r | r | r | | | 37% | 63% | 9% | 6% | 27% | | Don't know | 120 | 65 | 55 | 13 | | 12% | 13% | 11% | 13% | 14% | | g | n | p | | | | 55% | 45% | 11% | 13% | 36% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1468 73 90 105 98 104 98 97 112 99 1032 436 524 937 705 763 Effective Weighted Sample 980 62 85 101 89 97 93 89 102 92 797 194 356 639 471 533 Total 970 86 126 93 67 94 98 84 49 113 821 148 411 554 531 439 ** ** 10% ** 10% ** ** 5% ** 85% 15% 42% 57% 55% 45% ## Prompted Responses An independent retailer - either high street or online (e.g. Amazon, Carphone Warehouse, Simply Electronics, etc.) 369 ** ** 34 ** 33 ** ** 22 ** 313 56 158 211 211 157 38% ** ** 37% ** 35% ** ** 45% ** 38% 38% 38% 38% 40% 36% ** ** 9% ** 9% ** ** 6% ** 85% 15% 43% 57% 57% 43% Your current mobile phone network operator 260 ** ** 29 ** 29 ** ** 9 ** 221 40 109 149 130 131 27% ** ** 31% ** 31% ** ** 19% ** 27% 27% 27% 27% 24% 30% h h ** ** 11% ** 11% ** ** 4% ** 85% 15% 42% 57% 50% 50% A previous mobile phone network operator 69 ** ** 8 ** 9 ** ** 4 ** 58 11 32 37 42 28 7% ** ** 9% ** 9% ** ** 9% ** 7% 8% 8% 7% 8% 6% ** ** 12% ** 13% ** ** 6% ** 84% 16% 47% 53% 60% 40% Directly from the phone handset manufacturer (e.g. Apple, Samsung, etc.) 47 ** ** 7 ** 2 ** ** 3 ** 41 6 23 24 27 20 5% ** ** 8% ** 2% ** ** 6% ** 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% ** ** 16% ** 5% ** ** 6% ** 87% 13% 48% 52% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd13 (Qd34). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Where You Got Your Mobile Phone Handset From? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a prepay/ Pay As You Go phone or took a SIM-only tariff ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1468 73 90 105 98 104 98 97 112 99 1032 436 524 937 705 763 Effective Weighted Sample 980 62 85 101 89 97 93 89 102 92 797 194 356 639 471 533 Total 970 86 126 93 67 94 98 84 49 113 821 148 411 554 531 439 ** ** 10% ** 10% ** ** 5% ** 85% 15% 42% 57% 55% 45% UNPROMPTED RESPONSES Hand me down/ second hand/ passed on to me/ eBay 71 ** ** 7 ** 8 ** ** 6 ** 60 11 25 46 37 34 7% ** ** 7% ** 8% ** ** 11% ** 7% 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% ** ** 10% ** 11% ** ** 8% ** 85% 15% 36% 64% 53% 47% A gift/ present 33 ** ** 1 ** 5 ** ** * ** 27 6 7 26 19 14 3% ** ** 1% ** 5% ** ** 1% ** 3% 4% 2% 5% 4% 3% l ** ** 2% ** 14% ** ** 1% ** 82% 18% 20% 80% 58% 42% Don't know 120 ** ** 6 ** 8 ** ** 4 ** 101 19 57 61 65 55 12% ** ** 7% ** 9% ** ** 8% ** 12% 13% 14% 11% 12% 13% ** ** 5% ** 7% ** ** 3% ** 85% 15% 47% 51% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a day 1325 597 728 270 321 519 215 124 127 189 369 356 393 305 270 1104 120 56 44 53% 50% 56% 75% 70% 58% 28% 45% 53% 55% 64% 53% 57% 56% 46% 53% 57% 47% 66% a ef ef f g g ghi n n n q opq 45% 55% 20% 24% 39% 16% 9% 10% 14% 28% 27% 30% 23% 20% 83% 9% 4% 3% Every day 502 222 280 59 91 215 137 48 38 70 126 149 138 102 113 422 43 27 9 20% 18% 22% 16% 20% 24% 18% 17% 16% 20% 22% 22% 20% 19% 19% 20% 21% 23% 13% cf r r r 44% 56% 12% 18% 43% 27% 9% 8% 14% 25% 30% 27% 20% 22% 84% 9% 5% 2% Several times a week 287 157 130 16 34 93 144 34 28 39 47 70 57 63 96 241 22 15 10 12% 13% 10% 4% 7% 10% 18% 12% 12% 11% 8% 10% 8% 12% 16% 11% 10% 12% 14% b c cde klm 55% 45% 5% 12% 32% 50% 12% 10% 14% 16% 24% 20% 22% 33% 84% 8% 5% 3% At least once a week 110 62 48 9 5 31 65 20 16 17 17 26 37 22 25 98 5 6 2 4% 5% 4% 2% 1% 3% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 2% 5% 2% d cde j j r 56% 44% 8% 4% 28% 60% 18% 14% 16% 16% 24% 34% 20% 22% 89% 4% 5% 1% At least once a month 60 40 20 5 1 9 45 11 7 2 6 14 12 13 21 51 5 3 1 2% 3% 2% 1% *% 1% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% b cde ij i l 66% 34% 8% 2% 15% 75% 18% 12% 3% 10% 23% 21% 21% 35% 85% 9% 5% 1% Less than once a month 65 41 25 1 2 10 53 8 8 10 4 18 17 16 15 58 4 3 1 3% 3% 2% *% *% 1% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% b cde j j j r 62% 38% 2% 3% 15% 81% 12% 13% 15% 6% 27% 25% 24% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Never 142 83 59 2 3 16 121 33 16 14 9 35 32 28 47 119 12 9 2 6% 7% 5% 1% 1% 2% 15% 12% 7% 4% 2% 5% 5% 5% 8% 6% 5% 7% 3% b cde hij j j l r r 58% 42% 1% 2% 11% 85% 24% 12% 10% 6% 25% 22% 20% 33% 84% 8% 6% 1% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2223 1038 1185 353 451 857 562 226 209 315 559 601 625 492 503 1865 191 104 64 89% 86% 92% 98% 99% 96% 72% 81% 87% 92% 97% 90% 91% 90% 86% 89% 90% 87% 95% a f ef f gh ghi n n n opq 47% 53% 16% 20% 39% 25% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2349 1119 1230 359 454 876 660 244 224 327 569 633 654 521 539 1973 200 110 66 94% 93% 95% 99% 99% 98% 84% 88% 93% 96% 98% 95% 95% 95% 92% 94% 95% 92% 97% a f f f g g ghi n n oq 48% 52% 15% 19% 37% 28% 10% 10% 14% 24% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 4 3 1 - - 3 1 - - - - 1 1 - 2 3 - * * *% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% *% *% -% *% *% 82% 18% -% -% 73% 27% -% -% -% -% 35% 14% -% 51% 86% -% 8% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Several times a day 1325 148 180 110 85 105 115 140 64 157 1159 166 941 378 708 617 53% 47% 53% 52% 50% 47% 49% 66% 62% 55% 54% 49% 62% 39% 53% 54% abcdefi acdef m 11% 14% 8% 6% 8% 9% 11% 5% 12% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Every day 502 91 67 31 49 45 46 21 15 58 442 60 337 164 279 222 20% 29% 20% 15% 28% 20% 20% 10% 14% 20% 21% 18% 22% 17% 21% 19% bcefghi g bcefghi g g g m 18% 13% 6% 10% 9% 9% 4% 3% 12% 88% 12% 67% 33% 56% 44% Several times a week 287 58 28 24 15 35 26 19 11 23 252 35 139 148 142 145 12% 18% 8% 12% 9% 16% 11% 9% 11% 8% 12% 10% 9% 15% 11% 13% bdfghi bdgi l 20% 10% 9% 5% 12% 9% 7% 4% 8% 88% 12% 49% 51% 50% 50% At least once a week 110 13 10 16 5 15 13 7 5 13 85 25 40 68 54 56 4% 4% 3% 8% 3% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% 7% 4% 5% bd j l 12% 9% 15% 5% 14% 12% 7% 4% 12% 78% 22% 37% 62% 49% 51% At least once a month 60 2 13 10 4 8 4 4 3 3 49 11 15 45 34 26 2% 1% 4% 5% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% a afi a l 4% 21% 17% 6% 14% 6% 7% 5% 5% 82% 18% 25% 75% 57% 43% Less than once a month 65 5 17 6 4 2 11 5 1 6 51 14 15 51 42 23 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 1% 5% 3% 2% aeh aeh l 7% 27% 10% 6% 3% 18% 7% 1% 10% 79% 21% 22% 78% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14A (Qd4A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Send Or Receive Text Messages? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Never 142 1 22 13 9 11 20 15 5 23 113 29 26 114 81 61 6% *% 6% 6% 5% 5% 9% 7% 5% 8% 5% 9% 2% 12% 6% 5% a a a a a a a a j l 1% 15% 9% 6% 8% 14% 11% 4% 16% 80% 20% 19% 81% 57% 43% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2223 310 286 181 154 200 200 188 95 251 1938 285 1458 758 1183 1040 89% 98% 85% 86% 90% 90% 85% 89% 91% 88% 90% 84% 96% 78% 88% 90% bcdefghi bf k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 66% 34% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 2349 317 316 198 162 211 215 196 98 260 2039 310 1488 854 1259 1090 94% 100% 94% 94% 95% 95% 91% 93% 95% 91% 95% 91% 98% 88% 94% 95% bcdefghi k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 63% 36% 54% 46% Don't know 4 - - - - 1 - - - 2 4 * 3 1 1 2 *% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 35% -% -% -% 51% 98% 2% 77% 23% 39% 61% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a day 1110 549 561 214 266 472 159 90 107 156 326 301 338 251 220 909 101 53 47 45% 46% 44% 59% 58% 53% 20% 32% 44% 46% 56% 45% 49% 46% 37% 43% 48% 45% 70% ef f f g g ghi n n n opq 49% 51% 19% 24% 43% 14% 8% 10% 14% 29% 27% 30% 23% 20% 82% 9% 5% 4% Every day 522 234 288 72 113 200 137 54 37 75 117 125 147 124 125 439 43 30 10 21% 19% 22% 20% 25% 22% 18% 20% 15% 22% 20% 19% 21% 23% 21% 21% 20% 25% 15% f f r r 45% 55% 14% 22% 38% 26% 10% 7% 14% 22% 24% 28% 24% 24% 84% 8% 6% 2% Several times a week 463 221 242 45 58 145 215 60 51 68 80 125 109 95 132 396 43 15 8 19% 18% 19% 12% 13% 16% 28% 22% 21% 20% 14% 19% 16% 17% 22% 19% 21% 13% 12% cde j j j lm qr qr 48% 52% 10% 12% 31% 47% 13% 11% 15% 17% 27% 24% 21% 28% 86% 9% 3% 2% At least once a week 182 84 98 19 11 51 101 29 22 23 30 54 46 26 54 158 13 10 1 7% 7% 8% 5% 2% 6% 13% 11% 9% 7% 5% 8% 7% 5% 9% 8% 6% 8% 2% d cde j j m m r r r 46% 54% 10% 6% 28% 56% 16% 12% 13% 16% 30% 26% 15% 30% 87% 7% 5% 1% At least once a month 101 49 52 8 4 17 72 17 9 9 17 34 23 21 23 90 5 5 * 4% 4% 4% 2% 1% 2% 9% 6% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% *% cde ij r r r 49% 51% 8% 4% 17% 72% 17% 9% 9% 16% 33% 23% 21% 22% 89% 5% 5% *% Less than once a month 97 60 38 3 3 6 86 21 12 8 8 25 19 25 28 88 5 5 - 4% 5% 3% 1% 1% 1% 11% 8% 5% 2% 1% 4% 3% 5% 5% 4% 2% 4% -% b cde ij j l r r r 61% 39% 3% 3% 6% 88% 22% 12% 8% 9% 26% 19% 26% 29% 90% 5% 5% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14B (Qd4B). Showcard And How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Make Calls? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Never 16 5 10 1 2 3 9 4 3 1 1 3 4 4 5 14 1 1 * 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% 2% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% e j 34% 66% 7% 14% 19% 60% 29% 16% 7% 5% 17% 23% 27% 34% 89% 4% 6% 1% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2277 1088 1190 349 448 867 613 234 217 322 552 606 641 497 532 1902 200 108 67 91% 90% 92% 97% 98% 97% 78% 84% 90% 95% 96% 91% 93% 91% 90% 91% 95% 90% 99% f f f g g gh oq opq 48% 52% 15% 20% 38% 27% 10% 10% 14% 24% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2475 1196 1279 360 454 891 771 272 238 340 577 665 682 543 583 2079 211 118 67 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% f g g 48% 52% 15% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 3 3 * - - 1 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 - 3 - 1 * *% *% *% -% -% *% *% *% -% -% -% *% *% *% -% *% -% 1% *% 87% 13% -% -% 42% 58% 35% -% -% -% 40% 16% 44% -% 75% -% 18% 7% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Several times a day 1110 159 150 69 70 73 104 89 51 145 982 128 828 277 573 538 45% 50% 44% 33% 41% 33% 44% 42% 49% 51% 46% 38% 55% 29% 43% 47% ce ce ce c ce cde k m 14% 13% 6% 6% 7% 9% 8% 5% 13% 88% 12% 75% 25% 52% 48% Every day 522 88 50 46 41 51 52 41 18 52 459 63 349 173 281 241 21% 28% 15% 22% 24% 23% 22% 19% 17% 18% 21% 19% 23% 18% 21% 21% bhi b b b m 17% 10% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 3% 10% 88% 12% 67% 33% 54% 46% Several times a week 463 64 70 39 30 52 35 40 22 44 406 57 225 236 249 214 19% 20% 21% 19% 18% 23% 15% 19% 21% 16% 19% 17% 15% 24% 19% 19% fi l 14% 15% 9% 7% 11% 7% 9% 5% 10% 88% 12% 49% 51% 54% 46% At least once a week 182 5 22 27 15 22 19 18 6 23 145 37 68 112 101 80 7% 1% 7% 13% 9% 10% 8% 8% 5% 8% 7% 11% 5% 12% 8% 7% a abh a a a a a a j l 3% 12% 15% 8% 12% 11% 10% 3% 13% 80% 20% 38% 61% 56% 44% At least once a month 101 2 17 18 7 16 8 11 2 10 77 24 27 74 62 39 4% 1% 5% 8% 4% 7% 3% 5% 2% 3% 4% 7% 2% 8% 5% 3% a afhi a ah a a j l 2% 16% 18% 7% 16% 8% 11% 2% 10% 77% 23% 27% 73% 62% 38% Less than once a month 97 - 29 8 6 6 15 11 3 9 71 27 14 84 66 32 4% -% 9% 4% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 9% 5% 3% acdehi a a a a a a a j l o -% 30% 9% 6% 6% 16% 11% 4% 9% 73% 27% 14% 86% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14B (QD4B). SHOWCARD And how often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to make calls? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Never 16 - - 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 12 4 4 11 7 8 1% -% -% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% ab l -% -% 13% 16% 5% 10% 19% 14% 12% 75% 25% 27% 73% 47% 53% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2277 316 292 182 156 198 210 187 96 265 1992 285 1470 799 1204 1073 91% 99% 86% 86% 91% 89% 90% 88% 92% 93% 92% 84% 97% 82% 90% 93% bcdefghi bc bc k m n 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 87% 13% 65% 35% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 2475 318 337 208 168 221 233 209 102 283 2140 336 1510 957 1332 1144 99% 100% 100% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% h h m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Don't know 3 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 3 * 3 1 3 1 *% -% -% 1% -% 1% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 35% -% 40% -% -% -% -% 97% 3% 82% 18% 79% 21% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | Several times a day | 1086 | 517 | 570 | 247 | | 57% | 57% | 57% | 75% | 68% | | def | ef | f | n | n | | 48% | 52% | 23% | 27% | 40% | | Every day | 412 | 188 | 224 | 58 | | 22% | 21% | 23% | 18% | 22% | | c | gh | g | m | r | | 46% | 54% | 14% | 22% | 44% | | Several times a week | 147 | 78 | 69 | 10 | | 8% | 9% | 7% | 3% | 7% | | c | c | cde | j | klm | | 53% | 47% | 7% | 19% | 41% | | At least once a week | 71 | 35 | 36 | 5 | | 4% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 1% | | d | cde | l | | | | 50% | 50% | 8% | 5% | 37% | | At least once a month | 23 | 16 | 7 | 1 | | 1% | 2% | 1% | *% | *% | | cde | k | k | k | p | | 69% | 31% | 3% | 7% | 33% | | Less than once a month | 33 | 13 | 20 | 1 | | 2% | 1% | 2% | *% | *% | | cde | j | r | | | | 40% | 60% | 2% | 4% | 29% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | Never | 119 | 55 | 64 | 8 | | 6% | 6% | 6% | 2% | 2% | | cde | j | k | r | | | 46% | 54% | 6% | 9% | 25% | | TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK | 1716 | 817 | 899 | 320 | | 91% | 91% | 91% | 97% | 97% | | ef | ef | f | g | g | | 48% | 52% | 19% | 24% | 41% | | TOTAL EVER | 1773 | 846 | 926 | 321 | | 94% | 94% | 93% | 98% | 98% | | f | f | f | g | m | | 48% | 52% | 18% | 23% | 41% | | Don't know | 4 | 1 | 2 | - | | *% | *% | *% | -% | -% | | 39% | 61% | -% | -% | 57% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD14C (QD4C). SHOWCARD How often, it at all, do you use your mobile phone to access email or internet services? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Several times a day 1086 123 148 84 62 82 111 111 47 134 956 131 809 271 559 528 57% 45% 61% 54% 49% 49% 63% 68% 63% 64% 58% 53% 62% 47% 56% 59% ade ade acde ade ade m 11% 14% 8% 6% 8% 10% 10% 4% 12% 88% 12% 75% 25% 51% 49% Every day 412 86 53 36 33 39 31 20 13 45 358 54 291 121 239 173 22% 31% 22% 23% 26% 23% 17% 12% 17% 21% 22% 22% 22% 21% 24% 19% fghi g g g g g o 21% 13% 9% 8% 9% 7% 5% 3% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 58% 42% Several times a week 147 44 12 12 8 12 11 10 5 9 127 20 92 55 59 88 8% 16% 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 4% 8% 8% 7% 10% 6% 10% bcdefghi n 30% 8% 8% 6% 8% 7% 7% 4% 6% 87% 13% 63% 37% 40% 60% At least once a week 71 8 8 8 5 9 7 5 2 8 61 10 31 40 49 22 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 7% 5% 2% l o 12% 11% 11% 7% 13% 10% 7% 3% 12% 85% 15% 44% 56% 69% 31% At least once a month 23 1 3 3 3 4 1 3 1 1 15 8 14 10 14 9 1% *% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% j 6% 15% 13% 12% 16% 4% 11% 5% 6% 66% 34% 58% 42% 62% 38% Less than once a month 33 3 2 2 1 8 2 3 1 4 30 4 17 17 20 14 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% abdf l 9% 6% 5% 3% 25% 5% 10% 2% 13% 89% 11% 50% 50% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd14C (Qd4C). Showcard How Often, It At All, Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access Email Or Internet Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Never 119 10 15 12 14 13 15 12 5 7 103 16 59 58 61 58 6% 4% 6% 7% 11% 8% 8% 7% 7% 4% 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% 7% ai l 9% 13% 10% 12% 11% 13% 10% 4% 6% 86% 14% 50% 49% 51% 49% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 1716 261 221 140 108 143 160 146 67 195 1501 215 1224 487 906 810 91% 95% 91% 90% 86% 85% 90% 89% 90% 93% 91% 88% 93% 85% 90% 91% de de m 15% 13% 8% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% TOTAL EVER 1773 265 226 145 112 155 162 152 68 201 1546 226 1254 513 940 833 94% 96% 93% 93% 89% 92% 92% 93% 93% 96% 94% 93% 95% 89% 94% 93% d d m 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Don't know 4 - 1 - - * - - * 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 *% -% *% -% -% *% -% -% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j -% 30% -% -% 9% -% -% 10% 19% 47% 53% 30% 70% 78% 22% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2227 1058 1169 348 440 837 602 227 211 317 546 612 625 489 500 1878 182 106 61 89% 88% 91% 97% 96% 94% 77% 82% 88% 93% 95% 91% 91% 89% 85% 90% 86% 88% 91% a ef f f gh gh n n n 47% 53% 16% 20% 38% 27% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% Take photos 1750 812 938 317 384 686 363 153 145 245 495 500 495 384 369 1471 144 84 50 70% 67% 73% 88% 84% 77% 46% 55% 60% 72% 86% 75% 72% 70% 63% 70% 68% 70% 74% a ef ef f gh ghi n n n 46% 54% 18% 22% 39% 21% 9% 8% 14% 28% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% General browsing/ surfing the internet 1515 722 793 307 371 609 228 127 124 219 433 436 434 323 320 1272 127 69 47 61% 60% 61% 85% 81% 68% 29% 46% 52% 64% 75% 65% 63% 59% 54% 61% 60% 58% 70% ef ef f gh ghi mn n opq 48% 52% 20% 25% 40% 15% 8% 8% 14% 29% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1410 669 741 272 336 574 227 98 116 206 422 450 409 289 260 1199 112 59 40 57% 56% 57% 75% 74% 64% 29% 35% 48% 60% 73% 67% 60% 53% 44% 57% 53% 49% 59% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n q q 47% 53% 19% 24% 41% 16% 7% 8% 15% 30% 32% 29% 21% 18% 85% 8% 4% 3% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 1227 557 670 248 314 493 173 95 95 179 358 361 367 263 233 1019 107 59 41 49% 46% 52% 69% 69% 55% 22% 34% 40% 52% 62% 54% 54% 48% 40% 49% 51% 49% 61% a ef ef f gh ghi n n n opq 45% 55% 20% 26% 40% 14% 8% 8% 15% 29% 29% 30% 21% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1221 543 678 275 330 494 122 106 109 185 356 343 346 260 272 1023 102 58 37 49% 45% 53% 76% 72% 55% 16% 38% 45% 54% 62% 51% 50% 47% 46% 49% 48% 49% 55% a ef ef f gh ghi o 45% 55% 23% 27% 40% 10% 9% 9% 15% 29% 28% 28% 21% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 1177 525 651 270 326 459 122 89 94 170 335 340 357 240 239 993 95 53 35 47% 44% 50% 75% 71% 51% 16% 32% 39% 50% 58% 51% 52% 44% 41% 47% 45% 45% 52% a ef ef f gh ghi mn mn 45% 55% 23% 28% 39% 10% 8% 8% 14% 28% 29% 30% 20% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 1086 543 543 234 287 430 135 84 94 157 326 319 324 228 214 920 92 42 31 44% 45% 42% 65% 63% 48% 17% 30% 39% 46% 56% 48% 47% 42% 36% 44% 44% 35% 46% ef ef f g g ghi n n q q q 50% 50% 22% 26% 40% 12% 8% 9% 14% 30% 29% 30% 21% 20% 85% 9% 4% 3% Record video clips using the phone 978 453 525 218 266 394 100 72 83 146 314 293 275 213 197 820 79 47 32 39% 38% 41% 60% 58% 44% 13% 26% 34% 43% 54% 44% 40% 39% 33% 39% 37% 40% 48% ef ef f g gh ghi n n opq 46% 54% 22% 27% 40% 10% 7% 8% 15% 32% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% Play games 856 421 435 228 253 301 75 77 72 115 240 213 258 181 205 741 56 32 27 34% 35% 34% 63% 55% 34% 10% 28% 30% 34% 41% 32% 38% 33% 35% 35% 27% 27% 40% def ef f ghi k pq pq 49% 51% 27% 30% 35% 9% 9% 8% 13% 28% 25% 30% 21% 24% 87% 7% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Accessing/ receiving news 842 452 391 163 218 353 109 50 65 118 291 297 261 169 116 709 69 36 28 34% 38% 30% 45% 48% 39% 14% 18% 27% 35% 50% 44% 38% 31% 20% 34% 33% 30% 41% b f ef f g g ghi lmn mn n opq 54% 46% 19% 26% 42% 13% 6% 8% 14% 34% 35% 31% 20% 14% 84% 8% 4% 3% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 827 414 413 201 239 311 75 69 67 131 265 228 239 174 185 731 48 34 14 33% 34% 32% 56% 52% 35% 10% 25% 28% 38% 46% 34% 35% 32% 31% 35% 23% 28% 21% ef ef f gh ghi pqr r 50% 50% 24% 29% 38% 9% 8% 8% 16% 32% 28% 29% 21% 22% 88% 6% 4% 2% Send/ receive video clips 771 350 420 170 222 305 74 52 62 115 241 239 243 157 131 639 70 35 27 31% 29% 33% 47% 49% 34% 9% 19% 26% 34% 42% 36% 35% 29% 22% 30% 33% 29% 40% ef ef f g gh ghi mn mn n oq 45% 55% 22% 29% 40% 10% 7% 8% 15% 31% 31% 32% 20% 17% 83% 9% 5% 3% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 597 267 331 133 182 227 55 38 61 72 182 169 192 122 114 515 48 22 12 24% 22% 26% 37% 40% 25% 7% 14% 25% 21% 32% 25% 28% 22% 19% 25% 23% 18% 18% ef ef f g g gi n mn qr 45% 55% 22% 30% 38% 9% 6% 10% 12% 31% 28% 32% 20% 19% 86% 8% 4% 2% Listen to music using MP3 function 591 319 272 172 165 212 42 56 42 86 199 181 178 122 109 504 51 24 12 24% 26% 21% 48% 36% 24% 5% 20% 17% 25% 34% 27% 26% 22% 19% 24% 24% 20% 18% b def ef f h ghi n n r r 54% 46% 29% 28% 36% 7% 9% 7% 15% 34% 31% 30% 21% 19% 85% 9% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 554 270 284 125 151 211 67 48 47 84 181 179 166 114 95 479 33 31 12 22% 22% 22% 35% 33% 24% 9% 17% 20% 25% 31% 27% 24% 21% 16% 23% 16% 26% 17% ef ef f g ghi mn n pr pr 49% 51% 23% 27% 38% 12% 9% 8% 15% 33% 32% 30% 21% 17% 86% 6% 6% 2% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 520 367 152 110 140 206 64 25 34 79 192 172 171 110 67 437 48 18 16 21% 31% 12% 30% 31% 23% 8% 9% 14% 23% 33% 26% 25% 20% 11% 21% 23% 15% 24% b ef ef f gh ghi mn n n q q q 71% 29% 21% 27% 40% 12% 5% 6% 15% 37% 33% 33% 21% 13% 84% 9% 4% 3% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 507 241 266 110 147 203 47 28 45 67 163 157 161 90 98 439 42 16 10 20% 20% 21% 30% 32% 23% 6% 10% 19% 20% 28% 23% 23% 16% 17% 21% 20% 13% 15% ef ef f g g ghi mn mn qr q 48% 52% 22% 29% 40% 9% 6% 9% 13% 32% 31% 32% 18% 19% 87% 8% 3% 2% Listen to FM radio 385 190 195 94 90 152 48 27 34 37 138 124 109 81 69 337 27 14 6 15% 16% 15% 26% 20% 17% 6% 10% 14% 11% 24% 19% 16% 15% 12% 16% 13% 12% 10% def f f ghi n n r 49% 51% 24% 24% 40% 13% 7% 9% 10% 36% 32% 28% 21% 18% 88% 7% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 341 185 156 84 104 122 31 25 26 40 133 106 96 71 67 304 17 14 6 14% 15% 12% 23% 23% 14% 4% 9% 11% 12% 23% 16% 14% 13% 11% 14% 8% 12% 9% b ef ef f ghi n pr 54% 46% 25% 30% 36% 9% 7% 8% 12% 39% 31% 28% 21% 20% 89% 5% 4% 2% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 337 168 169 82 82 135 38 25 31 43 112 116 101 64 56 289 23 18 7 14% 14% 13% 23% 18% 15% 5% 9% 13% 13% 19% 17% 15% 12% 10% 14% 11% 15% 11% ef f f ghi mn n 50% 50% 24% 24% 40% 11% 7% 9% 13% 33% 34% 30% 19% 17% 86% 7% 5% 2% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 325 177 148 95 94 119 17 21 20 39 110 117 101 52 55 280 22 13 10 13% 15% 11% 26% 21% 13% 2% 8% 8% 11% 19% 17% 15% 10% 9% 13% 11% 11% 15% b ef ef f ghi mn mn 54% 46% 29% 29% 37% 5% 7% 6% 12% 34% 36% 31% 16% 17% 86% 7% 4% 3% Listen to Podcasts 226 136 90 63 54 92 16 9 14 38 86 78 80 43 24 206 7 8 5 9% 11% 7% 18% 12% 10% 2% 3% 6% 11% 15% 12% 12% 8% 4% 10% 3% 6% 7% b def f f gh gh mn mn n p 60% 40% 28% 24% 41% 7% 4% 6% 17% 38% 35% 35% 19% 11% 91% 3% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 220 114 105 64 65 80 10 21 18 32 72 60 56 50 53 190 10 14 5 9% 10% 8% 18% 14% 9% 1% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 7% ef ef f gh p p 52% 48% 29% 30% 36% 5% 9% 8% 15% 33% 28% 25% 23% 24% 87% 5% 6% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 199 120 79 48 58 77 17 14 12 24 82 58 49 51 39 176 11 8 4 8% 10% 6% 13% 13% 9% 2% 5% 5% 7% 14% 9% 7% 9% 7% 8% 5% 7% 5% b ef ef f ghi 60% 40% 24% 29% 39% 9% 7% 6% 12% 41% 29% 25% 26% 20% 88% 6% 4% 2% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 195 105 91 49 57 72 17 15 12 26 65 69 60 41 26 165 19 7 4 8% 9% 7% 14% 13% 8% 2% 5% 5% 8% 11% 10% 9% 7% 4% 8% 9% 6% 7% ef ef f gh n n n 54% 46% 25% 29% 37% 9% 8% 6% 13% 33% 35% 31% 21% 13% 84% 10% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 192 103 89 52 67 62 11 20 15 21 65 51 57 44 40 164 12 9 6 8% 9% 7% 14% 15% 7% 1% 7% 6% 6% 11% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 6% 8% 9% ef ef f ghi 54% 46% 27% 35% 32% 6% 10% 8% 11% 34% 26% 30% 23% 21% 86% 6% 5% 3% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 126 74 53 22 32 65 8 7 11 20 53 46 35 21 24 112 5 8 1 5% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 1% 3% 5% 6% 9% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 2% 7% 2% b f f f g gh mn pr pr 58% 42% 18% 25% 51% 6% 6% 9% 16% 42% 36% 28% 16% 19% 89% 4% 7% 1% Other 37 22 15 2 2 17 17 3 1 6 3 11 11 9 6 30 6 2 - 1% 2% 1% *% *% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% -% d cd r r r 60% 40% 5% 4% 45% 46% 9% 4% 16% 7% 29% 30% 25% 16% 81% 15% 4% -% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 70% 69% 71% 90% 92% 79% 39% 53% 60% 76% 84% 76% 72% 68% 64% 70% 70% 67% 75% ef ef f gh ghi mn n q 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% WATCHING AV CONTENT 949 482 467 227 273 363 86 81 71 144 303 263 271 204 210 826 59 43 21 38% 40% 36% 63% 60% 41% 11% 29% 29% 42% 52% 39% 40% 37% 36% 39% 28% 36% 30% ef ef f gh ghi pr p 51% 49% 24% 29% 38% 9% 9% 7% 15% 32% 28% 29% 21% 22% 87% 6% 5% 2% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 786 409 376 212 207 292 75 68 66 105 261 235 236 163 151 682 61 29 14 32% 34% 29% 59% 45% 33% 10% 24% 27% 31% 45% 35% 34% 30% 26% 33% 29% 24% 21% b def ef f ghi n n qr r 52% 48% 27% 26% 37% 10% 9% 8% 13% 33% 30% 30% 21% 19% 87% 8% 4% 2% None of these 171 102 69 4 5 20 143 37 21 14 8 42 35 40 54 142 12 12 5 7% 9% 5% 1% 1% 2% 18% 13% 9% 4% 1% 6% 5% 7% 9% 7% 6% 10% 7% b cde ij ij j l 60% 40% 3% 3% 12% 83% 22% 12% 8% 5% 24% 21% 23% 32% 83% 7% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2227 303 295 180 151 206 204 194 93 252 1940 287 1431 788 1191 1036 89% 95% 87% 85% 89% 92% 87% 91% 90% 88% 90% 84% 94% 81% 89% 90% bcdfhi c c k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 64% 35% 53% 47% Take photos 1750 251 240 160 111 152 160 156 60 180 1513 236 1208 535 932 818 70% 79% 71% 76% 65% 68% 68% 74% 58% 63% 70% 70% 80% 55% 69% 71% defhi h dhi h h hi m 14% 14% 9% 6% 9% 9% 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 69% 31% 53% 47% General browsing/ surfing the internet 1515 248 194 118 95 132 122 137 58 167 1336 179 1092 421 797 717 61% 78% 57% 56% 56% 59% 52% 65% 56% 59% 62% 53% 72% 43% 59% 62% bcdefghi f k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 8% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 28% 53% 47% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1410 245 189 124 85 118 134 109 51 144 1241 169 1043 364 752 658 57% 77% 56% 59% 50% 53% 57% 51% 49% 50% 58% 50% 69% 38% 56% 57% bcdefghi h k m 17% 13% 9% 6% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 74% 26% 53% 47% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 1227 206 137 103 78 102 107 96 46 146 1083 143 898 325 649 578 49% 65% 41% 49% 46% 46% 45% 45% 44% 51% 50% 42% 59% 34% 48% 50% bcdefghi b k m 17% 11% 8% 6% 8% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 73% 26% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1221 197 148 101 82 94 114 104 51 132 1085 136 898 319 616 605 49% 62% 44% 48% 48% 42% 49% 49% 49% 46% 50% 40% 59% 33% 46% 52% bcdefghi k m n 16% 12% 8% 7% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 74% 26% 50% 50% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 1177 224 129 93 79 101 107 96 48 118 1034 143 868 304 587 589 47% 70% 38% 44% 46% 45% 46% 45% 46% 41% 48% 42% 57% 31% 44% 51% bcdefghi k m n 19% 11% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 74% 26% 50% 50% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 1086 188 109 104 75 93 101 110 30 110 952 134 795 289 545 540 44% 59% 32% 49% 44% 42% 43% 52% 29% 39% 44% 39% 52% 30% 41% 47% bcdefhi bhi bh bh bh behi h m n 17% 10% 10% 7% 9% 9% 10% 3% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 50% 50% Record video clips using the phone 978 217 94 84 58 61 95 90 33 87 866 112 727 249 477 501 39% 68% 28% 40% 34% 27% 40% 43% 32% 31% 40% 33% 48% 26% 36% 43% bcdefghi bei bei behi k m n 22% 10% 9% 6% 6% 10% 9% 3% 9% 89% 11% 74% 25% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Play games 856 149 94 77 64 87 71 69 36 93 771 85 600 254 433 423 34% 47% 28% 36% 38% 39% 30% 33% 35% 33% 36% 25% 40% 26% 32% 37% bcfghi b bf k m n 17% 11% 9% 8% 10% 8% 8% 4% 11% 90% 10% 70% 30% 51% 49% Accessing/ receiving news 842 146 104 72 55 56 90 69 32 85 734 108 631 211 457 385 34% 46% 31% 34% 32% 25% 38% 33% 31% 30% 34% 32% 42% 22% 34% 33% bcdeghi e e m 17% 12% 9% 7% 7% 11% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 75% 25% 54% 46% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 827 168 93 68 57 51 87 83 28 96 731 96 606 218 391 435 33% 53% 28% 32% 34% 23% 37% 39% 27% 34% 34% 28% 40% 23% 29% 38% bcdefghi e e beh beh e k m n 20% 11% 8% 7% 6% 11% 10% 3% 12% 88% 12% 73% 26% 47% 53% Send/ receive video clips 771 166 72 58 48 60 68 60 24 82 685 86 582 187 399 372 31% 52% 21% 27% 28% 27% 29% 28% 23% 29% 32% 25% 38% 19% 30% 32% bcdefghi k m 22% 9% 8% 6% 8% 9% 8% 3% 11% 89% 11% 75% 24% 52% 48% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 597 174 60 49 33 48 54 35 17 45 532 65 453 144 267 330 24% 55% 18% 23% 20% 22% 23% 16% 16% 16% 25% 19% 30% 15% 20% 29% bcdefghi k m n 29% 10% 8% 6% 8% 9% 6% 3% 8% 89% 11% 76% 24% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to music using MP3 function 591 91 72 46 48 35 77 57 15 62 524 67 416 172 300 290 24% 29% 21% 22% 28% 16% 33% 27% 14% 22% 24% 20% 27% 18% 22% 25% eh h h eh bcehi eh h k m 15% 12% 8% 8% 6% 13% 10% 2% 11% 89% 11% 70% 29% 51% 49% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 554 52 67 58 48 47 65 68 18 54 476 78 401 151 300 254 22% 16% 20% 28% 28% 21% 28% 32% 17% 19% 22% 23% 26% 16% 22% 22% ahi abhi ahi abehi m 9% 12% 10% 9% 9% 12% 12% 3% 10% 86% 14% 72% 27% 54% 46% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 520 118 48 40 35 36 47 47 17 49 449 71 400 120 271 249 21% 37% 14% 19% 21% 16% 20% 22% 16% 17% 21% 21% 26% 12% 20% 22% bcdefghi b m 23% 9% 8% 7% 7% 9% 9% 3% 9% 86% 14% 77% 23% 52% 48% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 507 183 41 38 25 25 56 23 8 39 455 52 388 117 222 285 20% 58% 12% 18% 15% 11% 24% 11% 8% 14% 21% 15% 26% 12% 17% 25% bcdefghi egh h bdeghi k m n 36% 8% 8% 5% 5% 11% 5% 2% 8% 90% 10% 77% 23% 44% 56% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to FM radio 385 61 65 37 26 24 41 31 12 41 347 38 282 102 221 164 15% 19% 19% 17% 15% 11% 17% 14% 11% 14% 16% 11% 19% 11% 16% 14% eh eh k m 16% 17% 10% 7% 6% 11% 8% 3% 11% 90% 10% 73% 27% 57% 43% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 341 57 40 41 27 17 33 35 9 43 302 39 252 88 188 153 14% 18% 12% 20% 16% 8% 14% 17% 9% 15% 14% 11% 17% 9% 14% 13% eh beh eh e eh eh m 17% 12% 12% 8% 5% 10% 10% 3% 13% 89% 11% 74% 26% 55% 45% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 337 33 33 47 21 26 44 33 12 38 284 53 248 88 177 160 14% 11% 10% 22% 12% 12% 19% 16% 12% 13% 13% 16% 16% 9% 13% 14% abdehi abeh m 10% 10% 14% 6% 8% 13% 10% 4% 11% 84% 16% 73% 26% 52% 48% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 325 58 46 28 17 20 39 27 9 36 293 32 245 80 166 159 13% 18% 14% 13% 10% 9% 16% 13% 9% 13% 14% 9% 16% 8% 12% 14% deh deh k m 18% 14% 9% 5% 6% 12% 8% 3% 11% 90% 10% 75% 25% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to Podcasts 226 55 26 20 10 11 37 23 7 18 198 27 165 61 111 115 9% 17% 8% 9% 6% 5% 16% 11% 7% 6% 9% 8% 11% 6% 8% 10% bcdehi bcdehi e m 24% 12% 9% 5% 5% 16% 10% 3% 8% 88% 12% 73% 27% 49% 51% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 220 48 21 27 13 13 24 14 5 25 195 24 170 49 103 116 9% 15% 6% 13% 8% 6% 10% 7% 4% 9% 9% 7% 11% 5% 8% 10% bdeghi begh h m n 22% 10% 12% 6% 6% 11% 6% 2% 12% 89% 11% 78% 22% 47% 53% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 199 33 35 21 13 13 19 16 5 22 181 18 151 47 108 91 8% 10% 10% 10% 7% 6% 8% 8% 5% 8% 8% 5% 10% 5% 8% 8% h h h k m 16% 17% 11% 6% 7% 9% 8% 2% 11% 91% 9% 76% 24% 54% 46% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 195 28 27 14 16 18 23 15 6 18 169 27 151 43 97 99 8% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 10% 7% 6% 6% 8% 8% 10% 4% 7% 9% m 14% 14% 7% 8% 9% 12% 8% 3% 9% 86% 14% 77% 22% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd15 (Qd28A). Showcard Which If Any, Of The Following Activities, Other Than Making And Receiving Voice Calls, Do You Use Your Mobile For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 192 28 28 20 11 16 18 17 5 22 168 24 143 50 101 91 8% 9% 8% 9% 6% 7% 8% 8% 5% 8% 8% 7% 9% 5% 8% 8% m 15% 14% 10% 6% 8% 9% 9% 3% 12% 87% 13% 74% 26% 53% 47% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 126 11 15 15 11 7 18 18 3 14 109 18 95 31 77 50 5% 3% 4% 7% 7% 3% 8% 9% 3% 5% 5% 5% 6% 3% 6% 4% eh aeh m 9% 12% 12% 9% 6% 14% 14% 2% 11% 86% 14% 76% 24% 61% 39% Other 37 1 7 1 12 2 6 - - 1 29 8 21 16 22 15 1% *% 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% -% -% *% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% gh abcefghi ghi 4% 19% 4% 32% 5% 16% -% -% 2% 79% 21% 57% 43% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD15 (QD28A). SHOWCARD Which if any, of the following activities, other than making and receiving voice calls, do you use your mobile for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 70% 84% 68% 68% 64% 71% 68% 71% 65% 66% 71% 65% 82% 52% 69% 71% bcdefghi k m 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% WATCHING AV CONTENT 949 186 116 81 66 61 94 87 32 103 839 110 695 251 467 482 38% 58% 34% 39% 39% 27% 40% 41% 31% 36% 39% 33% 46% 26% 35% 42% bcdefghi e e e eh k m n 20% 12% 9% 7% 6% 10% 9% 3% 11% 88% 12% 73% 26% 49% 51% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 786 120 105 69 60 52 95 73 25 83 697 89 562 220 409 377 32% 38% 31% 32% 35% 23% 41% 34% 24% 29% 32% 26% 37% 23% 30% 33% eh e eh behi eh k m 15% 13% 9% 8% 7% 12% 9% 3% 11% 89% 11% 72% 28% 52% 48% None of these 171 8 28 17 14 11 20 14 7 24 136 35 33 137 96 75 7% 2% 8% 8% 8% 5% 8% 7% 7% 8% 6% 10% 2% 14% 7% 7% a a a a a a a j l 5% 16% 10% 8% 6% 11% 8% 4% 14% 80% 20% 19% 80% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2034 969 1065 332 405 782 515 204 193 292 511 555 572 449 458 1716 162 98 58 82% 80% 83% 92% 89% 87% 66% 74% 80% 86% 88% 83% 83% 82% 78% 82% 77% 82% 85% ef f f g gh n n p p 48% 52% 16% 20% 38% 25% 10% 9% 14% 25% 27% 28% 22% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1308 627 681 275 339 508 187 105 108 190 375 369 385 278 274 1106 100 59 43 52% 52% 53% 76% 74% 57% 24% 38% 45% 56% 65% 55% 56% 51% 47% 53% 47% 50% 64% ef ef f gh ghi n n opq 48% 52% 21% 26% 39% 14% 8% 8% 15% 29% 28% 29% 21% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Take photos 1187 530 657 243 300 463 181 100 98 175 350 335 335 263 253 1003 89 63 32 48% 44% 51% 67% 66% 52% 23% 36% 41% 51% 61% 50% 49% 48% 43% 48% 42% 52% 47% a ef ef f gh ghi n n p 45% 55% 20% 25% 39% 15% 8% 8% 15% 30% 28% 28% 22% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1145 536 609 227 288 457 172 71 83 165 358 373 336 231 203 998 67 49 31 46% 45% 47% 63% 63% 51% 22% 26% 35% 48% 62% 56% 49% 42% 34% 48% 32% 41% 45% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n pq p p 47% 53% 20% 25% 40% 15% 6% 7% 14% 31% 33% 29% 20% 18% 87% 6% 4% 3% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1072 464 608 258 295 413 105 96 101 168 310 292 310 224 245 904 83 52 32 43% 39% 47% 72% 65% 46% 13% 34% 42% 49% 54% 44% 45% 41% 42% 43% 39% 44% 47% a def ef f g gh p 43% 57% 24% 27% 39% 10% 9% 9% 16% 29% 27% 29% 21% 23% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 935 410 525 234 259 354 87 73 75 137 263 256 281 195 202 793 67 43 32 37% 34% 41% 65% 57% 40% 11% 26% 31% 40% 45% 38% 41% 35% 34% 38% 32% 36% 47% a def ef f gh gh n p opq 44% 56% 25% 28% 38% 9% 8% 8% 15% 28% 27% 30% 21% 22% 85% 7% 5% 3% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 788 344 444 170 220 301 96 55 56 120 237 229 239 164 155 659 59 44 25 32% 29% 34% 47% 48% 34% 12% 20% 23% 35% 41% 34% 35% 30% 26% 31% 28% 37% 37% a ef ef f gh gh n n p op 44% 56% 22% 28% 38% 12% 7% 7% 15% 30% 29% 30% 21% 20% 84% 7% 6% 3% Play games 647 312 335 193 190 215 49 63 56 87 180 162 194 137 153 567 39 25 17 26% 26% 26% 53% 42% 24% 6% 23% 23% 25% 31% 24% 28% 25% 26% 27% 18% 21% 25% def ef f gh pq p 48% 52% 30% 29% 33% 8% 10% 9% 13% 28% 25% 30% 21% 24% 88% 6% 4% 3% Accessing/ receiving news 633 357 276 119 171 269 74 28 53 89 240 232 200 120 80 542 45 25 20 25% 30% 21% 33% 37% 30% 9% 10% 22% 26% 42% 35% 29% 22% 14% 26% 21% 21% 29% b f ef f g g ghi lmn mn n pq 56% 44% 19% 27% 42% 12% 4% 8% 14% 38% 37% 32% 19% 13% 86% 7% 4% 3% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 600 301 299 149 176 218 57 41 55 80 170 154 188 121 138 527 32 29 13 24% 25% 23% 41% 39% 24% 7% 15% 23% 23% 29% 23% 27% 22% 23% 25% 15% 24% 19% ef ef f g g g m pr p 50% 50% 25% 29% 36% 9% 7% 9% 13% 28% 26% 31% 20% 23% 88% 5% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 563 279 284 153 170 195 45 46 43 89 178 146 169 111 136 507 25 24 7 23% 23% 22% 42% 37% 22% 6% 17% 18% 26% 31% 22% 25% 20% 23% 24% 12% 20% 10% ef ef f gh gh pr pr 50% 50% 27% 30% 35% 8% 8% 8% 16% 32% 26% 30% 20% 24% 90% 4% 4% 1% Record video clips using the phone 539 239 300 137 167 203 33 31 46 81 178 148 153 117 120 464 28 32 16 22% 20% 23% 38% 37% 23% 4% 11% 19% 24% 31% 22% 22% 21% 20% 22% 13% 27% 24% a ef ef f g g ghi p p p 44% 56% 25% 31% 38% 6% 6% 9% 15% 33% 28% 28% 22% 22% 86% 5% 6% 3% Listen to music using MP3 function 434 234 200 137 121 149 27 42 23 69 153 121 135 94 83 371 36 19 8 17% 19% 15% 38% 26% 17% 3% 15% 9% 20% 26% 18% 20% 17% 14% 18% 17% 16% 11% b def ef f h h ghi n r r 54% 46% 32% 28% 34% 6% 10% 5% 16% 35% 28% 31% 22% 19% 86% 8% 4% 2% Send/ receive video clips 385 167 219 103 111 141 30 25 30 58 117 113 118 81 73 328 24 21 12 15% 14% 17% 29% 24% 16% 4% 9% 13% 17% 20% 17% 17% 15% 12% 16% 11% 17% 18% a ef ef f g gh n n p p 43% 57% 27% 29% 37% 8% 6% 8% 15% 30% 29% 31% 21% 19% 85% 6% 5% 3% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 375 278 97 78 98 154 44 15 25 54 149 121 132 75 47 322 29 14 10 15% 23% 8% 22% 21% 17% 6% 5% 10% 16% 26% 18% 19% 14% 8% 15% 14% 11% 15% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n 74% 26% 21% 26% 41% 12% 4% 7% 14% 40% 32% 35% 20% 12% 86% 8% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 374 152 222 78 126 137 33 21 38 48 115 103 117 69 85 338 18 14 4 15% 13% 17% 22% 28% 15% 4% 8% 16% 14% 20% 15% 17% 13% 14% 16% 8% 12% 6% a ef ef f g g gi m pr r 41% 59% 21% 34% 36% 9% 6% 10% 13% 31% 28% 31% 18% 23% 90% 5% 4% 1% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 339 153 186 79 97 130 34 26 23 53 119 104 105 73 57 299 14 19 7 14% 13% 14% 22% 21% 14% 4% 9% 9% 16% 21% 16% 15% 13% 10% 14% 7% 16% 10% ef ef f gh gh n n pr pr 45% 55% 23% 29% 38% 10% 8% 7% 16% 35% 31% 31% 21% 17% 88% 4% 6% 2% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 313 149 164 70 98 120 24 15 26 45 100 84 96 59 74 279 19 11 4 13% 12% 13% 19% 22% 13% 3% 5% 11% 13% 17% 13% 14% 11% 13% 13% 9% 9% 6% ef ef f g g gh pr 48% 52% 22% 31% 38% 8% 5% 8% 14% 32% 27% 31% 19% 24% 89% 6% 3% 1% Listen to FM radio 237 117 120 56 57 98 26 16 21 28 88 80 64 47 46 210 15 10 2 10% 10% 9% 16% 12% 11% 3% 6% 9% 8% 15% 12% 9% 9% 8% 10% 7% 8% 3% ef f f ghi n r r r 49% 51% 24% 24% 41% 11% 7% 9% 12% 37% 34% 27% 20% 19% 88% 7% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 229 120 109 85 60 74 10 13 17 27 71 82 69 40 38 196 16 10 6 9% 10% 8% 23% 13% 8% 1% 5% 7% 8% 12% 12% 10% 7% 6% 9% 8% 8% 9% def ef f gh mn n 52% 48% 37% 26% 32% 5% 6% 7% 12% 31% 36% 30% 17% 16% 86% 7% 4% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 213 107 106 53 56 78 26 19 19 28 65 68 72 39 33 184 15 10 4 9% 9% 8% 15% 12% 9% 3% 7% 8% 8% 11% 10% 10% 7% 6% 9% 7% 9% 5% ef f f g n mn r 50% 50% 25% 26% 37% 12% 9% 9% 13% 30% 32% 34% 18% 15% 86% 7% 5% 2% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 200 101 99 56 60 68 16 14 15 28 70 59 56 38 45 180 9 8 3 8% 8% 8% 16% 13% 8% 2% 5% 6% 8% 12% 9% 8% 7% 8% 9% 4% 7% 4% ef ef f gh pr 50% 50% 28% 30% 34% 8% 7% 7% 14% 35% 30% 28% 19% 23% 90% 4% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 140 79 61 43 49 43 5 15 9 21 46 41 31 27 42 125 5 9 2 6% 7% 5% 12% 11% 5% 1% 5% 4% 6% 8% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 2% 8% 3% ef ef f h pr pr 56% 44% 31% 35% 31% 3% 10% 6% 15% 33% 29% 22% 19% 30% 89% 3% 7% 1% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 137 70 68 38 37 51 11 11 7 20 48 48 44 26 19 118 11 5 3 6% 6% 5% 11% 8% 6% 1% 4% 3% 6% 8% 7% 6% 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 5% ef f f gh n n 51% 49% 28% 27% 37% 8% 8% 5% 14% 35% 35% 32% 19% 14% 86% 8% 4% 2% Listen to Podcasts 136 86 50 37 35 55 9 5 11 25 47 45 46 28 17 125 5 4 2 5% 7% 4% 10% 8% 6% 1% 2% 4% 7% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% 6% 2% 3% 3% b ef f f g g n n p 64% 36% 28% 26% 40% 6% 4% 8% 18% 34% 33% 34% 21% 13% 92% 4% 3% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 104 64 40 27 33 38 7 9 5 13 39 30 27 23 23 97 2 4 1 4% 5% 3% 7% 7% 4% 1% 3% 2% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 1% 3% 2% b ef ef f gh pr 62% 38% 26% 31% 36% 7% 9% 5% 13% 38% 29% 26% 22% 22% 93% 2% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 102 52 50 30 39 28 5 11 11 12 28 22 29 25 26 89 5 4 4 4% 4% 4% 8% 9% 3% 1% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 6% ef ef f p 51% 49% 29% 39% 27% 5% 10% 11% 12% 27% 22% 29% 24% 25% 87% 5% 4% 4% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 79 45 34 11 22 41 5 2 9 15 30 29 23 14 13 71 2 5 * 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 5% 1% 1% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 4% *% f f f g g g n pr pr 57% 43% 14% 27% 52% 7% 3% 11% 18% 38% 37% 29% 18% 16% 90% 3% 7% *% Other 32 19 14 2 2 14 14 2 1 5 3 9 10 9 4 26 5 1 - 1% 2% 1% *% *% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% d r r 58% 42% 5% 5% 45% 45% 5% 4% 16% 9% 26% 31% 29% 14% 81% 15% 5% -% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1663 792 870 324 412 664 263 134 136 251 470 480 471 353 357 1403 135 76 49 67% 66% 67% 90% 90% 74% 34% 48% 57% 74% 81% 72% 69% 64% 61% 67% 64% 63% 72% ef ef f g gh ghi mn n opq 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% WATCHING AV CONTENT 661 331 329 174 202 235 49 58 51 98 211 176 199 129 157 587 31 32 11 26% 28% 26% 48% 44% 26% 6% 21% 21% 29% 36% 26% 29% 23% 27% 28% 14% 27% 16% ef ef f gh ghi m pr pr 50% 50% 26% 31% 36% 7% 9% 8% 15% 32% 27% 30% 20% 24% 89% 5% 5% 2% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 596 319 277 171 158 215 52 50 41 87 207 178 180 121 116 521 43 23 9 24% 26% 21% 47% 35% 24% 7% 18% 17% 26% 36% 27% 26% 22% 20% 25% 21% 19% 13% b def ef f gh ghi n n qr r r 53% 47% 29% 26% 36% 9% 8% 7% 15% 35% 30% 30% 20% 19% 87% 7% 4% 1% None of these 264 150 114 5 5 31 223 52 34 25 18 63 61 62 78 223 21 15 6 11% 12% 9% 1% 1% 3% 29% 19% 14% 7% 3% 9% 9% 11% 13% 11% 10% 12% 9% b cd cde ij ij j kl 57% 43% 2% 2% 12% 84% 20% 13% 10% 7% 24% 23% 24% 30% 84% 8% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive text messages (SMS) 2034 281 272 158 136 183 183 180 86 236 1785 248 1332 694 1076 958 82% 88% 81% 75% 79% 82% 78% 85% 83% 83% 83% 73% 88% 72% 80% 83% bcdf c c c k m 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 88% 12% 66% 34% 53% 47% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1308 225 165 102 76 113 110 128 49 139 1155 154 946 360 670 638 52% 71% 49% 48% 44% 51% 47% 60% 47% 49% 54% 45% 62% 37% 50% 55% bcdefghi bcdefhi k m n 17% 13% 8% 6% 9% 8% 10% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 27% 51% 49% Take photos 1187 215 142 95 72 98 128 109 44 101 1032 155 851 331 592 595 48% 68% 42% 45% 42% 44% 54% 51% 42% 35% 48% 46% 56% 34% 44% 52% bcdefghi i bdehi bi m n 18% 12% 8% 6% 8% 11% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 72% 28% 50% 50% Send/ receive emails (not SMS) 1145 223 157 95 63 92 121 99 38 110 1009 136 861 281 604 540 46% 70% 46% 45% 37% 41% 52% 47% 36% 38% 47% 40% 57% 29% 45% 47% bcdefghi dh dehi dh k m 19% 14% 8% 6% 8% 11% 9% 3% 10% 88% 12% 75% 25% 53% 47% Using social networking e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat 1072 163 137 86 72 82 105 94 46 118 957 115 772 296 527 545 43% 51% 41% 41% 42% 37% 45% 45% 45% 41% 44% 34% 51% 31% 39% 47% bcei k m n 15% 13% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 72% 28% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Use IM/ Instant Messaging (e.g. BBM, Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat) 935 175 105 74 63 81 91 81 34 88 821 114 684 247 448 487 37% 55% 31% 35% 37% 36% 39% 38% 33% 31% 38% 33% 45% 26% 33% 42% bcdefghi m n 19% 11% 8% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 9% 88% 12% 73% 26% 48% 52% Send/ receive messages with pictures/ images 788 171 71 68 54 56 79 65 28 69 703 84 575 210 392 396 32% 54% 21% 32% 31% 25% 33% 31% 27% 24% 33% 25% 38% 22% 29% 34% bcdefghi b b bi b k m n 22% 9% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 9% 89% 11% 73% 27% 50% 50% Play games 647 121 59 57 51 72 61 54 27 65 586 62 443 202 309 338 26% 38% 18% 27% 30% 32% 26% 26% 26% 23% 27% 18% 29% 21% 23% 29% bcfghi b b bi b b b k m n 19% 9% 9% 8% 11% 9% 8% 4% 10% 90% 10% 69% 31% 48% 52% Accessing/ receiving news 633 110 79 54 41 36 74 62 23 64 551 82 475 156 341 291 25% 34% 23% 26% 24% 16% 31% 29% 22% 22% 26% 24% 31% 16% 25% 25% bdehi e e ehi e m 17% 12% 9% 6% 6% 12% 10% 4% 10% 87% 13% 75% 25% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Download apps or programs directly to your phone 600 143 54 48 42 52 69 57 15 47 537 63 428 172 268 332 24% 45% 16% 23% 24% 23% 30% 27% 14% 17% 25% 19% 28% 18% 20% 29% bcdefghi h bhi h bhi bhi k m n 24% 9% 8% 7% 9% 12% 10% 2% 8% 90% 10% 71% 29% 45% 55% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 563 125 60 46 38 30 66 61 19 62 497 66 397 164 257 306 23% 39% 18% 22% 22% 13% 28% 29% 18% 22% 23% 19% 26% 17% 19% 27% bcdefghi e e beh beh e m n 22% 11% 8% 7% 5% 12% 11% 3% 11% 88% 12% 70% 29% 46% 54% Record video clips using the phone 539 160 39 40 35 20 72 40 17 41 481 58 409 129 237 302 22% 50% 12% 19% 20% 9% 30% 19% 16% 14% 22% 17% 27% 13% 18% 26% bcdefghi be be bcdeghi be e k m n 30% 7% 7% 6% 4% 13% 7% 3% 8% 89% 11% 76% 24% 44% 56% Listen to music using MP3 function 434 70 49 35 37 23 62 42 10 41 386 48 307 125 206 228 17% 22% 15% 17% 22% 11% 26% 20% 10% 15% 18% 14% 20% 13% 15% 20% ehi h eh bcehi eh m n 16% 11% 8% 8% 5% 14% 10% 2% 10% 89% 11% 71% 29% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Send/ receive video clips 385 101 22 25 27 18 49 29 12 45 351 34 284 101 186 200 15% 32% 7% 12% 16% 8% 21% 14% 11% 16% 16% 10% 19% 10% 14% 17% bcdefghi be bcegh b be k m n 26% 6% 7% 7% 5% 13% 7% 3% 12% 91% 9% 74% 26% 48% 52% Accessing/ receiving sports/ team news/ scores 375 89 40 28 19 21 39 37 12 37 328 47 287 87 195 180 15% 28% 12% 13% 11% 9% 17% 18% 12% 13% 15% 14% 19% 9% 15% 16% bcdefghi e e m 24% 11% 8% 5% 6% 10% 10% 3% 10% 87% 13% 77% 23% 52% 48% Making video calls e.g. via Facetime, Skype 374 134 38 27 22 27 37 23 9 21 340 35 289 84 143 231 15% 42% 11% 13% 13% 12% 16% 11% 9% 8% 16% 10% 19% 9% 11% 20% bcdefghi hi k m n 36% 10% 7% 6% 7% 10% 6% 2% 6% 91% 9% 77% 22% 38% 62% Use your handset to help you shop e.g. compare prices online, read internet reviews, take photos of products 339 34 40 38 32 24 49 47 11 25 288 51 242 94 189 150 14% 11% 12% 18% 19% 11% 21% 22% 11% 9% 13% 15% 16% 10% 14% 13% aehi abehi abehi abehi m 10% 12% 11% 10% 7% 14% 14% 3% 7% 85% 15% 71% 28% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Viber, Skype 313 138 22 18 15 14 33 13 5 21 285 28 238 74 117 196 13% 43% 7% 8% 9% 6% 14% 6% 5% 7% 13% 8% 16% 8% 9% 17% bcdefghi beghi k m n 44% 7% 6% 5% 5% 11% 4% 2% 7% 91% 9% 76% 24% 37% 63% Listen to FM radio 237 45 38 13 19 16 28 20 8 25 216 21 173 64 131 106 10% 14% 11% 6% 11% 7% 12% 9% 8% 9% 10% 6% 11% 7% 10% 9% ceh c c k m 19% 16% 5% 8% 7% 12% 8% 3% 11% 91% 9% 73% 27% 55% 45% Sending a tweet on Twitter (through a text, an app, the browser, or phone's built-in feature) 229 37 30 17 16 13 29 17 5 31 207 22 166 62 114 115 9% 12% 9% 8% 9% 6% 12% 8% 5% 11% 10% 6% 11% 6% 8% 10% eh eh h k m 16% 13% 7% 7% 6% 13% 8% 2% 14% 90% 10% 73% 27% 50% 50% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 213 23 24 27 14 13 35 19 7 21 177 36 155 58 115 98 9% 7% 7% 13% 8% 6% 15% 9% 7% 7% 8% 10% 10% 6% 9% 8% beh abdehi m 11% 11% 13% 6% 6% 17% 9% 3% 10% 83% 17% 73% 27% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd16 (Qd28B). Showcard And, Which Of These Activities Have You Used Your Mobile For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 200 36 21 22 18 8 21 27 6 21 179 21 140 59 111 89 8% 11% 6% 10% 11% 4% 9% 13% 5% 7% 8% 6% 9% 6% 8% 8% eh e eh e beh m 18% 10% 11% 9% 4% 10% 14% 3% 11% 89% 11% 70% 29% 56% 44% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. via official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 140 35 13 17 9 6 20 7 3 15 125 15 112 28 59 81 6% 11% 4% 8% 5% 3% 8% 3% 2% 5% 6% 4% 7% 3% 4% 7% bdeghi egh egh m n 25% 9% 12% 6% 4% 14% 5% 2% 11% 89% 11% 80% 20% 42% 58% Contactless mobile payment at point of sale/ checkouts 137 26 20 10 13 12 15 10 3 8 120 18 106 30 67 70 6% 8% 6% 5% 8% 6% 7% 5% 3% 3% 6% 5% 7% 3% 5% 6% hi hi m 19% 15% 7% 10% 9% 11% 7% 2% 6% 87% 13% 77% 22% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Listen to Podcasts 136 33 17 10 5 5 30 10 4 11 118 18 96 40 71 65 5% 10% 5% 5% 3% 2% 13% 5% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 6% bcdeghi bcdeghi m 24% 12% 7% 4% 4% 22% 8% 3% 8% 87% 13% 71% 29% 52% 48% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it is broadcast 104 23 16 13 9 7 10 12 2 6 95 9 78 26 50 54 4% 7% 5% 6% 5% 3% 4% 6% 2% 2% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% hi hi m 22% 16% 12% 8% 7% 9% 12% 2% 6% 91% 9% 75% 25% 48% 52% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads either via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 102 9 20 7 9 9 12 12 3 7 90 12 70 32 54 47 4% 3% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 9% 19% 7% 9% 9% 12% 12% 3% 7% 88% 12% 69% 31% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using your mobile phone 79 6 9 8 9 3 13 12 3 8 69 10 58 21 50 29 3% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% e e ae m 8% 12% 10% 12% 4% 16% 16% 4% 10% 88% 12% 73% 27% 64% 36% Other 32 1 7 1 9 2 4 - - 1 24 8 19 14 18 14 1% *% 2% 1% 5% 1% 2% -% -% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% gh aceghi gh 4% 21% 5% 28% 6% 14% -% -% 2% 75% 25% 58% 42% 57% 43% WEB/ DATA ACCESS 1663 261 217 134 102 145 152 146 63 182 1463 200 1198 461 876 787 67% 82% 64% 64% 60% 65% 65% 69% 61% 64% 68% 59% 79% 48% 65% 68% bcdefghi k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 72% 28% 53% 47% WATCHING AV CONTENT 661 148 77 56 45 38 70 65 21 67 586 75 473 185 308 353 26% 47% 23% 26% 27% 17% 30% 31% 20% 24% 27% 22% 31% 19% 23% 31% bcdefghi e e eh eh k m n 22% 12% 8% 7% 6% 11% 10% 3% 10% 89% 11% 72% 28% 47% 53% LISTEN TO AUDIO CONTENT 596 105 74 46 50 38 78 53 18 58 530 66 426 168 294 302 24% 33% 22% 22% 29% 17% 33% 25% 17% 20% 25% 19% 28% 17% 22% 26% bcehi ehi bcehi eh k m n 18% 12% 8% 8% 6% 13% 9% 3% 10% 89% 11% 71% 28% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD16 (QD28B). SHOWCARD And, which of these activities have you used your mobile for in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% None of these 264 12 49 27 23 17 32 23 10 31 214 50 51 212 151 113 11% 4% 14% 13% 14% 8% 13% 11% 10% 11% 10% 15% 3% 22% 11% 10% ae a ae ae a a a j l 5% 18% 10% 9% 6% 12% 9% 4% 12% 81% 19% 19% 80% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband network at home 1375 656 719 265 325 562 222 103 103 191 421 410 391 307 266 1142 119 68 46 78% 79% 78% 81% 78% 80% 73% 70% 71% 73% 87% 81% 79% 82% 71% 77% 81% 85% 90% f f ghi n n n o op 48% 52% 19% 24% 41% 16% 8% 7% 14% 31% 30% 28% 22% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Via mobile network (2G, 3G or 4G) 1281 619 662 249 331 508 193 96 107 189 398 383 370 254 273 1094 105 56 27 73% 74% 72% 76% 79% 72% 63% 66% 74% 73% 82% 76% 75% 68% 73% 74% 71% 70% 53% f ef f gi m m r r r 48% 52% 19% 26% 40% 15% 8% 8% 15% 31% 30% 29% 20% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband elsewhere (i.e. 'hotspots') 655 324 331 124 173 252 106 42 55 90 247 204 189 146 115 544 61 38 13 37% 39% 36% 38% 41% 36% 35% 29% 38% 35% 51% 40% 38% 39% 31% 37% 41% 47% 26% ghi n n n r r or 50% 50% 19% 26% 38% 16% 6% 8% 14% 38% 31% 29% 22% 17% 83% 9% 6% 2% MOBILE NETWORK AND NOT WI- FI 305 145 160 50 78 119 58 35 31 58 57 78 88 48 92 271 21 9 4 17% 17% 17% 15% 19% 17% 19% 24% 22% 22% 12% 15% 18% 13% 24% 18% 14% 12% 8% j j j klm qr r 48% 52% 16% 26% 39% 19% 12% 10% 19% 19% 26% 29% 16% 30% 89% 7% 3% 1% WI-FI AND NOT MOBILE NETWORK 449 202 246 72 87 186 104 49 36 68 86 115 120 112 100 359 43 24 24 26% 24% 27% 22% 21% 26% 34% 34% 25% 26% 18% 23% 24% 30% 27% 24% 29% 30% 46% d cde j j k opq 45% 55% 16% 19% 42% 23% 11% 8% 15% 19% 26% 27% 25% 22% 80% 9% 5% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% ANY WI-FI USE 1425 677 748 270 340 575 239 110 111 198 427 420 403 318 282 1182 126 70 47 81% 81% 81% 83% 81% 82% 78% 75% 77% 76% 88% 83% 81% 85% 75% 80% 86% 88% 92% ghi n n n o op 47% 53% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 14% 30% 29% 28% 22% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 23 12 11 5 * 9 8 1 1 4 1 9 6 7 1 21 * 1 * 1% 1% 1% 2% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 2% *% 1% *% 1% 1% d d d n n 53% 47% 24% 1% 41% 33% 6% 6% 16% 6% 41% 25% 30% 4% 94% 2% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband network at home 1375 187 189 132 79 128 131 126 56 114 1192 183 989 383 734 640 78% 70% 83% 92% 72% 81% 83% 83% 83% 60% 78% 83% 79% 76% 79% 78% adi abdefghi i ai adi adi adi j 14% 14% 10% 6% 9% 10% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 72% 28% 53% 47% Via mobile network (2G, 3G or 4G) 1281 250 154 97 71 96 111 131 43 140 1141 140 943 337 674 608 73% 93% 67% 68% 65% 60% 70% 87% 65% 74% 74% 64% 76% 67% 72% 74% bcdefhi bcdefhi e k m 19% 12% 8% 6% 7% 9% 10% 3% 11% 89% 11% 74% 26% 53% 47% Wi-Fi/ wireless broadband elsewhere (i.e. 'hotspots') 655 62 82 81 34 71 74 56 29 54 577 78 493 160 361 294 37% 23% 36% 57% 31% 45% 47% 37% 44% 29% 38% 36% 40% 32% 39% 36% a abdeghi adi adi a adi m 9% 13% 12% 5% 11% 11% 9% 4% 8% 88% 12% 75% 24% 55% 45% MOBILE NETWORK AND NOT WI-FI 305 79 25 6 22 23 12 25 9 70 282 24 216 89 160 145 17% 29% 11% 4% 20% 15% 7% 17% 14% 37% 18% 11% 17% 18% 17% 18% bcefgh c bcf c cf c bcdefgh k 26% 8% 2% 7% 8% 4% 8% 3% 23% 92% 8% 71% 29% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd17 (Qd28E) Showcard Which Of These Ways Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% WI-FI AND NOT MOBILE NETWORK 449 18 66 44 33 62 47 20 23 47 374 75 290 156 242 207 26% 7% 29% 31% 30% 39% 29% 13% 35% 25% 24% 34% 23% 31% 26% 25% ag ag ag agi ag ag ag j l 4% 15% 10% 7% 14% 10% 4% 5% 10% 83% 17% 65% 35% 54% 46% ANY WI-FI USE 1425 189 195 135 82 134 146 126 57 117 1234 191 1016 404 755 669 81% 71% 85% 95% 75% 85% 92% 83% 85% 62% 80% 87% 82% 80% 81% 81% adi abdeghi i adi adgi ai adi j 13% 14% 10% 6% 9% 10% 9% 4% 8% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% Don't know 23 - 10 1 6 1 1 - * 3 18 5 13 9 15 7 1% -% 4% 1% 5% 1% *% -% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% aefgh acefgh -% 43% 6% 24% 4% 3% -% 1% 12% 79% 21% 59% 41% 67% 33% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% I always use in the home 142 65 77 20 20 58 46 23 17 12 27 27 38 36 41 117 11 10 5 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 8% 15% 16% 12% 4% 6% 5% 8% 10% 11% 8% 7% 12% 10% d cde ij ij k k 46% 54% 14% 14% 40% 32% 16% 12% 8% 19% 19% 27% 26% 29% 82% 8% 7% 3% I mainly use in the home 355 135 221 54 90 136 75 49 31 56 84 92 94 84 84 314 18 16 8 20% 16% 24% 17% 22% 19% 25% 33% 21% 21% 17% 18% 19% 22% 22% 21% 12% 20% 16% a c hij p 38% 62% 15% 25% 38% 21% 14% 9% 16% 24% 26% 27% 24% 24% 88% 5% 4% 2% I use equally in the home and outside the home 1058 514 544 229 285 427 118 68 79 155 317 312 313 208 226 876 99 47 36 60% 62% 59% 70% 68% 61% 39% 46% 55% 60% 65% 62% 63% 56% 60% 59% 67% 58% 71% ef ef f g gh m o oq 49% 51% 22% 27% 40% 11% 6% 7% 15% 30% 29% 30% 20% 21% 83% 9% 4% 3% I mainly use outside the home 157 94 63 18 21 71 47 3 16 33 48 58 44 35 20 131 18 6 1 9% 11% 7% 5% 5% 10% 15% 2% 11% 13% 10% 11% 9% 9% 5% 9% 12% 7% 3% b cd cde g g g n n n r r r 60% 40% 11% 14% 45% 30% 2% 10% 21% 31% 37% 28% 22% 13% 84% 12% 4% 1% I always use outside the home 25 17 7 2 3 4 15 4 * 2 6 14 4 3 4 21 2 2 - 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 3% *% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% b cde lm r 71% 29% 8% 12% 18% 63% 15% 2% 9% 24% 55% 16% 11% 17% 87% 6% 7% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2274 1056 1218 466 525 873 410 253 203 311 501 547 732 467 525 1403 286 261 324 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 730 833 308 353 610 296 174 142 228 378 398 506 326 346 1210 181 166 253 Total 1753 834 919 326 418 704 305 147 144 260 485 507 496 373 374 1474 148 80 51 48% 52% 19% 24% 40% 17% 8% 8% 15% 28% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 498 200 298 74 110 193 120 72 48 67 112 119 133 120 125 431 28 25 13 28% 24% 32% 23% 26% 27% 40% 49% 33% 26% 23% 23% 27% 32% 33% 29% 19% 32% 26% a cde hij j k kl p p 40% 60% 15% 22% 39% 24% 15% 10% 14% 22% 24% 27% 24% 25% 87% 6% 5% 3% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 181 111 70 19 24 75 62 7 17 35 54 71 49 38 24 153 20 7 1 10% 13% 8% 6% 6% 11% 20% 5% 12% 13% 11% 14% 10% 10% 6% 10% 13% 9% 3% b cd cde g g g ln r r r 61% 39% 11% 13% 42% 34% 4% 9% 19% 30% 39% 27% 21% 13% 84% 11% 4% 1% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 91% 91% 91% 93% 95% 91% 84% 84% 88% 94% 94% 94% 92% 88% 89% 91% 93% 87% 90% f ef f gh gh mn 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% Don't know 15 9 6 3 - 8 4 - * 3 3 5 3 7 - 15 - 1 * 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% 1% -% 1% *% d d n 59% 41% 22% -% 52% 27% -% 2% 18% 20% 35% 17% 48% -% 96% -% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD18 (QD28C). SHOWCARD Which one of these best describes where you use your mobile phone to access the internet? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% I always use in the home 142 7 18 12 12 18 18 11 7 14 111 31 74 67 80 62 8% 2% 8% 9% 11% 11% 11% 7% 11% 7% 7% 14% 6% 13% 9% 8% a a a a a a a a j l 5% 13% 9% 9% 13% 12% 8% 5% 10% 78% 22% 52% 47% 56% 44% I mainly use in the home 355 16 60 46 23 42 35 46 18 28 292 63 217 136 189 166 20% 6% 26% 32% 21% 26% 22% 31% 27% 15% 19% 29% 17% 27% 20% 20% ai adi a ai a ai ai a j l 5% 17% 13% 6% 12% 10% 13% 5% 8% 82% 18% 61% 38% 53% 47% I use equally in the home and outside the home 1058 232 112 73 61 83 92 69 35 118 962 97 811 246 529 529 60% 87% 49% 51% 56% 53% 58% 46% 52% 62% 63% 44% 65% 49% 57% 64% bcdefghi g bg k m n 22% 11% 7% 6% 8% 9% 7% 3% 11% 91% 9% 77% 23% 50% 50% I mainly use outside the home 157 10 24 10 10 11 11 21 6 28 136 21 116 41 101 56 9% 4% 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 14% 8% 15% 9% 9% 9% 8% 11% 7% a a acf acef o 6% 16% 6% 6% 7% 7% 14% 4% 18% 87% 13% 74% 26% 64% 36% I always use outside the home 25 - 7 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 20 4 17 7 19 6 1% -% 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% a a o -% 28% 4% 3% 17% 11% 13% 5% 5% 83% 17% 71% 29% 78% 22% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd18 (Qd28C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2274 195 154 151 143 160 150 158 140 152 1692 582 1471 799 1076 1198 Effective Weighted Sample 1563 174 146 145 133 149 143 148 131 139 1317 267 1033 552 750 834 Total 1753 267 229 143 110 158 159 151 67 190 1533 219 1246 502 931 822 15% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 53% 47% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 498 23 78 58 35 59 53 57 25 41 403 95 291 204 269 228 28% 9% 34% 40% 32% 38% 33% 38% 38% 22% 26% 43% 23% 41% 29% 28% ai ai a ai ai ai ai a j l 5% 16% 12% 7% 12% 11% 12% 5% 8% 81% 19% 59% 41% 54% 46% ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 181 10 31 11 11 15 14 24 7 30 156 25 134 48 120 61 10% 4% 14% 7% 10% 10% 9% 16% 10% 16% 10% 11% 11% 10% 13% 7% a a a ac a ac o 5% 17% 6% 6% 9% 7% 13% 4% 16% 86% 14% 74% 26% 66% 34% EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 91% 97% 89% 90% 86% 89% 89% 93% 89% 92% 92% 84% 93% 86% 90% 92% bcdefh k m 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% Don't know 15 2 7 1 3 - - - - 1 12 3 10 5 12 3 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% -% -% -% -% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% efgh o 15% 49% 9% 18% -% -% -% -% 5% 80% 20% 65% 35% 81% 19% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2045 957 1088 430 490 784 341 210 175 288 469 512 672 407 451 1264 259 226 296 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 663 747 282 333 553 244 145 122 214 354 373 463 285 300 1093 165 142 238 Total 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) 1199 580 618 250 308 471 170 78 92 190 365 364 352 237 245 1012 108 44 35 75% 76% 74% 82% 77% 74% 67% 63% 73% 77% 80% 77% 77% 72% 74% 75% 79% 63% 77% ef f f g g q q q 48% 52% 21% 26% 39% 14% 7% 8% 16% 30% 30% 29% 20% 20% 84% 9% 4% 3% Outdoors 1094 542 552 216 276 443 158 78 88 172 339 329 304 227 234 912 109 41 32 69% 71% 66% 71% 69% 69% 62% 63% 70% 70% 74% 69% 67% 69% 70% 68% 80% 58% 69% b f f g q oqr q 50% 50% 20% 25% 41% 14% 7% 8% 16% 31% 30% 28% 21% 21% 83% 10% 4% 3% Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/ restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) 1073 518 555 226 263 436 149 85 79 162 322 340 305 216 212 898 105 41 30 67% 68% 67% 75% 66% 68% 58% 69% 62% 66% 71% 71% 67% 66% 64% 67% 77% 58% 65% df f n q oqr 48% 52% 21% 24% 41% 14% 8% 7% 15% 30% 32% 28% 20% 20% 84% 10% 4% 3% In other people's homes (e.g. friends/ family) 849 393 456 193 230 316 110 75 69 131 255 256 253 177 162 685 96 38 31 53% 52% 55% 64% 58% 50% 43% 61% 54% 53% 56% 54% 56% 54% 49% 51% 70% 55% 67% ef ef oq oq 46% 54% 23% 27% 37% 13% 9% 8% 15% 30% 30% 30% 21% 19% 81% 11% 4% 4% At your workplace 813 436 377 144 223 369 76 23 57 136 301 257 240 196 120 670 88 32 24 51% 57% 45% 48% 56% 58% 30% 19% 45% 56% 66% 54% 53% 60% 36% 50% 64% 45% 53% b f cf cf g g ghi n n n oqr 54% 46% 18% 27% 45% 9% 3% 7% 17% 37% 32% 30% 24% 15% 82% 11% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2045 957 1088 430 490 784 341 210 175 288 469 512 672 407 451 1264 259 226 296 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 663 747 282 333 553 244 145 122 214 354 373 463 285 300 1093 165 142 238 Total 1595 760 835 303 399 638 255 124 127 246 455 475 456 329 333 1342 137 70 46 48% 52% 19% 25% 40% 16% 8% 8% 15% 29% 30% 29% 21% 21% 84% 9% 4% 3% Other 33 18 15 16 2 11 4 3 1 2 10 9 11 8 5 26 5 1 1 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% def 54% 46% 49% 7% 33% 11% 9% 3% 7% 30% 27% 34% 24% 15% 80% 14% 4% 2% Don't know 17 7 9 2 6 6 3 2 1 3 1 8 3 1 4 15 * 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 44% 56% 9% 36% 36% 19% 12% 9% 20% 6% 50% 18% 7% 25% 88% 3% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2045 189 136 135 121 141 133 146 123 140 1535 510 1361 681 962 1083 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 169 129 130 113 131 126 137 115 128 1202 227 960 467 672 754 Total 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) 1199 233 142 101 70 82 93 112 47 133 1079 119 895 302 595 603 75% 90% 70% 78% 73% 59% 66% 80% 79% 76% 77% 65% 77% 70% 71% 80% bcdefghi ef e ef ef e k m n 19% 12% 8% 6% 7% 8% 9% 4% 11% 90% 10% 75% 25% 50% 50% Outdoors 1094 211 125 94 56 71 74 114 39 128 987 107 820 271 543 552 69% 82% 62% 73% 59% 50% 53% 81% 66% 73% 70% 58% 71% 63% 65% 73% bdefh def bdefh ef def k m n 19% 11% 9% 5% 6% 7% 10% 4% 12% 90% 10% 75% 25% 50% 50% Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/ restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) 1073 191 128 104 56 79 86 114 40 100 963 110 793 279 540 533 67% 74% 63% 80% 59% 57% 61% 81% 67% 57% 68% 60% 68% 65% 64% 70% bdefi bdefhi bdefhi k n 18% 12% 10% 5% 7% 8% 11% 4% 9% 90% 10% 74% 26% 50% 50% In other people's homes (e.g. friends/ family) 849 109 107 84 46 82 73 57 39 90 747 103 622 224 451 399 53% 42% 52% 65% 48% 58% 52% 40% 65% 51% 53% 56% 54% 52% 54% 53% abdfgi ag adfgi 13% 13% 10% 5% 10% 9% 7% 5% 11% 88% 12% 73% 26% 53% 47% At your workplace 813 169 83 59 46 65 78 56 30 83 726 86 750 62 397 416 51% 65% 41% 46% 49% 47% 55% 40% 51% 47% 52% 47% 65% 15% 47% 55% bcdeghi bg m n 21% 10% 7% 6% 8% 10% 7% 4% 10% 89% 11% 92% 8% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd19 (Qd28F). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Your Mobile Phone To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use their mobile phone to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2045 189 136 135 121 141 133 146 123 140 1535 510 1361 681 962 1083 Effective Weighted Sample 1409 169 129 130 113 131 126 137 115 128 1202 227 960 467 672 754 Total 1595 259 203 129 95 140 141 140 60 175 1410 185 1162 430 838 757 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 73% 27% 53% 47% Other 33 - 1 5 4 1 4 4 1 5 28 5 15 18 15 18 2% -% 1% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% a a a a a a l -% 4% 17% 12% 3% 12% 12% 4% 16% 86% 14% 46% 54% 45% 55% Don't know 17 2 - - 4 - 6 - 1 2 10 7 9 8 14 3 1% 1% -% -% 4% -% 4% -% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 2% *% bceg bceg j o 15% -% -% 25% -% 36% -% 3% 10% 58% 42% 54% 46% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 1207 548 659 272 329 484 122 99 105 185 346 334 346 257 269 1009 106 55 37 64% 61% 66% 83% 77% 64% 32% 59% 67% 66% 67% 62% 65% 62% 66% 63% 64% 64% 71% a ef ef f o 45% 55% 23% 27% 40% 10% 8% 9% 15% 29% 28% 29% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Weather 1163 583 580 203 281 480 199 76 87 174 383 361 349 267 186 976 98 54 35 61% 65% 58% 62% 66% 64% 52% 45% 55% 62% 74% 67% 65% 65% 46% 61% 60% 63% 66% b f f f g ghi n n n 50% 50% 17% 24% 41% 17% 6% 7% 15% 33% 31% 30% 23% 16% 84% 8% 5% 3% Maps/ navigation 1105 553 551 204 270 468 163 71 86 172 367 363 343 230 167 949 91 44 21 58% 61% 56% 62% 63% 62% 42% 43% 55% 61% 71% 67% 64% 56% 41% 60% 56% 51% 40% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n qr r r 50% 50% 19% 24% 42% 15% 6% 8% 16% 33% 33% 31% 21% 15% 86% 8% 4% 2% News 962 511 451 178 241 398 146 55 77 128 338 323 284 199 156 791 87 47 37 51% 57% 45% 54% 56% 53% 38% 33% 49% 46% 65% 60% 53% 48% 38% 50% 53% 55% 70% b f f f g g ghi lmn n n opq 53% 47% 18% 25% 41% 15% 6% 8% 13% 35% 34% 30% 21% 16% 82% 9% 5% 4% Games 909 440 469 240 254 333 81 84 82 117 267 237 260 206 204 772 70 38 29 48% 49% 47% 73% 60% 44% 21% 51% 52% 42% 52% 44% 49% 50% 50% 48% 43% 44% 54% def ef f i i pq 48% 52% 26% 28% 37% 9% 9% 9% 13% 29% 26% 29% 23% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Banking 870 419 451 184 250 345 90 59 75 141 276 261 262 207 140 722 81 39 28 46% 46% 45% 56% 59% 46% 24% 35% 48% 50% 54% 48% 49% 50% 34% 45% 49% 45% 54% ef ef f g g g n n n o 48% 52% 21% 29% 40% 10% 7% 9% 16% 32% 30% 30% 24% 16% 83% 9% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Music 810 402 408 216 221 300 73 68 72 115 247 233 239 183 154 689 68 33 19 43% 44% 41% 66% 52% 40% 19% 41% 46% 41% 48% 43% 45% 44% 38% 43% 42% 39% 37% def ef f n r 50% 50% 27% 27% 37% 9% 8% 9% 14% 30% 29% 30% 23% 19% 85% 8% 4% 2% Travel/ journey planning 761 385 376 142 190 319 109 42 56 103 260 260 243 153 104 645 62 34 20 40% 43% 38% 43% 45% 42% 28% 25% 36% 37% 50% 48% 46% 37% 26% 41% 38% 39% 38% b f f f g g ghi mn mn n 51% 49% 19% 25% 42% 14% 5% 7% 14% 34% 34% 32% 20% 14% 85% 8% 4% 3% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 685 292 393 146 205 270 64 53 61 102 213 214 201 142 127 564 66 34 21 36% 32% 40% 44% 48% 36% 17% 32% 39% 36% 41% 40% 38% 34% 31% 35% 40% 40% 40% a ef ef f g n n 43% 57% 21% 30% 39% 9% 8% 9% 15% 31% 31% 29% 21% 19% 82% 10% 5% 3% Sports/ sports news 561 417 145 119 140 225 78 25 43 84 183 169 177 130 85 458 59 24 21 30% 46% 15% 36% 33% 30% 20% 15% 28% 30% 35% 31% 33% 32% 21% 29% 36% 28% 39% b ef f f g g g n n n o oq 74% 26% 21% 25% 40% 14% 5% 8% 15% 33% 30% 31% 23% 15% 82% 11% 4% 4% Books 292 127 165 71 64 118 40 21 30 35 85 93 86 64 49 251 16 15 10 15% 14% 17% 21% 15% 16% 10% 12% 19% 12% 17% 17% 16% 15% 12% 16% 10% 17% 20% def f f n p p p 43% 57% 24% 22% 40% 14% 7% 10% 12% 29% 32% 29% 22% 17% 86% 6% 5% 4% Finance/ business 230 136 94 45 69 89 27 14 14 18 96 92 62 55 21 203 11 8 8 12% 15% 9% 14% 16% 12% 7% 8% 9% 6% 19% 17% 12% 13% 5% 13% 7% 10% 15% b f ef f ghi ln n n p p 59% 41% 20% 30% 39% 12% 6% 6% 8% 41% 40% 27% 24% 9% 88% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd20 (Qd28G). Showcard Do You Use Any Of The Following Types Of Apps Or Applications On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Vouchers 203 83 120 42 54 87 21 8 21 32 77 70 60 43 30 174 11 16 2 11% 9% 12% 13% 13% 11% 5% 5% 13% 11% 15% 13% 11% 10% 7% 11% 7% 19% 4% f f f g g g n r opr 41% 59% 21% 26% 43% 10% 4% 10% 16% 38% 34% 29% 21% 15% 86% 5% 8% 1% NONE OF THESE 201 98 103 17 19 63 103 30 17 29 37 50 49 51 51 164 20 12 5 11% 11% 10% 5% 4% 8% 27% 18% 11% 10% 7% 9% 9% 12% 13% 10% 12% 14% 9% d cde ij 49% 51% 8% 9% 31% 51% 15% 8% 14% 18% 25% 24% 25% 25% 82% 10% 6% 2% Don't know 5 2 3 - - 1 4 1 - 1 2 2 * 1 1 4 * - 1 *% *% *% -% -% *% 1% 1% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 1% de 33% 67% -% -% 11% 89% 23% -% 25% 41% 41% 7% 25% 27% 85% 4% -% 12% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 1207 202 135 92 82 101 110 97 49 140 1060 147 888 314 593 613 64% 73% 55% 59% 65% 60% 62% 59% 67% 67% 64% 60% 68% 55% 59% 69% bcefg b b m n 17% 11% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 74% 26% 49% 51% Weather 1163 171 141 118 77 96 109 103 39 122 1004 159 853 307 630 532 61% 62% 58% 76% 61% 57% 61% 62% 53% 58% 61% 65% 65% 53% 63% 60% abdefghi m 15% 12% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 3% 11% 86% 14% 73% 26% 54% 46% Maps/ navigation 1105 180 138 109 74 81 109 96 39 123 970 135 841 260 603 502 58% 65% 57% 70% 59% 48% 61% 58% 52% 59% 59% 55% 64% 45% 60% 56% eh begh e m 16% 12% 10% 7% 7% 10% 9% 3% 11% 88% 12% 76% 24% 55% 45% News 962 163 130 82 55 78 83 69 32 98 850 112 730 229 516 446 51% 59% 54% 53% 44% 46% 47% 42% 44% 47% 52% 46% 56% 40% 51% 50% defghi g m 17% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 7% 3% 10% 88% 12% 76% 24% 54% 46% Games 909 125 111 82 70 95 73 80 36 100 803 106 642 264 464 444 48% 45% 46% 52% 56% 57% 41% 49% 49% 48% 49% 43% 49% 46% 46% 50% f af 14% 12% 9% 8% 10% 8% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 71% 29% 51% 49% Banking 870 115 112 79 56 76 82 69 31 101 761 108 660 207 455 414 46% 42% 46% 50% 45% 45% 46% 42% 42% 48% 46% 44% 50% 36% 45% 46% m 13% 13% 9% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 88% 12% 76% 24% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Music 810 118 97 84 63 64 83 76 25 79 706 103 597 210 407 402 43% 43% 40% 54% 50% 38% 47% 46% 33% 38% 43% 42% 45% 37% 41% 45% abehi ehi h h m 15% 12% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 3% 10% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% Travel/ journey planning 761 129 107 71 39 56 72 61 22 87 663 97 575 182 402 359 40% 47% 44% 46% 31% 33% 41% 37% 29% 42% 40% 40% 44% 32% 40% 40% deh deh deh h h m 17% 14% 9% 5% 7% 10% 8% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 53% 47% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 685 82 75 61 51 65 68 61 30 70 594 91 521 163 374 311 36% 30% 31% 39% 40% 39% 38% 37% 41% 34% 36% 37% 40% 28% 37% 35% a a m 12% 11% 9% 7% 9% 10% 9% 4% 10% 87% 13% 76% 24% 55% 45% Sports/ sports news 561 98 56 39 45 50 46 47 22 54 495 67 432 128 291 270 30% 35% 23% 25% 36% 30% 26% 28% 30% 26% 30% 27% 33% 22% 29% 30% bc bc m 17% 10% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 4% 10% 88% 12% 77% 23% 52% 48% Books 292 50 32 32 16 33 35 24 10 19 256 37 214 77 140 152 15% 18% 13% 21% 13% 20% 19% 14% 14% 9% 15% 15% 16% 13% 14% 17% i i i i 17% 11% 11% 5% 11% 12% 8% 4% 6% 87% 13% 73% 26% 48% 52% Finance/ business 230 39 32 21 21 18 26 19 7 20 198 32 184 44 126 104 12% 14% 13% 13% 17% 11% 15% 11% 10% 10% 12% 13% 14% 8% 13% 12% m 17% 14% 9% 9% 8% 11% 8% 3% 9% 86% 14% 80% 19% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QD20 (QD28G). SHOWCARD Do you use any of the following types of apps or applications on your smartphone? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Vouchers 203 34 23 17 16 22 22 17 5 16 181 23 161 41 102 101 11% 12% 9% 11% 13% 13% 13% 11% 7% 8% 11% 9% 12% 7% 10% 11% m 17% 11% 9% 8% 11% 11% 9% 3% 8% 89% 11% 79% 20% 50% 50% NONE OF THESE 201 13 23 12 15 22 29 23 8 19 166 36 96 102 104 97 11% 5% 9% 8% 12% 13% 16% 14% 11% 9% 10% 15% 7% 18% 10% 11% a a ac a a j l 6% 11% 6% 8% 11% 14% 12% 4% 9% 82% 18% 48% 51% 52% 48% Don't know 5 - - 1 - * 2 - 1 - 5 * 1 4 5 * *% -% -% 1% -% *% 1% -% 1% -% *% *% *% 1% *% *% -% -% 25% -% 8% 41% -% 11% -% 93% 7% 28% 72% 92% 8% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Games 181 104 77 53 56 61 11 12 21 31 49 49 58 39 35 156 16 5 3 10% 12% 8% 16% 13% 8% 3% 7% 13% 11% 9% 9% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 6% 6% b ef ef f g 58% 42% 29% 31% 34% 6% 6% 11% 17% 27% 27% 32% 22% 19% 86% 9% 3% 2% Music 168 101 67 50 50 60 8 4 10 21 66 51 57 41 19 139 20 4 5 9% 11% 7% 15% 12% 8% 2% 3% 6% 7% 13% 9% 11% 10% 5% 9% 12% 5% 9% b ef f f g ghi n n n q 60% 40% 30% 30% 36% 5% 2% 6% 12% 39% 31% 34% 24% 11% 83% 12% 3% 3% Books 60 32 28 14 13 23 9 1 7 9 18 26 12 13 8 56 2 1 1 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% g g ln r 53% 47% 24% 23% 38% 15% 2% 12% 16% 31% 44% 21% 22% 14% 94% 3% 2% 1% Maps/ navigation 48 26 22 6 9 24 9 3 4 5 15 21 11 12 4 40 6 2 1 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% n 54% 46% 12% 19% 51% 18% 6% 9% 10% 32% 43% 24% 25% 9% 83% 13% 3% 1% Weather 48 24 25 2 17 22 7 4 7 6 16 9 19 10 10 42 5 * * 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 3% 2% 3% 5% 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% *% 1% c c r r 49% 51% 5% 35% 46% 14% 9% 15% 12% 32% 18% 41% 22% 20% 88% 10% 1% 1% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 47 18 29 9 10 24 4 4 4 12 6 10 15 10 11 40 5 * 1 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% *% 2% f j q q 38% 62% 20% 21% 52% 8% 8% 9% 25% 13% 22% 32% 22% 24% 87% 11% *% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | News | 42 | 19 | 23 | 2 | | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 4% | | cf | c | mn | q | | | 46% | 54% | 4% | 39% | 47% | | Vouchers | 35 | 15 | 21 | 5 | | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | | g | g | n | r | | | 41% | 59% | 14% | 32% | 39% | | Travel/ journey planning | 30 | 17 | 13 | 4 | | 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | | 56% | 44% | 13% | 32% | 44% | | Sports/ sports news | 30 | 25 | 4 | 7 | | 2% | 3% | *% | 2% | 3% | | b | f | g | g | g | | 85% | 15% | 24% | 37% | 31% | | Banking | 27 | 13 | 15 | 3 | | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | | f | f | g | k | r | | 46% | 54% | 12% | 30% | 53% | | Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, | | | | | | eBay) | 26 | 10 | 15 | 8 | | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 2% | | ef | f | | | | | 40% | 60% | 31% | 39% | 25% | | Finance/ business | 15 | 12 | 3 | 3 | | 1% | 1% | *% | 1% | *% | | b | i | l | | | | 81% | 19% | 17% | 13% | 39% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2487 1157 1330 475 540 937 535 286 223 340 535 589 803 520 573 1532 319 291 345 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 800 909 313 362 657 383 198 155 249 404 427 549 368 379 1321 204 184 265 Total 1896 903 993 329 426 755 385 167 157 281 516 540 533 413 408 1593 164 86 53 48% 52% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 8% 15% 27% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% NONE OF THESE 1441 656 785 219 310 580 331 141 119 214 385 392 397 326 325 1202 122 75 41 76% 73% 79% 66% 73% 77% 86% 84% 76% 76% 75% 73% 75% 79% 80% 75% 75% 87% 78% a c cde hij k k opr 46% 54% 15% 22% 40% 23% 10% 8% 15% 27% 27% 28% 23% 23% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 39 19 20 6 8 17 8 4 3 1 13 17 9 3 9 34 2 1 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% *% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% m 49% 51% 15% 20% 43% 22% 10% 9% 4% 34% 45% 23% 8% 23% 87% 6% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Games 181 34 19 11 12 22 12 12 6 28 164 17 131 50 85 96 10% 12% 8% 7% 10% 13% 7% 8% 7% 13% 10% 7% 10% 9% 8% 11% 19% 10% 6% 7% 12% 7% 7% 3% 15% 91% 9% 73% 27% 47% 53% Music 168 43 16 10 13 11 17 9 2 18 151 17 143 23 69 98 9% 16% 7% 6% 10% 7% 10% 5% 3% 9% 9% 7% 11% 4% 7% 11% bcegh h h h m n 26% 9% 6% 7% 7% 10% 5% 1% 11% 90% 10% 85% 14% 41% 59% Books 60 14 8 3 5 4 10 5 2 5 50 9 48 11 28 32 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 24% 13% 5% 8% 6% 16% 9% 3% 9% 84% 16% 81% 19% 47% 53% Maps/ navigation 48 12 13 5 2 2 3 - - 3 42 6 41 7 27 21 3% 5% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 2% gh egh gh m 26% 26% 10% 4% 4% 6% -% -% 6% 87% 13% 84% 15% 56% 44% Weather 48 11 11 3 4 1 7 2 - 4 43 5 38 10 29 19 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% *% 4% 1% -% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% eh eh h eh 22% 23% 5% 9% 2% 14% 4% -% 9% 89% 11% 78% 22% 61% 39% Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) 47 9 13 3 1 1 7 - 1 6 44 2 33 13 21 26 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% *% 4% -% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% g deg deg g 19% 28% 6% 2% 2% 16% -% 3% 12% 95% 5% 70% 28% 44% 56% News 42 17 8 2 2 2 3 - - 3 40 2 38 4 23 19 2% 6% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% cdefghi gh m 41% 20% 4% 6% 4% 7% -% -% 7% 95% 5% 91% 9% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% Vouchers 35 23 1 2 3 1 1 - - - 32 4 34 1 8 27 2% 8% *% 1% 3% 1% 1% -% -% -% 2% 1% 3% *% 1% 3% bcdefghi ghi m n 66% 3% 6% 10% 4% 4% -% -% -% 90% 10% 96% 4% 22% 78% Travel/ journey planning 30 9 3 2 2 1 4 2 - 4 28 2 26 4 15 15 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% h m 29% 11% 5% 5% 3% 12% 5% -% 12% 92% 8% 86% 14% 49% 51% Sports/ sports news 30 4 5 2 2 - 2 - * 5 29 1 25 4 13 16 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% -% 1% 3% 2% *% 2% 1% 1% 2% eg k m 13% 16% 6% 6% -% 6% -% 1% 18% 98% 2% 86% 14% 45% 55% Banking 27 7 3 2 2 3 3 - - 3 26 2 26 1 16 11 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% -% 1% 2% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% g m 24% 11% 8% 8% 11% 10% -% -% 11% 94% 6% 95% 3% 58% 42% Shopping (e.g. Tesco, Ocado, eBay) 26 3 5 1 1 4 7 1 - 1 22 4 22 4 10 15 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 4% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% cdghi 12% 18% 4% 3% 14% 28% 3% -% 5% 84% 16% 86% 14% 40% 60% Finance/ business 15 6 3 1 - 3 1 - - 1 11 4 13 2 10 6 1% 2% 1% *% -% 2% 1% -% -% *% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 43% 18% 5% -% 18% 7% -% -% 6% 71% 29% 86% 14% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd21 (Qd28H). Showcard And Which Of These Types Of Apps Or Applications Have You Paid For To Download On Your Smartphone? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a smartphone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2487 201 164 166 162 172 168 175 156 168 1841 646 1559 921 1175 1312 Effective Weighted Sample 1708 180 155 159 151 160 160 163 145 154 1432 300 1094 638 818 912 Total 1896 275 243 156 126 168 177 164 74 209 1651 245 1314 574 1004 892 15% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 69% 30% 53% 47% NONE OF THESE 1441 182 175 127 100 128 128 140 64 158 1246 195 972 463 786 654 76% 66% 72% 81% 80% 76% 72% 85% 86% 76% 75% 80% 74% 81% 78% 73% a a a abefi abefi l o 13% 12% 9% 7% 9% 9% 10% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 32% 55% 45% Don't know 39 7 7 4 - 6 7 1 2 - 33 6 24 15 22 17 2% 3% 3% 3% -% 4% 4% 1% 2% -% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% di di di di dgi 19% 19% 10% -% 16% 17% 2% 4% -% 85% 15% 62% 38% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 3425 | 1629 | 1796 | 513 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2318 | 1101 | 1218 | 340 | | Total | 2494 | 1204 | 1290 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 14% | 18% | 36% | | Base for % | 2484 | 1198 | 1286 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 15% | 18% | 36% | | Very satisfied | 1376 | 628 | 748 | 219 | | 55% | 52% | 58% | 61% | 59% | | a | ef | f | j | j | | 46% | 54% | 16% | 20% | 35% | | Fairly satisfied | 893 | 451 | 443 | 120 | | 36% | 38% | 34% | 33% | 36% | | ghi | | | | | | 50% | 50% | 13% | 18% | 35% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 2269 | 1078 | 1191 | 339 | | 91% | 90% | 93% | 94% | 95% | | a | ef | ef | k | k | | 48% | 52% | 15% | 19% | 35% | | Neither | | | | | | 124 | 71 | 53 | 7 | 14 | | 5% | 6% | 4% | 2% | 3% | | cd | cd | lmn | r | r | | 57% | 43% | 5% | 11% | 42% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 53 | 26 | 26 | 7 | | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | | d | r | r | | | | 50% | 50% | 14% | 7% | 49% | | Very dissatisfied | 38 | 23 | 15 | 8 | | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 1% | | 60% | 40% | 22% | 11% | 40% | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 3425 | 1629 | 1796 | 513 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2318 | 1101 | 1218 | 340 | | Total | 2494 | 1204 | 1290 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 14% | 18% | 36% | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 91 | 49 | 42 | 16 | | 4% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 2% | | d | d | | | | | 54% | 46% | 17% | 9% | 45% | | Don't know | 11 | 7 | 4 | - | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Base for % 2484 318 337 211 168 223 234 211 104 281 2146 338 1515 960 1334 1150 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Very satisfied 1376 139 204 103 96 122 113 124 69 190 1221 155 832 537 695 681 55% 44% 60% 49% 57% 55% 48% 59% 67% 67% 57% 46% 55% 56% 52% 59% acf a a acf acdef acdef k n 10% 15% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 89% 11% 60% 39% 51% 49% Fairly satisfied 893 157 106 86 64 83 95 70 28 54 760 134 554 339 505 389 36% 49% 31% 41% 38% 37% 41% 33% 27% 19% 35% 40% 37% 35% 38% 34% bdeghi i bhi hi hi bhi i i o 18% 12% 10% 7% 9% 11% 8% 3% 6% 85% 15% 62% 38% 57% 43% TOTAL SATISFIED 2269 296 310 189 160 204 208 194 98 243 1981 288 1385 876 1200 1069 91% 93% 92% 90% 95% 92% 89% 92% 94% 86% 92% 85% 91% 91% 90% 93% i cfi fi k n 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 53% 47% Neither 124 17 16 13 3 9 10 9 3 26 99 25 68 55 80 43 5% 6% 5% 6% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 9% 5% 7% 4% 6% 6% 4% d deh j o 14% 13% 11% 3% 7% 8% 7% 3% 21% 80% 20% 55% 45% 65% 35% Fairly dissatisfied 53 2 4 8 3 5 10 7 * 6 39 14 37 16 31 21 2% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3% *% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% ah ah ah j 3% 8% 15% 6% 9% 19% 13% 1% 11% 74% 26% 71% 29% 60% 40% Very dissatisfied 38 3 8 1 2 5 6 1 2 7 27 11 25 13 22 15 2% 1% 2% *% 1% 2% 2% *% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% j 7% 20% 2% 5% 12% 15% 3% 6% 17% 71% 29% 66% 34% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22A (Qd21A). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... The Overall Service Provided By Main Supplier. (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 91 4 12 9 5 9 16 8 3 13 66 24 62 28 54 37 4% 1% 4% 4% 3% 4% 7% 4% 2% 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 4% 3% ah j 5% 13% 9% 5% 10% 17% 9% 3% 14% 73% 27% 69% 31% 59% 41% Don't know 11 - - - 3 - 1 1 - 4 9 2 2 8 8 3 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 3425 | 1629 | 1796 | 513 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2318 | 1101 | 1218 | 340 | | Total | 2494 | 1204 | 1290 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 14% | 18% | 36% | | Base for % | 2479 | 1197 | 1282 | 361 | | 48% | 52% | 15% | 18% | 36% | | Very satisfied | 1286 | 588 | 698 | 210 | | 52% | 49% | 54% | 58% | 54% | | a | ef | j | j | k | | 46% | 54% | 16% | 19% | 35% | | Fairly satisfied | 863 | 442 | 421 | 117 | | 35% | 37% | 33% | 32% | 36% | | b | h | | | | | 51% | 49% | 14% | 19% | 35% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 2149 | 1031 | 1118 | 326 | | 87% | 86% | 87% | 91% | 90% | | ef | ef | k | km | oq | | 48% | 52% | 15% | 19% | 35% | | Neither | | | | | | 126 | 72 | 54 | 19 | 18 | | 5% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 4% | | b | | | | | | 57% | 43% | 15% | 14% | 38% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 124 | 51 | 73 | 9 | | 5% | 4% | 6% | 3% | 3% | | cd | h | h | lmn | r | | 41% | 59% | 8% | 13% | 49% | | Very dissatisfied | 81 | 44 | 37 | 6 | | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 2% | | c | n | n | | | | 54% | 46% | 7% | 14% | 44% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3425 1629 1796 513 591 1142 1179 483 365 429 610 745 1059 728 889 2083 451 445 446 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 1101 1218 340 391 788 812 329 247 309 457 543 719 498 579 1787 279 273 341 Total 2494 1204 1290 361 456 895 782 278 240 341 578 669 686 549 588 2096 211 120 68 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 205 95 110 15 27 96 66 24 14 25 64 80 56 40 28 177 16 9 3 8% 8% 9% 4% 6% 11% 9% 9% 6% 7% 11% 12% 8% 7% 5% 8% 8% 8% 5% cd c h lmn n r 46% 54% 7% 13% 47% 32% 12% 7% 12% 31% 39% 27% 20% 14% 86% 8% 4% 2% Don't know 15 7 8 * 1 3 11 4 * * 4 6 2 3 5 12 1 2 * Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Base for % 2479 318 337 210 167 223 234 209 104 282 2142 337 1514 957 1333 1146 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Very satisfied 1286 142 189 86 86 121 103 116 64 177 1162 124 775 505 629 656 52% 45% 56% 41% 52% 54% 44% 55% 61% 63% 54% 37% 51% 53% 47% 57% acf c acf acf acf acdf k n 11% 15% 7% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 90% 10% 60% 39% 49% 51% Fairly satisfied 863 157 96 76 68 76 85 72 32 55 758 106 534 327 475 389 35% 49% 29% 36% 41% 34% 36% 34% 31% 19% 35% 31% 35% 34% 36% 34% bcefghi i i bhi i i i i 18% 11% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 4% 6% 88% 12% 62% 38% 55% 45% TOTAL SATISFIED 2149 299 286 162 155 197 188 188 96 232 1919 230 1309 832 1104 1045 87% 94% 85% 77% 93% 88% 80% 90% 92% 82% 90% 68% 86% 87% 83% 91% bcefi c bcfi cf cfi bcfi k n 14% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 89% 11% 61% 39% 51% 49% Neither 126 11 10 20 5 9 19 9 2 20 92 34 73 53 86 40 5% 3% 3% 10% 3% 4% 8% 4% 2% 7% 4% 10% 5% 5% 6% 3% abdegh abdh bdh j o 9% 8% 16% 4% 7% 15% 7% 1% 16% 73% 27% 58% 42% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 124 5 26 17 3 7 23 7 3 17 90 34 77 47 78 45 5% 2% 8% 8% 2% 3% 10% 3% 3% 6% 4% 10% 5% 5% 6% 4% adegh adegh adegh ad j o 4% 21% 14% 3% 5% 19% 5% 2% 14% 72% 28% 62% 38% 63% 37% Very dissatisfied 81 3 16 10 4 10 4 5 3 13 42 39 55 26 65 16 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 12% 4% 3% 5% 1% a a a a j o 3% 19% 13% 5% 12% 5% 7% 4% 16% 51% 49% 68% 32% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd22J (Qd21J). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Reception/ Accessing Network. (Single Code). Base : Those who personally use a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3425 236 235 228 224 234 228 234 227 237 2485 940 1825 1589 1637 1788 Effective Weighted Sample 2318 209 222 218 209 217 217 215 210 217 1923 428 1269 1089 1122 1231 Total 2494 318 337 211 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 340 1517 969 1342 1153 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 205 8 42 27 8 17 27 12 6 30 131 74 132 73 143 61 8% 3% 12% 13% 5% 8% 12% 6% 6% 11% 6% 22% 9% 8% 11% 5% adgh adgh a adgh ad j o 4% 20% 13% 4% 8% 13% 6% 3% 15% 64% 36% 64% 36% 70% 30% Don't know 15 - - 1 4 - 1 3 - 3 12 3 4 11 9 6 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | Base for % | 1824 | 868 | 956 | 327 | | 48% | 52% | 18% | 23% | 41% | | Very satisfied | 953 | 441 | 513 | 195 | | 52% | 51% | 54% | 59% | 54% | | ef | f | j | j | k | | 46% | 54% | 20% | 24% | 39% | | Fairly satisfied | 659 | 321 | 338 | 108 | | 36% | 37% | 35% | 33% | 38% | | i | | | | | | 49% | 51% | 16% | 24% | 41% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 1613 | 762 | 851 | 303 | | 88% | 88% | 89% | 93% | 92% | | ef | ef | f | oq | | | 47% | 53% | 19% | 24% | 40% | | Neither | 95 | 46 | 48 | 10 | | 5% | 5% | 5% | 3% | 4% | | cde | or | | | | | 49% | 51% | 11% | 17% | 38% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 70 | 33 | 37 | 8 | | 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | | 47% | 53% | 12% | 16% | 48% | | Very dissatisfied | 47 | 27 | 20 | 6 | | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 1% | | 58% | 42% | 12% | 13% | 52% | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 1157 | 1330 | 475 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 800 | 909 | 313 | | Total | 1896 | 903 | 993 | 329 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 40% | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 116 | 60 | 57 | 14 | | 6% | 7% | 6% | 4% | 4% | | cd | cd | | | | | 51% | 49% | 12% | 15% | 50% | | Don't know | 72 | 35 | 37 | 2 | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone | ENGLAND REGIONS | URBANITY | WORKING | DEPRIVATION LEVEL | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | EAST | | | | | SOUTH | SOUTH | EAST | WEST | | Total | LONDON | EAST | WEST | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 201 | 164 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 180 | 155 | | Total | 1896 | 275 | 243 | | 15% | 13% | 8% | 7% | | Base for % | 1824 | 274 | 236 | | 15% | 13% | 8% | 7% | | Very satisfied | 953 | 124 | 122 | | 52% | 45% | 52% | 47% | | acf | abcefg | k | n | | 13% | 13% | 7% | 7% | | Fairly satisfied | 659 | 142 | 80 | | 36% | 52% | 34% | 38% | | bcdefghi | i | i | i | | 21% | 12% | 9% | 6% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 1613 | 266 | 202 | | 88% | 97% | 86% | 84% | | bcdefgi | bcefi | k | n | | 16% | 13% | 8% | 7% | | Neither | | | | | 95 | 2 | 21 | 9 | | 5% | 1% | 9% | 6% | | ah | a | a | a | | 2% | 22% | 10% | 5% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 70 | 6 | 11 | | 4% | 2% | 5% | 5% | | h | h | h | h | | 9% | 16% | 10% | 5% | | Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qd23K (Qd21K). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Phone Service Only, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With (Main Supplier) For Each Of The Following... Ability To Connect To The Internet Using The Mobile Network (3G Or 4G). (Single Code). Base : Those with a smartphone | ENGLAND REGIONS | URBANITY | WORKING | DEPRIVATION LEVEL | |-----------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | EAST | | | | | SOUTH | SOUTH | EAST | WEST | | Total | LONDON | EAST | WEST | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | | Unweighted total | 2487 | 201 | 164 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1708 | 180 | 155 | | Total | 1896 | 275 | 243 | | 15% | 13% | 8% | 7% | | Very dissatisfied | 47 | - | 2 | | 3% | -% | 1% | 5% | | ab | a | a | a | | -% | 4% | 16% | 10% | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 116 | 6 | 13 | | 6% | 2% | 6% | 9% | | ah | a | ah | a | | 5% | 11% | 12% | 7% | | Don't know | 72 | 1 | 7 | | Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe1. Does Your Household Have A Desktop Pc, Laptop, Netbook Or Tablet Computer? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes - PC (including iMacs) 835 456 380 106 95 336 298 48 64 107 253 310 250 158 118 727 53 43 12 31% 35% 28% 29% 20% 37% 32% 15% 25% 30% 43% 43% 35% 27% 18% 32% 23% 33% 17% b d cdf d g g ghi lmn mn n pr r pr 55% 45% 13% 11% 40% 36% 6% 8% 13% 30% 37% 30% 19% 14% 87% 6% 5% 1% Yes - laptop (including MacBooks) 1711 820 891 260 313 675 463 118 135 233 503 553 483 361 314 1449 141 80 42 64% 63% 65% 71% 67% 74% 50% 37% 52% 65% 86% 78% 67% 62% 48% 65% 60% 61% 56% f f df g gh ghi lmn n n r 48% 52% 15% 18% 39% 27% 7% 8% 14% 29% 32% 28% 21% 18% 85% 8% 5% 2% Yes - netbook 195 98 98 40 23 92 40 13 18 25 60 78 52 37 28 164 20 9 3 7% 7% 7% 11% 5% 10% 4% 4% 7% 7% 10% 11% 7% 6% 4% 7% 8% 7% 4% df df g lmn n r r r 50% 50% 20% 12% 47% 20% 7% 9% 13% 31% 40% 27% 19% 14% 84% 10% 5% 1% Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 59% 57% 62% 63% 67% 70% 43% 35% 52% 63% 78% 67% 63% 63% 43% 59% 56% 67% 60% a f f cf g gh ghi n n n opr 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% TOTAL YES 2245 1097 1148 328 415 836 666 185 198 323 577 671 627 492 454 1890 184 112 59 84% 84% 84% 90% 89% 91% 72% 58% 76% 90% 99% 94% 87% 85% 69% 85% 79% 85% 80% f f f g gh ghi lmn n n pr 49% 51% 15% 18% 37% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 8% 5% 3% PC ONLY 111 75 36 8 9 24 70 15 15 27 7 30 37 19 25 95 7 6 2 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% 8% 5% 6% 7% 1% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% b cde j j j 68% 32% 7% 8% 21% 64% 13% 14% 24% 6% 27% 34% 17% 22% 86% 6% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% LAPTOP ONLY 422 213 209 73 86 125 138 49 36 60 85 110 97 86 128 362 38 11 11 16% 16% 15% 20% 18% 14% 15% 15% 14% 17% 15% 16% 14% 15% 19% 16% 16% 9% 15% ef e lm q q q 51% 49% 17% 20% 30% 33% 12% 9% 14% 20% 26% 23% 20% 30% 86% 9% 3% 3% TABLET ONLY 251 109 142 43 68 82 58 43 31 38 25 38 56 70 86 194 30 14 13 9% 8% 10% 12% 15% 9% 6% 13% 12% 11% 4% 5% 8% 12% 13% 9% 13% 11% 17% f ef f j j j kl kl o oq 43% 57% 17% 27% 33% 23% 17% 13% 15% 10% 15% 22% 28% 34% 78% 12% 6% 5% No 428 202 226 36 54 79 259 132 62 36 6 41 92 88 206 345 49 20 14 16% 16% 16% 10% 11% 9% 28% 42% 24% 10% 1% 6% 13% 15% 31% 15% 21% 15% 20% cde hij ij j k k klm o o 47% 53% 9% 13% 18% 60% 31% 15% 8% 1% 9% 22% 21% 48% 81% 11% 5% 3% Don't know 2 1 1 - - * 2 - - - - - 1 - 1 1 - * * *% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% -% *% *% 64% 36% -% -% 9% 91% -% -% -% -% -% 64% -% 36% 80% -% 11% 9% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes - PC (including iMacs) 835 95 150 89 56 72 88 60 33 83 705 130 524 308 509 326 31% 28% 42% 39% 30% 31% 36% 27% 29% 28% 30% 36% 34% 28% 35% 27% adeghi adghi gi j m o 11% 18% 11% 7% 9% 11% 7% 4% 10% 84% 16% 63% 37% 61% 39% Yes - laptop (including MacBooks) 1711 268 244 155 115 131 175 135 54 172 1481 230 1129 577 939 772 64% 79% 68% 68% 61% 55% 72% 60% 48% 57% 64% 64% 73% 52% 65% 63% bcdeghi ehi ehi h deghi h m 16% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 10% 87% 13% 66% 34% 55% 45% Yes - netbook 195 20 17 19 16 26 18 19 11 16 162 34 134 58 120 75 7% 6% 5% 8% 9% 11% 7% 9% 10% 5% 7% 9% 9% 5% 8% 6% abi b m o 10% 9% 10% 8% 13% 9% 10% 6% 8% 83% 17% 69% 30% 62% 38% Yes - tablet computer - e.g. iPad 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 59% 51% 66% 66% 59% 48% 67% 58% 56% 58% 58% 64% 69% 45% 63% 54% aeh aeh e aegh e e j m o 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% TOTAL YES 2245 301 328 203 154 170 218 185 86 245 1931 314 1430 807 1263 982 84% 89% 91% 89% 81% 72% 89% 82% 76% 81% 83% 87% 92% 72% 88% 80% deghi deghi deghi e deghi e e j m o 13% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% PC ONLY 111 9 21 7 6 11 9 12 5 15 97 14 43 67 71 40 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 6% 5% 3% l o 8% 19% 7% 5% 10% 9% 11% 5% 14% 88% 12% 39% 61% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE1. Does your household have a desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet computer? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% LAPTOP ONLY 422 101 45 32 26 33 31 32 13 48 371 51 247 174 204 218 16% 30% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 12% 16% 16% 14% 16% 16% 14% 18% bcdefghi n 24% 11% 8% 6% 8% 7% 8% 3% 11% 88% 12% 59% 41% 48% 52% TABLET ONLY 251 14 24 24 22 19 16 28 17 31 215 36 156 94 142 109 9% 4% 7% 10% 12% 8% 6% 12% 15% 10% 9% 10% 10% 8% 10% 9% a af abf abef a 6% 9% 9% 9% 8% 6% 11% 7% 12% 86% 14% 62% 37% 56% 44% No 428 38 31 24 35 66 27 41 27 57 384 44 121 305 179 249 16% 11% 9% 11% 19% 28% 11% 18% 24% 19% 17% 12% 8% 27% 12% 20% abcf abcdfgi abcf abcf abcf k l n 9% 7% 6% 8% 15% 6% 9% 6% 13% 90% 10% 28% 71% 42% 58% Don't know 2 - - - - 1 - - * - 1 1 * 2 1 1 *% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 55% -% -% 25% -% 45% 55% 9% 91% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe2 (Qe35). How Many Tablet Computers Do You Have In Your Household? (Single Code) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2085 944 1141 318 399 800 568 188 193 280 485 532 678 461 412 1270 264 294 257 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 661 782 212 268 563 406 133 136 205 365 388 466 325 275 1101 164 189 205 Total 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% One (1.0) 893 423 470 124 181 306 282 73 83 128 223 258 265 192 177 726 88 55 24 56% 58% 55% 54% 58% 47% 71% 66% 61% 57% 49% 54% 58% 53% 63% 55% 68% 62% 55% e cde j j km or 47% 53% 14% 20% 34% 32% 8% 9% 14% 25% 29% 30% 21% 20% 81% 10% 6% 3% Two (2.0) 447 201 246 57 87 215 89 27 36 73 144 132 134 114 67 389 24 21 13 28% 27% 29% 24% 28% 33% 22% 24% 27% 33% 32% 28% 29% 31% 24% 29% 19% 24% 30% cf n p p 45% 55% 13% 19% 48% 20% 6% 8% 16% 32% 30% 30% 25% 15% 87% 5% 5% 3% Three (3.0) 162 75 87 34 31 81 16 10 14 17 56 64 36 34 28 136 11 9 5 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 12% 4% 9% 10% 8% 12% 13% 8% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 11% f f f l 46% 54% 21% 19% 50% 10% 6% 9% 11% 35% 40% 22% 21% 17% 84% 7% 6% 3% Four (4.0) 49 25 24 12 6 26 6 2 1 4 18 17 11 17 5 40 6 3 1 3% 3% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 5% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% df f n 52% 48% 24% 12% 53% 11% 4% 2% 7% 36% 34% 22% 34% 9% 81% 12% 5% 2% Five or more (5.0) 30 11 19 4 9 16 2 * 2 3 14 8 9 9 4 28 1 1 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% *% *% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% *% 1% 1% f f g 37% 63% 14% 28% 52% 6% *% 6% 11% 47% 25% 31% 30% 14% 93% 2% 3% 2% Don't know 2 - 2 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 2 - - - *% -% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 55% 45% -% -% -% -% 45% -% -% 55% 100% -% -% -% Mean number 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 f f df ghi n n p Standard deviation .92 .91 .93 1.00 .93 .97 .67 .73 .82 .82 1.01 .94 .89 .98 .85 .93 .87 .87 .89 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .05 .03 .03 .05 .06 .05 .05 .04 .03 .05 .04 .03 .05 .05 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE2 (QE35). How many tablet computers do you have in your household? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2085 126 163 156 142 116 157 135 132 143 1501 584 1283 796 1063 1022 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 112 154 149 133 108 149 127 123 132 1181 283 902 557 750 716 Total 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% One (1.0) 893 121 128 71 49 54 91 75 29 108 762 131 576 315 497 397 56% 69% 54% 48% 44% 47% 55% 58% 46% 61% 56% 57% 54% 62% 54% 59% bcdefh d cdeh l 14% 14% 8% 5% 6% 10% 8% 3% 12% 85% 15% 65% 35% 56% 44% Two (2.0) 447 36 79 50 35 41 44 34 22 47 385 62 328 119 274 173 28% 21% 33% 34% 32% 36% 27% 26% 35% 27% 28% 27% 31% 24% 30% 26% a a a a a m 8% 18% 11% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 61% 39% Three (3.0) 162 14 21 18 19 9 18 14 9 15 142 20 111 48 93 69 10% 8% 9% 12% 17% 8% 11% 11% 14% 9% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% abei 8% 13% 11% 12% 6% 11% 9% 5% 9% 88% 12% 69% 30% 58% 42% Four (4.0) 49 2 4 8 4 7 8 5 3 - 39 10 35 13 30 19 3% 1% 2% 5% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% -% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% i i ai i i i 3% 8% 16% 9% 13% 16% 10% 6% -% 80% 20% 71% 27% 60% 40% Five or more (5.0) 30 2 5 2 4 4 3 3 * 4 25 5 23 7 19 12 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 7% 18% 7% 12% 13% 11% 9% 1% 15% 82% 18% 75% 25% 61% 39% Don't know 2 - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% 45% -% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 55% 45% -% 100% 45% 55% Mean number 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 a ai abi ai a a ai m Standard deviation .92 .78 .88 .94 1.03 1.04 .98 .95 .88 .86 .91 .97 .93 .88 .93 .91 Standard error .02 .07 .07 .08 .09 .10 .08 .08 .08 .07 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe3 (Qe36). Do You Personally Use This/ Any Of These Tablet Computer/S? (Single Code) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2085 944 1141 318 399 800 568 188 193 280 485 532 678 461 412 1270 264 294 257 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 661 782 212 268 563 406 133 136 205 365 388 466 325 275 1101 164 189 205 Total 1583 736 847 231 312 645 396 111 137 225 455 479 456 365 282 1321 130 89 44 46% 54% 15% 20% 41% 25% 7% 9% 14% 29% 30% 29% 23% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% Yes 1274 576 698 173 261 519 321 80 107 187 381 392 377 299 205 1063 106 67 38 80% 78% 82% 75% 84% 81% 81% 72% 79% 83% 84% 82% 83% 82% 73% 80% 82% 75% 86% a c g g n n n oq 45% 55% 14% 20% 41% 25% 6% 8% 15% 30% 31% 30% 23% 16% 83% 8% 5% 3% No 308 159 149 58 51 124 75 32 29 38 73 86 79 66 77 257 24 22 6 19% 22% 18% 25% 16% 19% 19% 28% 21% 17% 16% 18% 17% 18% 27% 19% 18% 25% 14% d ij klm r r 52% 48% 19% 16% 40% 24% 10% 9% 12% 24% 28% 25% 21% 25% 83% 8% 7% 2% Don't know 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - *% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE3 (QE36). Do you personally use this/ any of these tablet computer/s? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with any tablet computers in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2085 126 163 156 142 116 157 135 132 143 1501 584 1283 796 1063 1022 Effective Weighted Sample 1442 112 154 149 133 108 149 127 123 132 1181 283 902 557 750 716 Total 1583 174 238 149 111 115 164 131 63 176 1354 229 1073 505 913 671 11% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 68% 32% 58% 42% Yes 1274 149 185 118 88 102 125 107 47 140 1090 184 876 396 741 532 80% 86% 78% 80% 79% 89% 76% 82% 75% 80% 80% 80% 82% 78% 81% 79% h bdfh 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% No 308 25 53 30 23 13 38 24 16 36 263 45 196 110 170 138 19% 14% 22% 20% 21% 11% 23% 18% 25% 20% 19% 20% 18% 22% 19% 21% e e e ae 8% 17% 10% 7% 4% 12% 8% 5% 12% 85% 15% 63% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - *% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% *% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% 100% -% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe4 (Qe37). Is Your Tablet Computer 3G Or 4G Enabled? This Means That The Tablet Could Be Used - With A Sim Card - To Go Online From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1680 730 950 242 331 645 462 136 153 233 401 445 567 370 297 1013 214 229 224 Effective Weighted Sample 1152 511 641 159 220 448 332 98 107 170 302 319 385 259 198 877 137 146 178 Total 1274 576 698 173 261 519 321 80 107 187 381 392 377 299 205 1063 106 67 38 45% 55% 14% 20% 41% 25% 6% 8% 15% 30% 31% 30% 23% 16% 83% 8% 5% 3% Yes 457 217 239 65 112 188 92 23 36 73 143 138 143 109 66 382 32 26 17 36% 38% 34% 38% 43% 36% 29% 29% 33% 39% 37% 35% 38% 37% 32% 36% 30% 39% 45% f f f op 48% 52% 14% 25% 41% 20% 5% 8% 16% 31% 30% 31% 24% 14% 84% 7% 6% 4% No 722 330 392 101 137 299 186 49 58 102 230 231 213 156 121 602 69 32 19 57% 57% 56% 58% 52% 58% 58% 62% 54% 55% 60% 59% 57% 52% 59% 57% 65% 48% 49% q qr 46% 54% 14% 19% 41% 26% 7% 8% 14% 32% 32% 30% 22% 17% 83% 10% 4% 3% Don't know 95 28 67 7 12 33 44 8 14 12 9 23 20 34 18 79 5 9 2 7% 5% 10% 4% 5% 6% 14% 9% 13% 6% 2% 6% 5% 11% 9% 7% 5% 13% 6% a cde j j j kl opr 30% 70% 7% 13% 34% 46% 8% 15% 12% 9% 25% 21% 35% 19% 83% 6% 9% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe4 (Qe37). Is Your Tablet Computer 3G Or 4G Enabled? This Means That The Tablet Could Be Used - With A Sim Card - To Go Online From Anywhere With A Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who personally use a tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g ~h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1680 104 124 125 114 104 120 109 98 115 1211 469 1045 633 859 821 Effective Weighted Sample 1152 94 117 120 107 96 114 103 91 105 943 227 729 442 604 568 Total 1274 149 185 118 88 102 125 107 47 140 1090 184 876 396 741 532 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% ** 11% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% Yes 457 85 43 34 33 27 34 31 ** 74 397 59 327 129 257 199 36% 57% 23% 29% 38% 27% 27% 29% ** 53% 36% 32% 37% 33% 35% 37% bcdefg b bcdefg 19% 10% 8% 7% 6% 7% 7% ** 16% 87% 13% 72% 28% 56% 44% No 722 63 131 69 43 62 87 67 ** 54 617 105 499 222 418 304 57% 43% 71% 59% 49% 61% 69% 62% ** 39% 57% 57% 57% 56% 56% 57% adi ai ai adi ai 9% 18% 10% 6% 9% 12% 9% ** 8% 86% 14% 69% 31% 58% 42% Don't know 95 - 11 15 12 13 5 10 ** 12 75 20 50 44 67 29 7% -% 6% 12% 13% 12% 4% 9% ** 8% 7% 11% 6% 11% 9% 5% a af af af a a j l o -% 12% 15% 12% 13% 5% 10% ** 12% 79% 21% 53% 46% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe5 (Qe38). And Do You Have A Separate Mobile Subscription For Your Tablet, Which Allows You To Go Online From Anywhere With A 3G Or 4G Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 590 263 327 90 133 231 136 41 47 78 145 150 207 141 92 357 61 82 90 Effective Weighted Sample 402 182 221 59 94 159 93 30 32 61 112 109 139 98 59 307 37 55 76 Total 457 217 239 65 112 188 92 23 36 73 143 138 143 109 66 382 32 26 17 48% 52% ** 25% 41% 20% ** ** ** 31% 30% 31% 24% ** 84% ** ** ** Yes 156 79 77 ** 44 65 24 ** ** ** 56 41 56 33 ** 135 ** ** ** 34% 37% 32% ** 39% 35% 26% ** ** ** 39% 30% 39% 31% ** 35% ** ** ** f 51% 49% ** 28% 42% 15% ** ** ** 36% 27% 36% 21% ** 87% ** ** ** No 286 131 155 ** 65 116 65 ** ** ** 84 95 80 73 ** 236 ** ** ** 63% 60% 65% ** 58% 62% 70% ** ** ** 59% 69% 56% 67% ** 62% ** ** ** l 46% 54% ** 23% 41% 23% ** ** ** 29% 33% 28% 26% ** 83% ** ** ** Don't know 14 7 8 ** 3 6 3 ** ** ** 3 2 8 3 ** 10 ** ** ** 3% 3% 3% ** 2% 3% 4% ** ** ** 2% 1% 6% 2% ** 3% ** ** ** 46% 54% ** 18% 44% 24% ** ** ** 22% 11% 56% 18% ** 72% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe5 (Qe38). And Do You Have A Separate Mobile Subscription For Your Tablet, Which Allows You To Go Online From Anywhere With A 3G Or 4G Signal, Without The Need For A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those who use a 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 590 59 31 36 43 28 33 30 39 58 444 146 388 202 281 309 Effective Weighted Sample 402 54 29 34 40 26 32 28 37 53 336 72 270 137 203 206 Total 457 85 43 34 33 27 34 31 19 74 397 59 327 129 257 199 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 72% 28% 56% 44% Yes 156 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 140 16 125 31 82 74 34% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 35% 27% 38% 24% 32% 37% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% 10% 80% 20% 52% 48% No 286 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 245 42 192 95 165 121 63% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 62% 71% 59% 73% 64% 61% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 67% 33% 58% 42% Don't know 14 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13 1 10 4 10 4 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% 70% 30% 74% 26% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe6 (Qe44). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Mobile Signal On Your Tablet Computer To Go Online - Rather Than Using A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 192 | 97 | 95 | 29 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 134 | 67 | 67 | 19 | | Total | 156 | 79 | 77 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Every day | 67 | ** | ** | ** | | 43% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Several times a week | | | | | | 43 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 27% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | At least once a week | 17 | ** | ** | ** | | 11% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | At least once a month | 11 | ** | ** | ** | | 7% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | A few times a year | 7 | ** | ** | ** | | 4% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Less than once a year | | | | | | 2 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 1% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Never | 8 | ** | ** | ** | | 5% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | 1 | ** | ** | ** | | 1% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe6 (Qe44). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Mobile Signal On Your Tablet Computer To Go Online - Rather Than Using A Wi-Fi Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those with a separate mobile subscription for their 3G or 4G enabled tablet computer ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l ~m ~n o Unweighted total 192 27 6 7 17 12 8 10 12 27 150 42 140 52 89 103 Effective Weighted Sample 134 24 6 7 15 12 8 9 11 24 116 20 102 33 62 75 Total 156 36 10 6 13 12 8 10 6 34 140 16 125 31 82 74 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% ** 80% ** ** 48% Every day 67 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 62 ** 52 ** ** 35 43% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 44% ** 42% ** ** 47% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% ** 78% ** ** 52% Several times a week 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 41 ** 37 ** ** 20 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 29% ** 30% ** ** 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 96% ** 87% ** ** 47% At least once a week 17 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15 ** 15 ** ** 7 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** 12% ** ** 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 91% ** 91% ** ** 40% At least once a month 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8 ** 9 ** ** 7 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** 7% ** ** 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 75% ** 81% ** ** 59% A few times a year 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 ** 6 ** ** 2 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** 5% ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 82% ** 84% ** ** 34% Less than once a year 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 ** - ** ** * 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% ** -% ** ** *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 55% ** -% ** ** 5% Never 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 ** 5 ** ** 3 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** 4% ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 70% ** 57% ** ** 39% Don't know 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 ** 1 ** ** 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% ** 1% ** ** 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** 100% ** ** 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1652 846 806 201 205 372 874 371 208 171 130 265 444 330 610 969 238 195 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 537 528 132 132 244 566 244 132 120 96 190 290 209 385 817 147 116 176 Total 1092 564 527 133 157 271 531 206 124 133 128 232 264 216 379 915 103 43 30 52% 48% 12% 14% 25% 49% 19% 11% 12% 12% 21% 24% 20% 35% 84% 9% 4% 3% Certain to 23 8 14 5 5 10 3 3 * 5 3 10 3 5 4 20 2 * * 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% *% 4% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% f f f h ln 37% 63% 22% 20% 43% 14% 15% *% 23% 11% 45% 13% 23% 19% 88% 10% 2% 1% Very likely 54 32 21 9 12 20 12 6 4 6 14 11 22 8 12 46 5 2 1 5% 6% 4% 7% 7% 7% 2% 3% 3% 4% 11% 5% 8% 4% 3% 5% 5% 5% 2% f f f gh n 60% 40% 18% 22% 38% 23% 11% 8% 10% 25% 21% 41% 16% 22% 85% 10% 4% 1% Likely 123 63 60 24 28 41 30 20 17 16 26 25 32 28 37 107 10 4 3 11% 11% 11% 18% 18% 15% 6% 10% 13% 12% 21% 11% 12% 13% 10% 12% 10% 9% 10% f f f g 51% 49% 20% 23% 34% 24% 16% 14% 13% 21% 21% 26% 23% 30% 86% 8% 3% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 200 104 96 39 44 72 45 29 21 26 43 47 56 42 54 172 18 6 4 18% 18% 18% 29% 28% 26% 9% 14% 17% 20% 33% 20% 21% 19% 14% 19% 17% 14% 13% f f f ghi n r 52% 48% 19% 22% 36% 23% 14% 11% 13% 21% 24% 28% 21% 27% 86% 9% 3% 2% Unlikely 190 93 97 27 28 51 84 27 22 24 32 54 47 43 46 153 25 6 6 17% 17% 18% 20% 18% 19% 16% 13% 18% 18% 25% 23% 18% 20% 12% 17% 24% 13% 21% g n n n oq 49% 51% 14% 15% 27% 44% 14% 12% 13% 17% 28% 25% 23% 24% 81% 13% 3% 3% Very unlikely 215 115 101 25 29 41 120 47 19 32 19 37 53 36 89 178 22 12 3 20% 20% 19% 19% 18% 15% 23% 23% 15% 24% 15% 16% 20% 17% 23% 19% 21% 27% 11% e k r r r 53% 47% 12% 13% 19% 56% 22% 9% 15% 9% 17% 25% 17% 41% 83% 10% 5% 2% Certain not to 269 127 142 12 12 41 205 68 41 31 12 51 49 59 111 231 20 14 6 25% 23% 27% 9% 8% 15% 39% 33% 33% 23% 9% 22% 18% 27% 29% 25% 19% 31% 19% d cde j j j l l pr 47% 53% 4% 4% 15% 76% 25% 15% 11% 4% 19% 18% 22% 41% 86% 7% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1652 846 806 201 205 372 874 371 208 171 130 265 444 330 610 969 238 195 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 537 528 132 132 244 566 244 132 120 96 190 290 209 385 817 147 116 176 Total 1092 564 527 133 157 271 531 206 124 133 128 232 264 216 379 915 103 43 30 52% 48% 12% 14% 25% 49% 19% 11% 12% 12% 21% 24% 20% 35% 84% 9% 4% 3% TOTAL UNLIKELY 675 335 340 64 69 133 409 143 82 87 63 142 149 138 246 562 66 31 15 62% 59% 64% 48% 44% 49% 77% 69% 66% 65% 49% 61% 56% 64% 65% 61% 64% 71% 51% cde j j j l r r or 50% 50% 9% 10% 20% 61% 21% 12% 13% 9% 21% 22% 20% 36% 83% 10% 5% 2% Don't know 217 126 91 31 44 66 77 34 21 20 23 43 59 36 79 181 19 6 11 20% 22% 17% 23% 28% 24% 14% 17% 17% 15% 18% 19% 22% 17% 21% 20% 19% 14% 36% b f f f opq 58% 42% 14% 20% 30% 35% 16% 10% 9% 10% 20% 27% 17% 36% 83% 9% 3% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b ~c d e ~f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1652 123 88 91 108 135 80 117 119 108 1210 442 578 1067 729 923 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 109 84 88 100 125 77 105 109 99 905 174 391 699 469 606 Total 1092 165 121 78 78 123 81 95 51 126 961 130 479 608 531 561 15% ** ** 7% 11% ** 9% 5% 12% 88% 12% 44% 56% 49% 51% Certain to 23 2 ** ** 1 6 ** 1 1 3 21 2 13 10 14 9 2% 1% ** ** 1% 5% ** 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 8% ** ** 5% 26% ** 4% 4% 13% 93% 7% 57% 43% 59% 41% Very likely 54 14 ** ** 5 10 ** 1 4 6 51 2 36 17 23 31 5% 8% ** ** 7% 9% ** 1% 7% 4% 5% 2% 8% 3% 4% 6% g g g g k m 26% ** ** 10% 19% ** 1% 7% 11% 95% 5% 68% 32% 42% 58% Likely 123 29 ** ** 10 15 ** 12 3 10 108 15 74 49 56 67 11% 18% ** ** 12% 12% ** 12% 6% 8% 11% 12% 15% 8% 11% 12% hi m 24% ** ** 8% 12% ** 9% 2% 8% 88% 12% 60% 40% 46% 54% TOTAL LIKELY 200 45 ** ** 16 31 ** 13 7 18 181 19 123 77 92 107 18% 27% ** ** 21% 25% ** 14% 15% 14% 19% 15% 26% 13% 17% 19% ghi ghi m 23% ** ** 8% 16% ** 7% 4% 9% 90% 10% 62% 38% 46% 54% Unlikely 190 37 ** ** 11 14 ** 10 5 21 172 18 101 89 96 94 17% 22% ** ** 14% 11% ** 11% 11% 17% 18% 14% 21% 15% 18% 17% egh m 19% ** ** 6% 7% ** 5% 3% 11% 91% 9% 53% 47% 51% 49% Very unlikely 215 26 ** ** 13 22 ** 20 6 22 185 30 82 133 101 114 20% 16% ** ** 17% 18% ** 21% 11% 17% 19% 23% 17% 22% 19% 20% 12% ** ** 6% 10% ** 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 38% 62% 47% 53% Certain not to 269 10 ** ** 19 29 ** 34 22 38 227 43 60 208 136 134 25% 6% ** ** 25% 24% ** 36% 45% 30% 24% 33% 12% 34% 26% 24% a a ae adei a j l 4% ** ** 7% 11% ** 13% 8% 14% 84% 16% 22% 77% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe7 (Qe1A). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Tablet Computer - Such As An Ipad - In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without a tablet computer in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b ~c d e ~f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1652 123 88 91 108 135 80 117 119 108 1210 442 578 1067 729 923 Effective Weighted Sample 1065 109 84 88 100 125 77 105 109 99 905 174 391 699 469 606 Total 1092 165 121 78 78 123 81 95 51 126 961 130 479 608 531 561 15% ** ** 7% 11% ** 9% 5% 12% 88% 12% 44% 56% 49% 51% TOTAL UNLIKELY 675 73 ** ** 43 66 ** 64 34 81 584 91 242 429 333 342 62% 44% ** ** 56% 54% ** 68% 67% 65% 61% 70% 51% 71% 63% 61% ae ae a j l 11% ** ** 6% 10% ** 9% 5% 12% 87% 13% 36% 64% 49% 51% Don't know 217 46 ** ** 18 26 ** 17 9 26 197 20 113 102 105 112 20% 28% ** ** 23% 21% ** 18% 19% 21% 20% 15% 24% 17% 20% 20% m 21% ** ** 8% 12% ** 8% 4% 12% 91% 9% 52% 47% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe8 (Qe2). Do You Or Does Anyone In Your Household Have Access To The Internet/ Worldwide Web At Home (Via Any Device, E.G. Pc, Laptop, Mobile Phone Etc)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes - have access and use at home 2236 1088 1148 335 429 837 636 193 204 327 570 653 632 481 468 1880 190 107 59 84% 84% 84% 92% 91% 91% 69% 61% 78% 91% 98% 92% 88% 83% 71% 84% 81% 81% 80% f f f g gh ghi lmn mn n r 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 28% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Yes - have access but don't use at home 70 37 33 2 9 18 40 14 12 9 7 19 14 18 19 57 7 4 2 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% cde j j 53% 47% 3% 13% 26% 57% 20% 17% 13% 11% 27% 20% 26% 27% 81% 10% 6% 3% No do not have access at home 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 13% 13% 14% 7% 5% 6% 26% 33% 17% 6% 1% 5% 10% 13% 25% 13% 15% 15% 16% cde hij ij j k kl klm 47% 53% 7% 7% 16% 70% 30% 12% 6% 1% 11% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 6% 3% Don't know 21 13 8 3 6 4 8 4 1 1 2 3 4 3 10 17 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 62% 38% 13% 28% 20% 40% 18% 7% 4% 10% 15% 21% 17% 48% 83% 7% 7% 4% INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 86% 86% 86% 92% 93% 93% 73% 65% 83% 94% 99% 94% 90% 86% 74% 87% 84% 84% 83% f f f g gh ghi lmn n n r 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% NO 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 13% 13% 14% 7% 5% 6% 26% 33% 17% 6% 1% 5% 10% 13% 25% 13% 15% 15% 16% cde hij ij j k kl klm 47% 53% 7% 7% 16% 70% 30% 12% 6% 1% 11% 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE8 (QE2). Do you or does anyone in your household have access to the internet/ Worldwide Web at HOME (via any device, e.g. PC, laptop, mobile phone etc)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes - have access and use at home 2236 297 316 196 153 181 217 185 85 250 1929 307 1431 797 1228 1008 84% 88% 88% 86% 81% 76% 89% 82% 75% 83% 83% 85% 92% 72% 85% 82% eh deh eh degh h m o 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Yes - have access but don't use at home 70 10 11 8 5 3 5 5 3 7 63 7 34 36 42 28 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 14% 16% 11% 7% 4% 7% 8% 4% 10% 90% 10% 48% 51% 60% 40% No do not have access at home 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 13% 9% 8% 9% 16% 21% 9% 16% 22% 14% 13% 11% 5% 24% 11% 15% abcf abcf abcf abcfi bc l n 8% 8% 6% 8% 14% 6% 10% 7% 12% 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Don't know 21 3 3 4 1 3 - * 1 1 16 5 11 10 11 10 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% f 14% 15% 20% 5% 16% -% 2% 5% 6% 77% 23% 53% 47% 52% 48% INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME YES 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 86% 91% 91% 90% 84% 77% 91% 84% 77% 85% 86% 87% 94% 75% 88% 84% degh deghi eh degh eh m o 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% NO 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 13% 9% 8% 9% 16% 21% 9% 16% 22% 14% 13% 11% 5% 24% 11% 15% abcf abcf abcf abcfi bc l n 8% 8% 6% 8% 14% 6% 10% 7% 12% 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe9 (In6). Showcard Do You Ever Go Online Anywhere Other Than In Your Home At All? If Yes: Where Is That? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Your workplace 954 491 462 134 245 452 123 26 68 141 371 331 313 211 99 795 92 43 24 36% 38% 34% 37% 52% 49% 13% 8% 26% 39% 64% 46% 43% 36% 15% 36% 39% 32% 32% b f cf cf g gh ghi mn mn n r 52% 48% 14% 26% 47% 13% 3% 7% 15% 39% 35% 33% 22% 10% 83% 10% 4% 2% In someone else's home 936 424 512 206 235 332 164 87 82 138 247 263 269 202 202 770 89 47 29 35% 33% 37% 57% 50% 36% 18% 27% 32% 38% 42% 37% 37% 35% 31% 34% 38% 36% 40% a ef ef f g gh n n o 45% 55% 22% 25% 35% 17% 9% 9% 15% 26% 28% 29% 22% 22% 82% 10% 5% 3% Internet caf� 211 107 104 43 60 81 27 17 18 36 59 58 78 46 28 187 9 10 5 8% 8% 8% 12% 13% 9% 3% 6% 7% 10% 10% 8% 11% 8% 4% 8% 4% 8% 6% f ef f g g n n n p p 51% 49% 21% 28% 38% 13% 8% 8% 17% 28% 28% 37% 22% 14% 89% 4% 5% 2% Library 175 93 81 54 37 50 34 22 16 29 40 55 57 25 38 153 10 7 5 7% 7% 6% 15% 8% 5% 4% 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% 8% 4% 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% def f m m 53% 47% 31% 21% 28% 20% 13% 9% 17% 23% 31% 33% 14% 22% 87% 6% 4% 3% School/ college 168 84 84 94 28 39 6 9 8 26 42 57 65 22 23 148 9 4 6 6% 6% 6% 26% 6% 4% 1% 3% 3% 7% 7% 8% 9% 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 8% def f f gh gh mn mn q pq 50% 50% 56% 16% 24% 4% 5% 5% 16% 25% 34% 39% 13% 14% 88% 5% 3% 4% University 96 45 50 54 17 21 4 15 5 11 26 25 54 11 6 87 6 * 2 4% 3% 4% 15% 4% 2% *% 5% 2% 3% 4% 4% 7% 2% 1% 4% 3% *% 3% def f f n kmn q q q 47% 53% 57% 18% 22% 4% 16% 5% 12% 27% 27% 56% 11% 6% 91% 6% *% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe9 (In6). Showcard Do You Ever Go Online Anywhere Other Than In Your Home At All? If Yes: Where Is That? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% UK culture centre/ Learn Direct/ other online learning centres 60 30 30 17 16 21 7 7 6 14 13 16 23 7 14 57 1 1 1 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% *% 1% 1% ef f f m p 50% 50% 28% 26% 34% 12% 11% 10% 24% 21% 27% 38% 12% 23% 95% 1% 2% 2% Other 103 48 55 13 14 36 41 6 16 17 17 30 30 20 23 95 3 4 1 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1% 3% 1% gj g pr 47% 53% 13% 13% 35% 39% 6% 16% 16% 16% 29% 29% 20% 22% 93% 3% 4% 1% No, do not 1048 519 528 58 93 273 624 187 119 130 111 203 221 252 369 876 89 54 29 39% 40% 38% 16% 20% 30% 67% 59% 46% 36% 19% 29% 31% 43% 56% 39% 38% 41% 39% cd cde hij ij j kl klm 50% 50% 6% 9% 26% 60% 18% 11% 12% 11% 19% 21% 24% 35% 84% 9% 5% 3% EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR ELSEWHERE 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 87% 87% 87% 97% 97% 95% 71% 68% 84% 94% 99% 94% 91% 86% 77% 87% 87% 86% 83% ef ef f g gh ghi lmn mn n r 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Your workplace 954 182 115 78 58 76 97 62 34 93 835 118 909 44 524 429 36% 54% 32% 34% 30% 32% 40% 27% 30% 31% 36% 33% 59% 4% 36% 35% bcdefghi dghi m 19% 12% 8% 6% 8% 10% 7% 4% 10% 88% 12% 95% 5% 55% 45% In someone else's home 936 128 121 96 62 91 83 62 40 86 807 129 634 297 498 438 35% 38% 34% 42% 33% 39% 34% 27% 35% 29% 35% 36% 41% 27% 35% 36% gi dgi gi m 14% 13% 10% 7% 10% 9% 7% 4% 9% 86% 14% 68% 32% 53% 47% Internet caf� 211 82 29 24 3 6 21 8 3 12 183 28 169 42 92 119 8% 24% 8% 10% 1% 3% 8% 3% 2% 4% 8% 8% 11% 4% 6% 10% bcdefghi degh deghi degh m n 39% 14% 11% 1% 3% 10% 4% 1% 6% 87% 13% 80% 20% 43% 57% Library 175 59 18 16 8 13 17 10 2 9 163 12 98 76 55 120 7% 17% 5% 7% 4% 5% 7% 5% 2% 3% 7% 3% 6% 7% 4% 10% bcdefghi hi hi k n 34% 10% 9% 5% 7% 10% 6% 1% 5% 93% 7% 56% 44% 32% 68% School/ college 168 63 13 11 5 14 15 7 3 16 157 11 80 87 59 109 6% 19% 4% 5% 3% 6% 6% 3% 2% 5% 7% 3% 5% 8% 4% 9% bcdefghi h h k l n 37% 8% 7% 3% 8% 9% 4% 2% 10% 93% 7% 48% 52% 35% 65% University 96 37 11 2 3 2 9 8 4 10 92 3 47 48 18 77 4% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 1% 6% bcdefghi ce c c k n 39% 12% 2% 4% 2% 10% 8% 4% 10% 96% 4% 50% 50% 19% 81% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE9 (IN6). SHOWCARD Do you ever go online anywhere other than in your home at all? IF YES: Where is that? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% UK culture centre/ Learn Direct/ other online learning centres 60 31 6 2 - 1 8 1 2 5 60 * 45 16 9 51 2% 9% 2% 1% -% *% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% *% 3% 1% 1% 4% bcdefghi d deg d d k m n 51% 10% 4% -% 1% 14% 2% 4% 9% 100% *% 74% 26% 15% 85% Other 103 1 11 5 22 6 12 26 7 5 87 16 51 52 66 37 4% *% 3% 2% 12% 3% 5% 11% 6% 2% 4% 4% 3% 5% 5% 3% a abcefhi a a abcefi aci o 1% 10% 5% 22% 6% 12% 25% 7% 5% 84% 16% 50% 50% 64% 36% No, do not 1048 104 151 81 71 94 82 97 49 148 905 143 381 663 557 490 39% 31% 42% 36% 38% 40% 33% 43% 43% 49% 39% 40% 25% 59% 39% 40% a a af af acdef l 10% 14% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 14% 86% 14% 36% 63% 53% 47% EVER USE INTERNET AT HOME OR ELSEWHERE 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 87% 94% 89% 88% 85% 83% 90% 83% 78% 86% 87% 88% 96% 75% 88% 86% cdeghi eh h h egh h m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe10 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Every day 1834 871 963 307 397 708 421 152 161 265 492 567 528 383 355 1547 152 89 47 79% 77% 80% 87% 87% 82% 64% 71% 74% 79% 86% 84% 81% 77% 70% 79% 75% 79% 76% a f ef f g ghi mn n n 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 23% 8% 9% 14% 27% 31% 29% 21% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% Several times a week 317 166 151 33 44 111 129 35 30 55 61 66 84 71 95 266 29 13 9 14% 15% 13% 9% 10% 13% 20% 16% 14% 17% 11% 10% 13% 14% 19% 14% 14% 11% 15% cde j j k kl 52% 48% 11% 14% 35% 41% 11% 9% 17% 19% 21% 26% 22% 30% 84% 9% 4% 3% At least once a week 100 55 45 10 8 27 56 15 9 8 20 28 23 18 31 80 12 4 4 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 3% 9% 7% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 6% 4% 6% 4% 6% cde ij l 55% 45% 10% 8% 27% 56% 15% 9% 8% 20% 28% 23% 18% 31% 80% 12% 4% 4% At least once a month 37 19 18 3 1 8 24 5 10 4 1 4 6 12 15 29 4 3 1 2% 2% 2% 1% *% 1% 4% 3% 5% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% cde j ij kl kl 51% 49% 8% 3% 22% 66% 15% 28% 12% 3% 11% 15% 33% 40% 79% 10% 9% 2% A few times a year 14 6 7 - 3 5 6 1 2 * * 1 7 3 2 9 2 2 * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 2% *% o 46% 54% -% 21% 35% 44% 6% 14% *% 2% 11% 48% 24% 17% 67% 18% 13% 2% Less than once a year 2 1 1 - - 1 1 1 - - - * - 1 1 2 * - * *% *% *% -% -% *% *% *% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% 46% 54% -% -% 46% 54% 36% -% -% -% 17% -% 46% 36% 83% 7% -% 10% Never 19 9 10 1 * 5 13 5 4 3 1 1 6 6 6 15 2 1 * 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% cde j j k k 49% 51% 6% 2% 26% 66% 28% 22% 13% 6% 5% 31% 32% 32% 80% 13% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe10 (Qe23). Showcard And How Often Do You Personally Use The Internet Nowadays Either At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2251 1093 1159 350 449 846 606 202 200 328 572 661 634 473 481 1892 193 106 60 97% 96% 97% 99% 99% 98% 92% 94% 92% 98% 100% 98% 97% 95% 95% 97% 96% 94% 97% f f f gh ghi mn q 49% 51% 16% 20% 38% 27% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 21% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL EVER 2304 1119 1185 353 453 860 638 209 212 333 574 667 647 489 499 1932 199 111 61 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 97% 99% 100% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 99% f f f gh 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 8 6 2 * 2 - 6 1 2 - * 3 * 3 2 7 * 1 * *% 1% *% *% *% -% 1% *% 1% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% e 73% 27% 4% 22% -% 74% 6% 22% -% 5% 41% 5% 33% 21% 87% 1% 9% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Every day 1834 218 270 175 123 152 191 157 74 187 1562 272 1237 590 1010 823 79% 68% 84% 87% 76% 77% 86% 83% 83% 72% 78% 86% 83% 70% 79% 78% adi adei a adei ai ai j m 12% 15% 10% 7% 8% 10% 9% 4% 10% 85% 15% 67% 32% 55% 45% Several times a week 317 70 30 15 24 28 18 19 8 54 289 28 170 147 168 150 14% 22% 9% 8% 15% 14% 8% 10% 9% 21% 14% 9% 11% 18% 13% 14% bcfgh cf c bcfgh k l 22% 10% 5% 8% 9% 6% 6% 3% 17% 91% 9% 54% 46% 53% 47% At least once a week 100 19 12 6 7 10 7 3 4 13 89 11 51 49 61 39 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% 4% g l 19% 12% 6% 7% 10% 7% 3% 4% 13% 89% 11% 51% 49% 61% 39% At least once a month 37 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 34 2 12 25 15 22 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% l 14% 14% 8% 9% 7% 6% 7% 4% 9% 93% 7% 32% 68% 41% 59% A few times a year 14 3 - 1 1 3 - - - 2 13 1 7 7 9 4 1% 1% -% *% *% 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% 23% -% 6% 6% 19% -% -% -% 13% 92% 8% 52% 48% 68% 32% Less than once a year 2 - - - - - 1 1 - - 2 * 1 1 * 2 *% -% -% -% -% -% *% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% 36% 46% -% -% 93% 7% 46% 54% 17% 83% Never 19 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 17 2 7 12 6 13 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% a l 4% 5% 4% 11% 7% 12% 24% 4% 8% 90% 10% 34% 63% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE10 (QE23). SHOWCARD And how often do you personally use the internet nowadays either at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TOTAL AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 2251 306 313 196 154 190 216 179 87 253 1940 311 1459 786 1239 1012 97% 96% 97% 98% 96% 97% 98% 95% 97% 98% 96% 98% 98% 94% 97% 96% m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 55% 45% TOTAL EVER 2304 314 318 199 159 195 219 182 88 258 1989 315 1479 819 1264 1040 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 99% 99% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 98% g m 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 8 4 2 - 1 - - 1 - - 8 * 2 6 5 4 *% 1% 1% -% *% -% -% 1% -% -% *% *% *% 1% *% *% l 43% 20% -% 7% -% -% 17% -% -% 96% 4% 27% 73% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Smartphone 841 386 455 200 254 306 81 94 78 108 215 187 242 200 211 690 80 40 30 36% 34% 38% 56% 56% 35% 12% 44% 36% 32% 37% 28% 37% 40% 42% 35% 40% 36% 49% ef ef f i k k k opq 46% 54% 24% 30% 36% 10% 11% 9% 13% 26% 22% 29% 24% 25% 82% 10% 5% 4% Laptop 682 331 351 83 97 266 237 54 58 100 172 238 185 117 141 581 55 30 17 29% 29% 29% 23% 21% 31% 36% 25% 26% 30% 30% 35% 28% 24% 28% 30% 27% 26% 27% cd cde lmn 49% 51% 12% 14% 39% 35% 8% 8% 15% 25% 35% 27% 17% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 475 208 267 37 70 204 164 32 49 71 124 137 131 121 87 396 41 30 9 20% 18% 22% 11% 15% 24% 25% 15% 23% 21% 22% 20% 20% 24% 17% 20% 20% 26% 14% a cd cd g g g n r or 44% 56% 8% 15% 43% 34% 7% 10% 15% 26% 29% 28% 25% 18% 83% 9% 6% 2% Desktop PC 271 179 91 26 20 74 152 24 29 49 48 93 80 46 52 235 18 11 5 12% 16% 8% 7% 4% 9% 23% 11% 13% 15% 8% 14% 12% 9% 10% 12% 9% 10% 9% b d cde j m 66% 34% 9% 7% 27% 56% 9% 11% 18% 18% 34% 30% 17% 19% 87% 7% 4% 2% Netbook 10 6 4 - 3 2 5 2 * - 5 5 4 - 1 10 - - * *% 1% *% -% 1% *% 1% 1% *% -% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% -% -% *% 61% 39% -% 30% 21% 49% 16% 1% -% 50% 52% 36% -% 12% 98% -% -% 2% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 6 2 4 1 - 3 2 - * 2 1 1 3 2 * 6 1 * - *% *% *% *% -% *% *% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 36% 64% 21% -% 51% 28% -% 4% 37% 16% 16% 50% 27% 7% 87% 9% 4% -% TV set 5 3 2 - 3 2 1 1 - 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 - * - *% *% *% -% 1% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% 62% 38% -% 56% 30% 14% 21% -% 24% 48% 14% 31% 24% 31% 93% -% 7% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Games console 4 3 1 3 1 - * 1 - 1 - - 1 2 2 3 1 - - *% *% *% 1% *% -% *% 1% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% ef 68% 32% 71% 20% -% 9% 29% -% 15% -% -% 15% 36% 49% 80% 20% -% -% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 3 2 1 1 - - 2 - - - 2 2 - - 1 3 - - - *% *% *% *% -% -% *% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% 53% 47% 47% -% -% 53% -% -% -% 53% 53% -% -% 47% 100% -% -% -% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) * * - - - * - * - - - - - - * * - - - *% *% -% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Other device 5 3 2 - * 3 2 1 - 2 3 2 2 1 * 5 * - - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 55% 45% -% 3% 60% 37% 15% -% 30% 56% 40% 30% 23% 8% 97% 3% -% -% None 17 6 11 3 4 5 5 5 4 1 1 3 2 5 6 10 5 1 * 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% *% ij j or 35% 65% 20% 21% 30% 29% 33% 21% 4% 3% 21% 13% 29% 37% 63% 32% 5% *% Don't know 11 5 7 - 4 1 7 1 * - 3 3 3 3 2 10 * 1 * *% *% 1% -% 1% *% 1% *% *% -% *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% e e 40% 60% -% 35% 5% 61% 6% 4% -% 23% 26% 27% 31% 17% 86% 4% 7% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE11 (QE40). SHOWCARD Which is the most important device you use to connect to the internet, at home or elsewhere? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Smartphone 841 112 96 59 62 84 78 87 43 71 738 103 610 227 404 437 36% 35% 30% 29% 38% 43% 35% 46% 48% 27% 37% 32% 41% 27% 32% 41% i bci abcfi abcfi m n 13% 11% 7% 7% 10% 9% 10% 5% 8% 88% 12% 73% 27% 48% 52% Laptop 682 129 100 59 44 42 62 40 19 85 592 90 413 269 369 313 29% 41% 31% 30% 27% 21% 28% 21% 21% 33% 29% 28% 28% 32% 29% 30% bcdefgh egh egh l 19% 15% 9% 6% 6% 9% 6% 3% 12% 87% 13% 60% 39% 54% 46% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 475 44 69 46 35 40 39 39 15 69 406 70 296 180 293 182 20% 14% 22% 23% 22% 20% 18% 21% 17% 27% 20% 22% 20% 21% 23% 17% a a a afh o 9% 15% 10% 7% 8% 8% 8% 3% 14% 85% 15% 62% 38% 62% 38% Desktop PC 271 24 53 29 12 26 31 19 9 32 228 43 127 141 174 96 12% 8% 16% 15% 8% 13% 14% 10% 10% 12% 11% 14% 9% 17% 14% 9% ad ad ad l o 9% 20% 11% 5% 10% 11% 7% 3% 12% 84% 16% 47% 52% 64% 36% Netbook 10 - 2 2 1 1 2 1 - 1 9 1 7 3 7 3 *% -% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% -% 20% 21% 8% 9% 19% 8% -% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 71% 29% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 6 - - 1 2 - 2 - 1 - 4 3 3 3 4 2 *% -% -% *% 1% -% 1% -% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j -% -% 12% 30% -% 30% -% 15% -% 58% 42% 53% 47% 70% 30% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe11 (Qe40). Showcard Which Is The Most Important Device You Use To Connect To The Internet, At Home Or Elsewhere? (Single Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TV set 5 - - - * 1 4 - - - 1 4 3 2 2 3 *% -% -% -% *% *% 2% -% -% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j -% -% -% 6% 14% 72% -% -% -% 28% 72% 55% 45% 48% 52% Games console 4 - - - - 2 1 - * - 4 * 2 2 2 3 *% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 39% 32% -% 9% -% 96% 4% 51% 49% 36% 64% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 3 2 - - - - - - - 1 3 - 3 - - 3 *% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% -% *% -% -% *% 53% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 47% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) * - - - - - - - * - * - - * - * *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other device 5 - - 1 - 2 2 - 1 - 3 2 4 1 3 2 *% -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% -% 23% -% 30% 29% -% 15% -% 67% 33% 85% 15% 56% 44% None 17 6 - - 2 - 1 2 - - 16 * 14 2 10 7 1% 2% -% -% 1% -% *% 1% -% -% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 34% -% -% 11% -% 4% 14% -% -% 98% 2% 82% 14% 59% 41% Don't know 11 2 - 2 3 1 1 - 1 - 10 2 5 6 7 5 *% 1% -% 1% 2% 1% *% -% 1% -% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% bgi 17% -% 20% 31% 9% 6% -% 4% -% 84% 16% 43% 57% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Ordinary phone line - dialup access 26 14 13 * 4 13 10 1 2 1 9 13 3 3 7 26 - * * 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 2% *% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% c c l 51% 49% *% 14% 49% 37% 3% 9% 2% 33% 50% 12% 11% 27% 97% -% 1% 2% Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi-Fi router. This would include superfast broadband services. 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 91% 91% 91% 89% 84% 94% 94% 80% 85% 90% 96% 96% 91% 92% 85% 91% 93% 92% 93% cd cd g ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card 118 63 55 23 29 45 21 14 10 16 38 39 32 24 22 103 7 5 2 5% 6% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3% 7% 4% 5% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% f f f 53% 47% 19% 24% 38% 18% 12% 8% 13% 33% 33% 27% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network 1058 511 547 202 258 399 199 88 101 155 321 308 300 225 225 907 75 45 31 46% 45% 46% 60% 59% 47% 29% 43% 47% 46% 55% 46% 46% 45% 46% 47% 38% 40% 52% ef ef f ghi p pq 48% 52% 19% 24% 38% 19% 8% 10% 15% 30% 29% 28% 21% 21% 86% 7% 4% 3% Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering 50 22 28 7 18 17 9 2 2 9 20 21 13 9 8 46 1 1 2 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% ef 45% 55% 14% 35% 33% 18% 5% 4% 17% 39% 41% 26% 17% 16% 92% 3% 2% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Accessing the internet through a Mi- Fi mobile broadband wireless router - which taps into a 3G or 4G mobile network and can be shared between devices within range of the signal 30 18 12 4 6 15 6 3 6 5 6 8 11 6 6 25 2 1 2 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% oq 59% 41% 12% 21% 49% 19% 12% 21% 17% 20% 25% 37% 20% 18% 83% 8% 2% 7% TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2283 1115 1168 334 432 853 664 204 213 334 578 664 638 496 482 1918 195 109 60 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 98% 98% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% df gh 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2157 1057 1100 313 380 817 647 176 190 313 565 648 602 475 431 1810 185 104 58 94% 94% 93% 93% 87% 96% 96% 85% 88% 93% 98% 97% 93% 95% 88% 93% 94% 94% 94% d d d gh ghi ln n n 49% 51% 15% 18% 38% 30% 8% 9% 15% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 66 36 30 15 18 22 11 13 13 15 9 6 21 18 21 60 3 2 1 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 6% 4% 2% 1% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% f f j j j k k k 55% 45% 23% 27% 33% 17% 19% 19% 22% 14% 9% 32% 27% 32% 90% 5% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND 108 49 59 18 46 29 14 26 19 18 13 14 33 17 44 92 9 5 2 5% 4% 5% 5% 11% 3% 2% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2% 5% 3% 9% 5% 5% 4% 3% f cef ij j j k klm 45% 55% 17% 43% 27% 13% 24% 18% 16% 12% 13% 30% 15% 41% 86% 8% 4% 2% ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 176 86 90 34 66 49 27 38 30 31 21 21 52 34 68 153 12 7 3 8% 8% 8% 10% 15% 6% 4% 18% 14% 9% 4% 3% 8% 7% 14% 8% 6% 6% 6% ef ef ij j j k k klm 49% 51% 19% 37% 28% 15% 22% 17% 18% 12% 12% 29% 19% 39% 87% 7% 4% 2% Other 5 2 3 * 1 * 4 * 1 2 - 1 2 * 1 4 - 1 - *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% 1% -% 38% 62% 2% 18% 4% 76% 4% 30% 35% -% 26% 40% 4% 30% 87% -% 13% -% Don't know 18 7 11 3 5 2 8 3 1 - - 4 5 3 5 15 2 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% e ij 38% 62% 19% 26% 10% 45% 18% 8% -% -% 25% 30% 19% 26% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Ordinary phone line - dialup access 26 - - 1 5 1 4 - 1 14 20 6 18 8 22 4 1% -% -% 1% 3% 1% 2% -% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% abg b abcegh o -% -% 5% 18% 4% 15% -% 2% 53% 77% 23% 69% 31% 84% 16% Fixed Broadband ADSL through a phone line or cable service - perhaps using a Wi- Fi router. This would include superfast broadband services. 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 91% 82% 98% 94% 93% 92% 93% 89% 91% 88% 91% 96% 91% 92% 94% 89% adefghi ai a a a a j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Mobile Broadband from a mobile network - connecting via a USB stick or dongle, or built in connectivity in a laptop or netbook or tablet computer with a SIM card 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 12% 5% 4% 6% 4% 5% 5% abdefgh m 12% 11% 12% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 27% 88% 12% 74% 25% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Access to the internet using a mobile phone or smartphone - through a Wi-Fi network or your phone's mobile network 1058 202 76 73 77 104 118 133 41 84 932 126 733 321 529 529 46% 66% 23% 36% 48% 57% 53% 70% 47% 33% 47% 40% 50% 39% 42% 51% bcdfhi b bci bci bci bcdefhi bci b k m n 19% 7% 7% 7% 10% 11% 13% 4% 8% 88% 12% 69% 30% 50% 50% Accessing the internet on a device such as a laptop or tablet using your mobile phone's internet connection - known as tethering 50 13 1 10 2 - 12 3 2 4 43 7 35 15 26 24 2% 4% *% 5% 1% -% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% be bdeg bdegi 26% 2% 20% 4% -% 23% 5% 3% 8% 85% 15% 70% 30% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe12 (Qe9). Showcard Which Of These Methods Does Your Household Use To Connect To The Internet At Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Accessing the internet through a Mi-Fi mobile broadband wireless router - which taps into a 3G or 4G mobile network and can be shared between devices within range of the signal 30 8 1 2 3 1 - 4 4 2 28 2 21 9 12 19 1% 3% *% 1% 2% *% -% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% f f bcefi 27% 5% 6% 9% 3% -% 14% 13% 7% 93% 7% 70% 30% 38% 62% TOTAL BROADBAND (INC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2283 303 328 203 155 179 220 187 86 257 1972 311 1454 821 1258 1025 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 100% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% deh deh 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% TOTAL BROADBAND (EXC. USING MOBILE PHONE) 2157 258 325 197 149 171 209 176 82 242 1851 305 1370 779 1216 940 94% 84% 99% 97% 94% 93% 94% 93% 93% 94% 93% 97% 94% 94% 96% 91% adefghi a a a a a a a j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE12 (QE9). SHOWCARD Which of these methods does your household use to connect to the internet at home? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% MOBILE BROADBAND ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 66 14 5 6 3 2 1 9 3 16 62 5 45 21 29 37 3% 4% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 5% 4% 6% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% ef bef f bdef 20% 7% 9% 5% 3% 2% 14% 5% 25% 93% 7% 68% 32% 44% 56% SMARTPHONE ACCESS ONLY, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND OR MOBILE BROADBAND 108 39 2 5 5 8 10 9 3 12 104 4 73 35 35 73 5% 13% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% 1% 5% 4% 3% 7% bcdefghi b b b b b k n 36% 2% 4% 5% 7% 9% 9% 2% 11% 96% 4% 67% 33% 33% 67% ONLY MOBILE ACCESS, NOT FIXED OR NARROWBAND 176 51 7 11 8 9 13 18 6 30 166 9 118 58 68 107 8% 17% 2% 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 12% 8% 3% 8% 7% 5% 10% bcdefgh b b bcdef k n 29% 4% 6% 4% 5% 7% 10% 4% 17% 95% 5% 67% 33% 39% 61% Other 5 - - - - 2 1 1 - - 4 1 4 1 3 2 *% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 35% 30% 23% -% -% 87% 13% 75% 25% 65% 35% Don't know 18 3 - 1 3 3 1 2 2 - 16 1 8 10 8 9 1% 1% -% *% 2% 2% *% 1% 2% -% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% bi bi 19% -% 4% 18% 16% 5% 10% 10% -% 92% 8% 46% 54% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe13 (Qe48). Do You Pay Line Rental As Part Of, Or In Addition To, Your Fixed Broadband Charges? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1743 862 881 205 294 690 555 126 155 270 486 535 485 394 328 1455 160 79 50 83% 84% 82% 68% 80% 86% 87% 76% 85% 89% 87% 83% 83% 85% 79% 82% 87% 78% 88% c cd cd g g g n q oq 49% 51% 12% 17% 40% 32% 7% 9% 15% 28% 31% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% No 225 111 114 30 50 89 56 24 19 27 52 69 60 45 51 194 13 16 2 11% 11% 11% 10% 14% 11% 9% 15% 11% 9% 9% 11% 10% 10% 12% 11% 7% 16% 4% f r opr 49% 51% 13% 22% 40% 25% 11% 9% 12% 23% 31% 27% 20% 23% 86% 6% 7% 1% Don't know 139 55 84 65 22 25 27 16 9 6 18 39 41 23 36 117 11 7 5 7% 5% 8% 22% 6% 3% 4% 10% 5% 2% 3% 6% 7% 5% 9% 7% 6% 7% 9% a def e ij m 40% 60% 47% 16% 18% 19% 11% 6% 4% 13% 28% 30% 17% 26% 84% 8% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE13 (QE48). Do you pay line rental as part of, or in addition to, your fixed broadband charges? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Yes 1743 215 249 172 116 137 173 144 59 190 1491 252 1129 607 975 768 83% 85% 78% 90% 79% 81% 83% 85% 74% 83% 83% 84% 84% 80% 82% 84% h bdeh h h h m 12% 14% 10% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 56% 44% No 225 28 60 9 17 15 19 15 11 21 195 30 138 87 143 82 11% 11% 19% 5% 12% 9% 9% 9% 14% 9% 11% 10% 10% 11% 12% 9% c acefgi c c o 12% 27% 4% 8% 7% 8% 7% 5% 9% 87% 13% 61% 39% 64% 36% Don't know 139 10 12 11 13 18 16 11 10 17 120 19 70 69 72 67 7% 4% 4% 6% 9% 10% 7% 6% 13% 7% 7% 6% 5% 9% 6% 7% b ab abc l 7% 8% 8% 9% 13% 11% 8% 7% 12% 86% 14% 50% 50% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe14 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband? Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | ~e | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Yes | 92 | ** | ** | ** | | 78% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | No | 20 | ** | ** | ** | | 17% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | 6 | ** | ** | ** | | 5% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe14 (Qe22B). You Mentioned That Your Household Has A Mobile Broadband Connection (Connecting Via A Usb Stick Or Dongle, Or Built-In 3G Connectivity In A Laptop Or Another Device). Do You Personally Access The Internet In This Way, Using Mobile Broadband? Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Yes 92 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84 ** ** ** ** ** 78% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 91% ** ** ** ** ** No 20 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15 ** ** ** ** ** 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 75% ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5 ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** To have access to broadband on the move 61 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 67% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because I don't want to pay for a landline 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because it was cheaper than a fixed broadband contract 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because it is less of a commitment than a fixed broadband contract 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** As a back-up in case I have problems with my fixed broadband line 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** For work/ my employer purchased it 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Other 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** To have access to broadband on the move 61 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 67% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because I don't want to pay for a landline 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because it was cheaper than a fixed broadband contract 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Because it is less of a commitment than a fixed broadband contract 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** As a back-up in case I have problems with my fixed broadband line 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe15 (Qe39). What Were The Reasons You Took Up A Mobile Broadband Service? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** For work/ my employer purchased it 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Other 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I always use in the home 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I mainly use in the home 19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 20% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I use equally in the home and outside the home 37 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I mainly use outside the home 14 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I always use outside the home 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 34 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 113 58 55 29 28 37 19 20 12 14 26 25 39 25 24 71 15 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 74 39 35 17 19 26 14 14 8 11 20 19 26 14 16 59 10 8 8 Total 92 48 44 16 23 37 15 9 10 13 29 30 28 16 18 80 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 21 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 23% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 77 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I always use in the home 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I mainly use in the home 19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 20% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I use equally in the home and outside the home 37 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I mainly use outside the home 14 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** I always use outside the home 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE IN THE HOME 34 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe16 (Qe22C). Showcard Which One Of These Best Describes Where You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet? (Single Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 113 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 22 82 31 72 41 55 58 Effective Weighted Sample 74 7 7 9 5 4 5 6 6 20 65 12 52 25 34 43 Total 92 12 12 9 4 4 5 3 3 27 84 8 70 21 49 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ALWAYS/ MAINLY USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 21 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 23% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** EVER USE OUTSIDE THE HOME 77 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 92 48 44 23 23 32 14 16 9 14 24 22 35 20 15 58 15 14 5 Effective Weighted Sample 62 33 29 14 16 23 11 12 7 11 18 17 24 12 11 49 10 7 4 Total 77 40 37 14 20 33 10 8 6 13 27 25 26 15 11 66 6 3 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** At your work place ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Outdoors ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** In other people's home (e.g. friends/ family) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Other ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 92 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 17 69 23 61 31 42 50 Effective Weighted Sample 62 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 16 55 9 45 20 25 39 Total 77 12 11 8 3 4 4 2 2 20 71 6 61 16 37 40 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** When travelling (e.g. on a train or in a car) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** At your work place ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Outdoors ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Indoor public spaces (e.g. pub/restaurant/ theatre/ shopping centre) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** In other people's home (e.g. friends/ family) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Other ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe17 (Qe32). Showcard In Which Of These Places Do You Use Mobile Broadband To Access The Internet Outside Of The Home? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use mobile broadband to access the internet outside the home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 92 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 17 69 23 61 31 42 50 Effective Weighted Sample 62 7 6 8 3 4 4 4 5 16 55 9 45 20 25 39 Total 77 12 11 8 3 4 4 2 2 20 71 6 61 16 37 40 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe18 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2453 1174 1279 400 438 924 691 189 221 343 564 625 788 549 489 1522 294 319 318 Effective Weighted Sample 1704 819 885 268 294 647 501 136 150 246 425 462 543 384 329 1325 189 199 240 Total 1885 912 973 292 339 747 507 117 156 272 531 573 524 430 357 1591 152 91 51 48% 52% 15% 18% 40% 27% 6% 8% 14% 28% 30% 28% 23% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% 1 126 34 91 12 26 48 39 30 17 26 5 20 33 22 51 105 10 8 3 7% 4% 9% 4% 8% 6% 8% 26% 11% 10% 1% 3% 6% 5% 14% 7% 6% 9% 6% a c hij j j k klm 27% 73% 10% 21% 38% 31% 24% 13% 21% 4% 16% 26% 17% 41% 84% 8% 6% 2% 2 1106 564 542 100 233 404 369 53 106 172 341 369 300 242 193 920 99 58 30 59% 62% 56% 34% 69% 54% 73% 45% 68% 63% 64% 64% 57% 56% 54% 58% 65% 64% 59% b ce c ce g g g lmn 51% 49% 9% 21% 37% 33% 5% 10% 16% 31% 33% 27% 22% 17% 83% 9% 5% 3% 3 349 163 185 88 37 158 66 16 24 46 101 103 104 86 56 298 30 14 7 19% 18% 19% 30% 11% 21% 13% 14% 15% 17% 19% 18% 20% 20% 16% 19% 20% 15% 14% def df 47% 53% 25% 10% 45% 19% 5% 7% 13% 29% 30% 30% 25% 16% 85% 9% 4% 2% 4 219 113 106 63 29 103 25 13 3 23 67 59 60 69 30 192 10 9 8 12% 12% 11% 22% 8% 14% 5% 11% 2% 8% 13% 10% 11% 16% 9% 12% 7% 10% 15% def df h h h kln p p 51% 49% 29% 13% 47% 11% 6% 1% 10% 31% 27% 27% 32% 14% 88% 5% 4% 3% 5 or more 81 36 45 28 13 33 7 4 5 6 16 22 27 8 24 72 4 2 3 4% 4% 5% 10% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 7% 5% 2% 2% 6% def f f m m 44% 56% 35% 17% 40% 8% 5% 7% 7% 20% 27% 33% 10% 30% 89% 4% 3% 4% Don't know 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 * 1 - 1 2 2 4 1 * * *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% -% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% 32% 68% 13% 22% 45% 19% 30% 43% 4% 21% -% 15% 42% 43% 81% 11% 4% 4% Mean number of people 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 b def df gh ghi n n n pq pq Standard deviation .98 .93 1.02 1.13 .93 1.01 .71 1.15 .83 .85 .87 .90 1.01 .95 1.08 .99 .84 .89 1.06 Standard error .02 .03 .03 .06 .04 .03 .03 .08 .06 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04 .05 .03 .05 .05 .06 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe18 (Qe3B). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Fixed Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with fixed broadband at home where there is more than one person in household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2453 177 188 186 174 159 173 159 144 162 1778 675 1473 972 1252 1201 Effective Weighted Sample 1704 159 178 179 164 148 165 149 134 150 1402 325 1033 688 890 830 Total 1885 246 272 174 136 157 181 153 68 202 1617 268 1235 642 1068 817 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 66% 34% 57% 43% 1 126 8 17 9 9 13 11 8 7 24 112 13 58 67 66 60 7% 3% 6% 5% 6% 8% 6% 5% 10% 12% 7% 5% 5% 10% 6% 7% a ac l 7% 13% 7% 7% 10% 9% 7% 6% 19% 89% 11% 46% 53% 52% 48% 2 1106 129 164 100 76 76 115 97 48 115 936 170 713 388 662 444 59% 52% 60% 57% 56% 49% 63% 64% 71% 57% 58% 64% 58% 60% 62% 54% e e ae abcdei o 12% 15% 9% 7% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 85% 15% 64% 35% 60% 40% 3 349 48 49 34 29 34 32 21 9 41 304 45 250 98 197 152 19% 19% 18% 20% 21% 22% 18% 14% 14% 20% 19% 17% 20% 15% 18% 19% m 14% 14% 10% 8% 10% 9% 6% 3% 12% 87% 13% 72% 28% 57% 43% 4 219 39 36 22 15 27 15 20 3 15 186 33 167 52 110 109 12% 16% 13% 12% 11% 17% 8% 13% 4% 7% 12% 12% 14% 8% 10% 13% fhi h h h fhi h m n 18% 16% 10% 7% 13% 7% 9% 1% 7% 85% 15% 76% 24% 50% 50% 5 or more 81 22 7 10 8 5 6 6 1 8 75 6 45 34 33 48 4% 9% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% 3% 6% befh h h k n 28% 9% 12% 10% 6% 8% 7% 1% 9% 93% 7% 56% 42% 41% 59% Don't know 5 - - 1 - 1 2 - - - 3 1 2 2 1 3 *% -% -% *% -% 1% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 19% -% 22% 39% -% -% -% 77% 23% 47% 53% 23% 77% Mean number of people 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 bfghi h h h h h h h m n Standard deviation .98 1.09 .93 1.07 1.02 .98 .92 .96 .71 .97 .99 .90 .96 1.00 .90 1.07 Standard error .02 .08 .07 .08 .08 .08 .07 .08 .06 .08 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe19 (Qe3A). How Many People Aged 16 Or Over In Your Household (Including Yourself) Could Access The Mobile Broadband Connection In Your Home If They Wanted To? Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 123 | 63 | 60 | 33 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 82 | 43 | 39 | 19 | | Total | 102 | 54 | 48 | 20 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 1 | 23 | ** | ** | ** | | 22% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 2 | | | | | | 53 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 52% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 3 | 10 | ** | ** | ** | | 10% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 4 | 11 | ** | ** | ** | | 11% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 5 or more | 1 | ** | ** | ** | | 1% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | | | | | | 5 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 5% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Mean number of people | 2.0 | ** | ** | ** | | Standard deviation | 1.01 | ** | ** | ** | | Standard error | .09 | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE19 (QE3A). How many people aged 16 or over in your household (including yourself) could access the mobile broadband connection in your home if they wanted to? Base : Those with mobile broadband at home where there is more than one person in household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 123 8 7 14 5 7 4 9 5 19 89 34 80 42 64 59 Effective Weighted Sample 82 8 7 13 5 6 4 8 5 17 70 14 58 25 42 43 Total 102 14 12 14 4 7 4 6 2 25 92 10 78 22 60 42 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 23 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 22% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 53 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 52% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5 or more 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Mean number of people 2.0 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Standard deviation 1.01 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Standard error .09 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Sky 529 257 271 90 118 214 107 45 63 83 121 136 148 121 123 433 45 29 21 23% 23% 23% 27% 27% 25% 16% 22% 29% 25% 21% 20% 23% 24% 25% 22% 23% 27% 34% f f f j op 49% 51% 17% 22% 40% 20% 9% 12% 16% 23% 26% 28% 23% 23% 82% 9% 6% 4% Virgin Media 446 232 215 72 81 166 128 36 33 54 138 130 138 94 85 368 65 8 5 19% 21% 18% 21% 18% 19% 19% 17% 15% 16% 24% 19% 21% 19% 17% 19% 33% 8% 8% hi qr oqr 52% 48% 16% 18% 37% 29% 8% 7% 12% 31% 29% 31% 21% 19% 82% 15% 2% 1% Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse) 251 116 135 31 50 78 93 41 25 37 44 53 84 51 63 209 19 17 7 11% 10% 11% 9% 11% 9% 14% 20% 12% 11% 8% 8% 13% 10% 13% 11% 10% 15% 11% ce hij k k o 46% 54% 12% 20% 31% 37% 16% 10% 15% 17% 21% 34% 20% 25% 83% 8% 7% 3% BT Infinity 247 119 128 36 31 103 78 13 20 34 71 94 66 60 28 208 8 22 9 11% 11% 11% 11% 7% 12% 12% 6% 9% 10% 12% 14% 10% 12% 6% 11% 4% 19% 15% d d g n n n p op op 48% 52% 14% 12% 41% 32% 5% 8% 14% 29% 38% 27% 24% 11% 84% 3% 9% 4% BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT Openworld 232 106 126 23 26 103 80 9 22 30 78 96 54 45 37 197 19 9 8 10% 9% 11% 7% 6% 12% 12% 4% 10% 9% 13% 14% 8% 9% 8% 10% 10% 8% 13% cd cd g g g lmn q 46% 54% 10% 11% 44% 35% 4% 9% 13% 33% 41% 23% 19% 16% 85% 8% 4% 4% BT (other/ unspecified) 147 81 67 16 20 59 52 10 12 19 35 46 37 30 34 118 16 7 6 6% 7% 6% 5% 5% 7% 8% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 8% 6% 10% d o 55% 45% 11% 14% 40% 35% 7% 8% 13% 24% 31% 25% 20% 23% 80% 11% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% EE/ Everything Everywhere 91 34 57 15 30 29 18 9 8 14 22 13 24 30 25 79 7 5 * 4% 3% 5% 4% 7% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 6% 5% 4% 4% 5% *% a ef k k r r r 37% 63% 16% 32% 31% 20% 10% 8% 15% 24% 14% 26% 33% 27% 86% 8% 6% *% Plusnet 82 43 39 5 10 22 46 6 5 16 24 34 17 16 15 78 2 3 - 4% 4% 3% 1% 2% 3% 7% 3% 2% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% -% cde l pr r 52% 48% 6% 12% 27% 56% 7% 6% 20% 29% 41% 21% 20% 18% 95% 2% 3% -% O2 29 18 11 6 8 14 2 8 6 4 1 4 7 4 14 24 4 * 1 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% *% 4% 3% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% *% 2% f f f j j klm 61% 39% 20% 27% 46% 7% 27% 19% 15% 4% 15% 24% 12% 48% 83% 13% 1% 4% Vodafone 26 15 11 9 7 6 4 1 1 8 7 12 9 3 3 25 1 * 1 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% *% *% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% ef 57% 43% 33% 27% 24% 16% 3% 4% 29% 27% 44% 34% 10% 12% 94% 2% 1% 3% '3' 23 9 14 3 8 8 4 6 5 4 - 4 5 4 10 20 1 1 1 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% f j j j k 39% 61% 14% 37% 33% 16% 25% 20% 19% -% 15% 22% 20% 43% 88% 3% 6% 3% Tesco.net 13 7 6 1 2 2 7 4 1 2 3 3 4 3 4 11 2 * * 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 2% *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 52% 48% 11% 19% 17% 53% 32% 6% 12% 26% 21% 27% 20% 31% 81% 15% 4% 1% AOL 12 8 4 * 1 4 6 1 * 5 3 5 3 3 2 11 1 * * 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% *% 64% 36% 2% 10% 36% 52% 7% 1% 37% 23% 39% 23% 21% 16% 85% 11% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe20 (Qe7). Which Internet Service Provider (Isp) Does Your Household Currently Use As Its Main Supplier At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those with access to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3056 1453 1603 479 556 1071 950 344 316 419 606 737 980 644 692 1877 396 395 388 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 1007 1094 316 371 745 679 244 217 305 456 539 672 450 458 1621 252 245 295 Total 2306 1125 1181 337 438 855 676 207 216 336 578 671 646 500 487 1937 197 111 61 49% 51% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 15% 25% 29% 28% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Orange 10 5 5 2 1 4 3 1 * 1 4 2 5 2 1 8 1 1 - *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% -% 52% 48% 17% 14% 36% 32% 13% 1% 8% 34% 23% 47% 21% 9% 75% 11% 14% -% Other 80 42 39 12 21 24 23 6 10 19 16 21 22 18 19 72 2 4 2 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 3% p 52% 48% 15% 26% 30% 29% 8% 12% 23% 20% 26% 28% 23% 23% 90% 3% 5% 2% TOTAL BT 627 306 321 74 77 265 211 32 54 84 184 236 158 134 98 523 44 37 23 27% 27% 27% 22% 17% 31% 31% 15% 25% 25% 32% 35% 24% 27% 20% 27% 22% 34% 38% cd cd g g gi lmn n op op 49% 51% 12% 12% 42% 34% 5% 9% 13% 29% 38% 25% 21% 16% 83% 7% 6% 4% Don't know 84 33 51 17 24 19 23 11 6 7 11 19 23 17 25 78 2 3 1 4% 3% 4% 5% 6% 2% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% e e ij p 39% 61% 20% 29% 23% 28% 13% 7% 8% 13% 23% 27% 20% 30% 93% 3% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Sky 529 70 75 43 40 49 40 43 26 48 475 54 362 166 252 276 23% 23% 23% 21% 25% 27% 18% 23% 30% 19% 24% 17% 25% 20% 20% 27% f fi k m n 13% 14% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 5% 9% 90% 10% 68% 31% 48% 52% Virgin Media 446 57 63 26 39 42 50 31 20 41 431 15 299 145 206 241 19% 19% 19% 13% 25% 23% 23% 16% 23% 16% 22% 5% 20% 17% 16% 23% cgi c c c k n 13% 14% 6% 9% 9% 11% 7% 4% 9% 97% 3% 67% 32% 46% 54% Talk Talk (Carphone Warehouse) 251 24 34 27 16 11 23 22 12 39 223 28 145 105 145 106 11% 8% 11% 13% 10% 6% 10% 12% 14% 15% 11% 9% 10% 13% 11% 10% e e ae 9% 14% 11% 6% 4% 9% 9% 5% 16% 89% 11% 58% 42% 58% 42% BT Infinity 247 17 36 28 15 10 33 25 11 33 185 62 150 97 167 80 11% 5% 11% 14% 10% 6% 15% 13% 13% 13% 9% 20% 10% 12% 13% 8% a ae ae ae ae ae j o 7% 14% 11% 6% 4% 13% 10% 4% 13% 75% 25% 61% 39% 68% 32% BT Total Broadband/ BT Yahoo/ BT Openworld 232 50 60 15 7 13 15 10 2 24 188 45 143 89 155 77 10% 16% 18% 7% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3% 9% 9% 14% 10% 11% 12% 7% cdefghi cdefghi h h h j o 22% 26% 7% 3% 6% 6% 4% 1% 10% 81% 19% 61% 38% 67% 33% BT (other/ unspecified) 147 28 6 19 2 19 20 10 2 11 112 35 89 57 87 61 6% 9% 2% 9% 1% 10% 9% 5% 2% 4% 6% 11% 6% 7% 7% 6% bdh bdh bdhi bdh d j 19% 4% 13% 1% 13% 14% 7% 1% 8% 76% 24% 60% 39% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% EE/ Everything Everywhere 91 15 8 11 5 6 5 7 4 18 79 13 66 25 45 46 4% 5% 2% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% bf 16% 9% 12% 6% 7% 5% 7% 4% 20% 86% 14% 72% 28% 50% 50% Plusnet 82 - 19 16 6 13 9 10 1 4 58 24 42 40 63 19 4% -% 6% 8% 4% 7% 4% 5% 1% 2% 3% 8% 3% 5% 5% 2% ahi ahi a ahi a ah j l o -% 23% 19% 8% 16% 10% 12% 1% 5% 71% 29% 52% 48% 77% 23% O2 29 8 1 1 - 3 1 7 1 3 27 2 19 10 5 24 1% 3% *% *% -% 1% *% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% d bcdf n 28% 4% 3% -% 9% 3% 24% 4% 9% 93% 7% 66% 34% 18% 82% Vodafone 26 16 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 25 1 22 4 14 12 1% 5% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% *% 1% 1% bcdefghi m 60% -% 6% 3% 5% 5% 5% 2% 7% 97% 3% 86% 14% 55% 45% '3' 23 4 1 - 1 1 2 4 1 5 22 1 13 10 9 13 1% 1% *% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% c 16% 4% -% 6% 4% 11% 19% 6% 21% 95% 5% 56% 44% 41% 59% Tesco.net 13 1 4 - - 1 - 2 * 2 9 4 7 6 6 7 1% *% 1% -% -% *% -% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 6% 34% -% -% 6% -% 12% 4% 19% 70% 30% 57% 43% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE20 (QE7). Which Internet Service Provider (ISP) does your household currently use as its MAIN supplier at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with access to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3056 224 226 220 204 188 214 203 190 208 2232 824 1742 1306 1503 1553 Effective Weighted Sample 2100 200 214 211 192 176 203 190 177 191 1742 388 1219 911 1053 1073 Total 2306 307 328 204 158 183 223 190 88 257 1991 314 1465 833 1269 1036 13% 14% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% AOL 12 - - 2 2 1 2 - - 4 10 3 6 7 9 4 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% 2% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% -% -% 13% 15% 9% 17% -% -% 32% 79% 21% 47% 53% 71% 29% Orange 10 3 - 2 1 1 1 - - - 8 2 8 2 4 6 *% 1% -% 1% 1% *% 1% -% -% -% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 27% -% 19% 10% 7% 12% -% -% -% 79% 21% 80% 20% 38% 62% Other 80 12 8 4 4 5 13 11 3 13 67 13 48 32 53 28 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 6% 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% c 15% 10% 5% 5% 7% 16% 13% 3% 16% 84% 16% 60% 40% 65% 35% TOTAL BT 627 95 102 62 24 42 68 45 15 68 485 142 382 243 409 218 27% 31% 31% 30% 15% 23% 31% 24% 17% 27% 24% 45% 26% 29% 32% 21% dh dh dh dh d dh j o 15% 16% 10% 4% 7% 11% 7% 2% 11% 77% 23% 61% 39% 65% 35% Don't know 84 3 13 9 18 7 7 8 3 11 72 12 45 39 49 36 4% 1% 4% 4% 12% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 3% a a abcefghi a a a 3% 15% 10% 22% 9% 8% 9% 3% 13% 86% 14% 54% 46% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 2061 1012 1049 318 412 777 554 187 192 305 538 598 589 441 431 1736 169 99 57 88% 89% 88% 90% 90% 90% 84% 87% 88% 91% 93% 89% 90% 88% 85% 89% 84% 87% 92% f f f gh n p p 49% 51% 15% 20% 38% 27% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending and receiving e-mail 2032 991 1041 315 402 779 535 164 189 301 533 622 592 412 403 1723 160 97 52 87% 87% 87% 89% 88% 90% 82% 76% 87% 90% 93% 93% 91% 83% 80% 88% 79% 86% 84% f f f g g gh mn mn p p 49% 51% 15% 20% 38% 26% 8% 9% 15% 26% 31% 29% 20% 20% 85% 8% 5% 3% Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc. 1554 756 798 226 318 603 408 122 144 238 464 497 452 332 271 1303 132 76 43 67% 67% 67% 64% 70% 70% 62% 57% 66% 71% 81% 74% 69% 67% 53% 67% 66% 67% 70% f f g g ghi mn n n 49% 51% 15% 20% 39% 26% 8% 9% 15% 30% 32% 29% 21% 17% 84% 9% 5% 3% Banking 1478 720 758 215 344 596 322 98 124 225 476 478 441 316 242 1262 106 72 38 63% 64% 63% 61% 76% 69% 49% 45% 57% 67% 83% 71% 68% 63% 48% 65% 53% 64% 62% f cef cf g gh ghi mn n n p p p 49% 51% 15% 23% 40% 22% 7% 8% 15% 32% 32% 30% 21% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1303 579 724 264 315 520 205 115 120 208 379 372 379 268 283 1110 99 57 37 56% 51% 60% 74% 69% 60% 31% 53% 55% 62% 66% 55% 58% 54% 56% 57% 49% 51% 60% a ef ef f g gh p pq 44% 56% 20% 24% 40% 16% 9% 9% 16% 29% 29% 29% 21% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 1247 570 677 250 321 474 202 111 113 189 329 362 367 247 270 1052 100 60 35 53% 50% 57% 70% 70% 55% 31% 52% 52% 56% 57% 54% 56% 50% 53% 54% 50% 53% 56% a ef ef f m 46% 54% 20% 26% 38% 16% 9% 9% 15% 26% 29% 29% 20% 22% 84% 8% 5% 3% To find information on health related issues 1036 457 579 133 217 412 274 74 92 162 328 344 290 210 191 886 62 53 35 44% 40% 48% 38% 48% 48% 42% 34% 42% 48% 57% 51% 44% 42% 38% 45% 31% 47% 57% a c cf g ghi lmn n p p opq 44% 56% 13% 21% 40% 26% 7% 9% 16% 32% 33% 28% 20% 18% 86% 6% 5% 3% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 1013 550 463 140 229 479 165 51 76 159 352 374 297 195 147 861 74 53 25 43% 48% 39% 39% 50% 55% 25% 24% 35% 47% 61% 56% 45% 39% 29% 44% 37% 47% 41% b f cf cf g gh ghi lmn mn n p p 54% 46% 14% 23% 47% 16% 5% 8% 16% 35% 37% 29% 19% 15% 85% 7% 5% 2% Accessing news 981 522 459 147 206 411 217 67 80 155 307 343 302 177 160 834 75 48 24 42% 46% 38% 42% 45% 47% 33% 31% 37% 46% 53% 51% 46% 35% 31% 43% 37% 42% 39% b f f f gh gh mn mn 53% 47% 15% 21% 42% 22% 7% 8% 16% 31% 35% 31% 18% 16% 85% 8% 5% 2% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 962 501 461 193 228 377 165 74 93 151 304 304 285 185 188 850 59 36 17 41% 44% 38% 54% 50% 44% 25% 35% 43% 45% 53% 45% 44% 37% 37% 43% 29% 32% 28% b ef ef f g ghi mn mn pqr 52% 48% 20% 24% 39% 17% 8% 10% 16% 32% 32% 30% 19% 20% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 852 429 422 163 179 334 175 57 73 130 297 307 243 160 141 735 59 42 16 37% 38% 35% 46% 39% 39% 27% 27% 34% 39% 52% 46% 37% 32% 28% 38% 29% 37% 26% ef f f g ghi lmn n pr r 50% 50% 19% 21% 39% 21% 7% 9% 15% 35% 36% 29% 19% 17% 86% 7% 5% 2% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 824 419 404 95 146 341 242 56 65 137 277 307 243 148 126 708 56 37 23 35% 37% 34% 27% 32% 39% 37% 26% 30% 41% 48% 46% 37% 30% 25% 36% 28% 33% 37% cd c gh ghi lmn mn p p 51% 49% 12% 18% 41% 29% 7% 8% 17% 34% 37% 30% 18% 15% 86% 7% 5% 3% Downloading music files 779 407 372 176 187 319 97 65 76 122 253 231 248 167 132 665 65 28 22 33% 36% 31% 50% 41% 37% 15% 30% 35% 36% 44% 34% 38% 33% 26% 34% 32% 24% 35% b def f f ghi n n n q q q 52% 48% 23% 24% 41% 12% 8% 10% 16% 33% 30% 32% 21% 17% 85% 8% 4% 3% Playing games online/ interactively 765 400 365 182 182 282 119 83 76 110 207 183 220 176 185 656 63 29 17 33% 35% 30% 51% 40% 33% 18% 39% 35% 33% 36% 27% 34% 35% 36% 34% 31% 26% 28% b def ef f k k k qr 52% 48% 24% 24% 37% 16% 11% 10% 14% 27% 24% 29% 23% 24% 86% 8% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 690 339 351 127 160 278 124 41 58 98 216 234 215 120 120 601 49 28 12 30% 30% 29% 36% 35% 32% 19% 19% 26% 29% 38% 35% 33% 24% 24% 31% 24% 25% 19% f f f g ghi mn mn pr 49% 51% 18% 23% 40% 18% 6% 8% 14% 31% 34% 31% 17% 17% 87% 7% 4% 2% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 636 295 341 132 163 240 100 48 62 92 202 216 178 116 126 552 36 30 18 27% 26% 28% 37% 36% 28% 15% 22% 28% 27% 35% 32% 27% 23% 25% 28% 18% 26% 29% ef ef f gi mn p p p 46% 54% 21% 26% 38% 16% 8% 10% 14% 32% 34% 28% 18% 20% 87% 6% 5% 3% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 606 276 330 160 118 266 62 42 50 99 184 219 197 93 97 529 29 31 17 26% 24% 28% 45% 26% 31% 9% 19% 23% 30% 32% 33% 30% 19% 19% 27% 14% 27% 28% def f f g gh mn mn p p p 46% 54% 26% 19% 44% 10% 7% 8% 16% 30% 36% 32% 15% 16% 87% 5% 5% 3% Trading/ auctions 568 309 259 86 138 241 104 40 41 92 199 186 156 133 93 498 39 19 12 24% 27% 22% 24% 30% 28% 16% 19% 19% 27% 35% 28% 24% 27% 18% 25% 19% 16% 19% b f f f gh ghi n n n pqr 54% 46% 15% 24% 42% 18% 7% 7% 16% 35% 33% 27% 23% 16% 88% 7% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 472 248 224 90 113 194 74 32 44 57 179 176 150 78 68 417 25 22 9 20% 22% 19% 25% 25% 22% 11% 15% 20% 17% 31% 26% 23% 16% 13% 21% 12% 19% 15% f f f ghi mn mn pr p 53% 47% 19% 24% 41% 16% 7% 9% 12% 38% 37% 32% 17% 14% 88% 5% 5% 2% Listening to radio 469 251 218 87 92 191 99 35 33 66 167 170 124 87 89 415 31 17 7 20% 22% 18% 25% 20% 22% 15% 16% 15% 20% 29% 25% 19% 18% 17% 21% 15% 15% 11% b f f f ghi lmn pqr 54% 46% 19% 19% 41% 21% 7% 7% 14% 36% 36% 26% 19% 19% 88% 7% 4% 1% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 458 259 199 100 110 194 54 33 37 70 169 143 135 97 82 405 18 27 7 20% 23% 17% 28% 24% 22% 8% 15% 17% 21% 29% 21% 21% 19% 16% 21% 9% 24% 12% b ef f f ghi n pr pr 56% 44% 22% 24% 42% 12% 7% 8% 15% 37% 31% 30% 21% 18% 89% 4% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 454 256 198 87 109 180 77 33 31 72 170 159 129 85 79 402 21 25 6 19% 23% 17% 25% 24% 21% 12% 15% 14% 21% 29% 24% 20% 17% 16% 21% 10% 22% 10% b f f f h ghi mn pr pr 56% 44% 19% 24% 40% 17% 7% 7% 16% 37% 35% 28% 19% 17% 88% 5% 5% 1% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 452 236 216 130 126 165 30 30 31 66 148 149 144 85 74 382 30 25 15 19% 21% 18% 37% 28% 19% 5% 14% 14% 20% 26% 22% 22% 17% 15% 20% 15% 22% 24% def ef f ghi mn mn p p 52% 48% 29% 28% 37% 7% 7% 7% 15% 33% 33% 32% 19% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 371 188 184 88 109 138 36 29 30 50 131 114 110 78 68 310 28 20 13 16% 17% 15% 25% 24% 16% 5% 14% 14% 15% 23% 17% 17% 16% 14% 16% 14% 18% 21% ef ef f ghi op 51% 49% 24% 29% 37% 10% 8% 8% 14% 35% 31% 30% 21% 18% 84% 7% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 337 193 144 92 88 124 32 22 26 50 125 104 111 70 51 285 29 17 6 14% 17% 12% 26% 19% 14% 5% 10% 12% 15% 22% 16% 17% 14% 10% 15% 14% 15% 9% b def ef f ghi n n r r r 57% 43% 27% 26% 37% 10% 6% 8% 15% 37% 31% 33% 21% 15% 85% 9% 5% 2% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 306 163 143 94 79 110 23 15 25 45 98 111 96 54 45 263 19 12 11 13% 14% 12% 26% 17% 13% 3% 7% 11% 14% 17% 16% 15% 11% 9% 13% 10% 10% 19% def ef f g gh mn n opq 53% 47% 31% 26% 36% 8% 5% 8% 15% 32% 36% 31% 18% 15% 86% 6% 4% 4% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 231 126 105 50 64 99 18 23 17 42 69 66 72 41 52 207 9 10 4 10% 11% 9% 14% 14% 11% 3% 11% 8% 13% 12% 10% 11% 8% 10% 11% 5% 9% 7% f f f pr p 55% 45% 21% 28% 43% 8% 10% 7% 18% 30% 29% 31% 18% 23% 90% 4% 4% 2% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 163 95 68 22 35 80 26 10 11 23 65 60 52 20 31 138 10 11 5 7% 8% 6% 6% 8% 9% 4% 5% 5% 7% 11% 9% 8% 4% 6% 7% 5% 10% 7% b f f ghi m m p 58% 42% 14% 21% 49% 16% 6% 7% 14% 40% 37% 32% 13% 19% 85% 6% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Real time gambling 158 112 45 32 46 65 14 13 13 27 53 34 48 38 37 125 22 7 3 7% 10% 4% 9% 10% 8% 2% 6% 6% 8% 9% 5% 7% 8% 7% 6% 11% 7% 5% b f f f or 71% 29% 21% 29% 41% 9% 8% 8% 17% 34% 22% 31% 24% 24% 79% 14% 5% 2% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 153 93 59 48 39 55 11 9 10 18 64 53 42 25 32 126 15 8 4 7% 8% 5% 14% 8% 6% 2% 4% 5% 5% 11% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% 8% 7% 7% b def f f ghi 61% 39% 32% 25% 36% 7% 6% 7% 12% 42% 35% 28% 16% 21% 82% 10% 5% 3% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 72 41 31 9 22 34 7 3 1 6 33 31 19 9 13 65 2 5 1 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 1% 1% *% 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 1% f f ghi m pr pr 57% 43% 13% 30% 48% 10% 3% 1% 8% 45% 42% 27% 12% 19% 90% 2% 7% 1% Other 15 12 3 1 1 5 8 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 5 8 6 2 - 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 3% 1% -% b or or 78% 22% 9% 4% 36% 51% 8% 14% 5% 16% 24% 27% 13% 36% 49% 39% 11% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1362 616 746 275 331 542 213 118 122 216 397 392 395 282 291 1157 104 62 39 58% 54% 62% 78% 73% 63% 32% 55% 56% 64% 69% 58% 60% 57% 57% 59% 51% 55% 63% a ef ef f gh gh p p 45% 55% 20% 24% 40% 16% 9% 9% 16% 29% 29% 29% 21% 21% 85% 8% 5% 3% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 1335 667 668 249 316 510 260 104 120 212 413 414 392 269 259 1156 90 60 29 57% 59% 56% 70% 69% 59% 40% 48% 55% 63% 72% 62% 60% 54% 51% 59% 45% 53% 47% ef ef f g ghi mn mn pr 50% 50% 19% 24% 38% 19% 8% 9% 16% 31% 31% 29% 20% 19% 87% 7% 4% 2% USE TWITTER 474 248 226 134 132 171 37 30 36 67 153 157 156 86 76 401 31 26 16 20% 22% 19% 38% 29% 20% 6% 14% 16% 20% 27% 23% 24% 17% 15% 21% 15% 23% 26% def ef f ghi mn mn p p 52% 48% 28% 28% 36% 8% 6% 8% 14% 32% 33% 33% 18% 16% 85% 7% 5% 3% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 366 207 160 98 97 135 36 24 26 51 141 115 120 74 58 305 37 18 6 16% 18% 13% 28% 21% 16% 6% 11% 12% 15% 24% 17% 18% 15% 11% 16% 18% 16% 10% b def ef f ghi n n r r r 56% 44% 27% 26% 37% 10% 6% 7% 14% 38% 32% 33% 20% 16% 83% 10% 5% 2% None of these 40 26 14 4 7 10 19 8 4 2 4 * 9 10 21 31 6 3 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% e ij k k kl 64% 36% 10% 17% 24% 48% 20% 11% 5% 10% *% 22% 25% 53% 77% 14% 6% 3% Don't know 1 - 1 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - *% -% *% *% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% 100% 62% -% -% 38% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% 62% 38% 62% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% General surfing/ browsing the internet 2061 285 290 186 134 171 184 177 79 231 1774 287 1339 716 1139 922 88% 89% 90% 93% 83% 87% 83% 94% 89% 89% 88% 90% 90% 86% 89% 87% df def def m 14% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 65% 35% 55% 45% Sending and receiving e-mail 2032 298 284 185 130 171 195 158 72 230 1753 279 1354 674 1116 916 87% 93% 88% 92% 81% 87% 88% 84% 81% 89% 87% 88% 91% 81% 88% 87% degh dh dgh d dh m 15% 14% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 33% 55% 45% Purchasing goods/services/ tickets etc. 1554 196 214 152 107 112 166 135 52 170 1316 238 1045 506 879 675 67% 61% 67% 76% 66% 57% 75% 71% 58% 66% 65% 75% 70% 60% 69% 64% e abdehi aehi aeh j m o 13% 14% 10% 7% 7% 11% 9% 3% 11% 85% 15% 67% 33% 57% 43% Banking 1478 218 205 152 82 114 151 116 50 175 1271 207 1050 422 821 657 63% 68% 64% 76% 51% 58% 68% 62% 56% 67% 63% 65% 71% 50% 64% 62% deh d bdegh deh d dh m 15% 14% 10% 6% 8% 10% 8% 3% 12% 86% 14% 71% 29% 56% 44% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1303 210 166 113 76 87 143 108 58 149 1136 168 920 380 661 643 56% 66% 52% 56% 47% 44% 65% 57% 66% 57% 56% 53% 62% 45% 52% 61% bcde e bde e bde de m n 16% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 1247 236 133 106 78 93 135 114 46 110 1082 165 865 377 624 622 53% 74% 42% 53% 49% 47% 61% 60% 52% 43% 54% 52% 58% 45% 49% 59% bcdefghi bi bdei bdei b m n 19% 11% 9% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 9% 87% 13% 69% 30% 50% 50% To find information on health related issues 1036 141 184 106 61 69 99 75 39 112 887 149 694 340 601 436 44% 44% 57% 53% 38% 35% 45% 40% 44% 43% 44% 47% 47% 41% 47% 41% adefghi degi e m o 14% 18% 10% 6% 7% 10% 7% 4% 11% 86% 14% 67% 33% 58% 42% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 1013 209 123 94 51 66 104 61 43 109 876 137 827 186 537 476 43% 66% 38% 47% 32% 34% 47% 32% 48% 42% 43% 43% 56% 22% 42% 45% bcdefghi deg deg deg dg m 21% 12% 9% 5% 7% 10% 6% 4% 11% 86% 14% 82% 18% 53% 47% Accessing news 981 154 135 100 50 70 94 72 35 124 837 144 684 293 548 433 42% 48% 42% 50% 31% 36% 42% 38% 39% 48% 42% 45% 46% 35% 43% 41% de d degh d de m 16% 14% 10% 5% 7% 10% 7% 4% 13% 85% 15% 70% 30% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 962 207 109 97 54 58 100 94 34 97 834 128 686 274 470 492 41% 65% 34% 49% 34% 30% 45% 50% 38% 37% 41% 40% 46% 33% 37% 47% bcdefghi bdehi bde bdehi m n 22% 11% 10% 6% 6% 10% 10% 4% 10% 87% 13% 71% 29% 49% 51% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 852 93 118 99 52 57 97 94 25 100 725 127 589 261 483 369 37% 29% 37% 49% 32% 29% 44% 50% 28% 39% 36% 40% 40% 31% 38% 35% abdehi adeh abdehi ah m 11% 14% 12% 6% 7% 11% 11% 3% 12% 85% 15% 69% 31% 57% 43% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 824 106 135 93 48 46 83 68 30 99 692 131 563 258 469 354 35% 33% 42% 46% 30% 24% 38% 36% 34% 38% 34% 41% 38% 31% 37% 34% e de adegh e e e e j m 13% 16% 11% 6% 6% 10% 8% 4% 12% 84% 16% 68% 31% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Downloading music files 779 134 71 77 48 72 93 69 24 77 671 109 567 209 387 392 33% 42% 22% 38% 30% 37% 42% 37% 27% 30% 33% 34% 38% 25% 30% 37% bdhi bh bh bdhi bh m n 17% 9% 10% 6% 9% 12% 9% 3% 10% 86% 14% 73% 27% 50% 50% Playing games online/ interactively 765 83 99 74 62 62 79 73 32 93 660 105 505 258 406 359 33% 26% 31% 37% 38% 32% 36% 39% 36% 36% 33% 33% 34% 31% 32% 34% a a a a a a 11% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 66% 34% 53% 47% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 690 226 63 57 30 45 69 55 13 42 599 91 492 197 323 367 30% 71% 20% 28% 18% 23% 31% 29% 15% 16% 30% 29% 33% 24% 25% 35% bcdefghi bdhi h bdhi bdhi m n 33% 9% 8% 4% 7% 10% 8% 2% 6% 87% 13% 71% 29% 47% 53% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 636 114 68 66 42 55 70 47 20 72 539 97 452 182 310 326 27% 36% 21% 33% 26% 28% 31% 25% 22% 28% 27% 31% 30% 22% 24% 31% bdgh bh bh m n 18% 11% 10% 7% 9% 11% 7% 3% 11% 85% 15% 71% 29% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 606 115 97 54 36 39 61 44 20 63 527 79 394 210 313 293 26% 36% 30% 27% 22% 20% 28% 23% 23% 24% 26% 25% 26% 25% 25% 28% cdeghi e 19% 16% 9% 6% 6% 10% 7% 3% 10% 87% 13% 65% 35% 52% 48% Trading/ auctions 568 64 83 70 43 48 58 53 22 58 497 71 430 137 320 248 24% 20% 26% 35% 27% 24% 26% 28% 24% 22% 25% 22% 29% 16% 25% 23% abehi m 11% 15% 12% 8% 8% 10% 9% 4% 10% 88% 12% 76% 24% 56% 44% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 472 58 66 65 32 32 55 45 16 47 390 82 347 122 254 218 20% 18% 21% 33% 20% 17% 25% 24% 17% 18% 19% 26% 23% 15% 20% 21% abdehi e j m 12% 14% 14% 7% 7% 12% 10% 3% 10% 83% 17% 74% 26% 54% 46% Listening to radio 469 52 78 52 26 28 68 44 15 52 391 79 336 132 279 191 20% 16% 24% 26% 16% 14% 31% 23% 16% 20% 19% 25% 23% 16% 22% 18% ae adeh adehi e j m o 11% 17% 11% 6% 6% 14% 9% 3% 11% 83% 17% 72% 28% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 458 100 50 68 23 30 43 33 12 45 395 63 342 115 240 218 20% 32% 16% 34% 15% 15% 19% 18% 14% 17% 20% 20% 23% 14% 19% 21% bdefghi bdefghi m 22% 11% 15% 5% 7% 9% 7% 3% 10% 86% 14% 75% 25% 52% 48% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 454 65 67 55 26 29 49 38 13 61 393 61 335 118 260 194 19% 20% 21% 27% 16% 15% 22% 20% 14% 23% 20% 19% 23% 14% 20% 18% deh eh m 14% 15% 12% 6% 6% 11% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 74% 26% 57% 43% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 452 78 44 37 30 31 39 42 22 58 402 50 338 114 228 223 19% 24% 14% 19% 18% 16% 18% 22% 25% 22% 20% 16% 23% 14% 18% 21% be b be b m 17% 10% 8% 7% 7% 9% 9% 5% 13% 89% 11% 75% 25% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 371 33 39 39 16 34 40 36 17 57 319 52 280 90 188 184 16% 10% 12% 19% 10% 17% 18% 19% 19% 22% 16% 16% 19% 11% 15% 17% abd ad ad ad ad abd m 9% 10% 10% 4% 9% 11% 10% 5% 15% 86% 14% 75% 24% 50% 50% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 337 50 40 33 17 21 38 24 11 51 296 41 261 76 167 170 14% 16% 12% 16% 11% 11% 17% 13% 13% 20% 15% 13% 18% 9% 13% 16% bde m n 15% 12% 10% 5% 6% 11% 7% 3% 15% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 306 51 27 24 19 24 33 32 11 41 266 40 221 84 157 148 13% 16% 9% 12% 12% 12% 15% 17% 12% 16% 13% 13% 15% 10% 12% 14% b b b b m 17% 9% 8% 6% 8% 11% 11% 4% 14% 87% 13% 72% 27% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 231 62 19 13 11 22 30 15 5 31 203 29 164 68 101 131 10% 20% 6% 6% 7% 11% 14% 8% 5% 12% 10% 9% 11% 8% 8% 12% bcdeghi h bcdh bh m n 27% 8% 6% 5% 9% 13% 6% 2% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 44% 56% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 163 16 18 17 12 15 17 18 5 21 143 20 124 39 101 63 7% 5% 6% 8% 7% 8% 8% 9% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 5% 8% 6% m 10% 11% 10% 7% 9% 10% 11% 3% 13% 88% 12% 76% 24% 62% 38% Real time gambling 158 22 13 14 11 13 17 9 3 23 142 16 130 28 71 86 7% 7% 4% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% 4% 9% 7% 5% 9% 3% 6% 8% bh m n 14% 8% 9% 7% 8% 11% 6% 2% 15% 90% 10% 82% 18% 45% 55% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 153 23 8 18 12 7 20 14 4 19 132 20 120 33 74 78 7% 7% 3% 9% 7% 4% 9% 8% 4% 7% 7% 6% 8% 4% 6% 7% b be b be b b m 15% 5% 12% 8% 5% 13% 9% 2% 12% 87% 13% 78% 22% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe21 (Qe5A). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Do You Use The Internet For? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 72 14 8 4 4 6 10 3 1 16 61 12 65 7 41 32 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% 6% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3% cgh m 19% 12% 5% 5% 8% 14% 4% 2% 22% 84% 16% 90% 10% 56% 44% Other 15 - 1 2 1 2 - - * 1 12 3 5 11 8 7 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% -% -% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% l -% 5% 10% 8% 15% -% -% 1% 9% 81% 19% 31% 69% 52% 48% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1362 219 175 122 77 91 147 112 61 154 1185 176 960 398 699 663 58% 69% 55% 61% 48% 46% 66% 59% 68% 59% 59% 56% 65% 48% 55% 63% bde de bde de bde de m n 16% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 70% 29% 51% 49% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 1335 240 161 133 81 95 140 121 49 138 1149 186 939 393 679 656 57% 75% 50% 66% 50% 48% 63% 64% 54% 53% 57% 59% 63% 47% 53% 62% bcdefghi bdehi bdei bdei m n 18% 12% 10% 6% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 70% 29% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE21 (QE5A). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these do you use the internet for? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% USE TWITTER 474 83 46 41 30 34 42 43 22 60 419 55 351 121 240 233 20% 26% 14% 20% 18% 17% 19% 23% 25% 23% 21% 17% 24% 14% 19% 22% be b b b m 17% 10% 9% 6% 7% 9% 9% 5% 13% 88% 12% 74% 26% 51% 49% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 366 54 40 37 22 24 41 24 12 51 323 44 283 83 181 185 16% 17% 12% 18% 14% 12% 19% 13% 14% 20% 16% 14% 19% 10% 14% 17% be m n 15% 11% 10% 6% 6% 11% 7% 3% 14% 88% 12% 77% 23% 50% 50% None of these 40 5 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 9 37 3 21 19 19 21 2% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% c 11% 7% 2% 8% 7% 6% 8% 6% 22% 93% 7% 52% 47% 47% 53% Don't know 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% *% -% *% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1889 927 962 292 390 716 492 168 170 278 508 551 547 395 394 1594 153 90 51 81% 82% 80% 82% 86% 83% 75% 78% 78% 83% 88% 82% 84% 79% 78% 82% 76% 80% 83% f f f ghi n p p 49% 51% 15% 21% 38% 26% 9% 9% 15% 27% 29% 29% 21% 21% 84% 8% 5% 3% Sending and receiving e-mail 1744 847 897 267 350 678 449 130 152 266 499 554 526 331 331 1494 126 85 40 75% 75% 75% 75% 77% 78% 68% 60% 70% 79% 87% 83% 80% 67% 65% 76% 62% 75% 65% f f f g gh ghi mn mn pr pr 49% 51% 15% 20% 39% 26% 7% 9% 15% 29% 32% 30% 19% 19% 86% 7% 5% 2% Banking 1158 562 596 164 277 472 245 74 96 181 393 381 337 252 187 1001 70 59 27 50% 50% 50% 46% 61% 55% 37% 35% 44% 54% 68% 57% 52% 51% 37% 51% 35% 52% 45% f cef cf g gh ghi n n n pr p p 49% 51% 14% 24% 41% 21% 6% 8% 16% 34% 33% 29% 22% 16% 86% 6% 5% 2% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1126 495 631 231 273 454 168 107 105 176 329 311 326 230 257 956 87 52 31 48% 44% 53% 65% 60% 52% 26% 50% 48% 52% 57% 46% 50% 46% 51% 49% 43% 46% 51% a ef ef f h 44% 56% 21% 24% 40% 15% 10% 9% 16% 29% 28% 29% 20% 23% 85% 8% 5% 3% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 950 415 535 201 254 357 138 90 80 139 273 260 283 186 221 816 62 46 26 41% 37% 45% 57% 56% 41% 21% 42% 36% 41% 47% 39% 43% 37% 44% 42% 31% 41% 42% a ef ef f h p p p 44% 56% 21% 27% 38% 15% 9% 8% 15% 29% 27% 30% 20% 23% 86% 7% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc. 921 431 490 119 198 396 207 63 78 146 314 321 271 185 144 797 63 43 17 40% 38% 41% 34% 44% 46% 32% 29% 36% 44% 55% 48% 41% 37% 28% 41% 31% 38% 28% cf cf g ghi lmn n n pr r 47% 53% 13% 22% 43% 23% 7% 9% 16% 34% 35% 29% 20% 16% 87% 7% 5% 2% Accessing news 713 405 308 100 156 295 161 39 53 113 246 260 224 118 111 610 52 34 17 31% 36% 26% 28% 34% 34% 25% 18% 24% 34% 43% 39% 34% 24% 22% 31% 26% 30% 28% b f f gh ghi mn mn 57% 43% 14% 22% 41% 23% 5% 7% 16% 34% 36% 31% 17% 16% 86% 7% 5% 2% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 696 384 311 93 158 338 107 38 37 104 274 276 207 119 94 608 37 35 17 30% 34% 26% 26% 35% 39% 16% 18% 17% 31% 48% 41% 32% 24% 19% 31% 18% 30% 27% b f cf cf gh ghi lmn mn n p p p 55% 45% 13% 23% 49% 15% 5% 5% 15% 39% 40% 30% 17% 14% 87% 5% 5% 2% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 640 352 288 142 152 253 93 51 49 97 213 193 191 117 139 579 26 25 9 27% 31% 24% 40% 33% 29% 14% 24% 22% 29% 37% 29% 29% 24% 27% 30% 13% 23% 14% b ef f f ghi m pqr pr 55% 45% 22% 24% 39% 15% 8% 8% 15% 33% 30% 30% 18% 22% 91% 4% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 534 274 260 109 112 204 108 35 42 80 193 195 153 95 89 471 29 25 8 23% 24% 22% 31% 25% 24% 17% 16% 19% 24% 34% 29% 23% 19% 18% 24% 14% 22% 13% ef f f g ghi lmn n pr pr 51% 49% 21% 21% 38% 20% 7% 8% 15% 36% 37% 29% 18% 17% 88% 5% 5% 2% Playing games online/ interactively 509 274 235 131 111 181 87 57 51 71 137 117 145 111 135 443 37 21 9 22% 24% 20% 37% 24% 21% 13% 27% 23% 21% 24% 17% 22% 22% 27% 23% 18% 18% 14% b def f f k k r 54% 46% 26% 22% 35% 17% 11% 10% 14% 27% 23% 29% 22% 27% 87% 7% 4% 2% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 427 215 211 83 120 165 59 24 34 65 136 137 138 70 82 389 19 14 5 18% 19% 18% 23% 26% 19% 9% 11% 16% 19% 24% 20% 21% 14% 16% 20% 9% 13% 8% f ef f g gh m mn pqr 50% 50% 19% 28% 39% 14% 6% 8% 15% 32% 32% 32% 16% 19% 91% 4% 3% 1% Downloading music files 424 230 193 114 103 168 39 38 35 73 148 122 135 88 79 369 27 16 11 18% 20% 16% 32% 23% 19% 6% 17% 16% 22% 26% 18% 21% 18% 16% 19% 14% 14% 18% b def f f gh n p 54% 46% 27% 24% 40% 9% 9% 8% 17% 35% 29% 32% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% To find information on health related issues 400 159 241 55 92 164 89 26 34 70 146 148 96 76 79 345 15 26 13 17% 14% 20% 15% 20% 19% 14% 12% 16% 21% 25% 22% 15% 15% 16% 18% 8% 23% 21% a f f g gh lmn p op p 40% 60% 14% 23% 41% 22% 6% 9% 18% 36% 37% 24% 19% 20% 86% 4% 7% 3% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 367 180 188 83 105 132 47 28 33 54 123 118 100 67 83 322 19 16 10 16% 16% 16% 24% 23% 15% 7% 13% 15% 16% 21% 18% 15% 13% 16% 16% 10% 14% 17% ef ef f g p p 49% 51% 23% 29% 36% 13% 8% 9% 15% 33% 32% 27% 18% 23% 88% 5% 4% 3% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 358 172 186 121 57 149 31 27 27 57 104 129 123 47 58 315 14 17 12 15% 15% 16% 34% 12% 17% 5% 12% 13% 17% 18% 19% 19% 9% 12% 16% 7% 15% 20% def f df g mn mn p p p 48% 52% 34% 16% 42% 9% 7% 8% 16% 29% 36% 34% 13% 16% 88% 4% 5% 3% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 310 153 157 36 54 141 78 24 16 58 123 118 91 55 47 284 9 11 5 13% 14% 13% 10% 12% 16% 12% 11% 7% 17% 21% 18% 14% 11% 9% 15% 5% 10% 9% cdf gh gh mn n pr p p 49% 51% 12% 17% 46% 25% 8% 5% 19% 40% 38% 29% 18% 15% 92% 3% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 309 167 141 94 83 111 20 20 20 40 116 107 93 57 51 260 20 19 10 13% 15% 12% 26% 18% 13% 3% 9% 9% 12% 20% 16% 14% 11% 10% 13% 10% 17% 16% b def ef f ghi mn n p p 54% 46% 30% 27% 36% 7% 6% 6% 13% 37% 35% 30% 19% 16% 84% 6% 6% 3% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 292 157 135 52 75 131 34 25 24 33 115 108 94 51 38 259 14 14 5 13% 14% 11% 15% 16% 15% 5% 12% 11% 10% 20% 16% 14% 10% 7% 13% 7% 12% 9% f f f ghi mn mn pr p 54% 46% 18% 26% 45% 12% 9% 8% 11% 39% 37% 32% 18% 13% 89% 5% 5% 2% Listening to radio 283 159 124 49 55 125 54 19 17 44 112 107 80 43 52 254 17 9 4 12% 14% 10% 14% 12% 14% 8% 9% 8% 13% 20% 16% 12% 9% 10% 13% 8% 8% 6% b f f f h ghi mn pqr 56% 44% 17% 19% 44% 19% 7% 6% 16% 40% 38% 28% 15% 19% 90% 6% 3% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 265 172 93 66 65 109 26 22 18 39 105 81 84 43 57 238 7 15 4 11% 15% 8% 19% 14% 13% 4% 10% 8% 12% 18% 12% 13% 9% 11% 12% 4% 13% 7% b ef f f ghi m pr pr 65% 35% 25% 24% 41% 10% 8% 7% 15% 40% 30% 32% 16% 21% 90% 3% 6% 2% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 261 154 107 44 67 106 44 19 14 39 111 99 65 48 47 233 11 14 3 11% 14% 9% 12% 15% 12% 7% 9% 6% 12% 19% 15% 10% 10% 9% 12% 5% 13% 4% b f f f h ghi lmn pr pr 59% 41% 17% 26% 41% 17% 7% 5% 15% 43% 38% 25% 19% 18% 89% 4% 6% 1% Trading/ auctions 258 146 112 33 62 121 43 20 19 42 92 90 66 53 49 230 14 10 5 11% 13% 9% 9% 14% 14% 6% 10% 9% 13% 16% 13% 10% 11% 10% 12% 7% 9% 7% b f cf gh pr 57% 43% 13% 24% 47% 16% 8% 7% 16% 36% 35% 26% 21% 19% 89% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 215 109 105 56 65 77 17 19 15 32 78 63 62 44 46 179 18 11 7 9% 10% 9% 16% 14% 9% 3% 9% 7% 10% 14% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 10% 11% ef ef f h 51% 49% 26% 30% 36% 8% 9% 7% 15% 36% 30% 29% 20% 21% 83% 8% 5% 3% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 202 120 82 55 52 74 20 9 19 28 78 65 64 36 36 171 18 12 2 9% 11% 7% 16% 12% 9% 3% 4% 9% 8% 14% 10% 10% 7% 7% 9% 9% 11% 3% b ef f f gi r r r 59% 41% 27% 26% 37% 10% 5% 10% 14% 38% 32% 32% 18% 18% 84% 9% 6% 1% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 200 110 91 66 52 65 18 13 19 30 62 69 65 35 31 169 15 9 8 9% 10% 8% 19% 11% 7% 3% 6% 9% 9% 11% 10% 10% 7% 6% 9% 7% 8% 12% def ef f g n n op 55% 45% 33% 26% 32% 9% 6% 10% 15% 31% 34% 33% 18% 16% 84% 7% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 132 72 61 25 36 61 11 12 11 22 41 41 39 19 32 119 5 6 2 6% 6% 5% 7% 8% 7% 2% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 6% 6% 2% 5% 3% f f f pr 54% 46% 19% 27% 46% 8% 9% 9% 17% 31% 31% 30% 14% 24% 90% 4% 5% 1% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 94 61 33 12 23 46 13 4 5 13 39 32 35 13 14 79 7 6 2 4% 5% 3% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 7% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 4% b f f gh mn 65% 35% 13% 25% 49% 14% 4% 5% 14% 42% 34% 37% 14% 15% 84% 8% 6% 2% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 91 61 30 31 22 32 7 3 10 8 37 34 23 12 21 78 8 4 * 4% 5% 2% 9% 5% 4% 1% 1% 4% 2% 6% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% b def f f g gi m r r r 67% 33% 34% 24% 35% 7% 3% 11% 9% 40% 38% 26% 14% 23% 86% 9% 4% 1% Real time gambling 59 41 18 7 19 27 6 7 5 11 18 9 19 13 18 45 9 3 1 3% 4% 1% 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 2% b f f k o 70% 30% 12% 32% 45% 11% 12% 8% 19% 30% 16% 32% 22% 30% 77% 16% 5% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 3100 | 1471 | 1629 | 505 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2126 | 1018 | 1108 | 332 | | Total | 2332 | 1134 | 1197 | 354 | | 49% | 51% | 15% | 20% | 37% | | Remotely control or monitor | | | | | | household appliances e.g. fridge, | | | | | | cooker, washing machine, tumble | | | | | | dryer and/ or home heating, lighting | | | | | | or security system or home energy | | | | | | consumption | 43 | 23 | 20 | 3 | | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | | cf | f | ghi | mn | r | | 54% | 46% | 7% | 32% | 52% | | Other | | | | | | 12 | 10 | 2 | 1 | * | | 1% | 1% | *% | *% | *% | | b | or | | | | | 83% | 17% | 11% | 3% | 32% | | USE SOCIAL NETWORKING | | | | | | SITES | 1187 | 531 | 657 | 248 | | 51% | 47% | 55% | 70% | 64% | | a | ef | ef | f | gh | | 45% | 55% | 21% | 25% | 40% | | TV/ VIDEO VIEWING | 987 | 509 | 478 | 201 | | 42% | 45% | 40% | 57% | 52% | | b | ef | ef | f | gh | | 52% | 48% | 20% | 24% | 37% | | USE TWITTER | | | | | | 332 | 178 | 154 | 99 | 93 | | 14% | 16% | 13% | 28% | 20% | | def | ef | f | ghi | n | | 54% | 46% | 30% | 28% | 35% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 228 134 94 63 59 85 22 9 19 29 92 75 71 41 40 189 23 14 2 10% 12% 8% 18% 13% 10% 3% 4% 9% 9% 16% 11% 11% 8% 8% 10% 11% 12% 3% b ef f f g ghi r r r 59% 41% 28% 26% 37% 10% 4% 9% 13% 40% 33% 31% 18% 17% 83% 10% 6% 1% None of these 84 44 41 6 13 19 47 12 11 9 8 12 17 26 29 71 8 4 2 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 7% 6% 5% 3% 1% 2% 3% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% cde j j kl kl 52% 48% 7% 15% 23% 55% 15% 13% 11% 10% 15% 20% 31% 34% 84% 9% 5% 2% Don't know 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - *% *% *% *% -% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 40% 60% 37% -% 40% 23% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 23% 37% 63% 37% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% General surfing/ browsing the internet 1889 269 269 167 119 158 167 169 68 210 1630 260 1247 637 1037 853 81% 84% 84% 83% 74% 81% 75% 90% 76% 81% 81% 82% 84% 76% 81% 81% dfh df df defhi m 14% 14% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 66% 34% 55% 45% Sending and receiving e-mail 1744 272 257 158 109 132 177 147 59 183 1507 238 1177 563 954 790 75% 85% 80% 79% 67% 67% 80% 78% 67% 71% 75% 75% 79% 67% 75% 75% dehi dehi deh dehi deh m 16% 15% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 3% 10% 86% 14% 67% 32% 55% 45% Banking 1158 178 156 115 65 78 131 101 43 134 992 166 838 314 640 518 50% 56% 49% 57% 40% 39% 59% 53% 49% 52% 49% 52% 56% 37% 50% 49% de de bdeh de de m 15% 14% 10% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 72% 27% 55% 45% Using social networking (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo or Snapchat) 1126 170 143 93 64 74 132 98 49 132 978 148 784 338 556 570 48% 53% 45% 47% 40% 38% 60% 52% 55% 51% 49% 47% 53% 40% 44% 54% de bcde de bde de m n 15% 13% 8% 6% 7% 12% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 70% 30% 49% 51% Communicating via instant messaging e.g. Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, Skype Chat, Snapchat 950 181 100 71 63 65 117 100 37 82 828 122 654 293 452 498 41% 57% 31% 36% 39% 33% 53% 53% 41% 32% 41% 38% 44% 35% 35% 47% bcdehi bcdehi bcdehi b m n 19% 11% 7% 7% 7% 12% 11% 4% 9% 87% 13% 69% 31% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Purchasing goods/ services/ tickets etc. 921 142 110 92 67 52 129 88 33 85 777 144 646 272 503 418 40% 45% 34% 46% 41% 27% 58% 47% 37% 33% 39% 45% 43% 32% 39% 40% bei bei e abcdeghi bei e j m 15% 12% 10% 7% 6% 14% 10% 4% 9% 84% 16% 70% 29% 55% 45% Accessing news 713 113 94 62 36 53 71 62 28 91 611 102 493 215 398 315 31% 35% 29% 31% 22% 27% 32% 33% 31% 35% 30% 32% 33% 26% 31% 30% d d d d d m 16% 13% 9% 5% 7% 10% 9% 4% 13% 86% 14% 69% 30% 56% 44% Finding/ downloading information for work/ business 696 152 82 63 31 42 89 43 28 78 596 100 584 111 378 317 30% 48% 26% 31% 20% 21% 40% 23% 31% 30% 30% 31% 39% 13% 30% 30% bcdeghi de bdegi de d m 22% 12% 9% 5% 6% 13% 6% 4% 11% 86% 14% 84% 16% 54% 46% Watching short video clips (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo) 640 174 56 66 35 33 66 72 19 59 555 85 449 190 297 343 27% 55% 17% 33% 22% 17% 30% 38% 21% 23% 28% 27% 30% 23% 23% 32% bcdefghi bdehi be bdehi m n 27% 9% 10% 5% 5% 10% 11% 3% 9% 87% 13% 70% 30% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5 or Sky Go) 534 63 73 48 31 34 78 71 13 60 453 81 358 173 300 234 23% 20% 23% 24% 19% 17% 35% 38% 15% 23% 22% 25% 24% 21% 24% 22% h h abcdehi abcdehi h 12% 14% 9% 6% 6% 15% 13% 2% 11% 85% 15% 67% 32% 56% 44% Playing games online/ interactively 509 49 60 49 43 44 62 58 22 56 429 80 322 186 271 237 22% 16% 19% 25% 27% 22% 28% 31% 25% 22% 21% 25% 22% 22% 21% 22% a a ab abi a 10% 12% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 4% 11% 84% 16% 63% 37% 53% 47% Making voice calls using a VoIP service e.g. Skype 427 180 29 25 21 20 51 33 7 22 377 49 312 113 173 254 18% 57% 9% 12% 13% 10% 23% 17% 8% 9% 19% 16% 21% 14% 14% 24% bcdefghi bcdehi bhi m n 42% 7% 6% 5% 5% 12% 8% 2% 5% 88% 12% 73% 27% 40% 60% Downloading music files 424 94 43 31 22 25 64 45 12 32 367 57 306 115 197 227 18% 30% 13% 16% 14% 13% 29% 24% 13% 12% 18% 18% 21% 14% 15% 21% bcdehi bcdehi bcdehi m n 22% 10% 7% 5% 6% 15% 11% 3% 8% 87% 13% 72% 27% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% To find information on health related issues 400 57 62 31 26 17 61 38 14 40 346 54 270 129 225 175 17% 18% 19% 15% 16% 9% 28% 20% 15% 15% 17% 17% 18% 15% 18% 17% e e e e acdehi e e e 14% 16% 8% 6% 4% 15% 9% 3% 10% 87% 13% 68% 32% 56% 44% Uploading/ adding content to the internet e.g. photos, videos, blog posts 367 75 37 30 22 20 49 29 13 47 319 48 270 96 167 200 16% 23% 11% 15% 13% 10% 22% 16% 14% 18% 16% 15% 18% 12% 13% 19% bcdeh bde e m n 20% 10% 8% 6% 5% 13% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 73% 26% 46% 54% Finding/ downloading information for school/ college/ university/ homework 358 62 54 26 23 24 43 33 12 39 312 46 210 146 185 173 15% 19% 17% 13% 14% 12% 20% 18% 13% 15% 15% 15% 14% 17% 14% 16% e e l 17% 15% 7% 6% 7% 12% 9% 3% 11% 87% 13% 59% 41% 52% 48% Using local council/ Government sites, e.g. to find information, to complete processes such as tax returns, to contact local MP 310 45 36 26 21 22 56 37 8 32 262 48 217 90 173 137 13% 14% 11% 13% 13% 11% 25% 19% 9% 12% 13% 15% 15% 11% 14% 13% abcdehi beh m 15% 12% 9% 7% 7% 18% 12% 3% 10% 84% 16% 70% 29% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Using Twitter (browsing/ reading site) 309 53 34 21 21 16 36 28 10 40 274 35 220 89 156 153 13% 17% 11% 11% 13% 8% 16% 15% 12% 15% 14% 11% 15% 11% 12% 14% e e e e m 17% 11% 7% 7% 5% 12% 9% 3% 13% 89% 11% 71% 29% 51% 49% Accessing files through a cloud service such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive or Apple iCloud 292 34 41 41 17 17 44 27 10 28 240 52 221 70 159 133 13% 11% 13% 21% 11% 9% 20% 14% 11% 11% 12% 16% 15% 8% 12% 13% abdehi adehi j m 12% 14% 14% 6% 6% 15% 9% 3% 10% 82% 18% 76% 24% 55% 45% Listening to radio 283 40 42 23 21 14 54 27 9 23 229 54 200 83 171 112 12% 13% 13% 12% 13% 7% 24% 14% 11% 9% 11% 17% 13% 10% 13% 11% abcdeghi e j m o 14% 15% 8% 7% 5% 19% 10% 3% 8% 81% 19% 71% 29% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4, Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. South Park Studios) 265 72 22 34 12 12 33 21 6 26 230 35 201 64 129 136 11% 22% 7% 17% 8% 6% 15% 11% 7% 10% 11% 11% 13% 8% 10% 13% bdeghi bdehi bdeh m n 27% 8% 13% 5% 4% 12% 8% 2% 10% 87% 13% 76% 24% 49% 51% Watching live TV on the internet at the same time as it's broadcast (e.g. via BBC iPlayer, Sky Go, Virgin TV Anywhere) 261 41 35 27 14 12 40 28 7 30 228 33 199 61 149 112 11% 13% 11% 14% 9% 6% 18% 15% 8% 11% 11% 10% 13% 7% 12% 11% e e bdeh eh m 16% 13% 10% 5% 5% 15% 11% 3% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 57% 43% Trading/ auctions 258 35 30 28 17 18 36 33 11 22 218 41 195 62 144 115 11% 11% 9% 14% 10% 9% 16% 17% 13% 9% 11% 13% 13% 7% 11% 11% bei bdei m 13% 12% 11% 6% 7% 14% 13% 4% 9% 84% 16% 75% 24% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads via 'pay per view' services (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) or through a standalone subscription service (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant) 215 13 18 21 5 20 37 28 10 28 181 33 160 53 101 113 9% 4% 6% 10% 3% 10% 17% 15% 11% 11% 9% 11% 11% 6% 8% 11% ad ad abd abd ad ad m n 6% 8% 10% 2% 9% 17% 13% 5% 13% 84% 16% 75% 25% 47% 53% Streamed audio services (free) e.g. Spotify (free) or Deezer (free) 202 30 25 22 11 7 31 15 8 23 174 29 157 45 100 102 9% 9% 8% 11% 7% 3% 14% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 5% 8% 10% e e bde e e m 15% 12% 11% 5% 3% 15% 7% 4% 11% 86% 14% 78% 22% 50% 50% Using Twitter (account holder, posting on site) 200 32 13 14 13 13 29 18 5 30 174 26 135 66 94 107 9% 10% 4% 7% 8% 7% 13% 10% 6% 12% 9% 8% 9% 8% 7% 10% b bceh b bh n 16% 7% 7% 7% 7% 15% 9% 3% 15% 87% 13% 67% 33% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Communicating via chat rooms e.g. virtual assistance on a website, chatting on online dating sites 132 40 9 5 9 12 22 8 4 11 111 21 95 37 62 70 6% 12% 3% 2% 5% 6% 10% 4% 4% 4% 6% 7% 6% 4% 5% 7% bcdeghi bcghi m 30% 7% 4% 7% 9% 17% 6% 3% 9% 84% 16% 72% 28% 47% 53% Remotely control TV services at home such as Sky+ or Tivo using an online device 94 11 4 8 8 9 15 10 3 11 81 13 73 21 57 37 4% 4% 1% 4% 5% 4% 7% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% b b b b m 12% 4% 8% 9% 9% 16% 11% 3% 11% 87% 13% 78% 22% 61% 39% Streamed audio services (subscription) e.g. Spotify Premium or Deezer Premium 91 10 7 14 9 5 15 8 3 8 75 15 73 18 53 38 4% 3% 2% 7% 6% 3% 7% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% be b m 11% 7% 15% 10% 6% 16% 8% 3% 8% 83% 17% 81% 19% 58% 42% Real time gambling 59 8 6 7 3 4 10 3 2 3 54 5 46 13 26 33 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% i m 13% 10% 11% 5% 6% 17% 6% 3% 5% 92% 8% 78% 22% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Remotely control or monitor household appliances e.g. fridge, cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer and/ or home heating, lighting or security system or home energy consumption 43 13 2 4 2 4 9 1 1 5 34 10 37 7 23 21 2% 4% *% 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% bg bg m 29% 3% 8% 6% 9% 20% 3% 2% 11% 78% 22% 85% 15% 53% 47% Other 12 - 1 1 1 1 - - * 1 9 3 4 8 7 5 1% -% *% *% 1% 1% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% l -% 7% 7% 11% 10% -% -% 2% 12% 77% 23% 31% 69% 55% 45% USE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES 1187 180 155 102 66 78 135 104 51 135 1033 154 829 354 594 593 51% 57% 48% 51% 41% 40% 61% 55% 57% 52% 51% 49% 56% 42% 47% 56% de de bcde de de de m n 15% 13% 9% 6% 7% 11% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 70% 30% 50% 50% TV/ VIDEO VIEWING 987 217 110 91 54 62 109 102 29 94 858 129 689 294 477 510 42% 68% 34% 45% 34% 31% 49% 54% 33% 36% 43% 41% 46% 35% 37% 48% bcdefghi bdeh bdehi bdehi m n 22% 11% 9% 5% 6% 11% 10% 3% 10% 87% 13% 70% 30% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe22 (Qe5B) Showcard And, Which, If Any, Of These Activities Have You Used The Internet For In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% USE TWITTER 332 63 36 24 21 17 38 29 11 42 294 38 237 95 167 166 14% 20% 11% 12% 13% 9% 17% 16% 12% 16% 15% 12% 16% 11% 13% 16% bceh e e e m 19% 11% 7% 6% 5% 11% 9% 3% 13% 88% 12% 71% 29% 50% 50% STREAMED AUDIO SERVICES 228 32 25 25 15 10 33 18 8 23 196 31 178 50 118 110 10% 10% 8% 13% 9% 5% 15% 10% 9% 9% 10% 10% 12% 6% 9% 10% e be m 14% 11% 11% 7% 4% 14% 8% 4% 10% 86% 14% 78% 22% 52% 48% None of these 84 10 9 6 11 5 7 6 3 13 78 6 39 45 46 39 4% 3% 3% 3% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 4% 2% 3% 5% 4% 4% k l 12% 11% 7% 13% 6% 8% 7% 4% 16% 93% 7% 46% 53% 54% 46% Don't know 2 - - - - 1 - - 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 1 *% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% 1% -% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% 40% -% -% 23% -% 100% -% 60% 40% 40% 60% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Up to 512kb 6 4 2 1 * 3 2 - 2 - 2 2 1 1 2 6 * - - *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 1% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 63% 37% 12% 2% 45% 41% -% 43% -% 35% 35% 14% 24% 27% 98% 2% -% -% Up to 1MB 8 2 6 2 4 2 * 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 6 1 1 - *% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% -% ef 29% 71% 24% 53% 22% 1% 22% 18% 20% 20% 14% 8% 36% 42% 75% 13% 12% -% Up to 2MB 18 10 8 * 4 6 8 * 2 1 5 9 2 4 2 16 * 1 - 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% -% l 56% 44% 1% 22% 34% 43% 2% 10% 6% 28% 52% 12% 24% 13% 89% 3% 8% -% Up to 4MB 22 13 9 - 5 5 12 2 2 4 8 9 6 5 2 18 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% ce 61% 39% -% 23% 23% 54% 8% 10% 20% 37% 40% 29% 22% 9% 84% 4% 8% 3% Up to 8MB 53 34 19 4 15 18 16 4 5 9 19 18 19 7 8 44 6 1 1 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% b c 65% 35% 7% 28% 34% 30% 7% 9% 17% 35% 35% 36% 14% 15% 84% 12% 3% 1% Up to 10MB 59 44 15 14 10 23 12 4 2 7 24 22 12 15 9 53 3 3 - 3% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% -% b f h r r 75% 25% 24% 17% 39% 20% 7% 3% 12% 41% 38% 20% 26% 16% 91% 4% 5% -% Up to 16MB 47 27 19 5 13 20 10 5 4 7 18 15 16 11 4 42 2 3 * 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% *% n r r 58% 42% 11% 27% 42% 21% 11% 8% 16% 39% 33% 35% 24% 8% 90% 3% 6% *% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Up to 20MB 84 55 29 9 15 36 23 3 5 12 25 39 17 17 11 69 8 7 1 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 6% 2% b ln r 65% 35% 11% 18% 43% 28% 3% 6% 14% 30% 46% 20% 20% 14% 81% 10% 8% 1% Up to 30MB 41 27 14 10 9 14 8 4 3 2 19 12 17 8 4 30 7 2 1 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% b i n o 65% 35% 23% 22% 34% 20% 10% 8% 5% 46% 30% 42% 20% 9% 74% 18% 5% 3% Up to 40MB 56 32 25 9 10 22 16 2 3 8 17 21 13 16 7 50 1 3 2 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% p p 56% 44% 15% 18% 39% 28% 4% 5% 15% 30% 38% 22% 28% 12% 89% 2% 5% 4% Up to 50MB 72 53 20 7 13 34 18 7 5 10 26 23 16 16 17 62 8 * 1 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% *% 3% b q q q 73% 27% 10% 18% 47% 25% 10% 7% 14% 37% 32% 23% 22% 23% 86% 11% 1% 2% Up to 100MB 48 33 15 7 13 16 11 3 4 5 20 15 16 9 8 36 10 1 1 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% b oqr 68% 32% 15% 27% 34% 23% 6% 8% 11% 41% 31% 34% 18% 17% 75% 20% 3% 2% Over 100MB 55 39 16 11 13 24 7 1 1 11 18 15 20 13 7 50 2 2 1 3% 4% 1% 4% 3% 3% 1% *% 1% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% b f f f gh g 71% 29% 21% 23% 43% 13% 1% 2% 20% 33% 27% 35% 24% 14% 91% 3% 3% 3% SUPERFAST BROADBAND (30MB AND ABOVE) 273 183 90 44 58 110 60 18 16 37 100 87 82 62 43 228 28 9 8 13% 18% 8% 15% 16% 14% 9% 11% 9% 12% 18% 13% 14% 13% 10% 13% 15% 8% 14% b f f f ghi q 67% 33% 16% 21% 40% 22% 6% 6% 13% 37% 32% 30% 23% 16% 84% 10% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 1538 656 882 220 242 581 494 128 143 224 354 441 430 336 330 1283 134 75 46 73% 64% 82% 73% 66% 72% 78% 77% 78% 74% 64% 69% 73% 73% 80% 73% 73% 74% 82% a d de j j j klm opq 43% 57% 14% 16% 38% 32% 8% 9% 15% 23% 29% 28% 22% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Up to 512kb 6 - - 1 1 - 3 1 * - 3 3 3 3 5 1 *% -% -% *% 1% -% 1% *% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j -% -% 16% 18% -% 44% 12% 8% -% 53% 47% 45% 55% 88% 12% Up to 1MB 8 - - - 2 - 4 - 1 - 4 5 5 4 7 1 *% -% -% -% 1% -% 2% -% 1% -% *% 2% *% *% 1% *% b j -% -% -% 22% -% 47% -% 6% -% 45% 55% 57% 43% 86% 14% Up to 2MB 18 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 * - 8 10 10 6 15 3 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% -% *% 3% 1% 1% 1% *% j o 14% 15% 11% 11% 11% 12% 13% 2% -% 44% 56% 58% 33% 85% 15% Up to 4MB 22 - - 7 2 1 4 1 2 1 13 9 12 10 13 9 1% -% -% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% *% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% abi b ab j -% -% 32% 10% 4% 19% 6% 10% 3% 61% 39% 53% 47% 61% 39% Up to 8MB 53 1 12 10 4 6 3 3 1 5 39 14 38 14 34 19 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% afh j 3% 22% 19% 8% 11% 5% 6% 1% 10% 74% 26% 72% 26% 64% 36% Up to 10MB 59 12 11 4 6 6 3 4 2 5 50 9 41 18 32 27 3% 5% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 20% 19% 6% 10% 11% 5% 7% 3% 9% 84% 16% 70% 30% 54% 46% Up to 16MB 47 9 6 5 8 2 3 8 1 - 44 2 37 10 28 19 2% 4% 2% 3% 5% 1% 2% 5% 1% -% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% i i ehi ehi k m 19% 12% 12% 17% 4% 7% 18% 1% -% 95% 5% 79% 21% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe23 (Qenew11) Showcard What Was The Advertised Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection When You Took Up Your Service? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Up to 20MB 84 14 6 5 6 9 7 4 3 14 77 7 61 23 51 34 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 6% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% 4% b 16% 7% 6% 7% 11% 9% 5% 4% 16% 91% 9% 72% 28% 60% 40% Up to 30MB 41 5 8 3 4 2 6 2 - 1 33 8 27 14 26 15 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% -% *% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% h h hi 11% 19% 8% 9% 5% 15% 5% -% 1% 80% 20% 66% 34% 63% 37% Up to 40MB 56 6 12 6 3 3 5 5 2 8 43 13 37 19 37 20 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% j 11% 22% 11% 5% 6% 8% 8% 4% 14% 77% 23% 66% 34% 65% 35% Up to 50MB 72 9 17 3 2 5 4 10 4 8 67 6 48 24 39 34 3% 4% 5% 2% 1% 3% 2% 6% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% 4% d cd d 13% 23% 4% 3% 7% 6% 14% 6% 11% 92% 8% 67% 33% 54% 46% Up to 100MB 48 2 6 3 2 3 10 4 1 5 39 9 39 9 24 24 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% a m 4% 13% 7% 4% 7% 20% 8% 3% 10% 82% 18% 82% 18% 49% 51% Over 100MB 55 12 7 4 4 3 2 5 1 12 54 1 42 12 19 36 3% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 5% 3% *% 3% 2% 2% 4% f fh k m n 22% 12% 7% 8% 5% 4% 8% 2% 22% 97% 3% 77% 22% 34% 66% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE23 (QENEW11) SHOWCARD What was the advertised speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection when you took up your service? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% SUPERFAST BROADBAND (30MB AND ABOVE) 273 34 49 20 14 16 27 25 9 34 236 37 194 78 144 129 13% 14% 15% 10% 10% 10% 13% 14% 11% 15% 13% 12% 15% 10% 12% 14% m 13% 18% 7% 5% 6% 10% 9% 3% 12% 87% 13% 71% 28% 53% 47% Don't know 1538 179 234 138 102 127 152 120 62 169 1331 206 936 598 861 677 73% 71% 73% 72% 69% 75% 73% 71% 77% 74% 74% 68% 70% 78% 72% 74% k l 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% 512K 5 1 4 - 1 3 1 - - - 4 5 * - - 4 * 1 - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% -% -% 1% 1% *% -% -% *% *% 1% -% l 23% 77% -% 18% 64% 18% -% -% -% 75% 98% 2% -% -% 82% 2% 16% -% 750K 6 5 1 1 2 1 1 - - 1 3 4 2 - * 6 * * - *% *% *% *% 1% *% *% -% -% *% *% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% 78% 22% 20% 39% 22% 20% -% -% 22% 41% 69% 28% -% 3% 91% 3% 6% -% 1MB 13 9 4 * 2 6 5 * 2 3 5 3 3 4 4 10 2 2 - 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% -% 68% 32% 1% 14% 45% 40% 3% 14% 20% 37% 24% 21% 28% 27% 76% 12% 12% -% 1.5MB 9 7 2 1 - 5 3 2 * - 4 6 1 1 1 7 1 1 - *% 1% *% *% -% 1% *% 1% *% -% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% -% 76% 24% 13% -% 54% 33% 21% 1% -% 38% 66% 13% 11% 10% 76% 11% 13% -% 2MB 15 9 6 1 3 8 2 1 1 2 6 5 6 3 - 14 * 1 - 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% *% 1% -% n 58% 42% 10% 17% 57% 16% 5% 8% 14% 41% 36% 41% 23% -% 92% 2% 6% -% 3MB 12 9 3 1 1 4 5 1 * 3 2 6 1 4 1 11 * * * 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 1% 72% 28% 10% 11% 34% 45% 12% 2% 27% 17% 48% 12% 32% 8% 92% 3% 2% 3% 4MB 36 25 11 2 8 10 16 1 1 9 14 16 10 7 2 30 2 3 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% *% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% b n 69% 31% 6% 21% 28% 45% 3% 3% 24% 38% 45% 29% 20% 6% 84% 7% 7% 2% 8MB 45 28 17 7 8 17 13 4 2 6 16 14 10 15 6 38 4 2 * 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 62% 38% 15% 18% 37% 29% 9% 5% 14% 36% 32% 22% 33% 13% 84% 10% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% 10MB 51 32 20 9 11 13 17 4 3 5 18 22 10 10 9 46 4 1 1 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 62% 38% 18% 21% 26% 34% 8% 5% 10% 36% 42% 20% 19% 18% 90% 8% 1% 1% 16MB 30 19 11 7 8 9 5 4 3 3 10 11 12 2 5 27 1 1 * 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% *% 1% 2% *% 1% *% m 63% 37% 23% 28% 31% 17% 13% 9% 11% 34% 37% 41% 6% 16% 91% 3% 5% 1% 20MB 56 44 12 9 13 21 13 4 5 8 19 26 11 15 4 48 3 5 * 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 5% *% b ln n r r 79% 21% 16% 23% 38% 23% 7% 8% 15% 35% 46% 20% 26% 8% 86% 6% 8% *% 24MB 37 19 18 1 10 17 8 2 1 3 18 14 11 9 3 32 2 2 * 2% 2% 2% *% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% c i 51% 49% 3% 27% 47% 23% 5% 3% 8% 49% 37% 29% 25% 9% 87% 7% 5% 1% 50MB 66 48 18 11 6 31 19 4 5 7 24 16 23 14 12 55 8 2 1 3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% b 73% 27% 16% 9% 47% 28% 6% 8% 11% 36% 24% 35% 21% 19% 84% 11% 3% 2% 100MB 28 22 6 1 6 13 8 1 3 3 11 11 6 7 4 17 9 2 * 1% 2% 1% *% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% b oqr 79% 21% 5% 20% 47% 28% 4% 11% 9% 38% 40% 20% 25% 14% 60% 33% 5% 1% Over 100MB 46 32 14 9 8 21 8 1 4 8 16 15 15 9 7 39 5 2 1 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% *% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% b 69% 31% 20% 18% 46% 16% 2% 9% 18% 35% 33% 34% 19% 15% 84% 10% 3% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe24 (Qe11A). Showcard What Is The Actual Speed Of Your Fixed Broadband Home Internet Connection? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Other 55 35 20 8 10 19 18 2 5 13 16 21 17 12 5 50 1 3 1 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% b p p 64% 36% 15% 17% 35% 33% 4% 9% 24% 28% 39% 30% 21% 10% 91% 2% 6% 1% TOTAL 512K+ 456 308 148 62 86 182 125 29 30 62 169 175 123 99 59 385 42 23 6 22% 30% 14% 21% 24% 23% 20% 18% 17% 20% 30% 27% 21% 21% 14% 22% 23% 23% 10% b ghi lmn n n r r r 68% 32% 14% 19% 40% 28% 6% 7% 14% 37% 38% 27% 22% 13% 84% 9% 5% 1% TOTAL 2MB+ 422 286 136 60 81 166 115 27 28 58 154 156 117 95 55 357 39 19 6 20% 28% 13% 20% 22% 21% 18% 16% 15% 19% 28% 24% 20% 20% 13% 20% 22% 19% 10% b ghi n n n r r r 68% 32% 14% 19% 39% 27% 6% 7% 14% 37% 37% 28% 22% 13% 85% 9% 5% 1% Don't know 1596 685 911 229 270 603 493 134 148 228 372 447 447 351 350 1331 140 75 50 76% 67% 84% 76% 74% 75% 77% 81% 81% 75% 67% 69% 76% 76% 84% 75% 76% 74% 89% a j j j k k klm opq 43% 57% 14% 17% 38% 31% 8% 9% 14% 23% 28% 28% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% 512K 5 - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 3 2 4 1 5 - *% -% -% 1% 1% -% *% 1% -% -% *% 1% *% *% *% -% o -% -% 23% 19% -% 18% 22% -% -% 56% 44% 79% 21% 100% -% 750K 6 2 - - - - - 2 - 1 5 1 4 2 6 * *% 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% 1% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 39% -% -% -% -% -% 31% -% 22% 84% 16% 69% 31% 94% 6% 1MB 13 - - - 1 - 3 2 * 3 7 6 10 3 9 4 1% -% -% -% 1% -% 2% 1% *% 1% *% 2% 1% *% 1% *% j -% -% -% 8% -% 26% 17% 3% 22% 50% 50% 80% 20% 70% 30% 1.5MB 9 - 1 3 1 1 - - - 1 4 5 6 4 7 2 *% -% *% 2% *% 1% -% -% -% *% *% 2% *% *% 1% *% j -% 13% 31% 8% 14% -% -% -% 11% 47% 53% 60% 40% 78% 22% 2MB 15 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 - 2 12 2 10 3 10 5 1% 1% *% 2% *% 1% *% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 10% 10% 26% 4% 7% 5% 14% -% 16% 83% 17% 70% 20% 65% 35% 3MB 12 - 1 3 1 1 3 2 * - 7 5 4 8 10 2 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 2% *% 1% 1% *% j l -% 12% 22% 12% 7% 22% 13% 4% -% 58% 42% 29% 71% 81% 19% 4MB 36 5 5 8 1 6 2 4 - - 24 12 26 10 22 14 2% 2% 2% 4% *% 4% 1% 2% -% -% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2% 1% dfhi dhi j 14% 14% 22% 2% 17% 4% 10% -% -% 66% 34% 73% 27% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% 8MB 45 8 8 4 5 4 4 2 1 2 35 9 28 16 28 17 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 17% 18% 9% 10% 9% 9% 5% 2% 4% 79% 21% 63% 35% 61% 39% 10MB 51 7 5 6 7 8 3 3 1 5 43 8 37 14 28 23 2% 3% 2% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% h h 14% 10% 11% 14% 16% 7% 7% 1% 10% 84% 16% 72% 28% 54% 46% 16MB 30 4 4 4 5 2 2 4 2 2 29 1 23 7 18 12 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% 2% 1% 14% 12% 12% 15% 6% 7% 13% 5% 6% 96% 4% 75% 25% 60% 40% 20MB 56 13 4 7 5 2 8 2 3 4 50 6 45 10 31 25 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 1% 4% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% bg m 23% 7% 12% 9% 4% 14% 3% 6% 7% 89% 11% 81% 19% 56% 44% 24MB 37 4 6 3 2 2 10 1 1 3 26 11 26 11 26 11 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% *% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 1% 2% 1% gh j 11% 17% 9% 6% 6% 26% 2% 2% 8% 70% 30% 69% 31% 69% 31% 50MB 66 1 15 6 2 6 7 4 5 9 59 7 44 21 36 30 3% 1% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% a ad a 2% 23% 10% 3% 9% 10% 6% 7% 14% 90% 10% 68% 32% 54% 46% 100MB 28 2 4 - 1 - 2 4 2 2 26 2 23 5 9 19 1% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% ce ce n 7% 13% -% 5% -% 6% 14% 8% 8% 93% 7% 81% 19% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE24 (QE11A). SHOWCARD What is the actual speed of your fixed broadband home internet connection? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Over 100MB 46 9 7 3 2 2 3 3 1 8 43 4 34 11 21 26 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 3% 19% 16% 6% 4% 4% 7% 7% 3% 17% 92% 8% 74% 24% 45% 55% Other 55 - 4 6 5 3 6 12 1 14 43 12 37 19 40 15 3% -% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 7% 1% 6% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% a a a abeh abh o -% 7% 10% 8% 6% 12% 23% 1% 24% 79% 21% 66% 34% 73% 27% TOTAL 512K+ 456 57 62 52 34 36 48 36 16 42 373 83 325 127 265 191 22% 23% 19% 27% 23% 21% 23% 21% 20% 19% 21% 28% 24% 17% 22% 21% j m 13% 14% 11% 8% 8% 11% 8% 4% 9% 82% 18% 71% 28% 58% 42% TOTAL 2MB+ 422 55 61 48 32 35 44 30 16 37 354 68 301 118 237 184 20% 22% 19% 25% 21% 20% 21% 18% 20% 16% 20% 23% 22% 15% 20% 20% i m 13% 14% 11% 7% 8% 10% 7% 4% 9% 84% 16% 71% 28% 56% 44% Don't know 1596 195 254 135 108 130 153 121 63 171 1389 207 975 617 884 711 76% 77% 79% 70% 73% 77% 74% 72% 79% 75% 77% 69% 73% 81% 74% 78% c k l 12% 16% 8% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe25 (Qe11C). Do You Know How To Find Out What Speeds You Are Getting On Your Computer At Home? (Single Code) Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2840 1359 1481 433 490 1015 902 282 278 396 596 716 922 607 593 1745 364 370 361 Effective Weighted Sample 1962 946 1017 289 328 706 647 203 188 285 449 524 631 425 400 1512 235 230 275 Total 2157 1057 1100 313 380 817 647 176 190 313 565 648 602 475 431 1810 185 104 58 49% 51% 15% 18% 38% 30% 8% 9% 15% 26% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 753 478 274 117 146 287 203 48 46 112 251 268 221 153 111 640 55 47 11 35% 45% 25% 37% 39% 35% 31% 27% 24% 36% 44% 41% 37% 32% 26% 35% 30% 45% 19% b f gh ghi mn n n r r opr 64% 36% 16% 19% 38% 27% 6% 6% 15% 33% 36% 29% 20% 15% 85% 7% 6% 1% No 1131 456 675 161 197 420 353 104 119 170 286 317 312 252 249 959 88 51 34 52% 43% 61% 52% 52% 51% 55% 59% 63% 54% 51% 49% 52% 53% 58% 53% 47% 49% 59% a j k pq 40% 60% 14% 17% 37% 31% 9% 11% 15% 25% 28% 28% 22% 22% 85% 8% 4% 3% Don't know 273 123 150 35 36 110 91 24 24 31 28 63 69 70 70 211 42 7 13 13% 12% 14% 11% 10% 14% 14% 14% 13% 10% 5% 10% 12% 15% 16% 12% 23% 7% 23% d j j j k kl q oq oq 45% 55% 13% 13% 40% 33% 9% 9% 11% 10% 23% 25% 25% 26% 77% 16% 3% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE25 (QE11C). Do you know how to find out what speeds you are getting on your computer at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who use broadband to connect to the internet at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2840 184 224 212 192 175 202 186 174 196 2060 780 1635 1197 1435 1405 Effective Weighted Sample 1962 166 212 203 181 163 192 174 162 180 1617 372 1143 843 1012 973 Total 2157 258 325 197 149 171 209 176 82 242 1851 305 1370 779 1216 940 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Yes 753 66 104 78 49 57 100 66 32 88 627 126 520 229 434 319 35% 26% 32% 40% 33% 34% 48% 37% 39% 36% 34% 41% 38% 29% 36% 34% a abdegi a a a j m 9% 14% 10% 7% 8% 13% 9% 4% 12% 83% 17% 69% 30% 58% 42% No 1131 172 185 106 73 79 99 84 39 121 989 142 696 433 621 510 52% 67% 57% 54% 49% 46% 47% 48% 48% 50% 53% 47% 51% 56% 51% 54% bcdefghi e k l 15% 16% 9% 6% 7% 9% 7% 3% 11% 87% 13% 62% 38% 55% 45% Don't know 273 20 37 13 27 35 10 26 11 32 236 37 153 118 161 112 13% 8% 11% 7% 18% 20% 5% 15% 13% 13% 13% 12% 11% 15% 13% 12% f abcf abcf acf cf cf l 7% 13% 5% 10% 13% 4% 10% 4% 12% 86% 14% 56% 43% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Base for % | 110 | 60 | 50 | 21 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very satisfied | 39 | ** | ** | ** | | 36% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly satisfied | 57 | ** | ** | ** | | 52% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 96 | ** | ** | ** | | 87% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Neither | | | | | | 7 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 7% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly dissatisfied | 3 | ** | ** | ** | | 3% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very dissatisfied | 3 | ** | ** | ** | | 3% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 7 | ** | ** | ** | | 6% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | 8 | ** | ** | ** | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very satisfied 39 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly satisfied 57 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 52% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL SATISFIED 96 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Neither 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly dissatisfied 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very dissatisfied 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL DISSATISFIED 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26A (Qe8Aa). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | ~e | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Base for % | 110 | 60 | 50 | 21 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very satisfied | 38 | ** | ** | ** | | 34% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly satisfied | | | | | | 54 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 49% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 91 | ** | ** | ** | | 83% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Neither | 10 | ** | ** | ** | | 9% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly dissatisfied | 5 | ** | ** | ** | | 4% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very dissatisfied | | | | | | 4 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 4% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 9 | ** | ** | ** | | 8% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those In A Household With Mobile Broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | ~e | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | 8 | ** | ** | ** | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very satisfied 38 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 34% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly satisfied 54 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 49% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL SATISFIED 91 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Neither 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly dissatisfied 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very dissatisfied 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL DISSATISFIED 9 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26B (Qe8Ab). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Base for % | 110 | 60 | 50 | 21 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very satisfied | 47 | ** | ** | ** | | 43% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly satisfied | 46 | ** | ** | ** | | 42% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 93 | ** | ** | ** | | 85% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Neither | | | | | | 11 | ** | ** | ** | ** | | 10% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Fairly dissatisfied | 4 | ** | ** | ** | | 3% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Very dissatisfied | 2 | ** | ** | ** | | 2% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 6 | ** | ** | ** | | 5% | ** | ** | ** | ** | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | ~a | ~b | ~c | ~d | | Unweighted total | 142 | 75 | 67 | 37 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 96 | 51 | 45 | 23 | | Total | 118 | 63 | 55 | 23 | | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | | Don't know | 8 | ** | ** | ** | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Base for % 110 14 10 12 7 5 5 7 3 32 97 13 82 28 60 49 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very satisfied 47 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 43% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly satisfied 46 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 42% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL SATISFIED 93 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Neither 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Fairly dissatisfied 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Very dissatisfied 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** TOTAL DISSATISFIED 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe26C (Qe8Ac). Showcard Thinking About Your Mobile Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with mobile broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 142 8 7 14 8 7 6 10 7 25 103 39 88 53 73 69 Effective Weighted Sample 96 8 7 13 8 6 6 9 7 22 81 17 65 34 48 51 Total 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% A lot faster 108 57 51 12 29 42 26 14 12 11 35 32 28 26 23 84 14 6 5 5% 6% 5% 4% 8% 5% 4% 9% 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 9% f i o 53% 47% 11% 26% 39% 24% 13% 11% 10% 32% 30% 26% 24% 21% 77% 12% 6% 4% A little faster 228 107 121 33 46 86 63 23 16 43 62 72 58 59 39 194 20 7 7 11% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 10% 14% 9% 14% 11% 11% 10% 13% 9% 11% 11% 7% 13% q q 47% 53% 15% 20% 38% 28% 10% 7% 19% 27% 32% 25% 26% 17% 85% 9% 3% 3% TOTAL FASTER 336 164 172 45 74 128 88 37 28 55 98 104 86 85 61 278 33 13 12 16% 16% 16% 15% 20% 16% 14% 22% 15% 18% 18% 16% 15% 18% 15% 16% 18% 13% 21% f oq 49% 51% 13% 22% 38% 26% 11% 8% 16% 29% 31% 25% 25% 18% 83% 10% 4% 4% About the same 1116 551 565 160 208 429 318 83 100 163 289 337 319 225 234 925 114 53 23 53% 54% 52% 54% 57% 53% 50% 50% 55% 54% 52% 52% 54% 49% 57% 52% 63% 52% 41% f m r oqr r 49% 51% 14% 19% 38% 28% 7% 9% 15% 26% 30% 29% 20% 21% 83% 10% 5% 2% A little slower 258 137 121 33 33 108 84 21 21 36 77 93 77 50 37 224 14 16 4 12% 13% 11% 11% 9% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 14% 15% 13% 11% 9% 13% 7% 16% 7% d d n n pr pr 53% 47% 13% 13% 42% 33% 8% 8% 14% 30% 36% 30% 20% 14% 87% 5% 6% 1% A lot slower 147 70 77 15 21 61 51 5 12 18 51 53 38 33 22 125 10 10 3 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 8% 8% 3% 7% 6% 9% 8% 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 10% 5% g r 48% 52% 10% 14% 41% 34% 3% 8% 12% 34% 36% 26% 23% 15% 85% 7% 7% 2% TOTAL SLOWER 405 207 198 48 54 169 135 26 34 54 128 147 115 84 59 349 23 27 6 19% 20% 18% 16% 15% 21% 21% 15% 18% 18% 23% 23% 20% 18% 14% 20% 13% 26% 11% d d g n n pr opr 51% 49% 12% 13% 42% 33% 6% 8% 13% 32% 36% 28% 21% 15% 86% 6% 7% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 250 107 143 47 30 77 96 21 21 31 42 55 67 68 59 214 12 9 15 12% 10% 13% 16% 8% 10% 15% 13% 12% 10% 8% 9% 11% 15% 14% 12% 7% 9% 26% de de j k k p opq 43% 57% 19% 12% 31% 38% 8% 9% 13% 17% 22% 27% 27% 24% 86% 5% 4% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% A lot faster 108 5 7 14 9 16 11 6 8 8 93 15 71 37 47 61 5% 2% 2% 7% 6% 10% 5% 4% 10% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% ab b abgi abgi n 5% 6% 13% 8% 15% 10% 6% 7% 8% 86% 14% 66% 34% 43% 57% A little faster 228 22 27 27 16 21 30 16 12 24 189 38 155 72 119 109 11% 9% 8% 14% 11% 12% 14% 10% 15% 11% 10% 13% 12% 9% 10% 12% 10% 12% 12% 7% 9% 13% 7% 5% 11% 83% 17% 68% 32% 52% 48% TOTAL FASTER 336 27 34 41 25 37 40 22 19 32 283 53 227 109 166 170 16% 11% 10% 21% 17% 22% 19% 13% 24% 14% 16% 18% 17% 14% 14% 19% abg abg ab abgi n 8% 10% 12% 7% 11% 12% 7% 6% 10% 84% 16% 67% 33% 49% 51% About the same 1116 173 178 95 76 83 93 69 37 121 990 126 731 380 604 512 53% 69% 56% 50% 51% 49% 45% 41% 46% 53% 55% 42% 55% 50% 51% 56% bcdefghi fg g g k m n 16% 16% 9% 7% 7% 8% 6% 3% 11% 89% 11% 65% 34% 54% 46% A little slower 258 25 36 28 20 15 35 21 11 34 215 43 160 98 160 98 12% 10% 11% 15% 14% 9% 17% 12% 13% 15% 12% 14% 12% 13% 13% 11% e 10% 14% 11% 8% 6% 13% 8% 4% 13% 83% 17% 62% 38% 62% 38% A lot slower 147 6 20 14 8 13 19 19 4 22 100 48 97 50 101 47 7% 2% 6% 7% 5% 8% 9% 11% 5% 10% 6% 16% 7% 7% 8% 5% a a a adh a j o 4% 13% 9% 5% 9% 13% 13% 3% 15% 68% 32% 66% 34% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe27 (Qe12). Showcard Thinking About The Speed Of Your Household'S Fixed Broadband Internet, Is This Faster, Slower Or About The Same As You Expected It To Be When You First Got It? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL SLOWER 405 30 56 42 28 28 54 40 15 56 315 91 257 148 261 145 19% 12% 18% 22% 19% 17% 26% 23% 18% 25% 17% 30% 19% 19% 22% 16% a abe a a j o 7% 14% 10% 7% 7% 13% 10% 4% 14% 78% 22% 63% 37% 64% 36% Don't know 250 22 52 14 18 21 20 38 9 18 218 32 122 126 160 90 12% 9% 16% 7% 13% 13% 10% 23% 11% 8% 12% 11% 9% 16% 13% 10% aci acdefhi l o 9% 21% 6% 7% 8% 8% 15% 4% 7% 87% 13% 49% 50% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2774 | 1323 | 1451 | 410 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1919 | 921 | 999 | 276 | | Total | 2107 | 1029 | 1078 | 300 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | Base for % | 2069 | 1007 | 1062 | 296 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 18% | 38% | | Very satisfied | 887 | 421 | 467 | 146 | | 43% | 42% | 44% | 50% | 43% | | ef | ij | j | j | k | | 47% | 53% | 16% | 18% | 36% | | Fairly satisfied | 915 | 457 | 459 | 127 | | 44% | 45% | 43% | 43% | 48% | | g | ghi | oqr | | | | 50% | 50% | 14% | 19% | 39% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 1803 | 877 | 925 | 273 | | 87% | 87% | 87% | 93% | 91% | | ef | ef | k | q | | | 49% | 51% | 15% | 18% | 38% | | Neither | | | | | | 122 | 60 | 62 | 9 | 15 | | 6% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 4% | | cde | gj | p | | | | 49% | 51% | 8% | 13% | 33% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 85 | 44 | 41 | 7 | | 4% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 3% | | 52% | 48% | 8% | 15% | 47% | | Very dissatisfied | 60 | 27 | 33 | 6 | | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 1% | | d | n | | | | | 44% | 56% | 10% | 9% | 49% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 145 71 75 13 18 69 45 11 9 24 41 58 38 29 20 123 9 9 3 7% 7% 7% 4% 5% 9% 7% 7% 5% 8% 7% 9% 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 9% 6% cd n 49% 51% 9% 12% 48% 31% 8% 6% 16% 28% 40% 26% 20% 13% 85% 6% 6% 2% Don't know 38 21 17 4 2 12 20 6 4 2 5 6 6 13 13 32 4 2 * Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2069 251 315 188 145 165 203 165 78 224 1772 297 1319 743 1166 903 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 887 65 158 83 75 77 72 81 35 116 789 98 547 338 481 407 43% 26% 50% 44% 52% 46% 35% 49% 45% 52% 45% 33% 41% 45% 41% 45% af a af af af a af k 7% 18% 9% 8% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 89% 11% 62% 38% 54% 46% Fairly satisfied 915 165 128 70 51 71 91 58 34 75 801 114 610 301 506 409 44% 66% 41% 37% 35% 43% 45% 35% 43% 33% 45% 38% 46% 40% 43% 45% bcdefghi i k m 18% 14% 8% 6% 8% 10% 6% 4% 8% 88% 12% 67% 33% 55% 45% TOTAL SATISFIED 1803 231 287 153 127 148 163 139 69 190 1590 213 1157 638 987 816 87% 92% 91% 81% 88% 90% 80% 84% 88% 85% 90% 72% 88% 86% 85% 90% cfgi cfg cf f k n 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 64% 35% 55% 45% Neither 122 13 12 20 8 6 23 9 3 10 90 31 62 60 83 39 6% 5% 4% 11% 5% 4% 11% 6% 4% 4% 5% 11% 5% 8% 7% 4% behi abdehi j l o 11% 10% 17% 6% 5% 19% 8% 3% 8% 74% 26% 51% 49% 68% 32% Fairly dissatisfied 85 4 10 9 7 6 9 8 3 15 59 27 51 34 53 32 4% 2% 3% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% 9% 4% 5% 5% 4% a j 5% 12% 10% 8% 7% 10% 9% 4% 17% 69% 31% 60% 40% 63% 37% Very dissatisfied 60 3 6 6 3 5 8 9 2 9 34 26 48 11 43 17 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4% 2% 9% 4% 2% 4% 2% ab j m o 5% 10% 10% 6% 8% 14% 16% 4% 15% 56% 44% 81% 19% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28A (Qe8A). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Overall Service Provided By Main Provider. (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 145 7 16 15 10 11 17 17 6 24 92 53 100 45 97 49 7% 3% 5% 8% 7% 6% 8% 10% 7% 11% 5% 18% 8% 6% 8% 5% a a a ab j o 5% 11% 10% 7% 7% 12% 12% 4% 17% 64% 36% 69% 31% 67% 33% Don't know 38 2 5 4 2 5 5 4 2 3 33 5 18 20 24 14 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2774 | 1323 | 1451 | 410 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1919 | 921 | 999 | 276 | | Total | 2107 | 1029 | 1078 | 300 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | Base for % | 2064 | 1008 | 1056 | 296 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 18% | 38% | | Very satisfied | 822 | 392 | 430 | 136 | | 40% | 39% | 41% | 46% | 43% | | ef | ij | j | j | k | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 19% | 36% | | Fairly satisfied | 861 | 436 | 426 | 132 | | 42% | 43% | 40% | 44% | 42% | | ghi | oqr | | | | | 51% | 49% | 15% | 18% | 39% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 1684 | 828 | 856 | 268 | | 82% | 82% | 81% | 90% | 85% | | def | f | k | kl | q | | 49% | 51% | 16% | 18% | 38% | | Neither | | | | | | 160 | 74 | 86 | 11 | 25 | | 8% | 7% | 8% | 4% | 7% | | c | c | j | n | | | 46% | 54% | 7% | 16% | 39% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 126 | 62 | 63 | 10 | | 6% | 6% | 6% | 3% | 6% | | c | h | mn | n | r | | 50% | 50% | 8% | 16% | 40% | | Very dissatisfied | 95 | 44 | 51 | 7 | | 5% | 4% | 5% | 2% | 3% | | cd | c | l | | | | 46% | 54% | 8% | 10% | 47% | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2774 | 1323 | 1451 | 410 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1919 | 921 | 999 | 276 | | Total | 2107 | 1029 | 1078 | 300 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 221 | 106 | 114 | 17 | | 11% | 11% | 11% | 6% | 8% | | c | cd | mn | pr | | | 48% | 52% | 8% | 14% | 43% | | Don't know | 43 | 21 | 22 | 3 | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2064 251 315 188 145 163 203 164 78 223 1770 295 1316 741 1163 902 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 822 69 147 68 66 64 71 71 38 105 731 91 509 310 437 385 40% 27% 47% 36% 46% 39% 35% 43% 49% 47% 41% 31% 39% 42% 38% 43% acf af a a acf acf k n 8% 18% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 5% 13% 89% 11% 62% 38% 53% 47% Fairly satisfied 861 151 121 73 54 74 84 64 26 65 769 93 571 286 462 399 42% 60% 38% 39% 37% 45% 41% 39% 33% 29% 43% 31% 43% 39% 40% 44% bcdefghi hi i k m n 18% 14% 8% 6% 9% 10% 7% 3% 8% 89% 11% 66% 33% 54% 46% TOTAL SATISFIED 1684 220 269 140 120 138 155 134 64 170 1500 184 1080 597 899 784 82% 88% 85% 74% 83% 84% 76% 82% 82% 76% 85% 62% 82% 81% 77% 87% cfi cfi c c k n 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 89% 11% 64% 35% 53% 47% Neither 160 20 18 24 10 9 23 8 4 16 123 38 95 65 114 46 8% 8% 6% 13% 7% 5% 11% 5% 5% 7% 7% 13% 7% 9% 10% 5% begh begh j o 13% 11% 15% 6% 5% 14% 5% 2% 10% 77% 23% 59% 41% 71% 29% Fairly dissatisfied 126 7 20 13 9 7 11 10 8 22 93 32 74 52 81 44 6% 3% 6% 7% 6% 4% 5% 6% 10% 10% 5% 11% 6% 7% 7% 5% ae ae j 6% 16% 11% 7% 5% 9% 8% 6% 17% 74% 26% 59% 41% 65% 35% Very dissatisfied 95 3 9 11 6 10 15 11 2 15 54 41 68 27 68 28 5% 1% 3% 6% 4% 6% 7% 7% 3% 7% 3% 14% 5% 4% 6% 3% a a ab a a j o 3% 9% 12% 6% 11% 15% 12% 2% 16% 57% 43% 72% 28% 71% 29% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28B (Qe8B). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Speed Of Your Service While Online (Not Just The Connection)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 221 10 28 24 15 17 25 22 10 37 147 73 142 79 149 72 11% 4% 9% 13% 10% 10% 12% 13% 13% 16% 8% 25% 11% 11% 13% 8% a a a a a a ab j o 5% 13% 11% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% 17% 67% 33% 64% 36% 67% 33% Don't know 43 2 5 4 2 6 5 5 2 5 36 7 20 22 27 15 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2774 | 1323 | 1451 | 410 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1919 | 921 | 999 | 276 | | Total | 2107 | 1029 | 1078 | 300 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | Base for % | 2068 | 1008 | 1060 | 296 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 18% | 38% | | Very satisfied | 892 | 422 | 470 | 137 | | 43% | 42% | 44% | 46% | 43% | | ij | j | k | p | p | | 47% | 53% | 15% | 18% | 38% | | Fairly satisfied | 857 | 432 | 425 | 128 | | 41% | 43% | 40% | 43% | 43% | | gh | oqr | | | | | 50% | 50% | 15% | 18% | 37% | | TOTAL SATISFIED | 1749 | 854 | 895 | 265 | | 85% | 85% | 84% | 89% | 86% | | ef | kl | q | q | q | | 49% | 51% | 15% | 18% | 37% | | Neither | | | | | | 147 | 67 | 80 | 11 | 24 | | 7% | 7% | 8% | 4% | 7% | | c | c | n | opr | | | 45% | 55% | 7% | 16% | 44% | | Fairly dissatisfied | 107 | 59 | 48 | 15 | | 5% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 5% | | n | r | | | | | 55% | 45% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | Very dissatisfied | 66 | 29 | 37 | 6 | | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | | 43% | 57% | 9% | 12% | 47% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2774 | 1323 | 1451 | 410 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1919 | 921 | 999 | 276 | | Total | 2107 | 1029 | 1078 | 300 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 17% | 38% | | TOTAL DISSATISFIED | 172 | 87 | 85 | 21 | | 8% | 9% | 8% | 7% | 7% | | n | | | | | | 51% | 49% | 12% | 15% | 41% | | Don't know | 39 | 21 | 19 | 3 | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Base for % 2068 251 315 188 145 163 203 165 78 224 1772 295 1317 744 1165 902 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Very satisfied 892 81 156 75 74 71 75 79 40 105 802 90 555 333 473 419 43% 32% 49% 40% 52% 44% 37% 48% 51% 47% 45% 30% 42% 45% 41% 46% af acf a af acf a k n 9% 17% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 4% 12% 90% 10% 62% 37% 53% 47% Fairly satisfied 857 146 120 74 46 71 85 63 26 75 727 129 559 295 489 367 41% 58% 38% 39% 32% 43% 42% 38% 33% 33% 41% 44% 42% 40% 42% 41% bcdefghi d d 17% 14% 9% 5% 8% 10% 7% 3% 9% 85% 15% 65% 34% 57% 43% TOTAL SATISFIED 1749 226 276 149 121 142 160 143 66 179 1530 219 1113 628 962 786 85% 90% 88% 79% 83% 87% 79% 86% 85% 80% 86% 74% 85% 84% 83% 87% cfi cf cf k n 13% 16% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 64% 36% 55% 45% Neither 147 16 20 20 8 7 20 7 5 20 121 26 88 60 92 55 7% 6% 6% 11% 6% 4% 10% 4% 6% 9% 7% 9% 7% 8% 8% 6% eg g 11% 13% 14% 5% 5% 14% 5% 3% 14% 82% 18% 60% 40% 63% 37% Fairly dissatisfied 107 4 14 12 9 6 16 10 5 15 80 27 65 41 69 37 5% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 8% 6% 7% 7% 4% 9% 5% 6% 6% 4% a a a a a a j 4% 13% 11% 8% 5% 15% 9% 5% 14% 75% 25% 61% 39% 65% 35% Very dissatisfied 66 4 6 8 7 8 7 6 2 9 42 24 50 15 41 24 3% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 2% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3% j m 6% 10% 12% 11% 12% 11% 9% 3% 14% 64% 36% 77% 23% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe28C (Qe8C). Showcard Thinking About Your Fixed Broadband Internet Service, Please Use This Card To Say How Satisfied You Are With Your Main Supplier For... The Reliability Of The Service From Main Provider? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% TOTAL DISSATISFIED 172 8 20 19 16 13 23 16 7 24 121 51 116 56 111 61 8% 3% 6% 10% 11% 8% 11% 10% 9% 11% 7% 17% 9% 8% 10% 7% a a a a a a j o 5% 12% 11% 9% 8% 13% 9% 4% 14% 71% 29% 67% 33% 64% 36% Don't know 39 2 5 4 2 6 5 4 2 3 33 6 20 19 25 15 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe29 (Qe35). Read Out Description Of Wireless Router. Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Use A Fixed Wireless Internet Connection At Home (Wi-Fi)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2774 1323 1451 410 474 999 891 262 271 385 590 712 899 589 572 1701 357 363 353 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 921 999 276 317 696 638 190 183 276 444 522 617 412 387 1477 231 227 269 Total 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 92% 94% 91% 96% 98% 96% 95% 96% 93% 95% 91% 96% 93% f f h ghi n p p 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% No 56 26 30 7 8 17 24 7 12 11 3 11 17 13 15 40 11 3 3 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 4% *% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 6% 3% 6% j j j o o 46% 54% 13% 14% 30% 44% 12% 21% 19% 5% 20% 30% 24% 26% 70% 19% 5% 6% Don't know 50 22 28 7 5 12 26 2 5 2 6 15 11 7 16 41 6 2 1 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% de m 43% 57% 14% 11% 24% 52% 5% 10% 4% 13% 31% 22% 14% 32% 83% 12% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe29 (Qe35). Read Out Description Of Wireless Router. Do You Or Anyone In Your Household Use A Fixed Wireless Internet Connection At Home (Wi-Fi)? (Single Code) Base : Those in a household with fixed broadband ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2774 181 221 207 189 173 201 176 170 183 2008 766 1598 1168 1408 1366 Effective Weighted Sample 1919 163 209 199 178 162 191 165 158 169 1578 367 1116 826 994 945 Total 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Yes 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 95% 97% 96% 99% 91% 95% 97% 96% 88% 95% 95% 96% 96% 93% 94% 96% dh h dhi h dh h h m 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% No 56 3 8 2 2 4 4 5 6 5 51 5 26 30 34 23 3% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2% abcdefi l 6% 14% 3% 3% 7% 7% 9% 11% 9% 90% 10% 47% 53% 60% 40% Don't know 50 5 6 1 11 4 3 2 3 7 44 6 25 24 34 16 2% 2% 2% 1% 7% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% abcefg c 9% 12% 2% 22% 7% 5% 4% 7% 14% 88% 12% 49% 48% 68% 32% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2620 1254 1366 390 457 965 808 244 248 372 579 681 851 561 526 1613 331 343 333 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 875 941 262 306 672 583 178 166 267 437 499 585 393 357 1406 212 215 256 Total 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% Laptop 1443 700 743 217 254 583 389 97 104 202 458 489 404 311 238 1223 122 66 32 72% 71% 73% 76% 72% 75% 66% 62% 62% 69% 83% 79% 72% 70% 62% 73% 73% 68% 60% f f ghi lmn n n r r 49% 51% 15% 18% 40% 27% 7% 7% 14% 32% 34% 28% 22% 17% 85% 8% 5% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 1271 596 675 186 241 530 314 83 97 190 405 410 366 295 200 1064 99 72 37 64% 61% 66% 65% 68% 68% 53% 53% 58% 66% 74% 66% 65% 67% 52% 63% 60% 74% 70% a f f f g ghi n n n op op 47% 53% 15% 19% 42% 25% 7% 8% 15% 32% 32% 29% 23% 16% 84% 8% 6% 3% Smartphone 1267 599 668 223 280 534 231 89 95 187 397 377 367 279 245 1059 109 58 41 63% 61% 66% 78% 79% 69% 39% 57% 57% 64% 73% 61% 66% 63% 64% 63% 66% 59% 78% a ef ef f ghi opq 47% 53% 18% 22% 42% 18% 7% 7% 15% 31% 30% 29% 22% 19% 84% 9% 5% 3% Desktop PC 536 296 241 79 61 203 194 32 42 78 167 191 166 99 80 469 36 26 5 27% 30% 24% 28% 17% 26% 33% 21% 25% 27% 30% 31% 30% 22% 21% 28% 22% 26% 10% b d d de g mn mn r r r 55% 45% 15% 11% 38% 36% 6% 8% 14% 31% 36% 31% 18% 15% 88% 7% 5% 1% Games console 434 218 216 106 102 200 26 23 44 64 141 116 114 113 90 355 46 24 9 22% 22% 21% 37% 29% 26% 4% 14% 26% 22% 26% 19% 20% 26% 23% 21% 28% 24% 18% def f f g g g k or 50% 50% 24% 23% 46% 6% 5% 10% 15% 33% 27% 26% 26% 21% 82% 11% 5% 2% TV set 325 165 160 52 65 122 86 19 33 51 123 116 78 72 59 272 18 30 5 16% 17% 16% 18% 18% 16% 15% 12% 20% 17% 22% 19% 14% 16% 15% 16% 11% 31% 9% g l pr opr 51% 49% 16% 20% 38% 26% 6% 10% 16% 38% 36% 24% 22% 18% 84% 5% 9% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2620 1254 1366 390 457 965 808 244 248 372 579 681 851 561 526 1613 331 343 333 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 875 941 262 306 672 583 178 166 267 437 499 585 393 357 1406 212 215 256 Total 2001 981 1020 286 353 776 587 157 167 290 548 617 559 441 384 1685 166 98 52 49% 51% 14% 18% 39% 29% 8% 8% 15% 27% 31% 28% 22% 19% 84% 8% 5% 3% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 293 131 162 43 42 120 88 11 16 36 101 114 83 67 29 254 16 18 4 15% 13% 16% 15% 12% 15% 15% 7% 10% 12% 18% 18% 15% 15% 8% 15% 10% 19% 8% ghi n n n pr pr 45% 55% 15% 14% 41% 30% 4% 6% 12% 34% 39% 28% 23% 10% 87% 5% 6% 1% Netbook 127 62 65 25 15 62 25 6 15 16 45 49 31 28 19 110 8 7 1 6% 6% 6% 9% 4% 8% 4% 4% 9% 6% 8% 8% 6% 6% 5% 7% 5% 8% 3% df df r r 49% 51% 20% 12% 49% 20% 5% 12% 13% 36% 39% 25% 22% 15% 87% 6% 6% 1% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) 69 35 33 13 14 33 10 * 3 9 27 23 17 17 11 61 2 4 1 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% *% 2% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 1% 4% 2% f f f g g 52% 48% 18% 20% 48% 14% 1% 5% 13% 40% 34% 25% 25% 16% 89% 3% 6% 2% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 39 24 14 8 6 18 6 * 4 1 17 16 9 9 5 33 2 3 * 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% *% 2% *% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% gi r 63% 37% 20% 16% 47% 17% 1% 10% 4% 45% 42% 23% 23% 12% 86% 4% 9% 1% None of these 16 6 11 1 1 3 11 1 2 1 2 * 3 6 8 14 1 * * 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% 2% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% 1% e k kl 35% 65% 6% 8% 17% 70% 9% 13% 7% 10% 1% 18% 35% 46% 89% 7% 2% 3% Don't know 13 8 4 1 - 8 4 - 1 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 * * - 1% 1% *% *% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% 2% 1% *% *% -% kl 65% 35% 8% -% 62% 29% -% 10% 16% 8% 15% 12% 18% 55% 94% 2% 4% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Mean number of types of devices 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.6 def f f g g ghi n n n r opr Standard deviation 1.68 1.72 1.64 1.78 1.51 1.76 1.47 1.32 1.58 1.58 1.76 1.76 1.67 1.62 1.59 1.69 1.47 1.95 1.42 Standard error .03 .05 .04 .09 .07 .06 .05 .08 .10 .08 .07 .07 .06 .07 .07 .04 .08 .11 .08 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2620 175 210 204 173 165 194 169 148 175 1892 728 1533 1080 1325 1295 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 158 198 196 162 154 185 159 138 162 1490 350 1072 765 937 898 Total 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% Laptop 1443 220 214 142 86 107 152 116 43 143 1245 198 962 477 793 650 72% 90% 70% 75% 64% 66% 76% 71% 61% 67% 73% 68% 75% 67% 71% 74% bcdefghi dh dh m 15% 15% 10% 6% 7% 11% 8% 3% 10% 86% 14% 67% 33% 55% 45% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 1271 130 186 131 86 90 136 113 52 141 1075 197 875 392 739 532 64% 53% 61% 69% 64% 56% 67% 69% 74% 65% 63% 68% 68% 55% 66% 61% ae a ae ae abe a m o 10% 15% 10% 7% 7% 11% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 69% 31% 58% 42% Smartphone 1267 170 150 126 74 114 137 126 51 113 1089 179 903 361 676 591 63% 69% 49% 66% 55% 70% 68% 78% 72% 52% 64% 62% 70% 51% 60% 67% bdi bdi bdi bdi bcdfi bdi m n 13% 12% 10% 6% 9% 11% 10% 4% 9% 86% 14% 71% 28% 53% 47% Desktop PC 536 55 100 59 27 51 55 47 21 55 447 90 324 210 321 215 27% 23% 33% 31% 20% 32% 27% 29% 29% 26% 26% 31% 25% 30% 29% 25% ad d d l o 10% 19% 11% 5% 10% 10% 9% 4% 10% 83% 17% 60% 39% 60% 40% Games console 434 37 50 37 32 49 47 34 19 49 373 60 315 117 244 190 22% 15% 16% 19% 24% 30% 23% 21% 27% 23% 22% 21% 25% 17% 22% 22% abc ab m 9% 12% 8% 7% 11% 11% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 73% 27% 56% 44% TV set 325 13 24 41 24 24 50 62 15 18 245 79 231 94 188 136 16% 5% 8% 22% 18% 15% 25% 38% 21% 9% 14% 27% 18% 13% 17% 16% abi abi ab abei abcdefhi abi j m 4% 7% 13% 7% 8% 15% 19% 5% 6% 76% 24% 71% 29% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2620 175 210 204 173 165 194 169 148 175 1892 728 1533 1080 1325 1295 Effective Weighted Sample 1816 158 198 196 162 154 185 159 138 162 1490 350 1072 765 937 898 Total 2001 244 306 190 134 162 201 163 70 215 1711 290 1286 709 1123 878 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 56% 44% E-reader (e.g. Kindle) 293 17 42 31 21 41 37 38 8 18 231 62 200 93 198 95 15% 7% 14% 16% 15% 25% 19% 23% 12% 8% 13% 21% 16% 13% 18% 11% a ai a abcdhi ai abhi j o 6% 14% 11% 7% 14% 13% 13% 3% 6% 79% 21% 68% 32% 68% 32% Netbook 127 18 11 12 7 23 11 13 4 12 102 25 89 37 75 52 6% 7% 4% 6% 6% 14% 5% 8% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 5% 7% 6% bcdfhi 14% 9% 9% 6% 18% 8% 10% 3% 9% 80% 20% 70% 29% 59% 41% Other portable/ handheld device (e.g. portable games console/ iPod Touch) 69 3 2 13 3 14 10 4 4 8 54 14 53 16 44 25 3% 1% 1% 7% 2% 8% 5% 2% 6% 4% 3% 5% 4% 2% 4% 3% abdg abdg b ab b m 5% 3% 20% 4% 20% 15% 6% 6% 11% 80% 20% 77% 23% 64% 36% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 39 1 3 6 1 4 4 4 2 7 31 8 30 9 27 12 2% *% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 9% 14% 4% 12% 11% 12% 4% 18% 80% 20% 77% 23% 70% 30% None of these 16 2 4 4 1 1 - - - 3 14 2 10 7 8 8 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% f 10% 22% 25% 6% 9% -% -% -% 17% 87% 13% 59% 41% 51% 49% Don't know 13 - 5 1 2 - 1 1 - 2 10 2 8 5 8 5 1% -% 2% *% 2% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 40% 6% 17% -% 8% 8% -% 15% 81% 19% 62% 38% 62% 38% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe30 (Qe11D). Showcard How Many Of These Devices Does Your Household Connect To The Fixed Wireless Internet Connection (Wi-Fi)? (Multi Code) Base : Those using a wireless internet connection at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Mean number of types of devices 2.9 2.7 2.6 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 abdi abdi abdi abdi abdi j m Standard deviation 1.68 1.42 1.51 1.96 1.65 2.01 1.59 1.67 1.66 1.64 1.64 1.86 1.69 1.61 1.77 1.56 Standard error .03 .11 .10 .14 .13 .16 .11 .13 .14 .12 .04 .07 .04 .05 .05 .04 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe31 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without internet access at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o p ~q r Unweighted total 650 321 329 37 41 96 476 209 83 31 7 55 136 141 316 343 104 89 114 Effective Weighted Sample 397 185 212 25 25 60 287 129 51 20 3 37 82 81 200 286 62 54 87 Total 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 47% 53% ** ** ** 70% 30% ** ** ** ** 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% ** 3% Certain to 5 4 1 ** ** ** * 1 ** ** ** ** * 2 1 5 - ** - 1% 2% 1% ** ** ** *% 1% ** ** ** ** 1% 3% 1% 2% -% ** -% 74% 26% ** ** ** 2% 16% ** ** ** ** 8% 48% 16% 98% -% ** -% Very likely 8 6 2 ** ** ** 2 1 ** ** ** ** 3 2 3 7 * ** * 2% 4% 1% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% ** 4% 73% 27% ** ** ** 21% 13% ** ** ** ** 34% 24% 33% 85% 4% ** 5% Likely 29 13 17 ** ** ** 3 12 ** ** ** ** 7 5 14 24 2 ** * 8% 8% 9% ** ** ** 1% 12% ** ** ** ** 10% 7% 8% 9% 6% ** 4% 44% 56% ** ** ** 12% 42% ** ** ** ** 24% 18% 47% 83% 8% ** 2% TOTAL LIKELY 43 23 20 ** ** ** 5 14 ** ** ** ** 10 10 17 36 3 ** 1 12% 14% 11% ** ** ** 2% 13% ** ** ** ** 15% 12% 11% 13% 7% ** 7% 53% 47% ** ** ** 12% 33% ** ** ** ** 24% 23% 41% 85% 6% ** 2% Unlikely 37 16 21 ** ** ** 24 11 ** ** ** ** 5 10 18 29 3 ** 2 11% 10% 11% ** ** ** 10% 10% ** ** ** ** 8% 12% 11% 10% 8% ** 14% 43% 57% ** ** ** 67% 30% ** ** ** ** 15% 26% 50% 79% 8% ** 5% Very unlikely 43 21 22 ** ** ** 32 13 ** ** ** ** 13 10 18 30 8 ** 2 12% 13% 12% ** ** ** 13% 12% ** ** ** ** 18% 13% 11% 11% 22% ** 16% o 49% 51% ** ** ** 76% 30% ** ** ** ** 29% 24% 42% 71% 18% ** 5% Certain not to 186 83 103 ** ** ** 165 60 ** ** ** ** 36 37 91 151 19 ** 6 53% 51% 56% ** ** ** 68% 57% ** ** ** ** 52% 48% 56% 54% 54% ** 51% 44% 56% ** ** ** 89% 32% ** ** ** ** 19% 20% 49% 81% 10% ** 3% TOTAL UNLIKELY 266 120 146 ** ** ** 222 84 ** ** ** ** 54 57 127 211 29 ** 10 76% 73% 79% ** ** ** 91% 79% ** ** ** ** 77% 73% 78% 75% 84% ** 82% 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% 11% ** 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe31 (Qe24). Showcard How Likely Are You To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those without internet access at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o p ~q r Unweighted total 650 321 329 37 41 96 476 209 83 31 7 55 136 141 316 343 104 89 114 Effective Weighted Sample 397 185 212 25 25 60 287 129 51 20 3 37 82 81 200 286 62 54 87 Total 349 163 186 25 25 56 243 106 43 21 3 37 70 77 164 282 35 20 12 47% 53% ** ** ** 70% 30% ** ** ** ** 20% 22% 47% 81% 10% ** 3% Don't know 40 21 20 ** ** ** 16 8 ** ** ** ** 6 11 19 35 3 ** 1 12% 13% 11% ** ** ** 7% 7% ** ** ** ** 8% 14% 12% 12% 9% ** 11% 51% 49% ** ** ** 40% 19% ** ** ** ** 14% 27% 47% 86% 7% ** 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those without internet access at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 650 23 22 22 45 59 23 48 59 42 458 192 108 537 276 374 Effective Weighted Sample 397 19 21 21 41 54 22 42 54 39 336 69 66 336 160 246 Total 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% Certain to 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 3 4 1 3 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 7% 5% *% 2% 1% j m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 44% 56% 74% 19% 56% 44% Very likely 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8 * 3 5 3 5 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 95% 5% 42% 58% 34% 66% Likely 29 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 27 2 13 17 18 12 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9% 6% 17% 6% 11% 6% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% 43% 57% 60% 40% TOTAL LIKELY 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 37 6 20 22 23 20 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 12% 14% 26% 8% 14% 11% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 47% 52% 54% 46% Unlikely 37 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 33 4 11 26 19 17 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% 10% 14% 10% 12% 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% 11% 30% 70% 53% 47% Very unlikely 43 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 39 4 11 31 18 25 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13% 10% 15% 12% 11% 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 91% 9% 26% 74% 42% 58% Certain not to 186 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 162 25 18 167 84 102 53% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 52% 60% 24% 62% 51% 55% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 10% 90% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE31 (QE24). SHOWCARD How likely are you to get internet access at home in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those without internet access at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 650 23 22 22 45 59 23 48 59 42 458 192 108 537 276 374 Effective Weighted Sample 397 19 21 21 41 54 22 42 54 39 336 69 66 336 160 246 Total 349 29 28 19 30 50 22 35 25 43 308 41 76 270 163 185 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% 22% 78% 47% 53% TOTAL UNLIKELY 266 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 233 33 40 224 121 145 76% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76% 80% 53% 83% 74% 78% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% 15% 84% 46% 54% Don't know 40 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 38 2 16 24 19 21 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 12% 6% 21% 9% 12% 12% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% 40% 59% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** No need 175 80 95 ** ** ** 156 47 ** ** ** ** 37 38 77 141 ** ** ** 66% 67% 65% ** ** ** 71% 56% ** ** ** ** 69% 67% 60% 67% ** ** ** 46% 54% ** ** ** 90% 27% ** ** ** ** 21% 22% 44% 81% ** ** ** Don't want a computer 78 35 43 ** ** ** 71 28 ** ** ** ** 14 19 40 61 ** ** ** 30% 29% 30% ** ** ** 32% 33% ** ** ** ** 25% 34% 31% 29% ** ** ** 45% 55% ** ** ** 91% 35% ** ** ** ** 17% 24% 50% 77% ** ** ** Too old to use the internet 73 34 39 ** ** ** 71 19 ** ** ** ** 15 15 34 56 ** ** ** 27% 28% 27% ** ** ** 32% 23% ** ** ** ** 28% 26% 27% 27% ** ** ** 47% 53% ** ** ** 98% 26% ** ** ** ** 21% 20% 47% 78% ** ** ** Don't know how you use computers 64 32 31 ** ** ** 54 27 ** ** ** ** 11 14 37 49 ** ** ** 24% 27% 22% ** ** ** 24% 33% ** ** ** ** 19% 24% 29% 23% ** ** ** 51% 49% ** ** ** 84% 43% ** ** ** ** 17% 21% 59% 76% ** ** ** Too expensive to set up 35 16 20 ** ** ** 18 16 ** ** ** ** 5 5 23 25 ** ** ** 13% 13% 14% ** ** ** 8% 19% ** ** ** ** 10% 8% 18% 12% ** ** ** 44% 56% ** ** ** 51% 46% ** ** ** ** 15% 13% 65% 71% ** ** ** Computer is too expensive to buy 18 9 9 ** ** ** 15 10 ** ** ** ** 3 4 10 15 ** ** ** 7% 8% 6% ** ** ** 7% 11% ** ** ** ** 5% 7% 8% 7% ** ** ** 52% 48% ** ** ** 85% 53% ** ** ** ** 14% 22% 56% 84% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** Friends/ family member checks things on the internet for me 18 11 7 ** ** ** 17 5 ** ** ** ** 5 4 7 15 ** ** ** 7% 10% 5% ** ** ** 8% 6% ** ** ** ** 10% 7% 6% 7% ** ** ** 63% 37% ** ** ** 97% 29% ** ** ** ** 30% 21% 41% 85% ** ** ** Don't have a phone line 12 5 7 ** ** ** 6 4 ** ** ** ** 4 1 6 8 ** ** ** 4% 4% 5% ** ** ** 3% 5% ** ** ** ** 7% 3% 5% 4% ** ** ** 43% 57% ** ** ** 47% 35% ** ** ** ** 34% 12% 54% 69% ** ** ** Charges are too expensive 12 5 7 ** ** ** 8 5 ** ** ** ** 2 3 7 8 ** ** ** 4% 4% 5% ** ** ** 4% 6% ** ** ** ** 4% 6% 5% 4% ** ** ** 42% 58% ** ** ** 68% 44% ** ** ** ** 18% 26% 55% 65% ** ** ** Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 10 5 5 ** ** ** 4 4 ** ** ** ** 4 2 5 9 ** ** ** 4% 5% 3% ** ** ** 2% 4% ** ** ** ** 7% 3% 4% 4% ** ** ** 54% 46% ** ** ** 44% 36% ** ** ** ** 37% 16% 48% 92% ** ** ** Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 4 3 1 ** ** ** 3 * ** ** ** ** - 1 2 3 ** ** ** 1% 2% 1% ** ** ** 1% *% ** ** ** ** -% 2% 2% 1% ** ** ** 70% 30% ** ** ** 68% 9% ** ** ** ** -% 30% 55% 78% ** ** ** Concerned about security/ fraud 4 4 * ** ** ** 4 - ** ** ** ** * 2 2 3 ** ** ** 1% 3% *% ** ** ** 2% -% ** ** ** ** *% 3% 1% 1% ** ** ** b 97% 3% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** ** 2% 46% 49% 81% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** Health reasons - bad eyesight 2 2 * ** ** ** 2 - ** ** ** ** * 1 1 1 ** ** ** 1% 1% *% ** ** ** 1% -% ** ** ** ** *% 2% 1% 1% ** ** ** 82% 18% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** ** 6% 50% 44% 50% ** ** ** Satisfied with using the internet at work 2 2 * ** ** ** * - ** ** ** ** 2 * - 1 ** ** ** 1% 1% *% ** ** ** *% -% ** ** ** ** 3% 1% -% 1% ** ** ** n 88% 12% ** ** ** 9% -% ** ** ** ** 81% 19% -% 78% ** ** ** My computer is out of date * - * ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** * * - * ** ** ** *% -% *% ** ** ** *% *% ** ** ** ** 1% *% -% *% ** ** ** -% 100% ** ** ** 100% 11% ** ** ** ** 89% 11% -% 89% ** ** ** Other 1 1 - ** ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** - 1 - 1 ** ** ** 1% 1% -% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** -% 2% -% 1% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** 100% 67% ** ** ** ** -% 67% -% 100% ** ** ** ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 153 72 81 ** ** ** 124 52 ** ** ** ** 28 30 81 119 ** ** ** 58% 61% 55% ** ** ** 56% 62% ** ** ** ** 52% 53% 63% 56% ** ** ** 47% 53% ** ** ** 81% 34% ** ** ** ** 18% 20% 53% 78% ** ** ** ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 217 97 120 ** ** ** 191 64 ** ** ** ** 46 49 98 174 ** ** ** 82% 81% 82% ** ** ** 86% 76% ** ** ** ** 85% 86% 77% 83% ** ** ** 45% 55% ** ** ** 88% 30% ** ** ** ** 21% 22% 45% 80% ** ** ** ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 110 47 63 ** ** ** 96 31 ** ** ** ** 25 26 46 89 ** ** ** 41% 39% 43% ** ** ** 43% 37% ** ** ** ** 47% 46% 36% 42% ** ** ** 42% 58% ** ** ** 87% 28% ** ** ** ** 23% 23% 42% 81% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** Don't know 2 * 2 ** ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** 1 1 * 2 ** ** ** 1% *% 1% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** 1% 2% *% 1% ** ** ** 3% 97% ** ** ** 53% 53% ** ** ** ** 33% 47% 20% 97% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% No need 175 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 150 24 ** 148 86 88 66% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 65% 74% ** 66% 71% 61% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% ** 85% 50% 50% Don't want a computer 78 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 68 10 ** 68 34 45 30% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 29% 32% ** 30% 28% 31% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% ** 87% 43% 57% Too old to use the internet 73 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 62 10 ** 70 32 41 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 27% 32% ** 31% 27% 28% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% ** 97% 44% 56% Don't know how you use computers 64 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 60 4 ** 56 27 37 24% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 26% 11% ** 25% 22% 26% k ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% ** 88% 42% 58% Too expensive to set up 35 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 33 2 ** 30 16 20 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 14% 7% ** 13% 13% 14% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% ** 84% 45% 55% Computer is too expensive to buy 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17 1 ** 17 11 7 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% 4% ** 8% 9% 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93% 7% ** 95% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Friends/ family member checks things on the internet for me 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16 2 ** 18 10 8 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% 7% ** 8% 9% 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% ** 100% 57% 43% Don't have a phone line 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 2 ** 8 6 6 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% 5% ** 4% 5% 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% ** 69% 48% 52% Charges are too expensive 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 2 ** 9 7 5 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% 5% ** 4% 6% 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% ** 80% 62% 38% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9 1 ** 7 2 8 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% 3% ** 3% 1% 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% 10% ** 70% 18% 82% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 * ** 3 1 3 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 1% ** 1% 1% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% ** 75% 23% 77% Concerned about security/ fraud 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 * ** 3 1 3 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 1% ** 1% 1% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 94% 6% ** 82% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Health reasons - bad eyesight 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * ** 2 1 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 1% ** 1% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% 11% ** 100% 53% 47% Satisfied with using the internet at work 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * ** - * 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 1% ** -% *% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% 10% ** -% 19% 81% My computer is out of date * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** * * * *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *% *% ** *% *% *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% 11% ** 100% 89% 11% Other 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 - ** 1 - 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% -% ** *% -% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% ** 67% -% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 153 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 137 16 ** 135 66 87 58% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 59% 49% ** 60% 55% 60% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% 10% ** 88% 43% 57% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 217 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 189 28 ** 183 101 116 82% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% 86% ** 82% 84% 80% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% ** 84% 47% 53% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 110 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93 17 ** 88 55 55 41% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40% 51% ** 39% 45% 38% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% ** 80% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe32 (Qe25A). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Internet Access At Home In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * ** 1 - 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% *% ** 1% -% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% 3% ** 53% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** No need 120 54 66 ** ** ** 108 30 ** ** ** ** 28 24 50 97 ** ** ** 45% 45% 45% ** ** ** 49% 36% ** ** ** ** 51% 42% 39% 46% ** ** ** 45% 55% ** ** ** 90% 25% ** ** ** ** 23% 20% 42% 82% ** ** ** Too old to use the internet 36 14 22 ** ** ** 36 10 ** ** ** ** 5 9 19 27 ** ** ** 14% 12% 15% ** ** ** 16% 12% ** ** ** ** 10% 15% 15% 13% ** ** ** 40% 60% ** ** ** 100% 29% ** ** ** ** 15% 24% 53% 76% ** ** ** Don't want a computer 32 13 20 ** ** ** 28 12 ** ** ** ** 8 8 13 23 ** ** ** 12% 10% 13% ** ** ** 13% 14% ** ** ** ** 14% 15% 11% 11% ** ** ** 39% 61% ** ** ** 88% 38% ** ** ** ** 24% 26% 42% 73% ** ** ** Don't know how you use computers 29 17 12 ** ** ** 24 12 ** ** ** ** 5 5 18 23 ** ** ** 11% 14% 8% ** ** ** 11% 14% ** ** ** ** 9% 8% 14% 11% ** ** ** 57% 43% ** ** ** 83% 42% ** ** ** ** 18% 17% 61% 82% ** ** ** Too expensive to set up 19 6 13 ** ** ** 7 10 ** ** ** ** 3 4 12 13 ** ** ** 7% 5% 9% ** ** ** 3% 12% ** ** ** ** 5% 6% 10% 6% ** ** ** 32% 68% ** ** ** 39% 51% ** ** ** ** 15% 19% 66% 71% ** ** ** Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 8 4 4 ** ** ** 3 3 ** ** ** ** 4 2 2 7 ** ** ** 3% 3% 3% ** ** ** 1% 3% ** ** ** ** 7% 3% 2% 3% ** ** ** 50% 50% ** ** ** 39% 35% ** ** ** ** 48% 21% 31% 92% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** Friends/family member checks things on the internet for me 6 3 3 ** ** ** 6 2 ** ** ** ** 1 2 2 6 ** ** ** 2% 3% 2% ** ** ** 3% 2% ** ** ** ** 1% 4% 2% 3% ** ** ** 47% 53% ** ** ** 100% 30% ** ** ** ** 12% 32% 34% 89% ** ** ** Charges are too expensive 4 2 1 ** ** ** 2 1 ** ** ** ** - 2 2 3 ** ** ** 1% 2% 1% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** -% 3% 1% 1% ** ** ** 60% 40% ** ** ** 56% 24% ** ** ** ** -% 49% 51% 76% ** ** ** Computer is too expensive to buy 3 3 * ** ** ** 1 2 ** ** ** ** - - 3 2 ** ** ** 1% 3% *% ** ** ** 1% 2% ** ** ** ** -% -% 3% 1% ** ** ** 91% 9% ** ** ** 43% 56% ** ** ** ** -% -% 100% 66% ** ** ** Don't have a phone line 3 2 1 ** ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** - - 3 2 ** ** ** 1% 1% 1% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** -% -% 2% 1% ** ** ** 62% 38% ** ** ** 46% 42% ** ** ** ** -% -% 100% 79% ** ** ** Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 2 1 1 ** ** ** 1 * ** ** ** ** - 1 * 2 ** ** ** 1% 1% *% ** ** ** *% *% ** ** ** ** -% 2% *% 1% ** ** ** 60% 40% ** ** ** 43% 3% ** ** ** ** -% 61% 3% 93% ** ** ** Concerned about security/ fraud 1 1 - ** ** ** 1 - ** ** ** ** - - 1 1 ** ** ** *% 1% -% ** ** ** *% -% ** ** ** ** -% -% 1% *% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** ** -% -% 100% 100% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e f g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 508 248 260 11 16 47 434 167 64 24 4 43 107 112 244 254 90 70 94 Effective Weighted Sample 311 143 169 8 10 29 265 104 40 14 2 29 65 67 152 218 54 45 72 Total 266 120 146 7 11 26 222 84 34 15 3 27 54 57 127 211 29 16 10 45% 55% ** ** ** 83% 32% ** ** ** ** 20% 21% 48% 79% ** ** ** Health reasons - bad eyesight * * * ** ** ** * - ** ** ** ** * - * - ** ** ** *% *% *% ** ** ** *% -% ** ** ** ** *% -% *% -% ** ** ** 23% 77% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** ** 52% -% 48% -% ** ** ** Satisfied with using the internet at work * - * ** ** ** - - ** ** ** ** * - - - ** ** ** *% -% *% ** ** ** -% -% ** ** ** ** *% -% -% -% ** ** ** -% 100% ** ** ** -% -% ** ** ** ** 100% -% -% -% ** ** ** Other 1 * 1 ** ** ** 1 - ** ** ** ** - - 1 1 ** ** ** 1% *% 1% ** ** ** 1% -% ** ** ** ** -% -% 1% 1% ** ** ** 36% 64% ** ** ** 100% -% ** ** ** ** -% -% 64% 100% ** ** ** ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 96 46 50 ** ** ** 74 36 ** ** ** ** 13 20 58 74 ** ** ** 36% 38% 35% ** ** ** 33% 43% ** ** ** ** 25% 35% 46% 35% ** ** ** l 48% 52% ** ** ** 77% 38% ** ** ** ** 14% 20% 61% 77% ** ** ** ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 166 73 93 ** ** ** 145 47 ** ** ** ** 40 36 68 134 ** ** ** 62% 61% 63% ** ** ** 66% 56% ** ** ** ** 74% 64% 53% 63% ** ** ** n 44% 56% ** ** ** 88% 28% ** ** ** ** 24% 22% 41% 81% ** ** ** Don't know 2 * 2 ** ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** 1 1 * 2 ** ** ** 1% *% 1% ** ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** 1% 2% *% 1% ** ** ** 3% 97% ** ** ** 53% 53% ** ** ** ** 33% 47% 20% 97% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% No need 120 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 101 18 ** 99 65 55 45% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 44% 56% ** 44% 53% 38% o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% ** 83% 54% 46% Too old to use the internet 36 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 34 3 ** 35 12 24 14% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 14% 8% ** 16% 10% 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93% 7% ** 96% 34% 66% Don't want a computer 32 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 28 4 ** 29 15 17 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 12% 13% ** 13% 13% 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% ** 90% 47% 53% Don't know how you use computers 29 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 26 2 ** 23 12 17 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% 7% ** 10% 10% 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% ** 79% 41% 59% Too expensive to set up 19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17 2 ** 17 6 13 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% 5% ** 7% 5% 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% ** 88% 32% 68% Satisfied with using the internet elsewhere 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7 1 ** 5 2 6 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% 3% ** 2% 1% 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 61% 22% 78% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Friends/family member checks things on the internet for me 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5 1 ** 6 4 2 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 3% ** 3% 3% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 82% 18% ** 100% 63% 37% Charges are too expensive 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 * ** 2 3 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 1% ** 1% 2% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 95% 5% ** 63% 70% 30% Computer is too expensive to buy 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 - ** 3 1 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% -% ** 1% 1% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% ** 100% 30% 70% Don't have a phone line 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 1 ** 2 2 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 3% ** 1% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 64% 36% ** 53% 58% 42% Worries/ concerns about privacy issues 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * ** 1 - 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% *% ** *% -% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93% 7% ** 43% -% 100% Concerned about security/ fraud 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 - ** 1 - 1 *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *% -% ** *% -% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% ** 100% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe33 (Qe25B). And, Which One Of These Reasons Is Your Main Reason For Not Getting Internet Access At Home? (Single Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get internet access at home in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k ~l m n o Unweighted total 508 16 20 20 33 35 22 32 41 35 349 159 62 444 216 292 Effective Weighted Sample 311 14 19 19 31 32 21 29 38 33 260 60 37 276 126 189 Total 266 18 25 18 22 29 21 24 18 36 233 33 40 224 121 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% 12% ** 84% 46% 54% Health reasons - bad eyesight * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - * ** * * * *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% 1% ** *% *% *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -% 100% ** 100% 29% 71% Satisfied with using the internet at work * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * - ** - - * *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *% -% ** -% -% *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% ** -% -% 100% Other 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 - ** 1 - 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% -% ** *% -% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% ** 64% -% 100% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 96 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88 8 ** 83 35 61 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 38% 24% ** 37% 29% 42% k n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% ** 86% 37% 63% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 166 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 141 25 ** 139 86 80 62% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 61% 75% ** 62% 71% 55% j o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% ** 84% 52% 48% Don't know 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * ** 1 - 2 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% *% ** 1% -% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% 3% ** 53% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe34 (Qeni1). Explain Satellite Broadband Were You Aware That Satellite Broadband Is Available? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h ~i j k l m n ~o p q ~r Unweighted total 991 472 519 128 158 278 427 176 126 95 154 191 309 223 267 - 502 489 - Effective Weighted Sample 571 279 293 81 97 162 247 113 68 58 97 109 181 127 164 - 310 301 - Total 365 176 189 44 65 124 132 58 41 38 69 83 98 84 99 - 233 132 - 48% 52% 12% 18% 34% 36% 16% 11% ** 19% 23% 27% 23% 27% -% 64% 36% -% Yes 134 74 60 16 28 55 35 11 9 ** 39 46 38 34 15 - 85 49 - 37% 42% 31% 37% 43% 44% 26% 19% 23% ** 56% 56% 39% 40% 16% -% 37% 37% -% b f f gh lmn n n 56% 44% 12% 21% 41% 26% 8% 7% ** 29% 35% 29% 25% 12% -% 64% 36% -% No 173 74 100 22 28 47 77 42 27 ** 24 24 44 35 70 - 104 70 - 47% 42% 53% 49% 43% 38% 58% 72% 66% ** 35% 29% 45% 41% 70% -% 44% 53% -% a de j j k klm p 42% 58% 12% 16% 27% 44% 24% 16% ** 14% 14% 25% 20% 40% -% 60% 40% -% Don't know 58 28 30 6 9 23 21 5 5 ** 6 12 16 16 14 - 44 14 - 16% 16% 16% 14% 14% 18% 16% 9% 11% ** 8% 15% 16% 19% 14% -% 19% 10% -% q 48% 52% 10% 15% 39% 36% 9% 8% ** 10% 21% 27% 27% 24% -% 76% 24% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe34 (Qeni1). Explain Satellite Broadband Were You Aware That Satellite Broadband Is Available? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Scotland and Wales ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 991 - - - - - - - - - 491 500 438 553 515 476 Effective Weighted Sample 571 - - - - - - - - - 397 440 273 326 259 317 Total 365 - - - - - - - - - 297 68 206 159 181 185 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 81% 19% 57% 43% 49% 51% Yes 134 - - - - - - - - - 114 20 91 42 65 68 37% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 38% 30% 44% 27% 36% 37% k m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 85% 15% 68% 32% 49% 51% No 173 - - - - - - - - - 132 41 82 91 73 100 47% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 44% 61% 40% 58% 40% 54% j l n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 47% 53% 42% 58% Don't know 58 - - - - - - - - - 52 6 33 25 42 16 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 17% 9% 16% 16% 23% 9% k o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 89% 11% 57% 43% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe35 (Qe29). Explain That Phone Calls Can Be Made Using The Internet Using Services Such As Skype. Before Now, Were You Aware That You Could Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Single Code) Base : All respondents | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 3737 | 1790 | 1947 | 519 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2504 | 1197 | 1308 | 343 | | Total | 2675 | 1301 | 1374 | 364 | | 49% | 51% | 14% | 18% | 34% | | Yes | 2333 | 1128 | 1204 | 345 | | 87% | 87% | 88% | 95% | 96% | | f | f | f | g | gh | | 48% | 52% | 15% | 19% | 36% | | No | 315 | 157 | 158 | 17 | | 12% | 12% | 12% | 5% | 4% | | cde | hij | ij | j | k | | 50% | 50% | 5% | 6% | 19% | | Don't know | 27 | 15 | 12 | 2 | | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | | e | ij | | | | | 56% | 44% | 8% | 9% | 20% | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe35 (Qe29). Explain That Phone Calls Can Be Made Using The Internet Using Services Such As Skype. Before Now, Were You Aware That You Could Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Single Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 2333 314 309 199 149 201 221 198 99 268 2014 319 1453 873 1251 1082 87% 93% 86% 88% 79% 85% 90% 88% 87% 89% 87% 89% 94% 78% 87% 88% bdeh d d d d d d m 13% 13% 9% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 62% 37% 54% 46% No 315 21 49 28 30 34 23 26 13 34 280 35 88 225 177 138 12% 6% 14% 12% 16% 14% 10% 12% 11% 11% 12% 10% 6% 20% 12% 11% a a af a a l 7% 16% 9% 10% 11% 7% 8% 4% 11% 89% 11% 28% 71% 56% 44% Don't know 27 3 1 - 9 2 1 1 2 - 22 5 10 16 15 12 1% 1% *% -% 5% 1% *% 1% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% abcefgi ci 11% 3% -% 35% 8% 3% 5% 8% -% 81% 19% 39% 58% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe36 (Qe30). Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Ever Used One Of These Services To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet At Home? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes & currently using 1037 495 542 178 237 400 222 73 89 148 307 357 318 182 180 890 80 45 23 39% 38% 39% 49% 51% 44% 24% 23% 34% 41% 53% 50% 44% 31% 27% 40% 34% 34% 31% f ef f g g ghi lmn mn r 48% 52% 17% 23% 39% 21% 7% 9% 14% 30% 34% 31% 18% 17% 86% 8% 4% 2% Yes but stopped using 232 119 113 37 39 94 62 21 23 42 53 67 65 56 44 196 17 13 7 9% 9% 8% 10% 8% 10% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 9% 9% 10% 7% 9% 7% 10% 9% f f g 51% 49% 16% 17% 41% 27% 9% 10% 18% 23% 29% 28% 24% 19% 84% 7% 5% 3% TOTAL YES 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 47% 47% 48% 59% 59% 54% 31% 30% 43% 53% 62% 60% 53% 41% 34% 49% 42% 44% 40% f f f g gh ghi lmn mn n pr 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% No never used 1383 670 712 147 191 412 632 220 146 166 220 282 329 337 432 1133 134 72 44 52% 52% 52% 40% 41% 45% 68% 69% 56% 46% 38% 40% 46% 58% 65% 51% 57% 54% 59% cde hij ij j k kl klm o o 48% 52% 11% 14% 30% 46% 16% 11% 12% 16% 20% 24% 24% 31% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 23 16 7 2 2 9 11 3 2 1 3 6 8 5 4 18 2 3 1 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% b 70% 30% 10% 7% 37% 45% 11% 9% 5% 14% 25% 36% 20% 19% 75% 10% 11% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QE36 (QE30). Have you or anyone in your household ever used one of these services to make voice calls using the internet at home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes & currently using 1037 242 107 95 61 80 116 82 39 68 894 143 729 306 522 515 39% 72% 30% 42% 32% 34% 47% 36% 34% 23% 39% 40% 47% 27% 36% 42% bcdefghi bdi i i bdeghi i i m n 23% 10% 9% 6% 8% 11% 8% 4% 7% 86% 14% 70% 29% 50% 50% Yes but stopped using 232 12 36 21 16 14 31 17 10 38 196 35 151 81 126 106 9% 4% 10% 9% 9% 6% 13% 7% 9% 13% 8% 10% 10% 7% 9% 9% a a a ae a ae m 5% 15% 9% 7% 6% 13% 7% 4% 17% 85% 15% 65% 35% 54% 46% TOTAL YES 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 47% 75% 40% 51% 41% 40% 60% 44% 43% 35% 47% 50% 57% 35% 45% 50% bcdefghi bdei bdeghi m n 20% 11% 9% 6% 7% 12% 8% 4% 8% 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% No never used 1383 79 212 110 107 142 98 127 64 194 1205 178 664 713 782 601 52% 23% 59% 49% 57% 60% 40% 56% 57% 64% 52% 50% 43% 64% 54% 49% acf a af acf a af af acf l o 6% 15% 8% 8% 10% 7% 9% 5% 14% 87% 13% 48% 52% 57% 43% Don't know 23 5 5 1 5 1 - - * 1 20 3 8 14 13 10 1% 2% 1% *% 2% *% -% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% fg 22% 19% 3% 20% 4% -% -% 2% 5% 87% 13% 34% 59% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Skype 984 484 501 157 203 388 236 64 83 150 299 343 300 172 170 852 66 45 22 78% 79% 76% 73% 74% 79% 83% 67% 74% 79% 83% 81% 78% 72% 76% 79% 68% 78% 74% cd g gh m p 49% 51% 16% 21% 39% 24% 6% 8% 15% 30% 35% 30% 17% 17% 87% 7% 5% 2% FaceTime 394 180 214 77 103 148 65 23 30 57 133 142 126 85 41 330 32 23 9 31% 29% 33% 36% 37% 30% 23% 24% 27% 30% 37% 33% 33% 36% 18% 30% 33% 41% 30% f f f g n n n o 46% 54% 20% 26% 38% 17% 6% 8% 14% 34% 36% 32% 22% 10% 84% 8% 6% 2% WhatsApp 278 135 143 62 78 105 32 11 27 48 83 89 93 49 47 235 25 11 7 22% 22% 22% 29% 28% 21% 11% 12% 24% 25% 23% 21% 24% 20% 21% 22% 26% 19% 24% ef ef f g g g 49% 51% 22% 28% 38% 12% 4% 10% 17% 30% 32% 33% 18% 17% 85% 9% 4% 3% Facebook 238 105 134 61 67 89 21 23 26 38 49 63 75 56 44 204 20 9 5 19% 17% 20% 28% 24% 18% 7% 25% 23% 20% 14% 15% 20% 23% 20% 19% 21% 16% 17% ef f f j j k 44% 56% 26% 28% 37% 9% 10% 11% 16% 21% 27% 31% 23% 19% 86% 9% 4% 2% BT Broadband voice/Home Hub 11 4 7 1 - 9 2 - 4 1 3 7 1 1 3 11 * * - 1% 1% 1% *% -% 2% 1% -% 4% *% 1% 2% *% *% 1% 1% *% 1% -% d gij l 34% 66% 6% -% 76% 18% -% 39% 8% 25% 63% 6% 8% 23% 95% 1% 4% -% Vonage 8 8 - 1 - 6 1 - 2 - 2 3 2 2 1 8 - - - 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% *% -% 2% -% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% -% -% -% b 100% -% 14% -% 73% 12% -% 24% -% 32% 40% 22% 24% 14% 100% -% -% -% Voipfone 5 5 - - - 3 2 1 1 - 2 1 1 2 1 4 - 1 - *% 1% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% -% 1% -% b 100% -% -% -% 62% 38% 25% 19% -% 39% 20% 19% 35% 25% 84% -% 16% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Plusnet (Plustalk) 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 - 1 - 1 2 2 1 - 4 - 1 - *% *% *% 1% *% *% 1% -% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% -% *% -% 1% -% 51% 49% 30% 19% 13% 38% -% 19% -% 22% 52% 35% 13% -% 87% -% 13% -% BT Communicator 3 1 2 - - 1 2 - - 1 1 - - 3 - 3 - - - *% *% *% -% -% *% 1% -% -% 1% *% -% -% 1% -% *% -% -% -% kl 33% 67% -% -% 33% 67% -% -% 40% 33% -% -% 100% -% 100% -% -% -% Other 41 20 21 4 10 17 10 2 * 12 10 13 10 6 11 36 2 2 1 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% *% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% h 48% 52% 11% 23% 42% 24% 5% 1% 29% 25% 32% 25% 16% 28% 87% 5% 5% 2% Don't know 13 3 10 1 2 4 7 3 1 1 * 3 2 3 5 12 * 1 - 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% -% j 25% 75% 5% 12% 29% 54% 26% 9% 11% 1% 21% 14% 27% 38% 91% 3% 6% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Skype 984 228 ** 84 ** ** 114 78 36 ** 845 140 683 300 507 478 78% 90% ** 73% ** ** 77% 79% 73% ** 77% 78% 78% 78% 78% 77% cfgh 23% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% FaceTime 394 40 ** 47 ** ** 52 29 18 ** 338 56 297 96 221 172 31% 16% ** 41% ** ** 35% 29% 37% ** 31% 31% 34% 25% 34% 28% a a a a m o 10% ** 12% ** ** 13% 7% 5% ** 86% 14% 75% 24% 56% 44% WhatsApp 278 104 ** 13 ** ** 32 15 7 ** 250 28 215 62 118 159 22% 41% ** 11% ** ** 22% 15% 15% ** 23% 16% 24% 16% 18% 26% cfgh c k m n 38% ** 5% ** ** 12% 5% 3% ** 90% 10% 78% 22% 43% 57% Facebook 238 65 ** 14 ** ** 27 10 8 ** 213 25 176 61 105 134 19% 25% ** 12% ** ** 18% 10% 16% ** 20% 14% 20% 16% 16% 22% cg n 27% ** 6% ** ** 11% 4% 3% ** 89% 11% 74% 26% 44% 56% BT Broadband voice/Home Hub 11 3 ** - ** ** 2 1 * ** 10 1 7 4 7 4 1% 1% ** -% ** ** 2% 1% 1% ** 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 28% ** -% ** ** 22% 6% 4% ** 89% 11% 60% 40% 62% 38% Vonage 8 3 ** - ** ** 2 - - ** 8 - 7 1 3 5 1% 1% ** -% ** ** 2% -% -% ** 1% -% 1% *% *% 1% 34% ** -% ** ** 32% -% -% ** 100% -% 88% 12% 39% 61% Voipfone 5 - ** - ** ** - - - ** 3 2 3 2 2 3 *% -% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** *% 1% *% 1% *% *% -% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** 57% 43% 55% 45% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe37 (Qe31). Showcard Which Supplier Does/ Did Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Plusnet (Plustalk) 5 1 ** - ** ** - - - ** 4 1 2 2 2 3 *% 1% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 30% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** 78% 22% 54% 46% 38% 62% BT Communicator 3 - ** 1 ** ** 2 - - ** 2 1 2 1 2 1 *% -% ** 1% ** ** 2% -% -% ** *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% ** 27% ** ** 73% -% -% ** 67% 33% 73% 27% 67% 33% Other 41 3 ** 3 ** ** 11 5 1 ** 35 6 27 14 19 22 3% 1% ** 3% ** ** 7% 5% 2% ** 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% a 7% ** 7% ** ** 26% 12% 3% ** 86% 14% 67% 33% 47% 53% Don't know 13 - ** 2 ** ** 2 1 * ** 12 * 6 6 3 10 1% -% ** 2% ** ** 1% 1% 1% ** 1% *% 1% 2% *% 2% -% ** 17% ** ** 15% 6% 3% ** 97% 3% 49% 51% 25% 75% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Smartphone 637 291 346 140 186 245 66 49 67 87 168 182 201 122 131 538 53 27 18 50% 47% 53% 65% 67% 50% 23% 52% 59% 45% 47% 43% 53% 51% 59% 50% 55% 46% 62% ef ef f ij k k oq 46% 54% 22% 29% 38% 10% 8% 10% 14% 26% 29% 32% 19% 21% 85% 8% 4% 3% Laptop 521 257 265 68 100 223 130 30 40 86 181 201 151 85 85 451 40 22 9 41% 42% 40% 32% 36% 45% 46% 31% 36% 45% 50% 47% 39% 35% 38% 42% 41% 38% 29% cd cd g gh lmn r r 49% 51% 13% 19% 43% 25% 6% 8% 17% 35% 39% 29% 16% 16% 87% 8% 4% 2% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 426 196 230 58 87 180 101 27 30 64 138 159 133 84 51 363 31 23 9 34% 32% 35% 27% 32% 36% 36% 29% 27% 34% 38% 37% 35% 35% 23% 33% 32% 40% 31% c c h n n n 46% 54% 14% 20% 42% 24% 6% 7% 15% 32% 37% 31% 20% 12% 85% 7% 5% 2% Desktop PC 167 102 65 28 18 57 65 10 16 20 41 61 51 30 25 146 10 10 2 13% 17% 10% 13% 6% 12% 23% 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 13% 13% 11% 13% 10% 17% 7% b d d cde r r 61% 39% 17% 10% 34% 39% 6% 9% 12% 24% 36% 30% 18% 15% 87% 6% 6% 1% Netbook 10 4 7 - 4 2 5 1 1 1 6 5 4 - 1 10 - - * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% -% -% *% 36% 64% -% 36% 18% 45% 8% 9% 5% 61% 51% 38% -% 11% 99% -% -% 1% TV set 9 4 4 2 2 4 - 1 - 2 4 2 2 3 2 7 - 2 - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% -% 3% -% o 48% 52% 25% 24% 51% -% 8% -% 23% 52% 25% 18% 34% 23% 82% -% 18% -% Standard landline phone 8 6 2 - 1 5 3 1 - 1 4 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 * 1% 1% *% -% *% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 74% 26% -% 6% 61% 33% 15% -% 10% 42% 42% 28% 15% 15% 81% 11% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1623 771 852 306 351 580 386 161 150 232 383 462 556 304 300 1040 208 187 188 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 546 597 201 231 430 287 113 112 173 293 339 395 217 203 906 127 119 142 Total 1269 614 655 215 276 494 284 95 112 191 360 424 383 239 224 1085 97 58 29 48% 52% 17% 22% 39% 22% 7% 9% 15% 28% 33% 30% 19% 18% 86% 8% 5% 2% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 4 2 2 2 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 1 3 * 1 - *% *% *% 1% *% *% -% 1% -% *% -% -% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% -% 39% 61% 55% 24% 21% -% 18% -% 24% -% -% 18% 45% 38% 79% 6% 15% -% Dedicated handset * * - - - * - - - - * * - * - - - * * *% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% *% -% -% -% *% 1% o 100% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% 46% 46% -% 54% -% -% -% 54% 46% Other 8 6 1 2 2 2 2 - - 3 - 3 3 1 2 8 - - - 1% 1% *% 1% 1% *% 1% -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% j 81% 19% 21% 21% 29% 29% -% -% 33% -% 37% 37% 7% 19% 100% -% -% -% Don't know 19 7 12 5 * 7 6 2 - 2 2 5 6 4 4 18 1 - * 2% 1% 2% 2% *% 2% 2% 3% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% -% 1% d d 37% 63% 27% 1% 39% 33% 13% -% 11% 11% 26% 30% 21% 22% 94% 4% -% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Smartphone 637 186 ** 53 ** ** 61 42 24 ** 567 69 472 162 266 370 50% 73% ** 46% ** ** 42% 43% 50% ** 52% 39% 54% 42% 41% 60% cfgh k m n 29% ** 8% ** ** 10% 7% 4% ** 89% 11% 74% 25% 42% 58% Laptop 521 133 ** 47 ** ** 70 32 16 ** 455 67 369 151 270 251 41% 52% ** 41% ** ** 47% 32% 33% ** 42% 37% 42% 39% 42% 41% gh gh 25% ** 9% ** ** 13% 6% 3% ** 87% 13% 71% 29% 52% 48% Tablet computer (e.g. iPad) 426 52 ** 45 ** ** 54 34 18 ** 357 70 295 131 242 184 34% 20% ** 39% ** ** 36% 34% 36% ** 33% 39% 33% 34% 37% 30% a a a a o 12% ** 11% ** ** 13% 8% 4% ** 84% 16% 69% 31% 57% 43% Desktop PC 167 23 ** 23 ** ** 18 19 6 ** 136 31 105 62 95 72 13% 9% ** 20% ** ** 12% 19% 13% ** 12% 18% 12% 16% 15% 12% a a l 13% ** 14% ** ** 11% 11% 4% ** 81% 19% 63% 37% 57% 43% Netbook 10 2 ** 1 ** ** 2 - 1 ** 9 1 8 3 7 4 1% 1% ** 1% ** ** 1% -% 2% ** 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 17% ** 12% ** ** 19% -% 9% ** 91% 9% 75% 25% 63% 37% TV set 9 - ** 1 ** ** 2 - - ** 3 6 6 3 6 3 1% -% ** 1% ** ** 2% -% -% ** *% 3% 1% 1% 1% *% j -% ** 9% ** ** 27% -% -% ** 34% 66% 71% 29% 69% 31% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe38 (Qe33). Showcard Which Device Or Devices Does Your Household Use To Make Voice Calls Using The Internet? (Multi Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Standard landline phone 8 1 ** - ** ** 1 - 1 ** 7 1 5 3 4 4 1% *% ** -% ** ** 1% -% 1% ** 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10% ** -% ** ** 13% -% 6% ** 88% 12% 64% 36% 52% 48% Smart watch (e.g. Apple Watch, Pebble, Samsung, Sony) 4 1 ** - ** ** 1 - - ** 4 * 3 1 2 2 *% *% ** -% ** ** 1% -% -% ** *% *% *% *% *% *% 24% ** -% ** ** 38% -% -% ** 94% 6% 82% 18% 43% 57% Dedicated handset * - ** - ** ** - - - ** * * * - * * *% -% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** *% *% *% -% *% *% -% ** -% ** ** -% -% -% ** 46% 54% 100% -% 54% 46% Other 8 - ** 1 ** ** 1 2 1 ** 8 - 3 5 4 3 1% -% ** 1% ** ** 1% 2% 2% ** 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% a -% ** 9% ** ** 12% 24% 14% ** 100% -% 38% 62% 57% 43% Don't know 19 - ** 4 ** ** 4 - * ** 17 2 10 9 12 7 2% -% ** 3% ** ** 3% -% 1% ** 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% a a -% ** 19% ** ** 21% -% 3% ** 90% 10% 54% 46% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe39 (Qe34). Do You Pay For Any Elements Of Your Service To Make Calls Using The Internet? Perhaps Calls Made To Landline Or Mobile Phones, Or Any Equipment Or Software You Needed To Purchase Solely To Be Able To Make Calls Using The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 1623 | 771 | 852 | 306 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1143 | 546 | 597 | 201 | | Total | 1269 | 614 | 655 | 215 | | 48% | 52% | 17% | 22% | 39% | | Yes, pay for any elements | 55 | 37 | 17 | 11 | | 4% | 6% | 3% | 5% | 5% | | b | n | | | | | 68% | 32% | 20% | 25% | 31% | | No, do not pay for any elements | 1153 | 551 | 602 | 185 | | 91% | 90% | 92% | 86% | 94% | | c | c | k | | | | 48% | 52% | 16% | 22% | 40% | | Don't know | | | | | | 61 | 25 | 36 | 19 | 4 | | 5% | 4% | 5% | 9% | 1% | | de | d | d | ij | p | | 41% | 59% | 32% | 7% | 35% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qe39 (Qe34). Do You Pay For Any Elements Of Your Service To Make Calls Using The Internet? Perhaps Calls Made To Landline Or Mobile Phones, Or Any Equipment Or Software You Needed To Purchase Solely To Be Able To Make Calls Using The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who have ever used internet voice services at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a ~b c ~d ~e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1623 196 98 124 98 94 141 101 101 87 1196 427 1012 608 777 846 Effective Weighted Sample 1143 174 92 119 92 88 134 96 94 80 948 208 732 428 547 603 Total 1269 255 143 116 77 94 147 99 49 107 1090 179 880 386 649 620 20% ** 9% ** ** 12% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 69% 30% 51% 49% Yes, pay for any elements 55 6 ** 8 ** ** 8 4 2 ** 43 12 42 13 33 21 4% 3% ** 7% ** ** 6% 4% 4% ** 4% 7% 5% 3% 5% 3% 12% ** 14% ** ** 15% 7% 4% ** 78% 22% 76% 24% 61% 39% No, do not pay for any elements 1153 242 ** 104 ** ** 132 91 45 ** 994 159 803 347 588 566 91% 95% ** 90% ** ** 90% 92% 93% ** 91% 89% 91% 90% 91% 91% 21% ** 9% ** ** 11% 8% 4% ** 86% 14% 70% 30% 51% 49% Don't know 61 6 ** 4 ** ** 7 4 1 ** 54 7 35 26 27 33 5% 2% ** 3% ** ** 5% 4% 3% ** 5% 4% 4% 7% 4% 5% l 10% ** 6% ** ** 11% 6% 2% ** 89% 11% 58% 42% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 36% 32% 8% 8% 11% 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Sky Satellite TV 965 452 513 139 187 390 248 78 102 136 239 264 258 229 213 786 75 66 37 36% 35% 37% 38% 40% 43% 27% 25% 39% 38% 41% 37% 36% 39% 32% 35% 32% 50% 50% f f f g g g n op op 47% 53% 14% 19% 40% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Freesat Satellite TV 120 71 49 15 9 45 51 7 12 17 30 45 33 25 18 106 7 7 1 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 5% 6% 2% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 5% 1% b d d g n r r 59% 41% 12% 8% 38% 42% 6% 10% 14% 25% 37% 28% 20% 15% 88% 6% 5% 1% Other Satellite TV 18 9 10 * 7 4 8 1 2 6 5 3 5 6 5 17 - 1 1 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% c 47% 53% 1% 37% 20% 41% 6% 9% 31% 28% 17% 26% 31% 27% 93% -% 4% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 1147 550 597 150 148 345 503 168 110 149 243 317 286 233 311 961 115 43 27 43% 42% 43% 41% 32% 38% 54% 53% 42% 42% 42% 45% 40% 40% 47% 43% 49% 33% 37% d d cde hij lm qr oqr 48% 52% 13% 13% 30% 44% 15% 10% 13% 21% 28% 25% 20% 27% 84% 10% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Top-up TV, Picturebox films 188 93 94 25 22 66 74 27 17 26 28 39 53 44 50 150 13 10 15 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 5% 7% 8% 8% 7% 5% 8% 20% d j opq 50% 50% 13% 12% 35% 40% 14% 9% 14% 15% 21% 28% 24% 27% 80% 7% 6% 8% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 120 54 66 9 21 50 40 7 9 14 50 46 26 33 14 97 11 9 3 4% 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% 4% 2% 3% 4% 9% 7% 4% 6% 2% 4% 5% 7% 4% c ghi ln n o 45% 55% 7% 17% 42% 34% 6% 7% 12% 42% 39% 22% 27% 12% 81% 9% 8% 2% TalkTalk TV 72 28 44 10 16 27 19 15 9 16 12 12 19 21 20 56 10 4 3 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% j k 39% 61% 13% 23% 37% 27% 20% 12% 22% 17% 17% 27% 29% 27% 77% 14% 5% 4% EE TV 8 3 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 - 8 1 - - *% *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% -% *% *% -% -% ef n 37% 63% 13% 57% 12% 18% 15% 7% 21% 13% 11% 44% 45% -% 92% 8% -% -% No TV in household 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 4% 4% 3% 5% 9% 3% 1% 4% 6% 5% 1% 2% 6% 2% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% f cef f j j j km km p 57% 43% 19% 44% 28% 9% 13% 17% 17% 7% 12% 41% 12% 35% 90% 4% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 9 4 5 4 2 1 3 2 - - 1 3 2 2 2 8 * * * *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% e 49% 51% 44% 18% 9% 29% 18% -% -% 16% 38% 18% 23% 21% 93% 2% 5% 1% MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 96% 95% 97% 94% 90% 97% 99% 95% 94% 95% 99% 98% 94% 98% 94% 96% 98% 97% 98% cd cde ghi ln ln o 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% FREEVIEW TOTAL 910 430 479 113 116 239 442 166 85 112 130 227 232 168 281 783 65 37 24 34% 33% 35% 31% 25% 26% 48% 52% 33% 31% 22% 32% 32% 29% 42% 35% 28% 28% 33% cde hij j j klm pq 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 25% 25% 18% 31% 86% 7% 4% 3% FREEVIEW ONLY 770 364 407 94 101 198 378 141 72 96 109 201 194 136 240 665 59 29 17 29% 28% 30% 26% 22% 22% 41% 45% 28% 27% 19% 28% 27% 23% 36% 30% 25% 22% 23% cde hij j j klm qr 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 26% 25% 18% 31% 86% 8% 4% 2% PAY DIGITAL 1626 779 846 231 297 626 472 148 150 222 434 441 444 389 350 1322 161 90 52 61% 60% 62% 63% 63% 68% 51% 47% 58% 62% 74% 62% 62% 67% 53% 59% 69% 68% 71% f f f g g ghi n n ln o o o 48% 52% 14% 18% 39% 29% 9% 9% 14% 27% 27% 27% 24% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% CABLE 427 222 205 64 70 156 137 35 34 47 125 119 120 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 37% 32% 8% 8% 11% 29% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 SATELLITE 1058 510 548 147 201 423 288 84 111 152 266 298 283 246 231 873 78 70 37 40% 39% 40% 40% 43% 46% 31% 27% 43% 42% 46% 42% 39% 42% 35% 39% 33% 53% 51% f f f g g g n n op op 48% 52% 14% 19% 40% 27% 8% 10% 14% 25% 28% 27% 23% 22% 82% 7% 7% 4% DSL LINE 172 77 95 18 37 69 48 17 14 30 53 51 44 49 28 133 22 12 6 6% 6% 7% 5% 8% 8% 5% 5% 5% 8% 9% 7% 6% 8% 4% 6% 10% 9% 7% f g n n o 45% 55% 11% 21% 40% 28% 10% 8% 18% 31% 30% 25% 29% 16% 77% 13% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Satellite TV 965 115 119 88 70 84 81 84 44 103 816 148 639 322 529 436 36% 34% 33% 39% 37% 35% 33% 37% 39% 34% 35% 41% 41% 29% 37% 35% j m 12% 12% 9% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 66% 33% 55% 45% Freesat Satellite TV 120 11 34 11 7 8 11 6 4 14 96 24 68 53 80 41 5% 3% 9% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 7% 4% 5% 6% 3% acdefghi j o 9% 28% 9% 6% 7% 9% 5% 3% 12% 80% 20% 56% 44% 66% 34% Other Satellite TV 18 2 2 1 1 1 10 - * - 16 3 11 7 10 8 1% 1% *% *% 1% *% 4% -% *% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% abcdeghi 13% 9% 4% 8% 4% 53% -% 2% -% 86% 14% 61% 39% 56% 44% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 1147 93 98 116 88 113 114 154 38 146 971 176 579 564 686 461 43% 28% 27% 51% 46% 48% 46% 68% 33% 49% 42% 49% 37% 51% 48% 37% abh abh abh abh abcdefhi abh j l o 8% 9% 10% 8% 10% 10% 13% 3% 13% 85% 15% 50% 49% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Topup TV, Picturebox films 188 23 40 11 6 17 13 13 8 18 159 29 99 88 111 77 7% 7% 11% 5% 3% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 8% 6% 8% 8% 6% cdfgi d 12% 21% 6% 3% 9% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 53% 47% 59% 41% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 120 14 19 12 9 6 13 11 4 9 98 22 78 42 79 41 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% o 11% 16% 10% 7% 5% 11% 9% 3% 7% 82% 18% 65% 35% 66% 34% TalkTalk TV 72 10 2 5 2 4 4 7 3 18 65 8 47 25 35 38 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% b bcdefh 14% 3% 6% 3% 6% 6% 10% 4% 25% 89% 11% 65% 35% 48% 52% EE TV 8 2 1 2 1 - 1 - - 1 7 1 6 3 4 5 *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 21% 11% 23% 13% -% 11% -% -% 13% 88% 12% 69% 31% 46% 54% No TV in household 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 4% 13% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% *% 4% 3% 4% 3% 1% 6% bcdefghi i ci i m n 45% 9% 3% 4% 9% 11% 7% 2% 1% 90% 10% 69% 30% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 9 1 3 - 1 1 - 3 - - 7 2 2 6 7 2 *% *% 1% -% 1% *% -% 1% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 7% 29% -% 12% 11% -% 34% -% -% 76% 24% 28% 72% 74% 26% MAIN TV PLATFORM DIGITAL TOTAL 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 96% 87% 97% 99% 97% 96% 96% 95% 98% 100% 96% 97% 95% 97% 98% 93% a aefg a a a a a abefg o 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% FREEVIEW TOTAL 910 85 123 87 69 88 84 91 37 119 762 148 404 502 532 378 34% 25% 34% 38% 37% 37% 34% 40% 33% 39% 33% 41% 26% 45% 37% 31% a a a a a a a j l o 9% 13% 10% 8% 10% 9% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 44% 55% 58% 42% FREEVIEW ONLY 770 65 85 80 64 77 75 81 31 107 643 127 336 431 448 323 29% 19% 24% 35% 34% 33% 31% 36% 28% 35% 28% 35% 22% 39% 31% 26% ab ab ab a ab a ab j l o 8% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 11% 4% 14% 84% 16% 44% 56% 58% 42% PAY DIGITAL 1626 203 221 129 111 140 142 123 74 180 1432 194 1049 570 873 752 61% 60% 62% 57% 59% 59% 58% 55% 65% 59% 62% 54% 68% 51% 61% 61% g k m 12% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 5% 11% 88% 12% 65% 35% 54% 46% CABLE 427 56 53 26 33 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 197 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1A. Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Types Of Television Does Your Household Receive At The Moment? Please Think About All Of The Tv Sets In Your Household. (Multi Code) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 SATELLITE 1058 128 151 95 73 85 95 86 47 112 894 165 691 364 589 470 40% 38% 42% 42% 39% 36% 39% 38% 41% 37% 39% 46% 45% 33% 41% 38% j m 12% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 84% 16% 65% 34% 56% 44% DSL LINE 172 24 21 16 9 8 14 11 5 25 150 22 113 59 99 73 6% 7% 6% 7% 5% 3% 6% 5% 4% 8% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% e m 14% 12% 9% 5% 5% 8% 6% 3% 15% 87% 13% 66% 34% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 427 222 205 64 70 156 137 35 34 47 125 119 120 103 84 350 64 8 5 16% 17% 15% 18% 15% 17% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22% 17% 17% 18% 13% 16% 28% 6% 7% ghi n n n qr oqr 52% 48% 15% 16% 37% 32% 8% 8% 11% 29% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% 15% 2% 1% Sky Satellite TV 954 446 508 136 187 387 244 77 102 133 239 260 254 226 213 777 74 66 36 36% 34% 37% 37% 40% 42% 26% 24% 39% 37% 41% 37% 35% 39% 32% 35% 32% 50% 49% f f f g g g n op op 47% 53% 14% 20% 41% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Freesat Satellite TV 90 57 32 10 7 34 38 6 8 14 22 35 26 16 14 81 3 5 1 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% b d d n pr r 64% 36% 12% 8% 38% 42% 7% 9% 16% 24% 39% 28% 18% 15% 91% 4% 5% 1% Other Satellite TV 15 7 8 * 7 2 6 1 1 4 5 3 3 4 5 14 - * * 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% ce 46% 54% 2% 44% 16% 39% 8% 7% 29% 35% 20% 21% 25% 33% 95% -% 2% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 770 364 407 94 101 198 378 141 72 96 109 201 194 136 240 665 59 29 17 29% 28% 30% 26% 22% 22% 41% 45% 28% 27% 19% 28% 27% 23% 36% 30% 25% 22% 23% cde hij j j klm qr 47% 53% 12% 13% 26% 49% 18% 9% 12% 14% 26% 25% 18% 31% 86% 8% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Top-up TV, Picturebox films 139 66 73 19 15 41 64 25 13 16 21 26 38 32 41 118 6 9 7 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 7% 8% 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 5% 2% 6% 10% de j k p p op 48% 52% 14% 11% 29% 46% 18% 9% 12% 15% 19% 27% 23% 29% 85% 4% 6% 5% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 100 47 53 9 19 41 31 5 5 13 43 39 22 26 12 77 11 8 3 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 5% 3% 2% 2% 4% 7% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 5% 6% 4% ghi ln n o 47% 53% 9% 19% 41% 31% 5% 5% 13% 43% 39% 22% 27% 12% 78% 11% 8% 3% TalkTalk TV 64 27 37 9 13 27 16 11 8 16 10 11 18 19 16 48 10 3 3 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 4% j o 42% 58% 14% 20% 42% 25% 17% 13% 24% 15% 18% 27% 30% 25% 74% 16% 5% 4% EE TV 8 3 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 - 8 1 - - *% *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% -% *% *% -% -% ef n 37% 63% 13% 57% 12% 18% 15% 7% 21% 13% 11% 44% 45% -% 92% 8% -% -% No TV in household 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 4% 4% 3% 5% 9% 3% 1% 4% 6% 5% 1% 2% 6% 2% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% f cef f j j j km km p 57% 43% 19% 44% 28% 9% 13% 17% 17% 7% 12% 41% 12% 35% 90% 4% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh1B. Showcard And Which Of These Do You Consider Is Your Main Type Of Television? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 9 4 5 4 2 1 3 2 - - 1 3 2 2 2 8 * * * *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% e 49% 51% 44% 18% 9% 29% 18% -% -% 16% 38% 18% 23% 21% 93% 2% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST EAST YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS OF ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Virgin Media (Cable TV) 427 56 53 26 33 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 197 230 16% 16% 15% 12% 18% 19% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18% 3% 18% 14% 14% 19% cg cg k m n 13% 12% 6% 8% 11% 10% 6% 5% 10% 97% 3% 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Satellite TV 954 115 119 84 70 83 80 81 44 103 808 146 635 315 521 433 36% 34% 33% 37% 37% 35% 33% 36% 39% 34% 35% 41% 41% 28% 36% 35% j m 12% 12% 9% 7% 9% 8% 9% 5% 11% 85% 15% 67% 33% 55% 45% Freesat Satellite TV 90 11 30 10 3 3 6 5 3 10 73 17 47 43 59 31 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% adefghi e o 13% 34% 11% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 11% 82% 18% 52% 48% 65% 35% Other Satellite TV 15 2 2 1 * - 9 - * - 13 3 9 6 9 6 1% 1% *% *% *% -% 4% -% *% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% abcdeghi 16% 11% 5% 2% -% 58% -% 3% -% 83% 17% 58% 42% 60% 40% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with ONLY free channels 770 65 85 80 64 77 75 81 31 107 643 127 336 431 448 323 29% 19% 24% 35% 34% 33% 31% 36% 28% 35% 28% 35% 22% 39% 31% 26% ab ab ab a ab a ab j l o 8% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 11% 4% 14% 84% 16% 44% 56% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Freeview (through a set-top box or television set) with free channels PLUS payment for extra channels such as Topup TV, Picturebox films 139 20 38 8 5 10 9 10 6 12 118 21 68 71 84 55 5% 6% 10% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 6% 6% 4% cdefghi l 14% 27% 5% 4% 7% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 49% 51% 60% 40% BT TV (formerly BT Vision) 100 12 18 9 6 6 11 8 2 6 85 15 66 34 64 36 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 5% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% o 12% 18% 9% 6% 6% 11% 8% 2% 6% 85% 15% 66% 34% 64% 36% TalkTalk TV 64 10 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 18 58 6 42 22 31 33 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% bcdefgh 16% 4% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 28% 91% 9% 65% 35% 49% 51% EE TV 8 2 1 2 1 - 1 - - 1 7 1 6 3 4 5 *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 21% 11% 23% 13% -% 11% -% -% 13% 88% 12% 69% 31% 46% 54% No TV in household 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 4% 13% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% *% 4% 3% 4% 3% 1% 6% bcdefghi i ci i m n 45% 9% 3% 4% 9% 11% 7% 2% 1% 90% 10% 69% 30% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH1B. SHOWCARD And which of these do you consider is your MAIN type of television? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Don't know 9 1 3 - 1 1 - 3 - - 7 2 2 6 7 2 *% *% 1% -% 1% *% -% 1% -% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% 7% 29% -% 12% 11% -% 34% -% -% 76% 24% 28% 72% 74% 26% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 120 73 47 25 40 34 21 23 22 15 7 18 48 17 37 83 10 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 85 50 36 20 31 25 13 18 15 13 5 12 39 11 25 72 7 13 9 Total 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Not interested in watching TV 48 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 48% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Busy with other interests 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 18% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Watch online instead 16 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't want to pay the TV Licence 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Too expensive to buy and install 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Recently moved home 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Can't afford to replace broken TV set 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 120 73 47 25 40 34 21 23 22 15 7 18 48 17 37 83 10 17 10 Effective Weighted Sample 85 50 36 20 31 25 13 18 15 13 5 12 39 11 25 72 7 13 9 Total 99 56 42 19 44 27 9 13 16 17 7 12 40 12 34 89 4 4 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Can't afford to pay the TV LIcence 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 120 31 8 3 6 11 11 8 4 1 96 24 71 46 38 82 Effective Weighted Sample 85 29 8 3 5 10 10 7 4 1 74 12 53 33 20 65 Total 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Not interested in watching TV 48 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 48% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Busy with other interests 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 18% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Watch online instead 16 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't want to pay the TV Licence 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Too expensive to buy and install 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Recently moved home 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Can't afford to replace broken TV set 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh2 (Qh66). What Are The Reasons Why You Don'T Have A Television Set In Your Household? What Other Reasons? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those without a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 120 31 8 3 6 11 11 8 4 1 96 24 71 46 38 82 Effective Weighted Sample 85 29 8 3 5 10 10 7 4 1 74 12 53 33 20 65 Total 99 44 9 3 4 9 10 7 2 1 88 10 68 29 20 79 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Can't afford to pay the TV LIcence 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh3 (Qh53). Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Hdtv Set Or Hd Ready? (Single Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, the main TV in the household is an HDTV set or HD ready 1902 944 958 251 340 705 606 180 174 275 522 562 503 450 385 1585 175 93 49 74% 76% 72% 73% 80% 79% 66% 60% 71% 81% 91% 81% 74% 80% 62% 74% 76% 73% 68% b f cf cf g gh ghi ln n ln r r 50% 50% 13% 18% 37% 32% 9% 9% 14% 27% 30% 26% 24% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% No 496 229 267 68 69 137 222 90 55 53 42 108 132 82 173 419 37 25 14 19% 18% 20% 20% 16% 15% 24% 30% 22% 16% 7% 16% 19% 15% 28% 20% 16% 20% 20% de hij ij j m klm 46% 54% 14% 14% 28% 45% 18% 11% 11% 8% 22% 27% 17% 35% 85% 7% 5% 3% Don't know 170 67 103 23 14 45 87 32 16 13 11 26 43 34 66 135 17 9 9 7% 5% 8% 7% 3% 5% 10% 10% 6% 4% 2% 4% 6% 6% 11% 6% 7% 7% 13% a d de ij j k klm opq 39% 61% 14% 8% 27% 51% 19% 9% 7% 6% 15% 26% 20% 39% 79% 10% 5% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH3 (QH53). Is the MAIN TV in your household an HDTV set or HD ready? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes, the main TV in the household is an HDTV set or HD ready 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 74% 62% 73% 86% 78% 70% 77% 80% 78% 70% 74% 77% 81% 65% 77% 70% a abdefhi a a aei aei m o 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% No 496 87 74 18 29 55 38 33 17 69 443 53 234 262 242 253 19% 29% 21% 8% 16% 24% 16% 15% 15% 23% 20% 15% 16% 24% 17% 22% cdfgh c c cdfgh c c c cdgh k l n 17% 15% 4% 6% 11% 8% 7% 3% 14% 89% 11% 47% 53% 49% 51% Don't know 170 24 19 13 12 13 15 10 7 21 144 26 53 116 77 93 7% 8% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 7% 4% 11% 5% 8% l n 14% 11% 7% 7% 8% 9% 6% 4% 12% 85% 15% 31% 68% 45% 55% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Qh54). Although You Have An Hdtv Ready Set, To Actually Watch Tv Channels And Programmes That Are Broadcast In High Definition, You Need An Hd Set Top Box Or A Tv With Built-In Hdtv Receiver. For The Main Tv Set, Does Your Household Have An Hdtv Service - From Either Sky, Virgin Media, Freesat Or Freeview? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 2585 | 1266 | 1319 | 356 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1773 | 869 | 904 | 237 | | Total | 1902 | 944 | 958 | 251 | | 50% | 50% | 13% | 18% | 37% | | Yes | 1503 | 764 | 739 | 205 | | 79% | 81% | 77% | 81% | 78% | | f | f | g | g | gh | | 51% | 49% | 14% | 18% | 38% | | No | 337 | 156 | 181 | 39 | | 18% | 17% | 19% | 16% | 20% | | e | hij | klm | r | r | | 46% | 54% | 12% | 20% | 32% | | Don't know | | | | | | 62 | 24 | 38 | 8 | 6 | | 3% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 2% | | d | j | o | oq | | | 39% | 61% | 12% | 10% | 32% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Qh54). Although You Have An Hdtv Ready Set, To Actually Watch Tv Channels And Programmes That Are Broadcast In High Definition, You Need An Hd Set Top Box Or A Tv With Built-In Hdtv Receiver. For The Main Tv Set, Does Your Household Have An Hdtv Service - From Either Sky, Virgin Media, Freesat Or Freeview? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2585 135 173 208 185 165 173 179 189 172 1889 696 1420 1157 1299 1286 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 119 164 199 173 153 165 170 176 156 1467 326 1005 799 917 890 Total 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% Yes 1503 149 196 169 101 108 145 139 62 185 1302 201 975 523 882 621 79% 81% 77% 87% 71% 68% 80% 80% 70% 88% 80% 75% 82% 75% 80% 77% deh bdeh deh deh bdeh m 10% 13% 11% 7% 7% 10% 9% 4% 12% 87% 13% 65% 35% 59% 41% No 337 34 51 21 39 46 27 30 22 19 282 55 189 145 186 151 18% 19% 20% 11% 27% 29% 15% 17% 26% 9% 17% 21% 16% 21% 17% 19% i ci cfgi cfgi i cfi l 10% 15% 6% 11% 14% 8% 9% 7% 6% 84% 16% 56% 43% 55% 45% Don't know 62 - 8 3 3 5 9 5 4 7 50 12 30 32 29 33 3% -% 3% 1% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% a a a l -% 13% 5% 5% 7% 14% 8% 6% 11% 81% 19% 48% 52% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh5 (Qh70). You Mentioned That You Have An Hd Ready Tv Or Hd Tv Service. Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Ultra High Definition (Known As Uhd) Tv Set Or Uhd Ready - Also Known As 4K? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2585 1266 1319 356 441 895 893 306 269 355 551 615 788 590 588 1579 345 342 319 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 869 904 237 299 619 628 215 180 256 418 455 534 411 394 1357 222 210 239 Total 1902 944 958 251 340 705 606 180 174 275 522 562 503 450 385 1585 175 93 49 50% 50% 13% 18% 37% 32% 9% 9% 14% 27% 30% 26% 24% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, the main TV in the household is an UHDTV set or UHD ready 579 298 281 89 107 231 153 38 44 88 133 176 157 141 105 480 49 29 21 30% 32% 29% 35% 31% 33% 25% 21% 25% 32% 25% 31% 31% 31% 27% 30% 28% 31% 42% f f f g opq 52% 48% 15% 18% 40% 26% 7% 8% 15% 23% 30% 27% 24% 18% 83% 8% 5% 4% No 1115 564 552 133 194 396 393 117 113 169 342 327 302 255 230 951 95 54 16 59% 60% 58% 53% 57% 56% 65% 65% 65% 61% 66% 58% 60% 57% 60% 60% 54% 58% 33% cde r r r 51% 49% 12% 17% 35% 35% 10% 10% 15% 31% 29% 27% 23% 21% 85% 8% 5% 1% Don't know 208 82 125 30 40 78 60 25 17 18 47 59 44 55 50 153 31 10 12 11% 9% 13% 12% 12% 11% 10% 14% 10% 7% 9% 10% 9% 12% 13% 10% 18% 11% 25% a i l oq oq 40% 60% 14% 19% 37% 29% 12% 8% 9% 22% 28% 21% 27% 24% 74% 15% 5% 6% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh5 (Qh70). You Mentioned That You Have An Hd Ready Tv Or Hd Tv Service. Is The Main Tv In Your Household An Ultra High Definition (Known As Uhd) Tv Set Or Uhd Ready - Also Known As 4K? (Single Code) Base : Those whose main TV set is an HDTV or HD-ready ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2585 135 173 208 185 165 173 179 189 172 1889 696 1420 1157 1299 1286 Effective Weighted Sample 1773 119 164 199 173 153 165 170 176 156 1467 326 1005 799 917 890 Total 1902 183 254 193 143 159 181 173 88 211 1633 269 1194 700 1097 805 10% 13% 10% 8% 8% 10% 9% 5% 11% 86% 14% 63% 37% 58% 42% Yes, the main TV in the household is an UHDTV set or UHD ready 579 68 93 16 62 70 31 23 22 93 510 69 404 174 314 265 30% 37% 37% 8% 44% 44% 17% 13% 25% 44% 31% 26% 34% 25% 29% 33% cfgh cfgh cfgh cfgh c cg cfgh m 12% 16% 3% 11% 12% 5% 4% 4% 16% 88% 12% 70% 30% 54% 46% No 1115 107 146 154 63 63 130 132 58 98 952 163 661 449 665 451 59% 59% 57% 80% 44% 40% 72% 76% 66% 46% 58% 61% 55% 64% 61% 56% dei dei abdehi abdei abdehi dei l o 10% 13% 14% 6% 6% 12% 12% 5% 9% 85% 15% 59% 40% 60% 40% Don't know 208 7 15 24 18 25 19 18 7 20 172 36 129 77 118 89 11% 4% 6% 12% 12% 16% 11% 10% 8% 9% 11% 13% 11% 11% 11% 11% ab ab abh a 4% 7% 11% 8% 12% 9% 9% 3% 10% 83% 17% 62% 37% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh6 (Qh3). Showcard Which Of The Following Best Describes Your Satellite Tv Service/S? (Multi Code) Base : Those with Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1566 743 823 228 283 570 485 160 166 210 307 369 483 356 356 878 184 254 250 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 483 537 144 178 383 323 103 112 148 219 253 317 237 225 759 109 158 188 Total 1086 524 562 153 203 431 299 86 112 157 272 309 293 249 235 895 80 72 38 48% 52% 14% 19% 40% 28% 8% 10% 14% 25% 28% 27% 23% 22% 82% 7% 7% 4% Sky satellite dish to receive subscription channels - you pay a monthly subscription fee 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 83% 81% 85% 87% 89% 84% 76% 85% 80% 85% 87% 80% 85% 84% 85% 82% 87% 86% 93% f f f oq 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - you pay no monthly subscription fee 56 27 29 7 6 26 17 7 8 8 8 17 9 15 14 48 2 4 1 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 3% 6% 3% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 3% j 49% 51% 12% 12% 46% 30% 13% 14% 14% 14% 31% 16% 27% 26% 86% 4% 8% 2% Freesat dish and set top box - you do not pay a subscription fee 83 46 37 8 9 32 34 3 8 13 20 30 25 14 14 74 4 4 1 8% 9% 7% 5% 4% 7% 12% 4% 7% 8% 7% 10% 9% 6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 2% cd r r 55% 45% 10% 11% 38% 41% 4% 10% 16% 24% 36% 30% 17% 17% 89% 5% 5% 1% Other satellite dish 14 9 6 1 5 4 5 1 1 1 8 6 2 2 4 12 2 1 * 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% *% 59% 41% 6% 34% 29% 31% 9% 8% 7% 53% 43% 16% 15% 26% 81% 12% 6% 1% Don't know 34 20 14 5 2 11 17 1 5 3 1 10 9 11 4 30 2 1 1 3% 4% 2% 3% 1% 2% 6% 2% 4% 2% *% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% de j 59% 41% 14% 6% 32% 49% 4% 14% 8% 4% 30% 27% 31% 12% 88% 7% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH6 (QH3). SHOWCARD Which of the following best describes your satellite TV service/s? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a b c ~d ~e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1566 97 107 108 98 85 93 96 101 93 1073 493 897 666 771 795 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 86 101 104 92 80 89 90 94 85 819 219 604 433 520 513 Total 1086 128 153 98 76 85 99 91 49 117 915 171 704 378 607 479 ** 14% 9% ** ** ** ** 4% ** 84% 16% 65% 35% 56% 44% Sky satellite dish to receive subscription channels - you pay a monthly subscription fee 904 ** 110 82 ** ** ** ** 41 ** 764 140 606 294 503 400 83% ** 72% 83% ** ** ** ** 84% ** 83% 82% 86% 78% 83% 84% m ** 12% 9% ** ** ** ** 5% ** 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky satellite dish for free to air services only - you pay no monthly subscription fee 56 ** 8 5 ** ** ** ** 1 ** 47 8 28 27 32 23 5% ** 5% 5% ** ** ** ** 2% ** 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% 5% l ** 15% 10% ** ** ** ** 2% ** 85% 15% 51% 49% 58% 42% Freesat dish and set top box - you do not pay a subscription fee 83 ** 25 6 ** ** ** ** 4 ** 67 16 46 37 51 32 8% ** 16% 6% ** ** ** ** 8% ** 7% 9% 7% 10% 8% 7% c ** 30% 7% ** ** ** ** 5% ** 81% 19% 56% 44% 61% 39% Other satellite dish 14 ** - 2 ** ** ** ** 1 ** 14 1 12 3 7 7 1% ** -% 2% ** ** ** ** 2% ** 2% *% 2% 1% 1% 2% ** -% 15% ** ** ** ** 8% ** 95% 5% 81% 19% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH6 (QH3). SHOWCARD Which of the following best describes your satellite TV service/s? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a b c ~d ~e ~f ~g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1566 97 107 108 98 85 93 96 101 93 1073 493 897 666 771 795 Effective Weighted Sample 1020 86 101 104 92 80 89 90 94 85 819 219 604 433 520 513 Total 1086 128 153 98 76 85 99 91 49 117 915 171 704 378 607 479 ** 14% 9% ** ** ** ** 4% ** 84% 16% 65% 35% 56% 44% Don't know 34 ** 9 3 ** ** ** ** 2 ** 27 7 16 18 18 16 3% ** 6% 3% ** ** ** ** 4% ** 3% 4% 2% 5% 3% 3% l ** 27% 8% ** ** ** ** 6% ** 78% 22% 48% 52% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky Sports 1 only 18 5 13 3 2 7 5 1 * 4 5 6 3 3 4 17 - * 1 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% *% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% -% *% 2% 28% 72% 19% 14% 40% 28% 5% 1% 20% 27% 37% 20% 19% 25% 95% -% *% 5% Sky Sports 2 only 3 2 1 * - 2 1 - - * 2 2 1 * - 2 - - * *% *% *% *% -% *% *% -% -% *% 1% 1% *% *% -% *% -% -% *% 79% 21% 17% -% 62% 21% -% -% 4% 58% 58% 38% 4% -% 96% -% -% 4% Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4) 326 184 142 57 59 116 94 17 25 50 100 111 93 76 47 272 32 12 9 36% 43% 30% 42% 33% 32% 41% 24% 28% 38% 42% 45% 37% 36% 23% 37% 46% 20% 25% b e e g gh n n n qr qr 56% 44% 17% 18% 36% 29% 5% 8% 15% 31% 34% 28% 23% 14% 84% 10% 4% 3% Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance) 58 21 37 14 12 19 14 5 6 6 17 23 12 15 8 51 3 3 1 6% 5% 8% 10% 7% 5% 6% 7% 7% 5% 7% 9% 5% 7% 4% 7% 4% 5% 4% n 36% 64% 23% 21% 32% 23% 9% 11% 10% 29% 39% 21% 26% 14% 87% 5% 6% 2% Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure) 15 5 10 2 2 7 4 - - 2 5 3 6 3 2 14 - 1 1 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% -% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% -% 1% 2% 31% 69% 15% 11% 47% 27% -% -% 14% 32% 22% 41% 22% 15% 91% -% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Sky Movies Pack (All Sky Movies channels in Sky Movies 1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic) 245 121 124 41 58 102 44 9 24 40 84 72 74 61 39 208 20 12 6 27% 29% 26% 31% 32% 28% 19% 13% 26% 30% 35% 29% 30% 29% 20% 28% 28% 19% 16% f f f g g g n n n qr r 49% 51% 17% 24% 42% 18% 4% 10% 16% 34% 29% 30% 25% 16% 85% 8% 5% 2% Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box) 350 186 164 59 65 150 76 17 22 49 111 108 111 80 51 290 31 24 5 39% 44% 34% 44% 36% 41% 34% 23% 24% 37% 47% 43% 45% 38% 26% 39% 44% 38% 14% b g gh n n n r r r 53% 47% 17% 19% 43% 22% 5% 6% 14% 32% 31% 32% 23% 15% 83% 9% 7% 1% ANY SKY SPORTS 346 191 155 60 62 125 99 18 25 54 106 119 97 79 51 291 32 13 10 38% 45% 32% 45% 34% 34% 44% 25% 28% 40% 45% 48% 39% 38% 26% 40% 46% 20% 27% b e e g gh mn n n qr qr 55% 45% 17% 18% 36% 29% 5% 7% 15% 31% 34% 28% 23% 15% 84% 9% 4% 3% ANY SKY MOVIES 319 147 172 57 72 128 62 15 30 48 105 98 92 79 50 272 23 16 8 35% 35% 36% 43% 40% 35% 27% 20% 33% 36% 44% 39% 37% 38% 25% 37% 33% 25% 22% f f f g g g n n n qr 46% 54% 18% 23% 40% 19% 5% 9% 15% 33% 31% 29% 25% 16% 85% 7% 5% 2% SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES 203 104 99 39 46 78 40 7 12 33 75 75 59 47 22 177 16 6 4 22% 25% 21% 29% 26% 22% 18% 9% 13% 25% 31% 30% 24% 22% 11% 24% 22% 9% 12% f gh gh n n n qr qr 51% 49% 19% 23% 39% 20% 3% 6% 16% 37% 37% 29% 23% 11% 87% 8% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1320 619 701 200 249 492 379 131 131 181 275 308 408 301 301 718 158 216 228 Effective Weighted Sample 853 398 456 125 156 329 250 84 89 126 195 208 265 199 189 624 93 134 171 Total 904 424 480 134 181 363 227 73 90 133 238 248 247 209 199 736 70 62 36 47% 53% 15% 20% 40% 25% 8% 10% 15% 26% 27% 27% 23% 22% 81% 8% 7% 4% Basic package only 294 121 173 33 66 125 70 34 34 45 66 66 72 68 87 239 17 23 16 33% 29% 36% 25% 36% 35% 31% 47% 37% 34% 28% 27% 29% 33% 44% 32% 24% 37% 44% a c c j klm op 41% 59% 11% 22% 43% 24% 12% 11% 15% 22% 22% 25% 23% 30% 81% 6% 8% 5% None of these 10 3 6 2 3 1 4 2 1 3 - 2 4 1 3 7 1 * 2 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% *% 2% 3% 1% 2% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% j j oq 35% 65% 24% 26% 9% 41% 19% 12% 30% -% 22% 40% 12% 26% 67% 9% 3% 21% Don't know 19 6 13 4 1 7 7 2 3 - 2 7 3 4 6 14 * 2 4 2% 1% 3% 3% *% 2% 3% 3% 3% -% 1% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% *% 3% 10% i opq 31% 69% 22% 4% 36% 39% 13% 13% -% 9% 35% 17% 19% 29% 71% 1% 9% 19% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH4 (Q5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these channels do you subscribe to through your Sky satellite service? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky Sports 1 only 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15 3 14 3 8 10 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 82% 18% 44% 56% Sky Sports 2 only 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 * 3 - 1 2 *% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *% *% *% -% *% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 96% 4% 100% -% 21% 79% Sky Sports Pack (Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 4) 326 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 276 50 211 114 184 142 36% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36% 36% 35% 39% 37% 35% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 65% 35% 56% 44% Sky Movies 1 only (Comedy, Family, Classics, Modern Greats, Drama & Romance) 58 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 50 8 32 27 33 25 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% 6% 5% 9% 7% 6% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 54% 46% 57% 43% Sky Movies 2 only (Comedy, Indie, Sci-Fi & Horror, Crime & Thriller, Action & Adventure) 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13 2 10 5 8 7 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 69% 31% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% Sky Movies Pack (All Sky Movies channels in Sky Movies 1 and 2, plus Premiere and Disney Cinemagic) 245 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 212 33 175 66 147 99 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 28% 24% 29% 23% 29% 25% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 71% 27% 60% 40% Sky+ HD (High Definition channels through Sky+ HD box) 350 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 296 53 253 97 207 142 39% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 39% 38% 42% 33% 41% 36% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 72% 28% 59% 41% ANY SKY SPORTS 346 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 294 52 228 117 192 154 38% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 38% 37% 38% 40% 38% 38% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 66% 34% 55% 45% ANY SKY MOVIES 319 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 275 43 217 98 188 131 35% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36% 31% 36% 33% 37% 33% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 68% 31% 59% 41% SKY SPORTS AND SKY MOVIES 203 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 177 26 141 61 111 92 22% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 23% 19% 23% 21% 22% 23% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 69% 30% 54% 46% Basic package only 294 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 254 40 197 97 156 139 33% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 33% 29% 33% 33% 31% 35% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 67% 33% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh4 (Q5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Sky Satellite Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with paid for Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1320 76 77 89 81 76 75 81 82 81 893 427 786 531 653 667 Effective Weighted Sample 853 68 73 86 77 71 72 75 77 74 686 184 525 342 438 423 Total 904 105 110 82 65 76 79 77 41 101 764 140 606 294 503 400 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 67% 33% 56% 44% None of these 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7 3 5 5 6 4 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 70% 30% 48% 52% 57% 43% Don't know 19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16 3 12 7 9 10 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 63% 37% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh8 (Qh5). Showcard Which, If Any, Of These Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Cable Tv Service? (Multi Code) Base : Those with Cable TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 486 242 244 72 79 157 178 53 44 54 111 110 158 105 113 358 77 27 24 Effective Weighted Sample 387 196 191 55 62 130 144 42 36 44 96 94 126 87 85 302 67 19 19 Total 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 52% 48% ** ** 36% 32% ** ** ** 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% ** ** ** Sky Sports channels 89 51 38 ** ** 28 32 ** ** ** 28 34 26 17 12 69 ** ** ** 21% 23% 19% ** ** 18% 23% ** ** ** 22% 28% 22% 16% 14% 20% ** ** ** n 57% 43% ** ** 31% 36% ** ** ** 32% 38% 30% 19% 14% 78% ** ** ** Sky Movies channels 60 35 24 ** ** 20 16 ** ** ** 22 23 11 18 8 45 ** ** ** 14% 16% 12% ** ** 13% 12% ** ** ** 17% 19% 9% 17% 9% 13% ** ** ** l 59% 41% ** ** 34% 27% ** ** ** 37% 38% 19% 30% 13% 76% ** ** ** High Definition channel through V+ HD box 145 86 59 ** ** 53 44 ** ** ** 49 46 45 35 18 107 ** ** ** 34% 39% 29% ** ** 34% 32% ** ** ** 39% 39% 37% 34% 21% 31% ** ** ** b n n 59% 41% ** ** 37% 30% ** ** ** 34% 32% 31% 24% 12% 74% ** ** ** Basic package only 193 95 98 ** ** 68 69 ** ** ** 57 43 52 50 49 167 ** ** ** 45% 43% 48% ** ** 44% 50% ** ** ** 45% 36% 43% 48% 58% 48% ** ** ** kl 49% 51% ** ** 35% 36% ** ** ** 29% 22% 27% 26% 25% 87% ** ** ** None of these 34 19 14 ** ** 17 8 ** ** ** 9 9 11 10 3 28 ** ** ** 8% 9% 7% ** ** 11% 6% ** ** ** 7% 8% 9% 10% 4% 8% ** ** ** 57% 43% ** ** 52% 25% ** ** ** 27% 27% 33% 30% 10% 84% ** ** ** Don't know 19 6 13 ** ** 6 3 ** ** ** 2 2 3 4 9 15 ** ** ** 4% 3% 6% ** ** 4% 2% ** ** ** 1% 2% 3% 4% 11% 4% ** ** ** kl 32% 68% ** ** 31% 14% ** ** ** 9% 12% 18% 21% 49% 78% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH8 (QH5). SHOWCARD Which, if any, of these channels do you subscribe to through your Cable TV service? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with Cable TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 486 39 34 27 45 51 42 31 49 40 458 28 267 216 185 301 Effective Weighted Sample 387 36 33 26 42 47 40 29 46 36 373 15 224 169 156 238 Total 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% ** 64% 36% 46% 54% Sky Sports channels 89 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87 ** 61 28 44 45 21% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 21% ** 22% 18% 22% 19% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 99% ** 68% 32% 50% 50% Sky Movies channels 60 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 60 ** 48 12 24 36 14% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 14% ** 17% 8% 12% 16% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** 80% 20% 39% 61% High Definition channel through V+ HD box 145 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 144 ** 97 48 77 67 34% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 35% ** 35% 31% 39% 29% o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 99% ** 67% 33% 54% 46% Basic package only 193 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 186 ** 121 72 86 108 45% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 45% ** 44% 47% 43% 47% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 96% ** 62% 37% 44% 56% None of these 34 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 32 ** 25 8 10 24 8% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8% ** 9% 5% 5% 10% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 95% ** 73% 24% 29% 71% Don't know 19 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17 ** 8 10 7 12 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** 3% 7% 4% 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% ** 45% 55% 38% 62% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 548 261 287 65 77 200 206 77 49 72 97 114 164 130 138 282 66 81 119 Effective Weighted Sample 344 165 179 42 52 124 126 51 32 48 71 77 98 86 84 242 43 49 85 Total 372 173 199 43 57 140 132 47 32 56 89 97 97 93 82 296 34 22 20 47% 53% ** ** 38% 35% ** ** ** ** 26% 26% 25% 22% 80% ** ** 5% BT Sport channels 42 23 19 ** ** 17 12 ** ** ** ** 16 12 8 7 32 ** ** 1 11% 13% 9% ** ** 12% 9% ** ** ** ** 16% 12% 9% 8% 11% ** ** 3% r 55% 45% ** ** 40% 29% ** ** ** ** 37% 27% 20% 16% 75% ** ** 1% High Definition channels through HD receiver/ box 32 19 13 ** ** 14 4 ** ** ** ** 10 7 7 8 24 ** ** * 9% 11% 6% ** ** 10% 3% ** ** ** ** 10% 8% 8% 9% 8% ** ** 2% f 60% 40% ** ** 43% 14% ** ** ** ** 31% 23% 22% 23% 75% ** ** 2% Sky Sports channels 12 5 7 ** ** 1 6 ** ** ** ** 2 6 2 2 8 ** ** 2 3% 3% 4% ** ** 1% 4% ** ** ** ** 2% 7% 2% 2% 3% ** ** 9% o 42% 58% ** ** 12% 46% ** ** ** ** 18% 54% 15% 14% 68% ** ** 15% Sky Movies channels 8 3 5 ** ** 3 3 ** ** ** ** 3 2 1 2 7 ** ** * 2% 2% 3% ** ** 2% 2% ** ** ** ** 4% 2% 1% 2% 2% ** ** 2% 33% 67% ** ** 32% 37% ** ** ** ** 43% 20% 17% 20% 83% ** ** 5% Ultra High Definition channels (broadcast in more detail than HD channels) 6 3 3 ** ** 3 - ** ** ** ** - 3 2 1 6 ** ** * 2% 1% 2% ** ** 2% -% ** ** ** ** -% 3% 2% 1% 2% ** ** 1% 43% 57% ** ** 51% -% ** ** ** ** -% 55% 32% 13% 97% ** ** 3% Basic package only 104 43 62 ** ** 41 31 ** ** ** ** 26 23 32 23 83 ** ** 6 28% 25% 31% ** ** 30% 24% ** ** ** ** 27% 23% 34% 28% 28% ** ** 28% 41% 59% ** ** 40% 30% ** ** ** ** 25% 22% 31% 22% 80% ** ** 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j k l m n o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 548 261 287 65 77 200 206 77 49 72 97 114 164 130 138 282 66 81 119 Effective Weighted Sample 344 165 179 42 52 124 126 51 32 48 71 77 98 86 84 242 43 49 85 Total 372 173 199 43 57 140 132 47 32 56 89 97 97 93 82 296 34 22 20 47% 53% ** ** 38% 35% ** ** ** ** 26% 26% 25% 22% 80% ** ** 5% None of these 128 63 66 ** ** 45 55 ** ** ** ** 22 36 35 36 102 ** ** 6 35% 36% 33% ** ** 33% 42% ** ** ** ** 22% 37% 37% 43% 34% ** ** 29% k k k 49% 51% ** ** 35% 43% ** ** ** ** 17% 28% 27% 28% 79% ** ** 5% Don't know 63 29 34 ** ** 23 25 ** ** ** ** 25 17 10 11 53 ** ** 6 17% 17% 17% ** ** 16% 19% ** ** ** ** 25% 17% 10% 14% 18% ** ** 31% m o 46% 54% ** ** 36% 40% ** ** ** ** 39% 26% 16% 18% 83% ** ** 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 548 37 39 27 23 29 29 31 32 35 380 168 292 255 279 269 Effective Weighted Sample 344 32 37 26 22 26 27 30 30 32 278 73 187 160 180 173 Total 372 47 59 25 17 26 30 31 15 45 316 56 221 150 220 152 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 59% 40% 59% 41% BT Sport channels 42 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 36 6 27 15 22 20 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% 11% 12% 10% 10% 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 65% 35% 53% 47% High Definition channels through HD receiver/ box 32 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 29 3 22 10 16 16 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9% 5% 10% 7% 7% 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% 8% 68% 32% 50% 50% Sky Sports channels 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 2 8 4 6 6 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 66% 34% 52% 48% Sky Movies channels 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 2 5 3 4 4 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76% 24% 63% 37% 50% 50% Ultra High Definition channels (broadcast in more detail than HD channels) 6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6 - 5 1 3 3 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% -% 2% 1% 1% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% 87% 13% 57% 43% Basic package only 104 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90 14 66 39 51 53 28% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 29% 25% 30% 26% 23% 35% n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 63% 37% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh9 (Qh68). Showcard Which Of The Following Channels Do You Subscribe To Through Your Pay Tv Service? Base : Those with any (non-SKy and non-Virgin Media) paid-for TV services ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 548 37 39 27 23 29 29 31 32 35 380 168 292 255 279 269 Effective Weighted Sample 344 32 37 26 22 26 27 30 30 32 278 73 187 160 180 173 Total 372 47 59 25 17 26 30 31 15 45 316 56 221 150 220 152 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 59% 40% 59% 41% None of these 128 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 111 17 66 62 80 48 35% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 35% 30% 30% 41% 37% 32% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 13% 52% 48% 63% 37% Don't know 63 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 48 15 38 25 45 18 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15% 26% 17% 16% 21% 12% j o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 77% 23% 60% 39% 72% 28% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10A (Qr1A). Does Your Household Have Sky+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Sky Satellite TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1414 661 753 212 259 525 418 143 149 186 278 326 429 327 330 774 169 228 243 Effective Weighted Sample 914 424 490 133 163 350 275 93 99 130 197 219 280 216 207 669 101 143 182 Total 965 452 513 139 187 390 248 78 102 136 239 264 258 229 213 786 75 66 37 47% 53% 14% 19% 40% 26% 8% 11% 14% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 8% 7% 4% Yes 847 400 447 118 170 346 212 63 92 124 223 238 228 207 174 688 68 57 34 88% 88% 87% 85% 91% 89% 85% 80% 90% 91% 93% 90% 88% 91% 82% 88% 91% 85% 92% g g n n q 47% 53% 14% 20% 41% 25% 7% 11% 15% 26% 28% 27% 24% 21% 81% 8% 7% 4% No 105 49 56 20 13 41 31 14 10 11 14 23 27 20 35 89 6 8 2 11% 11% 11% 14% 7% 11% 12% 17% 10% 8% 6% 9% 11% 9% 16% 11% 8% 13% 5% d ij km r r 47% 53% 19% 12% 39% 29% 13% 10% 10% 13% 22% 26% 19% 33% 84% 6% 8% 2% Don't know 13 3 10 1 3 3 6 2 - 2 2 3 4 1 5 10 1 2 1 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 24% 76% 6% 26% 23% 45% 13% -% 13% 14% 26% 28% 10% 35% 74% 6% 12% 8% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10A (Qr1A). Does Your Household Have Sky+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Sky Satellite TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1414 82 83 96 88 83 77 89 93 83 970 444 829 582 686 728 Effective Weighted Sample 914 74 78 92 83 78 74 83 87 76 737 193 553 375 460 463 Total 965 115 119 88 70 84 81 84 44 103 816 148 639 322 529 436 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 66% 33% 55% 45% Yes 847 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 714 133 573 270 489 358 88% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% 90% 90% 84% 92% 82% m o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 68% 32% 58% 42% No 105 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93 12 60 45 33 72 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% 8% 9% 14% 6% 16% l n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% 11% 57% 43% 32% 68% Don't know 13 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 10 3 6 7 7 6 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 74% 26% 43% 57% 51% 49% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10B (Qr1B). Does Your Household Have Virgin Tivo Or V+? (Single Code) Base : Those with Virgin Media (Cable TV) GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 486 242 244 72 79 157 178 53 44 54 111 110 158 105 113 358 77 27 24 Effective Weighted Sample 387 196 191 55 62 130 144 42 36 44 96 94 126 87 85 302 67 19 19 Total 428 222 206 64 70 156 138 35 34 47 126 119 121 103 84 350 64 8 5 52% 48% ** ** 36% 32% ** ** ** 30% 28% 28% 24% 20% 82% ** ** ** Yes 323 170 153 ** ** 129 88 ** ** ** 103 92 94 83 53 262 ** ** ** 76% 77% 74% ** ** 83% 64% ** ** ** 82% 77% 78% 81% 62% 75% ** ** ** f n n n 53% 47% ** ** 40% 27% ** ** ** 32% 29% 29% 26% 16% 81% ** ** ** No 87 43 45 ** ** 24 40 ** ** ** 21 23 25 16 23 73 ** ** ** 20% 19% 22% ** ** 16% 29% ** ** ** 16% 19% 21% 16% 27% 21% ** ** ** e 49% 51% ** ** 28% 46% ** ** ** 23% 27% 29% 18% 26% 84% ** ** ** Don't know 17 10 8 ** ** 2 9 ** ** ** 3 4 2 3 9 15 ** ** ** 4% 4% 4% ** ** 1% 7% ** ** ** 2% 3% 1% 3% 10% 4% ** ** ** e l 55% 45% ** ** 13% 54% ** ** ** 16% 21% 10% 19% 50% 88% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH10B (QR1B). Does your household have Virgin TiVo or V+? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those with Virgin Media (Cable TV) ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 486 39 34 27 45 51 42 31 49 40 458 28 267 216 185 301 Effective Weighted Sample 387 36 33 26 42 47 40 29 46 36 373 15 224 169 156 238 Total 428 56 53 26 34 46 41 28 23 44 415 12 273 152 198 230 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% ** 64% 36% 46% 54% Yes 323 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 314 ** 220 102 158 165 76% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76% ** 81% 67% 80% 72% m ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% ** 68% 31% 49% 51% No 87 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85 ** 45 41 34 54 20% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 20% ** 16% 27% 17% 23% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 97% ** 51% 47% 39% 61% Don't know 17 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 16 ** 8 9 6 12 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** 3% 6% 3% 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93% ** 46% 54% 32% 68% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10C (Qr1C). Does Your Freesat Set Top Box Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freesat GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 150 83 67 16 14 48 72 14 18 22 27 44 52 31 23 101 17 27 5 Effective Weighted Sample 107 61 47 11 9 37 51 8 14 15 21 34 35 24 15 88 9 17 4 Total 120 71 49 15 9 45 51 7 12 17 30 45 33 25 18 106 7 7 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 88% ** ** ** Yes 56 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 52 ** ** ** 46% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 49% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% ** ** ** No 62 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 53 ** ** ** 51% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 50% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% ** ** ** Don't know 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 65% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10C (Qr1C). Does Your Freesat Set Top Box Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freesat ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 150 13 24 12 9 8 10 7 8 10 100 50 69 81 89 61 Effective Weighted Sample 107 12 22 11 9 7 10 7 7 10 81 27 54 55 63 48 Total 120 11 34 11 7 8 11 6 4 14 96 24 68 53 80 41 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 80% ** ** ** ** ** Yes 56 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40 ** ** ** ** ** 46% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 41% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 71% ** ** ** ** ** No 62 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 55 ** ** ** ** ** 51% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 57% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% ** ** ** ** ** Don't know 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 69% ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10D (Qr1D). Does Your Freeview Box Or Freeview Tv Set Allow To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes (This Includes Freeview Playback And Freeview Plus Boxes)? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freeview GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1949 936 1013 256 241 550 902 347 209 231 291 407 552 401 586 1131 288 221 309 Effective Weighted Sample 1280 612 669 166 154 366 601 229 136 161 219 295 359 263 375 974 170 135 221 Total 1327 639 687 175 171 405 577 195 127 174 269 355 336 274 359 1103 128 53 42 48% 52% 13% 13% 31% 43% 15% 10% 13% 20% 27% 25% 21% 27% 83% 10% 4% 3% Yes 379 173 206 43 48 113 176 45 31 43 90 132 105 62 79 322 32 15 9 29% 27% 30% 25% 28% 28% 30% 23% 25% 25% 34% 37% 31% 23% 22% 29% 25% 29% 22% g mn mn r 46% 54% 11% 13% 30% 46% 12% 8% 11% 24% 35% 28% 16% 21% 85% 8% 4% 2% No 889 442 447 125 115 278 371 140 91 127 169 214 214 200 261 739 84 35 32 67% 69% 65% 72% 67% 69% 64% 72% 72% 73% 63% 60% 64% 73% 73% 67% 66% 65% 75% j j kl kl o 50% 50% 14% 13% 31% 42% 16% 10% 14% 19% 24% 24% 22% 29% 83% 9% 4% 4% Don't know 59 24 35 7 8 14 30 9 4 4 10 9 17 12 19 42 12 3 2 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% 3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 4% 5% 4% 9% 6% 4% or 41% 59% 11% 13% 24% 52% 16% 7% 6% 17% 16% 29% 21% 33% 71% 21% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10D (Qr1D). Does Your Freeview Box Or Freeview Tv Set Allow To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes (This Includes Freeview Playback And Freeview Plus Boxes)? (Single Code) Base : Those with Freeview ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1949 83 99 139 123 140 120 182 110 135 1354 595 851 1093 1018 931 Effective Weighted Sample 1280 73 94 133 115 128 114 168 102 125 1039 258 570 732 682 627 Total 1327 116 137 127 92 129 127 166 46 163 1123 204 673 649 791 536 ** ** 10% 7% 10% 10% 13% 3% 12% 85% 15% 51% 49% 60% 40% Yes 379 ** ** 36 30 32 47 41 12 40 315 63 199 178 246 132 29% ** ** 29% 33% 25% 37% 25% 27% 25% 28% 31% 30% 27% 31% 25% egi o ** ** 10% 8% 8% 12% 11% 3% 11% 83% 17% 52% 47% 65% 35% No 889 ** ** 83 56 91 79 122 29 118 755 134 451 437 515 374 67% ** ** 65% 61% 71% 62% 74% 63% 73% 67% 66% 67% 67% 65% 70% df ** ** 9% 6% 10% 9% 14% 3% 13% 85% 15% 51% 49% 58% 42% Don't know 59 ** ** 8 6 6 1 3 5 5 53 6 23 34 29 29 4% ** ** 6% 6% 5% 1% 2% 10% 3% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 6% fg fg fgi ** ** 14% 10% 11% 2% 5% 8% 8% 90% 10% 40% 59% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10E (Qr1E). Does Your Broadband Tv Service Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with BT TV or TalkTalk TV GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 253 114 139 26 43 97 87 30 27 35 66 64 75 64 50 144 37 41 31 Effective Weighted Sample 176 80 96 17 31 67 62 23 18 25 51 46 51 48 35 125 27 28 25 Total 192 83 110 18 37 77 60 22 18 30 62 59 46 54 34 152 22 13 6 43% 57% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 79% ** ** ** Yes 155 68 88 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 124 ** ** ** 81% 82% 80% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% ** ** ** 44% 56% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 80% ** ** ** No 26 13 13 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 19 ** ** ** 13% 16% 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13% ** ** ** 51% 49% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 74% ** ** ** Don't know 11 2 10 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9 ** ** ** 6% 2% 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** ** ** 15% 85% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 82% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh10E (Qr1E). Does Your Broadband Tv Service Allow You To Record And Store Tv Programmes, And Also Pause And Rewind Live Tv Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those with BT TV or TalkTalk TV ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 253 19 14 17 14 10 17 19 13 21 184 69 149 104 135 118 Effective Weighted Sample 176 16 13 17 13 9 16 18 12 19 142 36 104 75 92 88 Total 192 24 22 17 11 10 18 18 6 27 162 30 125 67 114 79 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** 65% 35% 59% 41% Yes 155 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 132 ** 102 53 84 71 81% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% ** 82% 78% 74% 90% n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% ** 66% 34% 54% 46% No 26 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 22 ** 13 13 20 6 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13% ** 11% 19% 18% 7% o ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** 51% 49% 78% 22% Don't know 11 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9 ** 9 2 9 2 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** 7% 3% 8% 3% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76% ** 82% 18% 81% 19% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those who own a DVR GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2237 1060 1177 310 387 811 729 222 220 297 476 544 705 500 485 1340 291 309 297 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 728 805 201 258 563 520 155 151 212 359 400 479 350 318 1159 188 191 229 Total 1645 786 859 211 298 637 499 136 151 230 450 488 453 383 320 1358 152 90 45 48% 52% 13% 18% 39% 30% 8% 9% 14% 27% 30% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 367 162 205 41 66 146 114 31 39 53 110 106 100 95 66 312 26 25 3 22% 21% 24% 19% 22% 23% 23% 23% 26% 23% 25% 22% 22% 25% 21% 23% 17% 28% 7% r r pr 44% 56% 11% 18% 40% 31% 8% 11% 15% 30% 29% 27% 26% 18% 85% 7% 7% 1% A few times a week 486 231 255 57 83 197 150 33 40 67 134 136 121 133 96 390 54 28 14 30% 29% 30% 27% 28% 31% 30% 24% 26% 29% 30% 28% 27% 35% 30% 29% 36% 31% 32% kl 48% 52% 12% 17% 40% 31% 7% 8% 14% 28% 28% 25% 27% 20% 80% 11% 6% 3% Once a week 195 96 99 27 40 75 52 16 25 31 62 41 75 40 38 173 14 5 3 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 12% 17% 13% 14% 8% 17% 11% 12% 13% 9% 5% 6% km qr 49% 51% 14% 21% 39% 27% 8% 13% 16% 32% 21% 39% 21% 19% 89% 7% 2% 2% A few times a month 138 72 66 16 24 52 46 7 18 22 30 42 31 37 28 110 17 7 5 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 5% 12% 10% 7% 9% 7% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 10% gj 52% 48% 12% 17% 38% 33% 5% 13% 16% 21% 31% 22% 27% 21% 79% 12% 5% 3% Once a month 57 30 26 13 9 20 15 5 3 11 10 21 18 12 7 44 6 3 3 3% 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 5% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 7% o 54% 46% 22% 16% 35% 27% 8% 6% 19% 17% 37% 31% 21% 11% 77% 11% 6% 6% Less often 183 97 86 23 32 74 53 19 14 21 45 76 47 23 36 142 19 11 10 11% 12% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11% 14% 9% 9% 10% 16% 10% 6% 11% 10% 13% 12% 22% lm m m opq 53% 47% 13% 18% 41% 29% 10% 8% 12% 24% 42% 26% 13% 20% 78% 11% 6% 6% Never 138 62 76 25 21 43 49 21 8 13 31 39 32 27 40 122 9 5 3 8% 8% 9% 12% 7% 7% 10% 16% 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% 7% 12% 9% 6% 5% 7% e hij klm 45% 55% 18% 16% 31% 35% 15% 6% 10% 23% 28% 23% 19% 29% 88% 6% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh11 (Qr5). Showcard How Often, If Ever, Do You Use Your Dvr To Watch Recorded Programmes? (Single Code) Base : Those who own a DVR GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2237 1060 1177 310 387 811 729 222 220 297 476 544 705 500 485 1340 291 309 297 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 728 805 201 258 563 520 155 151 212 359 400 479 350 318 1159 188 191 229 Total 1645 786 859 211 298 637 499 136 151 230 450 488 453 383 320 1358 152 90 45 48% 52% 13% 18% 39% 30% 8% 9% 14% 27% 30% 28% 23% 19% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 81 36 45 8 22 30 20 5 3 11 28 26 29 16 9 65 6 6 3 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 3% 5% 4% 7% 7% f h n 44% 56% 11% 27% 37% 25% 6% 4% 14% 35% 32% 36% 20% 12% 81% 8% 7% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH11 (QR5). SHOWCARD How often, if ever, do you use your DVR to watch recorded programmes? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who own a DVR ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2237 118 164 156 155 143 163 138 152 151 1630 607 1288 944 1117 1120 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 104 155 150 146 133 156 130 141 138 1271 281 901 657 790 770 Total 1645 156 239 146 121 139 169 132 72 184 1417 227 1060 578 944 701 9% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 57% 43% Every day 367 18 51 36 31 32 39 42 29 33 316 51 236 130 214 153 22% 12% 21% 25% 26% 23% 23% 32% 41% 18% 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% 22% a a a a a ai abcdefi 5% 14% 10% 9% 9% 11% 11% 8% 9% 86% 14% 64% 35% 58% 42% A few times a week 486 29 80 50 30 36 47 35 18 65 428 58 324 160 270 216 30% 19% 33% 34% 25% 26% 28% 26% 25% 35% 30% 25% 31% 28% 29% 31% a a a 6% 16% 10% 6% 7% 10% 7% 4% 13% 88% 12% 67% 33% 56% 44% Once a week 195 29 36 21 5 17 16 14 8 26 173 22 124 71 115 80 12% 19% 15% 14% 4% 12% 10% 11% 11% 14% 12% 10% 12% 12% 12% 11% df d d d d d d 15% 18% 11% 3% 8% 8% 7% 4% 13% 89% 11% 63% 37% 59% 41% A few times a month 138 18 23 9 14 14 8 8 3 13 123 15 88 49 76 63 8% 11% 10% 6% 11% 10% 5% 6% 4% 7% 9% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% fh fh h 13% 17% 6% 10% 10% 6% 6% 2% 9% 89% 11% 63% 35% 55% 45% Once a month 57 5 8 2 7 9 1 7 1 3 40 17 37 19 31 25 3% 3% 3% 2% 6% 7% 1% 5% 1% 2% 3% 7% 4% 3% 3% 4% cfh cfhi f j 9% 13% 4% 13% 17% 2% 12% 2% 6% 70% 30% 66% 34% 56% 44% Less often 183 30 17 8 13 15 19 11 1 29 161 22 122 59 105 77 11% 19% 7% 5% 11% 11% 11% 8% 1% 15% 11% 10% 12% 10% 11% 11% bcgh h h h h h bch 17% 9% 4% 7% 8% 10% 6% 1% 16% 88% 12% 67% 33% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH11 (QR5). SHOWCARD How often, if ever, do you use your DVR to watch recorded programmes? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who own a DVR ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2237 118 164 156 155 143 163 138 152 151 1630 607 1288 944 1117 1120 Effective Weighted Sample 1533 104 155 150 146 133 156 130 141 138 1271 281 901 657 790 770 Total 1645 156 239 146 121 139 169 132 72 184 1417 227 1060 578 944 701 9% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 35% 57% 43% Never 138 10 18 18 12 9 16 15 10 15 116 22 77 61 83 55 8% 6% 7% 12% 10% 7% 9% 11% 14% 8% 8% 10% 7% 11% 9% 8% l 7% 13% 13% 9% 7% 11% 11% 7% 11% 84% 16% 56% 44% 60% 40% Don't know 81 17 7 2 8 6 23 - 2 1 60 21 52 28 49 32 5% 11% 3% 2% 6% 5% 14% -% 2% *% 4% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% bcghi cgi gi bcdeghi j 21% 9% 3% 9% 8% 28% -% 2% 1% 74% 26% 65% 35% 61% 39% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Yes, I watch Tv programmes/ films using the catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, Demand 5, YouView, Sky on Demand, Virgin on Demand) 876 421 455 139 171 349 217 60 64 146 283 294 254 201 126 728 91 39 18 34% 34% 34% 41% 40% 39% 24% 20% 26% 43% 49% 42% 37% 35% 20% 34% 40% 31% 25% f f f gh gh mn n n r qr 48% 52% 16% 19% 40% 25% 7% 7% 17% 32% 34% 29% 23% 14% 83% 10% 4% 2% Yes, I watch TV programmes/ films using the pay per view services (e.g. on Sky Box Office on Sky on Demand, Virgin Movies on Virgin Media) 438 216 223 73 89 206 70 26 30 60 140 125 119 110 84 375 28 20 15 17% 17% 17% 21% 21% 23% 8% 9% 12% 18% 24% 18% 18% 19% 13% 18% 12% 15% 21% f f f g ghi n n n p p 49% 51% 17% 20% 47% 16% 6% 7% 14% 32% 28% 27% 25% 19% 86% 6% 4% 3% Yes, I was TV programmes/ films using a 'standalone' subscription service such as Netflix (e.g. on Virgin TiVo) 400 189 212 86 93 171 50 25 25 63 146 130 117 87 66 325 44 17 14 16% 15% 16% 25% 22% 19% 5% 8% 10% 19% 25% 19% 17% 15% 11% 15% 19% 14% 19% ef f f gh ghi n n n 47% 53% 22% 23% 43% 13% 6% 6% 16% 37% 32% 29% 22% 17% 81% 11% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL 'YES' 1193 577 616 192 238 493 270 83 84 178 392 378 338 279 197 988 122 52 30 46% 47% 46% 56% 56% 56% 30% 27% 35% 52% 68% 54% 50% 49% 32% 46% 53% 41% 42% f f f gh ghi n n n oqr 48% 52% 16% 20% 41% 23% 7% 7% 15% 33% 32% 28% 23% 17% 83% 10% 4% 3% No 1320 639 681 145 178 372 626 216 155 156 172 300 325 277 417 1101 104 74 40 51% 52% 51% 42% 42% 42% 68% 71% 63% 46% 30% 43% 48% 49% 67% 51% 45% 58% 56% cde hij ij j klm p op p 48% 52% 11% 13% 28% 47% 16% 12% 12% 13% 23% 25% 21% 32% 83% 8% 6% 3% Don't know 55 25 30 5 8 23 19 3 5 8 10 18 16 10 10 49 3 2 1 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 45% 55% 9% 14% 41% 35% 6% 9% 14% 19% 32% 29% 19% 18% 90% 5% 3% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh12 (Qh42A). Showcard Do You Ever Watch Tv Programmes 'On Demand' Through Your Tv Service? (Read Explanation If Necessary) (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes, I watch Tv programmes/ films using the catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, Demand 5, YouView, Sky on Demand, Virgin on Demand) 876 62 101 85 69 83 100 96 31 102 754 121 604 269 529 346 34% 21% 29% 38% 37% 37% 43% 45% 28% 34% 34% 35% 41% 25% 37% 30% abh ah ah abh abhi a m o 7% 12% 10% 8% 10% 11% 11% 4% 12% 86% 14% 69% 31% 60% 40% Yes, I watch TV programmes/ films using the pay per view services (e.g. on Sky Box Office on Sky on Demand, Virgin Movies on Virgin Media) 438 57 70 40 34 48 31 25 14 55 395 44 330 107 254 184 17% 19% 20% 18% 19% 21% 13% 12% 12% 18% 18% 13% 22% 10% 18% 16% gh gh g fgh g k m 13% 16% 9% 8% 11% 7% 6% 3% 13% 90% 10% 75% 24% 58% 42% Yes, I was TV programmes/ films using a 'standalone' subscription service such as Netflix (e.g. on Virgin TiVo) 400 51 41 36 24 40 41 35 15 44 354 46 310 89 190 211 16% 17% 12% 16% 13% 18% 17% 16% 14% 15% 16% 13% 21% 8% 13% 18% m n 13% 10% 9% 6% 10% 10% 9% 4% 11% 88% 12% 77% 22% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH12 (QH42A). SHOWCARD Do you ever watch TV programmes 'on demand' through your TV service? (READ EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY) (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% TOTAL 'YES' 1193 112 157 113 89 113 117 108 43 137 1040 152 842 346 707 486 46% 38% 45% 50% 48% 50% 50% 50% 38% 46% 47% 44% 57% 32% 50% 42% ah ah ah ah ah m o 9% 13% 9% 7% 10% 10% 9% 4% 11% 87% 13% 71% 29% 59% 41% No 1320 169 179 110 86 113 113 106 68 157 1133 187 609 708 677 643 51% 57% 51% 49% 47% 50% 48% 49% 61% 52% 51% 54% 41% 66% 48% 56% d bcdefg l n 13% 14% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 5% 12% 86% 14% 46% 54% 51% 49% Don't know 55 13 12 1 9 1 4 2 1 7 47 8 30 24 32 23 2% 4% 3% *% 5% *% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% cegh ceh cegh 24% 21% 2% 17% 1% 8% 3% 1% 13% 86% 14% 54% 43% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% Games console 503 252 251 117 128 218 40 49 49 68 136 112 150 133 108 404 56 26 16 20% 20% 19% 34% 30% 25% 4% 16% 20% 20% 24% 16% 22% 24% 17% 19% 24% 21% 22% ef ef f g kn kn o 50% 50% 23% 25% 43% 8% 10% 10% 14% 27% 22% 30% 27% 21% 80% 11% 5% 3% Laptop/ desktop PC 302 146 156 65 61 127 49 19 23 44 124 93 89 65 55 255 21 19 7 12% 12% 12% 19% 14% 14% 5% 6% 9% 13% 22% 13% 13% 12% 9% 12% 9% 15% 9% f f f g ghi n n pr 48% 52% 22% 20% 42% 16% 6% 7% 15% 41% 31% 29% 22% 18% 84% 7% 6% 2% Set top box with access to digital or cable TV broadcasts (such as Sky+, Virgin TiVo, YouView) 299 155 144 48 65 117 70 17 31 47 106 91 85 76 47 241 39 15 3 12% 12% 11% 14% 15% 13% 8% 6% 13% 14% 18% 13% 13% 13% 7% 11% 17% 12% 4% f f f g g gh n n n r or r 52% 48% 16% 22% 39% 23% 6% 10% 16% 35% 31% 28% 25% 16% 81% 13% 5% 1% Internet-connected dongle or set-top box (such as NOW TV set-top box, Roku, Google Chrome, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV) 129 70 59 24 29 50 26 10 8 21 41 46 33 34 17 113 7 5 4 5% 6% 4% 7% 7% 6% 3% 3% 3% 6% 7% 7% 5% 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% f f f gh n n n 54% 46% 19% 22% 39% 20% 8% 6% 16% 32% 35% 26% 26% 13% 87% 5% 4% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh13 (Qh45). Showcard Have You Or Anyone In Your Household Used Any Of These Devices To Connect Your Tv To The Internet In The Last 12 Months? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3606 1713 1893 490 563 1137 1416 534 379 436 607 776 1072 772 981 2148 491 471 496 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 1144 1268 320 370 781 956 357 252 312 455 563 715 521 636 1837 303 289 366 Total 2567 1240 1328 342 423 887 915 303 244 341 575 696 678 566 624 2139 229 128 72 48% 52% 13% 16% 35% 36% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 26% 22% 24% 83% 9% 5% 3% ANY DEVICES CONNECTING TV TO THE INTERNET 851 414 436 160 201 340 149 71 79 126 260 244 234 213 159 694 89 43 24 33% 33% 33% 47% 48% 38% 16% 23% 32% 37% 45% 35% 34% 38% 25% 32% 39% 34% 34% ef ef f g g ghi n n n o 49% 51% 19% 24% 40% 18% 8% 9% 15% 31% 29% 28% 25% 19% 82% 10% 5% 3% None of these 1613 781 832 170 208 506 729 224 161 203 296 422 421 327 441 1360 131 79 43 63% 63% 63% 50% 49% 57% 80% 74% 66% 59% 51% 61% 62% 58% 71% 64% 57% 62% 60% cd cde hij j j klm p 48% 52% 11% 13% 31% 45% 14% 10% 13% 18% 26% 26% 20% 27% 84% 8% 5% 3% Don't know 104 45 59 12 14 42 37 8 4 12 19 31 23 26 24 85 9 6 4 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 43% 57% 11% 14% 40% 35% 8% 4% 12% 18% 29% 23% 25% 23% 82% 9% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH13 (QH45). SHOWCARD have you or anyone in your household used any of these devices to connect your TV to the internet in the last 12 months? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Games console 503 25 64 53 44 61 56 27 26 48 437 66 357 143 285 218 20% 8% 18% 23% 24% 27% 24% 13% 23% 16% 20% 19% 24% 13% 20% 19% a agi agi abgi agi agi a m 5% 13% 10% 9% 12% 11% 5% 5% 10% 87% 13% 71% 28% 57% 43% Laptop/ desktop PC 302 72 17 38 22 22 29 18 8 29 262 40 224 78 150 152 12% 25% 5% 17% 12% 10% 12% 8% 7% 9% 12% 11% 15% 7% 11% 13% bcdefghi beghi b b m 24% 6% 12% 7% 7% 10% 6% 3% 9% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% Set top box with access to digital or cable TV broadcasts (such as Sky+, Virgin TiVo, YouView) 299 29 18 24 27 18 53 44 13 14 256 43 219 80 148 150 12% 10% 5% 11% 15% 8% 23% 20% 12% 5% 12% 12% 15% 7% 10% 13% i bi bei abcdehi abcehi bi m n 10% 6% 8% 9% 6% 18% 15% 4% 5% 86% 14% 73% 27% 50% 50% Internet-connected dongle or set-top box (such as NOW TV set-top box, Roku, Google Chrome, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV) 129 9 8 12 9 15 23 13 10 14 97 32 95 34 71 58 5% 3% 2% 5% 5% 6% 10% 6% 9% 5% 4% 9% 6% 3% 5% 5% b abdi abi j m 7% 6% 9% 7% 11% 18% 10% 8% 11% 75% 25% 74% 26% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH13 (QH45). SHOWCARD have you or anyone in your household used any of these devices to connect your TV to the internet in the last 12 months? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% ANY DEVICES CONNECTING TV TO THE INTERNET 851 87 85 81 72 78 101 71 41 78 729 122 608 239 458 393 33% 30% 25% 36% 39% 35% 43% 33% 37% 26% 33% 35% 41% 22% 32% 34% bi abi bi abgi bi m 10% 10% 10% 8% 9% 12% 8% 5% 9% 86% 14% 72% 28% 54% 46% None of these 1613 195 242 139 101 139 127 141 66 209 1403 210 811 797 897 715 63% 66% 70% 62% 55% 61% 54% 65% 59% 70% 63% 60% 55% 74% 63% 62% df dfh df dfh l 12% 15% 9% 6% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 87% 13% 50% 49% 56% 44% Don't know 104 12 20 4 12 9 7 4 4 14 88 16 61 42 61 43 4% 4% 6% 2% 6% 4% 3% 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% cg cg 11% 19% 4% 11% 9% 7% 4% 4% 13% 85% 15% 58% 40% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets "Smart Tvs"? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. Base : Those With A Tv In The Household | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 3606 | 1713 | 1893 | 490 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2411 | 1144 | 1268 | 320 | | Total | 2567 | 1240 | 1328 | 342 | | 48% | 52% | 13% | 16% | 35% | | Yes | 718 | 359 | 359 | 105 | | 28% | 29% | 27% | 31% | 33% | | f | f | f | g | g | | 50% | 50% | 15% | 20% | 41% | | No | 1764 | 847 | 917 | 222 | | 69% | 68% | 69% | 65% | 63% | | cde | hij | j | j | k | | 48% | 52% | 13% | 15% | 32% | | Don't know | | | | | | 85 | 34 | 51 | 15 | 15 | | 3% | 3% | 4% | 4% | 4% | | q | q | | | | | 40% | 60% | 17% | 18% | 29% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh14 (Qh62). Are Any Of Your Tv Sets "Smart Tvs"? These Are Newer Types Of Tv That Are Connected To The Internet And Can Stream Video Directly Onto Your Television Screen, Without The Need For A Computer, Set-Top Box Or Games Console. If Necessary - It'S A Tv That Allows You To Surf The Internet And Stream Movies, Tv Shows And Videos Using Services Such As Bbc Iplayer, Netflix And Youtube. They Are Also Sometimes Referred To As A Connected Tv Or A Hybrid Tv. Base : Those with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3606 217 241 244 243 239 226 241 247 250 2608 998 1788 1808 1747 1859 Effective Weighted Sample 2411 192 228 234 227 222 215 221 228 230 2003 442 1239 1216 1193 1259 Total 2567 294 348 224 184 227 234 215 112 301 2220 347 1481 1078 1417 1151 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 12% 86% 14% 58% 42% 55% 45% Yes 718 106 73 70 51 69 58 57 29 102 607 111 521 194 392 326 28% 36% 21% 31% 28% 30% 25% 27% 26% 34% 27% 32% 35% 18% 28% 28% bfgh b b bf m 15% 10% 10% 7% 10% 8% 8% 4% 14% 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% No 1764 184 272 147 120 151 161 152 80 186 1543 221 919 839 979 786 69% 63% 78% 65% 65% 67% 69% 71% 71% 62% 70% 64% 62% 78% 69% 68% acdefi i k l 10% 15% 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 11% 87% 13% 52% 48% 55% 45% Don't know 85 4 2 7 13 7 15 6 3 13 70 15 40 45 46 39 3% 1% 1% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% b abgh ab b l 4% 3% 9% 16% 9% 18% 8% 4% 15% 82% 18% 47% 53% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% ** ** 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% ** Watching TV you've previously recorded 402 209 193 51 86 168 97 ** ** 53 145 144 119 84 55 333 31 30 ** 56% 58% 53% 48% 61% 57% 56% ** ** 51% 62% 59% 62% 56% 41% 54% 62% 71% ** n n n o 52% 48% 13% 21% 42% 24% ** ** 13% 36% 36% 30% 21% 14% 83% 8% 8% ** Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5) 395 204 191 67 78 156 93 ** ** 56 142 147 108 89 51 332 30 26 ** 55% 57% 53% 63% 56% 53% 53% ** ** 54% 61% 61% 56% 59% 38% 54% 60% 62% ** n n n 52% 48% 17% 20% 40% 24% ** ** 14% 36% 37% 27% 23% 13% 84% 7% 7% ** Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. PlayStation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Amazon Prime Instant, Netflix) 210 103 107 37 61 86 26 ** ** 26 86 79 57 48 27 178 18 9 ** 29% 29% 30% 35% 43% 29% 15% ** ** 25% 37% 32% 29% 32% 20% 29% 37% 21% ** f ef f n n q 49% 51% 18% 29% 41% 12% ** ** 12% 41% 37% 27% 23% 13% 84% 9% 4% ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% ** ** 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% ** Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube or Dailymotion or Vimeo) 197 108 89 42 47 85 23 ** ** 22 87 65 63 41 28 172 9 14 ** 27% 30% 25% 39% 33% 29% 13% ** ** 22% 37% 27% 33% 27% 21% 28% 18% 34% ** f f f i n p 55% 45% 21% 24% 43% 12% ** ** 11% 44% 33% 32% 21% 14% 87% 4% 7% ** Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 187 95 93 36 45 86 20 ** ** 27 70 55 55 48 30 157 15 12 ** 26% 26% 26% 34% 32% 29% 11% ** ** 26% 30% 23% 28% 32% 22% 26% 31% 29% ** f f f 51% 49% 19% 24% 46% 11% ** ** 14% 37% 30% 29% 25% 16% 84% 8% 7% ** Browse the internet - e.g. online shopping, checking emails, social networking sites 120 69 51 29 24 55 12 ** ** 15 43 30 37 36 17 97 12 8 ** 17% 19% 14% 27% 17% 18% 7% ** ** 15% 18% 12% 19% 24% 13% 16% 24% 19% ** f f f kn 57% 43% 24% 20% 45% 10% ** ** 13% 35% 25% 31% 30% 14% 80% 10% 7% ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g ~h i j k l m n o p q ~r Unweighted total 892 455 437 133 167 347 245 68 77 124 252 255 280 182 175 594 106 116 76 Effective Weighted Sample 646 327 319 96 115 256 184 51 55 94 192 192 203 132 126 512 66 80 62 Total 719 359 361 107 141 297 175 46 60 103 233 243 192 150 134 615 49 43 13 50% 50% 15% 20% 41% 24% ** ** 14% 32% 34% 27% 21% 19% 86% 7% 6% ** Applications that come with the TV that allow you to play games 62 38 23 15 20 25 2 ** ** 9 23 13 20 19 10 55 4 2 ** 9% 11% 6% 14% 14% 8% 1% ** ** 9% 10% 5% 10% 13% 7% 9% 8% 4% ** f f f k 62% 38% 23% 32% 41% 4% ** ** 15% 37% 20% 32% 31% 16% 89% 7% 3% ** Making voice calls using the internet 17 10 7 6 3 7 * ** ** 1 8 6 3 6 1 14 1 1 ** 2% 3% 2% 6% 2% 2% *% ** ** 1% 3% 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% ** f 60% 40% 38% 17% 42% 3% ** ** 4% 46% 38% 20% 34% 9% 83% 5% 8% ** None of these 133 64 69 19 19 53 43 ** ** 22 31 37 31 24 42 123 4 4 ** 19% 18% 19% 18% 13% 18% 25% ** ** 22% 13% 15% 16% 16% 31% 20% 8% 9% ** d klm pq 48% 52% 14% 14% 40% 32% ** ** 17% 23% 28% 23% 18% 31% 92% 3% 3% ** Don't know 12 3 9 - 4 5 3 ** ** 1 2 6 1 3 1 11 * - ** 2% 1% 3% -% 3% 2% 2% ** ** 1% 1% 3% *% 2% 1% 2% *% -% ** 23% 77% -% 32% 42% 26% ** ** 4% 18% 53% 8% 28% 11% 95% 1% -% ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Watching TV you've previously recorded 402 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 344 57 296 103 216 186 56% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 57% 51% 57% 53% 55% 57% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 74% 26% 54% 46% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, Demand 5) 395 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 336 59 283 110 221 174 55% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 55% 53% 54% 57% 56% 53% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 72% 28% 56% 44% Watching purchased TV programmes/ films online or downloads, either via pay per view services (e.g. PlayStation Movies, Blinkbox) or via a 'standalone' subscription service (e.g. Amazon Prime Instant, Netflix) 210 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 178 33 165 44 100 110 29% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 29% 30% 31% 23% 25% 34% m n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% 16% 78% 21% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Watching short video clips (e.g. on YouTube or Dailymotion or Vimeo) 197 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 170 27 156 41 87 110 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 28% 24% 30% 21% 22% 34% m n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86% 14% 79% 21% 44% 56% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 187 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 160 27 150 37 83 104 26% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 26% 25% 29% 19% 21% 32% m n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 80% 20% 45% 55% Browse the internet - e.g. online shopping, checking emails, social networking sites 120 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 102 18 96 25 50 71 17% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 17% 17% 18% 13% 13% 22% n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 80% 20% 41% 59% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh15 (Qh63). Showcard Which, If Any, Of The Uses Shown On This Card Have You Used Your "Smart Tv" Set For In The Last Month? Please Don'T Include Anything You'Ve Done Using An Additional Device To Play The Content, Such As A Games Console Or Computer. (Multi Code) Base : Those with a 'Smart TV' in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 892 80 50 77 65 68 52 61 59 82 667 225 589 301 436 456 Effective Weighted Sample 646 69 47 75 61 64 49 57 56 74 527 125 436 220 317 339 Total 719 106 73 70 51 69 58 59 29 102 608 111 523 194 394 326 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 73% 27% 55% 45% Applications that come with the TV that allow you to play games 62 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 55 7 51 11 22 40 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9% 6% 10% 6% 6% 12% n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 89% 11% 82% 18% 36% 64% Making voice calls using the internet 17 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13 3 14 3 9 8 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 79% 21% 83% 17% 52% 48% None of these 133 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 111 22 88 46 76 57 19% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 18% 20% 17% 24% 19% 18% l ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% 17% 66% 34% 57% 43% Don't know 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8 4 11 1 10 2 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% 3% 2% *% 2% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 70% 30% 93% 7% 80% 20% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 1361 662 700 222 266 537 337 93 109 208 435 450 388 298 225 1147 121 67 27 58% 58% 58% 63% 58% 62% 51% 43% 50% 62% 76% 67% 59% 60% 44% 59% 60% 59% 44% f f f gh ghi lmn n n r r r 49% 51% 16% 20% 39% 25% 7% 8% 15% 32% 33% 29% 22% 17% 84% 9% 5% 2% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 587 275 312 140 145 241 61 41 40 86 191 169 181 146 92 493 45 25 24 25% 24% 26% 40% 32% 28% 9% 19% 18% 26% 33% 25% 28% 29% 18% 25% 23% 22% 38% def f f h ghi n n n opq 47% 53% 24% 25% 41% 10% 7% 7% 15% 33% 29% 31% 25% 16% 84% 8% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 3100 | 1471 | 1629 | 505 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2126 | 1018 | 1108 | 332 | | Total | 2332 | 1134 | 1197 | 354 | | 49% | 51% | 15% | 20% | 37% | | Watching other free professional TV | | | | | | programmes/ films or video | | | | | | channels online (e.g. on official | | | | | | YouTube channels such as Channel | | | | | | 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on | | | | | | other sites (e.g. on South Park | | | | | | Studios) | 441 | 233 | 209 | 108 | | 19% | 21% | 17% | 30% | 21% | | def | f | f | g | ghi | | 53% | 47% | 24% | 22% | 40% | | Watching TV programmes/ films you | | | | | | have paid for on online stores to | | | | | | rent or keep permanently (e.g. via | | | | | | iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) | 193 | 101 | 92 | 49 | | 8% | 9% | 8% | 14% | 11% | | ef | f | f | ghi | p | | 52% | 48% | 25% | 26% | 40% | | None of these | 832 | 408 | 423 | 101 | | 36% | 36% | 35% | 28% | 34% | | cde | ij | ij | j | klm | | 49% | 51% | 12% | 18% | 33% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |---------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | | | | | | a | b | c | d | e | | Unweighted total | 3100 | 1471 | 1629 | 505 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 2126 | 1018 | 1108 | 332 | | Total | 2332 | 1134 | 1197 | 354 | | 49% | 51% | 15% | 20% | 37% | | Don't know | 29 | 15 | 14 | 6 | | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | | 51% | 49% | 19% | 33% | 25% | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 1361 128 207 143 84 114 134 119 60 159 1171 190 934 423 816 545 58% 40% 64% 71% 52% 58% 60% 63% 67% 61% 58% 60% 63% 50% 64% 52% ad adefi a a a ad ad a m o 9% 15% 11% 6% 8% 10% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 69% 31% 60% 40% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 587 80 74 52 33 49 71 43 25 65 509 79 444 142 295 292 25% 25% 23% 26% 20% 25% 32% 23% 28% 25% 25% 25% 30% 17% 23% 28% bdg m n 14% 13% 9% 6% 8% 12% 7% 4% 11% 87% 13% 76% 24% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 441 75 47 50 24 50 44 31 15 41 395 46 319 122 234 207 19% 23% 15% 25% 15% 26% 20% 16% 17% 16% 20% 14% 21% 15% 18% 20% bd bdgi bdgi k m 17% 11% 11% 6% 11% 10% 7% 3% 9% 90% 10% 72% 28% 53% 47% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 193 27 24 18 9 26 28 12 8 19 164 29 138 55 96 97 8% 8% 7% 9% 5% 13% 13% 6% 8% 7% 8% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% dg dg m 14% 12% 9% 5% 13% 14% 6% 4% 10% 85% 15% 71% 29% 50% 50% None of these 832 155 102 51 71 71 62 63 22 96 727 104 460 369 396 435 36% 49% 32% 25% 44% 36% 28% 33% 25% 37% 36% 33% 31% 44% 31% 41% bcefghi bcfgh ch ch l n 19% 12% 6% 8% 9% 7% 8% 3% 12% 87% 13% 55% 44% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh16 (Qh46). Showcard Thinking About Your Personal Use Of Tv Programmes And Films Online And On Demand Services That You May Use On Any Device (E.G. Smartphone, Tv Set, Tablet Or Laptop) Anywhere, Which Of The Following, If Any, Have You Personally Ever Used? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 29 11 2 - 4 2 6 - 1 - 22 7 19 10 23 6 1% 3% 1% -% 3% 1% 3% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% bcgi cgi cgi o 38% 7% -% 14% 7% 21% -% 2% -% 75% 25% 67% 33% 79% 21% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching TV programmes/ films on catch-up services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 966 460 506 146 188 388 243 66 68 147 324 343 267 206 150 816 90 41 18 41% 41% 42% 41% 41% 45% 37% 30% 31% 44% 56% 51% 41% 41% 30% 42% 45% 36% 29% f gh ghi lmn n n r qr 48% 52% 15% 19% 40% 25% 7% 7% 15% 34% 36% 28% 21% 16% 85% 9% 4% 2% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 382 174 207 93 102 151 36 32 25 62 122 111 119 81 70 321 29 16 16 16% 15% 17% 26% 22% 17% 6% 15% 12% 18% 21% 17% 18% 16% 14% 16% 15% 14% 25% ef ef f h gh n opq 46% 54% 24% 27% 40% 9% 8% 7% 16% 32% 29% 31% 21% 18% 84% 8% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 232 129 103 59 55 88 31 20 18 39 84 63 58 57 54 204 15 11 3 10% 11% 9% 17% 12% 10% 5% 9% 8% 12% 15% 9% 9% 11% 11% 10% 7% 10% 4% b ef f f gh r r 56% 44% 25% 24% 38% 13% 9% 8% 17% 36% 27% 25% 24% 23% 88% 6% 5% 1% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 66 34 33 14 22 22 8 5 4 6 29 19 15 15 17 59 5 1 1 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% f f i 51% 49% 22% 32% 33% 13% 8% 7% 8% 44% 29% 23% 23% 26% 89% 8% 2% 1% None of these 1170 582 588 163 217 398 392 127 134 162 198 287 322 246 315 975 102 62 32 50% 51% 49% 46% 48% 46% 60% 59% 61% 48% 34% 43% 49% 49% 62% 50% 50% 54% 52% cde ij ij j k k klm 50% 50% 14% 19% 34% 33% 11% 11% 14% 17% 24% 27% 21% 27% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3100 1471 1629 505 577 1088 930 363 315 419 601 741 990 643 723 1899 405 401 395 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 1018 1108 332 385 756 663 254 219 305 454 541 677 446 479 1637 257 247 299 Total 2332 1134 1197 354 456 865 657 215 218 335 575 672 653 498 507 1955 202 113 62 49% 51% 15% 20% 37% 28% 9% 9% 14% 25% 29% 28% 21% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 33 16 16 7 10 7 7 4 1 2 8 9 12 7 3 28 1 2 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% 2% e 50% 50% 23% 32% 22% 23% 12% 4% 6% 25% 29% 37% 22% 10% 87% 3% 7% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching TV programmes/ films on catchup services (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All4, Demand 5, Sky On Demand) 966 79 137 110 66 82 105 96 43 98 818 148 663 300 589 377 41% 25% 43% 55% 41% 42% 47% 51% 49% 38% 41% 47% 45% 36% 46% 36% a abdei a a a ai ai a j m o 8% 14% 11% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% 10% 85% 15% 69% 31% 61% 39% Watching TV/ films online via a 'standalone' video subscription service (e.g. Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant) 382 54 33 38 21 33 52 34 17 38 327 54 286 94 190 192 16% 17% 10% 19% 13% 17% 23% 18% 19% 15% 16% 17% 19% 11% 15% 18% b bdi b b m n 14% 9% 10% 5% 9% 14% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 75% 25% 50% 50% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh17 (Qh47). And Which, If Any, Of These Have You Used In The Last Week? (Multi Code) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Watching other free professional TV programmes/ films or video channels online (e.g. on official YouTube channels such as Channel 4 or Jamie Oliver's Foodtube) or on other sites (e.g. on South Park Studios) 232 37 24 31 10 22 27 19 10 24 201 31 164 69 113 119 10% 12% 8% 16% 6% 11% 12% 10% 11% 9% 10% 10% 11% 8% 9% 11% d bd d m 16% 11% 13% 4% 9% 12% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 70% 30% 49% 51% Watching TV programmes/ films you have paid for on online stores to rent or keep permanently (e.g. via iTunes, Google Play, Blinkbox) 66 10 10 9 3 5 11 3 2 6 53 13 48 18 33 33 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 16% 16% 13% 4% 7% 17% 5% 2% 10% 80% 20% 72% 28% 50% 50% None of these 1170 189 172 78 86 95 86 85 38 146 1026 144 684 483 603 567 50% 59% 54% 39% 53% 48% 39% 45% 43% 56% 51% 45% 46% 58% 47% 54% cefgh cfh cfh cfgh k l n 16% 15% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 3% 12% 88% 12% 58% 41% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH17 (QH47). And which, if any, of these have you used in the last week? (MULTI CODE) Base : Those who use the internet at home or elsewhere ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3100 233 221 216 208 204 213 202 193 209 2267 833 1771 1322 1514 1586 Effective Weighted Sample 2126 208 209 207 195 189 202 188 179 193 1765 389 1237 920 1056 1097 Total 2332 319 321 200 161 197 221 188 89 259 2014 317 1488 837 1275 1057 14% 14% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 55% 45% Don't know 33 13 2 1 4 2 6 - 1 - 25 8 23 10 24 9 1% 4% 1% *% 3% 1% 3% -% 1% -% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% bcghi gi cgi o 40% 6% 2% 12% 6% 19% -% 2% -% 77% 23% 70% 30% 73% 27% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18A (Qh65A). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Rté1? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day 1 * * ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** * * * - - - 1 1% 1% 1% ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 1% 2% -% -% -% 1% 58% 42% ** ** 33% 41% ** ** ** ** ** 39% 23% 38% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 11 5 6 ** ** 5 5 ** ** ** ** ** 3 4 3 - - - 11 16% 14% 17% ** ** 21% 21% ** ** ** ** ** 16% 22% 16% -% -% -% 16% 44% 56% ** ** 46% 41% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 33% 29% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 6 3 3 ** ** 1 2 ** ** ** ** ** 1 2 1 - - - 6 8% 8% 7% ** ** 6% 9% ** ** ** ** ** 7% 12% 5% -% -% -% 8% 51% 49% ** ** 26% 37% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 38% 21% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 11 6 6 ** ** 5 3 ** ** ** ** ** 3 2 2 - - - 11 16% 16% 15% ** ** 21% 13% ** ** ** ** ** 15% 9% 10% -% -% -% 16% 50% 50% ** ** 48% 27% ** ** ** ** ** 23% 15% 20% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 18 8 9 ** ** 7 7 ** ** ** ** ** 4 6 5 - - - 18 25% 24% 26% ** ** 28% 31% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 35% 22% -% -% -% 25% 47% 53% ** ** 39% 40% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 34% 27% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 29 14 15 ** ** 12 10 ** ** ** ** ** 7 8 7 - - - 29 40% 39% 41% ** ** 48% 44% ** ** ** ** ** 39% 44% 33% -% -% -% 40% 48% 52% ** ** 43% 35% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 27% 24% -% -% -% 100% Never 40 20 20 ** ** 13 12 ** ** ** ** ** 10 9 13 - - - 40 56% 57% 55% ** ** 49% 52% ** ** ** ** ** 59% 49% 63% -% -% -% 56% m 50% 50% ** ** 31% 30% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 21% 33% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 1 1 ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** ** * 1 1 - - - 3 4% 3% 4% ** ** 3% 4% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 4% 44% 56% ** ** 24% 34% ** ** ** ** ** 15% 48% 30% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18A (QH65A). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ1? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day 1 - - - - - - - - - * * 1 * * 1 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 52% 48% 73% 27% 37% 63% At least weekly 11 - - - - - - - - - 6 5 6 5 5 6 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 14% 19% 15% 16% 16% 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 53% 44% 45% 55% At least monthly 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 1 3 2 2 3 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 5% 8% 7% 7% 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 57% 43% 43% 57% Less often than monthly 11 - - - - - - - - - 7 4 7 4 4 7 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 15% 18% 12% 14% 17% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 64% 36% 64% 36% 40% 60% AT LEAST MONTHLY 18 - - - - - - - - - 11 7 10 8 8 10 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 25% 25% 25% 24% 24% 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 43% 44% 56% EVER WATCH 29 - - - - - - - - - 18 11 17 12 12 17 40% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 41% 40% 43% 36% 38% 42% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 59% 40% 42% 58% Never 40 - - - - - - - - - 25 15 21 19 19 21 56% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 55% 57% 53% 60% 59% 53% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 52% 48% 47% 53% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 2 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 56% 44% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18B (Qh65B). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Rté2? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day 1 * * ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** * * * - - - 1 1% 1% 1% ** ** 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** 1% 1% 2% -% -% -% 1% 45% 55% ** ** 48% 19% ** ** ** ** ** 23% 29% 48% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 10 5 5 ** ** 4 4 ** ** ** ** ** 3 3 3 - - - 10 14% 14% 13% ** ** 16% 16% ** ** ** ** ** 15% 18% 13% -% -% -% 14% 51% 49% ** ** 43% 38% ** ** ** ** ** 27% 33% 27% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 6 2 4 ** ** 2 3 ** ** ** ** ** 1 2 2 - - - 6 9% 7% 11% ** ** 9% 11% ** ** ** ** ** 8% 12% 8% -% -% -% 9% 38% 62% ** ** 34% 41% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 34% 27% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 10 5 5 ** ** 5 3 ** ** ** ** ** 3 2 2 - - - 10 14% 14% 15% ** ** 19% 12% ** ** ** ** ** 15% 9% 11% -% -% -% 14% 48% 52% ** ** 48% 27% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 15% 22% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 17 8 9 ** ** 7 6 ** ** ** ** ** 4 6 5 - - - 17 24% 22% 25% ** ** 26% 28% ** ** ** ** ** 23% 32% 22% -% -% -% 24% 46% 54% ** ** 40% 38% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 33% 28% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 27 13 15 ** ** 12 9 ** ** ** ** ** 7 7 7 - - - 27 38% 36% 40% ** ** 46% 40% ** ** ** ** ** 38% 41% 33% -% -% -% 38% 47% 53% ** ** 43% 34% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 26% 26% -% -% -% 100% Never 42 21 21 ** ** 13 13 ** ** ** ** ** 11 9 13 - - - 42 59% 61% 57% ** ** 52% 56% ** ** ** ** ** 60% 53% 63% -% -% -% 59% 50% 50% ** ** 31% 30% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 22% 32% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 2 1 1 ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** ** * 1 1 - - - 2 3% 3% 3% ** ** 2% 4% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 6% 4% -% -% -% 3% 51% 49% ** ** 24% 39% ** ** ** ** ** 13% 44% 34% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18B (QH65B). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - RTÉ2? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day 1 - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 45% 55% 66% 34% 54% 46% At least weekly 10 - - - - - - - - - 6 4 6 4 4 5 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 15% 14% 12% 14% 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 59% 41% 56% 40% 45% 55% At least monthly 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 2 3 3 3 3 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 9% 8% 11% 9% 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 48% 52% 46% 54% Less often than monthly 10 - - - - - - - - - 8 3 7 3 3 7 14% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 17% 10% 18% 10% 10% 18% m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 73% 27% 68% 32% 32% 68% AT LEAST MONTHLY 17 - - - - - - - - - 10 7 9 7 8 9 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 23% 25% 23% 23% 24% 23% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 53% 44% 45% 55% EVER WATCH 27 - - - - - - - - - 18 10 16 11 11 16 38% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 35% 41% 34% 34% 41% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 65% 35% 59% 40% 40% 60% Never 42 - - - - - - - - - 26 17 22 20 20 22 59% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 57% 62% 56% 63% 64% 55% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 53% 47% 48% 52% Don't know 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 50% 50% 22% 78% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18C (Qh65C). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tv3? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day * * * ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** - * * - - - * *% *% 1% ** ** 1% *% ** ** ** ** ** -% 1% *% -% -% -% *% 20% 80% ** ** 80% 20% ** ** ** ** ** -% 80% 20% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 6 3 3 ** ** 3 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2 2 2 - - - 6 9% 9% 8% ** ** 12% 10% ** ** ** ** ** 11% 11% 8% -% -% -% 9% 51% 49% ** ** 48% 36% ** ** ** ** ** 32% 32% 27% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 5 2 3 ** ** 1 2 ** ** ** ** ** 1 2 1 - - - 5 7% 6% 7% ** ** 5% 10% ** ** ** ** ** 6% 10% 4% -% -% -% 7% 47% 53% ** ** 24% 50% ** ** ** ** ** 20% 37% 17% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 8 3 4 ** ** 3 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2 2 2 - - - 8 10% 9% 12% ** ** 13% 8% ** ** ** ** ** 9% 10% 8% -% -% -% 10% 41% 59% ** ** 44% 24% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 23% 24% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 11 6 6 ** ** 4 5 ** ** ** ** ** 3 4 3 - - - 11 16% 16% 16% ** ** 17% 20% ** ** ** ** ** 17% 23% 12% -% -% -% 16% n 49% 51% ** ** 38% 42% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 35% 22% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 19 9 10 ** ** 8 7 ** ** ** ** ** 5 6 4 - - - 19 26% 25% 28% ** ** 30% 28% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 33% 20% -% -% -% 26% n 46% 54% ** ** 41% 35% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 30% 23% -% -% -% 100% Never 50 25 25 ** ** 17 15 ** ** ** ** ** 13 11 16 - - - 50 69% 70% 68% ** ** 65% 66% ** ** ** ** ** 72% 60% 76% -% -% -% 69% m 50% 50% ** ** 34% 31% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 21% 32% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18C (Qh65C). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tv3? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 2 2 ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** ** * 1 1 - - - 3 5% 5% 4% ** ** 5% 5% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 5% 54% 46% ** ** 34% 36% ** ** ** ** ** 9% 37% 24% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day * - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% *% 1% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 80% 20% 80% 20% At least weekly 6 - - - - - - - - - 3 3 4 2 2 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 10% 11% 6% 7% 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 67% 33% 36% 64% At least monthly 5 - - - - - - - - - 4 1 3 2 3 2 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 5% 6% 7% 9% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 74% 26% 53% 47% 58% 42% Less often than monthly 8 - - - - - - - - - 5 2 5 2 3 4 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 8% 13% 7% 10% 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 71% 29% 70% 30% 42% 58% AT LEAST MONTHLY 11 - - - - - - - - - 7 4 7 4 5 6 16% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 16% 18% 14% 16% 15% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 61% 39% 46% 54% EVER WATCH 19 - - - - - - - - - 12 6 12 7 8 10 26% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 28% 24% 31% 21% 26% 26% m -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 66% 34% 65% 35% 45% 55% Never 50 - - - - - - - - - 30 20 25 24 23 27 69% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 72% 64% 75% 72% 67% l -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 61% 39% 51% 48% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18C (QH65C). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TV3? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 33% 57% 43% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qh18D (Qh65D). How Frequently, If At All, Do You Watch Each Of These Channels - Tg4? (Single Code) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 496 240 256 80 82 170 164 69 44 57 33 77 145 105 167 - - - 496 Effective Weighted Sample 366 170 197 54 65 134 114 49 35 44 23 58 111 81 128 - - - 366 Total 72 35 37 11 12 26 23 9 6 9 5 15 18 17 21 - - - 72 49% 51% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Every day * * * ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** - * * - - - * *% *% 1% ** ** 1% *% ** ** ** ** ** -% 1% *% -% -% -% *% 20% 80% ** ** 80% 20% ** ** ** ** ** -% 80% 20% -% -% -% 100% At least weekly 5 3 2 ** ** 2 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2 2 1 - - - 5 7% 8% 6% ** ** 9% 8% ** ** ** ** ** 10% 10% 7% -% -% -% 7% 57% 43% ** ** 47% 37% ** ** ** ** ** 34% 34% 28% -% -% -% 100% At least monthly 4 1 2 ** ** 1 2 ** ** ** ** ** 1 1 1 - - - 4 5% 4% 6% ** ** 4% 9% ** ** ** ** ** 5% 5% 4% -% -% -% 5% 40% 60% ** ** 28% 57% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 23% 21% -% -% -% 100% Less often than monthly 8 4 5 ** ** 4 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2 2 2 - - - 8 11% 10% 13% ** ** 14% 9% ** ** ** ** ** 11% 13% 8% -% -% -% 11% 43% 57% ** ** 45% 24% ** ** ** ** ** 23% 28% 22% -% -% -% 100% AT LEAST MONTHLY 9 4 5 ** ** 4 4 ** ** ** ** ** 3 3 2 - - - 9 12% 12% 12% ** ** 14% 17% ** ** ** ** ** 14% 16% 10% -% -% -% 12% 49% 51% ** ** 40% 45% ** ** ** ** ** 28% 31% 25% -% -% -% 100% EVER WATCH 17 8 9 ** ** 7 6 ** ** ** ** ** 4 5 4 - - - 17 24% 22% 25% ** ** 28% 26% ** ** ** ** ** 25% 29% 19% -% -% -% 24% 46% 54% ** ** 42% 35% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 29% 23% -% -% -% 100% Never 51 25 26 ** ** 17 16 ** ** ** ** ** 13 11 16 - - - 51 71% 72% 71% ** ** 67% 69% ** ** ** ** ** 74% 64% 77% -% -% -% 71% m 50% 50% ** ** 33% 31% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 22% 32% -% -% -% 100% Don't know 3 2 2 ** ** 1 1 ** ** ** ** ** * 1 1 - - - 3 5% 5% 4% ** ** 5% 5% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 7% 4% -% -% -% 5% 54% 46% ** ** 34% 36% ** ** ** ** ** 9% 37% 24% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QH18D (QH65D). How frequently, if at all, do you watch each of these channels - TG4? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland with a TV in the household ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 496 - - - - - - - - - 254 242 272 223 188 308 Effective Weighted Sample 366 - - - - - - - - - 194 193 213 154 139 236 Total 72 - - - - - - - - - 45 27 40 32 32 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 62% 38% 55% 44% 44% 56% Every day * - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% *% 1% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 80% 20% 80% 20% At least weekly 5 - - - - - - - - - 3 2 3 2 2 3 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 6% 8% 9% 5% 7% 7% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 56% 44% 68% 32% 42% 58% At least monthly 4 - - - - - - - - - 3 1 2 2 2 2 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 6% 4% 4% 6% 5% 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 30% 47% 53% 47% 53% Less often than monthly 8 - - - - - - - - - 6 2 6 2 4 5 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 13% 9% 14% 8% 11% 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 71% 29% 70% 30% 44% 56% AT LEAST MONTHLY 9 - - - - - - - - - 5 4 5 4 4 5 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 13% 13% 11% 13% 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 60% 40% 45% 55% EVER WATCH 17 - - - - - - - - - 11 6 11 6 8 9 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 25% 22% 28% 19% 24% 24% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 65% 35% 64% 36% 45% 55% Never 51 - - - - - - - - - 31 20 27 24 24 28 71% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 74% 67% 76% 74% 69% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 61% 39% 52% 47% 46% 54% Don't know 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 5% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 5% 4% 5% 5% 2% 7% n -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 67% 33% 57% 43% 18% 82% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qcheck. Can I Just Check That You Have The Following Services? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 2291 1108 1183 268 341 813 869 222 215 308 546 668 617 508 496 1914 201 112 64 86% 85% 86% 73% 73% 89% 94% 70% 83% 86% 94% 94% 86% 88% 75% 86% 86% 85% 86% cd cde g g ghi lmn n n 48% 52% 12% 15% 35% 38% 10% 9% 13% 24% 29% 27% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 2495 1204 1291 361 456 895 783 278 241 341 578 669 687 550 588 2097 211 120 68 93% 93% 94% 99% 97% 98% 84% 88% 93% 95% 99% 94% 95% 95% 89% 94% 91% 91% 92% f f f g g ghi n n n pq 48% 52% 14% 18% 36% 31% 11% 10% 14% 23% 27% 28% 22% 24% 84% 8% 5% 3% Fixed broadband internet access 2107 1029 1078 300 366 804 637 166 183 303 557 643 587 462 414 1766 183 102 57 79% 79% 78% 82% 78% 88% 69% 52% 70% 85% 96% 90% 81% 80% 63% 79% 78% 77% 77% f f cdf g gh ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 14% 17% 38% 30% 8% 9% 14% 26% 31% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Mobile broadband internet access 118 63 55 23 29 45 21 14 10 16 38 39 32 24 22 103 7 5 2 4% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 2% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% f f f 53% 47% 19% 24% 38% 18% 12% 8% 13% 33% 33% 27% 21% 19% 87% 6% 4% 2% Narrowband internet access 26 14 13 * 4 13 10 1 2 1 9 13 3 3 7 26 - * * 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 2% *% *% 1% 1% -% *% 1% c lm 51% 49% *% 14% 49% 37% 3% 9% 2% 33% 50% 12% 11% 27% 97% -% 1% 2% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1652 791 861 233 302 636 481 153 153 227 439 450 449 393 358 1347 162 90 53 62% 61% 63% 64% 65% 69% 52% 48% 59% 63% 75% 63% 62% 68% 54% 60% 69% 68% 72% f f f g g ghi n n ln o o o 48% 52% 14% 18% 38% 29% 9% 9% 14% 27% 27% 27% 24% 22% 82% 10% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% No, none of these 8 4 4 - 3 2 3 4 - - - 2 - * 6 6 1 1 * *% *% *% -% 1% *% *% 1% -% -% -% *% -% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% ij l 53% 47% -% 38% 26% 36% 50% -% -% -% 23% -% 6% 71% 71% 16% 10% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Landline phone 2291 279 334 204 167 196 211 185 91 247 1961 330 1334 949 1298 993 86% 82% 93% 90% 88% 83% 86% 82% 80% 82% 85% 92% 86% 85% 90% 81% aefghi aeghi hi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 57% 43% Mobile phone 2495 318 337 212 171 223 235 212 104 285 2155 341 1517 970 1343 1153 93% 94% 94% 93% 90% 94% 96% 94% 91% 95% 93% 95% 98% 87% 93% 94% dh m 13% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 61% 39% 54% 46% Fixed broadband internet access 2107 252 320 192 147 170 208 169 80 227 1805 302 1336 763 1190 917 79% 75% 89% 85% 78% 71% 85% 75% 70% 75% 78% 84% 86% 69% 82% 74% adeghi aeghi aeghi j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 63% 36% 56% 44% Mobile broadband internet access 118 14 12 14 7 7 7 7 3 32 104 14 87 30 68 50 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 11% 4% 4% 6% 3% 5% 4% abdefgh m 12% 11% 12% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 27% 88% 12% 74% 25% 57% 43% Narrowband internet access 26 - - 1 5 1 4 - 1 14 20 6 18 8 22 4 1% -% -% 1% 2% *% 2% -% *% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% abg bg abcegh o -% -% 5% 18% 4% 15% -% 2% 53% 77% 23% 69% 31% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QCHECK. Can I just check that you have the following services? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1652 204 221 130 113 143 146 130 74 183 1451 201 1066 580 888 764 62% 60% 62% 57% 60% 60% 60% 58% 65% 61% 63% 56% 69% 52% 62% 62% k m 12% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 88% 12% 65% 35% 54% 46% No, none of these 8 2 - 1 - - - 3 * - 8 * 1 7 2 6 *% 1% -% *% -% -% -% 1% *% -% *% *% *% 1% *% *% l 23% -% 10% -% -% -% 34% 5% -% 99% 1% 13% 82% 27% 73% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 1996 982 1014 109 297 760 829 207 199 290 491 592 531 437 434 1657 185 101 53 75% 76% 74% 30% 63% 83% 89% 65% 77% 81% 84% 83% 74% 75% 66% 74% 79% 77% 72% c cd cde g g gh lmn n n or 49% 51% 5% 15% 38% 42% 10% 10% 15% 25% 30% 27% 22% 22% 83% 9% 5% 3% Mobile phone 2270 1112 1158 293 412 830 734 262 221 321 535 602 624 503 539 1903 197 108 62 85% 85% 84% 81% 88% 91% 79% 83% 85% 90% 92% 85% 87% 87% 82% 85% 85% 82% 84% cf cf g gh n n 49% 51% 13% 18% 37% 32% 12% 10% 14% 24% 27% 27% 22% 24% 84% 9% 5% 3% Fixed broadband internet access 1800 893 907 132 310 756 603 156 165 282 502 563 494 389 353 1496 166 92 46 67% 69% 66% 36% 66% 83% 65% 49% 63% 79% 86% 79% 69% 67% 53% 67% 71% 70% 63% c cdf c g gh ghi lmn n n r r 50% 50% 7% 17% 42% 33% 9% 9% 16% 28% 31% 27% 22% 20% 83% 9% 5% 3% Mobile broadband internet access 86 48 37 14 21 31 19 10 10 14 26 22 24 19 20 74 6 4 2 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% f 57% 43% 17% 24% 36% 23% 12% 11% 17% 30% 26% 28% 22% 23% 87% 7% 4% 2% Narrowband internet access 18 10 8 - 4 6 8 1 2 1 6 10 2 3 4 17 - * * 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% -% *% 1% l 55% 45% -% 21% 35% 44% 5% 14% 3% 34% 54% 9% 16% 20% 96% -% 2% 2% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1386 675 711 96 258 585 447 143 139 208 387 382 372 332 298 1115 146 81 43 52% 52% 52% 26% 55% 64% 48% 45% 54% 58% 66% 54% 52% 57% 45% 50% 63% 62% 59% cf cdf c g g ghi n n ln o o o 49% 51% 7% 19% 42% 32% 10% 10% 15% 28% 28% 27% 24% 21% 80% 11% 6% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qdm. And Which, If Any, Of These Services Are You Primarily Or Jointly Responsible For - In Terms Of Deciding Which Supplier Or Network To Use? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None of these 163 61 102 65 26 40 32 20 7 11 19 43 40 34 46 139 10 8 6 6% 5% 7% 18% 6% 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 4% 6% 8% a def h p 37% 63% 40% 16% 24% 20% 12% 4% 7% 12% 26% 24% 21% 28% 85% 6% 5% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Landline phone 1996 233 290 185 145 164 185 161 79 215 1694 302 1171 817 1143 853 75% 69% 81% 82% 77% 69% 75% 71% 70% 71% 73% 84% 75% 73% 79% 69% aeghi aeghi j o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 41% 57% 43% Mobile phone 2270 301 300 197 155 196 209 196 96 252 1953 317 1401 861 1219 1050 85% 89% 84% 87% 82% 83% 85% 87% 85% 84% 84% 88% 90% 77% 84% 85% d j m 13% 13% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 86% 14% 62% 38% 54% 46% Fixed broadband internet access 1800 210 272 169 125 138 181 144 69 188 1528 272 1169 624 1023 778 67% 62% 76% 74% 66% 58% 74% 64% 61% 62% 66% 76% 75% 56% 71% 63% adeghi aeghi aeghi j m o 12% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 8% 4% 10% 85% 15% 65% 35% 57% 43% Mobile broadband internet access 86 14 6 10 5 2 5 3 3 26 76 9 63 22 42 43 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 8% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% e e bdefgh m 16% 7% 11% 6% 2% 6% 4% 4% 30% 89% 11% 74% 26% 50% 50% Narrowband internet access 18 - - 1 4 1 3 - 1 7 13 5 11 7 15 3 1% -% -% 1% 2% *% 1% -% *% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% abg abg j o -% -% 7% 21% 5% 18% -% 3% 40% 70% 30% 63% 37% 81% 19% TV service with additional channels you pay to receive 1386 165 183 113 92 112 123 111 66 151 1208 177 916 463 743 643 52% 49% 51% 50% 49% 47% 50% 49% 58% 50% 52% 49% 59% 42% 51% 52% adeg m 12% 13% 8% 7% 8% 9% 8% 5% 11% 87% 13% 66% 33% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QDM. And which, if any, of these services are you primarily or jointly responsible for - in terms of deciding which supplier or network to use? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None of these 163 14 22 7 12 22 10 17 8 27 147 16 68 95 80 84 6% 4% 6% 3% 6% 9% 4% 7% 7% 9% 6% 5% 4% 9% 6% 7% acf c c acf l 9% 14% 4% 7% 13% 6% 10% 5% 17% 90% 10% 41% 58% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 68% 68% 67% 59% 67% 77% 62% 48% 67% 76% 85% 76% 70% 69% 55% 68% 69% 67% 64% c cdf g gh ghi lmn n n 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% No 783 377 406 115 140 192 335 162 83 82 79 151 190 163 278 648 70 41 24 29% 29% 30% 32% 30% 21% 36% 51% 32% 23% 14% 21% 26% 28% 42% 29% 30% 31% 32% e e de hij ij j k k klm 48% 52% 15% 18% 25% 43% 21% 11% 11% 10% 19% 24% 21% 36% 83% 9% 5% 3% Don't know 80 35 45 36 14 17 14 4 2 4 9 18 25 18 18 72 3 2 3 3% 3% 3% 10% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 4% def p 44% 56% 44% 17% 21% 17% 5% 3% 5% 11% 23% 31% 22% 22% 90% 4% 3% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QG1. Do you receive more than one of these services as part of an overall deal or package from the same supplier? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 68% 69% 74% 74% 61% 55% 75% 66% 61% 66% 67% 72% 74% 58% 71% 64% e deh deh deghi e e m o 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% No 783 97 85 53 61 91 60 70 41 91 695 88 349 431 377 406 29% 29% 24% 23% 32% 38% 25% 31% 36% 30% 30% 25% 22% 39% 26% 33% bc abcf bcf k l n 12% 11% 7% 8% 12% 8% 9% 5% 12% 89% 11% 45% 55% 48% 52% Don't know 80 9 8 7 13 15 1 6 3 11 66 14 49 32 44 37 3% 3% 2% 3% 7% 6% *% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% f f abfg bfg f f 12% 10% 8% 16% 19% 1% 7% 4% 13% 83% 17% 61% 39% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Landline phone 1689 823 866 187 278 667 558 142 159 247 461 519 462 372 336 1411 151 83 44 93% 93% 94% 88% 89% 94% 96% 94% 91% 91% 93% 96% 92% 93% 92% 93% 95% 94% 93% cd cd ln 49% 51% 11% 16% 39% 33% 8% 9% 15% 27% 31% 27% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% One mobile phone 103 54 50 9 16 47 31 12 11 17 16 25 28 26 25 90 9 3 1 6% 6% 5% 4% 5% 7% 5% 8% 6% 6% 3% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 3% 2% j r r 52% 48% 9% 15% 46% 30% 12% 10% 16% 16% 24% 27% 25% 24% 87% 9% 3% 1% More than one mobile phone 50 29 20 5 12 18 15 2 7 5 12 18 16 7 8 39 6 4 1 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 1% 59% 41% 10% 25% 36% 30% 3% 14% 11% 25% 37% 33% 14% 16% 78% 11% 9% 1% Internet - Fixed Broadband access 1721 841 880 203 289 682 545 137 163 264 476 522 483 381 334 1444 149 83 44 95% 95% 95% 95% 92% 97% 94% 91% 93% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 92% 95% 93% 94% 94% d gh g n n n 49% 51% 12% 17% 40% 32% 8% 9% 15% 28% 30% 28% 22% 19% 84% 9% 5% 3% Internet - Mobile Broadband access 22 13 8 4 9 6 3 1 5 5 7 6 8 3 5 20 1 1 * 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% *% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% ef 62% 38% 16% 43% 28% 13% 6% 24% 22% 33% 28% 37% 13% 22% 91% 4% 4% 1% Internet - not broadband access 3 3 - - * * 2 - 1 - - 1 1 * - 2 - - * *% *% -% -% *% *% *% -% 1% -% -% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% 1% o 100% -% -% 7% 9% 84% -% 57% -% -% 47% 37% 16% -% 84% -% -% 16% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% TV service 937 458 479 132 185 376 244 84 90 139 273 246 256 233 202 763 107 44 23 52% 52% 52% 62% 59% 53% 42% 56% 51% 51% 55% 45% 51% 58% 55% 50% 67% 50% 48% ef f f kl k oqr 49% 51% 14% 20% 40% 26% 9% 10% 15% 29% 26% 27% 25% 22% 81% 11% 5% 2% Don't know 5 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 - * - 1 1 1 2 4 - 1 1 *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% -% *% -% *% *% *% 1% *% -% 1% 2% op 84% 16% 27% 30% 27% 16% 16% -% 9% -% 16% 19% 29% 36% 72% -% 10% 18% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Landline phone 1689 215 251 158 104 124 172 145 66 177 1448 241 1061 623 957 732 93% 92% 94% 94% 90% 95% 93% 97% 94% 88% 93% 94% 92% 96% 94% 93% i di l 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 9% 4% 10% 86% 14% 63% 37% 57% 43% One mobile phone 103 19 8 5 8 11 8 7 3 22 94 9 60 42 45 58 6% 8% 3% 3% 7% 8% 5% 5% 4% 11% 6% 4% 5% 6% 4% 7% bc bc bcfh n 18% 7% 4% 8% 10% 8% 7% 3% 21% 91% 9% 58% 41% 44% 56% More than one mobile phone 50 4 - 9 5 4 5 1 1 9 44 5 37 13 32 17 3% 2% -% 6% 5% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% bg bg b b bg 8% -% 19% 11% 9% 9% 2% 3% 18% 89% 11% 74% 26% 66% 34% Internet - Fixed Broadband access 1721 226 262 161 110 123 179 144 62 177 1472 249 1101 614 969 752 95% 97% 98% 96% 96% 94% 98% 96% 89% 88% 95% 97% 95% 94% 95% 95% hi ehi hi hi hi hi 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 10% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Internet - Mobile Broadband access 22 4 - 2 1 - - 1 - 12 21 1 18 4 13 8 1% 2% -% 1% 1% -% -% *% -% 6% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% 1% abcdefgh 17% -% 11% 4% -% -% 2% -% 56% 97% 3% 81% 19% 62% 38% Internet - not broadband access 3 - - - - - 2 - - - 1 1 * 2 2 * *% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% 84% -% -% -% 43% 57% 7% 93% 84% 16% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg2 (Qg3A). Showcard Please Could You Tell Me Which Services Are Part Of This Deal Or Package You Have With The Same Supplier? (Multi Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% TV service 937 114 139 66 65 70 89 70 48 102 865 72 631 304 467 469 52% 49% 52% 40% 57% 53% 48% 47% 69% 51% 56% 28% 55% 47% 46% 59% c c c abcdefgi c k m n 12% 15% 7% 7% 7% 9% 8% 5% 11% 92% 8% 67% 33% 50% 50% Don't know 5 - 3 - - - - - * - 2 4 3 2 5 * *% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% j -% 63% -% -% -% -% -% 9% -% 30% 70% 59% 41% 96% 4% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Sky 514 243 271 73 120 211 110 46 59 84 124 132 141 114 128 420 45 29 20 28% 27% 29% 34% 38% 30% 19% 30% 33% 31% 25% 24% 28% 29% 35% 28% 28% 33% 42% f ef f j kl op 47% 53% 14% 23% 41% 21% 9% 11% 16% 24% 26% 27% 22% 25% 82% 9% 6% 4% BT 495 241 254 42 51 213 189 27 48 68 153 195 123 102 76 414 34 31 16 27% 27% 28% 20% 16% 30% 33% 18% 27% 25% 31% 36% 24% 26% 21% 27% 21% 35% 35% cd cd g g lmn op op 49% 51% 9% 10% 43% 38% 6% 10% 14% 31% 39% 25% 21% 15% 84% 7% 6% 3% Virgin Media (previously NTL/ Telewest) 405 216 189 54 71 148 132 32 31 52 128 107 131 90 77 339 57 6 3 22% 24% 20% 25% 23% 21% 23% 21% 18% 19% 26% 20% 26% 22% 21% 22% 36% 7% 7% hi k qr oqr 53% 47% 13% 18% 37% 32% 8% 8% 13% 32% 26% 32% 22% 19% 84% 14% 1% 1% Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse 206 94 112 23 36 67 80 34 23 33 36 47 61 45 54 170 16 14 6 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 14% 22% 13% 12% 7% 9% 12% 11% 15% 11% 10% 16% 12% e hij j j k 46% 54% 11% 17% 33% 39% 16% 11% 16% 17% 23% 30% 22% 26% 82% 8% 7% 3% Plusnet 65 33 32 4 7 21 33 4 3 12 21 27 11 14 12 61 1 3 - 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 6% 3% 2% 5% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% 4% 1% 3% -% cde l pr r 51% 49% 6% 12% 32% 51% 7% 5% 19% 33% 42% 17% 22% 19% 94% 2% 4% -% EE 59 30 30 4 18 21 17 5 4 9 18 14 16 20 10 52 4 3 * 3% 3% 3% 2% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 4% *% cef r r 50% 50% 7% 30% 35% 28% 8% 7% 15% 30% 24% 27% 33% 16% 88% 6% 6% *% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Vodafone 9 3 5 5 2 - 2 - - - 5 3 4 - 1 9 - * - *% *% 1% 2% 1% -% *% -% -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% *% 1% -% *% -% ef 36% 64% 56% 23% -% 20% -% -% -% 59% 37% 46% -% 17% 99% -% 1% -% KComm 6 4 1 1 3 1 1 - 1 1 3 1 2 3 - 6 - - - *% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% -% 1% *% 1% *% *% 1% -% *% -% -% -% 78% 22% 16% 44% 22% 17% -% 17% 20% 47% 17% 36% 47% -% 100% -% -% -% Post Office 4 2 2 - * 2 2 - 1 1 * 2 2 * * 3 * * 1 *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 2% o 53% 47% -% 10% 44% 47% -% 31% 22% 6% 38% 45% 11% 5% 59% 8% 11% 22% AOL 3 2 2 - - 2 1 - - - 2 1 2 1 - 3 - - - *% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% -% 50% 50% -% -% 74% 26% -% -% -% 53% 23% 50% 26% -% 100% -% -% -% Tesco 3 * 3 - 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - 2 * 1 2 1 * - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 3% 97% -% 25% 46% 29% -% -% 25% 46% -% 52% 3% 46% 71% 27% 3% -% 2 2 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 2 * - - *% *% -% -% -% *% *% -% 1% *% -% *% *% -% -% *% *% -% -% 100% -% -% -% 47% 53% -% 49% 47% -% 49% 51% -% -% 96% 4% -% -% Orange 1 - 1 - - 1 - - * - - 1 - * * 1 - * - *% -% *% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% -% 9% -% -% 82% -% 8% 9% 82% -% 18% -% T-Mobile 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% -% -% -% 50% 50% 50% 50% -% -% -% 100% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2330 1109 1221 265 392 863 810 229 250 333 514 594 751 493 491 1464 308 307 251 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 793 856 187 266 614 592 173 171 245 392 444 522 355 340 1269 201 190 203 Total 1812 888 923 213 314 706 578 151 175 272 495 543 505 399 365 1516 160 88 47 49% 51% 12% 17% 39% 32% 8% 10% 15% 27% 30% 28% 22% 20% 84% 9% 5% 3% Other 32 13 19 5 2 15 10 2 2 10 4 13 7 9 3 30 1 1 * 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% *% 1% 1% j 41% 59% 16% 6% 47% 31% 6% 7% 29% 13% 39% 23% 28% 10% 93% 2% 3% 1% Don't know 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 - - - - 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% 1% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% o 71% 29% 30% 35% 22% 13% 22% -% -% -% -% 36% 39% 25% 65% 13% 12% 11% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Sky 514 68 74 36 38 41 43 42 27 51 465 49 356 157 247 267 28% 29% 28% 22% 33% 31% 23% 28% 39% 25% 30% 19% 31% 24% 24% 34% c bcfgi k m n 13% 14% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 5% 10% 90% 10% 69% 31% 48% 52% BT 495 75 77 54 17 33 58 37 10 51 370 126 298 195 333 162 27% 32% 29% 32% 15% 26% 32% 25% 15% 25% 24% 49% 26% 30% 33% 21% dh dh dh dh dh dh dh j o 15% 16% 11% 3% 7% 12% 8% 2% 10% 75% 25% 60% 39% 67% 33% Virgin Media (previously NTL/ Telewest) 405 51 54 25 36 35 46 30 22 40 389 15 269 134 191 213 22% 22% 20% 15% 31% 27% 25% 20% 32% 20% 25% 6% 23% 21% 19% 27% bcgi c c bcgi k n 13% 13% 6% 9% 9% 11% 7% 5% 10% 96% 4% 66% 33% 47% 53% Talk Talk/ Carphone Warehouse 206 20 32 25 11 4 17 19 7 35 178 28 115 89 126 80 11% 9% 12% 15% 10% 3% 9% 13% 11% 17% 11% 11% 10% 14% 12% 10% e e e e e e aef l 10% 15% 12% 5% 2% 8% 9% 4% 17% 86% 14% 56% 43% 61% 39% Plusnet 65 - 19 12 5 9 3 7 * 4 46 19 35 29 50 15 4% -% 7% 7% 5% 7% 2% 5% *% 2% 3% 7% 3% 5% 5% 2% afhi afhi ah afh ah j o -% 30% 19% 8% 14% 5% 11% *% 7% 71% 29% 54% 46% 77% 23% EE 59 6 4 8 5 5 3 5 1 15 50 9 41 19 34 25 3% 3% 2% 5% 4% 4% 2% 3% 1% 8% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% h abfh 10% 7% 14% 8% 8% 6% 9% 1% 26% 85% 15% 68% 32% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% Vodafone 9 7 - - - - - 1 - - 9 * 7 2 5 3 *% 3% -% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% 1% *% 1% *% 1% *% bcdfhi 82% -% -% -% -% -% 16% -% -% 99% 1% 82% 18% 64% 36% KComm 6 - - - - - - 6 - - 6 - 4 2 6 - *% -% -% -% -% -% -% 4% -% -% *% -% *% *% 1% -% abcdefhi o -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 67% 33% 100% -% Post Office 4 - - - - - 1 1 - 1 4 1 2 2 3 1 *% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% -% -% -% 24% 22% -% 12% 82% 18% 46% 54% 72% 28% AOL 3 - - 2 1 1 - - - - 2 2 2 1 2 2 *% -% -% 1% 1% 1% -% -% -% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% -% 53% 23% 24% -% -% -% -% 50% 50% 77% 23% 50% 50% Tesco 3 1 - - - - 1 - - - 3 * 3 * 1 2 *% *% -% -% -% -% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 25% -% -% -% -% 46% -% -% -% 97% 3% 97% 3% 46% 54% '3' 2 - - - - - - - - 2 2 * 1 1 - 2 *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 96% 96% 4% 47% 53% -% 100% Orange 1 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 * 1 - 1 * *% -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% -% *% *% -% -% 82% -% -% -% -% -% -% 82% 18% 100% -% 82% 18% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qg3 (Qg3D). Which Supplier Do You Use For This Package Of Services? (Single Code) Base : Those with a bundle of services, who receive any of these services as part of an overall deal or package ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2330 171 183 179 150 135 177 155 150 164 1706 624 1343 980 1193 1137 Effective Weighted Sample 1649 153 174 172 141 126 168 146 139 151 1360 308 963 705 855 811 Total 1812 232 267 168 115 131 184 150 70 201 1554 257 1154 651 1023 789 13% 15% 9% 6% 7% 10% 8% 4% 11% 86% 14% 64% 36% 56% 44% T-Mobile 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 1% *% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% Other 32 4 6 4 2 3 8 1 1 - 25 7 17 15 20 12 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 1% 2% -% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% i gi 14% 17% 12% 6% 11% 26% 3% 4% -% 78% 22% 53% 47% 62% 38% Don't know 5 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 4 1 3 3 2 3 *% -% *% -% 1% -% 1% -% -% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% 22% -% 16% -% 26% -% -% -% 74% 26% 50% 50% 43% 57% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp1. Showcard During An Average Week, On How Many Days Do You Listen To The Radio (Including Listening At Home, In The Car, At Work, Via Mobile Phone, Personal Stereo)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 7 days a week (7.0) 1152 582 570 102 163 395 493 111 114 150 302 337 311 273 230 962 92 76 22 43% 45% 41% 28% 35% 43% 53% 35% 44% 42% 52% 47% 43% 47% 35% 43% 39% 57% 30% cd cde g ghi n n n r r opr 51% 49% 9% 14% 34% 43% 10% 10% 13% 26% 29% 27% 24% 20% 84% 8% 7% 2% 6 days a week (6.0) 82 45 37 3 11 36 32 5 7 10 20 24 21 20 17 65 10 4 3 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% c c 55% 45% 4% 14% 44% 38% 6% 8% 13% 24% 29% 26% 25% 21% 79% 12% 5% 4% 5 days a week (5.0) 225 113 112 33 40 97 55 15 17 40 67 60 65 48 51 183 26 7 9 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 11% 6% 5% 6% 11% 11% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 11% 5% 13% f f gh gh q oq 50% 50% 15% 18% 43% 24% 7% 7% 18% 30% 27% 29% 22% 23% 81% 12% 3% 4% 3 or 4 days a week (3.5) 222 95 127 46 39 76 61 22 17 28 49 66 57 49 50 187 18 7 10 8% 7% 9% 13% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 5% 13% ef q opq 43% 57% 21% 18% 34% 28% 10% 8% 12% 22% 30% 25% 22% 22% 84% 8% 3% 4% 1 or 2 days a week (1.5) 220 101 119 32 40 75 73 40 28 33 40 60 63 41 56 185 23 9 3 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 12% 11% 9% 7% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 10% 7% 4% j r r 46% 54% 14% 18% 34% 33% 18% 13% 15% 18% 27% 29% 19% 25% 84% 11% 4% 1% Less often (0.5) 141 67 74 19 28 49 45 19 10 16 26 38 37 32 34 116 14 6 5 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4% 7% 48% 52% 14% 20% 35% 32% 13% 7% 12% 18% 27% 26% 23% 24% 82% 10% 4% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp1. Showcard During An Average Week, On How Many Days Do You Listen To The Radio (Including Listening At Home, In The Car, At Work, Via Mobile Phone, Personal Stereo)? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Never/ do not listen to the radio (0.0) 630 297 333 129 146 187 168 104 67 81 80 127 165 116 222 536 50 24 21 24% 23% 24% 35% 31% 20% 18% 33% 26% 23% 14% 18% 23% 20% 34% 24% 21% 18% 28% ef ef ij j j k klm q pq 47% 53% 20% 23% 30% 27% 17% 11% 13% 13% 20% 26% 18% 35% 85% 8% 4% 3% Don't know 3 1 2 * 1 * 1 1 - * - - 1 * 1 2 * - * *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% 1% o 18% 82% 4% 48% 11% 37% 45% -% 3% -% -% 48% 11% 41% 75% 8% -% 17% Mean number of days during an average week 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.3 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.8 3.6 cd cde g g ghi ln n n r r opr Standard deviation 3.01 3.00 3.01 2.95 3.06 2.93 2.94 3.09 3.07 2.96 2.73 2.89 3.00 2.95 3.09 3.01 2.94 2.95 2.94 Standard error .05 .07 .07 .13 .12 .09 .08 .13 .15 .14 .11 .10 .09 .10 .10 .06 .13 .13 .13 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 7 days a week (7.0) 1152 63 209 114 82 92 101 107 55 140 972 181 682 466 706 446 43% 19% 58% 50% 44% 39% 41% 47% 48% 46% 42% 50% 44% 42% 49% 36% adefghi ae a a a a ae a j o 5% 18% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 5% 12% 84% 16% 59% 40% 61% 39% 6 days a week (6.0) 82 10 6 18 3 11 8 2 3 4 63 19 44 38 58 25 3% 3% 2% 8% 2% 5% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% abdfghi gi j o 13% 7% 22% 4% 13% 9% 2% 3% 5% 77% 23% 53% 46% 70% 30% 5 days a week (5.0) 225 25 26 19 16 23 14 17 8 35 205 20 166 58 120 105 8% 7% 7% 8% 9% 10% 6% 8% 7% 11% 9% 5% 11% 5% 8% 9% f k m 11% 12% 8% 7% 10% 6% 8% 4% 15% 91% 9% 74% 26% 53% 47% 3 or 4 days a week (3.5) 222 29 32 10 22 26 21 22 9 15 196 26 133 88 111 111 8% 9% 9% 4% 12% 11% 9% 10% 8% 5% 8% 7% 9% 8% 8% 9% ci ci c 13% 15% 5% 10% 12% 10% 10% 4% 7% 88% 12% 60% 40% 50% 50% 1 or 2 days a week (1.5) 220 26 22 20 20 12 31 21 10 23 190 30 112 108 125 95 8% 8% 6% 9% 11% 5% 13% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 10% 9% 8% e be l 12% 10% 9% 9% 5% 14% 9% 5% 11% 87% 13% 51% 49% 57% 43% Less often (0.5) 141 32 15 13 8 12 12 13 1 9 119 22 77 63 74 66 5% 9% 4% 6% 4% 5% 5% 6% 1% 3% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% bdhi h h h h h h 23% 11% 9% 6% 8% 9% 9% 1% 6% 84% 16% 54% 45% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP1. SHOWCARD During an average week, on how many days do you listen to the radio (including listening at home, in the car, at work, via mobile phone, personal stereo)? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Never/ do not listen to the radio (0.0) 630 153 48 33 36 61 57 44 27 75 569 61 337 291 247 383 24% 45% 13% 15% 19% 26% 23% 20% 24% 25% 25% 17% 22% 26% 17% 31% bcdefghi bc bc bc bc k l n 24% 8% 5% 6% 10% 9% 7% 4% 12% 90% 10% 53% 46% 39% 61% Don't know 3 - 1 - - - - - - 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% 35% -% -% -% -% -% -% 40% 52% 48% 59% 41% 52% 48% Mean number of days during an average week 4.1 2.3 5.0 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.5 adefghi adef a a a a a a j m o Standard deviation 3.01 2.82 2.74 2.84 2.90 2.98 3.02 2.97 3.01 3.03 3.01 2.92 2.95 3.07 2.89 3.06 Standard error .05 .18 .17 .18 .18 .19 .20 .19 .19 .19 .06 .09 .07 .07 .07 .07 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2832 | 1368 | 1464 | 326 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1922 | 933 | 990 | 217 | | Total | 2042 | 1003 | 1039 | 236 | | 49% | 51% | 12% | 16% | 36% | | Every day | 163 | 82 | 81 | 11 | | 8% | 8% | 8% | 5% | 3% | | cde | ij | l | | | | 50% | 50% | 7% | 6% | 26% | | At least weekly | 141 | 72 | 69 | 15 | | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 6% | | 51% | 49% | 11% | 14% | 36% | | At least monthly | 58 | 34 | 24 | 6 | | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 4% | | opq | | | | | | 58% | 42% | 10% | 22% | 30% | | Have tried it once | 72 | 34 | 38 | 5 | | 4% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 3% | | g | g | l | opr | | | 47% | 53% | 7% | 15% | 40% | | EVER | 434 | 221 | 212 | 37 | | 21% | 22% | 20% | 16% | 17% | | cde | i | i | p | p | | 51% | 49% | 9% | 12% | 32% | | Never | 1172 | 564 | 607 | 135 | | 57% | 56% | 58% | 57% | 57% | | f | h | oq | oq | | | 48% | 52% | 12% | 16% | 38% | | Do not have access to device | 437 | 218 | 219 | 63 | | 21% | 22% | 21% | 27% | 26% | | ef | ef | k | pqr | r | | 50% | 50% | 14% | 19% | 33% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 163 12 26 12 17 26 14 17 10 6 130 33 70 92 85 78 8% 6% 8% 6% 11% 15% 8% 10% 11% 3% 7% 11% 6% 11% 7% 9% i i abcfi i i i j l 7% 16% 7% 10% 16% 9% 11% 6% 4% 80% 20% 43% 57% 52% 48% At least weekly 141 41 18 13 8 13 8 15 5 3 122 19 92 48 81 60 7% 22% 6% 7% 5% 7% 4% 8% 6% 1% 7% 6% 8% 6% 7% 7% bcdefghi i i i i i 29% 13% 10% 5% 9% 6% 11% 4% 2% 86% 14% 66% 34% 57% 43% At least monthly 58 10 6 6 3 9 4 3 2 4 52 6 37 21 35 23 3% 6% 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 18% 11% 10% 5% 16% 7% 6% 3% 7% 89% 11% 64% 36% 60% 40% Have tried it once 72 11 7 8 5 5 1 7 * 14 63 10 42 30 49 23 4% 6% 2% 4% 3% 3% *% 4% 1% 6% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% fh fh f fh fh 16% 10% 10% 7% 7% 1% 9% 1% 19% 87% 13% 58% 42% 68% 32% EVER 434 75 57 39 32 53 27 43 17 27 366 68 242 192 250 184 21% 40% 18% 20% 21% 30% 14% 24% 20% 12% 21% 23% 20% 23% 21% 22% bcdfghi i i bcdfhi fi i 17% 13% 9% 7% 12% 6% 10% 4% 6% 84% 16% 56% 44% 58% 42% Never 1172 70 198 125 87 98 102 74 56 129 967 205 704 460 691 480 57% 38% 64% 65% 57% 56% 54% 41% 65% 57% 55% 69% 58% 56% 58% 57% ag afg ag ag ag afg ag j 6% 17% 11% 7% 8% 9% 6% 5% 11% 83% 17% 60% 39% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2A (Qp11A). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Am Receiver - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 437 40 56 30 33 25 58 65 13 70 412 25 267 169 253 184 21% 21% 18% 16% 22% 14% 31% 36% 15% 31% 24% 8% 22% 21% 21% 22% bcdeh abcdeh bcdeh k 9% 13% 7% 8% 6% 13% 15% 3% 16% 94% 6% 61% 39% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio | GENDER | AGE GROUP | HOUSEHOLD INCOME | SOCIAL GROUP | NATION | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------|----------| | UNDER | £11.5K- | £17.5K- | ENG | | | Total | MALE | FEMALE | 16-24 | 25-34 | | SCOT | | | | | | LAND | WALES | NI | | | | Significance Level: 95% | a | b | c | d | | Unweighted total | 2832 | 1368 | 1464 | 326 | | Effective Weighted Sample | 1922 | 933 | 990 | 217 | | Total | 2042 | 1003 | 1039 | 236 | | 49% | 51% | 12% | 16% | 36% | | Every day | 478 | 237 | 241 | 35 | | 23% | 24% | 23% | 15% | 17% | | cde | hij | j | j | kl | | 50% | 50% | 7% | 11% | 30% | | At least weekly | 269 | 136 | 133 | 28 | | 13% | 14% | 13% | 12% | 14% | | 50% | 50% | 10% | 17% | 36% | | At least monthly | 99 | 53 | 46 | 10 | | 5% | 5% | 4% | 4% | 6% | | o | | | | | | 54% | 46% | 10% | 19% | 30% | | Have tried it once | 87 | 40 | 47 | 8 | | 4% | 4% | 5% | 3% | 4% | | g | n | n | p | | | 46% | 54% | 9% | 16% | 39% | | EVER | 933 | 466 | 468 | 80 | | 46% | 46% | 45% | 34% | 41% | | c | cde | ij | k | p | | 50% | 50% | 9% | 14% | 33% | | Never | 800 | 381 | 419 | 98 | | 39% | 38% | 40% | 42% | 38% | | f | f | gh | lmn | oq | | 48% | 52% | 12% | 15% | 40% | | Do not have access to device | 309 | 157 | 152 | 57 | | 15% | 16% | 15% | 24% | 21% | | ef | ef | g | k | r | | 51% | 49% | 19% | 22% | 33% | | Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r | | | | | All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 478 25 77 50 43 42 39 47 18 63 399 79 234 243 290 188 23% 14% 25% 26% 28% 24% 21% 26% 20% 28% 23% 26% 19% 30% 24% 22% a a a a a a l 5% 16% 11% 9% 9% 8% 10% 4% 13% 84% 16% 49% 51% 61% 39% At least weekly 269 39 30 24 15 24 20 26 17 31 235 34 163 105 138 131 13% 21% 10% 12% 10% 14% 11% 14% 19% 14% 13% 11% 13% 13% 12% 15% bcdf bdf n 15% 11% 9% 6% 9% 8% 9% 6% 11% 87% 13% 61% 39% 51% 49% At least monthly 99 19 10 11 6 8 11 4 2 9 92 7 57 42 62 37 5% 10% 3% 6% 4% 4% 6% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 5% 4% bdeghi k 19% 11% 12% 6% 8% 11% 4% 3% 9% 93% 7% 58% 42% 62% 38% Have tried it once 87 13 4 20 5 6 4 4 1 15 72 15 54 32 66 21 4% 7% 1% 10% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 7% 4% 5% 4% 4% 6% 2% bfgh bdefgh bfgh o 15% 5% 23% 5% 7% 4% 5% 1% 18% 83% 17% 62% 37% 76% 24% EVER 933 97 121 105 68 80 74 81 38 118 799 134 508 422 556 377 46% 53% 39% 54% 45% 45% 40% 45% 44% 53% 46% 45% 42% 51% 47% 44% bf bf bf l 10% 13% 11% 7% 9% 8% 9% 4% 13% 86% 14% 54% 45% 60% 40% Never 800 56 139 76 62 73 77 60 40 63 653 147 498 298 470 331 39% 30% 45% 39% 41% 42% 41% 33% 47% 28% 37% 49% 41% 36% 39% 39% agi i i ai i agi j m 7% 17% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% 8% 82% 18% 62% 37% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2B (Qp11B). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Radio Set With Fm Stereo - Either At Home, In The Car Or On Portable Radio. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 309 32 50 13 22 23 36 40 8 45 292 16 207 101 169 140 15% 17% 16% 7% 14% 13% 19% 22% 9% 20% 17% 5% 17% 12% 14% 16% ch c c c ch ceh ch k m 10% 16% 4% 7% 8% 12% 13% 3% 14% 95% 5% 67% 33% 55% 45% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Mobile Phone. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 59 33 26 15 9 30 5 6 6 3 19 16 14 13 16 53 3 2 * 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 4% 1% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% df f f r 56% 44% 26% 15% 51% 9% 10% 10% 6% 32% 27% 24% 22% 27% 90% 6% 4% *% At least weekly 142 70 72 35 34 58 15 12 15 15 54 41 41 34 26 128 9 3 2 7% 7% 7% 15% 11% 8% 2% 6% 8% 5% 11% 7% 7% 7% 6% 8% 5% 3% 4% ef f f gi qr 49% 51% 25% 24% 41% 10% 8% 10% 10% 38% 29% 29% 24% 18% 90% 6% 2% 1% At least monthly 125 68 57 27 36 52 9 12 8 16 38 38 38 26 23 109 9 4 3 6% 7% 5% 11% 11% 7% 1% 6% 4% 6% 8% 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 3% 5% f ef f 54% 46% 21% 29% 42% 8% 10% 6% 13% 30% 30% 30% 21% 18% 88% 7% 3% 2% Have tried it once 107 65 42 22 25 45 15 5 2 8 44 36 34 22 15 93 7 3 3 5% 6% 4% 9% 8% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3% 9% 6% 6% 5% 3% 5% 4% 3% 6% b f f f ghi 61% 39% 21% 23% 42% 14% 5% 2% 7% 41% 34% 31% 21% 14% 87% 7% 3% 3% EVER 433 235 197 99 104 185 45 35 30 42 154 131 127 96 80 383 29 13 8 21% 23% 19% 42% 32% 25% 6% 16% 15% 15% 31% 22% 23% 21% 18% 23% 16% 12% 15% b def ef f ghi pqr 54% 46% 23% 24% 43% 10% 8% 7% 10% 36% 30% 29% 22% 18% 89% 7% 3% 2% Never 1413 666 746 131 202 496 584 147 134 208 331 412 379 322 298 1152 136 80 45 69% 66% 72% 55% 63% 68% 77% 70% 69% 75% 66% 70% 69% 69% 68% 68% 74% 74% 85% a c cde j o opq 47% 53% 9% 14% 35% 41% 10% 9% 15% 23% 29% 27% 23% 21% 82% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 197 102 95 6 16 47 129 30 30 27 18 43 48 47 60 163 18 16 * 10% 10% 9% 2% 5% 6% 17% 14% 15% 10% 4% 7% 9% 10% 14% 10% 10% 15% 1% c cde j j j kl r r or 52% 48% 3% 8% 24% 66% 15% 15% 14% 9% 22% 24% 24% 30% 83% 9% 8% *% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2C (QP11C). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Mobile phone. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 59 8 9 1 9 2 10 6 5 5 52 8 44 15 30 29 3% 4% 3% *% 6% 1% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% c ce ce c ce m 13% 15% 2% 16% 3% 16% 10% 8% 8% 87% 13% 74% 26% 50% 50% At least weekly 142 38 15 14 11 5 16 15 3 10 130 12 102 40 75 67 7% 20% 5% 7% 7% 3% 9% 8% 4% 5% 7% 4% 8% 5% 6% 8% bcdefghi e e e e k m 27% 11% 10% 8% 3% 11% 11% 2% 7% 91% 9% 72% 28% 53% 47% At least monthly 125 29 15 10 13 8 13 6 3 13 110 14 92 32 76 48 6% 16% 5% 5% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 6% 6% 5% 8% 4% 6% 6% bcefghi gh m 23% 12% 8% 10% 7% 10% 5% 2% 10% 89% 11% 74% 26% 61% 39% Have tried it once 107 7 23 11 6 9 8 11 5 14 97 10 85 22 72 35 5% 4% 7% 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 3% 7% 3% 6% 4% m 6% 21% 10% 5% 9% 8% 10% 4% 13% 91% 9% 79% 21% 67% 33% EVER 433 81 61 36 39 24 47 38 15 42 389 44 322 110 252 180 21% 44% 20% 19% 25% 14% 25% 21% 18% 19% 22% 15% 27% 13% 21% 21% bcdefghi e e k m 19% 14% 8% 9% 6% 11% 9% 4% 10% 90% 10% 75% 25% 58% 42% Never 1413 96 218 143 102 126 132 112 64 158 1177 236 822 582 839 574 69% 52% 70% 74% 67% 72% 71% 62% 75% 70% 67% 79% 68% 71% 70% 68% a ag a a a ag a j 7% 15% 10% 7% 9% 9% 8% 5% 11% 83% 17% 58% 41% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2C (Qp11C). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Mobile Phone. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 197 7 31 15 12 26 8 31 7 25 180 18 68 129 103 94 10% 4% 10% 8% 8% 15% 4% 17% 8% 11% 10% 6% 6% 16% 9% 11% af acdfh abcdfh af k l 4% 16% 8% 6% 13% 4% 16% 3% 13% 91% 9% 35% 65% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2D (Qp11D). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through Tv. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 97 42 54 10 8 39 39 12 13 14 16 18 32 18 28 86 5 4 1 5% 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 7% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 6% 5% 3% 3% 2% j k k r 44% 56% 11% 8% 41% 40% 13% 14% 15% 17% 18% 33% 18% 29% 89% 6% 4% 1% At least weekly 198 96 103 29 36 66 67 23 22 26 52 50 46 57 45 166 18 9 4 10% 10% 10% 12% 11% 9% 9% 11% 12% 9% 10% 9% 8% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% l 48% 52% 15% 18% 33% 34% 12% 11% 13% 26% 25% 23% 29% 23% 84% 9% 5% 2% At least monthly 151 78 72 22 23 57 49 9 20 17 52 51 46 40 15 133 11 5 1 7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 8% 6% 4% 10% 6% 10% 9% 8% 9% 3% 8% 6% 5% 2% g g n n n r r 52% 48% 15% 15% 38% 33% 6% 13% 11% 34% 34% 30% 26% 10% 88% 7% 3% 1% Have tried it once 173 97 76 20 28 62 64 8 6 12 73 62 50 37 24 161 6 6 1 8% 10% 7% 8% 9% 9% 8% 4% 3% 4% 14% 11% 9% 8% 6% 9% 3% 6% 2% ghi n n pqr r 56% 44% 11% 16% 36% 37% 4% 3% 7% 42% 36% 29% 21% 14% 93% 3% 3% *% EVER 619 313 306 81 96 224 218 52 61 69 193 182 174 150 112 547 40 24 8 30% 31% 29% 35% 30% 31% 29% 25% 31% 25% 38% 31% 31% 32% 26% 32% 22% 22% 15% gi n n pqr r r 51% 49% 13% 15% 36% 35% 8% 10% 11% 31% 29% 28% 24% 18% 88% 7% 4% 1% Never 1254 599 655 140 203 451 461 137 110 180 296 371 335 276 272 1013 127 70 44 61% 60% 63% 59% 63% 62% 61% 65% 57% 65% 59% 63% 60% 59% 62% 60% 69% 65% 83% o opq 48% 52% 11% 16% 36% 37% 11% 9% 14% 24% 30% 27% 22% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 169 91 78 14 23 53 78 23 23 27 14 32 45 38 53 138 16 14 1 8% 9% 8% 6% 7% 7% 10% 11% 12% 10% 3% 6% 8% 8% 12% 8% 9% 13% 3% e j j j klm r r or 54% 46% 8% 14% 31% 46% 14% 13% 16% 9% 19% 27% 22% 32% 82% 9% 8% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2D (QP11D). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - Digital radio through TV. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 97 3 17 14 7 10 9 4 7 15 79 18 52 45 50 47 5% 2% 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 2% 8% 7% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% ag ag ag 3% 17% 14% 7% 10% 9% 5% 7% 16% 82% 18% 54% 46% 52% 48% At least weekly 198 15 26 23 13 15 25 23 5 21 170 28 115 82 129 69 10% 8% 8% 12% 8% 9% 13% 12% 6% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 8% h o 8% 13% 12% 6% 8% 12% 11% 3% 11% 86% 14% 58% 41% 65% 35% At least monthly 151 20 26 11 9 15 17 16 5 14 129 22 93 58 93 58 7% 11% 8% 5% 6% 8% 9% 9% 6% 6% 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 13% 17% 7% 6% 10% 12% 10% 3% 9% 86% 14% 61% 39% 62% 38% Have tried it once 173 21 38 29 12 20 11 6 7 18 147 26 117 56 115 58 8% 11% 12% 15% 8% 11% 6% 3% 8% 8% 8% 9% 10% 7% 10% 7% g fg dfgi g g m o 12% 22% 16% 7% 12% 6% 4% 4% 10% 85% 15% 68% 32% 66% 34% EVER 619 59 106 76 41 60 62 49 25 69 525 94 377 241 387 232 30% 32% 34% 39% 27% 34% 33% 27% 29% 30% 30% 32% 31% 29% 32% 27% dgh o 10% 17% 12% 7% 10% 10% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 61% 39% 63% 37% Never 1254 99 195 114 99 94 117 97 58 140 1063 191 750 497 727 527 61% 54% 63% 59% 65% 53% 63% 53% 68% 62% 61% 64% 62% 61% 61% 62% aeg aeg 8% 16% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 5% 11% 85% 15% 60% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 169 27 9 4 12 23 8 36 3 17 156 13 86 82 80 89 8% 14% 3% 2% 8% 13% 4% 20% 4% 7% 9% 4% 7% 10% 7% 10% bcfh bc bcfh bcdfhi c k l n 16% 5% 2% 7% 14% 5% 21% 2% 10% 92% 8% 51% 49% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 59 30 29 7 8 27 17 1 4 9 20 28 12 10 8 53 2 4 * 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% g g lmn r 51% 49% 11% 14% 47% 29% 2% 7% 16% 34% 48% 21% 17% 14% 90% 3% 6% 1% At least weekly 129 70 60 25 26 51 27 7 13 15 50 54 30 22 24 121 4 3 1 6% 7% 6% 10% 8% 7% 4% 3% 6% 6% 10% 9% 5% 5% 6% 7% 2% 3% 2% f f f g lmn pqr 54% 46% 19% 20% 39% 21% 5% 10% 12% 38% 42% 23% 17% 19% 93% 3% 2% 1% At least monthly 114 72 42 22 22 47 23 5 8 10 48 42 37 21 15 98 10 4 3 6% 7% 4% 9% 7% 6% 3% 2% 4% 4% 10% 7% 7% 4% 3% 6% 5% 3% 5% b f f f ghi n n 64% 36% 20% 19% 41% 20% 4% 7% 9% 43% 37% 32% 18% 13% 86% 8% 3% 2% Have tried it once 122 63 59 16 26 45 36 6 5 10 52 39 40 32 12 114 4 3 1 6% 6% 6% 7% 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 3% 10% 7% 7% 7% 3% 7% 2% 3% 3% f ghi n n n pqr 52% 48% 13% 21% 37% 29% 5% 4% 8% 43% 31% 32% 27% 10% 93% 3% 3% 1% EVER 425 235 189 69 82 170 103 18 30 45 170 162 118 85 60 386 20 14 5 21% 23% 18% 29% 26% 23% 14% 9% 16% 16% 34% 28% 21% 18% 14% 23% 11% 13% 10% b f f f g g ghi lmn n pqr 55% 45% 16% 19% 40% 24% 4% 7% 11% 40% 38% 28% 20% 14% 91% 5% 3% 1% Never 1382 651 731 150 211 498 522 150 126 200 316 387 373 325 295 1115 141 80 45 68% 65% 70% 64% 66% 68% 69% 71% 65% 72% 63% 66% 67% 70% 67% 66% 77% 74% 85% a j j o o opq 47% 53% 11% 15% 36% 38% 11% 9% 14% 23% 28% 27% 24% 21% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 236 117 119 17 28 60 132 44 37 32 18 36 63 55 83 198 22 14 3 12% 12% 11% 7% 9% 8% 17% 21% 19% 12% 4% 6% 11% 12% 19% 12% 12% 13% 5% cde ij ij j k k klm r r r 49% 51% 7% 12% 25% 56% 19% 16% 14% 8% 15% 26% 23% 35% 84% 9% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 59 5 10 7 4 9 6 6 2 2 42 17 45 14 41 18 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 6% 4% 2% 3% 2% i j m 8% 18% 12% 7% 16% 11% 11% 3% 3% 71% 29% 76% 24% 70% 30% At least weekly 129 12 21 16 16 4 20 18 2 11 106 23 91 38 82 48 6% 6% 7% 8% 11% 2% 11% 10% 3% 5% 6% 8% 8% 5% 7% 6% eh ehi ehi eh m 9% 16% 13% 12% 3% 15% 14% 2% 8% 82% 18% 71% 29% 63% 37% At least monthly 114 20 19 12 8 6 11 10 3 9 98 16 75 39 70 44 6% 11% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 6% 3% 4% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% ehi 18% 17% 11% 7% 5% 9% 9% 2% 8% 86% 14% 66% 34% 61% 39% Have tried it once 122 17 30 16 10 14 6 6 3 12 110 13 88 35 87 36 6% 9% 10% 8% 6% 8% 3% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4% 7% 4% 7% 4% fg fgh fg m o 14% 24% 13% 8% 11% 5% 5% 3% 10% 90% 10% 72% 28% 71% 29% EVER 425 54 80 52 38 33 43 41 10 33 356 69 299 126 279 145 21% 29% 26% 27% 25% 19% 23% 23% 12% 15% 20% 23% 25% 15% 23% 17% ehi hi hi hi hi h m o 13% 19% 12% 9% 8% 10% 10% 2% 8% 84% 16% 70% 30% 66% 34% Never 1382 100 207 130 99 111 136 100 68 163 1166 215 817 557 799 583 68% 54% 67% 67% 65% 63% 73% 55% 79% 72% 67% 72% 67% 68% 67% 69% ag ag g ag abcdeg ag j 7% 15% 9% 7% 8% 10% 7% 5% 12% 84% 16% 59% 40% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2E (Qp11E). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Digital Radio Through The Internet. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 236 31 23 11 15 32 8 40 8 29 223 13 97 138 117 119 12% 17% 7% 6% 10% 18% 4% 22% 9% 13% 13% 4% 8% 17% 10% 14% bcf bcdfh bcdfhi cf k l n 13% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3% 17% 3% 12% 94% 6% 41% 59% 49% 51% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 504 258 246 37 67 165 235 34 46 66 154 177 128 121 78 442 27 33 3 25% 26% 24% 16% 21% 23% 31% 16% 24% 24% 31% 30% 23% 26% 18% 26% 15% 30% 5% c cde g g g ln n n pr r pr 51% 49% 7% 13% 33% 47% 7% 9% 13% 31% 35% 25% 24% 16% 88% 5% 6% 1% At least weekly 197 104 93 27 21 80 69 13 17 30 64 72 61 42 22 176 10 9 2 10% 10% 9% 12% 7% 11% 9% 6% 9% 11% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 10% 5% 9% 4% d g n n n pr 53% 47% 14% 11% 41% 35% 7% 9% 15% 32% 37% 31% 21% 11% 89% 5% 5% 1% At least monthly 44 27 18 9 9 13 13 3 3 1 11 16 13 11 5 37 5 1 1 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% *% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 60% 40% 20% 21% 29% 30% 8% 7% 3% 25% 35% 29% 25% 11% 84% 11% 2% 3% Have tried it once 39 18 21 2 5 16 16 3 4 3 9 22 9 6 2 36 1 2 * 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% *% lmn 46% 54% 5% 12% 41% 41% 8% 11% 9% 24% 55% 23% 16% 6% 90% 4% 6% 1% EVER 785 407 378 75 103 274 334 54 70 101 239 286 210 180 108 690 43 45 7 38% 41% 36% 32% 32% 38% 44% 26% 36% 36% 47% 49% 38% 39% 25% 41% 24% 42% 13% cde g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 10% 13% 35% 43% 7% 9% 13% 30% 36% 27% 23% 14% 88% 5% 6% 1% Never 737 359 378 98 128 273 238 77 67 112 153 191 201 164 180 575 89 33 40 36% 36% 36% 42% 40% 37% 31% 36% 35% 41% 30% 33% 36% 35% 41% 34% 48% 31% 75% f f f j k oq opq 49% 51% 13% 17% 37% 32% 10% 9% 15% 21% 26% 27% 22% 24% 78% 12% 5% 5% Do not have access to device 520 237 283 62 90 181 186 81 56 64 112 107 143 120 150 432 51 30 7 25% 24% 27% 26% 28% 25% 25% 38% 29% 23% 22% 18% 26% 26% 34% 25% 28% 27% 12% hij k k klm r r r 46% 54% 12% 17% 35% 36% 16% 11% 12% 21% 21% 27% 23% 29% 83% 10% 6% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2F (QP11F). SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - DAB radio set. (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 504 41 122 46 40 34 33 47 18 60 426 78 294 207 336 168 25% 22% 39% 24% 26% 19% 18% 26% 21% 27% 24% 26% 24% 25% 28% 20% acdefghi f o 8% 24% 9% 8% 7% 7% 9% 4% 12% 84% 16% 58% 41% 67% 33% At least weekly 197 38 20 12 20 16 17 27 7 18 172 26 126 71 118 80 10% 21% 6% 6% 13% 9% 9% 15% 8% 8% 10% 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% bcefhi bc bchi 19% 10% 6% 10% 8% 9% 14% 4% 9% 87% 13% 64% 36% 60% 40% At least monthly 44 5 5 6 1 4 3 1 1 11 40 4 22 22 31 13 2% 3% 2% 3% *% 2% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% d dgh 12% 12% 14% 1% 9% 6% 3% 2% 24% 90% 10% 50% 50% 71% 29% Have tried it once 39 4 6 4 3 4 8 - 1 5 31 8 26 13 27 13 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% -% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% g g g g g 11% 15% 11% 7% 10% 20% -% 2% 14% 79% 21% 66% 34% 67% 33% EVER 785 89 153 69 63 57 61 75 27 95 669 117 469 314 511 274 38% 48% 49% 36% 41% 32% 32% 42% 31% 42% 38% 39% 39% 38% 43% 32% cefh cefh h h h o 11% 20% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 3% 12% 85% 15% 60% 40% 65% 35% Never 737 61 94 87 65 55 83 42 27 61 607 130 450 283 410 327 36% 33% 30% 45% 43% 31% 44% 23% 32% 27% 35% 44% 37% 34% 34% 39% abeghi beghi beghi j n 8% 13% 12% 9% 8% 11% 6% 4% 8% 82% 18% 61% 38% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2F (Qp11F). Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - Dab Radio Set. (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 520 34 63 38 24 64 44 64 32 70 469 51 295 224 274 246 25% 18% 20% 19% 16% 36% 23% 35% 37% 31% 27% 17% 24% 27% 23% 29% abcdf abcdf abcdf abcd k n 7% 12% 7% 5% 12% 8% 12% 6% 14% 90% 10% 57% 43% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 655 357 298 67 124 274 190 30 57 109 208 202 182 170 101 541 55 42 16 32% 36% 29% 28% 39% 38% 25% 14% 29% 39% 41% 34% 33% 37% 23% 32% 30% 39% 31% b cf cf g gh gh n n n op 54% 46% 10% 19% 42% 29% 5% 9% 17% 32% 31% 28% 26% 15% 83% 8% 6% 2% At least weekly 551 242 309 67 78 195 211 41 68 74 153 160 161 117 112 463 45 24 19 27% 24% 30% 28% 24% 27% 28% 19% 35% 27% 30% 27% 29% 25% 26% 27% 24% 22% 36% a gi g g opq 44% 56% 12% 14% 35% 38% 7% 12% 13% 28% 29% 29% 21% 20% 84% 8% 4% 3% At least monthly 90 48 41 11 19 27 32 9 3 8 19 34 20 21 15 76 5 6 3 4% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 6% 5% 54% 46% 13% 21% 30% 36% 10% 4% 9% 22% 38% 22% 23% 17% 84% 6% 7% 3% Have tried it once 40 20 20 3 4 15 18 2 4 6 11 16 11 7 6 35 1 3 1 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 51% 49% 8% 10% 38% 44% 6% 11% 16% 27% 40% 27% 17% 16% 88% 3% 8% 2% EVER 1335 668 668 148 225 511 451 81 133 198 392 412 374 315 236 1114 106 76 39 65% 67% 64% 63% 70% 70% 60% 38% 69% 71% 78% 70% 67% 68% 54% 66% 58% 70% 74% f cf g g gh n n n p p op 50% 50% 11% 17% 38% 34% 6% 10% 15% 29% 31% 28% 24% 18% 83% 8% 6% 3% Never 465 225 240 57 57 157 194 77 32 48 87 130 108 117 109 384 48 21 12 23% 22% 23% 24% 18% 22% 26% 36% 17% 17% 17% 22% 19% 25% 25% 23% 26% 19% 23% d hij l l 48% 52% 12% 12% 34% 42% 16% 7% 10% 19% 28% 23% 25% 24% 83% 10% 4% 3% Do not have access to device 242 111 131 31 40 60 112 54 29 31 24 43 72 33 93 200 29 11 2 12% 11% 13% 13% 12% 8% 15% 26% 15% 11% 5% 7% 13% 7% 21% 12% 16% 11% 3% e e e hij j j km klm r r r 46% 54% 13% 16% 25% 46% 22% 12% 13% 10% 18% 30% 14% 38% 83% 12% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2G (QP11G) SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - A car radio (FM). (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 655 41 110 77 50 55 56 55 19 78 552 102 485 166 414 240 32% 22% 35% 40% 33% 31% 30% 30% 22% 35% 32% 34% 40% 20% 35% 28% ah ah ah ah m o 6% 17% 12% 8% 8% 9% 8% 3% 12% 84% 16% 74% 25% 63% 37% At least weekly 551 75 94 40 33 53 45 43 23 57 480 71 301 249 324 227 27% 40% 30% 20% 22% 30% 24% 24% 27% 25% 28% 24% 25% 30% 27% 27% cdfghi c c l 14% 17% 7% 6% 10% 8% 8% 4% 10% 87% 13% 55% 45% 59% 41% At least monthly 90 20 7 14 9 8 6 5 4 2 77 13 45 44 52 37 4% 11% 2% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% befghi bgi i i 22% 8% 16% 10% 9% 7% 5% 4% 3% 85% 15% 50% 49% 58% 42% Have tried it once 40 6 1 9 4 4 - 3 1 7 29 11 21 20 30 10 2% 3% *% 4% 3% 2% -% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% bf bfh f bf j o 15% 3% 21% 10% 10% -% 8% 2% 19% 72% 28% 51% 49% 76% 24% EVER 1335 141 212 140 96 120 107 106 47 144 1138 198 852 479 821 514 65% 76% 68% 72% 63% 68% 57% 59% 54% 64% 65% 66% 70% 58% 69% 61% dfghi fh fgh fh m o 11% 16% 10% 7% 9% 8% 8% 4% 11% 85% 15% 64% 36% 61% 39% Never 465 29 69 44 44 32 55 45 29 37 383 82 260 201 267 198 23% 16% 22% 23% 29% 18% 29% 25% 34% 17% 22% 27% 21% 25% 22% 23% aei aei abcei j 6% 15% 9% 9% 7% 12% 10% 6% 8% 82% 18% 56% 43% 57% 43% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2G (Qp11G) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Fm). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 242 15 29 10 13 24 26 30 10 44 224 18 101 141 107 135 12% 8% 9% 5% 8% 14% 14% 16% 11% 19% 13% 6% 8% 17% 9% 16% c c abcd c abcdh k l n 6% 12% 4% 5% 10% 11% 12% 4% 18% 92% 8% 42% 58% 44% 56% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 172 104 68 15 28 78 52 8 21 28 59 54 45 47 26 140 21 7 4 8% 10% 7% 6% 9% 11% 7% 4% 11% 10% 12% 9% 8% 10% 6% 8% 11% 7% 7% b f g g g n 61% 39% 9% 16% 45% 30% 5% 12% 16% 34% 31% 26% 27% 15% 82% 12% 4% 2% At least weekly 241 121 120 25 32 91 93 10 27 30 84 84 69 46 42 216 14 6 5 12% 12% 12% 11% 10% 13% 12% 5% 14% 11% 17% 14% 12% 10% 10% 13% 7% 6% 10% g g gi mn pq 50% 50% 10% 13% 38% 38% 4% 11% 12% 35% 35% 28% 19% 18% 90% 6% 3% 2% At least monthly 52 30 22 4 14 15 19 2 2 7 14 21 12 11 7 42 4 3 2 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 58% 42% 7% 27% 30% 36% 4% 5% 13% 27% 42% 24% 21% 14% 81% 9% 6% 5% Have tried it once 74 31 43 9 13 30 23 7 8 7 23 27 16 22 9 62 1 9 2 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 5% 5% 3% 5% 2% 4% 1% 9% 3% n n p opr p 42% 58% 12% 18% 40% 31% 9% 11% 10% 31% 37% 22% 29% 12% 83% 2% 13% 2% EVER 539 286 252 52 87 214 186 26 58 72 180 186 143 126 84 460 40 26 13 26% 29% 24% 22% 27% 29% 24% 12% 30% 26% 36% 32% 26% 27% 19% 27% 22% 24% 25% b cf g g gi ln n n 53% 47% 10% 16% 40% 34% 5% 11% 13% 33% 35% 26% 23% 16% 85% 7% 5% 2% Never 1085 520 565 134 161 390 399 115 93 145 252 301 288 257 238 874 107 67 38 53% 52% 54% 57% 50% 54% 53% 54% 48% 52% 50% 51% 52% 55% 54% 51% 58% 62% 71% o o opq 48% 52% 12% 15% 36% 37% 11% 9% 13% 23% 28% 27% 24% 22% 81% 10% 6% 3% Do not have access to device 418 197 221 49 73 124 173 71 42 60 71 98 123 82 116 365 36 15 2 20% 20% 21% 21% 23% 17% 23% 34% 22% 22% 14% 17% 22% 18% 26% 21% 20% 14% 4% e e hij j j k km qr r r 47% 53% 12% 17% 30% 41% 17% 10% 14% 17% 23% 29% 20% 28% 87% 9% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP2H (QP11H) SHOWCARD How often, if at all, do you listen to radio through - A car radio (AM). (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 172 27 31 11 8 14 8 26 4 11 139 33 128 43 101 71 8% 15% 10% 6% 6% 8% 5% 14% 5% 5% 8% 11% 11% 5% 8% 8% cdfhi cdefhi m 16% 18% 7% 5% 8% 5% 15% 2% 6% 81% 19% 75% 25% 59% 41% At least weekly 241 69 44 11 12 21 3 24 8 24 222 19 142 100 128 113 12% 37% 14% 6% 8% 12% 2% 13% 9% 11% 13% 7% 12% 12% 11% 13% bcdefghi cf f f cf cf f f k 28% 18% 5% 5% 9% 1% 10% 3% 10% 92% 8% 59% 41% 53% 47% At least monthly 52 11 4 11 3 1 2 3 4 1 46 6 30 22 28 24 3% 6% 1% 6% 2% *% 1% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% befi befi bei 22% 8% 21% 7% 2% 5% 7% 8% 2% 89% 11% 58% 42% 54% 46% Have tried it once 74 17 11 6 5 5 1 4 * 13 63 11 46 28 61 13 4% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3% *% 2% *% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 2% bcdefgh fh fh fh o 23% 15% 8% 7% 7% 1% 5% *% 18% 85% 15% 63% 37% 82% 18% EVER 539 124 89 39 29 40 15 57 17 49 469 69 346 192 317 222 26% 67% 29% 20% 19% 23% 8% 32% 19% 22% 27% 23% 29% 23% 27% 26% bcdefghi cdfh f f f cdfhi f f m 23% 17% 7% 5% 7% 3% 11% 3% 9% 87% 13% 64% 36% 59% 41% Never 1085 37 185 126 88 96 110 70 54 108 883 202 655 423 653 432 53% 20% 60% 65% 57% 54% 58% 39% 63% 48% 51% 68% 54% 52% 55% 51% agi aegi ag ag ag a agi a j 3% 17% 12% 8% 9% 10% 6% 5% 10% 81% 19% 60% 39% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2H (Qp11H) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Am). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Do not have access to device 418 23 36 29 36 41 63 54 16 68 392 26 211 206 225 194 20% 13% 12% 15% 23% 23% 34% 30% 18% 30% 22% 9% 17% 25% 19% 23% abc abc abcdeh abch abch k l n 6% 9% 7% 9% 10% 15% 13% 4% 16% 94% 6% 50% 49% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Every day 222 135 87 24 27 108 63 6 17 26 91 84 57 57 24 180 21 18 3 11% 13% 8% 10% 8% 15% 8% 3% 9% 9% 18% 14% 10% 12% 6% 11% 12% 17% 5% b df g g ghi n n n r r or 61% 39% 11% 12% 49% 28% 2% 8% 12% 41% 38% 26% 26% 11% 81% 10% 8% 1% At least weekly 119 60 59 13 14 50 41 4 10 22 32 49 30 26 14 94 13 8 4 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 7% 5% 2% 5% 8% 6% 8% 5% 6% 3% 6% 7% 8% 7% g g ln 50% 50% 11% 12% 43% 34% 3% 8% 19% 27% 42% 25% 22% 12% 79% 11% 7% 3% At least monthly 18 8 10 2 3 6 7 * 1 5 3 6 8 2 2 13 1 2 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 2% 3% op 45% 55% 9% 18% 31% 41% 3% 6% 26% 14% 33% 44% 12% 12% 75% 6% 10% 9% Have tried it once 23 14 9 2 6 9 6 - 2 7 2 11 6 4 2 21 - 2 * 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% 1% *% 1% -% 2% *% gj n 60% 40% 8% 27% 38% 27% -% 9% 29% 9% 48% 26% 19% 8% 92% -% 7% 1% EVER 382 216 165 40 51 173 117 10 30 59 127 150 101 89 42 309 35 30 8 19% 22% 16% 17% 16% 24% 15% 5% 16% 21% 25% 26% 18% 19% 10% 18% 19% 28% 15% b cdf g g gh lmn n n opr 57% 43% 11% 13% 45% 31% 3% 8% 15% 33% 39% 26% 23% 11% 81% 9% 8% 2% Never 837 398 439 98 129 283 326 97 72 111 163 220 221 198 196 679 86 37 35 41% 40% 42% 42% 40% 39% 43% 46% 37% 40% 32% 38% 40% 43% 45% 40% 47% 34% 66% j j k oq opq 48% 52% 12% 15% 34% 39% 12% 9% 13% 20% 26% 26% 24% 23% 81% 10% 4% 4% Do not have access to device 824 389 435 97 141 272 314 105 91 107 212 215 232 178 200 711 62 41 10 40% 39% 42% 41% 44% 37% 42% 50% 47% 39% 42% 37% 42% 38% 46% 42% 34% 38% 19% i km pr r r 47% 53% 12% 17% 33% 38% 13% 11% 13% 26% 26% 28% 22% 24% 86% 8% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp2I (Qp11I) Showcard How Often, If At All, Do You Listen To Radio Through - A Car Radio (Dab). (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% Every day 222 18 30 17 22 15 22 28 12 16 182 40 172 48 155 67 11% 10% 10% 9% 15% 8% 12% 16% 13% 7% 10% 14% 14% 6% 13% 8% i ei i m o 8% 14% 8% 10% 7% 10% 13% 5% 7% 82% 18% 77% 22% 70% 30% At least weekly 119 18 11 12 10 11 8 8 5 11 100 18 74 45 75 43 6% 10% 4% 6% 7% 6% 4% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% b 15% 9% 10% 8% 9% 7% 7% 4% 9% 85% 15% 62% 38% 63% 37% At least monthly 18 1 1 3 2 2 - 2 1 1 14 3 10 7 12 6 1% *% *% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 6% 17% 11% 11% -% 11% 6% 8% 81% 19% 59% 41% 67% 33% Have tried it once 23 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 - 4 16 7 12 11 18 5 1% 4% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% -% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% bfh j o 28% 4% 7% 9% 10% 3% 11% -% 19% 70% 30% 54% 46% 78% 22% EVER 382 44 43 34 36 30 30 40 18 33 313 69 269 110 260 121 19% 24% 14% 18% 24% 17% 16% 22% 21% 14% 18% 23% 22% 13% 22% 14% bi bi b j m o 11% 11% 9% 10% 8% 8% 11% 5% 9% 82% 18% 71% 29% 68% 32% Never 837 62 131 98 72 70 88 47 29 82 696 140 485 347 460 376 41% 34% 42% 50% 47% 40% 47% 26% 33% 37% 40% 47% 40% 42% 39% 44% g aeghi aghi g agh g j n 7% 16% 12% 9% 8% 10% 6% 3% 10% 83% 17% 58% 42% 55% 45% Do not have access to device 824 79 136 62 44 77 69 94 40 111 736 88 459 363 474 350 40% 43% 44% 32% 29% 43% 37% 52% 46% 49% 42% 30% 38% 44% 40% 41% cd cd cd cdf cd cdf k l 10% 17% 7% 5% 9% 8% 11% 5% 13% 89% 11% 56% 44% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% YES, EVER USED 1306 655 651 151 197 487 471 107 120 173 372 425 352 298 230 1123 96 68 18 64% 65% 63% 64% 61% 67% 62% 50% 62% 62% 74% 73% 64% 64% 52% 66% 53% 63% 34% g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 50% 50% 12% 15% 37% 36% 8% 9% 13% 29% 33% 27% 23% 18% 86% 7% 5% 1% YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY 1214 614 600 139 179 452 443 100 112 162 348 397 325 281 209 1044 91 62 17 59% 61% 58% 59% 56% 62% 59% 47% 58% 59% 69% 68% 59% 61% 48% 61% 49% 58% 33% g g ghi lmn n n pr r r 51% 49% 11% 15% 37% 37% 8% 9% 13% 29% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 7% 5% 1% YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY 1108 570 538 120 157 414 416 89 101 152 323 369 295 250 193 954 81 59 14 54% 57% 52% 51% 49% 57% 55% 42% 52% 55% 64% 63% 53% 54% 44% 56% 44% 55% 26% b d g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr 51% 49% 11% 14% 37% 38% 8% 9% 14% 29% 33% 27% 23% 17% 86% 7% 5% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Summary - Ever Use Digital Radio Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% YES, EVER USED 1306 116 229 133 103 108 123 120 54 138 1110 196 803 498 821 484 64% 63% 74% 68% 68% 61% 66% 66% 62% 61% 64% 66% 66% 61% 69% 57% aehi m o 9% 18% 10% 8% 8% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 62% 38% 63% 37% YES, USE AT LEAST MONTHLY 1214 110 219 117 96 92 119 116 49 126 1032 181 746 463 768 446 59% 60% 71% 60% 63% 52% 63% 64% 57% 56% 59% 61% 62% 56% 64% 53% acehi e e e m o 9% 18% 10% 8% 8% 10% 10% 4% 10% 85% 15% 61% 38% 63% 37% YES, USE AT LEAST WEEKLY 1108 101 200 104 89 84 101 110 47 118 939 169 680 423 705 403 54% 54% 65% 54% 58% 48% 54% 61% 54% 52% 54% 57% 56% 51% 59% 48% cefhi e e m o 9% 18% 9% 8% 8% 9% 10% 4% 11% 85% 15% 61% 38% 64% 36% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp3 (Qp16). Showcard In Which Of These Ways Do You Listen To Radio On Your Mobile Phone? (Multi Code) Base : Those who listen to radio via a mobile phone GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 500 268 232 128 114 197 61 52 42 50 137 133 161 101 105 354 50 49 47 Effective Weighted Sample 364 193 171 88 79 154 44 35 30 40 112 99 118 75 75 305 33 31 31 Total 433 235 197 99 104 185 45 35 30 42 154 131 127 96 80 383 29 13 8 54% 46% 23% 24% 43% ** ** ** ** 36% 30% 29% 22% 18% 89% ** ** ** Live via a built in FM radio app 233 122 111 52 59 104 ** ** ** ** 89 67 71 54 41 215 ** ** ** 54% 52% 56% 52% 57% 56% ** ** ** ** 58% 51% 56% 57% 51% 56% ** ** ** 52% 48% 22% 25% 44% ** ** ** ** 38% 29% 30% 23% 18% 92% ** ** ** Live via a station website 172 89 84 40 47 69 ** ** ** ** 69 53 48 41 31 157 ** ** ** 40% 38% 42% 40% 45% 37% ** ** ** ** 45% 41% 38% 43% 39% 41% ** ** ** 52% 48% 23% 27% 40% ** ** ** ** 40% 31% 28% 24% 18% 91% ** ** ** Via a downloaded app such as RadioPlayer, BBC Radio iPlayer or Tunein 99 62 37 23 21 47 ** ** ** ** 40 36 26 21 16 85 ** ** ** 23% 26% 19% 23% 20% 25% ** ** ** ** 26% 28% 21% 22% 19% 22% ** ** ** 62% 38% 23% 21% 47% ** ** ** ** 41% 37% 27% 21% 16% 86% ** ** ** Via podcasts 26 18 8 7 4 13 ** ** ** ** 12 15 4 4 3 24 ** ** ** 6% 8% 4% 7% 3% 7% ** ** ** ** 8% 12% 3% 4% 4% 6% ** ** ** l 69% 31% 26% 14% 51% ** ** ** ** 46% 59% 15% 15% 11% 92% ** ** ** Other ways 2 - 2 1 - 1 ** ** ** ** 1 1 1 - - 2 ** ** ** 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% ** ** ** ** 1% 1% 1% -% -% 1% ** ** ** -% 100% 58% -% 42% ** ** ** ** 58% 58% 42% -% -% 100% ** ** ** Don't know 27 20 7 4 7 10 ** ** ** ** 7 9 8 7 4 22 ** ** ** 6% 8% 4% 4% 7% 5% ** ** ** ** 5% 7% 6% 7% 5% 6% ** ** ** 72% 28% 14% 26% 37% ** ** ** ** 27% 33% 28% 25% 14% 82% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp3 (Qp16). Showcard In Which Of These Ways Do You Listen To Radio On Your Mobile Phone? (Multi Code) Base : Those who listen to radio via a mobile phone ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j ~k l m n o Unweighted total 500 59 37 38 49 25 43 37 29 37 405 95 336 164 247 253 Effective Weighted Sample 364 51 35 37 46 24 41 35 27 33 318 49 254 116 188 186 Total 433 81 61 36 39 24 47 38 15 42 389 44 322 110 252 180 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 90% ** 75% 25% 58% 42% Live via a built in FM radio app 233 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 221 ** 177 56 138 95 54% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 57% ** 55% 51% 55% 53% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 95% ** 76% 24% 59% 41% Live via a station website 172 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 161 ** 131 42 89 83 40% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 41% ** 41% 38% 35% 46% n ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 93% ** 76% 24% 52% 48% Via a downloaded app such as RadioPlayer, BBC Radio iPlayer or Tunein 99 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 86 ** 77 22 51 48 23% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 22% ** 24% 20% 20% 27% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 87% ** 77% 23% 51% 49% Via podcasts 26 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 20 ** 20 6 16 10 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** 6% 5% 6% 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 78% ** 78% 22% 62% 38% Other ways 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 2 ** 2 - 1 1 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% ** 1% -% 1% 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** 100% -% 58% 42% Don't know 27 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 21 ** 18 9 16 11 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** 5% 9% 6% 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 76% ** 65% 35% 58% 42% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp4 (Qp2). Before Today, Had You Heard Of Digital Radios? Read Out Explanation If Necessary (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 2297 1152 1145 293 396 825 784 241 218 317 538 648 642 502 503 1923 200 111 64 86% 89% 83% 80% 84% 90% 85% 76% 84% 89% 92% 91% 89% 87% 76% 86% 86% 84% 87% b cdf g g gh mn n n 50% 50% 13% 17% 36% 34% 10% 9% 14% 23% 28% 28% 22% 22% 84% 9% 5% 3% No 347 133 213 65 65 85 132 70 40 38 44 60 70 70 147 288 31 19 9 13% 10% 16% 18% 14% 9% 14% 22% 15% 11% 8% 8% 10% 12% 22% 13% 13% 14% 12% a e e e hij j k klm 38% 62% 19% 19% 25% 38% 20% 11% 11% 13% 17% 20% 20% 42% 83% 9% 5% 3% Unsure 31 15 16 7 8 5 11 6 3 3 2 4 8 8 11 25 2 3 1 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% e j 47% 53% 22% 26% 16% 36% 19% 9% 10% 5% 13% 26% 25% 36% 81% 8% 9% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP4 (QP2). Before today, had you heard of digital radios? READ OUT EXPLANATION IF NECESSARY (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Yes 2297 247 320 200 160 205 214 199 98 280 1976 321 1378 910 1299 998 86% 73% 89% 88% 85% 86% 87% 88% 86% 93% 85% 89% 89% 82% 90% 81% a a a a a a a adeh j m o 11% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 12% 86% 14% 60% 40% 57% 43% No 347 87 36 25 28 26 27 23 15 20 310 36 160 185 131 215 13% 26% 10% 11% 15% 11% 11% 10% 14% 7% 13% 10% 10% 17% 9% 17% bcdefghi i i l n 25% 10% 7% 8% 8% 8% 7% 4% 6% 90% 10% 46% 53% 38% 62% Unsure 31 4 3 1 1 6 4 4 * 2 29 2 13 19 13 18 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 3% 2% 2% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% dh 12% 9% 4% 2% 20% 13% 14% 1% 6% 92% 8% 41% 59% 42% 58% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% 1 (1.0) 825 424 401 91 116 295 323 76 78 124 198 276 203 188 158 711 63 39 12 31% 33% 29% 25% 25% 32% 35% 24% 30% 35% 34% 39% 28% 32% 24% 32% 27% 30% 16% cd cd g g lmn n r r r 51% 49% 11% 14% 36% 39% 9% 9% 15% 24% 33% 25% 23% 19% 86% 8% 5% 1% 2 (2.0) 180 96 84 19 19 71 71 6 15 28 71 63 64 39 15 161 6 11 2 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 8% 8% 2% 6% 8% 12% 9% 9% 7% 2% 7% 3% 8% 2% d d g g gh n n n pr pr 53% 47% 10% 11% 39% 40% 3% 8% 16% 39% 35% 35% 21% 8% 90% 3% 6% 1% 3 or more (3.0) 61 32 29 10 6 17 28 4 5 5 23 29 13 11 8 54 2 5 * 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% gi lmn r pr 53% 47% 17% 10% 27% 46% 7% 8% 8% 37% 48% 21% 17% 13% 89% 3% 7% 1% ANY DAB SETS 1067 553 514 120 141 382 423 86 97 158 291 368 280 237 181 926 71 55 14 40% 42% 37% 33% 30% 42% 46% 27% 37% 44% 50% 52% 39% 41% 27% 41% 31% 42% 19% b cd cd g g gh lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 11% 13% 36% 40% 8% 9% 15% 27% 35% 26% 22% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% None (0.0) 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 59% 56% 61% 64% 69% 57% 53% 72% 61% 55% 49% 47% 60% 57% 72% 57% 67% 56% 78% a f ef hij j k k klm oq opq 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% Don't know 39 18 21 12 6 8 12 2 4 3 4 10 11 11 7 29 5 3 3 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% ef o 46% 54% 32% 17% 20% 31% 6% 10% 7% 9% 26% 28% 28% 18% 74% 12% 7% 7% Mean score .5 .6 .5 .5 .4 .5 .6 .3 .5 .5 .7 .7 .5 .5 .3 .5 .4 .6 .2 b d cd g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr Standard deviation .72 .74 .71 .73 .63 .72 .76 .57 .69 .70 .83 .80 .73 .70 .58 .74 .58 .79 .51 Standard error .01 .02 .02 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .02 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP5 (QP9). How many DAB sets do you have in your household? Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% 1 (1.0) 825 87 140 68 74 56 65 63 30 128 700 126 490 331 509 317 31% 26% 39% 30% 39% 23% 27% 28% 26% 42% 30% 35% 32% 30% 35% 26% acefgh acefgh acefgh o 11% 17% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 4% 15% 85% 15% 59% 40% 62% 38% 2 (2.0) 180 19 31 18 14 13 16 24 6 22 154 26 106 74 119 61 7% 6% 9% 8% 7% 5% 6% 11% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 5% aeh o 11% 17% 10% 8% 7% 9% 13% 3% 12% 86% 14% 59% 41% 66% 34% 3 or more (3.0) 61 1 13 11 4 5 4 6 3 7 47 14 37 24 39 22 2% *% 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 2% a a a j 2% 22% 18% 6% 8% 7% 10% 4% 12% 77% 23% 60% 40% 64% 36% ANY DAB SETS 1067 107 184 96 92 73 85 93 38 158 901 166 633 430 667 399 40% 32% 51% 42% 49% 31% 35% 41% 34% 52% 39% 46% 41% 39% 46% 32% aefgh ae aefh ae acefgh j o 10% 17% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% 4% 15% 84% 16% 59% 40% 63% 37% None (0.0) 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 59% 68% 48% 57% 50% 65% 63% 57% 63% 47% 60% 52% 58% 60% 52% 66% bcdgi i bdi bdi i bdi k n 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% Don't know 39 - 2 2 2 9 4 3 3 3 33 6 18 19 25 14 1% -% *% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% abcdi a ab -% 4% 5% 5% 23% 11% 9% 9% 7% 85% 15% 46% 50% 64% 36% Mean score .5 .4 .7 .6 .6 .4 .5 .6 .4 .7 .5 .6 .5 .5 .6 .4 aefh aefh aefh ae aefh j o Standard deviation .72 .61 .78 .83 .71 .69 .70 .79 .71 .73 .71 .79 .73 .72 .76 .67 Standard error .01 .04 .05 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .05 .05 .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : Those who listen to radio GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2832 1368 1464 326 416 920 1170 378 305 352 535 667 862 616 683 1693 384 399 356 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 933 990 217 279 649 788 247 203 256 402 483 581 428 447 1463 240 246 259 Total 2042 1003 1039 236 321 728 758 212 193 277 503 585 554 465 438 1698 183 108 53 49% 51% 12% 16% 36% 37% 10% 9% 14% 25% 29% 27% 23% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% 1 (1.0) 777 397 380 81 108 284 304 68 72 113 191 260 187 181 147 669 58 38 12 38% 40% 37% 34% 34% 39% 40% 32% 37% 41% 38% 45% 34% 39% 34% 39% 32% 35% 22% g ln pr r r 51% 49% 10% 14% 37% 39% 9% 9% 15% 25% 34% 24% 23% 19% 86% 7% 5% 1% 2 (2.0) 176 95 80 18 19 69 70 6 14 26 71 61 63 39 13 157 6 11 2 9% 10% 8% 7% 6% 9% 9% 3% 7% 9% 14% 10% 11% 8% 3% 9% 3% 10% 3% g g gh n n n pr pr 54% 46% 10% 11% 39% 40% 3% 8% 15% 40% 35% 36% 22% 7% 89% 4% 6% 1% 3 or more (3.0) 59 32 26 9 5 17 28 3 5 5 23 29 12 11 7 52 2 5 * 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% 2% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% *% g lmn r pr 55% 45% 16% 8% 28% 48% 5% 8% 8% 39% 50% 20% 18% 12% 89% 3% 8% *% ANY DAB SETS 1011 525 487 108 132 369 402 76 91 144 284 351 262 230 167 878 66 54 13 50% 52% 47% 46% 41% 51% 53% 36% 47% 52% 57% 60% 47% 49% 38% 52% 36% 50% 25% b d d g g gh lmn n n pr r pr 52% 48% 11% 13% 36% 40% 8% 9% 14% 28% 35% 26% 23% 17% 87% 7% 5% 1% None (0.0) 1007 468 539 121 186 352 348 133 100 130 216 227 284 227 269 804 113 53 37 49% 47% 52% 51% 58% 48% 46% 63% 52% 47% 43% 39% 51% 49% 61% 47% 62% 49% 71% a ef hij j k k klm oq opq 46% 54% 12% 18% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 21% 23% 28% 23% 27% 80% 11% 5% 4% Don't know 24 11 14 7 4 7 7 2 2 2 3 7 8 7 2 16 5 2 2 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% *% 1% 2% 1% 4% ef o o 44% 56% 29% 15% 29% 28% 9% 8% 10% 14% 28% 33% 31% 8% 67% 19% 6% 8% Mean score .6 .7 .6 .6 .5 .7 .7 .4 .6 .7 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .7 .4 .7 .3 b d d g g ghi lmn n n pr r pr Standard deviation .76 .78 .74 .79 .68 .75 .79 .62 .74 .72 .85 .82 .77 .73 .64 .77 .62 .82 .55 Standard error .01 .02 .02 .04 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .03 .04 .03 Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp5 (Qp9). How Many Dab Sets Do You Have In Your Household? Base : Those who listen to radio ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2832 141 215 209 196 186 178 193 186 189 2035 797 1461 1361 1467 1365 Effective Weighted Sample 1922 123 203 200 184 173 170 180 173 174 1579 367 1034 913 1008 954 Total 2042 185 310 194 152 176 187 181 86 226 1745 297 1213 821 1195 848 9% 15% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 4% 11% 85% 15% 59% 40% 58% 42% 1 (1.0) 777 84 138 65 70 51 56 61 29 114 659 117 472 301 480 297 38% 46% 45% 33% 46% 29% 30% 34% 34% 51% 38% 39% 39% 37% 40% 35% cefgh cefgh cefgh cefgh o 11% 18% 8% 9% 7% 7% 8% 4% 15% 85% 15% 61% 39% 62% 38% 2 (2.0) 176 19 29 17 14 13 16 24 5 20 150 26 103 73 118 58 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 13% 6% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 10% 7% h o 11% 17% 10% 8% 7% 9% 14% 3% 12% 85% 15% 59% 41% 67% 33% 3 or more (3.0) 59 1 13 10 4 5 4 6 3 6 45 14 35 24 39 19 3% 1% 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% a j 2% 22% 17% 6% 8% 7% 10% 4% 11% 76% 24% 59% 41% 67% 33% ANY DAB SETS 1011 105 181 92 87 68 77 91 37 141 854 157 609 398 637 374 50% 57% 58% 47% 57% 39% 41% 50% 43% 62% 49% 53% 50% 48% 53% 44% efh cefh cefh e cefgh o 10% 18% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% 4% 14% 84% 16% 60% 39% 63% 37% None (0.0) 1007 80 128 101 64 104 110 88 48 83 870 137 592 413 542 465 49% 43% 41% 52% 42% 59% 59% 48% 55% 37% 50% 46% 49% 50% 45% 55% bi abdgi abdi i abdi n 8% 13% 10% 6% 10% 11% 9% 5% 8% 86% 14% 59% 41% 54% 46% Don't know 24 - 2 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 21 3 12 10 16 8 1% -% *% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 6% 6% 4% 20% 4% 10% 7% 9% 89% 11% 51% 43% 67% 33% Mean score .6 .7 .8 .7 .7 .5 .5 .7 .6 .8 .6 .7 .7 .6 .7 .6 efh efh ef efh o Standard deviation .76 .68 .79 .84 .73 .75 .75 .83 .75 .73 .75 .82 .76 .77 .78 .72 Standard error .01 .06 .05 .06 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .02 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2341 1077 1264 354 436 707 844 433 258 263 307 380 691 492 775 1315 334 284 408 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 683 820 232 284 465 535 284 162 179 232 265 455 319 479 1109 211 171 300 Total 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% Certain to 10 7 3 * 1 7 2 2 - - 3 3 3 2 2 7 2 1 - 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% -% -% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% -% 71% 29% 3% 15% 67% 16% 18% -% -% 28% 29% 28% 23% 21% 74% 21% 5% -% Very likely 32 14 18 * 7 14 10 3 3 7 1 6 8 9 9 28 2 1 1 2% 2% 2% *% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% c c j 44% 56% 1% 23% 44% 31% 10% 10% 22% 4% 19% 25% 28% 27% 88% 7% 3% 2% Likely 105 55 50 16 29 39 21 11 7 16 32 26 32 23 23 85 13 4 2 7% 8% 6% 7% 9% 7% 4% 5% 4% 8% 11% 8% 8% 7% 5% 7% 8% 6% 3% f f gh r r 53% 47% 15% 27% 37% 20% 10% 7% 16% 30% 25% 31% 22% 22% 81% 13% 4% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 147 77 70 17 37 60 33 16 10 23 36 35 43 34 34 121 18 6 2 9% 10% 8% 7% 12% 11% 7% 7% 6% 12% 13% 11% 10% 10% 7% 9% 11% 8% 4% f f gh r r 52% 48% 11% 25% 41% 22% 11% 7% 16% 25% 24% 30% 23% 23% 82% 12% 4% 2% Unlikely 276 137 139 37 55 111 74 36 28 35 71 85 66 57 69 218 30 19 9 18% 19% 17% 16% 17% 21% 15% 16% 18% 18% 24% 25% 15% 17% 15% 17% 19% 26% 16% f g lmn or 50% 50% 13% 20% 40% 27% 13% 10% 13% 26% 31% 24% 21% 25% 79% 11% 7% 3% Very unlikely 377 163 214 58 92 116 110 50 40 39 65 70 108 81 117 289 55 21 11 24% 22% 25% 25% 29% 22% 22% 22% 25% 20% 23% 21% 25% 24% 25% 23% 35% 28% 19% ef or r 43% 57% 16% 24% 31% 29% 13% 11% 10% 17% 18% 29% 21% 31% 77% 15% 6% 3% Certain not to 542 249 293 69 97 167 210 93 63 83 81 107 152 107 177 476 34 20 13 35% 34% 35% 30% 30% 32% 43% 40% 39% 42% 28% 32% 35% 32% 37% 37% 21% 27% 22% cde j j j pqr 46% 54% 13% 18% 31% 39% 17% 12% 15% 15% 20% 28% 20% 33% 88% 6% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 2341 1077 1264 354 436 707 844 433 258 263 307 380 691 492 775 1315 334 284 408 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 683 820 232 284 465 535 284 162 179 232 265 455 319 479 1109 211 171 300 Total 1569 730 839 232 321 525 491 229 159 198 289 333 429 333 473 1281 157 74 57 47% 53% 15% 20% 33% 31% 15% 10% 13% 18% 21% 27% 21% 30% 82% 10% 5% 4% TOTAL UNLIKELY 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 76% 75% 77% 71% 76% 75% 80% 78% 82% 79% 75% 78% 76% 74% 77% 77% 76% 81% 58% ce r r r 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 227 104 123 51 40 71 64 35 19 17 35 37 60 54 76 177 20 8 22 14% 14% 15% 22% 13% 14% 13% 15% 12% 9% 12% 11% 14% 16% 16% 14% 13% 11% 38% def i opq 46% 54% 23% 18% 31% 28% 15% 8% 8% 16% 16% 26% 24% 33% 78% 9% 4% 10% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP6 (QP12). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a DAB radio in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2341 166 121 142 133 167 150 154 164 118 1696 645 1121 1213 1003 1338 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 150 115 136 122 154 142 139 151 107 1272 255 755 787 647 873 Total 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% Certain to 10 - 4 - 2 1 - - * 1 9 * 6 4 6 4 1% -% 2% -% 2% 1% -% -% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% -% 36% -% 16% 9% -% -% 2% 11% 96% 4% 60% 40% 60% 40% Very likely 32 4 1 5 4 5 5 - 2 2 27 5 21 11 15 17 2% 2% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% -% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% g g g g g 12% 5% 14% 12% 16% 16% -% 7% 7% 83% 17% 64% 36% 47% 53% Likely 105 17 13 7 4 16 13 6 4 5 95 10 68 37 47 58 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 10% 9% 5% 5% 3% 7% 5% 8% 6% 6% 7% i 16% 12% 7% 4% 15% 13% 6% 4% 5% 90% 10% 65% 35% 45% 55% TOTAL LIKELY 147 21 18 12 10 22 18 6 6 8 131 16 95 52 68 79 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 14% 12% 5% 9% 6% 9% 9% 11% 8% 9% 10% gi g 14% 12% 8% 7% 15% 13% 4% 4% 5% 89% 11% 64% 36% 46% 54% Unlikely 276 49 31 25 12 17 35 13 6 30 248 29 169 106 160 116 18% 21% 18% 20% 13% 11% 23% 10% 8% 21% 18% 15% 19% 16% 21% 14% egh h egh degh egh o 18% 11% 9% 4% 6% 13% 5% 2% 11% 90% 10% 61% 38% 58% 42% Very unlikely 377 77 28 29 20 32 39 25 17 22 325 52 226 149 166 210 24% 33% 16% 23% 21% 21% 25% 19% 24% 16% 24% 27% 25% 22% 22% 26% bdegi 20% 7% 8% 5% 8% 10% 7% 5% 6% 86% 14% 60% 40% 44% 56% Certain not to 542 60 90 47 37 48 50 55 32 55 468 74 269 272 253 289 35% 26% 52% 37% 38% 31% 32% 43% 45% 39% 34% 40% 30% 41% 34% 35% acdef a ae aef a l 11% 17% 9% 7% 9% 9% 10% 6% 10% 86% 14% 50% 50% 47% 53% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QP6 (QP12). SHOWCARD How likely is it that your household will get a DAB radio in the next 12 months? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 2341 166 121 142 133 167 150 154 164 118 1696 645 1121 1213 1003 1338 Effective Weighted Sample 1502 150 115 136 122 154 142 139 151 107 1272 255 755 787 647 873 Total 1569 231 173 129 95 155 155 129 72 141 1381 188 901 665 751 818 15% 11% 8% 6% 10% 10% 8% 5% 9% 88% 12% 57% 42% 48% 52% TOTAL UNLIKELY 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 76% 80% 86% 79% 72% 63% 80% 72% 77% 76% 75% 82% 74% 79% 77% 75% e degi e e e e j l 16% 12% 9% 6% 8% 10% 8% 5% 9% 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Don't know 227 24 6 15 17 35 12 30 10 26 210 17 142 85 104 123 14% 11% 4% 12% 18% 23% 8% 23% 14% 18% 15% 9% 16% 13% 14% 15% b b bf abcfh abcfh b bf k 11% 3% 7% 7% 16% 5% 13% 4% 12% 92% 8% 62% 37% 46% 54% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1593 737 856 195 275 495 628 271 173 184 250 293 485 343 470 870 236 212 275 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 476 554 128 183 334 391 168 106 127 187 200 319 231 291 745 152 128 198 Total 1057 498 559 125 196 368 368 141 101 136 229 244 300 237 275 848 116 55 39 47% 53% 12% 19% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 22% 23% 28% 22% 26% 80% 11% 5% 4% Certain to 7 4 3 - 1 4 2 1 - - 1 1 2 2 2 5 2 1 - 1% 1% 1% -% 1% 1% *% 1% -% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 62% 38% -% 20% 59% 21% 20% -% -% 7% 11% 31% 30% 28% 68% 25% 7% -% Very likely 31 16 15 1 7 12 10 3 2 8 2 4 9 9 8 28 2 1 * 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 6% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 1% 2% 1% j 51% 49% 4% 24% 38% 33% 9% 8% 26% 5% 13% 30% 30% 27% 91% 5% 3% 1% Likely 96 53 43 15 20 39 22 8 7 15 29 24 30 21 21 78 11 5 2 9% 11% 8% 12% 10% 11% 6% 6% 7% 11% 13% 10% 10% 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 5% f f g r 55% 45% 16% 21% 41% 22% 8% 7% 16% 30% 25% 31% 22% 22% 81% 12% 5% 2% TOTAL LIKELY 134 73 61 16 29 55 33 12 9 23 31 29 41 32 31 111 15 6 2 13% 15% 11% 13% 15% 15% 9% 9% 9% 17% 14% 12% 14% 14% 11% 13% 13% 11% 6% f f g r r 55% 45% 12% 22% 41% 25% 9% 7% 17% 23% 22% 31% 24% 23% 83% 11% 4% 2% Unlikely 206 104 103 19 39 81 68 24 18 27 64 60 55 47 43 162 21 15 8 20% 21% 18% 15% 20% 22% 18% 17% 18% 20% 28% 25% 18% 20% 16% 19% 18% 28% 20% gh n op 50% 50% 9% 19% 39% 33% 12% 9% 13% 31% 29% 27% 23% 21% 79% 10% 7% 4% Very unlikely 229 99 130 31 48 80 71 32 26 29 47 42 72 53 62 163 43 15 8 22% 20% 23% 25% 24% 22% 19% 23% 26% 21% 21% 17% 24% 22% 22% 19% 37% 27% 22% or 43% 57% 13% 21% 35% 31% 14% 11% 13% 21% 18% 31% 23% 27% 71% 19% 6% 4% Certain not to 340 162 177 32 54 110 143 49 36 48 60 86 92 66 95 302 18 13 7 32% 33% 32% 25% 28% 30% 39% 35% 35% 35% 26% 35% 31% 28% 35% 36% 15% 24% 18% cde pqr 48% 52% 9% 16% 33% 42% 14% 10% 14% 18% 25% 27% 20% 28% 89% 5% 4% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1593 737 856 195 275 495 628 271 173 184 250 293 485 343 470 870 236 212 275 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 476 554 128 183 334 391 168 106 127 187 200 319 231 291 745 152 128 198 Total 1057 498 559 125 196 368 368 141 101 136 229 244 300 237 275 848 116 55 39 47% 53% 12% 19% 35% 35% 13% 10% 13% 22% 23% 28% 22% 26% 80% 11% 5% 4% TOTAL UNLIKELY 775 365 410 81 141 271 282 105 80 104 172 188 219 167 201 627 82 43 23 73% 73% 73% 65% 72% 74% 77% 74% 79% 77% 75% 77% 73% 70% 73% 74% 71% 79% 60% c r r r 47% 53% 10% 18% 35% 36% 14% 10% 13% 22% 24% 28% 22% 26% 81% 11% 6% 3% Don't know 148 60 88 27 26 41 53 24 12 8 26 27 39 38 43 110 19 6 13 14% 12% 16% 22% 13% 11% 14% 17% 12% 6% 11% 11% 13% 16% 16% 13% 17% 10% 34% def i opq 41% 59% 19% 18% 28% 36% 16% 8% 6% 18% 18% 27% 26% 29% 74% 13% 4% 9% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1593 61 99 112 91 115 107 101 107 77 1134 459 794 795 764 829 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 54 94 107 85 106 102 93 99 70 859 185 547 504 496 558 Total 1057 80 146 102 69 108 113 90 48 91 915 142 627 427 577 480 ** ** 10% ** 10% 11% 9% 5% ** 87% 13% 59% 40% 55% 45% Certain to 7 ** ** - ** 1 - - * ** 7 * 4 4 4 4 1% ** ** -% ** 1% -% -% *% ** 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% ** ** -% ** 12% -% -% 3% ** 97% 3% 50% 50% 50% 50% Very likely 31 ** ** 5 ** 4 5 1 2 ** 24 7 22 9 16 15 3% ** ** 4% ** 4% 4% 1% 4% ** 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 3% ** ** 15% ** 13% 16% 3% 6% ** 78% 22% 71% 29% 53% 47% Likely 96 ** ** 7 ** 16 11 5 4 ** 87 9 62 33 46 50 9% ** ** 7% ** 15% 10% 5% 8% ** 9% 7% 10% 8% 8% 10% g ** ** 7% ** 16% 12% 5% 4% ** 90% 10% 65% 35% 48% 52% TOTAL LIKELY 134 ** ** 12 ** 21 17 5 6 ** 118 16 88 46 66 68 13% ** ** 11% ** 19% 15% 6% 13% ** 13% 11% 14% 11% 11% 14% g ** ** 9% ** 15% 12% 4% 5% ** 88% 12% 66% 34% 49% 51% Unlikely 206 ** ** 22 ** 12 25 13 5 ** 182 24 128 78 130 76 20% ** ** 21% ** 11% 22% 14% 10% ** 20% 17% 20% 18% 23% 16% h eh o ** ** 10% ** 6% 12% 6% 2% ** 88% 12% 62% 38% 63% 37% Very unlikely 229 ** ** 23 ** 20 29 16 14 ** 191 38 140 89 128 101 22% ** ** 23% ** 19% 25% 18% 28% ** 21% 27% 22% 21% 22% 21% ** ** 10% ** 9% 13% 7% 6% ** 83% 17% 61% 39% 56% 44% Certain not to 340 ** ** 36 ** 34 33 35 17 ** 289 50 179 160 181 159 32% ** ** 36% ** 31% 29% 39% 36% ** 32% 36% 28% 37% 31% 33% l ** ** 11% ** 10% 10% 10% 5% ** 85% 15% 53% 47% 53% 47% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp6 (Qp12). Showcard How Likely Is It That Your Household Will Get A Dab Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Single Code) Base : Those who listen to radio but do not have any DAB sets at home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1593 61 99 112 91 115 107 101 107 77 1134 459 794 795 764 829 Effective Weighted Sample 1030 54 94 107 85 106 102 93 99 70 859 185 547 504 496 558 Total 1057 80 146 102 69 108 113 90 48 91 915 142 627 427 577 480 ** ** 10% ** 10% 11% 9% 5% ** 87% 13% 59% 40% 55% 45% TOTAL UNLIKELY 775 ** ** 81 ** 66 87 64 35 ** 663 112 446 327 439 336 73% ** ** 79% ** 62% 76% 71% 74% ** 72% 79% 71% 77% 76% 70% e e l o ** ** 10% ** 9% 11% 8% 5% ** 86% 14% 58% 42% 57% 43% Don't know 148 ** ** 9 ** 21 10 21 7 ** 135 13 93 54 72 76 14% ** ** 9% ** 19% 9% 23% 14% ** 15% 9% 15% 13% 12% 16% cf cf ** ** 6% ** 14% 7% 14% 4% ** 91% 9% 63% 36% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% No need 800 377 424 116 181 263 240 109 68 110 154 183 232 155 230 660 80 38 23 67% 69% 66% 71% 74% 67% 61% 61% 52% 70% 71% 70% 71% 63% 63% 67% 67% 64% 68% f f h gh mn 47% 53% 14% 23% 33% 30% 14% 8% 14% 19% 23% 29% 19% 29% 82% 10% 5% 3% Happy to use existing service 221 104 117 25 30 67 98 37 33 29 29 37 53 59 71 176 20 17 7 18% 19% 18% 16% 12% 17% 25% 21% 25% 19% 13% 14% 16% 24% 20% 18% 17% 29% 22% cde j kl op 47% 53% 12% 14% 30% 45% 17% 15% 13% 13% 17% 24% 27% 32% 80% 9% 8% 3% Would never listen 196 96 100 25 47 51 72 38 29 26 31 36 50 35 75 165 15 11 4 16% 17% 15% 15% 19% 13% 18% 21% 23% 17% 14% 14% 15% 14% 21% 17% 13% 19% 13% e e 49% 51% 13% 24% 26% 37% 19% 15% 14% 16% 19% 25% 18% 38% 84% 8% 6% 2% Can receive through digital TV service 59 26 34 3 17 23 16 9 10 11 19 16 17 13 14 48 11 1 * 5% 5% 5% 2% 7% 6% 4% 5% 7% 7% 9% 6% 5% 5% 4% 5% 9% 1% 1% c qr oqr 43% 57% 6% 29% 38% 28% 15% 17% 18% 32% 27% 28% 22% 23% 81% 18% 1% *% Can't afford it 25 8 17 4 8 8 5 9 1 2 1 7 3 2 12 19 3 1 1 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 5% 1% 1% *% 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% 4% j l 32% 68% 17% 31% 32% 20% 35% 6% 9% 3% 28% 14% 9% 48% 78% 14% 3% 5% Don't know why I should 21 13 8 1 6 6 9 4 * 5 4 5 7 2 7 18 1 * 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% *% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% *% 5% h opq 61% 39% 4% 27% 28% 41% 21% 1% 26% 19% 22% 34% 8% 36% 88% 4% 1% 7% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Happy to use analogue radio service 19 10 9 2 3 7 7 4 2 2 5 2 3 6 8 16 * 1 1 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% *% 2% 4% op 52% 48% 13% 14% 37% 36% 19% 11% 10% 24% 10% 16% 32% 42% 86% 2% 5% 7% Poor reception in our area 18 10 8 1 2 5 11 1 * 5 5 4 3 8 2 14 2 1 * 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% *% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% ln 56% 44% 5% 8% 25% 61% 6% 1% 28% 27% 24% 18% 46% 12% 78% 13% 6% 2% Too expensive generally 15 5 11 3 2 6 5 5 * 1 - - 3 2 11 13 1 1 1 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% *% 1% -% -% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% j k 30% 70% 18% 16% 37% 30% 32% 2% 8% -% -% 21% 11% 68% 83% 5% 7% 5% Listen in the car/ on phone/ online/elsewhere 12 4 7 1 2 6 3 2 - 1 6 5 3 2 3 9 2 1 - 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% h 38% 62% 10% 16% 52% 21% 16% -% 7% 47% 41% 24% 13% 22% 79% 15% 6% -% Haven't heard of it/ don't understand it 5 2 4 2 1 1 2 - 1 2 1 - 2 2 2 5 - - - *% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% -% 1% 1% *% -% 1% 1% *% 1% -% -% -% 31% 69% 45% 14% 11% 31% -% 14% 40% 15% -% 41% 29% 30% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1734 797 937 243 318 517 656 332 221 206 222 282 507 366 577 991 259 228 256 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 505 617 162 208 343 420 217 134 141 173 200 340 236 359 837 163 138 189 Total 1195 549 646 164 244 394 394 178 130 157 217 261 326 245 363 983 119 60 33 46% 54% 14% 20% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 27% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Will get it when I have to/ when switchover 5 3 2 - 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 - - * *% 1% *% -% *% 1% *% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% -% -% *% 58% 42% -% 15% 57% 28% 15% 14% 24% 24% 27% 43% 14% 15% 97% -% -% 3% Not available in our area 2 2 * - * * 2 - * * 2 1 - 1 * 1 - 1 - *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% *% 1% *% -% *% *% *% -% 1% -% o 82% 18% -% 9% 17% 74% -% 9% 8% 74% 50% -% 41% 9% 64% -% 36% -% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 63 24 40 10 12 19 22 15 3 11 7 12 12 13 26 51 7 4 2 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 8% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4% 5% 7% 5% 6% 6% 7% hj l 38% 62% 16% 19% 30% 34% 23% 4% 17% 10% 18% 19% 21% 41% 80% 10% 6% 4% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1140 527 613 154 239 373 374 170 125 151 208 250 314 232 344 937 115 57 32 95% 96% 95% 94% 98% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 97% 95% 95% c 46% 54% 13% 21% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 18% 22% 28% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1118 521 597 151 231 366 369 162 123 146 208 247 310 227 332 919 112 56 31 93% 95% 92% 92% 95% 93% 94% 91% 94% 93% 96% 95% 95% 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 92% 47% 53% 13% 21% 33% 33% 15% 11% 13% 19% 22% 28% 20% 30% 82% 10% 5% 3% Don't know 14 5 9 3 * 9 3 1 5 - 2 2 4 4 4 14 - * 1 1% 1% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% 1% 4% -% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -% *% 2% d i 34% 66% 18% 1% 60% 21% 9% 33% -% 14% 15% 29% 26% 30% 95% -% 1% 4% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% ** 8% 10% 8% 5% ** 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% No need 800 168 98 64 ** 56 76 60 31 ** 712 89 463 335 366 434 67% 90% 66% 63% ** 58% 61% 65% 56% ** 68% 57% 70% 63% 63% 70% bcefgh k m n 21% 12% 8% ** 7% 10% 8% 4% ** 89% 11% 58% 42% 46% 54% Happy to use existing service 221 14 26 13 ** 21 30 22 10 ** 191 30 112 109 116 105 18% 7% 17% 13% ** 21% 24% 23% 18% ** 18% 19% 17% 21% 20% 17% a a ac ac a 6% 12% 6% ** 9% 14% 10% 4% ** 86% 14% 51% 49% 52% 48% Would never listen 196 10 23 11 ** 27 20 22 15 ** 173 23 103 93 97 99 16% 5% 15% 10% ** 28% 16% 23% 27% ** 17% 15% 15% 18% 17% 16% a abcf a ac abcf 5% 12% 5% ** 14% 10% 11% 8% ** 88% 12% 53% 47% 50% 50% Can receive through digital TV service 59 1 16 16 ** 1 2 6 4 ** 45 14 34 25 41 19 5% 1% 11% 16% ** 1% 2% 6% 7% ** 4% 9% 5% 5% 7% 3% aef aefgh a a j o 2% 27% 28% ** 2% 4% 10% 6% ** 77% 23% 58% 42% 69% 31% Can't afford it 25 6 - 1 ** 3 3 - 1 ** 22 3 11 14 14 11 2% 3% -% 1% ** 3% 2% -% 2% ** 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 25% -% 3% ** 12% 11% -% 4% ** 89% 11% 44% 56% 55% 45% Don't know why I should 21 6 4 2 ** - 2 - 1 ** 17 4 10 11 12 8 2% 3% 2% 2% ** -% 2% -% 2% ** 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 29% 18% 7% ** -% 10% -% 4% ** 82% 18% 48% 52% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% ** 8% 10% 8% 5% ** 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Happy to use analogue radio service 19 4 3 6 ** 2 - 1 - ** 15 4 8 11 12 8 2% 2% 2% 6% ** 2% -% 1% -% ** 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% fgh 23% 15% 31% ** 10% -% 3% -% ** 78% 22% 40% 60% 61% 39% Poor reception in our area 18 - 2 3 ** 5 3 - - ** 8 10 9 9 10 8 2% -% 1% 3% ** 5% 3% -% -% ** 1% 7% 1% 2% 2% 1% agh j -% 8% 17% ** 26% 18% -% -% ** 44% 56% 49% 51% 57% 43% Too expensive generally 15 1 2 - ** 3 4 - 1 ** 15 * 2 13 5 11 1% 1% 2% -% ** 4% 3% -% 1% ** 1% *% *% 2% 1% 2% l 8% 15% -% ** 22% 24% -% 4% ** 98% 2% 15% 85% 30% 70% Listen in the car/ on phone/ online/elsewhere 12 - 1 3 ** 2 1 - 1 ** 8 4 9 3 9 3 1% -% 1% 3% ** 2% 1% -% 2% ** 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% *% j o -% 10% 23% ** 19% 9% -% 10% ** 65% 35% 75% 25% 78% 22% Haven't heard of it/ don't understand it 5 1 - - ** - 2 - - ** 5 - 3 3 2 4 *% *% -% -% ** -% 1% -% -% ** 1% -% *% *% *% 1% 14% -% -% ** -% 31% -% -% ** 100% -% 54% 46% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qp7 (Qj14). Why Are You Unlikely To Get Digital Radio In The Next 12 Months? (Multi Code) Unprompted Base : Those unlikely to get DAB radio in the next 12 months ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c ~d e f g h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 1734 127 105 112 95 106 121 107 126 92 1237 497 788 941 760 974 Effective Weighted Sample 1122 117 99 107 87 97 115 99 117 84 937 203 541 612 494 639 Total 1195 186 149 102 69 97 125 93 55 107 1041 155 664 528 579 616 16% 12% 9% ** 8% 10% 8% 5% ** 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% Will get it when I have to/ when switchover 5 - - - ** 1 3 - 1 ** 5 1 4 2 3 2 *% -% -% -% ** 1% 2% -% 1% ** *% 1% 1% *% 1% *% -% -% -% ** 20% 54% -% 10% ** 84% 16% 71% 29% 54% 46% Not available in our area 2 - - 1 ** - - - - ** 1 1 1 1 1 1 *% -% -% 1% ** -% -% -% -% ** *% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 64% ** -% -% -% -% ** 73% 27% 27% 73% 27% 73% ANY INVOLUNTARY REASONS 63 8 4 4 ** 11 11 - 2 ** 51 13 26 38 30 33 5% 4% 3% 4% ** 11% 9% -% 3% ** 5% 8% 4% 7% 5% 5% g bcgh bgh l 13% 6% 6% ** 17% 18% -% 3% ** 80% 20% 41% 59% 48% 52% ANY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1140 182 138 98 ** 88 118 91 55 ** 996 144 639 498 552 589 95% 98% 92% 96% ** 91% 95% 98% 99% ** 96% 93% 96% 94% 95% 96% e e bef 16% 12% 9% ** 8% 10% 8% 5% ** 87% 13% 56% 44% 48% 52% ONLY VOLUNTARY REASONS 1118 178 138 97 ** 85 113 91 54 ** 978 140 630 484 541 577 93% 96% 92% 95% ** 88% 91% 98% 97% ** 94% 91% 95% 92% 93% 94% e ef ef m 16% 12% 9% ** 8% 10% 8% 5% ** 87% 13% 56% 43% 48% 52% Don't know 14 - 8 1 ** 1 - 2 - ** 13 2 9 6 9 6 1% -% 5% 1% ** 1% -% 2% -% ** 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% afh -% 53% 9% ** 7% -% 15% -% ** 88% 12% 61% 39% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz1. Showcard Could You Please Take A Look At The Options Shown On This Card And Let Me Know Which Applies To You? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Married/ civil partnership 1395 721 674 37 200 609 549 59 117 205 424 456 365 337 236 1183 107 68 37 52% 55% 49% 10% 43% 67% 59% 19% 45% 57% 73% 64% 51% 58% 36% 53% 46% 52% 50% b c cdf cd g gh ghi lmn n ln p 52% 48% 3% 14% 44% 39% 4% 8% 15% 30% 33% 26% 24% 17% 85% 8% 5% 3% Co-habiting 9 5 3 - 1 5 2 * 1 - 1 6 * - 2 8 * 1 * *% *% *% -% *% 1% *% *% 1% -% *% 1% *% -% *% *% *% *% 1% lm 63% 37% -% 17% 55% 28% 3% 16% -% 14% 69% 3% -% 28% 87% 2% 7% 4% Single 247 121 126 45 100 85 17 25 26 45 74 45 69 71 62 205 24 10 7 9% 9% 9% 12% 21% 9% 2% 8% 10% 13% 13% 6% 10% 12% 9% 9% 10% 8% 10% f cef f g g k k 49% 51% 18% 40% 34% 7% 10% 11% 18% 30% 18% 28% 29% 25% 83% 10% 4% 3% Widowed, divorced or separated 627 320 308 279 153 129 66 122 58 61 66 125 179 116 207 517 60 31 20 23% 25% 22% 76% 33% 14% 7% 39% 22% 17% 11% 18% 25% 20% 31% 23% 26% 23% 27% def ef f hij j j km klm 51% 49% 44% 24% 21% 11% 20% 9% 10% 10% 20% 28% 19% 33% 82% 10% 5% 3% Refused 397 133 263 4 13 87 292 110 58 47 18 80 107 56 154 323 42 22 9 15% 10% 19% 1% 3% 9% 32% 35% 22% 13% 3% 11% 15% 10% 23% 14% 18% 17% 12% a cd cde hij ij j m klm r 34% 66% 1% 3% 22% 74% 28% 15% 12% 5% 20% 27% 14% 39% 82% 11% 6% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ1. SHOWCARD Could you please take a look at the options shown on this card and let me know which applies to you? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Married/ civil partnership 1395 206 191 139 103 119 126 118 50 132 1186 210 882 509 823 572 52% 61% 53% 61% 55% 50% 51% 52% 44% 44% 51% 58% 57% 46% 57% 46% efhi hi efhi hi j m o 15% 14% 10% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 9% 85% 15% 63% 36% 59% 41% Co-habiting 9 3 2 - - 1 1 1 - - 7 2 6 1 4 4 *% 1% *% -% -% *% 1% 1% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 30% 17% -% -% 10% 16% 14% -% -% 83% 17% 69% 14% 50% 50% Single 247 38 28 19 17 22 25 11 16 30 218 29 200 47 122 125 9% 11% 8% 8% 9% 9% 10% 5% 14% 10% 9% 8% 13% 4% 8% 10% g g bg g m 15% 11% 8% 7% 9% 10% 5% 6% 12% 88% 12% 81% 19% 49% 51% Widowed, divorced or separated 627 77 85 42 42 60 50 51 27 81 563 64 353 273 287 340 23% 23% 24% 19% 22% 25% 21% 23% 24% 27% 24% 18% 23% 25% 20% 28% c k n 12% 14% 7% 7% 10% 8% 8% 4% 13% 90% 10% 56% 44% 46% 54% Refused 397 15 53 27 26 36 43 44 22 58 341 56 111 283 206 191 15% 4% 15% 12% 14% 15% 17% 19% 19% 19% 15% 16% 7% 25% 14% 15% a a a a a ac ac ac l 4% 13% 7% 7% 9% 11% 11% 5% 15% 86% 14% 28% 71% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz2 (Qz10). Showcard How Would You Describe Your National Identity? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% English 1506 731 775 210 252 467 577 190 157 208 323 375 407 334 387 1480 5 19 2 56% 56% 56% 58% 54% 51% 62% 60% 60% 58% 55% 53% 57% 58% 59% 66% 2% 14% 2% e de k pqr pr 49% 51% 14% 17% 31% 38% 13% 10% 14% 21% 25% 27% 22% 26% 98% *% 1% *% Scottish 217 106 112 28 39 74 77 37 25 23 42 44 59 53 61 19 196 2 * 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12% 10% 6% 7% 6% 8% 9% 9% 1% 84% 1% *% ij k oqr 49% 51% 13% 18% 34% 35% 17% 12% 10% 19% 20% 27% 24% 28% 9% 90% 1% *% Welsh 91 43 47 10 17 27 37 13 8 12 18 23 25 20 23 9 - 81 - 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% *% -% 62% -% opr 48% 52% 11% 19% 30% 41% 14% 9% 13% 19% 25% 27% 22% 25% 10% -% 90% -% Northern Irish 66 34 32 9 12 21 24 4 5 8 5 17 17 16 16 13 * 1 53 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% *% *% 71% opq 52% 48% 14% 18% 32% 36% 7% 8% 13% 7% 26% 25% 25% 24% 19% *% 1% 79% British 586 285 301 84 84 230 187 55 51 74 134 200 146 113 127 522 22 26 16 22% 22% 22% 23% 18% 25% 20% 17% 20% 21% 23% 28% 20% 20% 19% 23% 9% 20% 21% df g lmn p p p 49% 51% 14% 14% 39% 32% 9% 9% 13% 23% 34% 25% 19% 22% 89% 4% 4% 3% Other 209 101 108 24 64 96 25 18 14 34 61 53 66 43 47 193 9 4 4 8% 8% 8% 7% 14% 10% 3% 6% 5% 10% 11% 7% 9% 7% 7% 9% 4% 3% 5% f cf cf g gh pqr 48% 52% 12% 31% 46% 12% 9% 7% 16% 29% 25% 32% 21% 22% 92% 4% 2% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ2 (QZ10). SHOWCARD How would you describe your national identity? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% English 1506 122 231 169 150 197 126 152 89 244 1336 170 834 668 867 639 56% 36% 64% 75% 80% 83% 52% 67% 78% 81% 58% 47% 54% 60% 60% 52% af abf abfg abcfg a af abfg abfg k l o 8% 15% 11% 10% 13% 8% 10% 6% 16% 89% 11% 55% 44% 58% 42% Scottish 217 2 1 3 4 5 2 - - 2 185 33 120 97 96 122 8% 1% *% 1% 2% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 8% 9% 8% 9% 7% 10% gh gh n 1% *% 2% 2% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 85% 15% 55% 45% 44% 56% Welsh 91 - - 3 2 - 1 2 - 2 71 19 49 41 52 38 3% -% -% 1% 1% -% *% 1% -% 1% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% j -% -% 3% 2% -% 1% 2% -% 2% 79% 21% 54% 45% 58% 42% Northern Irish 66 - 6 1 - 2 - 2 1 - 45 21 39 27 30 36 2% -% 2% 1% -% 1% -% 1% *% -% 2% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% adfi j -% 10% 2% -% 3% -% 4% 1% -% 68% 32% 59% 40% 46% 54% British 586 144 94 38 25 25 74 61 23 39 483 103 359 225 339 247 22% 42% 26% 17% 13% 11% 30% 27% 20% 13% 21% 29% 23% 20% 23% 20% bcdefghi cdei cdehi cdei dei j o 25% 16% 6% 4% 4% 13% 10% 4% 7% 82% 18% 61% 38% 58% 42% Other 209 71 27 12 8 8 41 9 2 15 195 14 150 56 60 149 8% 21% 7% 5% 4% 3% 17% 4% 2% 5% 8% 4% 10% 5% 4% 12% bcdeghi eh h bcdeghi k m n 34% 13% 6% 4% 4% 20% 4% 1% 7% 93% 7% 72% 27% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% WHITE British 1300 614 686 166 227 431 475 158 114 188 274 349 364 277 309 1183 35 36 46 49% 47% 50% 46% 49% 47% 51% 50% 44% 52% 47% 49% 51% 48% 47% 53% 15% 27% 62% h pq p opq 47% 53% 13% 17% 33% 37% 12% 9% 14% 21% 27% 28% 21% 24% 91% 3% 3% 4% English 696 362 334 102 85 214 294 87 79 83 154 188 171 164 172 678 5 12 1 26% 28% 24% 28% 18% 23% 32% 27% 30% 23% 26% 26% 24% 28% 26% 30% 2% 9% 1% b d d de i pqr pr 52% 48% 15% 12% 31% 42% 12% 11% 12% 22% 27% 25% 24% 25% 97% 1% 2% *% Scottish 198 95 104 24 36 68 70 34 25 19 36 38 53 49 58 13 182 2 - 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8% 11% 10% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8% 9% 1% 78% 2% -% ij i k k oqr or 48% 52% 12% 18% 34% 35% 17% 13% 9% 18% 19% 27% 25% 29% 7% 92% 1% -% Welsh 86 41 45 10 18 23 36 12 8 10 17 22 23 20 21 8 1 76 - 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% *% 1% 58% -% opr 48% 52% 11% 21% 26% 42% 14% 10% 11% 20% 26% 27% 23% 24% 10% 2% 89% -% Irish 43 22 21 5 9 14 15 3 4 6 4 9 12 10 12 17 1 1 23 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 31% opq 51% 49% 11% 21% 33% 34% 8% 9% 15% 10% 21% 27% 23% 29% 41% 3% 3% 54% Any other white background 108 44 64 11 30 52 15 8 10 22 36 26 38 22 23 102 2 3 2 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 6% 2% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 1% 2% 2% cf f g g pqr 41% 59% 10% 27% 48% 14% 7% 9% 20% 33% 24% 35% 20% 21% 94% 2% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% TOTAL WHITE 2430 1178 1252 318 404 802 905 303 241 327 521 632 661 541 595 2002 227 131 71 91% 91% 91% 87% 86% 88% 98% 96% 93% 91% 89% 89% 92% 93% 90% 90% 97% 99% 96% cde ij k o or o 48% 52% 13% 17% 33% 37% 12% 10% 13% 21% 26% 27% 22% 24% 82% 9% 5% 3% MIXED White and Black Caribbean 7 4 3 2 3 2 - - 2 1 1 2 - 2 4 6 - 1 * *% *% *% 1% 1% *% -% -% 1% *% *% *% -% *% 1% *% -% *% *% f f l 61% 39% 33% 35% 32% -% -% 34% 19% 8% 23% -% 27% 50% 87% -% 8% 4% White and Black African 9 2 6 2 2 5 - 2 - - 5 6 - 2 - 9 - - - *% *% *% 1% *% *% -% 1% -% -% 1% 1% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% f f ln 27% 73% 27% 21% 52% -% 27% -% -% 52% 73% -% 27% -% 100% -% -% -% White and Asian 9 1 8 1 3 5 - - - 1 2 5 2 - 2 9 - - - *% *% 1% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% *% *% 1% *% -% *% *% -% -% -% f f 15% 85% 12% 37% 51% -% -% -% 12% 26% 53% 24% -% 22% 100% -% -% -% Any other mixed/ multiple ethnic background 3 3 * * * 1 1 1 - 1 - - * 1 2 2 1 - - *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% -% *% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% -% -% 93% 7% 9% 9% 38% 45% 17% -% 31% -% -% 15% 31% 54% 76% 24% -% -% TOTAL MIXED/ MULTIPLE 28 11 17 6 8 13 1 3 2 3 8 13 3 5 7 26 1 1 * 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% f f f l 39% 61% 22% 28% 45% 5% 11% 9% 12% 27% 46% 9% 19% 26% 94% 3% 2% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian 39 15 24 7 14 14 4 1 - 3 16 18 13 3 5 37 1 * - 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% *% *% -% 1% 3% 3% 2% *% 1% 2% *% *% -% f f f ghi mn m qr 38% 62% 18% 35% 36% 11% 4% -% 7% 40% 47% 33% 7% 13% 96% 3% 1% -% Pakistani 45 23 22 8 17 16 4 3 3 2 11 13 11 9 12 43 2 - - 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% *% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% -% -% f ef f qr 52% 48% 18% 38% 35% 9% 6% 8% 4% 25% 28% 23% 21% 27% 96% 4% -% -% Bangladeshi 37 20 17 4 8 22 3 - 6 7 - 8 7 5 18 37 - - - 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% *% -% 2% 2% -% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% -% -% -% f f gj gj klm pqr 53% 47% 12% 22% 58% 8% -% 15% 20% -% 21% 19% 12% 47% 100% -% -% -% Any other Asian background 15 12 3 4 2 9 - 1 - 2 7 4 3 2 5 15 - - - 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% -% *% -% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% b f f f 78% 22% 24% 14% 62% -% 6% -% 14% 46% 30% 20% 15% 35% 100% -% -% -% TOTAL ASIAN/ BRITISH ASIAN 136 69 67 23 41 61 11 5 9 14 34 43 34 19 40 133 3 * - 5% 5% 5% 6% 9% 7% 1% 2% 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 6% 1% *% -% f f f g m m pqr r 51% 49% 17% 30% 45% 8% 4% 7% 10% 25% 32% 25% 14% 30% 98% 2% *% -% BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean 10 3 6 4 1 3 1 - * 3 3 1 4 2 2 10 - - - *% *% *% 1% *% *% *% -% *% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% *% -% -% -% f 36% 64% 45% 9% 36% 11% -% 4% 32% 27% 14% 41% 22% 24% 100% -% -% -% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz3. Showcard Which Of The Groups On This Card Do You Consider You Belong To? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% African 37 18 18 7 6 24 1 1 4 5 11 11 14 5 6 37 - - - 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% *% *% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% -% -% -% f f f g pqr 50% 50% 18% 15% 65% 2% 3% 10% 15% 31% 31% 38% 14% 17% 100% -% -% -% Any other black background 4 1 3 1 - 1 2 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 2 4 * - - *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% -% 29% 71% 34% -% 19% 46% 18% 14% -% 34% 34% 14% -% 52% 94% 6% -% -% TOTAL BLACK/ BLACK BRITISH 51 23 28 12 6 28 4 2 5 9 16 14 18 7 11 50 * - - 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% *% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% *% -% -% f f f g g pqr 46% 54% 24% 13% 55% 7% 4% 9% 17% 31% 28% 36% 15% 22% 100% *% -% -% MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin 6 5 * 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 * 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 * *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% b 92% 8% 22% 21% 34% 24% 28% 16% 33% 9% 24% 25% 16% 36% 80% 9% 10% 1% Iranian 2 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 1 2 - - - *% *% *% *% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% -% -% -% 66% 34% 66% -% 34% -% 34% -% -% -% -% -% 66% 34% 100% -% -% -% TOTAL MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN 8 7 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 * 1 1 2 3 7 1 1 * *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% b 85% 15% 33% 15% 34% 18% 30% 12% 24% 6% 18% 18% 29% 35% 85% 6% 8% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese 9 6 4 1 2 5 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 7 1 - 1 *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% 1% *% *% 1% -% 1% 59% 41% 14% 24% 48% 14% 11% 23% 23% 19% 33% 15% 34% 18% 79% 15% -% 6% Any other background 5 - 5 * 3 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 3 5 * - - *% -% *% *% 1% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% -% *% *% *% -% -% a -% 100% 4% 54% 28% 14% 14% -% 17% 13% 14% 28% -% 58% 96% 4% -% -% TOTAL CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP 14 6 9 2 5 6 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 5 12 2 - 1 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% *% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% f 39% 61% 10% 34% 41% 14% 12% 15% 21% 17% 26% 20% 23% 32% 85% 11% -% 4% Refused 8 7 1 1 2 3 2 * * - 2 5 * 2 1 6 * - 2 *% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% -% 3% b l opq 90% 10% 7% 31% 35% 27% 2% *% -% 25% 59% 3% 32% 7% 73% 1% -% 26% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% WHITE British 1300 102 219 124 92 132 118 131 81 184 1126 174 744 551 776 524 49% 30% 61% 55% 49% 56% 48% 58% 71% 61% 49% 48% 48% 50% 54% 43% adf a a a a adf abcdefgi adf o 8% 17% 10% 7% 10% 9% 10% 6% 14% 87% 13% 57% 42% 60% 40% English 696 57 109 84 78 86 70 70 29 95 587 109 365 330 406 290 26% 17% 30% 37% 42% 36% 29% 31% 26% 31% 25% 30% 23% 30% 28% 24% a ah abfghi ah a a a a j l o 8% 16% 12% 11% 12% 10% 10% 4% 14% 84% 16% 52% 47% 58% 42% Scottish 198 2 - 1 3 4 2 - - 2 169 30 109 89 90 108 7% 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 7% 8% 7% 8% 6% 9% n 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% -% 1% 85% 15% 55% 45% 45% 55% Welsh 86 - - 3 1 1 1 1 - 2 67 20 46 39 50 36 3% -% -% 1% *% *% *% 1% -% 1% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% j -% -% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 2% 77% 23% 54% 45% 59% 41% Irish 43 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 - 33 10 26 17 20 23 2% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 1% 1% *% -% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% i j 5% 7% 2% 7% 5% 8% 6% 1% -% 77% 23% 61% 39% 46% 54% Any other white background 108 40 12 10 1 3 28 2 1 5 99 8 89 18 34 74 4% 12% 3% 4% *% 1% 11% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2% 6% 2% 2% 6% bcdeghi dg degh bcdeghi k m n 37% 12% 9% 1% 3% 26% 2% 1% 5% 92% 8% 82% 17% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL WHITE 2430 203 343 223 177 227 223 207 112 287 2081 350 1379 1044 1375 1055 91% 60% 96% 98% 94% 96% 91% 92% 99% 95% 90% 97% 89% 94% 95% 86% af adfgi a af a a abdefgi a j l o 8% 14% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 5% 12% 86% 14% 57% 43% 57% 43% MIXED White and Black Caribbean 7 2 - - 1 - - 2 - 1 7 - 5 1 1 6 *% *% -% -% 1% -% -% 1% -% *% *% -% *% *% *% *% 23% -% -% 16% -% -% 29% -% 19% 100% -% 76% 8% 16% 84% White and Black African 9 9 - - - - - - - - 9 - 7 2 9 - *% 3% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% 1% -% bcdefghi o 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 79% 21% 100% -% White and Asian 9 4 1 - 1 - 2 1 - - 7 2 8 1 6 3 *% 1% *% -% 1% -% 1% *% -% -% *% 1% 1% *% *% *% m 42% 10% -% 11% -% 24% 12% -% -% 78% 22% 90% 10% 64% 36% Any other mixed/ multiple ethnic background 3 1 - - - 1 - - - - 3 * 1 2 * 3 *% *% -% -% -% *% -% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 45% -% -% -% 31% -% -% -% -% 93% 7% 38% 62% 7% 93% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL MIXED/ MULTIPLE 28 16 1 - 2 1 2 3 - 1 26 2 22 5 16 12 1% 5% *% -% 1% *% 1% 1% -% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 1% bcdefghi m 56% 3% -% 8% 3% 8% 11% -% 5% 92% 8% 77% 19% 57% 43% ASIAN AND BRITISH ASIAN Indian 39 15 1 1 2 5 5 4 1 4 35 4 29 9 18 21 1% 4% *% *% 1% 2% 2% 2% *% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdh m 38% 3% 3% 5% 12% 14% 11% 1% 11% 90% 10% 76% 24% 47% 53% Pakistani 45 21 2 - 2 1 3 9 - 5 45 - 31 14 6 39 2% 6% 1% -% 1% *% 1% 4% -% 2% 2% -% 2% 1% *% 3% bcdefhi bcdefh k n 47% 5% -% 5% 2% 6% 21% -% 10% 100% -% 69% 31% 13% 87% Bangladeshi 37 35 - 1 - - 1 - - - 37 - 31 7 1 36 1% 10% -% 1% -% -% *% -% -% -% 2% -% 2% 1% *% 3% bcdefghi k m n 95% -% 3% -% -% 2% -% -% -% 100% -% 82% 18% 3% 97% Any other Asian background 15 5 5 2 1 - 2 1 - - 15 - 9 6 5 10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -% 1% *% -% -% 1% -% 1% 1% *% 1% 31% 32% 12% 9% -% 12% 5% -% -% 100% -% 59% 41% 31% 69% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% TOTAL ASIAN/ BRITISH ASIAN 136 76 8 4 5 6 11 14 1 9 132 4 100 36 30 106 5% 22% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 6% *% 3% 6% 1% 6% 3% 2% 9% bcdefghi h h bceh h k m n 56% 6% 3% 4% 4% 8% 10% *% 6% 97% 3% 73% 27% 22% 78% BLACK AND BLACK BRITISH Caribbean 10 5 - - * 2 3 - - - 10 - 9 1 2 7 *% 1% -% -% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% *% -% 1% *% *% 1% m 52% -% -% 4% 18% 27% -% -% -% 100% -% 89% 11% 25% 75% African 37 27 1 - 2 - 2 2 - 3 36 1 28 8 8 29 1% 8% *% -% 1% -% 1% 1% -% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% 1% 2% bcdefghi k m n 72% 3% -% 5% -% 6% 5% -% 9% 97% 3% 77% 23% 21% 79% Any other black background 4 3 - - 1 - 1 - - - 4 * 1 3 * 4 *% 1% -% -% *% -% *% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 63% -% -% 14% -% 18% -% -% -% 94% 6% 19% 81% 6% 94% TOTAL BLACK/ BLACK BRITISH 51 34 1 - 3 2 6 2 - 3 49 1 38 13 10 41 2% 10% *% -% 1% 1% 2% 1% -% 1% 2% *% 2% 1% 1% 3% bcdefghi ch k m n 68% 2% -% 5% 3% 11% 4% -% 6% 97% 3% 74% 26% 20% 80% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN Middle Eastern, including Arabic origin 6 3 - - * - 2 - - - 6 * 3 3 1 5 *% 1% -% -% *% -% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 45% -% -% 7% -% 28% -% -% -% 99% 1% 47% 53% 17% 83% Iranian 2 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - 2 - 2 *% 1% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% *% -% -% *% -% *% 100% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 100% -% -% 100% -% 100% TOTAL MIDDLE EAST AND ARABIC ORIGIN 8 5 - - * - 2 - - - 8 * 3 5 1 7 *% 1% -% -% *% -% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% 1% n 59% -% -% 5% -% 21% -% -% -% 99% 1% 34% 66% 13% 87% CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP Chinese 9 3 3 - - 1 - - - - 9 - 5 5 3 6 *% 1% 1% -% -% 1% -% -% -% -% *% -% *% *% *% 1% 36% 28% -% -% 14% -% -% -% -% 100% -% 52% 48% 35% 65% Any other background 5 2 - - 1 - 2 - - - 5 * 2 3 1 4 *% 1% -% -% *% -% 1% -% -% -% *% *% *% *% *% *% 38% -% -% 13% -% 45% -% -% -% 96% 4% 41% 59% 17% 83% TOTAL CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP 14 5 3 - 1 1 2 - - - 14 * 7 7 4 10 1% 2% 1% -% *% 1% 1% -% -% -% 1% *% *% 1% *% 1% 37% 19% -% 5% 9% 16% -% -% -% 99% 1% 48% 52% 29% 71% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ3. SHOWCARD Which of the groups on this card do you consider you belong to? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Refused 8 - 3 - - - - - 1 2 6 2 4 2 7 1 *% -% 1% -% -% -% -% -% 1% 1% *% 1% *% *% *% *% o -% 40% -% -% -% -% -% 9% 24% 74% 26% 53% 27% 90% 10% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Cannot walk far or manage stairs or can only do so with difficulty 160 77 83 2 5 31 123 48 24 15 8 33 30 36 61 128 16 12 3 6% 6% 6% *% 1% 3% 13% 15% 9% 4% 1% 5% 4% 6% 9% 6% 7% 9% 5% cd cde hij ij j kl or 48% 52% 1% 3% 19% 77% 30% 15% 9% 5% 21% 19% 22% 38% 80% 10% 8% 2% Breathlessness or chest pains 97 54 43 3 5 16 73 32 13 6 6 17 15 25 41 79 6 9 2 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 8% 10% 5% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 6% 4% 3% 7% 3% cde hij ij l kl opr 56% 44% 3% 5% 17% 75% 33% 14% 6% 6% 17% 15% 26% 42% 82% 6% 10% 3% Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 3% 3% 3% *% *% 1% 8% 7% 4% 4% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% 2% cde ij j j 51% 49% 2% 2% 10% 86% 28% 12% 16% 4% 19% 23% 26% 32% 84% 7% 7% 2% Mental health problems or difficulties 58 21 37 7 13 22 16 27 8 5 6 6 4 7 42 42 9 6 1 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 2% 4% 4% 2% hij klm o or 36% 64% 13% 22% 38% 28% 47% 14% 9% 11% 10% 6% 12% 72% 72% 16% 10% 2% Poor vision, partial sight or blindness 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% de ij ij klm 36% 64% 9% 9% 23% 58% 19% 16% 4% 13% 21% 18% 16% 45% 80% 10% 8% 2% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Limited ability to reach 39 18 21 * 2 10 27 11 8 3 1 5 6 16 12 30 7 2 1 1% 1% 2% *% *% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% *% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% cde ij j kl o 45% 55% 1% 6% 25% 69% 27% 19% 7% 3% 12% 16% 40% 32% 76% 17% 4% 3% Dyslexia 32 14 18 4 13 8 7 12 1 2 9 6 3 7 16 26 3 3 * 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 4% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% ef hij kl r 45% 55% 13% 41% 24% 22% 36% 4% 7% 27% 18% 9% 22% 50% 81% 9% 10% 1% Cannot walk at all / use a wheelchair 11 5 6 - 1 1 9 4 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 9 1 1 * *% *% *% -% *% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% *% *% 1% *% *% 1% 1% *% e 47% 53% -% 10% 10% 79% 37% 13% 9% 10% 22% 28% 31% 18% 81% 11% 7% 1% Difficulty in speaking or in communicating 10 2 8 2 3 3 2 4 * * 1 1 * 3 6 8 - 2 * *% *% 1% 1% 1% *% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% -% 1% 1% l 18% 82% 18% 25% 34% 24% 39% 1% 1% 12% 14% 1% 27% 58% 81% -% 15% 4% Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do 128 77 51 4 9 40 75 36 22 15 12 22 22 24 61 106 8 13 2 5% 6% 4% 1% 2% 4% 8% 11% 9% 4% 2% 3% 3% 4% 9% 5% 3% 10% 3% b cd cde ij ij klm opr 60% 40% 3% 7% 31% 58% 28% 17% 11% 9% 17% 17% 18% 47% 83% 6% 10% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz4 (C9). Showcard Which Of These, If Any, Limit Your Daily Activities Or The Work You Can Do? (Multi Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% None 2230 1073 1157 343 424 818 645 198 199 308 542 624 637 488 479 1872 192 101 66 83% 82% 84% 94% 90% 89% 70% 62% 76% 86% 93% 88% 89% 84% 73% 84% 82% 76% 89% ef f f g gh ghi n mn n q opq 48% 52% 15% 19% 37% 29% 9% 9% 14% 24% 28% 29% 22% 21% 84% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Cannot walk far or manage stairs or can only do so with difficulty 160 6 17 12 11 14 20 14 9 27 136 24 15 144 79 81 6% 2% 5% 5% 6% 6% 8% 6% 7% 9% 6% 7% 1% 13% 5% 7% a a a a a a a l 4% 11% 7% 7% 9% 12% 9% 5% 17% 85% 15% 9% 90% 49% 51% Breathlessness or chest pains 97 2 12 12 7 9 10 11 5 12 81 16 9 88 48 50 4% 1% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 1% 8% 3% 4% a a a a a a a a l 2% 12% 12% 8% 9% 10% 12% 5% 12% 84% 16% 10% 90% 49% 51% Poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 3% *% 2% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1% 6% 3% 3% a a a ab a a a l 1% 7% 11% 8% 12% 16% 9% 6% 14% 83% 17% 17% 83% 54% 46% Mental health problems or difficulties 58 - 5 5 6 3 8 5 5 6 47 11 10 48 25 33 2% -% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% a a a a a a l -% 8% 8% 10% 5% 14% 9% 8% 10% 81% 19% 16% 84% 43% 57% Poor vision, partial sight or blindness 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 3% l n 11% 7% 10% 4% 12% 3% 12% 5% 17% 85% 15% 19% 81% 36% 64% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Limited ability to reach 39 - 5 3 3 7 4 2 2 3 31 9 7 32 19 20 1% -% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% *% 3% 1% 2% a a a l -% 13% 7% 8% 19% 11% 4% 5% 8% 78% 22% 18% 82% 48% 52% Dyslexia 32 3 - 7 3 1 7 1 2 1 24 8 16 16 10 22 1% 1% -% 3% 2% 1% 3% *% 1% *% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% begi b bgi n 10% -% 23% 11% 4% 22% 3% 5% 3% 75% 25% 49% 51% 32% 68% Cannot walk at all / use a wheelchair 11 - 2 2 - 1 2 1 * 1 11 1 2 9 5 6 *% -% *% 1% -% *% 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% 1% *% 1% l -% 13% 18% -% 7% 21% 9% 4% 9% 94% 6% 22% 78% 45% 55% Difficulty in speaking or in communicating 10 - - - 1 2 5 - * - 7 3 1 9 7 4 *% -% -% -% *% 1% 2% -% *% -% *% 1% *% 1% *% *% abcgi l -% -% -% 8% 18% 51% -% 4% -% 69% 31% 14% 86% 64% 36% Other illnesses or health problems which limit your daily activities or the work that you can do 128 - 17 11 8 16 23 8 13 10 95 34 32 95 62 67 5% -% 5% 5% 4% 7% 9% 4% 11% 3% 4% 9% 2% 9% 4% 5% a a a a abdgi a abcdgi a j l -% 13% 9% 6% 13% 18% 6% 10% 8% 74% 26% 25% 74% 48% 52% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ4 (C9). SHOWCARD Which of these, if any, limit your daily activities or the work you can do? (MULTI CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% None 2230 322 310 182 156 192 192 185 85 248 1950 280 1459 762 1215 1015 83% 95% 86% 80% 83% 81% 78% 82% 75% 82% 84% 78% 94% 68% 84% 82% bcdefghi fh h k m 14% 14% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 65% 34% 54% 46% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 85 32 53 6 3 16 60 15 12 4 8 15 20 13 36 47 12 18 8 Effective Weighted Sample 58 21 37 5 3 14 39 11 10 2 6 11 11 10 26 42 8 13 6 Total 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot tell by the light where the windows are ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the room ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if he or she is at arm's length ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 85 32 53 6 3 16 60 15 12 4 8 15 20 13 36 47 12 18 8 Effective Weighted Sample 58 21 37 5 3 14 39 11 10 2 6 11 11 10 26 42 8 13 6 Total 55 20 35 5 5 13 32 10 9 2 7 11 10 9 25 44 6 4 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to read a large print book ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a road ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have difficulty seeing ordinary newspaper print ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have no problems as long as I am wearing glasses/ contact lenses ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 85 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 63 22 11 74 30 55 Effective Weighted Sample 58 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 48 10 8 51 20 38 Total 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot tell by the light where the windows are ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see the shapes of furniture in the room ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if close to his or her face ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend if he or she is at arm's length ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to read a newspaper headline ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz5 (C10). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Sight? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor vision, partial sight or blindness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o Unweighted total 85 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 63 22 11 74 30 55 Effective Weighted Sample 58 4 3 7 3 7 2 7 6 8 48 10 8 51 20 38 Total 55 6 4 6 2 7 2 6 3 9 47 8 10 44 20 35 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to read a large print book ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a room ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot see well enough to recognise a friend across a road ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have difficulty seeing ordinary newspaper print ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have no problems as long as I am wearing glasses/ contact lenses ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 130 66 64 1 2 11 116 36 15 17 5 24 33 27 46 80 16 20 14 Effective Weighted Sample 90 43 48 1 1 8 81 23 12 15 4 18 23 21 28 70 9 14 9 Total 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 ** ** ** ** ** 86% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up 12 ** ** ** ** ** 9 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 14% ** ** ** ** ** 12% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 75% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room 7 ** ** ** ** ** 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9% ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell 4 ** ** ** ** ** 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable 18 ** ** ** ** ** 15 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 22% ** ** ** ** ** 21% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room 5 ** ** ** ** ** 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l ~m ~n ~o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 130 66 64 1 2 11 116 36 15 17 5 24 33 27 46 80 16 20 14 Effective Weighted Sample 90 43 48 1 1 8 81 23 12 15 4 18 23 21 28 70 9 14 9 Total 82 41 41 1 2 8 71 23 10 13 3 16 19 21 26 69 6 6 2 ** ** ** ** ** 86% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Difficulty following a conversation against background noise 26 ** ** ** ** ** 22 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 31% ** ** ** ** ** 31% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Have no problems as long as I am wearing my hearing aid 9 ** ** ** ** ** 8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 92% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l m ~n ~o Unweighted total 130 1 4 11 10 9 15 9 12 9 91 39 15 115 57 73 Effective Weighted Sample 90 1 4 11 10 9 14 9 11 9 73 18 13 79 42 52 Total 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% ** ** Cannot follow a TV programme with the volume turned up 12 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 8 ** ** 14% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 65% ** ** Have difficulty hearing someone talking in a loud voice in a quiet room 7 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 7 ** ** 9% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** ** Cannot hear a doorbell, alarm clock or telephone bell 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 ** ** 5% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 73% ** ** Cannot follow a TV programme at a volume others find acceptable 18 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 15 ** ** 22% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 22% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 84% ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz6 (C11). Showcard Which Of These Best Describes Your Hearing? (Single Code) Base : Those with poor hearing, partial hearing or deafness ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k ~l m ~n ~o Unweighted total 130 1 4 11 10 9 15 9 12 9 91 39 15 115 57 73 Effective Weighted Sample 90 1 4 11 10 9 14 9 11 9 73 18 13 79 42 52 Total 82 1 6 9 7 9 13 8 5 11 68 14 14 68 44 38 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% ** ** Difficulty hearing someone talking in a normal voice in a quiet room 5 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 ** ** 7% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 6% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 81% ** ** Difficulty following a conversation against background noise 26 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 21 ** ** 31% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 31% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 83% ** ** Have no problems as long as I am wearing my hearing aid 9 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 9 ** ** 11% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 13% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% ** ** Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz8 (Sga). Do You Ever Work From Home? (Single Code) Base : Those working full or part time GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f ~g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 1861 925 936 225 428 880 328 96 155 307 503 445 640 466 309 1144 228 210 279 Effective Weighted Sample 1294 644 650 156 296 616 226 65 109 219 377 323 434 330 221 1002 152 135 219 Total 1552 783 768 190 369 734 258 67 117 258 492 438 449 393 272 1304 133 74 41 50% 50% 12% 24% 47% 17% ** 8% 17% 32% 28% 29% 25% 18% 84% 9% 5% 3% Yes 388 193 195 29 66 209 83 ** 14 41 171 181 115 68 24 341 22 16 9 25% 25% 25% 15% 18% 28% 32% ** 12% 16% 35% 41% 26% 17% 9% 26% 17% 21% 22% cd cd hi lmn mn n p 50% 50% 8% 17% 54% 21% ** 4% 10% 44% 47% 30% 18% 6% 88% 6% 4% 2% No 1164 590 574 161 303 525 175 ** 103 217 321 257 334 325 248 963 110 58 32 75% 75% 75% 85% 82% 72% 68% ** 88% 84% 65% 59% 74% 83% 91% 74% 83% 79% 78% ef ef j j k kl klm o 51% 49% 14% 26% 45% 15% ** 9% 19% 28% 22% 29% 28% 21% 83% 9% 5% 3% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ8 (SGA). Do you ever work from home? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those working full or part time ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l ~m n o Unweighted total 1861 179 123 126 117 128 121 114 111 125 1364 497 1861 - 924 937 Effective Weighted Sample 1294 159 117 123 111 121 116 108 105 117 1081 230 1294 - 649 659 Total 1552 256 195 130 100 136 140 119 58 171 1349 202 1552 - 853 699 16% 13% 8% 6% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 100% -% 55% 45% Yes 388 52 50 43 30 37 48 29 14 37 319 69 388 - 251 136 25% 20% 26% 33% 30% 27% 34% 24% 25% 22% 24% 34% 25% -% 29% 20% a ai j o 13% 13% 11% 8% 9% 12% 8% 4% 10% 82% 18% 100% -% 65% 35% No 1164 203 144 87 70 99 92 90 44 134 1030 133 1164 - 601 562 75% 80% 74% 67% 70% 73% 66% 76% 75% 78% 76% 66% 75% -% 71% 80% cf f k n 17% 12% 7% 6% 9% 8% 8% 4% 11% 89% 11% 100% -% 52% 48% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ9 (SGB). Would you say that you work from home most of the time or just occasionally? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who ever work from home GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i j k l ~m ~n o ~p ~q ~r Unweighted total 437 216 221 24 75 237 101 15 16 50 170 187 156 68 26 297 42 46 52 Effective Weighted Sample 317 154 163 18 52 175 74 8 11 35 131 137 112 53 18 261 26 30 41 Total 388 193 195 29 66 209 83 9 14 41 171 181 115 68 24 341 22 16 9 50% 50% ** ** 54% 21% ** ** ** 44% 47% 30% ** ** 88% ** ** ** Most of the time 136 65 71 ** ** 74 45 ** ** ** 55 66 38 ** ** 121 ** ** ** 35% 34% 36% ** ** 35% 54% ** ** ** 32% 36% 33% ** ** 35% ** ** ** e 48% 52% ** ** 54% 33% ** ** ** 40% 48% 28% ** ** 89% ** ** ** Just occasionally 247 126 121 ** ** 134 38 ** ** ** 115 113 76 ** ** 217 ** ** ** 64% 65% 62% ** ** 64% 46% ** ** ** 67% 62% 66% ** ** 64% ** ** ** f 51% 49% ** ** 54% 15% ** ** ** 46% 46% 31% ** ** 88% ** ** ** Don't know 4 2 2 ** ** 1 - ** ** ** 2 2 1 ** ** 3 ** ** ** 1% 1% 1% ** ** *% -% ** ** ** 1% 1% 1% ** ** 1% ** ** ** 42% 58% ** ** 23% -% ** ** ** 42% 47% 28% ** ** 74% ** ** ** Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ9 (SGB). Would you say that you work from home most of the time or just occasionally? (SINGLE CODE) Base : Those who ever work from home ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l ~m n o Unweighted total 437 29 32 43 35 34 42 26 27 29 308 129 437 - 266 171 Effective Weighted Sample 317 28 30 42 34 33 40 25 26 27 248 73 317 - 192 127 Total 388 52 50 43 30 37 48 29 14 37 319 69 388 - 251 136 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 82% 18% 100% -% 65% 35% Most of the time 136 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 104 32 136 - 94 42 35% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 33% 46% 35% -% 37% 31% j ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 77% 23% 100% -% 69% 31% Just occasionally 247 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 210 37 247 - 156 91 64% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 66% 54% 64% -% 62% 67% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 85% 15% 100% -% 63% 37% Don't know 4 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 - 4 - 1 3 1% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1% -% 1% -% *% 2% ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 100% -% 100% -% 28% 72% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz11 (Qz9A). Could You Please Tell Me If Your Total Household Income From All Sources Before Tax And Other Deductions Is Above Or Below £11,500 Per Year? Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Under £11,500 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% Above £11,500 1592 798 794 165 308 628 491 - 251 351 563 508 443 376 265 1346 139 77 30 60% 61% 58% 45% 66% 69% 53% -% 96% 98% 97% 71% 62% 65% 40% 60% 60% 58% 40% cf cf c g g g lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 10% 19% 39% 31% -% 16% 22% 35% 32% 28% 24% 17% 85% 9% 5% 2% Don't know 218 97 120 94 34 42 48 - 5 1 10 41 54 52 70 175 23 14 5 8% 7% 9% 26% 7% 5% 5% -% 2% *% 2% 6% 8% 9% 11% 8% 10% 11% 7% def e gi g k k 45% 55% 43% 16% 19% 22% -% 3% 1% 5% 19% 25% 24% 32% 81% 11% 6% 2% Refused 548 272 276 59 76 166 247 - 4 6 10 149 167 114 117 464 33 21 30 20% 21% 20% 16% 16% 18% 27% -% 2% 2% 2% 21% 23% 20% 18% 21% 14% 16% 40% cde g g g n p opq 50% 50% 11% 14% 30% 45% -% 1% 1% 2% 27% 30% 21% 21% 85% 6% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ11 (QZ9A). Could you please tell me if your total household income from all sources before tax and other deductions is above or below £11,500 per year? Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Under £11,500 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% Above £11,500 1592 247 230 150 93 88 162 145 45 186 1371 221 1115 472 879 713 60% 73% 64% 66% 49% 37% 66% 64% 40% 62% 59% 61% 72% 42% 61% 58% bdeghi deh deh eh deh deh deh m 16% 14% 9% 6% 6% 10% 9% 3% 12% 86% 14% 70% 30% 55% 45% Don't know 218 33 26 14 12 26 14 17 11 21 188 30 86 132 110 108 8% 10% 7% 6% 7% 11% 6% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 6% 12% 8% 9% f l 15% 12% 7% 6% 12% 6% 8% 5% 10% 86% 14% 39% 61% 51% 49% Refused 548 47 76 41 55 103 34 21 35 54 476 72 284 261 329 220 20% 14% 21% 18% 29% 43% 14% 9% 31% 18% 21% 20% 18% 23% 23% 18% afg g abcfgi abcdfghi abcfgi g l o 9% 14% 7% 10% 19% 6% 4% 6% 10% 87% 13% 52% 48% 60% 40% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz12 (Qz9). Showcard Group In Which You Would Place Your Total Household Income From All Sources, Before Tax And Other Deductions? (Single Code) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Unweighted total 3737 1790 1947 519 604 1172 1442 559 401 451 615 797 1122 791 1022 2239 502 489 507 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 Total 2675 1301 1374 364 469 915 927 317 260 358 583 712 720 580 661 2236 233 132 74 49% 51% 14% 18% 34% 35% 12% 10% 13% 22% 27% 27% 22% 25% 84% 9% 5% 3% Under £11,500 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% £11,500 - £17,499 260 117 143 26 45 72 117 - 260 - - 32 62 66 100 213 27 15 6 10% 9% 10% 7% 10% 8% 13% -% 100% -% -% 5% 9% 11% 15% 10% 12% 11% 8% ce gij k k kl 45% 55% 10% 17% 28% 45% -% 100% -% -% 12% 24% 25% 38% 82% 10% 6% 2% £17,500 - £29,999 358 184 174 33 67 146 112 - - 358 - 76 115 100 68 311 25 13 9 13% 14% 13% 9% 14% 16% 12% -% -% 100% -% 11% 16% 17% 10% 14% 11% 10% 12% c cf ghj kn kn 51% 49% 9% 19% 41% 31% -% -% 100% -% 21% 32% 28% 19% 87% 7% 4% 3% £30,000 - £49,999 350 175 175 29 83 163 75 - - - 350 133 98 83 36 303 26 17 4 13% 13% 13% 8% 18% 18% 8% -% -% -% 60% 19% 14% 14% 5% 14% 11% 13% 6% cf cf ghi lmn n n r r r 50% 50% 8% 24% 47% 21% -% -% -% 100% 38% 28% 24% 10% 87% 7% 5% 1% £50,000+ 233 116 117 26 44 119 45 - - - 233 134 54 37 9 206 20 7 1 9% 9% 9% 7% 9% 13% 5% -% -% -% 40% 19% 8% 6% 1% 9% 8% 5% 1% f cf ghi lmn n n qr r r 50% 50% 11% 19% 51% 19% -% -% -% 100% 57% 23% 16% 4% 88% 8% 3% *% REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K 427 224 204 56 75 141 156 - - - - 145 123 97 63 346 42 29 11 16% 17% 15% 15% 16% 15% 17% -% -% -% -% 20% 17% 17% 9% 15% 18% 22% 14% n n n or 52% 48% 13% 17% 33% 36% -% -% -% -% 34% 29% 23% 15% 81% 10% 7% 2% DK/ Refused 729 352 377 149 104 195 281 - - - - 178 211 160 177 606 56 33 34 27% 27% 27% 41% 22% 21% 30% -% -% -% -% 25% 29% 28% 27% 27% 24% 25% 46% def de opq 48% 52% 20% 14% 27% 39% -% -% -% -% 24% 29% 22% 24% 83% 8% 4% 5% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Effective Weighted Sample 2504 1197 1308 343 401 807 971 377 268 325 461 578 755 534 660 1916 310 301 376 HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K 317 133 184 46 51 80 141 317 - - - 14 56 38 209 250 38 20 9 12% 10% 13% 13% 11% 9% 15% 100% -% -% -% 2% 8% 7% 32% 11% 16% 15% 12% a e de hij k k klm o 42% 58% 15% 16% 25% 44% 100% -% -% -% 4% 18% 12% 66% 79% 12% 6% 3% £11.5K- £17.5K 260 117 143 26 45 72 117 - 260 - - 32 62 66 100 213 27 15 6 10% 9% 10% 7% 10% 8% 13% -% 100% -% -% 5% 9% 11% 15% 10% 12% 11% 8% ce gij k k kl 45% 55% 10% 17% 28% 45% -% 100% -% -% 12% 24% 25% 38% 82% 10% 6% 2% £17.5K- £29.9K 358 184 174 33 67 146 112 - - 358 - 76 115 100 68 311 25 13 9 13% 14% 13% 9% 14% 16% 12% -% -% 100% -% 11% 16% 17% 10% 14% 11% 10% 12% c cf ghj kn kn 51% 49% 9% 19% 41% 31% -% -% 100% -% 21% 32% 28% 19% 87% 7% 4% 3% £30K+ 583 291 292 54 127 282 120 - - - 583 266 153 119 45 509 46 23 5 22% 22% 21% 15% 27% 31% 13% -% -% -% 100% 37% 21% 21% 7% 23% 20% 18% 7% cf cf ghi lmn n n qr r r 50% 50% 9% 22% 48% 20% -% -% -% 100% 46% 26% 20% 8% 87% 8% 4% 1% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% Under £11,500 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% £11,500 - £17,499 260 37 34 17 16 15 28 29 10 27 227 33 117 141 108 152 10% 11% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 13% 9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 13% 8% 12% e l n 14% 13% 7% 6% 6% 11% 11% 4% 11% 87% 13% 45% 54% 42% 58% £17,500 - £29,999 358 43 37 24 25 13 47 44 14 64 310 48 258 99 187 171 13% 13% 10% 11% 13% 6% 19% 19% 12% 21% 13% 13% 17% 9% 13% 14% e e bceh bceh e abcdeh m 12% 10% 7% 7% 4% 13% 12% 4% 18% 87% 13% 72% 28% 52% 48% £30,000 - £49,999 350 51 59 41 28 11 32 27 10 45 305 45 298 51 218 132 13% 15% 17% 18% 15% 5% 13% 12% 9% 15% 13% 12% 19% 5% 15% 11% eh eh eh eh e e eh m o 15% 17% 12% 8% 3% 9% 8% 3% 13% 87% 13% 85% 14% 62% 38% £50,000+ 233 53 38 24 9 5 33 19 4 21 198 35 194 39 151 82 9% 16% 11% 10% 5% 2% 13% 8% 4% 7% 9% 10% 13% 3% 10% 7% deghi deh deh dehi eh e m o 23% 16% 10% 4% 2% 14% 8% 2% 9% 85% 15% 83% 17% 65% 35% REFUSED BUT ABOVE £11.5K 427 64 69 46 18 51 28 29 8 32 362 65 271 155 238 190 16% 19% 19% 20% 9% 22% 11% 13% 7% 11% 16% 18% 17% 14% 16% 15% dfhi dfhi dfghi dfghi m 15% 16% 11% 4% 12% 6% 7% 2% 8% 85% 15% 64% 36% 56% 44% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ12 (QZ9). SHOWCARD Group in which you would place your total household income from all sources, before tax and other deductions? (SINGLE CODE) Base : All respondents ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Unweighted total 3737 249 251 247 250 251 237 252 251 251 2711 1026 1861 1863 1792 1945 Effective Weighted Sample 2504 221 237 237 233 233 225 231 232 231 2082 456 1294 1256 1218 1321 Total 2675 338 359 227 189 237 245 226 114 302 2315 360 1552 1114 1443 1232 13% 13% 8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 4% 11% 87% 13% 58% 42% 54% 46% DK/ Refused 729 78 96 53 65 121 42 36 44 72 631 98 345 380 415 314 27% 23% 27% 23% 34% 51% 17% 16% 39% 24% 27% 27% 22% 34% 29% 25% g fg g acfgi abcdfghi abcfgi g l 11% 13% 7% 9% 17% 6% 5% 6% 10% 87% 13% 47% 52% 57% 43% HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER £11.5K 317 12 27 22 29 20 35 43 23 41 281 37 67 248 125 192 12% 3% 7% 10% 15% 8% 14% 19% 20% 13% 12% 10% 4% 22% 9% 16% a abe a ab abce abce ab l n 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 11% 13% 7% 13% 88% 12% 21% 78% 40% 60% £11.5K- £17.5K 260 37 34 17 16 15 28 29 10 27 227 33 117 141 108 152 10% 11% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 13% 9% 9% 10% 9% 8% 13% 8% 12% e l n 14% 13% 7% 6% 6% 11% 11% 4% 11% 87% 13% 45% 54% 42% 58% £17.5K- £29.9K 358 43 37 24 25 13 47 44 14 64 310 48 258 99 187 171 13% 13% 10% 11% 13% 6% 19% 19% 12% 21% 13% 13% 17% 9% 13% 14% e e bceh bceh e abcdeh m 12% 10% 7% 7% 4% 13% 12% 4% 18% 87% 13% 72% 28% 52% 48% £30K+ 583 104 97 65 37 16 65 46 14 65 504 79 492 89 370 214 22% 31% 27% 28% 19% 7% 27% 20% 12% 22% 22% 22% 32% 8% 26% 17% deghi deh degh eh eh eh e eh m o 18% 17% 11% 6% 3% 11% 8% 2% 11% 86% 14% 84% 15% 63% 37% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz13 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 507 244 263 82 86 172 167 69 45 57 33 80 146 107 172 - - - 507 Effective Weighted Sample 376 173 203 56 68 136 117 49 36 44 23 61 112 83 131 - - - 376 Total 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 48% 52% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Roman Catholic 22 11 11 ** ** 9 5 ** ** ** ** ** 5 7 7 - - - 22 30% 32% 29% ** ** 34% 21% ** ** ** ** ** 27% 40% 32% -% -% -% 30% f 50% 50% ** ** 39% 22% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 32% 31% -% -% -% 100% Presbyterian Church of Ireland 19 10 9 ** ** 6 9 ** ** ** ** ** 5 4 5 - - - 19 25% 27% 23% ** ** 22% 38% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 23% 23% -% -% -% 25% e 52% 48% ** ** 31% 49% ** ** ** ** ** 26% 22% 27% -% -% -% 100% Church of Ireland 7 3 4 ** ** 2 2 ** ** ** ** ** 2 1 2 - - - 7 9% 8% 10% ** ** 7% 9% ** ** ** ** ** 10% 8% 10% -% -% -% 9% 45% 55% ** ** 29% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 28% 21% 32% -% -% -% 100% Methodist Church of Ireland 6 3 3 ** ** 2 2 ** ** ** ** ** 1 2 2 - - - 6 8% 7% 9% ** ** 10% 7% ** ** ** ** ** 5% 9% 7% -% -% -% 8% 43% 57% ** ** 41% 26% ** ** ** ** ** 15% 27% 26% -% -% -% 100% Other Christian (including Christian related) 1 * 1 ** ** 1 * ** ** ** ** ** 1 - 1 - - - 1 2% 1% 2% ** ** 2% 2% ** ** ** ** ** 3% -% 3% -% -% -% 2% 28% 72% ** ** 45% 35% ** ** ** ** ** 45% -% 55% -% -% -% 100% Other religions/ philosophies 1 1 1 ** ** 1 * ** ** ** ** ** * * * - - - 1 2% 2% 2% ** ** 3% 1% ** ** ** ** ** 2% 2% 2% -% -% -% 2% 48% 52% ** ** 53% 27% ** ** ** ** ** 22% 23% 36% -% -% -% 100% No religion 8 4 4 ** ** 3 1 ** ** ** ** ** 2 2 2 - - - 8 11% 12% 9% ** ** 10% 4% ** ** ** ** ** 11% 11% 10% -% -% -% 11% 54% 46% ** ** 33% 12% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 25% 28% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. ## Qz13 (Qzni1). Do You Regard Yourself As Belonging To Any Particular Religion? If Yes: Which Religion, Religious Denomination Or Body Do You Belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland GENDER AGE GROUP HOUSEHOLD INCOME SOCIAL GROUP NATION UNDER £11.5K- £17.5K- ENG Total MALE FEMALE 16-24 25-34 35-54 55+ £11.5K £17.5K £29.9K £30K+ AB C1 C2 DE LAND SCOT LAND WALES NI Significance Level: 95% a b ~c ~d e f ~g ~h ~i ~j ~k l m n ~o ~p ~q r Unweighted total 507 244 263 82 86 172 167 69 45 57 33 80 146 107 172 - - - 507 Effective Weighted Sample 376 173 203 56 68 136 117 49 36 44 23 61 112 83 131 - - - 376 Total 74 36 38 11 13 26 24 9 6 9 5 16 18 18 22 - - - 74 48% 52% ** ** 35% 32% ** ** ** ** ** 24% 24% 30% -% -% -% 100% Refused 10 4 6 ** ** 3 4 ** ** ** ** ** 3 2 3 - - - 10 13% 11% 15% ** ** 13% 17% ** ** ** ** ** 16% 9% 13% -% -% -% 13% 41% 59% ** ** 33% 42% ** ** ** ** ** 29% 16% 28% -% -% -% 100% Columns Tested: a,b - c,d,e,f - g,h,i,j - k,l,m,n - o,p,q,r All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ13 (QZNI1). Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which religion, religious denomination or body do you belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 507 - - - - - - - - - 262 245 279 226 196 311 Effective Weighted Sample 376 - - - - - - - - - 202 196 219 157 146 238 Total 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% Roman Catholic 22 - - - - - - - - - 11 11 13 10 9 14 30% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 24% 41% 31% 30% 25% 34% j -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 50% 50% 57% 43% 38% 62% Presbyterian Church of Ireland 19 - - - - - - - - - 11 7 10 8 10 8 25% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 24% 27% 25% 24% 30% 21% o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 60% 40% 56% 42% 54% 46% Church of Ireland 7 - - - - - - - - - 5 1 4 3 3 4 9% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 11% 5% 9% 9% 8% 9% k -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 78% 22% 56% 44% 42% 58% Methodist Church of Ireland 6 - - - - - - - - - 4 2 4 2 2 4 8% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 8% 8% 9% 8% 6% 10% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 64% 36% 59% 41% 36% 64% Other Christian (including Christian related) 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 * 1 1 1 1 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 84% 16% 52% 48% 53% 47% Other religions/ philosophies 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 * 1 1 * 1 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 76% 24% 48% 52% 25% 75% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o All data have been weighted to ensure they are representative of the UK adult population. Ofcom does not quota or weight by household income, so it may not be representative of the UK population, but it is included for reasons of interest. Any break column with a base size lower than 100 has been removed as margins of error become too great. Data is tested at the 95% confidence level. QZ13 (QZNI1). Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which religion, religious denomination or body do you belong? Base : All respondents in Northern Ireland ENGLAND REGIONS URBANITY WORKING DEPRIVATION LEVEL EAST SOUTH SOUTH EAST WEST OF YORKS& NORTH NORTH MEDIUM/ Total LONDON EAST WEST MIDS MIDS ENG HUMBER EAST WEST URBAN RURAL YES NO LOW HIGH Significance Level: 95% ~a ~b ~c ~d ~e ~f ~g ~h ~i j k l m n o Unweighted total 507 - - - - - - - - - 262 245 279 226 196 311 Effective Weighted Sample 376 - - - - - - - - - 202 196 219 157 146 238 Total 74 - - - - - - - - - 46 27 41 32 34 40 -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 63% 37% 55% 44% 45% 55% No religion 8 - - - - - - - - - 5 2 5 3 3 5 11% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 12% 9% 13% 8% 10% 12% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 70% 30% 65% 35% 41% 59% Refused 10 - - - - - - - - - 8 2 4 6 6 4 13% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 16% 8% 10% 17% 17% 10% k l o -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% -% 77% 23% 42% 57% 59% 41% Columns Tested: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - j,k - l,m - n,o

en

4199-pdf

## Privacy Impact Assessment: Releasing Family Food Survey Data (1974 - 2000) As Open Data This assessment follows the template provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in their publication Conducting Privacy Impact Assessments: Code of Practice. Why are we undertaking a PIA? Our information flows Our consultation process Our key privacy, compliance and corporate risks Step five: Identify privacy solutions Step six: sign off Step seven: integrate PIA outcomes back into the project plan ## Why Are We Undertaking A Pia? Defra is planning to publish its archive of Family Food Survey data (1974 - 2000) as open data. It wants to do this in a way that ensures the privacy of individuals who have been surveyed throughout that time period is protected and respected. Defra needs to take care that data published as open data (a) does not contain any personal data and (b) cannot be reidentified. This Privacy Impact Assessment forms part of Defra's approach to managing risks associated with the publication of this archive. Defra has committed to publishing 8,000 datasets as open data by June 2016 (#OpenDefra). While stimulating external and new uses of Defra data is a key goal of this project, it is also designed to kickstart cultural change across Defra and the transition to becoming a more collaborative, open organisation. Since the launch of #OpenDefra, Defra has begun publishing a significant array of environmental and observational data, predominantly through its arms-length bodies. It has developed an open data risk assessment (ODRA) process for working through risks associated with open data publication. To date, most data published could be described as 'low risk', with minimal issues relating to third party IP, personal data or commercial sensitivity. The publication of Defra's archive of its National Food Survey data (1974 - 2000) as open data marks the first significant release of data that is derived from data provided by individuals. Since 2000, the National Food Survey has been retitled as the 'Family Food Survey' and is still administered by Defra in partnership with ONS. 'Family Food Survey' is used as an umbrella term for the data throughout this PIA. Since its origins, the Survey has captured a sample of households annually (approximately 7,000 from across the UK) and asks them to maintain a one week diary about what they eat and drink inside and outside the home. It's a fascinating snapshot of how British eating habits at home have changed over the years. While this PIA relates only to the publication of its data archive from 1974 - 2000, Defra has been collecting data as part of the Family Food Survey since 1940. What are the goals from the publication of this data? The publication of Defra's archive of Family Food Survey data has benefits for people and organisations both inside and outside the department. The richness of information it provides about eating and drinking habits throughout Britain over decades could be useful for: - analysing dietary and nutritional trends across Britain (for example, by combining it with nutritional data collected by the Food Standards Agency) - understanding the relationship between dietary trends and other social forces that shape UK communities (employment, industrialisation) - contributing to topical debates about obesity and sugar - informing new teaching aides and visualisations in schools - an exciting way for students to engage with British eating habits over time. Publishing its archive of Family Food Survey data also has benefits to Defra as a department: - it's an engaging, easy to comprehend data source - a useful way to explore the possibilities of data, and how it reflects changes over time, with staff without specialist data backgrounds - it encourages new approaches to publishing data within existing Defra professions - as part of this process, the statistics profession in Defra will develop valuable experience drafting privacy impact assessments, assessing disclosure control risks, documenting disclosure control mechanisms, working with data users, and developing anonymization skills. The Family Food Survey has historically collected information not only about household eating and drinking habits across the UK, but also information about things like household numbers, ages of occupants, their gross income and type of employment. The need for a privacy impact assessment has been identified as part of the process preparing a version of the Family Food Survey data archive that is safe for release as open data. It will help Defra weigh the risks associated with the publication of this data in a way that balances the potential impacts of reidentification of individuals in the survey, as well as the public benefit in making this data more accessible. The task was to produce a treated dataset which was both valuable in its content to end users and which safeguards respondents' privacy to an acceptable level (both to Defra and them). ## Our Information Flows How has this data been collected? Contributions to the Family Food Survey have been collected per household, via paper-based surveys, since 1939. Copies of the survey are distributed to a number of households across the UK. On average, approximately 7,000 households from across the UK are surveyed each year. Households are sampled at random, and linking food diary entries to particular households over time is not possible. Some mechanisms around collection of the data have changed over the decades. In the 1970s, for example, surveys were typically supplied to the 'housewife' for completion, as person assumed in the household to have greatest understanding of what that household consumed over a two week period. By the late 1980's, the designation 'housewife' was removed from the survey and it could be filled in by any household occupant. Food and drink consumed outside the home over a two week period were added as questions to the survey. This survey, like all household surveys, would have been accompanied by a commitment to respondent confidentiality. The exact wording is now lost, but we continue to give this the highest priority in preparing the data archive for open publication. Because this is a historic archive, information related to the original administration of the surveys has also been lost. The data Defra has access to may already have been cleansed of all direct identifiers, and had some disclosure control guidance applied. We do not know what other personal information may have been collected, and subsequently deleted, as part of data processing. We have commenced this PIA, and made changes to the data archive to reduce the risk of re-identification of individuals, based on the data that Defra has access to. What does this data look like? The 'unprocessed' data archive available within Defra does not include any direct identifiers like name of survey recipient, address or national insurance number. However, the data does include a number of variables that may make reidentification of individuals and households in the data possible. The survey captures information including: - Age of household occupants - Gross income - Employment type - Whether any occupants were pregnant at the time of completion of the survey - Whether occupants had certain benefits - Sex The data archive is currently accessible via the UK Data Archive to users who register and agree to the terms & conditions of its End User Licence (EUL). Due to the age of the data, it's unclear what disclosure control may have taken place prior to the uploading of Family Food Survey data to the UK Data Archive. Defra would like to publish a version of the data archive more widely as open data. It's likely that some disclosure control will need to be undertaken prior to publication, to make the risk of re-identification of individuals contributing to the survey as remote as possible. ## Our Consultation Process Defra has set up an internal project group to manage the publication of Family Food Survey data as open data, spanning representatives from the Food & Farming statistics unit, the Defra Data Programme and Communications Directorate. The data archive doesn't include any contact details or direct identifiers for households who were involved in the survey. As such, contacting survey respondents individually to seek their feedback on the project is impossible. As part of its preparation, the project group consulted: - inside Defra, with the Information Rights Management team to understand the relationship between the Data Protection Act and anonymization of data. - outside Defra, with the Office of National Statistics, to understand disclosure control guidance that is available and existing case studies of reuse of historic survey data, and with the UK Data Archive, to understand how the Family Food Survey data is managed via that platform. The project group set up an external group of trusted testers, to explore five years of unprocessed test data (1974 - 1978) and provide feedback on variables that they would find most useful, as well as share their thoughts on potential privacy risks associated with the project. Feedback from testers has helped to shape Defra's own disclosure control testing. A draft of this privacy impact assessment was also shared with the external testers, as well as the information rights team in Defra, to provide feedback on how it could be improved. ## Our Key Privacy, Compliance And Corporate Risks Risk One: Individuals can be re-identified using the Family Food Survey data The Information Commissioner's Office has made clear that data protection law does not apply to data that has been anonymised; that is, changed in such a way that the data subject is longer identifiable. Defra is following ONS disclosure control guidance and the ICO Anonymization Code of Practice to reduce the likelihood as much as possible that this data could be re-identified. Nonetheless, we need to think through the impacts to individuals, and to Defra, were re-identification to occur. In some circumstances, even if identification of an individual from the data is possible, there may be no negative impact. An individual might recognise their own household from a diary entry. A neighbour or associate might make an educated guess about the identity of a household in the data. The food diary results do not divulge anything sensitive or unusual, and/or the recognition may occur privately. We can foresee instances where even if identification occurs, there's no impact on individuals or government. There is still a risk that, even in the event no harm is experienced as a result of reidentification, Defra may be found to have breached its obligations under the Data Protection Act. The ICO may launch an investigation into the circumstances which resulted in the re-identification of individuals. A finding by the ICO that Defra has negligently disclosed personal data about individuals could result in civil penalties and a fine of up to £500 000. The ICO has stated that 'where there is evidence of re-identification taking place, with a risk of harm to individuals, the Information Commissioner will be likely to take regulatory action' (20, Anonymization Code of Practice). Finally, there is a risk that a household or households is identified from the Family Food Survey data, with negative outcomes. A combination of certain unique household information is found to be that of a well-known household - e.g. a Minister, an MP, a celebrity, a public intellectual, athlete etc. The details of these food diaries form the basis of media stories revealing the eating habits of these public figures. These eating habits may not be unusual, or they may reveal details that are embarrassing to the figures. Alternatively, a food diary entry may be so unusual as to incentivise re-identification of the household surveyed, and - if achieved - result in a public focus on that household's eating habits. Solution Defra has taken steps to ensure that the likelihood of identification is as remote as possible1. In order to assess the likelihood of identification, the team: - ran a range of count queries, looking for unique and low combinations of results in the data. Due to the sample nature of the survey, a large return of unique and low combinations did not necessarily mean the nature of the household information captured was unique (i.e. that only one household of four, with two children and two adults, from Bath, was captured by the survey does not mean that such a household is rare in Bath); - applied Skinner and Elliot's data intruder simulation (DIS) method2 on a variety of combinations of variables to assess potential disclosure risk; and - spoke with external testers about their experiences of the data, and combinations of variables they considered to be unique. To reduce the risk of identification as much as possible, Defra has decided to: - Remove data records for households with more than 10 members - Where ages are recorded, band them into 7 age groups - Delete the gross income of head of household - Band the net family income into equivalised deciles (within the dataset, not national equivalised decile income points) - Merge the variables recording receipt of various benefits (Family Credit, Income Support, Housing Benefit, Working Family Tax Credit) into a single binary variable - Delete variables on religion (these were only recorded in Northern Ireland) - Not publish the 'person' table which recorded a number of details on each member of the household (age, sex occupation etc). A new person table will contain two binary variables identifying whether the household contains a) a pregnancy and b) any children under 3. As part of the data release, Defra will provide a mechanism for people to alert the team to any instances of identification or other privacy-related issues in the data. Text will be added to the data release pages with a contact email address (familyfood@defra.gsi.gov.uk) asking data users to alert the team to any issues. If a privacy-related issue is raised and found to be valid, the data will be removed from data.gov.uk and any other locations until the issue is resolved. Risk Two: Regardless of any actual identification of individuals from the Family Food Survey data, the public perceives it to be a breach of their trust in government. There are increasing sensitivities around how government collects, accesses and uses our personal data. There may be a general perceived risk that Defra has not been managing its Family Food Survey data properly and securely (absent of any incidents, or based on identification of households). Participants in future surveys may, as part of the fallout from such a risk, refuse to participate in the Family Food Survey/other government surveys. Defra is heavily reliant on the continuance of surveys to collect data. As such, maintenance of the response rate into the future needs to be taken into account. Care must be taken to not only protect privacy, but be perceived as protecting privacy, in a way that also shows that the data is being used for the benefit of the nation, while respecting those who volunteered their time and data to DEFRA and its predecessors in the past. The ongoing administration of the Family Food Survey is the responsibility of the Defra statistics profession, who are bound by the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice. The Code of Practice in its current form didn't exist at the time this historic data was collected (1974). The statistics profession inside Defra could be found to be in breach of the existing Code of Practice. Solution We will publish our privacy impact assessment alongside the publication of this data archive, to show people the steps taken prior to publishing this data as open data. Demonstrating a rigorous risk process, and being open and transparent about internal consultation, changes to the data and risks considered, can be powerful mechanisms for engendering trust in government. We will also work with the Defra communications directorate to prepare a set of reactive messages in the event concerns are raised about Defra's collection and publication of the survey results. Importantly, this release should be positioned as a positive, people-friendly data publication - an opportunity to explore food and drink trends around Britain from the 1970s - 2000. ## Step Six: Sign Off Who approves the privacy risks involved in the project? For this project, a data governance group has been assembled comprising: - the senior responsible officer for data within Defra - the Head of the Statistics Profession in Defra - The Director for Food & Farming and ## - The Director General For Evidence This group must review the PIA, discuss it with the Family Food Survey team and approve publication of the data archive as it recommends. Defra will look to establish a permanent sub-committee of the Data Governance Board - an internal board helping to implement the wider Defra Data Programme - to review future releases that may involve some personal data or other risk. ## Step Seven: Integrate Pia Outcomes Back Into The Project Plan The Food and Trade statistics team owns this data and the Food and Trade Statistician is the current asset owner. The Food and Trade Statistician has responsibility to ensure publication conforms with the recommendations of the overall assessment as signed off by the data governance group. ## Preparing The Next Tranche Of Data (2001 - Present) For Release This PIA concerns the preparation of Family Food data from 1974 - 2000 for release. Following the 18th February, the project team will begin preparing for the release of data to the present day, collected as part of the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Living Costs & Food Survey. As the data from 2001 to present is jointly administered by ONS and Defra, a different governance process will be required to approve sign off of the data for publication. Defra expects that the more recent data may require additional disclosure control, due to its age and the increasing availability of public information sources (e.g. social media) that may increase the risk of identification. Defra will begin with the data specification agreed on for its 1974 - 2000 release, and conduct a penetration test of the more recent data after it has been processed according to this specification. Defra will also continue to engage with external users and provide updates to changes to the data set for publication as a result of this process.

en

0901-pdf

## Arts Council England And The National Archives Memorandum Of Understanding 2016-19 This refreshed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) builds on the framework for cooperation outlined in the 2012-15 MoU between Arts Council England and The National Archives. This refreshed MoU sets out the role of each organisation and describes how they will work together to achieve their separate and common goals. ## 1. Background 1.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries. 1.2 The National Archives leads the archives sector for England and performs the Historical Manuscripts Commission's functions in relation to independent archives. Its support and advice helps archives across the UK to develop and enhance their services, facilities and collections. Over the next four years, its strategic plans include tackling the challenges and opportunities digital technologies present for the creation and preservation of archival collections of all kinds. 1.3 The MoU recognises that while both organisations have distinct roles, their strategic visions and aims reflect their areas of shared interest. ## 2. The National Archives 2.1 The National Archives is a non-ministerial government department sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is the official archive and publisher for the UK government, and for England and Wales. It is the guardian of some of the most iconic national documents dating back more than 1,000 years. 2.2 The National Archives works to bring together and secure the future of the record, both digital and physical, for future generations, nationally and internationally. 2.3 *Archives Inspire*, The National Archives' strategic plans for 2015-19, sets out its ambitions to meet the needs of its major audiences - government, the public, academia and the archive sector - and to face the biggest challenge, digital. ## 3. Arts Council England 3.1 Arts Council England is the national development agency for the arts, museums and libraries in England. It is a non-departmental public body attached to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 3.2 Arts Council England's mission is 'Great art and culture for everyone'. It works hard to achieve this by championing, developing and investing in arts and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives. 3.3 Arts Council England has a ten-year strategic framework, running from 2010-20 - 'Great art and culture for everyone' ## 4. Aim 4.1 This refreshed MoU outlines how both organisations will continue to work together. 4.2 The aim of the refreshed MoU is to ensure that there is a comprehensive cultural offer for the public, which includes the rich diversity of arts, museums, libraries and archives. ## 5. Shared Objectives Through collaboration, Arts Council England and The National Archives will: 5.1 Act strategically and practically across the full range of cultural and heritage sectors to help communities and people across England to benefit from opportunities to engage with culture. 5.2 Develop and enhance the existing connections between the arts, museums, libraries and archives - particularly where opportunities exist to better utilise collections and develop collaborative working. 5.3 Continue to recognise archives as part of the wider cultural landscape, often within the context of a museum or library offer. 5.4 Share research and intelligence to support a richer cultural offer locally. 5.5 Champion and support the development, protection and engagement with the diversity of collections across England for long-term public benefit. 5.6 Work together more effectively in other partnerships and networks. 5.7 Promote better understanding and support for the cultural ecology, as it exists and develops locally. 5.8 Explore shared approaches to sector sustainability, workforce development and resilience. The delivery of these objectives is outlined in an agreed action plan in a separate annex. ## 6. Statement Of Intent 6.1 Arts Council England and The National Archives recognise that they have complementary expertise and overlapping interests. 6.2 Arts Council England and The National Archives will endeavour to cooperate and work together in so far as their separate interests, legal constraints and corporate aims permit. 6.3 They will share knowledge (so far as they are legally permitted to do so), expertise and best practice in relation to matters of mutual interest, and if there is an overlap or mutual interest in a particular area, they will consult as appropriate. 6.4 Both parties are committed to the principle of good communication with each other, especially when one organisation's work may have some bearing on the responsibilities or remit of the other organisation. 6.5 Both Arts Council England and The National Archives will seek to alert each other as soon as is practically possible to relevant developments within their respective sectors. 6.6 The refreshed MoU is to be published on both organisations websites. ## 7. Frequency Of Contact 7.1 Senior members of staff from Arts Council England and The National Archives will meet on an annual basis, to discuss matters of mutual interest and the operation of this MoU. These meetings will be underpinned by regular liaison between their officials on a quarterly basis, or as and when required. 7.2 The organisations will ensure that it is clear who are the appropriate contacts, for particular matters, and that contact details are kept up-todate. 7.3 At the time of writing, the key contacts are: - Dr Valerie Johnson, Director Of Research and Collections, The National Archives - Isobel Hunter, Head of Archives Sector Development, The National Archives - Paul Bristow, Director, Strategic Partnerships, Arts Council England - Scott Furlong, Director, Collections and Cultural Property, Arts Council England ## 8. Frequency Of Review 8.1 This MoU will be reviewed at least every three years and more frequently, if required, by developments in either organisation. 8.2 The MoU is not legally binding. It is a non-contractual agreement between the two organisations. ##

en

3792-pdf

| Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | AAH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD | 853477 | 43943.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | AAH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD | 857291 | 43771.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 833120 | 40839.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 833120 | 71.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 836761 | 25235.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 839769 | 28702.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 839769 | 71.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 851281 | 42690.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 MEDICAL DIRECTOR'S OFFICE | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | ALLOCATE SOFTWARE PLC | 858584 | 38400 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 07/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | ARJOHUNTLEIGH GETINGE GROUP | 851336 | 839412 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | ARJOHUNTLEIGH GETINGE GROUP | 851682 | 115207 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | ATHRODAX HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL LTD | 850036 | 83170.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 853549 | 52440 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 860302 | 52440 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 860303 | 52440 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 851642 | 70800 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 860317 | 73160 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | CONSUMABLES INVENTORY | CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD | 851301 | 44820 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | CONSUMABLES INVENTORY | CAREFUSION UK 306 LTD | 852949 | 39240 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | CARESTREAM HEALTH UK LIMITED | 849417 | 38400 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | AUC PFI BLDG LEASE ADDS PURCH | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 855861 | 386906 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 861482 | 3.62249e+06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | AUC PFI BLDG LEASE ADDS PURCH | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 863051 | 222571 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 854614 | 40097.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 863805 | 30185.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | CSL BEHRING UK LTD | 853048 | 41850 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | IT ADDITIONS | DELL CORPORATION LTD | 859159 | 93387 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 855326 | 82261.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 855326 | 33.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 860109 | 62633.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 860109 | 34.47 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 860110 | 38474.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 862201 | -38474.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 863477 | 39735.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 863833 | 87717.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 863833 | 71.36 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 EDMS PROJECT | EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS | EDM GROUP LTD | 861508 | 22542.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ELI LILLY & CO LTD | 858290 | 48000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | ELLIOTT GROUP LTD | 856971 | 201888 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD | 853735 | 149034 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD | 853742 | 94867.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 MICROBIOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | GENMED.ME LIMITED | 844700 | 49167.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | HAAG STREIT UK LTD | 850415 | 194112 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 857688 | 144888 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 860329 | 136242 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 861674 | 130019 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 863903 | 138136 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 855403 | 87154.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 855403 | 7446.73 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | IMS HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED | 856362 | 35534.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | INTEGRATED RADIOLOGICAL SERVICES LTD | 856367 | 56090.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | FM COMPUTER CONTRACTS | KCOM | 864761 | 387175 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | KIRKLEES COUNCIL | 865198 | 50072 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33825 | 25947.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33831 | 46702.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33916 | 45260.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33980 | 446 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33980 | 37457.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 33980 | 2379.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34223 | 446 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34223 | 37457.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34223 | 2379.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34414 | 42625 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI | SENIOR LECTURER | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34558 | 45000 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------|------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/05/2015 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 34883 | -42625 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 852450 | 245847 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 852451 | 150691 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS | PACEMAKERS | MEDTRONIC LTD | 851081 | 79920 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 PACEMAKERS | PACEMAKERS | MEDTRONIC LTD | 851085 | 373980 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 GENERAL OFFICE PGH | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | NEOPOST FINANCE LTD | 865722 | 30000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 34662 | 120257 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 34664 | 40642.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | OTH PROVN UTILISATION >1YR | NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY | 34610 | 29094.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 34918 | 1.57563e+06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 14/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 34919 | 38232 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 852023 | 77474.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 852807 | 212237 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 853667 | 35188.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 853668 | 118528 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 855809 | 109394 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 855810 | 159913 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866756 | 90126.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866756 | 7271.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866758 | 93325.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866758 | 95929 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866759 | 17091.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866759 | 28540.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866760 | 85167.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 866760 | 9566.34 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34791 | 50593 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34792 | 144425 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34855 | 44055.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34856 | 88816.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34926 | 54622 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34927 | 124681 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34989 | 65616.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 34990 | 167607 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 CSU SUPPORT | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | NHS YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER COMMISSIONING SUPP | 34182 | 47113.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 851426 | 81076.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 856796 | 28854.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 859216 | 83718 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | PHOENIX PARTNERSHIP | 860306 | 38998.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | PMK DESIGN ASSOCIATES | 857824 | 28671 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 A&E PGH & PGI | GENERAL PRACTITIONERS | PRIMECARE | 861094 | 36042.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 853833 | 157167 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 858987 | 133807 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 861923 | 30788.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 CQC | TRAINING EXPENSES | SALFORD ROYAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 34704 | 40000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 GENERAL SURGERY & UPPER GI | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL | 861285 | 27150.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 ORTHOPAEDICS TRUSTWIDE | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | SPIRE METHLEY PARK HOSPITAL | 861286 | 71016.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS | 852751 | 39631.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 LAUNDRY DDH | EXT CONTR LAUNDRY | SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD | 850041 | 41540.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/05/2015 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | PERSONAL INJURY | THOMPSONS SOLICITORS | 35464 | 32000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/05/2015 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | TRUSTMARQUE SOLUTIONS LTD | 859190 | 396542 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 01/05/2015 MYH TELECOMS | DATA LINES | VIRGIN MEDIA BUSINESS | 853584 | 48286.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/05/2015 FACILITIES - HEALTH CENTRES | RENT | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 853647 | 25314.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 865175 | 241570 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/05/2015 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 865176 | 51765 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 861633 | 34541.3 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/05/2015 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 861633 | 450 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/05/2015 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | EDENRED | 40310 | 44407.1 |

en

0172-pdf

## Dcms Business Costs 1 July - 30 September 2012 ## 1 July - 31 September 2012 I) Business Costs DCMS - Jonathan Stephens, Permanent Secretary Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Total Cost DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including £ Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi / Car/ Bus Accommodation / Meals 04/07/12 Reception £251.67 27/07/12 Lunch £55.80 DCMS - Jeremy Beeton, Director General, Government Olympic Executive Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Total Cost DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including £ Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi / Car/ Bus Accommodation / Meals NIL ## Ii) Hospitality Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received DCMS - Jonathan Stephens, Permanent Secretary Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Date 13/07/12 BBC Ticket to First night of Proms 23/07/12 International Olympic Committee Reception & Performance 12/09/12 Royal Shakespeare Company Reception & Performance Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received DCMS - Jeremy Beeton, Director General, Government Olympic Executive Business costs: 1 July - 30 September 2012 Date NIL

en

2829-pdf

## Freight Customer Panel 7 October 2019 The Freight Customer Panel is part of ORR's wider commitment to engage directly with freight customers. The panel provides a structured forum for engagement and helps to ensure our policies and regulatory decisions take into account the commercial environment that freight customers work within. The panel members assist us by contributing views, expressing opinions and advising us on freight issues. This note summarises the main themes and issues discussed at the seventh meeting of the Freight Customer Panel. Freight Customer Panel delegates: Chris Swan (Tarmac), David Turner (WH Malcolm), Maggie Simpson (RFG), Martin Woor (HPUK), Simon Blake (Aggregate Industries), Ian Shaw (VTG Rail) Alex Veitch (FTA). ORR delegates: Esther Sumner, Patrick Talbot, Catherine Williams, Steve Jones, Gordon Herbert. Apologies: Paul Garnham (MSC). The panel focused on the following themes: ## - Health And Safety Update (Patrick Talbot) Patrick provided an update on the ORR Annual Health and Safety Report, Infrastructure maintenance at off-network sites and the Risk Management Maturity Model. Feedback included a discussion over the enforcement of health and safety legislation at offnetwork sites. It was noted a NR led event is being organised for November 2019. ## - Network Rail Route Regulation There was a wide ranging discussion about NR route devolution and associated issues. Also mentioned was the Williams Review. The Scottish rail freight plan was mentioned as a good example. ## - Service Facility Access (Gordon Herbert) Gordon explained that ORR guidance had been revised. Useful feedback was provided on Service Facility Descriptions, track access contracts and there were contributions on performance regimes. ## - Orr Consultations A short discussion on how ORR should engage with the wider rail freight community. ## - Freight Customer Event 2019 The next ORR freight customer event will be in Manchester on 13 November 2019 and suggestions were made about topics to cover including capacity planning. ## - Next Panel It was agreed to hold another Freight Customer Panel by Spring 2020, details to be confirmed. ## Annual Health And Safety Report m Published 16 July 2019- covers 2018-19 health and safety performance m Key Headlines - Britain's railways remain one of the safest in Europe - However... this rate of improvement is slowing - Two worker's tragically lost their lives on Britain's railways ## @ Link Annual Health And Safety Report m Harm on the mainline to passengers rose—seven of the 13 passenger fatalities were at platform-train interface m Underlying SPAD risk has increased since Autumn 2018-—Increase in the number of SPADs given a "potentially severe" ranking | | | | Objects | on | the | line | |----------------|-----------|-----|------------|--------|--------|----------------| | Infrastructure | operation | and | signalling | errors | and | irregularities | | Trespass | | | | | | | ## Industry Challenges m Responding to increased pressure on the system arising from disruption across the network, more trains and ageing assets m@ Managing the effective introduction of new technology while taking human interactions into account @ Supporting our people who are often the last line of defence in preventing a major failure ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites m 2019-20 Inspection programme @ Aims - Toensure adequate track inspection and maintenance procedures are in place on 3rd party rail infrastructure where derailment could impinge upon network rail infrastructure. m Scope - Limited to sites where ORR has vires (predominantly intermodal terminals) - Focus is on sites in the West Midlands and North West ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites M Objectives - Determine if the third party duty holder has in place ¢ Adequate track maintenance and inspection regimes, including the frequency and type of inspections. * Aprocess to review, assess and address the risk from faults identified through the inspection regime Decision making processes in place for track renewals, specifically when track renewals are deferred. * Arrangements to ensure the competence of the staff responsible for overseeing track inspection and maintenance. - Take relevant action with the duty holder to correct any deficiencies in their arrangements. ## Infrastructure Maintenance At Off- Network Sites M@ Inspections Currently Underway M Emerging Issues - Inspections tend to be based around basic visual inspection regime- is this sufficient for S&C? - Important for duty holders to clarify responsibilities where different organisations manage, inspect and maintain track assets - When faults are identified, duty holders need to ensure that they are acted upon and addressed- limited evidence of risk assessment being used @ ORR Long- term objective that duty holders demonstrate excellence in health and safety risk control @ But... - What is excellence? - How do duty holders demonstrate it? m The Risk Management Maturity Model m Everything informs management system picture. m@ Management Maturity Model makes sense of all the information. m@ Model is based on known good practice: - 5 stage development of maturity ("capability") - 26 elements of management m@ RM3 adopts the "Plan, Do, Check, Act" framework as well as; - SMS Good Practice - Emerging learning from incident reviews, including; * Texas City Explosion; * Nimrod * Walker Report m@ RM3 is compatible with other management system standards (e.g. ISO) @ RMS divides "Plan. Do, Check, Act" into 26 different components; @ For Example- Criteria SP: Health and Safety Policy, Governance and Leadership - SP1: Leadership - SP2: Health and safety policy (not including written health and safety management systems) - SP3: Board governance - SP4: Written health and safety management system @ Defines what excellence looks like for each criteria ## Risk Management Maturity Model M 5 Stages: Excellent * Proactive/Continual Improvement Predictable * Delivery can be predicted by management system * Variation and change is controlled ## Standardised * Good practice synthesised into standard processes ## Managed * Local groups are managed to ensure repeatable performance BUT * Each work group performs similar tasks differently ## Initial - Ad Hoc * Adhoc and uncoordinated ## Risk Management Maturity Model Aie Management Maturity Model ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, OR value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future | OFFICE OF RAILAND ROAD ## Oom Freight Customer panel Esther Sumner, Catherine Williams, Maggie Simpson Network Rail route regulation ORR protects the interests of rail and road users, improving the safety, OR value and performance of railways and roads today and in the future OFFICE OF RAILAND ROAD ## Neo Emm Freight Customer Panel Gordon Herbert Service facility access ## Service Facility Access @ Context - Railways Act 1993 - Recast package and EC directive - The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 | * | Built | on | 2005 | regime. | |------|-------------|-------|---------|------------| | * | Amended | in | 2019. | | | * | Presumption | of | access. | | | * | Monitoring | of | the | market. | - Implementing Regulation on Service Facilities - Competition law

en

2126-pdf

## 2011 The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) took part in the Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme run by The National Archives (TNA) in May 2011. The assessment covered DECC's offices in London and Aberdeen and the findings and recommendations were presented to DECC in September 2012. The report and DECC's action plan to address the recommendations are being published today. The entire IMA process was extremely helpful to DECC, from identifying and providing evidence prior to the assessment, to discussing initial findings with the team immediately after the assessment, and finally the report and recommendations, including advice on how to act on them. At the time of the assessment DECC was a relatively new department, still developing a long-term vision and strategy for Knowledge and Information Management. It was extremely useful to us to have external validation of the areas which needed to be addressed, as well as identifying other issues for consideration. We were very pleased to see that two areas of best practice were identified, and that we were assessed as good or satisfactory for the majority of areas. However we acknowledge that there is still much to be done, and I'm pleased to say that a number of recommendations have already been addressed. We will continue to work with The National Archives to make progress against the remaining recommendations, as detailed in our action plan. At a more strategic level we will focus on embedding a knowledge sharing culture and the tools and processes to support this; on ensuring that effective information management practices are in place and followed; and addressing the risks of digital continuity. DECC recognises the value that effective knowledge and information management and exploitation provides in delivering operational efficiency, evidence based policy making, and in supporting the Transparency agenda. We are committed to continue to improve KIM in DECC and welcome the support of TNA in doing this. Wendy Barnes

en

1148-pdf

## During the month of November 2013, the following exceptions to the recruitment and consultancy freeze have been considered by the Chief Executive, in his capacity as Accounting Officer: Decision Approval date Ref: No. & directorate Summary of application Consultancy/ recruitment Recruitment Approved 26/11/2013 326 RME Exemption to Recruitment - Director, Railway Markets and Economics Consultancy Approved 27/11/2013 321 RPP Origin destination matrix 2013-14 to 2016-17, £160,000 Requests for consultancy valued at <£20,000 considered by the Director of Corporate Operations: Consultancy Approved 07/11/2013 316 Legal Scottish legal advice in relation to PR13 implementation, £2,000 12/11/2013 319 Legal Competition Case Advice, £3,000 Consultancy Approved Consultancy Approved 26/11/2013 322 RME Scarcity charging - indicative numerical analysis,

en

2984-pdf

## Guide To Template Agreements For Undertaking Railway Projects Introduction This guide is intended to assist all parties interested in taking forward projects which will enhance the railway network, consistent with the Office of Rail and Road's (ORR) Policy Framework for Investments. The ORR is the rail industry regulator and as such determines Network Rail's funding framework and the rules governing such funding. We, Network Rail have established a suite of Template Agreements, approved by the ORR, for the delivery of enhancements funded by third parties. The purpose of this guide is to: 1. Summarise project governance principles; 2. Summarise risk allocation principles built into the Template Agreements; 3. Describe the individual Template Agreements in general terms, and help explain how to choose which form of Template Agreement to use for the appropriate contractual framework; 4. Set out how railway environment specific risks are managed; 5. Describe service level obligations so that customers know what to expect from us; Note that parties who enter into contracts with us are referred to in the Template Agreements and in this document as "Customers". 1. Project Governance Project governance is central to any agreement. To avoid ambiguity or conflict, and to facilitate efficient delivery, the Template Agreements set out: a. Roles and Responsibilities The roles, responsibilities and obligations of the parties should be agreed. This enables the risks inherent in the agreement to be allocated to the party best qualified to manage them. b. Project Requirements (Scope / Cost / Time) Our joint requirements for the project need to be clearly articulated and understood by both parties. Any specific emphasis placed on these project requirements is suitably defined and recorded in the agreement. The parties' combined requirements will dictate what services we will provide, and the level of resources required to meet the project timescales. ## c. Monitoring The Template Agreements allow monitoring mechanisms to be put in place to check that the parties fulfil their obligations. Understanding how the project is progressing against the project requirements, and any issues arising affecting your business case or other objectives (such as risks to cost, programme or scope), are critical and are managed through the meeting and reporting requirements. d. Controls The Template Agreements allow control mechanisms to be put in place to check that the parties fulfil their obligations. Whilst we are the infrastructure manager and asset owner, the business case for the project rests with you. Therefore, decisions which could have a material impact on the business case and/or the project's outputs, or outcomes need to be agreed by us both. Procedures are set out to manage changes and variations effectively and fairly. e. Risk Allocation We should both have a clear and common understanding of the risks inherent in the project. The Template Agreements provide the framework for allocating risks to the parties, and the incentive framework for managing and funding such risk allocation. They provide means for redress, where appropriate, if a party fails to fulfil its obligations. Further information on risk is contained in Section 2 (Risk Allocation Principles) and Section 4 (Managing Railway Environment Risks) below. The Template Agreements provide for caps on both parties' level of liabilities. ## 2. Risk Allocation Principles The following high-level principles have been used to underpin and determine the financial allocation of risk within the Template Agreements: - We are not funded to assume liabilities arising from risks related to enhancement projects. The ORR therefore approved the establishment of Risk Funds to enable us to assume liability for our breach or negligence (within Network Rail's liability cap) and "industry risks", i.e. those specific to the railway1. You pay fees, approved by the ORR, proportionate to the project cost to us which contribute to the Risk Funds, namely the Network Rail Fee Fund and Industry Risk Fund. This enables us to fund your liabilities under the Template Agreements (see Section 4 and Appendix A below for further details); - You fund the direct incremental costs of the scheme, including non-Rail Industry Risk, generally on an emerging cost basis, but a fixed price (subject to any agreed assumptions) arrangement may be considered when concluding an Implementation Agreement; - Where you are responsible for delivery, an Asset Protection Agreement is used and you should transfer design construction risks to your Contractors, or manage those risks yourself where you cannot transfer them; - Where we are delivering under a Development Services Agreement or an Implementation Agreement, we will assume any risks in the contracts with our own Contractors; - Your liability for breach and negligence is capped at an appropriate level; - Our liability for contractual breach and negligence is capped at the level of the value of the Works and/or Services being provided - Liability for death, personal injury and fraud is uncapped for us both, in accordance with the law; - We are entitled to charge: o Costs reasonably and properly incurred by us (or a fixed amount if an Implementation Agreement (Fixed Price) is used subject to any agreed assumptions); o A Network Rail Fee to contribute towards funding normal contractual liabilities; o An Industry Risk Fee to contribute towards funding generic rail industry risks; and o Additional Expense to be incurred in connection with incremental maintenance and operational costs, etc. arising from the project in excess of £50,000 per annum; - Liquidated Damages, we will seek to agree an acceptable and deliverable programme with you and have resources and processes in place to manage this programme. However, slippage may still occur, with potential "knock-on" losses to you. Where you can demonstrate at the time the agreement is being negotiated that a genuine loss would result from a delay caused by us. We may agree to include liquidated damages in the agreement. These would reflect a pre-estimate of your loss, agreed by the us both acting reasonably and stated in the Agreement. In the event of a delay to the programme caused by us, then we would pay the agreed amount of liquidated damages to you. Then we would also agree the date from which liquidated damages would be payable and this would normally reflect the date at which you start to incur the loss. - Relief Events - These are events where you are entitled to relief from costs and liabilities as the risks involved are outside your control. These are risks specific to the rail industry and include operational emergencies and safety critical events as well as changes in law specific to the Railway, directions of competent authorities such as the ORR, cancelled possessions and changes in our Network Licence requirements which affect your project. (See Section 4 for more information). ## 3. Template Agreements & Explanatory Notes A brief summary of the purpose of each of the Template Agreements is given below. These Template Agreements set out the obligations of us both in respect of the services provided, and/or works to be delivered, and reflect the principles in the "Investment Framework Consolidated Policy and Guidelines" published by the ORR in October 2010. The ORR has approved these templates and expects us both to use them when engaging in enhancement schemes. These templates are designed for projects generally with a total cost of circa £50 million or less. We have provided detailed explanatory notes for each agreement along with the Template Agreements, these can be found under Downloads for Third Parties on our website. The rationale for this is to explain the purpose of and link the project governance principles to each clause so that their intent can be more clearly understood by you. These explanatory notes are designed for you to use at the beginning of the process, when we may not have yet appointed a representative (usually a "Sponsor") to your project. It is not possible to cater for every question or possible situation. However, once appointed, the Sponsor will be able to assist you with any questions relating to your project. There are 8 templates covering the main types of enhancement projects. These are summarised in the notes below, and a simplified diagram to help you understand the Template Agreement structure and identify the appropriate agreement for the type and stage2 of a project are shown in Appendix B. Network Rail delivering services: i. Basic Services Agreement (BSA) usually less than £5m This is a simple agreement aimed at quickly putting in place a contractual relationship following an initial approach from you, to cover pre-feasibility works to scope the scheme and develop the business case. Typically, up to the value of £5 million, the tasks it covers can include the provision of asset information to you, attendance at meetings and workshops, and where appropriate for small schemes, review of any initial scoping work undertaken by you. The agreement also permits, within constraints, you or your representative to undertake visual inspection of the network. It will generally be used during GRIP Stages 1-2 but could be used to the end of GRIP Stage 3. ii. Development Services Agreement (DSA) This agreement covers development and design work undertaken by us on your behalf, potentially including detailed design. The agreement also permits you, or your representative, to undertake surveys and investigations of the network where there is a mix of Network Rail and Contractors providing services for more complex schemes. Such actions would be subject to our usual access requirements and processes. The DSA covers GRIP Stages 1-4 inclusive with the potential to cover GRIP Stage 5, recognising that it can be put in place after GRIP 2 or 3 where a BSA has already been used for the early development stages. Network Rail implementing works for low risk projects: iii. Basic Implementation Agreement (BIA), Emerging Cost (EC) A simple emerging cost agreement for minor, straightforward, low risk works up to a typical value of £5 million, where we act as the Construction Manager, on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. The agreement usually covers GRIP Stages 5-8 inclusive, but the starting stage may be flexible. iv. Basic Implementation Agreement (BIA), Fixed Price (FP) This is a simple agreement for minor straightforward low risk works up to a typical value of £5 million, where we act as the Construction Manager, on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. It envisages that our Works Contractor will have provided a tendered fixed price based on the scope and timescales agreed between us both. You pay a fixed price subject to any reasonable assumptions and exclusions. Usually covering GRIP Stages 6-8 inclusive but, it can provide for detailed design of the Customer-funded scheme from GRIP Stage 5, if we can reasonably provide a fixed price based on information available. This would generally be restricted to projects where we are able to agree a fixed price with our Contractor for detailed design and implementation. Customer designing and/or delivering the Works: v. Basic Asset Protection Agreement (BAPA) A simple agreement for straightforward, low risk Customer-led work on the controlled railway infrastructure, where we facilitate your project through asset protection. The works should present low risks to the network, and so may, for example, take place on secondary routes, with few or no possessions required. Our services will include attendance at meetings, oversight of interfaces on the network and, where they are necessary, booking possessions. The agreement can cover up to GRIP Stage 8 but may require variations as the project progresses and the scope is developed through the various GRIP stages. This agreement includes service level obligations so that you can hold us to account. By having service levels in place, when undertaking projects on the railway you know what to expect from us and when to expect it by. More details can be found in Appendix B vi. Asset Protection Agreement (APA) An agreement for Customer-led works on the controlled railway infrastructure, where we facilitate your enhancement scheme through asset protection and managing interfaces with our operating, maintenance and renewal obligations. You pay the costs of our services that include engineering safety management approvals, provision of asset information, booking of possessions, applying for consents, as well as attendance at meetings and oversight of interfaces on the network or with other projects. The agreement typically covers up to GRIP Stage 8 but may require variations as the project progresses and the scope is developed through the various GRIP stages. This agreement also includes service level obligations, as detailed in the previous paragraph. Network Rail implementing works: vii. Implementation Agreement (IA), Emerging Cost This is an emerging cost agreement with us acting as a Construction Manager. It is designed for use on larger projects, typically with a value in excess of £5 million, or where the project is especially complex. It establishes the commercial terms for enhancement work on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. It allows for detailed design and implementation of the Customer-funded scheme, with the contracting strategy agreed by the parties. The agreement covers GRIP Stages 5-8 inclusive, but the starting stage may be flexible. viii. Implementation Agreement (IA), Fixed Price (FP) below £10m This agreement is intended to cover implementation of works up to a value of £10 million. It envisages that our Works Contractor will have provided a tendered fixed price based on the scope and timescales agreed by us both. It establishes the commercial terms for enhancement work on or about the controlled railway infrastructure. You pay a fixed price subject to any reasonable assumptions and exclusions. It can provide for detailed design and implementation of the Customer-funded scheme, usually covering GRIP Stages 6-8 inclusive, but, it can provide for detailed design of the Customer-funded scheme from GRIP Stage 5, if we can reasonably provide a fixed price based on information available. This would generally be restricted to projects where we are able to agree a fixed price with our Works Contractor for detailed design and implementation. 4. Managing Railway Environment Risks We want to actively encourage third-party investment in Britain's railways and to remove barriers to you in doing so. We are not funded by government to take on liabilities in relation to third-party funded enhancement projects, but to ask funders to accept uncapped liabilities in relation to thirdparty enhancements would be a significant barrier to investment. The Template Agreements described above frame the balance of risk and responsibility between us both with our liabilities funded by the Risk Funds described above. The key benefit of the Risk Funds is to provide a dedicated pooled funding source for certain events within liability caps approved by the ORR. In return you make a proportionate contribution towards the Risk Funds in the form of fees as part of each enhancement project. These are paid as part of the first invoice and are non-refundable. For each investment proposal we will provide you with a breakdown which sets out the level of the fees and liability caps and how they are calculated. The ORR expects us to regularly monitor the operation of the Risk Fund mechanism. Incoming funds (your contributions) are tracked against the outgoing funds (substantiated claims) and reported to the ORR at least once a year. We also regularly review with the ORR the risk profile and contribution levels to make sure they remain in balance and offer value for money for you. ## I. Network Rail Fee (Nrf) The NRF funds our potential contractual liabilities to you in respect of qualifying events under our direct control. All NRFs are pooled to meet substantiated claims for contractual breach and negligence by us. ## Ii. Industry Risk Fee (Irf) The IRF funds our potential contractual liabilities to you in respect of qualifying events outside our direct control. Typically, these are the low-probability, high-impact risks specific to rail industry conditions that would not normally occur in a high street environment. All IRFs are pooled to meet substantiated claims for industry risk events. The IRF covers two broad categories of risk for you: 1. Risks which are typically regarded as 'employer' or 'government' risks (for example, mandatory changes resulting from a change in the law peculiar to the rail industry, or changes to railway safety standards); and 2. Risks relating to events arising elsewhere on the network which have an impact on the project which results in disruption to the works (for example, a disruption caused by a safety critical event. We would be liable for costs and losses arising from such risks, where the amounts are more than £10,0003, and would be funded from the Industry Risk Fund. ## Iii. Relief Events The Contractor, whether they are appointed by us or by you, will be reimbursed for the increased costs (excluding indirect costs) reasonably and properly incurred as a result of a Relief Event which causes delay or disruption to a project. The categories of Relief Event are: - Network operation issues; - Cancellation and alteration of possessions due to events outside the control of us or you; and - The impact of interfacing projects. All parties, including the Contractor, have the usual duty to mitigate such costs or losses, but Network Rail will be liable for them and will recover any amounts incurred from the Industry Risk Fund. This assumes in each case that neither of us, you or the Contractor is at fault. The ORR required this to avoid a "claims culture". ## Iv. Mandatory Variations After approval of the works at GRIP Stage 4, if the works need to be varied as a result of any change in law or legal requirement expressly applying to the railway industry or the railway works, or as a result of changes to railway safety standards, such costs would fall to us to recover any costs or losses from the Industry Risk Fund. ## V. Network, Station Or Depot Change You will need to pay for industry compensation costs associated with any network, station or depot change, or any closure processes. This cost can be uncertain, and an estimate of the value may be made, and a cap agreed. If so, your liability for costs above this limit would be treated as an industry risk. ## Vi. Land And Noise Claims These are claims made against us under common law or pursuant to the Land Compensation Act 1973 or any other relevant regulations which relate to the operation or existence of any works which become a Network Rail asset. These claims are in respect of nuisance and the diminution of property values due to the implementation of the scheme. Whilst this is a Customer risk, where an estimate of the value has been made and a cap agreed, liability for costs above this limit would be treated as an industry risk. However, it should be noted that land and noise claims made during delivery of the works would not be covered under these provisions as these would have been addressed during any planning consent process and/or the licence to deliver the works. ## Vii. Bankruptcy/Insolvency Of The Customer Irrespective of the diligence applied to assess your creditworthiness and steps taken to obtain surety in the form of guarantees or bonds, there is always a possibility of insolvency or bankruptcy. In this event, particularly where the scheme is under way, the cost of termination or completion may require some additional funding. Given that the you would be unable to pay such costs in full, and that such funding was not part of the original cost forecast, the funding shortfall would be funded through the Industry Risk Fund. ## Viii. How The Funds Are Accessed The Risk Funds were established to cover the costs of any variations or events for which Network Rail is liable. Should you have a claim, you should lodge it against us and not against the Risk Funds themselves. If a claim is substantiated as valid, and you have incurred costs or losses, it will be reimbursed by us, we will then seek compensation internally from the Risk Funds. If your claim is substantiated as valid, but it relates to an amount invoiced by us and therefore not paid, we will seek compensation internally for the non-payment from the Risk Funds. ## Diagram: Risk Funds Claim Process 5. Service Level Obligations Our Service Level Obligations Summarised Below Apply Where You Are Promoting And Funding A Project And We Are Carrying Out Asset Protection Activities. The Service Level Obligations Reflect What You Can Expect From Us When Entering Into Either A Basic Asset Protection Agreement Or An Asset Protection Agreement. We Monitor Our Performance Against These Service Levels By Regularly Asking You To Complete An Online Survey And Publishing The Results On The Network Rail Website. The Service Level Obligations Are A Contractual Commitment That Require A Strong And Ongoing Dialogue With You From The Inception Of A Project To Handover And Completion. Measure of success Our commitment Service level Response to initial contact Within five working days of initial contact Respond to initial contact in writing within five working days with a relevant contact to support the work Secondary contact date Within 15 working days of initial contact Secondary contact within 15 working days of initial contact. We will engage with you to commence exploration of your requirements at an appropriate level of expertise Design submission date ASPRO response Within 25 working days of receipt Return any design data identified as being on the critical path within 25 working days of receipt ASPRO final response to programme received Within 10 working days of receipt of implementation programme or information Review implementation programme and provide comments to you Date ASPRO informed customer of possession(s) Within 20 working days of completion of consultation on proposed possession plan Confirm in writing that the relevant possessions have been obtained or not, together with details within 20 working days of completion of consultation on proposed possession plan ## Network Rail Fee And Industry Risk Fee | Type of agreement | |-----------------------------------------| | Basic Services | | Agreement (BSA) | | Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs and personnel costs, | | as estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Development | | services agreement | | Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs and personnel costs, | | as estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Basic | | implementation | | agreement | | (emerging cost) | | Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs and personnel costs, | | as estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Implementation | | agreement | | (emerging cost) | | Fee is equal to 5% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs and personnel costs, | | as estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Basic | | implementation | | agreement (fixed | | price) | | Fee is equal to 13% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs, personnel costs and | | QRA (risk assessment for any variation | | undertaken at a P50 probability in | | respect of the risks owned by Network | | Rail or capped to the customer), as | | estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Implementation | | agreement (fixed | | price) | | Fee is equal to 13% of the aggregate of | | the agency costs, consultants' and | | contractors' costs, personnel costs and | | QRA (risk assessment for any variation | | undertaken at a P50 probability in | | respect of the risks owned by Network | | Rail or capped to the customer), as | | estimated at the scheme | | commencement date. | | Asset protection | | agreement | | (including basic) | | Fee is equal to 10% of the aggregate | | agency costs, contractors' costs and | | personnel costs, as estimated at the | | scheme commencement date. | Not Applicable Fee is equal to 2% of the project cost, which is the estimated total cost of the project up to the completion of the current stage of development contracted for. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultant's and contractors' costs and personnel costs. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultant's and contractors' costs and personnel costs. Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultants' and contractors' costs, personnel costs and QRA (risk assessment for any variation undertaken at a P50 probability in respect of the risks owned by Network Rail or capped to the customer). Fee is equal to 2% of the aggregate of the agency costs, consultants' and contractors' costs, personnel costs and QRA (risk assessment for any variation undertaken at a P50 probability in respect of the risks owned by Network Rail or capped to the customer). Fee is 2% of the total estimated costs of the project up to its completion, including construction costs, contractors' costs, regulated change costs and Network Rail costs.

en

1040-pdf

# Annual Rail Consumer Report Findings By Train Company 2019-2020 ## Contents | Guidance | 1 | |------------------------------|-----| | Avanti West Coast | 4 | | c2c | 7 | | Caledonian Sleeper | 10 | | Chiltern Railways | 13 | | CrossCountry | 16 | | East Midlands Railway | 19 | | Govia Thameslink Railway | 22 | | Grand Central | 25 | | Great Western Railway | 28 | | Greater Anglia | 31 | | Heathrow Express | 34 | | Hull Trains | 37 | | London North Eastern Railway | 40 | | London Overground | 43 | | Merseyrail | 46 | | Northern Trains | 49 | | ScotRail | 52 | | South Western Railway | 55 | | Southeastern | 58 | | TfL Rail | 61 | | TfW Rail | 64 | | Transpennine Express | 67 | | West Midlands Trains | 70 | ## Key Facts Owner group: This is the parent company which owns the train operating company. Operator: Train operating company. Franchise: Name of the franchise the train operating company operates. Franchise period: Period of time for which the train operating company has been contracted to run the franchise. Sector: Long distance, Regional, London and South East and Scotland. Operated stations 2019-20: Number of stations the train company operates. Employees 2019-20: Number of employees the train operating company has. Passenger journeys 2019-20: Number of annual passenger journeys on the train operating company. ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information provided to passengers when delays occur, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Passenger satisfaction with the information provided to passengers during the journey, available at both train operating company and a national level. The data is sourced from Transport Focus twice yearly National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS). Data is included from Spring 2015 to Autumn 2019. Autumn 2019 data was published on 28 January 2020. The side arrows indicate the percentage point change from Autumn 2018 to Autumn 2019. ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes The number of assists booked by passengers through the National Passenger Assistance Booking System, known as Passenger Assist, managed by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). Please note, the data does not include unbooked assistance, often called 'Turn Up and Go'. The number of booked assistance requests are shown for each company that manages a station, and therefore not necessarily against the train company which the passenger travels with. For example, if a passenger books assistance at Darlington station to board a CrossCountry train, the assist will be recorded against the station operator, which in this case would be LNER. This is why we do not have any data for those train companies who do not manage any stations. Source: Rail Delivery Group (RDG) Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 ## Passenger Experience Of Booked Assistance In 2019-20 Passenger experience of booked assistance throughout 2019-20. Based on research by Breaking Blue (commissioned by ORR) consisting of interviews with 4,079 Passenger Assist users in 2019-20. This research is a repeat of the 2018-19 study which means the results are directly comparable. The graphs are based on the following survey questions: 1) Passenger outcome for assistance that was booked: Question D5 - did you actually receive the following assistance? 2) Satisfaction with assistance at the station: Question D7 - how satisfied were you with the overall assistance at the station? 3). Satisfaction with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station: Question D17a - how satisfied were you with the helpfulness and attitude of staff who provided assistance at the station? 4) Overall satisfaction with the whole process from booking assistance to assistance received: Question D21 - how satisfied are you with the whole process from booking the assistance to the assistance received. The sample size is shown due to varying sample sizes between operators. Operators with a sample size below 70 are not shown due to issues with the robustness of the data. Data not available for those operators who do not operate any stations, a note will indicate where this is the case. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 This box shows the volume of claims received for redress due to booked assistance failure in 2019-20, and the percentage of claims approved by the train operator. The graph shows this by 'rail period' where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies ## Guidance On Interpreting The Data Alternative Accessible Transport The number of instances where the train company provided Alternative Accessible Transport (AAT) in 2019- 20. All operators must provide free alternative transport to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances, including: - When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; - When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or - When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers. The volume of AAT a train company provides can be influenced by a number of factors which means volumes can often vary significantly from year to year. Source: Train Operating Companies Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of accessibility complaints for the train operator in 2019-20. The table also shows the proportion (as a percentage) of accessibility complaints each of these issues accounted for. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Guidance On Interpreting The Data Complaints rate (per 100,000 journeys) in 2019-20 by quarter Complaints responded to within 20 working days in 2019-20 by quarter The percentage of complaints which are answered by the train operator within 20 working days. Our regulatory requirement is to close 95% of complaints within 20 working days. The volume of complaint correspondence closed per 100,000 journeys. Complaints are normalised by passenger journeys to allow effective comparison of data between time periods and train operating companies. Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019- 20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods. Results are provided for the four quarters in 2019- 20 which refer to 3-monthly time periods. Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) Data tables: Complaints rate by train operating company - Table 14.9 PP = percentage point change Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints responded to within 10 and 20 working days by TOC - Table 14.2 Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 The data in this box shows the top five causes of complaints for the train operator in 2019- 20. The table also shows what proportion of complaints each of the top five complaints issues accounted for and the percentage point change for each complaint category versus 2018-19. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints rate by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Passenger Satisfaction With Complaint Handling 2019-20 Satisfaction with complaints handling process The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the complaints handling process. This data is generated from our complaint handling satisfaction survey administered by Critical Research on behalf of ORR. The 2019-20 survey wave generated just over 54,000 passenger responses. The number of responses per train company is also provided. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Passenger satisfaction with complaints handling - Table 14.18 Satisfaction with outcome of complaint The proportion of passengers who were satisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint. ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 The left-hand side of this box displays the volume of delay compensation claims closed by the train operator in 2019-20. The graph shows this by 'rail period' where a rail period is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. The top-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which were approved by the train operator. The bottom-right hand side of this box displays the proportion of delay compensation claims closed which have been answered by the train operator within 20 working days. ## Key Facts Avanti West Coast | Operated stations 2019-20: | 16 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 3,383 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited Operator: Avanti West Coast Franchise: InterCity West Coast Franchise period: December 2019 - 2031 Sector: Long distance Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Avanti West Coast received 98,913 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=855) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Avanti West Coast received 386 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 40.4% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Avanti West Coast Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 39% TOC accessibility policy 10% Assistance booking process 9% The ease of being able to get on and off 6% Booked assistance not provided on train 6% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Avanti West Coast closed 584,426 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 35% higher than the previous year. Avanti West Coast switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P10. ## Avanti West Coast Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts | Operated stations 2019-20: | 25 | |---------------------------------|------| | Employees 2019-20: | 643 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Trenitalia Operator: c2c Franchise: Essex Thameside Franchise period: 9 November 2014 - 10 November 2029 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes c2c received 822 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Overall 0.7% (n=110) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 c2c received 28 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 21.4% were approved. Unable to hear announcements at station/on train 11% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 5% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 31% Booked assistance not provided at station 17% Booked assistance not provided on train 8% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 c2c closed 20,097 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 55% lower than the previous year. c2c operate the Delay Repay 15 compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Caledonian Sleeper | Operated stations 2019-20: | 0 | |---------------------------------|-----| | Employees 2019-20: | 195 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Serco Operator: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise: Caledonian Sleeper Franchise period: 31 March 2015 - 31 March 2030 Sector: Scotland Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. ## Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Note: Caledonian Sleeper does not participate in the National Rail Passenger Survey. Instead, Transport Focus carry out an individual survey for Caledonian Sleeper. The latest data will be published on the Transport Focus website. A link to the June 2017 results have been provided at the bottom of this page. PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Caledonian Sleeper passenger satisfaction Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 for Caledonian Sleeper as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=18) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. assistance failure in 2019-20 Caledonian Sleeper received 2 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. [No other accessibility categories reported] - [No other accessibility categories reported] - Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Caledonian Sleeper Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 94% Disabled parking 6% in 2019-2020. This is 81% higher than the previous year. ## Caledonian Sleeper complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Chiltern Railways | Operated stations 2019-20: | 35 | |---------------------------------|------| | Employees 2019-20: | 850 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Chiltern Railways Franchise: Chiltern Railways Franchise period: 21 July 1996 - 11 December 2021 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Chiltern Railways received 16,926 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Chiltern Railways received 39 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 84.6% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Chiltern Railways Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 26% Other accessibility 17% Assistance booking process 16% Assistance staff 10% 8% Chiltern Railways closed 24,561 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 17% higher than the previous year. ## Chiltern Railways complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Crosscountry | Operated stations 2019-20: | 0 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 1,978 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: CrossCountry Franchise: New CrossCountry Franchise period: September 2016 - October 2020 Sector: Long distance Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for CrossCountry as they do not manage any stations. Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=215) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 CrossCountry received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Unbooked assistance not provided at station 9% Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Crosscountry Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 23% Assistance booking process 17% Disabled toilets at station/on train 11% Assistance staff 9% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 in 2019-2020. This is 20% higher than the previous year. CrossCountry operate the Delay Repay 30 compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Crosscountry Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts East Midlands Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 90 Employees 2019-20: 2,441 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 25.4 million % change compared to last year: -5.0 Owner group: Stagecoach Operator: East Midlands Trains Franchise: East Midlands Franchise period: August 2019 - August 2027 Sector: Long distance / Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes East Midlands Railway received 62,945 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 2.7% (n=427) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 East Midlands Railway received 114 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 46.5% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 5% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## East Midlands Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 46% Other accessibility 27% Assistance booking process 7% Booked assistance not provided on train 4% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 | East Midlands Railway Sample Size: 1,394 Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 East Midlands Railway closed 175,939 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 156% higher than the previous year. ## East Midlands Railway complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Govia Thameslink Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 235 Employees 2019-20: 7,427 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 348.9 million % change compared to last year: +2.2 Owner group: Govia Operator: Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Franchise: Southern / Thameslink / Great Northern / Gatwick Express Franchise period: 14 September 2014 - 01 September 2021 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 15.8 PP Southern 100% Thameslink National 51% 7.0 PP 75% 49% 50% 6.3 PP 48% 8.3 PP 45% 39% A | A | |--------| | 6.7 PP | 2016 2017 2019 Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 18.3 PP Southern Thameslink National 100% 3.7 PP 75% 57% 41% 6.1 PP 38% 10.1 PP 39% 7.3 PP Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey Change on last year Gatwick Express Great Northern 0.7 PP 83% Southern 100% Thameslink National 21.7 PP 75% 77% 77% 76% -1.1 PP 76% 4.5 PP PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Govia Thameslink Railway received 52,307 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.3% (n=651) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Govia Thameslink Railway received 230 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 57.4% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 14% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 9% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Govia Thameslink Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking experiences of Passenger Assists % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 34% Other accessibility 11% Assistance staff 10% This is 27% lower than the previous year. ## Govia Thameslink Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Grand Central Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Grand Central Track access agreement: 18 December 2007 - 01 December 2026 Sector: Long distance | Operated stations 2019-20: | 0 | |---------------------------------|-----| | Employees 2019-20: | 222 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes received in each rail period is available for each is therefore not available for Grand Central because they do not manage any stations. Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Passenger experience of booked assistance in 2019-20 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Grand Central as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.8% (n=21) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Grand Central received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Grand Central Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Assistance booking process 43% Assistance staff 14% Booked assistance not provided at station 14% Booked assistance not provided on train 14% The ease of being able to get on and off 10% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Grand Central operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Grand Central Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Great Western Railway Operated stations 2019-20: 197 Employees 2019-20: 6,452 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 97 million % change compared to last year: -3.0 Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Great Western Railway Franchise: Greater Western Franchise period: March 2015 - March 2023 Sector: Long distance / London and South East /Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Great Western Railway received 154,195 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 12.6% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.4% (n=919) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Great Western Railway received 382 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 24.6% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 4% ## P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Great Western Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking experiences of Passenger Assists Complaint type % of accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 47% The ease of being able to get on and off 34% Assistance booking process 10% TOC accessibility policy 3% Great Western Railway closed 381,130 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 135% higher than the previous year. ## Great Western Railway Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Greater Anglia | Operated stations 2019-20: | 133 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 2,913 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui Operator: Abellio Franchise: East Anglia Franchise period: 16 October 2016 - 11 October 2025 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Greater Anglia received 36,766 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=366) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Greater Anglia received 96 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 85.4% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 7% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Greater Anglia Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 23% Assistance booking process 20% Assistance staff 17% Booked assistance not provided on train 7% Greater Anglia closed 593,721 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 39% higher than the previous year. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Greater Anglia Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Heathrow Express | Operated stations 2019-20: | 3 | |---------------------------------|-----| | Employees 2019-20: | 188 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Heathrow Airport Holdings Operator: Heathrow Express Operation start date: 28 June 1998 Sector: Provides an airport rail link between London Heathrow Airport and Paddington Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Heathrow Express received 430 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for less than 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. Heathrow Express did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Heathrow Express received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Heathrow Express Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - Heathrow Express operate a delay compensation scheme of Delays of 15+ mins. | Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Heathrow Express Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Hull Trains Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: Hull Trains Track access agreement end date: December 2029 Sector: Long distance | Operated stations 2019-20: | 0 | |---------------------------------|-----| | Employees 2019-20: | 129 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release ## Provision Of Information To Passengers Passenger Satisfaction With The Usefulness Of Information When Delays Occur Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger Satisfaction With Provision Of Information During The Journey Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey ## Accessibility And Inclusion Booked Assistance Volumes Data on the volume of booked assistance Note: This excludes un-booked assistance. A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 Data on passenger satisfaction with booked assistance is not available for Hull Trains as they do not manage any stations. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Overall 0.7% (n=9) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, which was approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Hull Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints 33% | Assistance staff | 22% | |-------------------------------------------------|-------| | Assistance booking process | 11% | | Booked assistance not provided at station | 11% | | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 11% | ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 | Hull Trains Sample Size: 295 Hull Trains Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts London North Eastern Railway | Operated stations 2019-20: | 11 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 3,055 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: DfT OLR Holdings Limited Operator: London North Eastern Railway Franchise: InterCity East Coast Franchise period: 24 June 2018 - * Sector: Long distance *Under the OLR there is currently no set end date to the franchise period Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes London North Eastern Railway received 104,010 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 8.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.9% (n=633) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 London North Eastern Railway received 439 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 30.3% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## London North Eastern Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 52% Assistance staff 12% Other accessibility 11% Assistance booking process 5% Booked assistance not provided on train 5% London North Eastern Railway closed 453,020 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 9% higher than the previous year. ## London North Eastern Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts London Overground Operated stations 2019-20: 81 Employees 2019-20: 1,502 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 186 million % change compared to last year: -1.1 Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Arriva Rail London (ARL) TfL concession: London Overground Concession period: 13 November 2016 - 01 May 2024 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with the usefulness of information when delays occur Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes London Overground received 1,209 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.1% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.4% (n=10) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 100% London Overgound received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. [No other accessibility categories reported] - [No other accessibility categories reported] - Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | |------------------------------------------------|-----| | [No other accessibility categories reported] | - | Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## London Overground Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 London Overground operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## London Overground complaints in 2019-20 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Merseyrail Operated stations 2019-20: 66 Employees 2019-20: 1,168 Passenger journeys 2019-20: 42.6 million % change compared to last year: +1.1 Owner group: Serco / Abellio Operator: Merseyrail Franchise: Merseyrail Franchise period: 20 July 2003 - 22 July 2028 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Merseyrail received 5,043 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Data tables: Rail passenger assists by station operator - Table 16.03 No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 4.0% (n=114) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Merseyrail received 8 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 37.5% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 19% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 11% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Merseyrail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers Note: 2019-20 data includes partial data only. Merseyrail could supply P1- 11 only due to their supplier being closed due the coronavirus pandemic. Source: Train Operating Companies % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Other accessibility 32% Assistance staff 11% Booked assistance not provided at station 10% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Passenger Satisfaction With Complaints Handling 2019-20 | Merseyrail Sample Size: 57 Note: Due to a low sample size, the results for Merseyrail have not been shown within this report. ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Merseyrail operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Merseyrail Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Northern Trains | Operated stations 2019-20: | 477 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 6,351 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Arriva UK Trains Operator: Northern Franchise: Northern Franchise period: 01 April 2016 - 31 March 2025 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Northern Trains received 46,692 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 3.8% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.3% (n=532) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Northern Trains received 128 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Northern Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 20% TOC accessibility policy 17% The ease of being able to get on and off 10% Other accessibility 9% Assistance staff 9% Northern Trains closed 364,689 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 48% higher than the previous year. Northern Trains switched from DR 30 to DR 15 from 2018-19 P10 ## Northern Trains claims within 20 working Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Scotrail | Operated stations 2019-20: | 354 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 5,162 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Abellio Operator: Abellio ScotRail Franchise: ScotRail Franchise period: 1 April 2015 - 21 March 2025 Sector: Scotland Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes ScotRail received 64,011 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 5.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.1% (n=281) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 ScotRail received 290 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 17.2% were approved. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Scotrail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 31% Other accessibility 23% Assistance booking process 14% Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 12% Assistance staff 5% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 2019-2020. This is 18% lower than the previous year. ## Scotrail Top 5 reasons for complaints in 2019-20 claims within 20 working Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts South Western Railway | Operated stations 2019-20: | 184 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 5,308 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: FirstGroup & MTR Operator: South Western Railway Franchise: South Western Franchise period: August 2017 - August 2024 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes South Western Railway received 56,956 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.7% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.1% (n=604) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 South Western Railway received 246 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 45.5% were approved. | Unbooked assistance not provided at station | 6% | |-------------------------------------------------|------| | Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train | 6% | Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## South Western Railway Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 35% Other accessibility 32% Booked assistance not provided on train 6% Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## South Western Railway Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Southeastern | Operated stations 2019-20: | 164 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 4,511 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Govia Operator: Southeastern Franchise: South Eastern Franchise period: 01 April 2006 - 10 November 2019 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes Southeastern received 28,528 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 2.3% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.5% (n=511) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 Southeastern received 94 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. Unbooked assistance not provided at station 8% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Southeastern Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Assistance staff 49% Booked assistance not provided at station 17% Disabled toilets at station/on train 6% Other accessibility 4% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 Southeastern switched from DR30 scheme to DR15 from 2019-20 P6 Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 ## Southeastern Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts | Operated stations 2019-20: | 24 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 1,515 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: MTR Corporation Operator: MTR Crossrail TfL concession: TfL Rail Concession period: 31 May 2015 - 30 May 2023 Sector: London and South East Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate ## Passenger Satisfaction With How Well The Train Company Deals With Delays Passenger satisfaction with provision of information during the journey Note: data not available for all waves due to low response rate PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TfL Rail received 2,023 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 0.2% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. No data is available on this company's performance on the reliability of its booked assistance due to a low sample size, which is a natural effect of having lower than average booking volumes. Source: Research by Breaking Blue Report: Research into passenger experiences of Passenger Assists Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.0% of all complaints were related to accessibility issues. TfL Rail did not report any accessibility complaints in 2019-20. ## Claims For Redress Following Booked Assistance Failure In 2019-20 TfL Rail received zero claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20. Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Tfl Rail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - [No accessibility complaints reported] - ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Complaint type | Satisfaction with complaints handling process | |--------------------------------------------------------| | Note: TfL Rail were unable to supply this information | | in time for publication due to exceptional operational | | constraints caused by the impact of Covid-19. | ## Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 TfL Rail closed 9,713 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 50% higher than the previous year. TfL Rail operate a traditional delay compensation scheme. Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Rail delay compensation claims by TOC - Table 17.01 Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts | Operated stations 2019-20: | 247 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 2,495 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Keolis Amey Ltd Operator: Transport for Wales Rail (TfWR) Franchise: Wales & Borders Franchise period: 13 October 2018 - 13 October 2033 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TfW Rail received 55,492 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4.5% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Overall 1.4% (n=507) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TfW Rail received 181 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 74% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 7% Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Tfw Rail Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers whole process from booking assistance to assistance received (all passengers) TfW Rail results based on a sample of 166 respondents. Please see the full report for detail on the margin of error for each train operator. The report is available here: Research into passenger % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 26% Assistance staff 17% Other accessibility 15% Booked assistance not provided on train 8% ## Complaints Handling And Delay Compensation Delay Compensation Claims In 2019-20 TfW Rail closed 73,421 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 221% higher than the previous year. Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts Transpennine Express | Operated stations 2019-20: | 19 | |--------------------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2018-19 (2019-20 not available): | 1,258 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: FirstGroup Operator: TransPennine Express Franchise: TransPennine Express Franchise period: 01 April 2016 - 21 March 2023 Sector: Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes TransPennine Express received 23,242 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 1.9% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 1.0% (n=224) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 TransPennine Express received 73 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 23.3% were approved. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## Transpennine Express Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers % of Complaint type accessibility complaints Booked assistance not provided at station 34% Assistance booking process 25% The ease of being able to get on and off 19% Booked assistance not provided on train 9% TOC accessibility policy 8% TransPennine Express closed 247,507 delay compensation claims in 2019-2020. This is 57% higher than the previous year. ## Transpennine Express Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. ## Key Facts West Midlands Trains | Operated stations 2019-20: | 149 | |---------------------------------|-------| | Employees 2019-20: | 2,915 | | Passenger journeys 2019-20: | | | % change compared to last year: | | Owner group: Abellio / Mitsui / East Japan Railway Company Operator: West Midlands Trains Franchise: West Midlands Franchise period: 10 December 2017 - 01 April 2026 Sector: London and South East / Regional Source: Train Operating Companies and LENNON (the rail industry's ticketing and revenue database) | Data tables: TOC Key stats Note: Passenger journeys in 2019-20 were impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Please see the passenger rail usage statistical release for more information. Passenger rail usage statistical release Passenger satisfaction with how well the train company deals with delays PP = percentage point change | The NRPS takes places twice a year, in Spring (S) and Autumn (A) Source: Transport Focus, National Rail Passenger Survey Booked assistance volumes West Midlands Trains received 48,809 booked assistance requests in 2019-20. This accounted for 4% of all booked assists made nationally in 2019-20. to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. Top 5 reasons for accessibility complaints in 2019-20 Overall 0.3% (n=100) of complaints received by this operator were related to accessibility issues. Claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20 West Midlands Trains received 9 claims for redress following booked assistance failure in 2019-20, of which 100% were approved. Lack of disabled facilities at station/on train 36% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 Note: This data was collected for the first time in 2019-20 Source: Train Operating Companies Source: Train Operating Companies Data tables: Complaints by NRPS category by TOC - Table 14.5 ## West Midlands Trains Alternative accessible transport All operators must provide free alternative transport (for example an accessible taxi) to take passengers to the nearest or most convenient accessible station in certain circumstances: z When a station is inaccessible to the passenger; z When rail replacement services are running that are not accessible to the passenger (because of planned engineering works for example); or z When there is disruption to services at short notice that, for whatever reason, makes services inaccessible to disabled passengers experiences of Passenger Assists % of Complaint type accessibility complaints The ease of being able to get on and off 26% Wheelchair space on train 14% Disabled toilets at station/on train 9% Disabled parking 7% This is 140% higher than the previous year. ## West Midlands Trains Note: A 'rail period' is normally 28 days, or four weeks, for business reporting purposes (Sunday to Saturday) and there are 13 rail periods in a financial year. For information on types of delay compensation schemes, please follow the data table link. © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk/contact-us

en

2341-pdf

Academic excellence for business and the professions ## The Disproportionality Project: Addressing issues relating to the disproportionately high representation of Islington's and Haringey's BAME young people in the Criminal Justice System An Evaluation Report by the Centre for City Criminology, City, University of London May 2020 Co-funded by the Youth Justice Board and the School of Arts and Social Sciences, City, University of London. # The Disproportionality Project: Addressing Issues Relating To The Disproportionately High Representation Of Islington'S And Haringey'S Bame Young People In The Criminal Justice System A Evaluation Report by the Centre for City Criminology, City, University of London Greer, C., Rosbrook-Thompson, J., Armstrong, G. (2020) The Disproportionality Project: Addressing issues relating to the disproportionately high representation of Islington's and Haringey's BAME young people in the Criminal Justice System, Centre for City Criminology: City, University of London. Foreword by Curtis Ashton Acting Director, Youth and Community, London Borough of Islington May 2020 ## Executive Summary This report presents the findings and recommendations from the second partnership project involving Islington Borough Council and criminologists at City, University of London. The first project, Enhancing the work of the Islington Integrated Gangs Team, was published in 2019. This second project involved evaluating a programme designed to tackle key issues and outcomes relating to the disproportionate representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) young people in the Criminal Justice System and beyond. The programme was attended by multiple agencies from two London Boroughs - Islington and Haringey - and sought to strengthen the multi-agency approach to addressing disproportionality. Attendees from Islington included Youth Services, Youth Offending Services and the Integrated Gangs Team. Attendees from Haringey included Youth Justice Service, Early Help and Youth Service. Police and Probation officers also attended sessions. Members of the research team attended all of the practitioner workshops, which took place between August and November 2019. Interviews with a cross-section of the frontline practitioners who attended workshops were conducted at YOS sites in Islington and Haringey, respectively, in late 2019. A number of parents' workshops, which took place at neutral venues, were voice recorded for the purposes of evaluating the project and identifying parents' lived experiences with regard to disproportionality. Finally, young people engaged in the Criminal Justice System were interviewed at YOS sites with a view to capturing their experiences of criminal offending and victimisation, discrimination and disproportionality. The research team evaluated the delivery, outputs and, where possible, outcomes of the Disproportionality Project. The recommendations are listed below. 1. Structure and Approach In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, consider using full-day rather than half-day sessions, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. 2. Dissemination Disseminate this project's key findings regarding the challenges and obstacles faced by young people and parents to relevant staff members, including senior leaders, and beyond. 3. Use of academic research Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 4. Young People's and Parental engagement Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality and consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions moderated by a third party. 5. Being responsive to local factors Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. 6. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/ protocols may increase risk of harm. 7. Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. 8. Replicating an action-orientated training focus Priortise the identification and dissemination of good practice, which can have an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work, in future iterations of the programme. 9. Boosting parental trust and engagement Consider strengthening whole-family working practices and models, including the creation of parenting worker roles where these do not already exist. 10. Increasing accountability for school exclusions Consider identifying and collating longer-term outcomes for excluded BAME young people, and disseminating this information on a school-by-school basis. 11. Police relations with young people Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people. ## Issues For Future Research Future research should: 1. Engage with young people and their families / carers in greater depth to understand better the complex interdependencies of serious youth violence (SYV) and enhance the local multi-agency approach to addressing it. 2. Examine the role of 'county lines' as a contributor to gang affiliation and SYV in Islington and Haringey. 3. Co-produce with Islington, Haringey and community partners an inclusive, sustainable and citizencentric research agenda to address disproportionality and wider inequalities, and contribute value to people's lives. ## Foreword All children and young people in our society are equally important. They need to be valued, nutured and provided with the support that they need to thrive and achieve their fullest potential. However, we know that some cohorts of children and young people are more likely to be disadvantaged and to experience poorer short-term and long-term outcomes. These inequalities, which exist in various areas and systems, have been well-documented for some time. This report explores inequalities in relation to the youth and criminal justice arena and interdependent systems where Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) young people are overrepresented. In Islington and Haringey, this is particularly applicable to Black groups and to Black males in particular. With support from the Youth Justice Board, both Boroughs decided to develop a project which would help to identify, address and tackle the reasons why this disproportionality is so prevalent. One of the main areas where young BAME are over-represented is the secure estate. This is particuarly worrying as outcomes for children who have been sentenced to custody are significantly worsened. At the beginning of the unprecendented pandemic in March 2020, when we were devising arrangements to ensure that we could continue to support our children during 'lockdown', one of my YOS caseworkers mentioned that one of her young people (K) had shared some very frank thoughts about being a young Black man in today's society. His words and feelings, which he has given permission to use here, are so powerful that they say all that needs to be said about the need to tackle disproportionality and discrimination. ## K - My Thoughts Of Being In Custody I feel like I'm another Black male in the system. Also known as a statistic. Being Black and in custody, I feel like my voice is less heard because there are so many Black males in the system, and we're all judged and looked at the same. This is having an impact on my emotional and mental well-being. I feel angry, and then I'm viewed as an angry Black male in the system (statistic). I feel my opinion is disregarded when my charge and colour of skin is taken into consideration. The reason why I believe this is because there are so many Black males of similar backgrounds and of similar charges. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are Black males who are guilty of their crimes. However, this should not have an impact on all Black males because some of us are caught in this unjust system. Thanks to Chris Greer, James Rosbrook-Thompson and Gary Armstrong for producing this report. In Islington, thanks to Angela Wilson, Marcus Miller and Valejia Komar for helping to develop ideas for this project, and to Councillor Kaya Comer Schwartz, Catherine Briody and Karolina Bober. Thanks to Linzi Roberts-Egan and Carmel Littleton for pushing equalities matters. In Haringey, thanks to Matthew Knights for helping coordinate, and to Ann Graham and Councillor Mark Blake. Thanks to Anthony Scott, Rebecca Smith and Donna Murray-Turner from AIM High. Thanks to Liz Westlund, Charlie Taylor, Natasha Richards, Dominic Daley, Harriet Casey, Sarah Brimelow and Colin Allars at the Youth Justice Board. And a huge thank you to K for allowing his YOS caseworker L to write up his thoughts and share them with us for this Foreword. Curtis Ashton, Acting Director, Youth and Community, London Borough of Islington. ## Introduction This evaluation is the second project from an ongoing partnership between Islington Borough Council and criminologists at City, University of London. In late 2017, Criminologists at the Centre for City Criminology invited Islington practitioners, mostly attached to the Integrated Gangs Team (IGT) and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), to the University to discuss existing research on serious youth violence (SYV), the current situation in Islington, and the practices of and challenges faced by the IGT. This initial event resulted in a series of discussions around how City Criminologists might add value to the work of the IGT by conducting a short research project. The resulting report, Enhancing the work of the Islington Integrated Gangs Team, was published in 2019.1 In the summer of 2019, City Criminologists were approached by the same Islington Borough Council partners with an invitation to engage in further partnership working. This second project involved evaluating a programme designed to tackle key issues and outcomes relating to the disproportionate representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) young people in the Criminal Justice System and beyond. Geographically focussed in Islington and Haringey, the programme sought specifically to: …improve awareness and the capacity of staff working with young people in Islington to address the issues around the disproportionately high numbers of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) offenders and the poor outcomes they face in the Criminal Justice System that have been drawn to the attention of successive governments, voluntary and public sector agencies for decades. This will be achieved by training for staff working with young people in Islington and a capacity building and engagement programme to parents and carers in local communities from BAME backgrounds. A set of four service aims were defined accordingly. These were: 1. To provide training around Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities. Training for staff will highlight cultural and community competence, staff conscious and unconscious bias and a return to an understanding of institutional racism and how it impacts on individuals and communities. 2. Setting up an initiative whereby parents from BAME backgrounds have a safe space to discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour and the structural and societal pressures they face. These support forums, 'safe spaces' with no Local Authority Staff present, will be utilised to raise and resolve issues as they experience them. 3. It is hoped the service covered by this specification will help to better support young people and their families from the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which unfortunately, is more prevalent in BAME individuals and families. 4. This intervention ultimately is about strengthening communities who have been marginalized. This intervention will look at disproportionality at a local level. Supporting the community from a cultural approach, where experiences are shared, will strengthen the community. It will also influence Islington and Haringey to shape and improve the services provided, so that young people and their families are supported to (improve outcomes and opportunities so they can) 'live their best life'. The programme was delivered by Anthony Scott, Rebecca Smith and Donna Murray-Turner of the charity AIM High following a formal procurement and commissioning process which was led by Islington Council. Anthony Scott, Project Lead, is a qualified counsellor/psychotherapist with 17 years' experience of face-to-face work with young people, families, communities in both statutory and voluntary services. He has extensive experience of working with young people at risk of offending, serious youth violence, and in the design and delivery of training which is respectful, truthful and challenging. Anthony is also an Assistant Trainer for the Anna Freud Centre's AMBIT programme and an experienced trainer in the Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities parenting programme. Rebecca Smith qualified as a Probation Officer in 2001 and has since worked with adults and more recently young people in the criminal justice system. For the last five years, she has coordinated the Ending Gang & Youth Violence (EGYV) Team for Wandsworth Youth Offending Team. The EGYV Team targets gang-affected young men up to the age of 25. During her career Rebecca has also specialised in developing interventions and training packages. She is currently employed by the Anna Freud Centre as a Lead Trainer in the Ambit approach - a psychologically informed model that supports work with the most complex and hard-to-reach young people and families. Donna Murray-Turner is a qualified social worker who has extensive experience of community engagement. Donna founded Another Night Of Sisterhood (ANOS), a Croydon-based community interest company that specialises in community engagement through creating safe spaces for communities to come together, express their voices and access support. They have a specific focus on supporting marginalised communities to change negative narratives. Donna has recently featured on a number of high-profile campaigns highlighting the importance of community engagement.. ## The Evaluation And Report Structure This report is based on visits to key sites related to the Disproportionality Programme and the lives/ needs of its user groups, observing work, conducting in-depth interviews with identified individuals and/or groups, and reviewing relevant documentation. The semi-structured nature of the interview process created a flexible space from which a range of salient topics emerged. The report contains the following elements: - A review of the relevant literature on disproportionality, including academic studies and landmark policy documents at national and local level. - A brief quantitative analysis of Participant Evaluation Sheets and an online survey completed by Haringey and Islington practitioners. - Analysis based on observation of practitioner workshops. - Analysis based on observation of parents' sessions. - A brief assessment of the programme in relation to the Service Aims identified in the Grant Agreement and Specification document. - An assessment of the programme in relation to the expected Service Outcomes identified in the Grant Agreement and Specification document. - Analysis based on interviews with practitioners, parents and young people. - A series of recommendations based on the report's findings and analysis. ## Literature Review Though the issue of disproportionality along ethno-racial lines has only recently entered mainstream political debate in the UK - largely as a result of 2017's Lammy Review (see below) - systematic studies of disproportionality have been conducted in the United States for forty years. In 1982, American criminologist Alfred Blumstein lamented what he called 'grossly disproportionate race-specific incarceration rates', seeking an explanation for the fact that while Black Americans comprised roughly one-eighth of the US population, they represented about one-half of the country's prison population. 'This disproportionality has been a source of major concern', Blumstein remarked, 'largely because it suggests the possibility of gross injustice in the criminal justice system (1982: 1259).2 Statistics on the ethnic background of UK prisoners began to be collected in the mid 1980s, with disproportionality being identified at that stage and becoming more pronounced over time. This led researchers to focus on disproportionality at all stages of the criminal justice process, including searches, crime reports and arrests, and develop explanations for the over-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people across these stages. For example, in 2004 Marian FitzGerald, along with colleagues Chris Hale and Jan Stockdale, constructed a model which sought to account for longstanding ethnic differences in criminal statistics.3 The resulting model focused on street crime in a number of London boroughs, identifying two overriding explanations for area differences: deprivation and population turnover. In elaborating this model, the researchers stressed the need to be vigilant regarding possible amplification of pre-existing disadvantages via the criminal justice system (CJS) and, more specifically, the unequal exercising of discretion by those working within the CJS. Disproportionality is widespread and is not restricted to young Black men. Though 'Gypsies', Roma and Irish Travellers represent just 0.1% of the population, they account for around 5% of the male prison population, while Muslims are represented in the prison population at three times their proportion of the general population. As Jolliffe and Haque (2017) point out, 'ethnic and cultural characteristics' aren't a feasible explanation for the dramatic increase in the number of Muslim prisoners, from 5,500 in 2002 to 13,200 in 2016. As they point out, 'the rise in prison numbers (128% increase of Muslims) does not reflect the rise in the general population (74% increase of Muslims from 2001)' (2017: 3).4 After being commissioned by the then incumbent prime minister David Cameron to investigate racial discrimination in the CJS, Tottenham MP David Lammy's subsequent review was published in 2017.5 Though the report and its findings pertained to the over-representation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals in the CJS, in presenting his review Lammy stressed that understanding the roots of such disproportionality required wider consideration of the complex intersections between racial and ethnic background and other forms of social division and structural disadvantage. As he put it (2017): 'poverty, lone-parent families, school exclusions, and growing up in the care system. And what more is there left to say about stop and search?' The review itself contained a litany of damning statistics: - 41% of young offenders in custody in 2016 were from BAME backgrounds (up from 25% in 2006). - Despite only 3% of the general population being Black, 12% of adult prisoners and 24% of children in custody are Black. - 41% of BAME defendants plead not guilty in Crown Court, versus 31% of white defendants. - BAME people comprise 25% of the prison population. - 19% of young people offending for the first time in 2016 were from BAME backgrounds, up from 11% in 2006. - The estimated cost of the over-representation of BAME people in the CJS is £309m per year. In seeking explanations for these statistics and ways to address disproportionality in the CJS, Lammy outlined three principles. Firstly, since fairer treatment is achieved through transparency, decision-making procedures must be subject to external scrutiny. Second (and relatedly), work must be done to improve trust in the CJS among BAME communities. As things stand, a trust deficit partly accounts for the disproportionate number of BAME defendants pleading not guilty (and thereby foreclosing the possibility of reduced sentences and any intervention strategies which are contingent on a guilty plea), plus higher reoffending rates (with research showing that prisoners who believe they are being treated fairly are more likely to respect rules in custody and less likely to reoffend on release [Beijersbergen et al. 20166]). Finally, people and agencies outside the CJS - including parents and local communities - have a responsibility to support those who have entered the CJS. These principles informed a set of 35 recommendations, including: - If CJS agencies cannot provide an evidence-based explanation for apparent disparities between ethnic groups, then reforms should be introduced to address those disparities. This principle of 'explain or reform' should apply to every CJS institution. - A 'deferred prosecution' model should be adopted which provides interventions before pleas are entered rather than after. - The system for sealing criminal records employed in many US states should be adopted. Individuals should be able to have their case heard either by a judge or a body like the Parole Board, which would then decide whether to seal their record. There should be a presumption to look favourably on those who committed crimes either as children or young adults, but who can demonstrate that they have changed since their conviction. - The MoJ and Department of Health (DH) should work together to develop a method to assess the maturity of offenders entering the justice system up to the age of 21. The results of this assessment should inform the interventions applied to any offender in this cohort, including extending the support structures of the youth justice system for offenders over the age of 18 who are judged to have low levels of maturity. There have been various statutory responses to the report. In 2018 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published fresh statistics on race and the CJS.7 These statistics reinforced the picture painted in the Lammy Review, with BAME groups being over-represented at many stages throughout the CJS.8 The greatest disparity was evident for stop and search, arrests, custodial sentencing and the prison population, with Black people being over-represented most acutely. Another update was published by the MoJ in early 2020. *Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: 2020* Update sought to address the principles and recommendations of the Lammy Review directly. It reported on the formation of a trust working group within the Home Office and the Cabinet Office Race Disparity Unit (RDU). This group commissioned the Cabinet Office's Open Innovation Team, which promotes closer relationships between policy and academia across government, to survey the existing evidence on trust. Furthermore, Edward Argar, the Minister with responsibility for race disparity, held a two-part roundtable with external stakeholders from BAME-led and -focused organisations, including those with lived experience of the CJS, to listen and record any examples of best practice in restoring confidence. The working group found that trust in the ability and intentions of CJS staff and representatives was key, though sounded a slightly defensive note in contending that, however well-intended or progressive a set of processes may be, many people will still be unhappy about their experiences in the CJS because of their association with negative outcomes. Strategies for boosting levels of trust included 'explaining in simple terms what is happening, why, and what to expect next' (2020: 10), and increasing the number of human interactions (including a greater number of restorative 'human behaviours' such as apologising and admitting fault). Islington Borough Council has designed and implemented a number of programmes with a view to addressing the disproportionate representation of the Borough's BAME young people in the criminal justice system. Its overarching strategy for a 'Fairer Islington' focuses 'on creating a place where everyone, whatever their background, has the opportunity to reach their potential and enjoy a good quality of life'. This approach is consistent with the local authority's commitment to make Islington one of the safest boroughs in London, where children become neither victims nor perpetrators of crime. The borough's Children and Families Strategy 2015-25, Giving Children the Best Start in Life, centres on the commitment to "better identify and address risk and vulnerability, and provide timely and targeted youth support to reduce offending and reoffending".9 This is part of a wider strategy, the Stronger Families Programme, geared to finding and assisting families who have multiple problems. The rationale for this programme is that 'families with multiple problems achieve better outcomes when their needs are addressed collectively', with 'all professionals working with children and families with multiple problems ... expected to use the Stronger Families approach'. Islington's Youth Safety strategy, Working Together for a Safer Islington (2017), also focuses heavily on the need to keep young people and the community safe.10 Haringey Borough Council has also made attempts to address racial disproportionality in its Youth Justice System. Recognising that 47% of the caseload for its Youth Justice Service come from the Black community, despite this group representing only 28% of the population in the borough, members of Haringey's Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel were asked to conduct a review which sought to identify the reasons for the overrepresentation of specific minority groups in the Youth Justice System. The Review's aims were aligned with Haringey Borough Council's Corporate Plan and, more specifically, Priority 1 ("Enable every child and young person to have the best start in life, with high quality education") and Objective 5 ("To work with partners to prevent and reduce more serious crime, in particular youth crime and gang activity"). The subsequent report, Children and Young People's Scrutiny Panel's 2016/17: Scrutiny Review on Disproportionality within the Youth Justice System,11 made 12 recommendations, including: increased partnership working; a review of processes to ensure that all duties are being performed in accordance with the Equalities Act; extra efforts to work with headteachers and school governors on the issue of school exclusions; and the introduction of a reverse mentoring scheme, whereby police officers who are new to the area are mentored by a local young person. It is in the context of these strategies that the objectives of the disproportionality programme were agreed. These were to: provide training in relation to Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities; provide a forum wherein parents from BAME backgrounds can discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour plus the structural and societal pressures they face; and help staff to better support young people and their families through the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which, unfortunately, are more prevalent in BAME families. The various practitioner sessions offered as part of the programme are summarised in the table below. | Session Title | Content/structure | |------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | Participants | | | Disproportionality | | | and Implicit Bias | | | - Racial disparity in the UK | | | - | Institutional racism and unconscious bias | | - | Blocked trust - what might contribute? | | - The Lammy Review | | | - Trust exercise | | | - | Stereotyping - a human condition | | - | The psychology of stereotyping | | - | Implicit stereotypes and unconscious bias | | - | How to overcome our biases | | - | Privilege | | - | So what can we do? | | - | Intergenerational trauma | | - | Mechanisms of transmission | | - | Recovery / resilience | | Adverse Childhood | | | Experiences and | | | Trauma from a BAME | | | Perspective | | | - | Adverse Childhood Experiences | | - | Adverse Community Environments | | - | ACEs: A BAME perspective | | - | IMPACT | | - | Final reflections | | - | Relationships | | - | Epistemic trust | | Working with BAME | | | Clients to Develop a | | | Therapeutic Alliance | | | - | Carl Rogers | | - | What young people say… | | - | Five planning groups (five tasks) | | - | Empowerment intervention | | - | Task | | - | Feedback from planning groups | | - | Next steps | | - | Final reflections | George Meehan House, N22 8YX 16/09/19 - 9.00am 17 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 16/09/19 - 1.30pm 21 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 19/09/19 - 9.00am 25 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 19/09/19 - 1.30pm 16 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 21/10/19 - 9.00am 9 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 21/10/19 - 1.30pm 25 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 24/10/19 - 9.00am 31 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 24/10/19 - 1.30pm 25 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 18/11/19 - 9.00am 19 George Meehan House, N22 8YX 18/11/19 - 1.30pm 20 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 28/11/19 - 9.00am 20 Brickworks Community Centre, N4 4BY 28/11/19 - 1.30pm 16 The kitchen-table sessions offered to parents took place between 6.00pm and 9.00pm. Three sessions were offered in each Borough, with session themes mirroring those covered in the practitioner workshops. For example, in the first session, parents were asked what disproportionality meant and what it looked like in the context of their own lived experiences. Subsequent sessions addressed themes such as Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adverse Community Environments and intergenerational trauma. On average, five parents attended each session. While sessions were oriented around the themes listed above, parents were given the space to discuss and explore their experiences. The issues they raised included their children's treatment in prison and other custodial institutions, the approach of particular case workers, learning difficulties, stop and search, social media, and school exclusion. AIM High's three facilitators drew on their own experiences as professionals and parents in unpacking the parents' stories, pointing to commonalities and (where appropriate) possible solutions. After 75 minutes, each session broke for dinner. After dinner, the sessions followed a less structured format, with breakout discussions initiated according to parents' shared experiences. At the end of each session, the lead facilitator summed up by revisiting core themes and gathering up the various threads of discussion developed by parents throughout the evening. ## Analysis Of Participant Evaluations And Survey Data At the end of each session with frontline practitioners and their line managers, participants were asked to complete an evaluation which asked questions about their perceived level of inclusion in the session, the standard of facilitation, the extent to which the session enabled participants to learn knowledge, skills or ways of thinking, and the extent to which participants felt they would be able to use the knowledge, skills or ways of thinking from this session in their everyday practice. Responses to these questions have been collated and are presented in graphical form (by session) below. ## Participant Evaluations: Session One (%) Participant Evaluations: Session One (%) Participant Evaluations: Session Tw0 (%) Participant Evaluations: Session Three (%) Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree ## Commentary On Participant Evaluations - There was broad consensus among participants that all three sessions were well facilitated (with a slight dip for Session Two). - Free-text comments were relatively consistent in requesting more material that could impact on everyday practice. Facilitators were responsive to this feedback, with participant evaluations recording a general uplift from session to session with regard to impact on everyday practice. - This upward trend peaked in Session Three, which scored highly for knowledge and skill exchange. The final session also scored highest for perceived level of inclusion, implying that pooling and drawing on practitioner experience and expertise - and thereby sharing best practice - works effectively in impacting everyday practice. - Free-text comments ranged across a number of issues, with many remarks and suggestions being reinforced during interviews with practitioners. These issues included the number, length and timing of sessions, and omissions in terms of who was invited to participate. In addition to participant evaluation forms, practitioners were asked to complete an online survey - also created by Aim-High - containing questions on a range of issues relating to disproportionality. The results of the survey, completed by 66 practitioners across the two boroughs, are summarised below. - 86% of practitioners felt that young people of different races are treated unequally in the criminal justice system. - 87% of practitioners felt that difficulties regarding racial issues are not 'a thing of the past' in the local community. - 70% of practitioners felt that racial issues create conflict in the local community. - 83% of practitioners either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: 'At work I find it challenging to build trusting relationships with Black and minority ethnic service users'. ## Outline Of Practitioner Workshops All of the practitioner workshops which took place between August and November 2019 were attended by a member of the research team. They both observed and fully participated in these sessions, paying particular attention to issues relating to timing, attendance, delivery, content, and participant engagement. This section of the evaluation addresses these issues while identifying particular 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. - All sessions were delivered in a timely manner, with members of AIM High arriving early to set up the room, distribute any learning materials and lay out refreshments. Sessions began and ended on time (though there was confusion over start times in more than one instance), with the facilitators acknowledging the arrival of latecomers without disrupting the flow of the workshops. An appropriate number of breaks was incorporated into each session. - Timing issues during the workshops pertained to discussion segments, particularly where practitioners were asked to reflect on their own experiences. These exploratory discussions were sometimes challenging to manage, especially when it came to drawing discussion to a close. That said, these segments were crucial in ensuring the sessions were inclusive and dynamic, and effective in bringing the experiences of participants to bear on workshop content, and vice-versa. The facilitators exercised good discretion in allowing some of these segments to overrun so that all participants who wanted to contribute were given time to do so. - The AIM High team members present at each session varied with availability. While this variation did not compromise the quality of delivery, having all three members present made for a richer dynamic plus more variety in the mode and tenor of delivery. Any absences were clearly explained to all participants, with members of the team able to make clear contributions consistent with their particular areas of expertise. The project lead was present at every session, which provide an important element of consistency in the delivery of the programme as a whole. - Levels and rates of attendance were relatively stable across the three sessions. There was a slight dip in Haringey for session two - particularly in the morning delivery - with some practitioners being unable to attend because of childcare commitments (this session took place during half-term). - Levels of attendance were slightly higher in Islington than in Haringey. - Attendees were more likely to arrive late for morning sessions, with facilitators making a clear effort to inform any latecomers of material they had missed and to integrate them into ongoing groupwork and discussion. - Each session was delivered at an appropriate pace, with introductory principles given sufficient attention and more time allocated to the discussion of complex issues and concepts, like implicit bias and institutional racism. In some sessions it was necessary to accelerate the speed of delivery to ensure all of the content was covered. In most cases, this was due (as noted above) to some discussion segments being allowed to overrun to accommodate the wide range of participant accounts and contributions. - As per the service specification, there was an ethnic mix and diversity within the staff group and this seemed important in terms of eliciting honest accounts and opinions from practitioners during the course of the sessions. - Each session was structured logically and thoughtfully. Ice-breaker activities were very effective in putting people at ease and both introducing and involving the various teams who attended the workshops. - The content of each session had been carefully designed so that it aligned clearly with the central aims of the participating services and was divided appropriately across the three sessions. - The facilitators made very effective use of their past experiences in bringing materials to life. These accounts spanned a number of areas including trust, inter-generational trauma and adverse childhood experiences, grounding discussion in concrete detail and inviting practitioners to reflect critically on their own experiences. This method was also used effectively in concretising more abstract concepts like implicit bias. - The breadth of methods and material used across the workshops was impressive. The range of materials used included slides, worksheets and videos, and in many cases these underpinned or corresponded with varied methods including small- and large-group discussion, breakout activities and group tasks. This combination catered well to a range of preferred modes of learning. - Ice-breaker activities were effective not just in generating discussion but in encouraging people to think outside their own organisational structures and teams. - All group discussions were thoughtfully set up and expertly moderated. - In many cases subject matter was personal, emotive and potentially divisive, and the facilitators' experience and expertise was evident in how they guided the dicussion across what was often difficult terrain. All issues were treated with the necessary gravity and sensitivity, with an open, enabling environment being created and sustained. - All discussions were kept on track, with the purpose of an activity being revisited and underlined where necessary. This was achieved while making each participant feel they had made an important and valuable contribution. - Participants operated at different speeds in terms of knowledge and experience. Many had attended similar training before, and were vocal in their preference for identifying and discussing concrete examples of best practice. A clear statement about how each session would build on the content of preceding session(s) in the Disproportionality Programme, underlining the cumulative nature of the programme, would have been helpful in this respect. - In relation to the previous point about identifying connections between sessions and stressing the cumulative nature of content across sessions, some tweaks in terms of structure could be made. For example, delivering the ice-breakers after the session outline would set tasks in a clearer context, giving narrower boundaries for discussion and thereby helping to contain the activity in terms of time and topicality. - Much of the session content was underpinned by the findings of relevant academic research, including theoretical models and more purely empirical work. This research was presented clearly alongside a full exploration of its relevance for the issues being discussed. Obviously the nature of the research incorporated reflected the academic specialisms of the facilitators, with research around trauma and ACEs being especially well explained and explored, while the social scientific research on institutional racism could have been more contemporary. Structure and Approach: In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. ## Outline Of Parents' Sessions Sessions for the parents of young people engaged in the CJS were held on the same day as practitioner workshops in each borough, and followed a semi-structured, kitchen-table format. Each round of sessions was attended by a member of the research team. Our observations and analysis are presented below, while again we have identified particular 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Improvement'. - Holding sessions at neutral venues rather than, for example, in Youth Offending Services buildlings, created a more relaxed atmosphere for the parent participants. - Serving food at the sessions worked well in terms of bringing parents and facilitators together and putting parents at ease. This mode of delivery struck up and sustained an informal tone that parents obviously found enabling. - While the kitchen-table format gave the sessions an informal tone, facilitators ensured that the discussion was structured around a series of questions listed on a flipchart at the centre of the room. This also allowed any parents arriving late to apprise themselves of the session's key aims. - As with the sessions for frontline practitioners, the neutrality of AIM High staff was important in eliciting honest accounts from parents. Many of these accounts were critical of various state agencies and procedures, and the same level of honesty may not have been achievable had sessions been facilitated by representatives of the two respective boroughs. Should this element of the programme be rolled out, using a third-party to facilitate discussion may again prove advantageous. - Parents appeared to feel comfortable sharing accounts of their own and their children's experiences of engagement with the CJS, including discrimination. These accounts were moving and emotive, and facilitators moderated the discussions with sensitivity and skill. As far as possible, facilitators framed these stories in terms of a set of key questions around disproportionality that shaped the service specification. - Only a small proportion of the parents invited to the sessions attended. The limited engagement by parents was despite the best efforts of practitioners and members of AIM High, who reached out to them via telephone and email. With parents bearing various responsibilities including work and childcare, attending evening sessions may have been challenging. - Most of the parents who attended workshops faced significant challenges in raising their children and in interfacing with the CJS and local authority services. These included poverty, family breakdown, domestic abuse, school exclusions, mental health problems, drug misuse, and lack of childcare provision. Their accounts provided significant insight into the ACEs faced by young people and, as noted elsewhere in the report, encompassed structural and systemic issues. The facilitators made a clear effort to identify connections between these issues and (where appropriate) their disproportionate impact on BAME communities. Dissemination: Disseminate this project's key findings regarding challenges and obstacles faced by parents to relevant members of staff, including seinor leaders, and beyond. ## Service Aims The Grant Agreement and Specification document, co-signed by AIM High and London Borough of Islington's Youth and Community Service (on behalf of Islington and Haringey), identifies four service aims. Below we address each of these in turn, again identifying key 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. 1. To provide training around Adverse Childhood Experiences within BAME communities. Training for staff will highlight cultural and community competence, conscious and unconscious bias and a return to an understanding of institutional racism and how it impacts on individuals and communities. - Session two centred on **Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)** and trauma from a BAME perspective. Topics covered included intergenerational trauma and how to recognise signs of trauma in BAME clients. The section on intergenerational trauma incorporated video material and covered the key mechanisms of this trauma. Crucially, the workshop covered both Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adverse Community Environments and, using the research of Ellis and Dietz (2017), explored the dynamic between the two. The issue of **cultural/community competence** was covered in the context of Adverse Community Environments and led to rich group discussion on some of the shortcomings of existing community environments, how these might exacerbate trauma for young people and their families, as well as the more positive elements of community life that could be built on and supplemented. The first session included an engaging, comprehensive section on implicit stereotypes and unconscious bias, including the Implicit Associations Test and the relationship between unconscious bias, institutional racism and trust. The activities incorporated in this section of the workshop were effective in prompting reflection on participants' implicit biases and how these figured in their day-to-day lives. The first session included a detailed and informative section on **institutional racism**, its impact, and its connections with implicit bias. The section covered the Scarman and Macpherson Reports, connections with persistent forms of racial disparity and issues of blocked trust. - The multi-agency training sessions were attended by a diversity of services - Children and Adolescent Mental Health, Police, Probation, Youth Offending Services, among others. This diversity encouraged exchange, debate and a good degree of healthy challenge as systemic cultures and operational mindsets - and the tensions between them - were outlined and explored. - In addition to using hypothetical scenarios to tease out connections between biases and the (re) production of unequal outcomes, in future the facilitators may wish to refer to the GEMM Project's (2019) research on discrimination against ethnic minorities by employers (based on 3200 fictitious job applications).12 - Future iterations of this workshop may be enhanced by considering various forms of institutional racism/discrimination and their transmission as outlined by Robert Reiner (2010).13 Contemporary issues such as the mistreatment of 'Windrush-generation' migrants could also be used to illustrate the operation and effects of structural racism. Use of academic research: Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 2. Setting up an initiative whereby parents from BAME backgrounds have a safe space to discuss the pressures associated with their children's involvement in ASB and/or offending behaviour and the structural and societal pressures they face. These support forums will be utilised to raise and resolve issues as they experience them. - As noted elsewhere in the report, the parents' workshops were effective in providing a forum wherein people felt comfortable discussing their experiences in an honest, exploratory manner. Parents identified a number of pressures relating to their children's involvement in ASB and/ or offending behaviour. Many of these pressures concerned issues covered in the practitioner workshops, including intergenerational trauma and a lack of trust in statutory processes, systems and representatives. The other issues identified by parents included structural and societal pressures relating to racism, poverty, substance misuse, family breakdown, mental health issues, unemployment and/or low-paid, precarious employment in the service sector, procedural and interpersonal issues with local authority services, the care system and the prison service. The facilitators struck a fine balance between listening, sympathising and pointing to possible resolutions in relation to the issues raised. In some instances this was extremely difficult, as parents seemed to want others to acknowledge the intractable nature of the problems they faced. However, as noted elsewhere in the report, facilitators were consistent in framing conversations according to session themes, pointing to possible sources of support and working towards solutions wherever possible. - Although the workshop had clear benefits for those parents who participated, levels of attendance were low. Obviously there are many competing claims on parents' time, and it is difficult to determine a time/location for workshops that is suitable for the majority. This challenge underlines the desirability of more regular parents' forums. These would widen and deepen engagement with parents, offer a more varied range of times/locations, and allow for the tracking of issues over time (as opposed to getting a 'snapshot' via discrete accounts). Parental engagement: Consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions, ideally moderated by a third party. 3. It is hoped the service covered by this specification will help to better support young people and their families from the poor outcomes and lack of opportunity which unfortunately, is more prevalent among BAME individuals and families. - Although it is too early to determine the extent to which the services in Islington and Haringey will enhance support for BAME young people and their families, there are grounds for optimism. Participant evaluations from the practitioner workshops show that a clear majority of participants felt that they had learned lessons which could have an immediate impact on their everyday practice, with levels of engagement remaining high across the three sessions. - With so many of the poor outcomes identified and explored during practitioner and parent workshops being underpinned by persistent structural inequalities, interventions such as this do not represent a 'magic bullet'. 4. This intervention ultimately is about strengthening communities who have been marginalized. This intervention will look at disproportionality at a local level. Supporting the community from a cultural approach, where experiences are shared, will strengthen the community. It will also influence Islington and Haringey to shape and improve the services provided, so that young people and their families are supported to (improve outcomes and opportunities so they can) 'live their best life'. - The hallmarks of a **cultural approach** were evident in the way that parents' sessions were designed and conducted. In some cases, parents had taken their own initiative in organising neighbourhood forums, with these instances highlighted and explored by facilitators. Parental accounts were grounded in local conditions, including territorial enmities between young people and the particularities of local services.14 - The centrality of local factors and conditions in parents' accounts points to a need for local authorities to be proactive and reflexive in organising forums and other initiatives in response to events at a local level. - More generally, it might be helpful to include details of each Borough's cultural/ethnic breakdown as part of the wider Local Authority training programme, so staff can develop a deeper understanding of the Borough they are working in from the start. Being responsive to local factors: Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. ## Service Outcomes The Grant Agreement and Specification document, co-signed by AIM High and London Borough of Islington's Youth and Community Services, identifies five service aims. Below we address each of these in turn, while again identifying key 'Strengths' and 'Areas for Reflection/Improvement'. 1. Islington Targeted Youth Support/YOS/Integrated Gangs Team and Haringey Youth Justice Service/ Early Help/Youth Service to have factual insight and awareness of BAME communities and issues that marginalize them and how to respond supportively to the young people they are working with. - Evidence from observations and participant evaluations indicate a clear attempt to impart factual insight and awareness of the issues that affect and marginalise BAME communities and individuals. The practitioner workshops were effective in pooling and exploring participants' experiences and expertise around these issues. While these were not always distilled into instances of 'good practice', in most cases because responses needed to be carefully tailored to the specificities of a particular young person or family, each response demonstrated a sensitivity to the challenges faced by BAME communities. That said, many practitioners identified blockages at institutional level which, in their opinion, limited their ability to offer truly effective responses. - As noted above with regard to parents' forums, it would be helpful to disseminate the findings of interviews with young people (in addition to this evaluation report) to a wide range of local authority staff. The lines of questioning pursued in these interviews led to issues being raised that may not be addressed in young people's routine engagements with local authority services. Dissemination: Disseminate this project's key findings regarding challenges and obstacles faced by young people to relevant members of staff, including senior leaders, and beyond. ## 2. Improved Engagement With Local Parents And Young People. Strengths - The parents' sessions and interviews certainly facilitated improved engagement with local parents and young people. Improved engagement over a prolonged period of time would likely require the delivery of a wider range of sessions at a range of times and locations, in order to boost attendance. Another possibility would be to support and perhaps supplement existing parent initiatives. As with the other sessions offered as part of the programme, the neutral status of AIM High staff was important in eliciting honest accounts including the identification and exploration of challenges faced by BAME families. Any rolling out of the programme (or elements of it) would benefit from the continued presence of a third-party in a broker/facilitator role. - The virtues of this position were underlined during parents' and practitioner sessions, as well as interviews with practitioners and young people, when it came to identifying frustrations and challenges - especially those that were procedural or systemic. Additionally, with persistent problems such as school exclusion, poverty and childcare arrangements being identified by many participants and interviewees, perhaps greater acknowledgement of the connection between underlying structural inequalities and forms of racial disadvantage in routine dealings with local families and young people would be beneficial. 3. Young people and families will be more willing to engage with support services to prevent poor outcomes, and will have greater confidence that they will be treated fairly by services and that staff have an awareness of their cultural needs. - It is too early to make any meaningful judgement in relation to this outcome. However, providing a forum for families and young people to discuss the challenges they face is certainly a step in the right direction, and the initial signs are positive. - On the issue of awareness of cultural needs, while some of the points raised by parents regarded shortcomings on this issue, young people were wary of (potentially clumsy) attempts to profile them and their needs and/or lifestyles. 4. Reduction in breaches instigated by the YOS (in Islington and Haringey) indicating impact of project on engagement - Again, it is too early to make any meaningful judgement with regard to breaches instigated by YOS in Islington and Haringey. However, every young person interviewed expressed a desire to avoid breaches and make positive changes to their lives. - One particularly powerful interview with a young person underlined the importance of seeking to improve engagement with young people within appropriate forums. This young person's account raised the possibility that the procedures and routines of some services may put particular young people at risk and also increase the likelihood of breaches occurring. In this instance, a 16-year-old who was required to visit the YOS office regularly was attacked en route by a rival group who were aware of his daily movements. He therefore travelled to and from the YOS building with his own entourage, increasing the likelihood of subsequent altercations between the two groups. Naturally the young person was anxious and feared for his own safety, which adversely affected his levels of engagement. Demonstrating a greater awareness of these issues may improve engagement and, more specifically, encourage young people to engage with the aims and objectives connected with a particular procedure, as well as the procedure itself. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures: Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/protocols may increase risk of harm. 5. Islington and Haringey to explore alternative ways of maintaining and increasing young people's engagement. - The programme's interviews with young people provided some encouraging signs with respect to engagement. Young people seemed encouraged by the open-ended exploration of the issues they faced which took place during interviews. - It bears repeating that choosing the right forum for engagement is important. During some interviews with young people, it became clear that some were effectively carrying out their own risk assessments, weighing risk of failure to attend appointments against risk of harm at the hands of other young people. Once again, the fact discussions were facilitated by a third party, with young people's responses indicating that facilitators were perceived as neutral, was important in exploring the challenges and frustrations they face. ## Interviews Interviews with a cross-section of the frontline practitioners who attended workshops were conducted at YOS sites in Islington and Haringey, respectively, in late 2019. A number of parents' workshops were also voice recorded for the purposes of evaluating the project and identifying parents' lived experiences with regard to disproportionality. Finally, young people engaged in the CJS were also interviewed at YOS sites with a view to capturing their experiences pertaining to offending histories and any issues around disproportionality. Our analysis of these interviews/discussions is presented below and addresses issues raised by practitioners, parents and young people, in turn. ## Practitioners Police Attitudes Some practitioners described having to challenge the police's 'set view' of particular families and individuals in a multi-agency context: The young person that I'm working with just now … if you speak to my colleague - police colleagues - they say, he's no good, he's no good, he needs to be locked up, he needs to be locked up. That's the only thing they knew about him. (I12: 2) ## Sentencing Practices An important question for practitioners concerned racially disproportionate outcomes in some courts and, more specifically, how to translate acknowledgement into action without further exacerbating outcomes: It's how we challenge that around remands, which is one of the biggest areas. Because it's quite something to go into a court and take on a Judge and essentially kind of highlight that specifically that court has been giving negative outcomes for young people, with the only clearly defining aspect the fact of their background. So that is not a comfortable conversation and one that I think is going to require some prep, both for the court and for staff about how we kind of do deliver that challenge. Because otherwise you run the risk of alienating the court even more and getting worse outcomes for young people. (I2: 3) The need to communicate effectively with the courts in order to foreground issues pertaining to disproportionality was underlined by another practitioner: … in terms of things like sentencing I think it's really important - young BAME people are more likely to be remanded and all those kind of things. So I think, thinking about how we communicate that with the courts and get it in the forefront of their minds when they're making those decisions. (I3: 6) Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes: Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. ## School Exclusions A similar frustration about acknowledgement and action was expressed with regard to school exclusions: … we're not being ballsy enough in [that] we're not going up to schools and saying, you need to sign up to zero exclusions. You know, I feel that we in a room acknowledge what the issues are but I think perhaps we - I don't know whether or not I'm low - I'm down here, so I'm not aware enough of the strategic conversations that are happening to try and make some changes for these young men. (I5: 8) This desire for action is borne out by research on school exclusions. A recent report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime (APPG 2019) noted a significant increase in the number of permanent and fixed term exclusions (70% and 54%, respectively, across all state-funded primary, secondary and special schools) between 2012/3 and 2019 and underlined the possible links between school exclusion and serious youth violence. Citing research by the Mayor's Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC), the report noted that pupils in alternative provision are more likely to know someone who carries a knife than those in mainstream educational settings. Other research shows that exclusions are racially disproportionate, with children (especially males) from African-Caribbean, Irish Traveller and Gypsy/Roma backgrounds three to four times more likely to be excluded than other groups (Timpson 2019). ## Creating A Space For Critical Discussion While practitioners described issues relating to disproportionality being alluded to in their day-to-day work, especially in the context of team-based work, the Disproportionality Programme workshops allowed for detailed, exploratory discussion of these: I think what was good was like it was - you know, space to have a certain conversation. Because I feel like all organisations should continuously have those conversations because these issues aren't going anywhere for now. (I8: 1) So it was valuable in the sense that there's not many times you're going to have a whole workforce really have to sit and think about discrimination and really look at it and really think about it in a way that that training forced colleagues to. So I found that very, very helpful. But the first and second allowed a dialogue to be opened. So it really allowed us to talk about things that people don't like to talk about generally. (I4: 1-2) I think a lot of the things we talked about were like - it was all really interesting and I think it just brought a lot of it back to the forefront of like all of our minds, like having those conversations. (I3: 1) Furthermore, practitioners appreciated learning about their colleagues' experiences (in both a personal and professional capacity) and were encouraged that the sessions had not been prompted by a particular flashpoint (i.e. they were motivated by an ongoing concern about disproportionality and the adverse impact on children and young people being worked with). While talking to everybody else, their experiences were really awful from the start. So having those discussions with you about the people's perceptions and experiences, it opens kind of really the mind of other people's experiences. (I10: 3) What I've found - what it did really bring to focus for me was how many of my colleagues are carrying around so much from their own experiences. And it's not something I guess I don't know, but something that very much brought into focus that, which wasn't particularly comfortable I don't suppose, but quite healthy as well. (I2: 2) Yeah. I think it's made me like think about and sort of feel more confident in like having the conversations with young people about their experiences as well. (I3: 5) Whereas this way was a balanced, controlled - no-one was in trouble, no-one was being accused of being a racist, so it wasn't off the back of something. Whereas society I find as a whole generally only really acts in a big way, in a reactive way. (I4: 2) ## Differing Levels Of Experience And Expertise Among Practitioners Whereas all practitioners identified at least one element of the workshops that they found helpful, many pointed to areas where there was some repetition of content covered in training sessions they had attended previously. In light of this, some would have appreciated the option of attending sessions selectively (based on self-assessment of knowledge/skills). Not all staff participants attended all three workshops, for a variety of reasons, though this would have been preferred in order to benefit from the cumulative nature of the learning. Participants offered suggestions about how the structure and content of workshops could be refined. … it's very difficult if you have not grown up around diversity, to then be in a position where you are forced to be able to deal with diversity and then be able to just hit the ground running and understand the families and understand the young people and understand all the little nuances and be able to build these brilliant relationships … if anything I think two-thirds of the training was done from a very theory point of view and I would have liked maybe one training theory and two of the trainings very practical.(I4: 4-6). I almost found it, are you saying that I don't know how to work with this cohort? Are you saying that I'm struggling to engage this cohort? Are you saying that I'm not quite appreciating the traumatic, you know, trans, you know; are you saying that I'm - that's not coming through in my work hence why I'm here? And I almost - it was a bit like I was looking around for some - yeah, some sort of validation about why I'm (here) (I5: 8). But what I felt is that we kind of skimmed a lot of different subjects. We got a basic introduction to lots of different areas, some of them which we've all had lots of training on. So I felt that it would have been more beneficial. … it probably would have been helpful … to have a conversation, not in terms of where the service is at, prior to actually designing the training. You know, the discussions that I've had with other sort of managers and also with other practitioners is that they felt they could have been pushed a bit more. Maybe for it to be a little bit more controversial. (I6: 4 & 7) Other suggestions included delivering the workshops over two full days (partly on the basis that practitioners who attended afternoon workshops were less fresh and carried the mental baggage of a full morning's work) and to spend more time focusing on workers' intergenerational trauma. ## Recommendations Format Of Programmes: Consider Using Full-Day Rather Than Half-Day Sessions. Issues With Content Though all practitioners were in broad agreement about the need for the workshops, a small number took issue with session content and/or the way it was presented. It was suggested that workshops should cover manifestations of institutional racism across society (to balance the focus on police through Macpherson, etc.), while there was also some scepticism in relation to intergenerational trauma. (No quotations have been included here in order to preserve the anonymity of practitioners.) ## Disproportionality As An Issue In Upper Echelons Of Local Authorities Some practitioners talked about racial disproportionality within many local authorities, and particularly at management level, which in their view necessitated an 'inside-out' approach to addressing the problem. This observation was related to suggestions that workshops should be attended by as many employees as possible, including those in senior management positions, and that procedures (as well as attitudes/approaches) should be examined with a view to reform: It's then, kind of undermined by the fact that obviously it's systemic and process-driven as well … So it's a real - it misses, especially these days I think, because there has been a distinct movement in the last five years or so to a more therapeutic, strengths based approach. But the legislation and things like inspection criteria obviously always lags behind by a few years. (I2: 5) … actually it's an internal issue, what am I doing about what's going on internally from my colleagues and how they feel. And then in challenging things that are a bit closer to you I think you become better equipped at challenging those things that are outside of you, you know. (I8: 6) ## The Strongest Session - Best Practice-Based And Action-Orientated Many practitioners thought the final workshop was especially helpful and productive: But it was that kind of practical, healthy discussion about what we can actually do was something that I really enjoyed in that last session without a doubt. (I2: 3) The most helpful thing I found was maybe the last session, in being able to develop some agency around kind of collective responsibility in the room and us all thinking about what we could all be doing differently, tangibly, you know, realistically, in terms of trying to make a change. (I5: 2) ## Recommendations Replicating An Action-Orientated Training Focus: Priortise The Identification And Dissemination Of Good Practice, Which Can Have An Immediate Impact On Practitioners' Day-To-Day Work, In Future Iterations Of The Programme. Parents Trust, Communication And Use Of Information Parents were confident in describing their engagement with local authority services, but some identified issues regarding trust. In one case this concerned communication, information sharing (in a multi-agency setting) and the possibility of being judged: I have in the past had phone calls and they're saying, oh have you heard from your daughter, have you heard this, or, do you know this, and you may know what the information - you may have the answer to what they're looking for, and then… but when it flips the other way they said, yeah we've seen her. So I said, well are they okay, yeah she's okay. Oh well what are you working on at the moment? What are you doing? Or, I've emailed you. Oh yeah well yeah we've seen her, but it's very, very generic; they're not really - whereas you want to talk, you want to have that dialogue with them, but it's just not happening … And the other thing is, when you're giving this information, you also feel that you're being judged … You feel that you're being judged and because they're not feeding back to you, it makes it even worse. What are they hiding? Why aren't they communicating with you in a way to make, you know what, it's actually quite good that you're engaging with us, or, we can see that you want to work with us and it's not you, it's just how the situation - they don't give you any form of encouragement. Yes which I think for me, it's not something that parents are even aware of. I think naively, yes, we know they must record it somewhere, but I think, as a parent, if we're working with any sort of like, professionals in that way and they're recording personal information and they're sharing that kind of information, they need to tell us, because we're not told that (I1: 2-3, 5) This was an important concern, given it could colour parents' view of working in partnership with local authority services: I was quite an avid supporter of working in partnership and working in partnership again but looking back at it, it just feels like hold on a second, now I'm thinking, somewhere in this system you've got all this information about me and people close to me, and what's that about? What have you done with it? How has it been used? Where's it been passed to? Does it then - do you understand what I mean? (I1: 6) At its most acute, this perception could lead to partnership working being understood according to a 'them against you' dynamic: … there can be at times so many interventions all going on at the same time … And you think well, what's going on? Why are we here? What's the progress and to get that interaction and get an update when there's an intervention here, there's a psychologist, there's nurses, there's case workers, there's all kinds of different people involved and it's just them against you. (I1: 3) ## The Role Of Parent Co-Ordinators A possible remedy for this was the 'Parent Co-ordinator' role - at present only available in Islington - through which parents could be empowered, and levels of engagement and communication could be boosted.The forums created via this role may also help to combat the feeling of loneliness that some parents felt with respect to the challenges of parenthood. As one parent commented: … from my own personal experience, I think if the YOS team engage well with the parents it will hopefully produce better results. But how we do that, but in a constructive way, I think we need to just focus on like the case workers, working with the parents and I'm sure a lot of them do. But I think just like you're doing parent support, I think the YOS workers needs to adapt some of that as well where they're working with the parents. I don't know, I didn't get that, I personally didn't get that and I think just like what you're doing years later, I think that that's something that they should be thinking about, working - I don't know if they have something like that now. (I1: 7) ## The Limitations Of Individualised Interventions Another observation concerned the locus of intervention, with some parents feeling that familyfocused interventions failed to attend to wider societal issues: Because I know from personal experience it's very, very distressful when you've got a young person that's been arrested, going to court and all the rest of it, and it's not you, a lot of parents it's not them; it's the society that we live in. (I1: 8) ## Recommendations Boosting Parental Trust And Engagement: Consider Strengthening Whole-Family Working Practices And Models, Including The Creation Of Parenting Worker Roles Where These Do Not Already Exist. Young People School Exclusion The majority of the young people interviewed had been excluded from mainstream education, with the remainder having voluntarily withdrawn from further education (sixth form colleges). The reasons for permanent exclusion were varied, and included violence against teachers and knifecarrying in school. In the latter instance, the young person described being bullied by older pupils for three years (between the ages of 12 and 15) - and recalled having expressed a desire to move to another school - with a knife eventually being carried into school for protection: … some kid in my year threatened me and I got really angry and it was one of those things where when I get angry it's one of those things where I don't remember what I did or what happened, in that sense. Apparently I brought it in, didn't use it on anyone, it was just in my possession to keep me safe. (I9: 9) Another young person had been permanently excluded twice: So like my schooling history was like - from Year 6, I got into situations in school, so I'm arguing with my head teacher, being physical and I ended up breaking an elbow and then I got sentenced to a unit in primary school. They sent me back to mainstream in Year 6. I then got kicked out again and I got sent to the unit and I've been in the unit since about Year 10. (I13: 2) ## Recommendations Increasing Accountability For School Exclusions: Consider Identifying And Collating Longerterm Outcomes For Excluded Bame Young People, And Disseminating This Information On A School-By-School Basis. Treatment By Police And The Criminal Justice System While one young person described being treated fairly during arrest, others thought the process was unfair. One young person recalled the circumstances around their arrest: … they were mugging me off … taking the mick. (I14: 4) It should be noted, however, that this young person felt they had been treated fairly after arriving at the police station. There was a lack of consensus among young people as to whether they had been treated fairly by representatives of the CJS. Whereas some BAME young people thought their background had not resulted in any unfair treatment, others spoke of unequal outcomes with an air of resignation. Indeed, some young people deemed their treatment had been fair when measured against their knowledge and previous experience of prevailing standards rather than against more abstract, theoretical standards of fairness and equality. This was evident in young people's reflections on sentencing: (In response to a question about the possibility of being treated more harshly as a young BAME male): No. How I've been treated or how I am treated, it doesn't change anything. It's just I guess what happens. (I9: 7) ## Another Young Person Recalled Their Treatment With Similar Resignation: I wouldn't say fair, but it (my treatment) was - it wasn't too bad, but because of my role, I don't think I should have got as long … (In response to a question about whether being a BAME male contributed to his sentence): Possibly. Because that's mostly what happens in the justice system … You can't say everyone in the justice system (is prejudiced), because like everyone's the same, but the majority of the people, like police and stuff … It seemed like she (the judge) didn't really take in what we were saying, what I was saying anyway. It's like from the beginning she decided towards the victim. (I15: 5-6) ## Discussion Of Pre-Sentence Reports Also Prompted Some Interesting Reflections: Yeah (I contributed to the Pre-Sentence Report) … (It was) a true representation … It helped me not go to jail, yeah … but what am I doing for a whole year coming here?... But it's punishment. That's it. If you was to give someone a punishment, you'd give them a punishment, that's like at least they learn something … (I would have respected a punishment) if it was shorter and I actually learnt something. (I14: 6-7) Police relations with young people: Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people. ## Yos Processes/Procedures Young people offered a number of insights on YOS processes and procedures. One young person described the YOS building representing authority and, more specifically, the Police. As alluded to earlier in the report, some young people raised issues with some YOS processes and, more specifically, were concerned that these may be heightening risk of breaches and/or putting them in possible danger: Yeah it's been nuts. But I think even today - but I think it's like the fourth time today I've had a situation on the way to come to the YOT… it's only when I come here I get into an issue. I've got to come every day, so it's like yeah they try to help me here but they also set me up as well in the same instance … I know, but I've become accustomed to it. It's like obviously the first couple of times it happens you panic, your heartbeat's - all of these things but then all you do is get yourself in a worse predicament. But if you're panicking, nothing's going to get done. You can't accept the situation, you can't safeguard yourself, you've just got to - it happens. (I13: 4) The same interviewee expressed frustration that practitioners could not admit the impossibility of his situation, with this frustration leading to a lack of meaningful engagement with services: In my position, we've only got two options. We've got to go to jail - more likely you go to jail or you die, because you either don't carry your shank and you get backed into some sort of rivals and then you've got no means to defend yourself, you're dead. Or you carry a shank and you get stopped and searched and you might go to jail. But I would rather be alive in jail than be dead on the road, yeah. So I'd rather have my shank … They know, but they don't understand what we go through. It's the fact that this building exists. So we come here for them to say to us… well, they're trying to steer us right onto a greater life. So we come here for them to say to us, like, well it's about time you made a change. What do you mean it's about time I made a change? I've been trying to live - that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to stay alive. What, am I not meant to try and stay alive? … I've always asked them, so what do you want me to do because I'm carrying my weapon, I get arrested, but I don't carry my weapon and I die. You tell me what I should do? They won't answer my question. They just talk quickly; say something and I've got to go. They never want - they can never give you an answer because it's a sticky situation and you have no answer. What are you going to tell me? You're telling me to die. No one wants to tell me what to do. So they do their job and they let me do what I need to do and that's it. Nobody cares about the ins and outs of the situation. (I13: 5-6, 10) ## Case Workers Young people were divided on the credentials of an 'ideal case worker'. While one young person insisted this should be 'someone that's been involved', others were less prescriptive. Indeed, for one mixed-race young man, a white female case worker had assumed the role of father: She's just like one of the - she's one of those staff people that like they don't - how can I explain it, they don't, like, discriminate against you in any shape or form … I would say she's like my dad. I don't get along with my mum like I used to. Even though I live with her. I don't speak to her properly, I don't respect her. She don't respect me. We just don't have that type of connection … Race, colour, sexuality, it doesn't mean anything. She's still a human being and we've just got to treat everyone the same. (I9: 5) Some young people were wary of attempts to engage with them that involved undue profiling: … they (case workers) get aspects of me. But as I said earlier, they get certain things like people - I don't know, it's a push and go thing because like - it's like yeah cool, they understand something, but because they understand a little part, like they've understood - … they understood the first part, they can connect with the second part, they automatically believe that they know you now. So now they've made that small connection on - ah they play basketball, you play basketball too, now they believe they know your whole story. Everything that you do is around basketball and they believe that they know you too much. They end up f***ing up and the whole situation - now you don't have a relationship with them, you just see them as annoying.(I13: 8) ## Involvement In Crime And Maturational Reform On their offences, while some young people spoke of carrying weapons for protection, others described getting involved in county lines drug distribution through peer groups. One young man was convinced of the power of what criminologists call maturational reform, stating 'Everyone falls away, everyone' (I7: 19). Conversely, this underlines the importance of protecting younger people by limiting their exposure to forms of trauma and exploitation which have a proven association with factors such as school exclusion. Young People's engagement: Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality. The recommendations which appear throughout the report are collated below. The aim is to help Islington and Haringey further improve the work they are leading on to tackle disproportionality and the over-representation of BAME young people in the CJS: 1. Structure and Approach In any future disproportionality programme involving staff training, consider using full-day rather than half-day sessions, move ice-breaker activities to after the session outline, specify the cumulative nature of learning from session to session, and incorporate 'learning into practice' action planning after each session. 2. Dissemination Disseminate this project's key findings regarding the challenges and obstacles faced by young people and parents to relevant staff members, including senior leaders, and beyond. 3. Use of academic research Make fuller use of key social science research insights into implicit bias and the transmission of discrimination, particularly as these relate to race and ethnicity, in future iterations of the programme. 4. Young People's and Parental engagement Continue capturing the voice of young people in relation to disproportionality and consider offering a more extensive programme of parents' forums, including parent-practitioner sessions moderated by a third party. 5. Being responsive to local factors Combine ad hoc forums in response to specific incidents and events with more regular outreach programmes that both draw on and share expertise from relevant services. 6. Review the safety and risk implications of YOS procedures Consider whether the routinisation of young people's movements created by YOS procedures/ protocols may increase risk of harm. 7. Reporting on and scrutinising disproportionate court outcomes Explore the possibility of compiling regular reports for local courts detailing disproportionate outcomes for BAME young people from Haringey and Islington - particularly remand and custodial sentences - and introducing an annual or biannual scrutiny panel, including local court representation, to scrutise those reports. 8. Replicating an action-orientated training focus Priortise the identification and dissemination of good practice, which can have an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work, in future iterations of the programme. 9. Boosting parental trust and engagement Consider strengthening whole-family working practices and models, including the creation of parenting worker roles where these do not already exist. 10. Increasing accountability for school exclusions Consider identifying and collating longer-term outcomes for excluded BAME young people, and disseminating this information on a school-by-school basis. 11. Police relations with young people Police Borough Command Units should continue working to strengthen relations with BAME young people.

en

0814-pdf

The English Indices of Deprivation 2007 www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity # The English Indices Of Deprivation 2007 Michael Noble, David mcLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth and Helen Barnes Social Disadvantage Research Centre, University of Oxford Chris Dibben University of St Andrews March 2008 Communities and Local Government: London Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce, 2008 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and the title of the publication specifi ed. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp or by writing to the Offi ce of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: HMSOlicensing@opsi.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 Email: communities@capita.co.uk or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk March 2008 ## Preface Indices of Deprivation are an important tool for identifying the most disadvantaged areas in England so that resources could be appropriately targeted. Signifi cant changes were made to the Indices in 2004 which allowed us to measure deprivation at a smaller spatial scale through the introduction of Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). We also introduced new domains and indicators to capture other dimensions of deprivation, for example crime and the living environment. Following fundamental changes in the measurement of deprivation in both the 2000 and 2004 Indices, we have listened to requests from key stakeholders and users of the Index to provide a consistent measure to allow change over time to be measured. The Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007) therefore updates the Indices of Deprivation 2004, retaining the same methodology, domains and indicators. This report rehearses the conceptualisation underpinning the model of multiple deprivation used and outlines the indicators and domains that make up the ID 2007. The datasets underpinning the ID 2007 can be accessed at: www.communities.gov. uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/ We would like to thank all those who assisted in the production of the ID 2007. In particular we thank all those who responded to the consultation, Professor Pete Alcock who peer reviewed the work of SDRC, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Dr Chris Dibben and Dr Ben Anderson who undertook specifi c analysis to support the Indices and the inter-departmental advisory group for their many helpful suggestions. ## Contents | | Introduction | 7 | |------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | Acknowledgements | 8 | | Chapter 1: | Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the small area level: | | | The conceptual framework | 9 | | | Chapter 2: Domains and Indicators | 13 | | | | Section 1: An Introduction to the Domains and Indicators | 13 | | | Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain | 16 | | | Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain | 20 | | | Section 4: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain | 22 | | | Section 5: Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain | 24 | | | Section 6: Barriers to Housing and Services Domain | 26 | | | Section 7: Crime Domain | 28 | | | Section 8: The Living Environment Domain | 30 | | Chapter 3: Combining the Domains into an Index of Multiple | | | | | Deprivation | 32 | | Chapter 4: Presentation of results and interpretation | 34 | | | | Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) Level Results | 34 | | | District Level Presentations | 36 | | | County Council Level Presentations | 38 | | Chapter 5: The geography of deprivation | 39 | | | | Section 1: | An overview of the patterns of multiple deprivation in | | England and Regional maps of LSOA level IMD 2007 | 40 | | | | Section 2: | The most deprived and the least deprived 20% of | | LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007 | 60 | | | | Section 3: | The Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting | | Children Index, the Income Deprivation Affecting Older | | | | People Index and the IMD 2007 | 64 | | | | Section 4: | District level summary measures | | | Section 5: | The reasons for changes in the geography of | | deprivation between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007 | 90 | | | Annex A: | Consultation | 91 | |----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | Annex B: | Indicator Details | 92 | | Annex C: | Data Sources | 98 | | Annex D: | The Shrinkage Technique | 101 | | Annex E: | Factor Analysis | 103 | | Annex F: | | The 'Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety | | disorders' indicator | 104 | | | Annex G: | Categories of Recorded Crime Included in the Crime Domain 108 | | | Annex H: | Exponential Transformation | 110 | | Annex I: | Components of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 | 111 | | Annex J: | | The 100 most deprived SOAs on the Index of Multiple | | Deprivation 2007 | 112 | | | Annex K: | | District level summaries of the LSOA level Index of Multiple | | Deprivation | 115 | | | | References | 127 | ## Introduction Communities and Local Government commissioned the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford to update the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID 2004) for England. Following an extensive public consultation (see **Annex A**), an independent academic peer review and a signifi cant programme of work, the new Indices of Deprivation 2007 were produced in December 2007. The new Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level measure of multiple deprivation, and is made up of seven LSOA level domain indices. There are also two supplementary indices (Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People). Summary measures of the IMD 2007 are presented at local authority district level and county council level. The LSOA level Domain Indices and IMD 2007, together with the local authority district and county summaries are referred to as the Indices of Deprivation 2007 (ID 2007). The ID 2007 are based on the approach, structure and methodology that were used to create the previous ID 2004. The ID 2007 updates the ID 2004 using more upto-date data. The new IMD 2007 contains seven domains which relate to income deprivation, employment deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training deprivation, barriers to housing and services, living environment deprivation, and crime. This report presents the conceptual framework of the new ID 2007; the component indicators and domains; the methodology for creating the domains and the overall IMD; the LSOA level results and the LA level summaries. ## Acknowledgements The ID 2007 was constructed by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford. The team comprised: Michael Noble, David McLennan, Kate Wilkinson, Adam Whitworth, Sonia Exley, and Helen Barnes. In addition, the Health Domain was constructed by Chris Dibben from the University of St Andrews; the 'air quality' indicator by Jon Fairburn at Staffordshire University; the 'housing affordability' indicator by Professor Glen Bramley at Heriot-Watt University; and GIS work was undertaken by SDRC's GIS consultant David Avenell. The population denominators were kindly provided by the Small Area Population Estimation Unit at the Offi ce for National Statistics (ONS). The team would like to thank Communities and Local Government's Advisory Group, the academic peer reviewer Professor Pete Alcock from the University of Birmingham, and the many respondents to the consultation, for all their helpful contributions. The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. CLG Licence No: 100018986. 2007 ## Chapter 1: Measuring Multiple Deprivation At The Small Area Level: The Conceptual Framework The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level. The model of multiple deprivation which underpins the IMD 2007 is the same as that which underpinned its predecessor - the IMD 2004 (Noble et al., 2004) and is based on the idea of distinct dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured separately. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. People may be counted as deprived in one or more of the domains, depending on the number of types of deprivation that they experience. The overall IMD is conceptualised as a weighted area level aggregation of these specifi c dimensions of deprivation. This chapter, which draws from the ID 2004 Report, elaborates on the model of multiple deprivation that has been used and addresses issues relating to it. ## Background We must fi rst know what poverty is before we can identify where and when it is occurring or attempt to measure it; and before we can begin to do anything to alleviate it' (Alcock, 1997, p.57) In his 1979 account of *Poverty in the United Kingdom* Townsend sets out the case for defi ning poverty in terms of relative deprivation. Thus his defi nition of poverty is: 'Individuals, families and groups can be said to be in poverty if they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved in the societies to which they belong' (Townsend, 1979, p.31). Though 'poverty' and 'deprivation' have often been used interchangeably, many have argued that a clear distinction should be made between them (see for example the discussion in Nolan and Whelan, 1996). It could be argued that the condition of poverty means not having enough fi nancial resources to meet needs. Deprivation on the other hand refers to unmet need, which is caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just fi nancial. In a similar vein, Atkinson (1998) notes that in recent debates on 'Social Europe', the terms 'poverty' and 'social exclusion' have been used on occasions interchangeably, but he defi nes poverty as a 'lack of money or material possessions'. Townsend himself concurs. In his article 'Deprivation' Townsend argues that 'people can be said to be *deprived* if they lack the types of diet, clothing, housing, household facilities and fuel and environmental, educational, working and social conditions, activities and facilities which are customary …' [our italics]. People are in poverty if they lack the resources to escape deprivation (Townsend, 1987, p131 and 140). In his 1987 article Townsend elaborates on the distinctions between social and material deprivation. The former - which he acknowledges is more diffi cult to measure - he describes as 'providing a useful means of generalising the condition of those who do not or cannot enter into ordinary forms of family or other relationships'. The more easily measured material deprivation relates to diet, health, clothing, housing, household facilities, environment and work (Townsend, 1987, p136). By identifying both social and material deprivation, he is anticipating some aspects of what one might now call 'social exclusion'. In this study Townsend also lays down the foundation for articulating multiple deprivation as an accumulation of several types of deprivation. Townsend's formulation of multiple deprivation is the starting point for the model of small area deprivation which is presented here in respect of the design of new measures of deprivation for England. ## Area Based Measures Though Townsend's work mainly (though not entirely) referred to individuals experiencing deprivation - single or multiple - the arguments can, in modifi ed form, extend to area based measures. However, limitations of data availability inevitably cause some of the sophistication of his original concept to be lost in practice. At an area level it is very diffi cult to measure the percentage of the population experiencing deprivation on one, two or more dimensions. It is possible to look at single forms of deprivation at an area level and state that a certain proportion of the population experiences that deprivation or a proportion experiences some other forms of deprivation etc. and describe at an area level the combination of single deprivations as area level multiple deprivation. The approach used here conceptualises multiple deprivation as a composite of different dimensions or domains of deprivation. It, however, says little about the *individual* experience of *multiple* deprivation. The area itself can be characterised as deprived *relative to other areas*, in a particular dimension of deprivation, on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, but the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect - this is still *measured* by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Once the specifi c dimensions of deprivation have been measured, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. ## Dimensions Of Deprivation The approach allows the separate measurement of different dimensions of deprivation, such as education deprivation and health deprivation. There is a question as to whether there should be an additional domain for low income or one that measures the lack of socially perceived necessities (Gordon *et al*., 2000) (e.g. adequate diet, consumer durables, ability to afford social activities etc.). To follow Townsend, within a multiple deprivation measure only the deprivations resulting from a low income would be included so low income itself would not be a component, but lack of socially perceived necessities would. However, there are no readily available small area data on the lack of socially perceived necessities and therefore low income is an important indicator for these aspects of material deprivation. Moreover, it could be argued that measures of consumption are themselves problematic as lack of certain items may be by choice rather than inability to pay for them. Therefore, it is appropriate to measure low income itself rather than the possession of certain items. Despite recognising income deprivation in its own right, it should not be the only measure of area deprivation. Other dimensions of deprivation contribute crucial further information about an area. However, low income remains a central component of the defi nition of multiple deprivation for the ID 2007. As Townsend writes 'while people experiencing some forms of deprivation may not all have low income, people experiencing multiple or single but very severe forms of deprivation are in almost every instance likely to have very little income and little or no other resources' (Townsend, 1987, p131). 'Multiple deprivation' is thus not some separate form of deprivation. It is simply a combination of more specifi c forms of deprivation, which themselves can be more or less directly measurable. It is an empirical question whether combinations of these different forms of deprivation are more than the sum of their parts, that is, whether they are not simply additive but interact and may have *greater* impact, if found in certain combinations. Measuring different aspects of deprivation and combining these into an overall multiple deprivation measure raises a number of questions. Perhaps the most important one is the extent to which area deprivation in one dimension can be cancelled out by lack of deprivation in another dimension. Thus if an area is found to have high levels of income deprivation but relatively low levels of education deprivation, should the latter cancel out the former and if so to what extent? The IMD 2007 is essentially based on a weighted cumulative model and the argument for limited cancellation effects is presented. Another question concerns the extent to which the same people or households are represented in more than one of the dimensions of deprivation. In previous Indices based on Census data no explicit information is available on this aspect of the conceptual framework. The 'households with no access to a car' may well have been the same households who 'live in overcrowded accommodation'. The combination in earlier Indices takes no account of possible double counting nor do the published accounts address the potential problem. The position taken in the IMD 2007 is that if a family or area experiences more than one form of deprivation this is 'worse' than experiencing only one form of deprivation. The aim is not to eliminate double counting *between* domains - indeed it is desirable and appropriate to measure situations where deprivation occurs on more than one dimension. To summarise, the model which emerges from this theoretical framework is of a series of uni-dimensional domains of deprivation which may be combined, with appropriate weighting, into a single measure of multiple deprivation. ## The Concept Of Multiple Deprivation The IMD 2007 is therefore underpinned by a coherent conceptual model of multiple deprivation at the small area level. To reiterate, the model of multiple deprivation is underpinned by the idea of separate dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured. These are experienced by individuals living in an area. The area itself can be characterised as deprived, relative to other areas, in a particular dimension of deprivation on the basis of the proportion of people in the area experiencing the type of deprivation in question. In other words, the experience of the people in an area give the area its deprivation characteristics. The area itself is not deprived, though the presence of a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may give rise to a compounding deprivation effect, but this is still measured by reference to those individuals. Having attributed the aggregate of individual experience of deprivation to the area, it is possible to say that an area is deprived in that particular dimension. Having measured specifi c dimensions of deprivation, these can be understood as elements of multiple deprivation. ## Chapter 2: Domains And Indicators Section 1: An Introduction To The Domains And Indicators Domains The IMD 2007 contains seven Domains of deprivation: - Income deprivation - Employment deprivation - Health deprivation and disability - Education, skills and training deprivation - Barriers to housing and services - Living environment deprivation - Crime ## Indicators There are a total of 38 indicators, distributed across the seven domains. Where possible, the indicators relate to 2005. The criteria for inclusion of these indicators were that they should be:- - 'Domain specifi c' and appropriate for the purpose (as direct as possible measures of that form of deprivation); - measuring major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small number of people or areas); - up-to-date; - capable of being updated on a regular basis; - statistically robust; - available for the whole of England at a small area level in a consistent form. The aim for each domain was to include a parsimonious (i.e. economical in number) collection of indicators that comprehensively captured the deprivation for each domain, within the constraints of data availability and the criteria listed above. Annex B lists the indicators on a domain by domain basis, and **Annex C** lists the data sources. ## Data Where Indicators Have Changed Or Ceased To Exist Since The Id2004 For the most part, the same indicators (updated where possible) have been used for the ID 2007 as were used for the ID 2004. This has, however, not been possible for the Income Domain where as a result of major changes to the social security system - particularly in the area of tax credits –indicators have ceased to exist. Where possible indicators have been selected in that domain which map as closely as possible to their predecessors. ## Census Data As with the ID 2004, the ID 2007 only uses Census data when alternative data from administrative sources are not available. Three such indicators were derived from the 2001 Census - adult skill levels in the Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'overcrowded households' in the Wider Barriers Sub Domain of the Barriers to Housing and Services Domain and 'households without central heating' in the Living Environment Domain. ## Data Time Point, Spatial Scale And Denominators Where possible the indicators relate to 2005 and, as has been indicated, the IMD 2007 and component domains are presented at LSOA level. Summaries of the IMD 2007 are presented at district and county council levels. Denominators at LSOA level for 2005 were provided by the ONS Small Area Population Estimation Unit. For the few indicators where numerators were derived from the 2001 Census, the denominators were also drawn from the Census. ## Preparing The Indicators For Combination: Dealing With Small Numbers The shrinkage estimation methodology has been used, where necessary, to improve the reliability of an indicator where it is based on small numbers. The effect of shrinkage is to move such a score towards the district average for that indicator. The extent of movement depends on both the reliability of the indicator and the heterogeneity of the district. If scores are not unreliable, the movement is negligible as the amount of shrinkage is related to the standard error. A further advantage of the shrinkage technique is that movement is less in heterogeneous districts. The shrinkage technique does not mean that the score necessarily gets smaller, i.e. less deprived. Where LSOAs do move this may be in the direction of more deprivation if the 'unreliable' score shows less deprivation than the district mean. For further details about the shrinkage technique, see **Annex D**. ## Combining Indicators To Create A Domain For each domain of deprivation the aim is to obtain a single summary measure whose interpretation is straightforward in that it is, if possible, expressed in meaningful units (e.g. proportions of people or of households experiencing that form of deprivation). In two domains (i.e. the Income and Employment domains) where the underlying metric is the same and where the indicators are non-overlapping, the indicators can be simply summed and divided by the population at risk to create an area rate. In several of the domains where a simple rate is not possible, Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis has been used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators. This has been applied to the following domains or sub-domains: Health Deprivation and Disability Domain; Children/Young People sub-domain in the Education, skills and training deprivation Domain; and the Crime Domain. For further details about the factor analysis technique, see **Annex E**. ## Section 2: Income Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this domain is to capture the proportions of the population experiencing income deprivation in an area. This has been achieved in previous versions of the Index (ID 2000 and ID2004) by reference to the percentage of the population reliant on various means tested benefi ts (see e.g. Noble et al., 2004). It has been the long term goal to move the Income Domain from proxy indicators based on benefi t receipt to a measure more similar to the national income poverty measure - i.e. proportion of the population of an LSOA living in households below 60% of equivalent median income. Since the publication of the ID 2004, research has been undertaken by the University of Essex to create synthetic income estimates at small area level (See Communities and Local Government Website for a note on the methodology adopted). However, following a careful consideration of the results of that research and after taking into account the views expressed during the consultation, it was decided not to implement a domain based on synthetic estimates of income at this time. ## The Indicators: - Adults and children in Income Support Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in Income-Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) Households (Source: DWP 2005) - Adults and children in those Working Tax Credit households where there are children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs (Source: HMRC 2005) - Adults and children in Child Tax Credit Households (who are not eligible for IS, Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs (Source: HMRC 2005) - National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both (Source: NASS 2005) Shrinkage estimation (see **Annexe D**) was applied to the combined indicators. ## Issues Adjustments Arising From The Introduction Of Pension Credit, Child Tax Credit And Working Tax Credit As in the ID 2004, the Income Domain includes comprehensive, non-overlapping counts of both in-work and out-of-work means-tested benefi ts. However, some adjustments were required in order to refl ect recent changes to the structure of benefi ts and tax credits. In October 2003 Income Support (IS) for those aged 60 and over was replaced by a new benefi t for those with no income/ an income below the Minimum Income Guarantee. This benefi t is known as the Pension Credit (PC) and it comprises two component parts: Guarantee Credit (available to those aged 60 and over) and Savings Credit (available to those aged 65 and over). In order to capture income deprivation within this age group (thus rendering the ID 2007 comparable with the ID 2004 which captured this age group through IS receipt), it was necessary for PC to be included as an indicator within the current income domain. Following DWP advice only those receiving the 'Guarantee Credit' element of PC are counted as income deprived. This is because the low-income status of those receiving only the 'Savings Credit' element of PC is less clear-cut given the different nature of this benefi t and its differing eligibility rules. However, PC recipients receiving 'Savings Credit' in addition to 'Guarantee Credit' are included. Since April 2003 most Income Support (IS) and income-based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA-IB) claimants who have children have received Child Tax Credit (CTC) in respect of their children rather than an IS/JSA-IB allowance for them. This means that data on children in IS/JSA-IB data are no longer reliable. The same holds true for the relatively small number of adults receiving Pension Credit who have dependent children. However, the children in such households can now be identifi ed by 'patching in' data from Child Benefi t records and this was undertaken by DWP. Tax credit data used in the ID 2004 comprised data for Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and data for the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC). In April 2003, WFTC and DPTC were replaced with a single Working Tax Credit (WTC). It should also be noted that, in addition to replacing dependent allowances within IS and JSA-IB, CTC also replaced provisions for dependent children within these tax credits. Thus, in order that the ID 2007 income domain remains comparable with the ID 2004 income domain, it was necessary to include families (WTC+CTC cases or CTC cases only) within counts of those who are income deprived (subject to the threshold described below). In addition it would theoretically be possible to include WTC only cases. However this was not undertaken for two reasons. First HMRC does not have reliable address data for them and second they were not, in the main, included in the ID2004 so there would be a loss of 'backwards' compatibility. It was also necessary to ensure there was no 'double counting' where families are in receipt of both CTC and one of IS/ JSA-IB/ PC. ## Selecting Wtc/Ctc Cases Below An Income Threshold Eligibility for WTC and CTC reaches reasonably far up the income scale, and will include some households that would not be described as 'income deprived' under any of the defi nitions currently in operation in England. An income threshold was therefore defi ned to designate certain recipients of WTC/ CTC 'income deprived'. This threshold was not applied to those in receipt of 'out of work' means tested benefi ts (IS/JSA-IB/PC). The headline income poverty measure used in the Government's poverty and social exclusion report 'Opportunity for All' is households below 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income. This measure has been adopted by Eurostat and is widely used by academics. A version of this measure - 60 per cent of 'equivalised' median income (before housing costs and excluding housing benefi t and maintenance) - was used as a threshold for income deprivation and applied to families in receipt of WFTC and DPTC in the ID2004. This approach was adopted in the ID 2007 and applied to WTC/CTC1. ## Asylum Seekers During construction of the ID2004 there was strong support for the inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers within the Income Domain as groups at high risk of income deprivation. Asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain (ELR) are entitled to Income Support and so are included in the domain in this way. Prior to this, asylum seekers receive either IS or voucher assistance via the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The ID 2004 included information on NASS voucher recipients which was made available by the Home Offi ce and this has also been included in the ID 2007. ## Take-Up Of Benefi Ts As this domain refl ects recipients of means tested benefi ts, the issue of take up and the extent to which this varies by benefi t type, claimant type and geographical area is of crucial importance. As recommended in the ID 2004 Report further research has been undertaken by the University of York to investigate spatial variations in benefi t take up using the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The results of the research are contained in a Report which is available from the Communities and Local Government website. The Report found that there were spatial variations in take up but there was also underreporting of benefi t receipt in the FRS. DWP had conducted an exercise with Pension Credit (but not other benefi ts) linking actual receipt to the FRS data and this produced higher estimates of take-up and resulted in different spatial variations in take-up. The Report concludes that "In the light of this we conclude that it would be unsafe to re-weight area based receipt data to take account of non take-up estimates based on reported receipt in the FRS. It is possible to re-weight Pension Credit receipt to take account of non take-up using our model based on actual take-up for 2004/5. But ideally we would want to ensure that such a model was robust over more than one year. Even then the most robust model explains only 19 per cent of the variance in non take-up. Until a matching exercise is undertaken to establish actual take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA in the Family Resources survey, the models that we have derived using estimated take-up are suspect. If the receipt fi gures in the income domain were adjusted using our coeffi cients derived from actual take-up for Pension Credit but not adjusted at all or adjusted by estimated take-up of tax credit and IS/JSA then it might damage the balance in the ID2007. Those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming pensioners would benefi t but not those areas with large proportions of eligible non claiming families with children or childless unemployed. On balance we conclude that it would be the best course to leave well alone for the ID 2007. Meanwhile HMRC should be encouraged to match administrative data on tax credit claiming data in the FRS and DWP to continue to match Pension Credit data and extend the exercise to IS/JSA. There remains an anxiety that area variation in take-up undermines the validity of the Income Domain." In the light of these conclusions and taking into account the responses received from the consultation, it was decided not to adjust the numerator of this domain to take into account non-take up. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index As in the ID2004, a supplementary index - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) - has been produced alongside the ID 2007. This covers only children aged 0–15 living in income deprived households - defi ned as either households receiving IS/ JSA-IB/ PC or those not in receipt of these benefi ts but in receipt of WTC/ CTC with an equivalised income below 60 per cent of the national median before housing costs. The IDACI is the proportion of children 0–15 living in such households as a proportion of all children 0–15. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index A second supplementary index also produced in 2004 was that for Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). This index has also been produced alongside the ID 2007, and represents income deprivation affecting older people defi ned as those adults 60 or over living in pension credit (guarantee) households as a proportion of all those 60 or over. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the whole population. ## Changes From The Id 2004 The introduction of Pension Credit, Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have meant that there are signifi cant and inevitable changes from the indicators in the ID 2004 and these changes are described in detail above. The aim has been, in spite of these changes, to maximise comparability. ## Section 3: Employment Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working-age population from the world of work. ## The Indicators - Recipients of Jobseekers Allowance (both contribution-based and income-based) for men aged 18–64 and women aged 18–59 (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for the 18–24s who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for 25+ who are not in receipt of JSA (Source: DWP 2005) - Participants in the New Deal for Lone Parents (after initial interview) (Source: DWP 2005) - Incapacity Benefi t recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) (Source: DWP 2005) - Severe Disablement Allowance recipients aged 18–59 (women); 18–64 (men) (Source: DWP 2005) Shrinkage estimation (see **Annex D**) was applied to the combined indicators. ## Issues For this domain, unemployment claimant counts, as used in previous indices, are replaced by counts of those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance (both contributionbased and income-based) derived from the DWP Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS). This is now the principal indicator for unemployment used in other work on deprivation at the small area level and, in effect, such a change makes no real difference to numbers because previously used claimant counts were derived from JSA data. Using JSA data from WPLS has a clear methodological advantage in that this database also includes information on the New Deals and other workless benefi ts, hence 'double counting' of claimants can be consistently avoided. For the purposes of consistency with the ID 2004, comprehensive and nonoverlapping counts of those on compulsory New Deal programmes and the 'hidden unemployed' (i.e. those claiming work-limiting illness and disability benefi ts) are included in the numerator, as are counts of lone parents who have signalled involuntary labour market exclusion through their participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents beyond an initial work-focused interview. In order to improve consistency across all the indicators of employment deprivation, all indicators (rather than just unemployment as in the ID 2004) are averaged across four quarter time points around the index data point, to account for seasonal variations. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators are summed and expressed as a rate of the relevant population (the whole population aged 18–59 plus men aged 60–64). ## Changes From The Id 2004 There are no substantive changes in respect of the indicators but a small methodological shift. ## Section 4: Health Deprivation And Disability Domain Purpose Of The Domain This domain identifi es areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who are disabled across the *whole* population. This domain measures morbidity, disability and premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of forthcoming health deprivation. ## The Indicators - Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) - Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (CIDR) (2005, Source: DWP) - Measures of acute morbidity, derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (April 2003 to March 2005, Source: Department of Health) - The proportion of adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders based on prescribing (2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), suicide mortality rate (2001 to 2005, source: ONS), hospital episode (ICD-10 F3–F4) (April 2003 to March 2005, Source: Department of Health) and health benefi ts data (ICD-10 F3–F4) (2005, Source: DWP) ## Issues The YPLL is a directly age and sex standardised measure of premature death (i.e. under the age of 75). It is measured at the LSOA level, using a combination of 5 years of data. The shrinkage method is applied to the individual age/sex death rates in order to reduce the impact of small number problems on the YPLL. The CIDR is a directly age and sex standardised morbidity/disability rate. It is derived from a count of individuals receiving any of the following benefi ts: Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA), Incapacity Benefi t (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), and the disability premium of Income Support. Hospital episodes that begin as an emergency admission are used to construct a measure of acute health problems. All emergency admissions, greater than one day in length are included and the resulting measure is expressed as a directly age and sex standardised ratio. Prescription data, deaths due to suicide, hospital episode data and health benefi ts data are used as the sources of information to estimate the number of people suffering from anxiety and depression. The hospital episode, mortality and health benefi ts data are directly attributed to LSOAs. However, prescription data can only be used to create rates at a practice level and are therefore assigned indirectly to LSOAs through the practice list. None of these datasets is a perfect measure of anxiety and depression and so they are used in combination. The potential indicator is therefore a weighted combination of all three sources of data (See **Annex F** for more details). The weights are generated using Factor Analysis (See **Annex E**). ## Combining The Indicators Factor analysis (maximum likelihood) is used to generate weights for the combination of indicators within this domain. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 5: Education, Skills And Training Deprivation Domain Purpose Of The Domain The Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain measures deprivation in educational attainment, skills and training for children, young people and the working age population in a local area. ## The Indicators Sub Domain: Children / Young People - Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 2 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC), National Pupil Database (NPD) - Average test score of pupils at Key Stage 3 (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: PLASC, NPD - Best of 8 average capped points score at Key Stage 4 (this includes results of GCSEs, GNVQs and other vocational equivalents) (2 year weighted average, 2004–2005), Source: PLASC, NPD - Proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-advanced education above the age of 16 (2005), Source: HMRC Child Benefi t (CB) data - Secondary school absence rate (2 year average 2004–2005), Source: DCSF absence data, PLASC - Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering higher education (4 year average, 2002–2005), Source: Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS), Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) ## Sub Domain: Skills - Proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi cations (2001) Source: Census 2001 ## Issues Indicators In The Children / Young People Sub Domain Key Stage test score indicators are a direct measure of children's attainment at ages 11, 14 and 16. Although the defi nition of the indicator remains the same as in the ID 2004, the availability of a time-series of the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) and the National Pupil Database (NPD) data has made it possible to reduce volatility in results caused by small numbers of cases by combining several years of data. In addition, the Key Stage 2 and 3 indicators are based on the actual test scores rather than level achieved (as in ID 2004) and thus allow fi ner differentiation between areas. Staying on rates are calculated using Child Benefi t (CB) counts as CB can only be claimed after 16 if the child remains in full-time education. In the ID 2004 this indicator was defi ned as the proportion of children receiving CB aged 17, 18 and 19 divided by the proportion aged 13, 14 and 15. Rather than comparing different age cohorts from the same year, this indicator now uses CB counts from the same age cohort from different years. For example, those aged 17 in 2006 will have been 15 in 2004 so the indicator will include 17 year olds in 2006 in the numerator and 15 year olds in 2004 in the denominator. This method is now possible because a time series of CB is available and is preferable as it reduces the occurrence of staying on rates over 100%. The secondary absence rate and rate of not entering higher education maintain the same data sources and methodology used in the ID 2004. The secondary absence rate is derived from school level data and each pupil is assigned their school's average absence rate. The proportion not entering higher education indicator is produced using UCAS data on successful admissions as a numerator and a population denominator drawn from the 2001 Census. ## Indicators In The Skills Sub Domain The Skills Sub Domain contains only a single indicator which measures the proportion of working age adults with no or low qualifi cations The English Indices 2004 included an indicator of adults with no or low qualifi cations taken from the 2001 Census. As an update to the census data is not available two possible ways of producing a similar indicator for the 2007 update were considered. These were either to use the 2001 Census data or create a modelled indicator from a combined dataset of the Labour Force Survey and the Annual Population Survey (APS). The consultation overwhelmingly supported retention of the Census indicator as used in the ID 2004 and the Skill Sub Domain is thus identical to that in the ID 2004. ## Combining The Indicators As for the ID 2004 shrinkage techniques are applied to all indicators. In the Children / Young People Sub Domain Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis (see **Annex E**) is used to generate weights to combine the indicators. The Skills Sub Domain comprises just one indicator. The fi nal domain was constructed by combining the two sub domain scores with equal weights after they had been standardised and exponentially transformed. ## Changes From The Id 2004 The change to the Key Stage test score indicators is described above. The methodology used to produce the Key Stage indicators has been improved due to a longer time series of data being available. ## Section 6: Barriers To Housing And Services Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this Domain is to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: 'geographical barriers' and 'wider barriers' which includes issues relating to access to housing such as affordability. ## The Indicators Sub Domain: Wider Barriers - Household overcrowding (Source: 2001 Census) - District level rate of acceptances under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act, assigned to the constituent LSOAs (Source: Communities and Local Government, 2005) - Diffi culty of Access to owner-occupation (Source: modelled estimates produced by Heriot-Watt University, 2005) ## Sub Domain: Geographical Barriers - Road distance to a GP surgery (Source: National Health Service Information Authority, 2005) - Road distance to a general store or supermarket (Source: MapInfo Ltd, 2005) - Road distance to a primary school (Source: DfES, 2004–05) - Road distance to a Post Offi ce or sub post offi ce (Source: Post Offi ce Ltd, 2005) ## Issues Indicators In The Wider Barriers Sub Domain In the ID 2004 the Wider Barriers Sub Domain consisted of three indicators related to access to housing. These three indicators are retained in the ID 2007. The two indicators relating to district level homelessness and diffi cultly of accessing owner-occupation are retained and updated. A direct update will not, however, be possible for the overcrowding indicator and, as in the ID 2004, this indicator is based on data from the 2001 Census. ## Indicators In The Geographical Barriers Sub Domain The four indicators included in the Geographical Barriers Sub Domain of the ID 2004 represent distance to access points for four key services. These four indicators are updated and included in the ID 2007. ## Combining The Indicators The relevant indicators within each of the sub-domains are standardised and combined using equal weights. The shrinkage technique is applied to the overcrowding indicator. The two sub-domains are standardised, exponentially transformed and combined with equal weights to create the overall Domain score. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 7: Crime Domain Purpose Of The Domain The purpose of this domain is to measure the rate of recorded crime for four major volume crime types - burglary, theft, criminal damage and violence - representing the risk of personal and material victimisation at a small area level. ## The Indicators - Burglary (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level) - Theft (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level) - Criminal damage (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level) - Violence (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004-March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). ## Issues The Crime Domain of the ID 2007 is a direct update of the domain in the ID 2004, consisting of four broad composite indicators representing the risk of victimisation of four key volume crime types that have major effects on individuals and communities. The data used within the Crime Domain of the updated index is subjected to the same processing steps as applied within the ID 2004. First the four composite indicators are created by summing the constituent notifi able offence types to LSOA level. The aggregation method involves an element of geographical 'smoothing' of crimes to account for variations in police geocoding practice. To ensure all data are controlled to a common base, LSOA level counts are then constrained to Home Offi ce totals for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) areas. Each composite indicator is then constructed as a rate using the appropriate denominator. The denominator for the burglary composite indicator is total dwellings from the 2001 Census plus total business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point. For the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators, the denominator is the total resident population (including communal establishment population but excluding prison population) plus total non-resident workplace population (as in the ID 2004). While the resident population has been updated to relate to mid 2005, the workplace population is again taken directly from the 2001 Census as no subsequent updates have been produced at small area level. The purpose of the 'infl ated' population denominator for the violence, theft and criminal damage composite indicators is to take into account the large 'at risk' non-resident population in town and city centres. It was not possible to take into account other potential victims such as 'passers by'. ## Combining The Indicators As in the ID 2004 the four composite indicators are standardised and combined using weights generated by maximum likelihood factor analysis (see **Annex E**). ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Section 8: The Living Environment Domain Purpose Of The Domain The Living Environment domain aims to identify deprivation in the quality of the local environment both within and beyond the home. The domain consists of two subdomains which focus, respectively, on deprivations in the 'indoors' and the 'outdoors' living environment. ## The Indicators Sub-Domain: The 'Indoors' Living Environment - Social and private housing in poor condition (2003 - 2005 average, Source BRE and Communities and Local Government, modelled EHCS) - Houses without central heating (2001, Source: ONS, Census) ## Sub-Domain: The 'Outdoors' Living Environment - Air quality (2005, Source: Geography Department at Staffordshire University and NAEI modelled at LSOA level) - Road traffi c accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists (2004–2006 average, Source: DfT, STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to LSOA level) ## Issues Deprivation In The 'Indoors' Living Environment The indicator of social and private housing in poor condition looks at deprivation in a key area of life - the home. Housing in poor condition is modelled by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for all tenures to postcode level using the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) to give an up-to-date set of stock profi les at the national level. The resulting model is applied to details of the housing stock at small area level using a range of data sources including RESIDATA. The most recent data is used which relates to 2005. The indicator of the percentage of houses without central heating identifi es those areas where residents are deprived of this core household amenity, and a lack of central heating suggests a strong likelihood of diffi culty in heating one's home. The Census 2001 provides the only suitable data source for this indicator and thus the indicator is used in the ID 2007. Given the slow rate of change which could be expected of this indicator at small area level, it remains a useful indicator of deprivation of this key household amenity. ## Deprivation In The 'Outdoors' Living Environment The indicator of air quality provides a valuable measure of environmental pollution at small area level. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) maintains estimates of emissions for small areas (modelled to one kilometre grid squares) in the UK. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the World Health Authority have defi ned guidelines or standard values which represent 'safe' maximum concentrations. Members of the Geography Department at the University of Staffordshire have allocated emissions data to LSOA level for which there are reliable small area levels and clearly defi ned standard values, namely benzene, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates (PM10). The level of each pollutant in an LSOA is divided by the standard value for that pollutant and then all four values are summed to create an overall air quality score for the LSOA. The indicator of road traffi c accidents involving injury to pedestrians or cyclists is a measure of the risk of injury for non-motorised road users in the living environment. This data is available through the Department for Transport's STATS19 (Road Accident) database which records details of all reported traffi c accidents involving death or personal injury. Each incident is plotted according to a ten-digit grid reference which plots its location accurate to ten metres. Where an incident occurs within ten metres of an LSOA boundary the incident has been applied equally to both LSOAs. The denominator for this indicator is the total resident population, the communal establishment population and the non-resident workplace population and excludes the prison population. STATS19 distinguishes between three severity types - slight, serious and fatal - and these are weighted 1, 2, and 3 respectively as was the case in the ID 2004. ## Combining The Indicators The indicators within each sub-domain are standardised by ranking the rates and then transforming to a normal distribution and combined with equal weights. The two sub-domains are then ranked and transformed to an exponential distribution. The two sub-domains are weighted according to patterns of 'indoors' and 'outdoors' time use within the UK 2000 Time Use Survey so that the 'indoors' living environment sub-domain is given two thirds of the domain's weight and the 'outdoors' living environment is given one third of the domain's weight. ## Changes From The Id 2004 No changes. ## Chapter 3: Combining The Domains Into An Index Of Multiple Deprivation In the conceptual model presented, domains are conceived as independent dimensions of multiple deprivation, each with their own additive impact on multiple deprivation. As in the ID 2004, to allow for this type of combination, the following method was used: - Rank the Domain scores and then transform the ranks to an exponential distribution. - Construct weights with which to combine these new scores. ## Standardising And Transforming The Domain Indices Having obtained a set of Domain Indices these needed to be combined into an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation. In order to combine Domain Indices which are each based on very different units of measurement there needed to be some way to standardise the scores before any combination could take place. A form of standardisation and transformation is required that met the following criteria. First, it must ensure that each Domain has a common distribution; second, it must not be scale dependent (i.e. confl ate size with level of deprivation); third, it must have an appropriate degree of cancellation built into it (discussed below); and fourth, it must facilitate the identifi cation of the most deprived LSOAs. The exponential transformation of the ranks best met these criteria and was used in the ID 2007. A more extensive account of the rationale and properties of the exponential transformation procedure is set out in the ID 2004 Report (Noble et al., 2004). Annex H sets out the formula for the transformation. ## Weighting The Domains In the ID 2004 the overall IMD was constructed by combining the individual domain indices into an overall IMD using explicit weights. There has been continued support for this approach. In the ID2004 Report fi ve possible approaches to weighting were identifi ed and considered, and the overall conclusion was that the weights selected should be driven by theoretical considerations (Noble et al. 2004 pp. 45–46). The independent peer review of the ID 2004 proposals indicated that there was a strong case to undertake research to determine empirically driven weights. This research was subsequently commissioned and undertaken by the University of St Andrews. The report of that research is available from the Communities and Local Government website. (www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/323211) Although the research did suggest a small adjustment in weights - the swapping of the weights for the Employment and Health Domains - the sensitivity testing undertaken suggested that "the likely impact of this change on the overall position of Local Authority Districts is slight". In the light of this, and in the context that the ID 2007 was to be constructed in such a way as to *replicate* (with updated indicators) the ID 2004, weights adopted for the ID 2007 are the same as those used in the ID 2004. Domain Weight Income deprivation 22.5 % Employment deprivation 22.5% Health deprivation and disability 13.5% Education, skills and training deprivation 13.5% Barriers to housing and services 9.3% Crime 9.3% Living Environment deprivation 9.3% This approach to weighting was overwhelmingly supported in the responses to the formal consultation. ## Chapter 4: Presentation Of Results And Interpretation Lower Layer Super Output Area (Lsoa) Level Results At the Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level there are ten Indices for each LSOA in England: - seven Domain Indices (which are combined to make the overall Index of Multiple Deprivation); - an overall Index of Multiple Deprivation; - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index; and - a supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index. These ten Indices are each assigned a national rank. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. The most deprived LSOA for each Index is given a rank of 1 and the least deprived LSOA is given a rank of 32,482, for presentation. The ranks show how an LSOA compares to all other LSOAs in the country and are easily interpretable. However, the scores indicate the distances between each rank position, as these will vary. It should be noted that the Indices comprising the ID 2007 are measures of *deprivation* and are designed to be more discriminating of deprivation than of 'non-deprivation'. The LSOA level Indices and their ranks can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. ## The Seven Domain Indices And Ranks Each Domain Index consists of a score which is then ranked. These Domain Indices can be used to describe each type of deprivation in an area. This is important as it allows users of the Index to focus on particular types of deprivation and to compare this across LSOAs. There may be great variation within a district or larger area and the LSOA level Domain Indices allow for a sophisticated analysis of deprivation information. The scores for the Income Deprivation Domain and the Employment Deprivation Domain are rates. So, for example, if an LSOA scores 0.72 in the Income Deprivation Domain, this means that 72% of the LSOA's population is Income deprived. The same applies to the Employment Deprivation Domain. The scores for the remaining fi ve domains are not rates. Within a domain, the higher the score the more deprived an LSOA is. However, the scores should not be compared between domains as they have different minimum and maximum values and ranges. To compare between domains only the ranks should be used. ## The Overall Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (Imd 2007) The overall IMD 2007 describes the LSOA by combining information from all seven Domains: Income Deprivation, Employment Deprivation, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education Skills and Training Deprivation, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment Deprivation, and Crime. These were combined in two stages; fi rst each Domain rank was transformed to a standard distribution - the exponential distribution. Then the Domains were combined using the explicit Domain weights chosen. The overall LSOA level IMD 2007 is then ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices. The IMD 2007 score is the combined sum of the weighted, exponentially transformed domain rank of the domain score. Again, the bigger the IMD 2007 score, the more deprived the LSOA. However, because of the exponential distribution, it is not possible to say, for example, that an LSOA with a score of 40 is twice as deprived as an LSOA with a score of 20. In order to make comparisons between LSOAs it is recommended that ranks should be used. The IMD 2007 is ranked in the same way as the Domain Indices, that is, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index(IDACI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain and shows the percentage of children in each LSOA that live in families that are income deprived (i.e. in receipt of IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC below a given threshold). The IDACI is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as the children are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. An IDAC Index score of e.g. 0.246 means that 24.6% of children aged less than 16 in that LSOA are living in families that are income deprived. As with other measures in the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## The Supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index The supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) is a subset of the Income Deprivation Domain. This comprises the percentage of an LSOA's population aged 60 and over who are IS, JSA-IB, PC or CTC claimants aged 60 and over and their partners (if also aged 60 or over). The IDAOP Index is not combined with the other domains into the overall IMD as these income deprived older people are already captured in the Income Deprivation Domain. As with the IDACI, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and a rank of 32482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA, for presentation. ## District Level Presentations Six summary measures of the overall IMD 2007 have been produced at district level to describe differences between districts. The following section describes the creation of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007. The district level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. The summary measures at district level focus on different aspects of multiple deprivation in the area. No single summary measure is favoured over another, as there is no single best way of describing or comparing districts. Districts are complex to describe as a whole or to compare for several reasons. First, districts can vary enormously in population size. Further, some districts may have a more 'mixed' population, containing more variation in deprivation and in some places deprivation may be concentrated in severe pockets rather than being more evenly spread. This makes an 'overall picture' more diffi cult to establish. Six measures have been devised which take account of these issues and which describe the district in different ways: looking at the most deprived populations, the most deprived LSOAs, as well as the average of the LSOAs, to get six meaningful descriptions of deprivation at district level. More subtle descriptions of deprivation across a district can be established by a close analysis of the LSOAs within that district, as the LSOA level Index contains the most detailed account of local deprivation. At the LSOA level much more information is retained than with the district level summaries. These measures are discussed individually below. For each measure each district is given a rank and score (with the exception of Extent, as explained below). For presentation, a rank of 1 indicates that the district is the most deprived according to the measure and 354 is the least deprived. The meaning of the scores for each of the measures is detailed as follows. ## Average Of Lsoa Ranks Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Ranks For The Lsoas In A District This measure is useful because it summarises the district taken as a whole, including both deprived and less deprived LSOAs. All the LSOAs in a district need to be included to obtain such an average, as each LSOA contributes to the character of that district. This measure is calculated by averaging all of the LSOA ranks in each district. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. The LSOA ranks are population weighted within a district to take account of the fact that LSOA size can vary. ## Average Of Lsoa Scores Population Weighted Average Of The Combined Scores For The Lsoas In A District This measure also describes the district as a whole, taking into account the full range of LSOA scores across a district. The advantage of the Average of LSOA Score measure is that it describes the LSOA by retaining the fact that the more deprived LSOA may have more 'extreme' scores, which is not revealed to the same extent if the ranks are used. This measure is calculated by averaging the LSOA scores in each district after they have been population weighted. ## Local Concentration Local Concentration Is The Population Weighted Average Of The Ranks Of A District'S Most Deprived Lsoas That Contain Exactly 10% Of The District'S Population. Local Concentration is an important way of identifying districts' 'hot spots' of deprivation. The Local Concentration measure defi nes the 'hot spots' by reference to a percentage of the district's population. This involves taking the mean of the population weighted rank of a district's most deprived LSOAs that capture exactly 10% of the district's population. In many cases this was not always a whole number of LSOAs. For the purpose of calculating this score the LSOAs are ranked such that the most deprived LSOA is given the rank of 32,482. However, when the districts are ranked on this measure the standard presentational method of assigning rank 1 to the most deprived district is used. ## Extent Proportion Of A District'S Population Living In The Most Deprived Lsoas In The Country. In this measure, 100% of the people living in the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England are captured in the numerator, plus a proportion of the population of those LSOAs in the next two deciles on a sliding scale - that is 95% of the population of the LSOA at the 11th percentile, and 5% of the population of the LSOA at the 29th percentile. This makes the cut-off point less abrupt for this measure than that adopted in the ID 2000. The aim of this measure is to portray how widespread high levels of deprivation are in a district. It only includes districts which contain LSOAs which fall within the most deprived 30% of LSOAs in England. Therefore some districts do not have an overall score for this measure and they are given a joint rank of 309. ## Scale (Two Measures) Income Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Income Deprived; Employment Scale Is The Number Of People Who Are Employment Deprived These two measures are designed to give an indication of the sheer numbers of people experiencing Income deprivation and Employment deprivation at district level. The Income Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. The Employment Scale score is a count of individuals experiencing this deprivation. It is useful to present both measures as they are real counts of the individuals experiencing these deprivations. ## County Council Level Presentations In addition to creating six district level summaries of the IMD 2004, these six summaries have also been produced for County Councils. The methodologies used were identical to those described for the districts above. The County level summaries of the IMD 2007 can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government website. ## Chapter 5: The Geography Of Deprivation Introduction This chapter presents some key fi ndings detailing the geography of deprivation across England. - **Section 1** presents the maps of the IMD 2007 for each Region, with an overview of multiple deprivation in England. - **Section 2** consists of a breakdown of the most deprived and least deprived 20% of LSOAs on the IMD 2007. - **Section 3** presents key fi ndings about each of the Domains, focusing in detail on the Income and Employment Domains and the supplementary Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). - **Section 4** examines the district level summary measures of the IMD 2007 and includes maps of each of the measures. - **Section 5** indicates the reasons for changes in the geography of deprivation between the ID 2004 and the ID 2007. The patterns of deprivation across England are complex. The most deprived LSOAs are spread throughout all the regions of England. Moreover, every region also contains LSOAs which fall within the *least* deprived ten percent of LSOAs in England. Furthermore, even the least deprived LSOAs may contain deprived people within them and the most deprived LSOAs may contain less deprived people. Identifying LSOAs as being among the least deprived does not however mean that these LSOAs necessarily contain large numbers of, for example, very rich people. ## Section 1: An Overview Of The Patterns Of Multiple Deprivation In England And Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Imd 2007 As previously indicated, the IMD is made up of seven domain Indices. The most highly deprived LSOAs score as deprived on several of the domains. In fact, if one takes LSOAs that are ranked overall in the most deprived 10% of the IMD, the following can be said: - 99.2% of these LSOAs score in the most deprived 10% on two or more domains - 88.4% are in the most deprived 10% on three or more domains - 182 LSOAs feature in the most deprived 10% on six of the seven domains. No LSOA is ranked within the most deprived 10% on all seven of the domains. - 25 LSOAs (0.8%) score in the most deprived 10% on only one domain. Each of the LSOAs in the most deprived 10% on the IMD 2007 scored in the most deprived 10% on one or more of the seven component domains. The following maps show the LSOA level IMD 2007 for each Government Offi ce Region (GORs) in England. The LSOAs have been divided into ten equal groups ('deciles'). LSOAs shaded dark blue are the most deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, and LSOAs shaded bright yellow are the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. Maps showing the district boundaries and district names are also included for each Region. ## Annex K Lists The Most Deprived 100 Lsoas On The Imd 2007. As was the case for the ID 2000 and ID 2004, most urban centres contain areas with high levels of multiple deprivation. The conurbations of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle together with neighbouring metropolitan areas contain many highly deprived LSOAs and demonstrate a degree of uniformity in the deprivation. The same is the case for the large metropolitan areas in Yorkshire and the Humber and the West Midlands. The north east quarter of London remains particularly deprived with Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets continuing to exhibit very high levels of deprivation. There are almost no LSOAs in these districts which fall among the 50% least deprived, showing a high overall level of deprivation in these areas. The four local authorities of Liverpool, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Manchester, all located in either the North West or London GORs, each have over half of their LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally. Areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool in the North East Region have very high levels of multiple deprivation. This pattern of multiple deprivation applies in the former coalfi eld areas and former tin mining areas such as Penwith in Cornwall. Seaside resort towns such as Blackpool, Great Yarmouth, Margate, and Hastings continue to show high levels of deprivation as do the ports of Kingston upon Hull and Barrow-in-Furness. Many of the very deprived LSOAs are in close proximity to less deprived LSOAs - leading to heterogeneous districts with a wide range of multiple deprivation within them. The South East, however, remains more uniformly less deprived than any other Region, despite having some pockets of deprivation, principally in the larger urban areas such as Southampton and Portsmouth but also including some former resort towns such as Margate and Hastings. The pattern of multiple deprivation in the South West remains as with the ID 2000 and ID 2004. There is only one LSOA in Cornwall in the least deprived decile of LSOAs in England. In both the North East and London GORs, less than 10% of LSOAs fall into the least deprived 20% of LSOAs nationally. A total of 180 local authorities in England have one or more LSOA in the most deprived 10% of LSOAs nationally. This compares to 263 local authorities that have one or more LSOA in the 10% least deprived of LSOAs nationally, indicating that the more deprived neighbourhoods are more geographically concentrated within local authorities than the least deprived. Some cities experience extremes of high and low levels of deprivation. For example: - Solihull contains 133 LSOAs. Of these, ten LSOAs are in the most deprived 10% of LSOAs and 36 LSOAs are in the least deprived 10% of LSOAs in England. - In Bradford, almost 30% of the LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived while over 6% of LSOAs in Bradford are among the 10% least deprived in England. - In Sheffi eld there are 81 LSOAs which are among the 10% most deprived and 20 LSOAs that are among the 10% least deprived in England. ## Regional Maps Of Lsoa Level Multiple Deprivation East Region The East Region has in total 3550 LSOAs of which just 83 LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived on the IMD 2007. The East Region has approximately two thirds of all its LSOAs in the 50% least deprived on the IMD 2007. The largest concentrations of deprived LSOAs within the East Region are within the larger urban areas of Luton, Norwich and Ipswich and some of the smaller urban areas, primarily located on or close to the coast, such as Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Clacton-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea. ## East Midlands The East Midlands has 198 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 2732 LSOAs in total so just over 7% of all its LSOAs are within these 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD 2007. The deprived LSOAs of the East Midlands are concentrated around the population centres of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham. The former Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coal fi eld districts of Mansfi eld, Ashfi eld, Bassetlaw, Chesterfi eld and Bolsover all contain concentrations of LSOAs suffering severe deprivation. ## London London contains 482 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. London has 4765 LSOAs in total so just over 10% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived nationally. It also has 416 LSOAs (8.7%) that fall among the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. As has been indicated, London's share of the 10% most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in inner London Boroughs particularly (though not exclusively) to the 'inner' north east, such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney. ## North East 294 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs on the IMD in England are located in this Region. The North East has 1656 LSOAs in total so nearly 18% of all its LSOAs are amongst the 10% most deprived in England. Just under half of all its LSOAs (784) are in the 30% most deprived LSOAs in England and there are only 53 LSOAs in this Region which are within the least deprived 10%. The pattern of severe multiple deprivation remains similar to the ID 2000 and ID 2004, with the former steel, shipbuilding and mining areas such as Easington, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees containing many of the most deprived LSOAs. There are also concentrations of very deprived LSOAs in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Gateshead. ## North West The North West has 911 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. There are 4459 LSOAs in total in the North West, therefore over a fi fth (20.4%) of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived. The North West has a greater proportion of its LSOAs in the most deprived 10% than any other Region. Severe deprivation is evident in most of the districts across the North West. Concentrations of LSOAs showing deprivation in the most deprived decile are found in the urban areas in and around Liverpool and Manchester. As with the ID 2000 and ID 2004 the Merseyside districts of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, and St Helens, along with the area of Birkenhead on the Wirral stand out as containing large concentrations of LSOAs with high levels of deprivation, as do many of the local authorities in Greater Manchester including Manchester, Wigan, Bolton, Salford and Oldham. Further concentrations of deprived areas can be seen in the coastal resort town of Blackpool and also in the series of towns running from the head of the Ribble Valley at Preston through Blackburn, Hyndburn, Burnley and Pendle. ## South East The South East has 95 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. The South East has 5319 LSOAs in total so under 2% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. Over a fi fth (1252) of the South East LSOAs are in the 10% least deprived group. The most deprived LSOAs are concentrated in some of the coastal resorts of the South East, such as Brighton and Hove, Thanet and Hastings. Elsewhere there are isolated LSOAs within the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. ## South West The South West has 113 LSOAs which are amongst the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. In total this Region has 3226 LSOAs, so 3.5% of all its LSOAs are within the 10% most deprived. The South West has over twice as many LSOAs in the 20% least deprived decile than it does in the 20% most deprived decile. A total of 659 (20.4%) of its LSOAs are in the 20% least deprived whereas 300 (9.3%) are in the 20% most deprived. Severe deprivation is concentrated in the urban areas of Plymouth and the City of Bristol as well as in parts of Cornwall especially in Penwith. ## West Midlands The West Midlands has 521 LSOAs in the 10% most deprived LSOAs. The Region has 3482 LSOAs in total so this represents 15% of all its LSOAs being in the 10% most deprived. The metropolitan area of Birmingham has very high levels of severe multiple deprivation. The districts of Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell all have severely deprived LSOAs. Further concentrations of these severely deprived LSOAs are to be found in Coventry and Stoke-on-Trent. ## Yorkshire And The Humber Yorkshire and the Humber contains 551 of the 10% most deprived LSOAs in England. Yorkshire and the Humber has 3293 LSOAs in total, so almost 17% of all its LSOAs are in the 10% most deprived in England. Much of Yorkshire and the Humber's severe deprivation is concentrated within towns and cities such as Kingston upon Hull, Sheffi eld, Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees (Huddersfi eld, Dewsbury) and Rotherham. Severe deprivation is also to be found around the former coalfi elds of the Region, in the districts of Doncaster, Wakefi eld and Barnsley. # Section 2: The Most Deprived And The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007 The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007 - There are 6496 LSOAs that are amongst the 20% most deprived in England - These LSOAs are concentrated in cities, 'one-industry' towns and coalmining areas - Over 10 million people live in these LSOAs - this represents almost exactly 20% of the population of England. However, it is important to remember that not all people living in these LSOAs will be deprived - On average, just over a third (35.4%) of people living in these LSOAs are Income Deprived - One in fi ve (20.3%) of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) in these LSOAs are employment deprived - Just under half (48.8%) of children in these LSOAs live in families that are income deprived - Over 37% of older people in these LSOAs are income deprived ## The Regional Picture Chart 5.1 shows the percentage of LSOAs in a Region that fall within the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England on the IMD 2007, and the percentage of LSOAs which fall within the least deprived 20%. - The most deprived 20% of LSOAs are clustered in the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, London and the West Midlands. Number of LSOAs in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England East 223 3550 6.3 East Midlands 460 2732 16.8 London 1351 4765 28.4 North East 566 1656 34.2 North West 1420 4459 31.8 South East (excluding London) 318 5319 6.0 South West 300 3226 9.3 West Midlands 951 3482 27.3 Yorkshire & the Humber 907 3293 27.5 Total 6,496 32,482 20.0 Number of LSOAs in the Region % of LSOAs in each Region falling in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England - The North East has the greatest percentage of its LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (34.2%). The North West is the Region with the next highest percentage of LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (31.8%). The North West has the greatest number of LSOAs in the most deprived 20% (1420), followed by London with 1351. - However, it is also signifi cant to note that less deprived Regions - the South East, South West and East Regions each have between 6% and 9% of their LSOAs falling in the 20% most deprived in England Regional Population (thousands) % of England population living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England Population in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England (thousands) Proportion of people living in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England, by Region % of Regional population living in most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England East Midlands 717 4,322 16.6 1.4 7.2 East of England 345 5,559 6.2 0.7 3.4 London 2,128 7,455 28.5 4.2 21.2 North East 858 2,547 33.7 1.7 8.6 North West 2,170 6,834 31.8 4.3 21.6 South East 485 8,178 5.9 1.0 4.8 South West 468 5,083 9.2 0.9 4.7 West Midlands 1,464 5,347 27.4 2.9 14.6 Yorkshire and The Humber 1,389 5,103 27.2 2.8 13.9 Total 10,023 50,428 – 19.9 100.0 - The North East has the largest percentage of its population (33.7%) living in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. - The North West has the largest number of people living in one of the 20% most deprived LSOAs (2.17 million), followed by London which has 2.13 million people living in one of these LSOAs. - 4.3% of people in England live in LSOAs in the North West which fall in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. This is followed by London which has 4.2% of the England population which live in the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. - Of those who live in the 20% most deprived LSOAs in England, over a fi fth (21.6%) live in the North West, and over a fi fth (21.2%) live in London. - The most deprived 20% of LSOAs in England are spread across 255 local authority districts, though 38 of these districts only have a single LSOA in this grouping. ## The Least Deprived 20% Of Lsoas In England On The Imd 2007 The 20% least deprived LSOAs in England have the following characteristics: - 10.19 million people live in these LSOAs - this is 20.2% of the population of England - Over one-third of these least deprived LSOAs are in the South East - 4.5% of people in these LSOAs are income deprived - 3.8% of the relevant adult age group (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) are employment deprived - On average 4.9% of children live in families that are income deprived - On average 7.4% of older people are income deprived No. of LSOAs in the Region % of least deprived LSOAs by Region No. of LSOAs in least deprived 20% East Midlands 619 2,732 22.7 East of England 1,039 3,550 29.3 London 416 4,765 8.7 North East 165 1,656 10.0 North West 600 4,459 13.5 South East 2,037 5,319 38.3 South West 659 3,226 20.4 West Midlands 486 3,482 14.0 Yorkshire and The Humber 475 3,293 14.4 Total 6,496 32,482 20.0 - The South East has the largest number of LSOAs (2037) falling in the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. It also has the highest percentage of its LSOAs falling in this category (38.3%). The percentage for this Region is far greater than for the other regions, and also the number of LSOAs is just over double the number of LSOAs in the East Region (the Region closest to the South East in this category). - In contrast, London and the North East each have 10% or less of their LSOAs falling in the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in England. # Section 3: The Domain Indices, The Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, The Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index And The Imd 2007 In this section an analysis of the Domain Indices, the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI), the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI), and the IMD are presented. Throughout the analysis, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and the rank of 32,482 is assigned to the least deprived LSOA. ## Income Domain this measure. In the most income deprived 10% of LSOAs in England, an average 43% of the population are income deprived. - There are 548 LSOAs in England where more than half of all people live in income deprivation - And 3,382 LSOAs where more than one third of people live in income deprivation At the other end of the spectrum: - there are 5,006 LSOAs where less than one in 20 people live in income deprivation - 14,314 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 live in income deprivation Chart 5.3 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Income Domain. It shows that all Regions contain LSOAs that are highly income deprived and that are not highly income deprived. However, the mean ranks of LSOAs in each Region differ and show substantial variation within England. London has on average the most income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 12,143, whilst the South East Region is the least Income deprived with a population weighted mean rank of 20,225. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Children (Supplementary Index) Chart 5.4 shows the range of the IDAC rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of over 99% of children aged under 16 living in income deprived households down to 0% of children in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. Chart 5.5 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAC have on average 59% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households. Within this decile the range is from over 99% to 48%, showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDACI have on average only 2% of children aged less than 16 living in income deprived households. In England there are: - 557 LSOAs where more than two thirds of children live in income deprived households; - 2,787 LSOAs where more than half of all children are in this situation; and - 7,272 LSOAs where more than one third of children live in income deprived households. On the other hand there are: - 4,535 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of children live in income deprived households; and - 11,561 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 children live in income deprived households. The region with the highest percentage and numbers of children in income deprived households is London. The North East has the lowest number of children living in income deprived households but it has the second highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of children living in income deprived households, followed by the South West and East of England Regions. Chart 5.8 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDACI. As with all the Domain Indices and the IMD, a rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. For example, East Region's most deprived LSOA has a rank of 50; its least deprived LSOA has a rank of 32,482, and the mean of the LSOA ranks is 18,030. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. London has the highest levels of children living in households affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 10,103 and also has the highest ranked LSOA overall. The South East Region has on average the lowest levels of children in households affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 19,161. ## Income Deprivation Affecting Older People (Supplementary Index) Chart 5.9 shows the range of the IDAOP rates for every LSOA in England. This goes from a high of 97% of older people affected by income deprivation down to just 1% of older people, in the least deprived LSOA on this measure. Chart 5.10 shows that the most deprived decile of LSOAs on the IDAOPI has on average 47% of older people affected by income deprivation. Within this decile, the range is from 97% to 38%, again showing the extreme rates of deprivation that exist in the most deprived LSOAs. The least deprived decile of LSOAs in terms of IDAOPI have on average only 4% of older people affected by income deprivation. In England there are: - 168 LSOAs where more than two thirds of older people are affected by income deprivation; - 850 LSOAs where more than half of all older people are in this situation; and - 4,940 LSOAs where more than one third of older people are affected by income deprivation. On the other hand there are: - 1,310 LSOAs where fewer than 5% of older people are affected by income deprivation; and - 7,703 LSOAs where fewer than one in 10 older people are affected by income deprivation. by income deprivation. **Chart 5.12** shows the numbers of older people affected by income deprivation. The North East has the highest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation and the North West has highest number. The North East has the lowest number of older people affected by income deprivation but it has the highest percentage. The South East has the lowest percentage of older people affected by income deprivation. Chart 5.13 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the IDAOPI. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart also shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The North East has the highest levels of older people affected by income deprivation compared with other Regions, with a mean LSOA rank of 13,288, while the South East Region has on average the lowest levels of older people affected by income deprivation, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,794. Every Region contains at least one LSOA that falls within the 2% most deprived LSOAs in England on this measure and at least one LSOA that falls within the 1% least deprived LSOAs in England on this measure. ## Employment Domain Chart 5.14 shows employment deprivation in England by decile. In the most employment deprived decile of LSOAs, an average of about 25% of the relevant group of adults (women aged 18 to 59 and men aged 18–64) are employment deprived. This compares with approximately 3% in the least employment deprived decile of LSOAs in England. In England there are 1,198 LSOAs where more than one quarter of adults experience employment deprivation. There are also 6.906 LSOAs where less than 5% of all adults are employment deprived and 20 LSOAs where less than 1% of adults are employment deprived. Chart 5.15 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Employment Domain. The North East Region is on average the most employment deprived Region with a mean LSOA rank of 9,870. This is signifi cantly more deprived compared with the other regions. The South East Region is the least deprived Region on average on the Employment Domain with a mean LSOA rank of 22,038, followed by the East Region with a population weighted mean rank for LSOAs of 20,235. ## Health Deprivation And Disability Domain Chart 5.16 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Health Domain. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA, and 32,482 to the least deprived LSOA. The North East and the North West Regions show much higher average levels of health deprivation, compared with other regions, with respective mean ranks of 8,682 and 9,734. The North East has a smaller range of LSOA ranks than other regions, with no LSOA ranked over 28,718, i.e. no LSOA at the 'least deprived' end of the deprivation scale. On average, the least health deprived region is the South East with a population weighted mean rank of 22,821, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 21,274. ## Education Skills And Training Domain Chart 5.17 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Education Domain. This chart shows that in all Regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but there is a more evenly distributed pattern of average education deprivation across the regions. The most education deprived regions are the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber, with mean ranks of 12,769 and 13,318 respectively. The least education deprived Regions on average are the South East, with a population weighted mean rank of 19,271, and London with a population weighted mean rank of 19,366. ## Living Environment Domain Chart 5.18 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GOR for the Living Environment Domain. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks but that the North East Region is considerably less deprived on the Living Environment Domain, compared with the other regions with an average LSOA rank of 23,278. The most deprived region on average on the Living Environment Domain is London, with a mean rank of 8,832. ## Barriers To Housing And Services Domain Chart 5.19 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region for the Housing and Services Domain. The London Region is the most deprived with a mean LSOA rank of 7,951. The North West Region is the least barriers deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,273. ## Crime Domain Chart 5.20 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Crime Domain. The London Region is the most deprived region in terms of crime with a mean LSOA rank of 12,220. The South West Region is the least crime deprived on average, with a mean LSOA rank of 20,449. ## Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 Chart 5.21 shows the minimum, maximum and population weighted mean rank of LSOAs in each GO Region, for the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007. A rank of 1 is assigned to the most deprived LSOA and 32482 to the least deprived LSOA. This chart shows that in all regions there is a wide range of LSOA ranks. The region with LSOAs with the highest levels of multiple deprivation on average is the North East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 12,480, followed by London with a mean LSOA rank of 12,650 and the North West with a mean rank of 13,446. The least multiply deprived regions are the South East, with a mean LSOA rank of 21,390, followed by the East Region with a mean LSOA rank of 20,008. ## Section 4: District Level Summary Measures The LSOA level IMD is summarised at district level using six different measures. For an explanation of these district level summaries please see **Chapter 4**. This allows local authority districts to be ranked according to how deprived they are relative to other districts. The maps in this section present the six district level summaries. In the maps, the districts have been divided into ten equal groups, and dark blue is used for the 10% most deprived districts for each measure. - **The local concentration** measure shows the severity of multiple deprivation in each authority, measuring 'hot spots' of deprivation - **The extent** measure is the proportion of a district's population that lives in the most deprived LSOAs in England - **The 'average scores'** and **'average ranks'** measures are two ways of depicting the average level of deprivation across the entire district. - **The income scale** and **employment scale** measures show the number of people experiencing income and employment deprivation respectively. ## Local Concentration Districts in the most deprived 10% of districts on this measure are concentrated in the North East - 26% of its districts (6 districts) and the North West - 40% (17 districts) of its districts. On the other hand, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile. The South East has no districts in the most deprived decile on this measure. ## Extent Because this measure captures only districts with people living in the most deprived LSOAs, there will be some districts with no score on this measure. London (10 districts - 30% of its districts) and the North West (10 Districts - 23% of its districts) are the Regions which have the highest numbers of districts in the top decile on this measure. As with local concentration, none of the districts in London or the North East are in the least deprived decile on this measure. The East Region, the South East and the South West do not have any districts in the most deprived decile on this measure. ## Average Score And Average Rank London, the North East and North West have the largest numbers (and percentages) of their districts in the most deprived decile on Average Score. The picture is similar for average rank except that here London stands out with over a third of its districts (12) in the worst decile. The East and South West Regions have no district in the most deprived decile for average score and the East Region has no district in the most deprived decile for average rank. ## Income Scale London (with 13 or 39% of its districts) followed by Yorkshire and the Humber (with 6 or 29% of its districts) have the highest percentages of districts in the top decile on this measure. Only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. ## Employment Scale Yorkshire and the Humber (with 8 or 38% of its districts) is the Region with the largest proportion of its districts in the most deprived decile of districts on this measure. This is followed by London (with 8 or 24% of its districts) and the West Midlands (with 7 or 21% of its districts). As with Income Scale only the East and South East Regions have no districts in the most deprived decile. The following table summarises the districts which are the 50 most deprived on each of the six district level measures. The district level summaries for all local authority districts can be found in **Annex L**. Table 5.4 The 50 most deprived districts, for each of the district level summaries of the IMD 2007 Rank Local Concentration Extent Average Score Average Rank Income Scale Employment Scale 1 Liverpool Hackney Liverpool Hackney Birmingham Birmingham 2 Knowsley Newham Hackney Newham Manchester Liverpool 3 Blackpool Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Liverpool Manchester 4 Manchester Liverpool Manchester Manchester Bradford Leeds 5 Burnley Manchester Knowsley Liverpool Leeds Sheffi eld 6 Middlesbrough Islington Newham Islington Sheffi eld Bradford 7 Salford Easington Easington Easington Newham Sunderland 8 Kingston upon Hull, City of Knowsley Islington Knowsley Tower Hamlets Wirral 9 Blackburn with Darwen Middlesbrough Middlesbrough Lambeth Leicester Wigan 10 Rochdale Sandwell Birmingham Sandwell Hackney Bristol, City of 11 Bradford Nottingham Kingston upon Hull, City of Barking and Dagenham Sandwell Wakefi eld 12 Redcar and Cleveland Birmingham Blackpool Nottingham Kirklees Nottingham 13 Newcastle upon Tyne Haringey Nottingham Haringey Nottingham Leicester 14 Wirral Kingston upon Hull, City of Sandwell Birmingham Haringey Sandwell 15 Birmingham Blackburn with Darwen Salford Waltham Forest Bristol, City of Kirklees 16 Hyndburn Stoke-on-Trent Stoke-on-Trent Kingston upon Hull, City of Lambeth Lambeth 17 Barrow-in-Furness Lambeth Blackburn with Darwen Greenwich Enfi eld Stoke-on-Trent 18 Hartlepool Southwark Haringey Blackpool Southwark Newcastle upon Tyne 19 Leicester Hartlepool Lambeth Southwark Brent Doncaster 20 Preston Salford Leicester Stoke-on-Trent Kingston upon Hull, City of Kingston upon Hull, City of 21 Tower Hamlets Barking and Dagenham Burnley Penwith Wirral Coventry 22 Stoke-on-Trent Wolverhampton Barking and Dagenham Lewisham Ealing Southwark 23 Oldham Leicester Hartlepool Leicester Coventry Sefton 24 Bolton Blackpool Greenwich Salford Sunderland Hackney ## Table 5.4 The 50 Most Deprived Districts, For Each Of The District Level Summaries Of The Imd 2007 | 25 | North East | |----------------|------------------| | Lincolnshire | | | Halton | Rochdale | | 26 | Nottingham | | Tyne | | | Newham | | | 27 | Halton | | Darwen | | | Walsall | Bolton | | 28 | Mansfi | | 29 | Pendle | | Furness | | | Hastings | Wolverhampton | | 30 | Sheffi | | 31 | Hastings | | 32 | Great Yarmouth | | Furness | | | Doncaster | Brent | | 33 | Stockton-on-Tees | | 34 | St. Helens | | 35 | Easington | | 36 | Gateshead | | Furness | | | Penwith | Hartlepool | | 37 | Thanet | | Tyne | | | Newcastle upon | | | Tyne | | | South Tyneside | Wakefi | | 38 | Bristol, City of | | and Fulham | | | Barnet | Rotherham | | 39 | Hackney | | 40 | Coventry | | 41 | Barnsley | | 42 | Wear Valley | | 43 | Sunderland | | 44 | Wolverhampton | | Lincolnshire | | | Pendle | Sedgefi | | 45 | Doncaster | | 46 | Sefton | | Hove | | | 47 | Sandwell | | Dagenham | | | Gateshead | | | 48 | Leeds | | 49 | Derby | | Lincolnshire | | | St. Helens | Wandsworth | | 50 | Wansbeck | | Cleveland | | | Gateshead | Knowsley | ## Changes In District Level Summaries Between Id 2004 And The Id 2007 If we compare local authorities on the various district level summaries on the ID 2007 with the ID 2004 we fi nd that changes have been relatively modest. The following table shows the correlations between the various measures for the ID 2004 and ID 2007 (Spearman's Rho, p<.001) | Average Score | 0.990 | |---------------------|---------| | Average Rank | 0.988 | | Extent | 0.99 | | Local Concentration | 0.992 | | Employment Scale | 0.994 | | Income Scale | 0.996 | Comparing the top 50 Local authorities on these measures on the ID 2007 with the equivalent measures on the ID 2004 the following picture emerges. On the ID 2007 82 local authorities are in the top 50 on one of the six district level summaries while on the ID 2004 80 were so placed. Six authorities join the top 50 on any measure in the ID 2007: the London Borough of Redbridge, the London Borough of Wandsworth, Thanet, Hyndburn and Pendle; while 3 authorities Westminster, North Tyneside and Derwentside are no longer in the top 50. A more detailed analysis of change between 1999 and 2005 at LSOA level is currently being undertaken and a report and supporting data will be released by summer 2008. ## Section 5: The Reasons For Changes In The Geography Of Deprivation Between The Id 2004 And The Id 2007 As has been indicated, the ID 2007 was designed to be as similar as possible to the ID 2004 in terms of geographical scale, domains, indicators and methodology. This was to maximise backwards comparability and help identify 'real' relative change. This has, to a large extent, been achieved and each section of Chapter 2 indicates where this has not been possible. The domain where consistency has been most diffi cult to achieve has been the income domain where substantial changes to the benefi ts system occurred between April 2001 (the time point for the ID 2004) and mid-2005 (the time point for the ID 2007). Though steps were taken to make the income domain as comparable as possible, a small amount of change will be a product of this shift in indicators. One other factor will have had a small impact. This relates to denominators. In 2007 ONS revised their population estimates for the years 2001 - 2005 and this adjustment could not have been foreseen in 2001 but will have made a small difference. ## Annex A: Consultation Communities and Local Government published a public consultation document - 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Stage Two 'Blueprint' Consultation Report'. One hundred and three responses were received as part of the consultation which ran from 22nd May 2006 to 17th August 2006. The responses represent the views of local and central government, voluntary organisations and other interested parties and are summarised in the report 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 Stage Two 'Blueprint Consultation Report' Summary of Responses available on the Communities and Local Government website. In addition a peer review was undertaken during Spring 2006 by Professor Peter Alcock of the University of Birmingham: 'Updating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004 - Stage Two 'Blueprint' Peer Review' also available on the Communities and Local Government website. Professor Alcock gave overall support to the proposal to update the ID 2004 and gave general approval to the approach adopted. ## Annex B: Indicator Details This Annex provides further numerator and denominator details for each of the 38 indicators that were used in the Indices of Deprivation 2007. 1. Adults and children in Income Support households (LSOA level) Numerator: IS August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 2. Adults And Children In Income Based Job Seekers Allowance Households (Lsoa Level) Numerator: JSA-IB August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 3. Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) households (LSOA level) Numerator: Pension Credit (Guarantee) August 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 4. Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households where there are children in receipt of Child Tax Credit whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60% of median before housing costs (LSOA level) Numerator: Certain WTC cases for August 2005 as described Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. 5. Adults and children in Child Tax Credit households (who are not eligible for IS, Income-Based JSA, Pension Credit or Working Tax Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefi ts) is below 60% of median before housing costs (LSOA level) Numerator: Certain CTC cases for August 2005 as described Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 6. Adults And Children In Households In Receipt Of National Asylum Support Service (Nass) Vouchers (Lsoa Level) Numerator: NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence only and accommodation support for end September 2005 Denominator (for summed Income Domain indicators): Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 7. Job Seekers Allowance Claimants (Both Contributory And Income Based) Of Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 8. Incapacity Benefi T Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 9. Severe Disablement Allowance Claimants Women Aged 18–59 And Men Aged 18–64 Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 10. Participants In New Deal For The 18–24S Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 11. Participants In New Deal For 25+ Who Are Not In Receipt Of Jsa Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 12. Participants In New Deal For Lone Parents Aged 18 And Over Averaged Over 4 Quarters (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Numerator: as described, for February 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and November 2005 Denominator (for summed Employment Domain indicators): Resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) for women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 derived from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005. ## 13. Years Of Potential Life Lost (Ypll) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Mortality data in fi ve year age sex bands, for 2001–2005 Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Blane and Drever (1998) (with shrinkage applied to age-sex rates and an upper age of 75). ## 14. Comparative Illness And Disability Ratio (Cidr) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Non-overlapping counts of people in receipt of IS Disability Premium, AA, DLA, SDA, IB, for mid 2005 in fi ve year age sex bands. Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex rates). ## 15. Measures Of Emergency Admissions To Hospital, Derived From Hospital Episode Statistics (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Hospital spells starting with admission in an emergency in fi ve year age sex bands, for April 2003 to March 2005. Denominator: Total resident population plus communal establishments minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) from ONS supplied LSOA population estimates 2005, in fi ve year age sex bands. Method: Directly age sex standardised ratio (shrinkage applied to age-sex rates). ## 16. Measure Of Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders (Lsoa Level) Modelled measure of adults under 60 suffering from mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (i.e. International Classifi cation of Disease 10th revision ICD-10, F3 and F4). Based on prescribing (2005, Source: Prescribing Pricing Authority), hospital episode (2004/2005, Source: Department of Health), deaths attributed to suicide (2001 to 2005, Source: ONS) and health benefi ts data (2005, Source: IB and SDA from DWP). ## 17. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 2 (End Of Primary) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS2 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: Total population in KS2 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005. ## 18. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 3 (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS3 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: Total population in KS3 age group in maintained schools from PLASC, for 2004 and 2005. ## 19. Average Points Score Of Children At Key Stage 4 (Gcse/Gnvq - Best Of Eight Results) (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Total score of pupils taking KS4 in 2004 and 2005 in maintained schools from the NPD. Denominator: All pupils in their fi nal year of compulsory schooling in maintained schools for 2004 and 2005 from PLASC. ## 20. Proportion Of Young People Not Staying On In School Or School Level Education Above 16 (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Those aged 17 still receiving Child Benefi t in 2006 Denominator: Those aged 15 receiving Child Benefi t in 2004. The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not staying in education. ## 21. Proportion Of Those Aged Under 21 Not Entering Higher Education (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Successful entrants under 21 in UCAS data, for 2002–2005 Denominator: Census population 14–17. The indicator is subtracted from 1 to produce the proportion not entering higher education. ## 22. Secondary School Absence Rate (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Average number of authorised and unauthorised absences from secondary school for 2004 and 2005, from the school level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences. Denominator: total number of possible sessions. Method: The rates were attributed to all children in a school and assigned to LSOAs using the pupil's home postcode from PLASC. ## 23. Proportions Of Working Age Adults (Aged 25–54) In The Area With No Or Low Qualifi Cations (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Adults aged 25–54 in the area with no qualifi cations or with qualifi cations below NVQ Level 2, for 2001. Denominator: All adults aged 25–54. ## 24. Household Overcrowding (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Overcrowded households (as defi ned in Census 2001 Classifi cations page 15), for April 2001. Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001. ## 25. Percentage Of Households For Whom A Decision On Their Application For Assistance Under The Homeless Provisions Of Housing Legislation Has Been Made (La Level) Numerator: as described, for 2005/6. Denominator: ODPM Household estimates, for 2004. ## 26. Diffi Culty Of Access To Owner-Occupation (La Level) Numerator: modelled proportion of households (under 35s) unable to afford to enter owner occupation on the basis of their income. Denominator: n/a ## 27. Road Distance To Gp Premises (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the population weighted OA centroid to nearest GP premises, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 28. Road Distance To A Supermarket Or Convenience Store (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest supermarket or convenience store, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 29. Road Distance To A Primary School (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest primary school, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 30. Road Distance To A Post Offi Ce (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Population weighted mean of OA road distance score. OA score is the road distance from the populated weighted OA centroid to nearest open post offi ce, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 31. Burglary (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (4 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level). Denominator: total dwellings from the Census plus business addresses from Address Point ## 32. Theft (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (5 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 33. Criminal Damage (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (10 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 34. Violence (Lsoa Level) Numerator: (14 recorded crime offence types, Police Force data for April 2004- March 2005, constrained to CDRP level). Denominator: resident population plus non-resident working population ## 35. Social And Private Housing In Poor Condition (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Estimate of the probability that any given dwelling in the SOA fails to meet the decent standard. Modelled primarily from the EHCS by BRE, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 36. Houses Without Central Heating (Lsoa Level) Numerator: as described, for 2001. Denominator: Number of households from the 2001 Census, for April 2001 ## 37. Air Quality (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Modelled measure of the concentration of four pollutants (Nitrogen Dioxide, Benzene, Sulphur Dioxide and Particulates), by the Geography Department at Staffordshire University and NAEI, for 2005. Denominator: n/a ## 38. Road Traffi C Accidents (Lsoa Level) Numerator: Injuries to pedestrians and cyclists caused by road traffi c accidents from STATS19 (Road Accident Data) smoothed to SOA level, for 2004–2006. Denominator: Total resident population, communal establishments population and non-resident workplace population minus prison establishment population (resident non-staff) , mid-2005 estimates provided by ONS ## Annex C: Data Sources 2001 Census, Small Area Statistics Package Version 7 (October 2003 Release) Working age adults (aged 25–59) with no or low qualifi cations (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain). Household overcrowding (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Houses without central heating (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) Census populations and residential dwellings (denominators) ## Department For Children, Schools And Families Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) National Pupil Database (NPD) (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) School level survey of authorised and unauthorised absences (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) Location of primary schools (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Department For Transport Road Accident Data STATS19 ## Department For Work And Pensions Income Support recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain) Income Based Job Seekers Allowance recipients and their partners and children (Income Deprivation Domain) Incapacity Benefi t claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Severe Disablement Allowance claimants women aged 18–59 and men aged 18–64 (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for the 18–24s who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not receiving JSA (Employment Deprivation Domain) Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (Employment Deprivation Domain) Recipients of IS Disability Premium, AA, DLA, SDA and IB (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, CIDR) Recipients of IB and SDA (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Department Of Health Hospital Episode Statistics (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'emergency admissions to hospital' and 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Heriot-Watt University Diffi culty of Access to owner-occupation indicator (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Home Offi Ce Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level recorded crime data (Crime Domain) Police force and CDRP boundary fi les (Crime Domain) ## Home Offi Ce And National Asylum Support Service NASS supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence and accommodation support (Income Deprivation Domain) ## Hm Revenue And Customs Adults and children in Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit households (Income Deprivation Domain) Child Benefi t data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain, 'not staying on in school') ## Mapinfo Ltd Location of general stores or supermarkets (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## National Health Service Information Authority Location of GP premises (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Communities And Local Government LA level number of households for whom a decision on their application for assistance under the homeless provisions of housing legislation has been made (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) LA level household estimates (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) Social and private housing in poor condition, modelled primarily from the English House Condition Survey by the Building Research Establishment and ODPM (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) ## Offi Ce Of National Statistics Mortality data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain) LSOA and mid-year population estimates 2005. ## Post Offi Ce Ltd Location of open post offi ces (Barriers to Housing and Services Domain) ## Prescription Pricing Authority Prescribing data (Health Deprivation and Disability Domain, 'adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders') ## Staffordshire University Air quality indicator (Living Environment Deprivation Domain) ## Universities And Colleges Admissions Service University Admissions data (Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain) ## 39 Regional Police Forces In England Recorded crime data (Crime Domain) ## Annex D: The Shrinkage Technique2 The 'shrunken' estimate of a LSOA-level proportion (or ratio) is a weighted average of the two 'raw' proportions for the LSOA and for the corresponding District.3 The weights used are determined by the relative magnitudes of within-LSOA and between-LSOA variability. If the rate for a particular indicator in LSOA j is rj events out of a population of nj, the empirical logit for each LSOA is: $$m_{\rm j}\ =\ \log\left[\ \frac{(r_{\rm j}+0.5)}{(r_{\rm j}-r_{\rm j}+0.5)}\ \right]\tag{1}$$ whose estimated standard error (sj) is the square root of: (nj + 1) (nj + 2) [2] nj (rj + 1)(nj - rj + 1) sj 2 = The corresponding counts r out of n for the district, LSOA j lies within gives the district-level logit: $$M=\log\left[\frac{(r+0.5)}{(n-r+0.5)}\right]$$ [3] The 'shrunken' LSOA-level logit is then the weighted average: $$m_{j}^{*}=w_{j}m_{j}+(1-w_{j})M\tag{4}$$ where wj is the weight given to the 'raw' LSOA - j data and (1 - wj) the weight given to the overall rate for the district. The formula used to determine wj is: $$W_{\rm j}\,=\,\frac{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}}{1/{\rm s}_{\rm j}^{\,2}\,+\,1/t^{2}}\tag{5}$$ where t2 is the inter-LSOA variance for the k LSOAs in the district, calculated as: $$t^{2}\ =\ \frac{1}{k-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k}(m_{j}-M)^{2}\tag{6}$$ Thus large LSOAs, where precision 1/s2 j is relatively large, have weight wj close to 1 and so shrinkage has little effect. The shrinkage effect is greatest for small LSOAs in relatively homogeneous districts. The fi nal step is to back-transform the shrunken logit mj* using the 'anti-logit', to obtain the shrunken LSOA level proportion: $$Z_{j}=\frac{\exp(m^{*}_{j})}{1+\exp(m^{*}_{j})}\tag{7}$$ for each LSOA. ## Annex E: Factor Analysis In a number of the domains, factor analysis is used as a method for combining indicators. Factor analysis is used to fi nd appropriate weights for combining indicators into a single score based on the inter-correlations between all the indicators4. This technique was applied to the following domains: Education, Skills and Training; Health Deprivation and Disability, and Crime. Factor Analysis is only used in domains where 'latent variables' are hypothesised to exist and where the indicator variables are 'effect indicators'. ## Method The combination process comprises the following stages: 1. All variables were converted to the standard normal distribution based on their ranks. 2. These new standardised scores were factor analysed (using the Maximum Likelihood method), deriving a set of weights. The variables were then combined using these weights. # Annex F: The 'Adults Under 60 Suffering From Mood Or Anxiety Disorders' Indicator ## Introduction Mental ill health is a condition that can severely impact on the quality of life of those suffering from it and those immediately around them. It may also lead to other forms of deprivation such as unemployment or homelessness; potentially individuals may fi nd themselves in a downward spiral that may be diffi cult to break out of. This makes it an important component of overall health which should be included in a small area measure of health deprivation. Creating a small area measure of mental health is not straightforward. There are no standard small area measures covering England that are ready to use. Survey approaches, using standard measures, would require very large sample sizes and do not yet exist. This suggests an approach using information that is already collected in support of administrative processes. However there are problems with the use of administrative records. These datasets are likely to lead to defi nitions of mental illness which are particular to the administrative process they are drawn from. These will not necessarily fi t exactly what is required for an index of deprivation. From Hospital records, for example, it is possible to identify individuals whose in patient spell is related to mental ill health. However this represents people who have probably reached a fairly critical state. It might be of greater interest to also take into account individuals who are in a less acute more chronic state and being treated, if at all, within primary care. A further problem when using administrative data to measure mental health is the way the organisation of local services and different practices within and between organisations affect the type of treatment an individual receives. This may lead to groups of individuals, identical in terms of their mental health, coming in contact with some services in some areas and not in others. Some General Practitioners, for example, may be less eager to use drugs in the treatment of depression than others. A count therefore of those receiving a prescription for the treatment of depression may differ between areas with identical numbers of people suffering from depression. The biases that result from the problems discussed above can be reduced through a careful choice of methodology. ## Methodology Given the problems outlined above it is clear that single mental health indicators that are derived from administrative data should be used with caution: each indicator is likely to vary around what might be thought of as the 'true' state of mental health in a small area. There is however a fairly simple method to reduce this bias. This is achieved by combining a number of indicators that are believed to measure the same underlying 'true' state. As the number of indicators is increased, the infl uence of under or over-recording bias should be reduced. This will be true as long as the bias does not result from an area effect that infl uences all the different administrative systems, leading to biases in the same direction. By choosing indicators from independent administrative data sources this problem should be minimised. The bias in the overall indicator, therefore, should be lower than that in any single indicator. Although it would be possible to simply combine the different measures after standardising them with equal weights, more sophisticated methods are available. These take into account the extent to which individual indicators are more or less precise in their measure of the underlying 'true' rate over the whole population. The most suitable method in this instance is Factor Analysis. The datasets that were used are from prescribing data; secondary care data; and health related benefi t administrative data. Because each of the datasets covers a slightly different group of psychiatric conditions, it was only possible to produce an estimate for a sub-group of these conditions. The sub-group chosen was people aged under 60 suffering mood (affective) disorders and neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders. Together these represent a large proportion of all those suffering mental ill health. ## Prescription Data This indicator uses information on drug prescribing to estimate levels of mental health. Because information on the conditions for which various types of drugs are prescribed as well as the typical dosages are known, it is possible to estimate the number of patients within a particular General Practitioner's (GP) practice who are suffering from mental health problems. The mental health problems examined here are depression and anxiety5. Unfortunately prescription data is not held at individual level and therefore a two-stage methodology must be adopted to calculate area rates. This method assumes that those with mental ill health take the national Average Daily Quantity (Prescribing Support Unit) of a specifi c drug on everyday of the year. While these assumptions may not fi t very well in individual cases, they are more likely to hold across the 'average' for the practice population. The practice rates are then distributed to geographical areas through knowledge of practice population distribution. This process will tend to 'spatially smooth' the area rates where practice populations are heterogeneous. In effect the small area rate will move towards a larger area 'moving average'. However although this does mean high or low rates will tend to move towards the local average, it also reduces the impact of individual GP prescribing behaviour that might be introducing bias because the small area rate will be a combination of a number of different practices. ## Secondary Care Data This indicator uses hospital inpatient data to estimate the proportion of the population suffering severe mental health problems relating to depression and anxiety. A count is made of all those who have had at least one in-stay spell in any one year coded within International Classifi cation of Disease version 10 (ICD- 10) chapter 'F' (the coding for mental ill health): the precise grouping of disorders included can be seen in table 1. The indicator is therefore an annual count of those suffering at least one severe mental health episode in a year, an "annual incidence of hospitalisation"6. These individuals are then geocoded to their residential address and a standardised rate is calculated using the residential population in the small area as a denominator. | ICD10 | Categories of disorder | |---------|---------------------------------------------------| | F30–F39 | Mood (affective) disorders | | F40–F48 | Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders | There are two signifi cant issues with this indicator as a measure of an underlying rate of mental health. Firstly, the admission of an individual into hospital may be infl uenced not only by the severity of their condition but also by factors arising from an interaction between primary, social and secondary care. If for example there has been a failure of adequate primary care in an area, individuals who might have remained within primary care in another area, may be admitted into secondary care. The second problem with this indicator is small numbers. This means that the estimate of the underlying risk of admission in some small areas has low precision. Combining a number of years together can reduce the small number problem. In this case 2 years of data were combined. The problem of organisational bias can be reduced through combining different indicators of mental health as outlined above. ## Health Related Benefi Ts The rate of sickness and disability in an area can be measured using information on receipt of particular benefi ts. Incapacity Benefi t (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) are benefi ts paid to individuals of working age who are unable to work because of ill health. IB is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work due to ill health and who have paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions. SDA is a non means-tested benefi t paid to people who are incapable of work through illness and have not paid suffi cient National Insurance contributions to qualify for IB. Both of these benefi t datasets are coded for medical conditions. This coding can be converted to an ICD-10 classifi cation and then a count of individuals with a condition within chapter 'F' made: the precise ICD-10 codes used were F3 and F4 as for the hospital data. Using the working age population as a denominator, a standardised rate of mental ill health amongst those aged 16 to 59 can then be calculated. ## Suicide Although suicide is not a direct measure of mental ill health, it is highly associated with depression where it is implicated in a majority of cases. Unlike the other measures it is more independent of organisational practices; therefore it may suffer less from biases relating to local practice. However numbers are small and so the precision of the measure may be poor. The actual measure used was deaths that occurred between 2001 and 2005 which had ICD-10 codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending. ## Combining The Data To Create A Composite Indicator The three indicators were combined using weights derived from Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis. The use of Factor Analysis here is based on the proposition that in any small area there is an unmeasured 'true' rate of mental health (a latent factor) that manifests itself through various mental health related administrative processes and events as a set of indicators. The variance in these administrative indicators will be either related to the 'true' rate of mental health or to some other factors unique to them and unrelated to the other indicators. The covariance between the indicators is therefore 'caused' by the 'true' rate of mental health. Indicators that have a lower correlation with all the other indicators are therefore a poorer measure of the 'true' rate than those with a high overall correlation and are given a lower weight to be combined with. The combined indicators should be a more precise measure of the underlying 'true' rate of mental health than any single indicator on its own. ## Annex G: Categories Of Recorded Crime Included In The Crime Domain The Crime Domain consists of 33 categories of recorded crime (notifi able offences) which have been grouped to form four composite indicators: violence; burglary; theft; and criminal damage. | Home Offi | ce offence code | |-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Violence | | | 1 | Murder | | } | | | Homicide | | | 4.1 | Manslaughter | | 4.2 | Infanticide | | 2 | Attempted murder | | 37.1 | Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking | | 5 | Wounding or other act endangering life | | 8A | Other wounding | | 8C | Harassment | | 8D | Racially-aggravated other wounding | | 8E | Racially-aggravated harassment | | 105A | Common assault | | 105B | Racially-aggravated common assault | | 34A | Robbery of business property | | 34B | Robbery of personal property | | Burglary | | | 28 | Burglary in a dwelling | | 29 | Aggravated burglary in a dwelling | | 30 | Burglary in a building other than a dwelling | | 31 | Aggravated burglary in a building other than a dwelling | | Theft | | | 37.2 | Aggravated vehicle taking | | 39 | Theft from the person of another | | 45 | Theft from a vehicle | | 48 | Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle | | 126 | Vehicle interference and tampering | | Criminal damage | | | 56 | Arson | | 58A | Criminal damage to a dwelling | | 58B | Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling | | 58C | Criminal damage to a vehicle | | 58D | Other criminal damage | | 58E | Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a dwelling | | 58F | Racially aggravated criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling | | 58G | Racially-aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle | | 58H | Racially-aggravated other criminal damage | | 59 | Threat etc. to commit criminal damage | Within the four composite indicators, each notifi able offence type has been assigned equal weight. Therefore, the numerator for the 'violence' rate is the sum of the fourteen notifi able offence categories listed above. In order to account for variability in recording practices between police forces, the SOA-level counts of crime have been constrained to Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) totals provided by the Home Offi ce. The denominator for the 'burglary' indicator is the number of dwellings from the 2001 Census plus the number of business addresses from Ordinance Survey's Address Point, while the denominator for the 'violence', 'theft' and 'criminal damage' indicators is total resident population plus non-resident workplace population, also from the 2001 Census. As an example, the 'theft' indicator can be formulated as follows: Theft = (Aggravated vehicle taking + Theft from the person of another + Theft from a vehicle + Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle + Vehicle interference and tampering) (Resident population + Non-resident workplace population) ## Annex H: Exponential Transformation The transformation used is as follows. For any SOA, denote its rank on the Domain, scaled to the range [0,1], by R (with R=1/N for the least deprived, and R=N/N, i.e. R=1, for the most deprived, where N=the number of SOAs in England). The transformed Domain, X say, is X = –23*log{1 - R*[1 - exp(–100/23)]} where log denotes natural logarithm and exp the exponential or antilog transformation. ## Annex J: The 100 Most Deprived Soas On The Index Of Multiple Deprivation 2007 | SOA | LA | |------------|-----------------| | CODE | | | LA NAME | GOR | | CODE | | | GOR NAME | IMD | | SCORE | | | E01006755 | 00BY | | E01005204 | 00BN | | E01021988 | 22UN | | E01012721 | 00EY | | E01006778 | 00BY | | E01006467 | 00BX | | E01006559 | 00BY | | E01006561 | 00BY | | E01006468 | 00BX | | E01012673 | 00EY | | E01005484 | 00BQ | | E01006676 | 00BY | | E01024858 | 30UD | | E01008836 | 00CM Sunderland | | E01005482 | 00BQ | | E01009585 | 00CQ | | E01005466 | 00BQ | | E01009365 | 00CN | | E01006647 | 00BY | | E01006469 | 00BX | | E01013137 | 00FC | | E01007532 | 00CE | | E01012070 | 00EC | | E01006599 | 00BY | | E01006703 | 00BY | | E01007122 | 00CB | | E01006740 | 00BY | | E01008380 | 00CJ | | E01006646 | 00BY | | E01012720 | 00EY | | E01012041 | 00EC | | E01006699 | 00BY | | E01006563 | 00BY | | E01006560 | 00BY | | E01012655 | 00EX | | E01013818 | 00FY | | E01006756 | 00BY | | E01010606 | 00CX | | E01005067 | 00BN | | E01005658 | 00BR | | RANK OF | | | IMD (where | | | 1 is most | | | deprived) | | | SOA | LA | |-----------|--------------------| | CODE | | | LA NAME | GOR | | CODE | | | GOR NAME | IMD | | SCORE | | | E01012875 | 00FA | | E01006442 | 00BX | | E01007127 | 00CB | | E01012678 | 00EY | | E01006674 | 00BY | | E01006630 | 00BY | | E01005568 | 00BQ | | E01024908 | 30UD | | E01006777 | 00BY | | E01005256 | 00BN | | E01006732 | 00BY | | E01005655 | 00BR | | E01006679 | 00BY | | E01028276 | 37UF | | E01006704 | 00BY | | E01005350 | 00BP | | E01005196 | 00BN | | E01006540 | 00BY | | E01013139 | 00FC | | E01010485 | 00CW Wolverhampton | | E01013136 | 00FC | | E01024877 | 30UD | | E01005228 | 00BN | | E01006515 | 00BY | | E01010617 | 00CX | | E01009488 | 00CN | | E01025041 | 30UG | | E01008291 | 00CJ | | E01012266 | 00EF | | E01020909 | 20UJ | | E01012069 | 00EC | | E01010823 | 00CX | | E01012114 | 00EE | | E01005096 | 00BN | | E01009358 | 00CN | | E01006779 | 00BY | | E01006677 | 00BY | | E01009476 | 00CN | | E01006558 | 00BY | | E01012897 | 00FA | | E01008011 | 00CG | | E01006598 | 00BY | | E01005099 | 00BN | | E01005203 | 00BN | | E01006760 | 00BY | | E01009379 | 00CN | | E01025286 | 30UK | | E01006417 | 00BX | | E01005667 | 00BR | | E01005612 | 00BR | RANK OF IMD (where 1 is most deprived) | SOA | LA | |------------|-------| | CODE | | | LA NAME | GOR | | CODE | | | GOR NAME | IMD | | SCORE | | | E01007132 | 00CB | | E01008214 | 00CH | | E01015842 | 00KF | | E01005205 | 00BN | | E01007133 | 00CB | | E01006470 | 00BX | | E01007128 | 00CB | | E01015155 | 00HG | | E01006746 | 00BY | | E01005613 | 00BR | | RANK OF | | | IMD (where | | | 1 is most | | | deprived) | | Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 34.49 22 25388.65 11 0.48 21 30564.03 74 44806 47 13085.25 64 11.47 272 9357.59 279 0.03 230 23274.23 242 16650 136 6209.25 149 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 45UB Adur 20.55 138 17520.60 122 0.11 156 26643.52 180 7372 300 2594.75 309 16UB Allerdale 21.63 119 17011.62 132 0.17 116 30532.75 76 13487 171 6256.50 147 35UB Alnwick 15.57 206 13753.48 191 0.03 221 24442.12 221 3741 347 1676.50 342 17UB Amber Valley 18.12 159 15290.74 164 0.09 170 27304.55 171 14794 154 6593.50 137 45UC Arun 16.64 187 14078.33 186 0.07 181 26824.11 177 17063 134 6070.50 153 37UB Ashfi eld 25.26 81 20192.07 72 0.22 97 29619.83 115 17925 124 8360.75 111 29UB Ashford 14.37 227 12191.70 227 0.05 195 25784.01 194 12880 184 4377.50 220 11UB Aylesbury Vale 8.76 319 6604.62 325 0.01 273 21986.76 267 13306 177 4745.75 206 42UB Babergh 11.30 277 9656.41 271 0.00 301 21354.72 282 7919 287 2779.25 305 00AB Barking and Dagenham 00AC Barnet 21.16 128 17960.16 112 0.12 146 28268.82 149 51407 38 16068.25 53 00CC Barnsley 30.48 43 22090.43 41 0.37 46 31544.77 41 41091 52 21650.75 25 16UC Barrow-in-Furness 32.69 29 22647.17 32 0.40 36 32021.80 17 13183 179 7460.75 124 22UB Basildon 20.58 136 16050.90 151 0.17 114 28973.10 134 27179 87 9219.50 100 24UB Basingstoke and Deane 9.84 304 7916.06 306 0.00 308 21428.78 278 12575 188 4773.50 204 37UC Bassetlaw 24.11 94 18715.40 101 0.22 90 30525.75 77 15723 146 7887.00 114 00HA Bath and North East Somerset 09UD Bedford 16.87 183 13558.58 198 0.10 157 28243.89 150 21071 107 7583.50 122 35UC Berwick-upon-Tweed 20.79 133 18658.15 104 0.02 232 24169.84 227 3723 348 1521.25 347 00AD Bexley 16.21 194 13482.18 199 0.07 177 26723.04 178 27351 86 9728.75 92 00CN Birmingham 38.67 10 24907.94 14 0.55 12 32053.06 15 287890 1 89139.50 1 31UB Blaby 8.41 326 6613.16 324 0.00 309 14808.89 345 6444 314 2949.50 295 00EX Blackburn with Darwen 35.83 17 23048.41 27 0.52 15 32194.02 9 38543 60 12422.25 73 00EY Blackpool 37.66 12 24609.06 18 0.46 24 32384.54 3 32997 72 14368.00 61 ## Annex K: District Level Summaries Of The Lsoa Level Index Of Multiple Deprivation Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 35UD Blyth Valley 25.36 80 18934.11 93 0.27 73 31042.45 63 13614 168 6986.25 133 17UC Bolsover 28.93 55 22115.83 40 0.32 58 30325.46 82 12945 183 6465.00 142 00BL Bolton 29.67 51 20413.22 65 0.37 42 31902.90 24 53365 31 20971.50 27 32UB Boston 22.75 109 18825.00 96 0.15 128 28531.67 141 9074 266 3539.75 266 00HN Bournemouth 22.99 108 18320.01 108 0.18 111 30118.13 91 24957 91 10881.00 81 00MA Bracknell Forest 8.75 320 7010.21 316 0.00 309 18878.49 315 8669 273 3432.25 274 00CX Bradford 32.00 32 21029.26 52 0.42 31 32122.55 11 118426 4 35256.00 6 22UC Braintree 13.61 239 11974.84 232 0.01 265 22580.12 252 14753 156 5470.25 179 33UB Breckland 15.30 213 13438.54 201 0.03 225 24513.64 218 14455 159 5482.25 178 00AE Brent 29.22 53 22753.28 30 0.27 74 30624.17 72 63767 19 20175.75 32 22UD Brentwood 9.18 315 7326.36 312 0.00 295 20590.63 293 5721 320 2225.75 321 39UB Bridgnorth 13.32 243 11836.68 236 0.00 309 21293.73 283 4892 332 1923.50 334 00ML Brighton and Hove 25.56 79 19933.03 77 0.22 95 30761.45 70 41180 51 17761.50 46 00HB Bristol, City of 27.76 64 20310.98 68 0.30 64 31581.27 38 67656 15 26520.50 10 33UC Broadland 10.09 301 8572.81 295 0.00 309 16824.91 334 10204 237 4462.00 214 00AF Bromley 14.36 228 11555.61 241 0.07 179 27132.38 173 34511 66 12602.00 70 47UB Bromsgrove 10.20 299 8441.66 299 0.01 288 20881.35 287 7108 303 3347.25 279 26UB Broxbourne 16.22 193 13853.44 189 0.06 190 25744.69 196 10876 220 3731.75 254 37UD Broxtowe 14.41 226 12461.43 219 0.03 219 24455.60 220 11006 217 5272.00 183 30UD Burnley 34.61 21 22712.28 31 0.43 27 32308.13 5 19891 113 8012.00 113 00BM Bury 21.42 122 16722.66 136 0.17 113 30160.02 88 27479 84 12081.00 75 00CY Calderdale 23.01 107 17618.98 119 0.22 98 30745.37 71 32674 73 12347.00 74 12UB Cambridge 13.87 236 11951.46 234 0.02 245 23862.49 231 11373 210 4671.00 207 00AG Camden 28.62 57 22069.20 42 0.33 57 29711.51 108 48865 42 17819.50 43 41UB Cannock Chase 20.64 135 17211.04 129 0.12 143 27309.39 170 13135 180 5839.75 164 29UC Canterbury 16.17 198 14053.01 187 0.05 197 25683.01 199 17679 125 6537.25 141 15UB Caradon 18.76 156 16600.09 139 0.04 206 25346.74 205 10401 231 4063.50 232 16UD Carlisle 22.70 110 17931.51 113 0.19 106 29760.18 105 13392 175 6552.50 139 15UC Carrick 21.61 120 18732.69 100 0.09 171 27644.65 160 12073 199 4847.75 198 35UE Castle Morpeth 14.61 223 11769.41 238 0.08 173 27412.59 169 4863 333 2831.75 302 22UE Castle Point 12.90 249 11166.14 246 0.01 263 22247.94 261 9828 244 3604.50 261 31UC Charnwood 11.95 264 9627.63 272 0.04 210 24913.12 209 15374 148 5860.75 163 22UF Chelmsford 9.26 312 7265.32 314 0.01 270 21474.18 276 13911 163 5298.50 182 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 23UB Cheltenham 15.92 202 12398.06 221 0.11 151 28587.84 140 12516 189 5178.75 186 38UB Cherwell 11.30 276 9083.14 284 0.03 213 24616.64 215 11203 213 4156.50 227 13UB Chester 16.86 184 13102.13 210 0.11 150 29199.89 129 14186 160 6286.25 146 17UD Chesterfi eld 25.75 77 19650.24 81 0.28 68 30181.65 85 17467 128 8386.50 109 20UB Chester-le-Street 20.44 140 16530.37 141 0.13 132 28202.17 151 7455 297 3953.75 238 45UD Chichester 12.08 259 10662.78 254 0.00 290 20006.51 302 9885 241 3327.25 280 11UC Chiltern 7.02 345 5207.86 342 0.00 309 18116.48 324 6286 317 2370.50 316 30UE Chorley 16.56 188 13227.35 208 0.11 153 28280.61 147 11150 214 5680.75 170 19UC Christchurch 14.68 220 12736.57 216 0.05 201 25510.35 202 5198 329 1868.75 337 00AA City of London 12.84 252 10691.91 253 0.04 209 24321.00 223 687 353 323.75 353 22UG Colchester 14.59 224 12337.15 224 0.05 202 25652.71 200 17948 122 7179.00 130 13UC Congleton 9.86 303 7773.83 307 0.01 255 22462.02 255 7703 290 3747.50 251 16UE Copeland 25.73 78 19880.68 79 0.24 88 30488.07 78 11033 216 5648.75 171 34UB Corby 26.16 75 20403.29 66 0.25 83 30159.43 89 8504 279 3861.50 243 23UC Cotswold 10.22 298 8739.32 289 0.00 302 16486.80 338 6427 315 2230.75 320 00CQ Coventry 27.85 61 20200.31 71 0.31 61 31562.67 40 59718 23 22244.25 21 36UB Craven 11.59 270 9842.93 267 0.02 248 22285.30 260 4381 342 1914.25 336 45UE Crawley 15.55 207 13683.70 194 0.02 244 23829.04 232 11810 204 4188.25 225 13UD Crewe and Nantwich 17.45 174 13741.11 192 0.13 137 29031.51 133 13464 172 5785.50 165 00AH Croydon 21.31 125 17449.64 123 0.15 129 28358.35 144 58450 25 18428.75 41 26UC Dacorum 10.73 288 8906.19 287 0.00 299 21481.37 275 13600 169 4962.00 192 00EH Darlington 24.10 95 17639.46 118 0.25 82 31329.63 52 17130 133 7484.50 123 29UD Dartford 16.65 186 14152.42 180 0.06 188 26192.78 189 9843 242 3866.75 242 34UC Daventry 10.61 292 8464.62 298 0.02 234 23181.71 245 6315 316 2370.00 317 00FK Derby 26.64 69 18926.39 94 0.31 60 31421.47 49 44015 48 16102.25 52 17UF Derbyshire Dales 12.53 254 11055.72 247 0.01 258 19987.31 303 5551 322 2404.50 313 20UD Derwentside 26.19 73 20740.85 58 0.25 81 29308.43 126 16182 140 7803.50 115 00CE Doncaster 30.84 41 22002.18 43 0.38 41 31511.74 45 53348 32 23464.75 19 29UE Dover 19.12 153 16374.06 148 0.09 166 26931.95 176 15107 151 6370.25 144 00CR Dudley 23.68 100 17968.59 111 0.24 87 30355.67 81 52513 35 19638.75 33 20UE Durham 17.12 180 13434.55 203 0.12 145 28699.29 138 10430 229 5964.75 159 00AJ Ealing 25.10 84 20068.05 75 0.22 91 29601.13 116 60225 22 19527.75 35 20UF Easington 39.46 7 26336.30 7 0.62 7 31630.05 35 20972 108 12673.50 68 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 14.17 232 11361.49 245 0.07 180 27421.96 168 35490 63 15142.00 56 19.92 147 14901.41 167 0.21 99 29193.45 130 10649 226 4850.25 197 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 12UC East Cambridgeshire 10.84 285 9369.93 278 0.00 309 17948.06 326 6858 306 2396.75 314 18UB East Devon 13.69 238 12172.75 228 0.01 266 21994.58 266 12797 185 4763.75 205 19UD East Dorset 8.46 325 6545.06 327 0.00 305 19094.89 314 6700 309 2373.00 315 24UC East Hampshire 8.06 332 6187.91 332 0.00 309 16832.07 333 8412 283 3008.00 292 26UD East Hertfordshire 7.41 336 5478.45 336 0.00 309 17600.57 327 9070 267 3485.75 269 32UC East Lindsey 24.61 88 19635.21 82 0.20 103 29943.87 102 21844 104 9501.00 97 34UD East Northamptonshire 11.78 266 9744.29 269 0.01 268 23241.53 244 7875 288 3025.50 291 00FB East Riding of Yorkshire 41UC East Staffordshire 18.44 158 14454.65 176 0.16 120 28815.24 136 13792 165 4937.00 194 21UC Eastbourne 23.36 104 19248.40 88 0.16 121 28620.93 139 14736 158 5486.25 176 24UD Eastleigh 9.24 313 7272.58 313 0.01 289 21769.49 273 9181 262 3738.00 253 16UF Eden 14.64 221 13460.32 200 0.00 309 20136.96 299 3926 345 1809.75 338 13UE Ellesmere Port & Neston 43UB Elmbridge 7.12 343 5107.63 345 0.00 309 18072.04 325 8971 270 2934.50 297 00AK Enfi eld 26.19 74 20267.50 70 0.26 76 29967.28 100 66630 17 19354.50 37 22UH Epping Forest 14.33 229 12451.49 220 0.02 247 23119.58 246 13452 173 4575.75 211 43UC Epsom and Ewell 7.43 335 5385.25 338 0.00 309 19478.93 311 4629 339 2014.00 330 17UG Erewash 17.98 164 14712.78 170 0.10 158 27455.71 167 13509 170 5894.50 161 18UC Exeter 20.27 145 16687.58 137 0.13 133 28762.42 137 13661 166 5965.50 158 24UE Fareham 7.28 338 5198.83 343 0.01 276 18602.05 317 7237 302 3094.25 288 12UD Fenland 20.50 139 17441.57 125 0.10 163 27793.51 159 13021 182 4817.50 199 42UC Forest Heath 11.90 265 10529.23 256 0.00 309 19205.27 313 4835 334 1698.75 340 23UD Forest of Dean 16.00 201 14594.09 174 0.01 264 23099.27 247 9376 254 3895.25 241 30UF Fylde 12.86 251 10828.55 249 0.03 227 23695.78 236 7460 296 3609.75 260 00CH Gateshead 29.52 52 21085.90 50 0.36 48 31612.06 36 39485 58 17720.50 47 37UE Gedling 15.54 208 13339.82 205 0.03 216 24690.87 214 12250 194 5535.25 175 23UE Gloucester 21.64 118 16373.67 149 0.22 96 30018.01 99 16097 142 6399.25 143 24UF Gosport 17.80 167 14895.85 168 0.09 168 27537.56 165 9240 260 3294.00 283 29UG Gravesham 20.37 142 16421.64 143 0.15 125 29087.37 132 13402 174 5142.25 188 33UD Great Yarmouth 28.35 58 20862.23 55 0.28 66 31698.66 32 18998 119 7773.50 116 00AL Greenwich 33.94 24 24613.26 17 0.44 26 31050.05 61 53224 33 17437.50 48 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 28.07 59 22177.95 38 0.28 72 29631.20 113 34512 65 12572.50 72 17.58 171 15565.66 158 0.05 198 25945.02 192 20680 109 7689.50 117 23.51 101 18776.37 98 0.22 94 29665.13 110 23665 95 9236.50 99 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 43UD Guildford 8.20 329 6288.95 331 0.00 292 19948.72 304 8941 271 3579.25 263 00AM Hackney 46.10 2 28960.78 1 0.84 1 31566.72 39 76242 10 21765.25 24 00ET Halton 32.61 30 22126.72 39 0.46 25 31815.38 27 24830 92 11537.25 77 36UC Hambleton 9.84 305 8147.09 304 0.00 306 19841.45 306 6500 313 2819.00 303 00AN Hammersmith and Fulham 31UD Harborough 7.08 344 5169.47 344 0.00 309 14776.87 346 5242 326 2109.75 325 00AP Haringey 35.73 18 24932.79 13 0.53 13 31237.87 57 68291 14 20885.50 29 22UJ Harlow 21.44 121 18606.31 105 0.06 186 25205.25 207 12252 193 4333.75 222 36UD Harrogate 9.49 310 7707.51 309 0.01 262 19608.51 309 11445 209 5010.00 190 00AQ Harrow 15.59 205 13647.84 196 0.03 218 24709.26 211 33675 69 10358.25 85 24UG Hart 4.13 354 2153.76 354 0.00 309 9590.48 354 4068 344 1631.50 344 00EB Hartlepool 34.10 23 22484.62 36 0.48 19 32018.88 18 21869 102 9956.75 90 21UD Hastings 32.21 31 22917.71 29 0.39 38 31702.21 31 18610 121 7367.25 127 24UH Havant 21.28 126 16515.27 142 0.22 93 29132.39 131 17170 132 5765.75 167 00AR Havering 16.07 200 13578.55 197 0.06 187 26255.82 186 28169 79 10446.75 83 00GA Herefordshire, County of 26UE Hertsmere 12.86 250 10817.04 250 0.02 242 23733.96 234 9762 247 3512.75 267 17UH High Peak 15.34 211 12906.60 214 0.05 193 26253.20 187 9782 246 4436.75 216 00AS Hillingdon 18.56 157 15916.43 153 0.07 183 26252.18 188 38574 59 12592.75 71 31UE Hinckley and Bosworth 10.90 283 9071.96 286 0.01 269 21467.00 277 8606 277 3793.50 248 45UF Horsham 7.38 337 5636.64 334 0.00 309 14445.08 348 8575 278 3263.00 284 00AT Hounslow 23.20 105 19567.05 83 0.13 136 28012.47 155 41050 53 12621.00 69 12UE Huntingdonshire 9.31 311 7417.00 311 0.01 281 20258.48 296 12605 187 5002.00 191 30UG Hyndburn 30.91 40 21517.05 45 0.37 43 32038.43 16 17244 130 6897.50 135 42UD Ipswich 23.75 99 18270.48 109 0.24 84 30050.97 97 19670 114 7135.75 132 00MW Isle of Wight 20.67 134 18002.35 110 0.07 178 26345.30 184 21468 105 8369.50 110 15UH Isles of Scilly 19.72 149 18360.00 106 0.00 309 18360.00 320 144 354 36.00 354 00AU Islington 38.96 8 26885.05 6 0.62 6 31263.30 56 52467 36 19129.75 39 46UB Kennet 10.27 296 8664.92 291 0.00 309 18634.43 316 6507 312 2242.50 319 00AW Kensington and Chelsea Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 20.58 137 16900.49 134 0.11 152 29960.93 101 19501 116 7670.50 119 38.31 11 24629.41 16 0.52 14 32218.24 8 62603 20 23183.00 20 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 15UD Kerrier 25.05 86 20622.95 61 0.15 127 29445.75 119 16051 143 6211.25 148 34UE Kettering 15.09 214 12223.99 226 0.08 175 27224.47 172 9469 253 3914.25 240 33UE King's Lynn and West Norfolk 00FA Kingston upon Hull, City of 00AX Kingston upon Thames 13.10 245 11442.01 244 0.01 261 22542.17 254 14773 155 5235.25 184 00CZ Kirklees 25.23 82 18666.58 102 0.27 75 31143.79 59 70714 12 24369.50 15 00BX Knowsley 43.20 5 26109.76 8 0.59 8 32401.63 2 42673 50 17774.25 45 00AY Lambeth 34.94 19 25558.07 9 0.50 17 30113.35 93 66903 16 24294.50 16 30UH Lancaster 21.94 117 16787.92 135 0.18 109 31046.89 62 19670 114 8762.75 103 00DA Leeds 25.07 85 17879.46 114 0.28 67 31468.75 48 113962 5 45232.25 4 00FN Leicester 34.68 20 23944.37 23 0.46 23 31979.49 19 78758 9 24891.75 13 21UF Lewes 14.79 218 13008.87 211 0.02 249 23701.62 235 10416 230 3805.75 246 00AZ Lewisham 31.04 39 23978.26 22 0.36 47 29359.82 122 58128 28 20401.75 31 41UD Lichfi eld 12.12 258 10259.31 260 0.02 241 23346.99 241 9288 258 3957.50 237 32UD Lincoln 26.56 70 19922.13 78 0.28 69 31191.58 58 15937 144 6184.25 150 00BY Liverpool 46.97 1 27055.41 5 0.67 4 32434.42 1 127365 3 56926.50 2 00KA Luton 24.73 87 19438.92 86 0.24 85 29421.42 120 40375 55 11492.75 78 13UG Macclesfi eld 10.67 290 8405.77 301 0.03 217 24560.98 216 12301 191 5636.50 172 29UH Maidstone 12.99 248 10633.45 255 0.05 203 25684.77 198 14742 157 5396.25 181 22UK Maldon 12.26 255 10736.04 252 0.00 309 21178.98 284 6178 318 2186.00 322 47UC Malvern Hills 13.59 240 11893.33 235 0.03 228 23650.00 237 7478 295 2883.00 300 00BN Manchester 44.50 4 27146.21 4 0.66 5 32329.78 4 132867 2 48398.25 3 37UF Mansfi eld 31.80 34 22528.50 34 0.40 35 31805.75 28 17943 123 8627.25 105 00LC Medway 19.55 150 16066.15 150 0.11 154 28040.78 154 37230 61 13031.25 65 31UG Melton 10.43 294 8705.71 290 0.00 309 20279.30 295 3807 346 1361.75 350 40UB Mendip 14.83 217 13142.63 209 0.02 233 23773.06 233 11879 203 4535.50 212 00BA Merton 14.62 222 12340.37 223 0.03 215 24692.94 213 25651 89 8400.75 108 09UC Mid Bedfordshire 7.23 340 5237.43 341 0.00 309 16193.14 339 9339 256 3497.00 268 18UD Mid Devon 17.34 177 15447.42 162 0.03 226 24413.15 222 8206 285 2977.50 293 42UE Mid Suffolk 9.79 306 8217.20 303 0.00 304 15517.33 341 7242 301 2651.00 308 45UG Mid Sussex 6.94 346 5035.93 346 0.00 307 17037.17 331 8616 276 3357.50 278 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 14.73 219 12610.03 217 0.04 208 25143.93 208 9274 259 4040.75 233 22.41 112 17720.68 117 0.18 110 29795.84 103 17216 131 7347.25 128 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 00EC Middlesbrough 38.94 9 23638.11 25 0.56 9 32296.66 6 36603 62 14790.25 58 00MG Milton Keynes 15.32 212 12109.92 229 0.10 162 28352.01 145 29144 78 10391.00 84 43UE Mole Valley 7.25 339 5448.58 337 0.00 309 16740.40 336 5076 331 1938.75 333 24UJ New Forest 10.16 300 8280.95 302 0.01 267 20829.07 289 15796 145 5685.50 169 37UG Newark and Sherwood 18.03 163 14575.38 175 0.12 144 28439.04 143 13874 164 6022.00 155 00CJ Newcastle upon Tyne 31.36 37 20810.21 56 0.40 37 32102.57 13 58433 26 24001.50 18 41UE Newcastle-under-Lyme 19.27 152 15683.61 157 0.13 138 28351.87 146 15350 149 7671.75 118 00BB Newham 42.95 6 28285.86 2 0.79 2 31337.84 51 88945 7 21025.50 26 15UE North Cornwall 24.07 96 20877.01 54 0.06 185 26112.73 190 12134 197 4413.75 219 18UE North Devon 19.97 146 16974.55 133 0.10 164 28174.87 152 13063 181 4787.50 202 19UE North Dorset 13.02 247 11767.87 239 0.00 309 19565.91 310 5557 321 1996.00 331 17UJ North East Derbyshire 17.37 176 14311.56 178 0.09 169 27556.41 163 12435 190 5886.75 162 00FC North East Lincolnshire 29.73 49 20309.70 69 0.37 44 31857.47 25 31804 74 11084.50 80 26UF North Hertfordshire 10.69 289 8844.96 288 0.01 280 21854.31 271 11347 211 3983.25 236 32UE North Kesteven 10.26 297 8599.00 294 0.00 309 19627.79 308 9139 265 3780.50 249 00FD North Lincolnshire 20.88 132 16418.68 146 0.16 119 30461.50 79 23382 96 9029.50 101 33UF North Norfolk 18.06 160 16420.06 145 0.01 272 22734.96 250 12759 186 4958.50 193 39UC North Shropshire 17.43 175 15788.54 154 0.01 252 23258.17 243 6720 308 2534.00 312 00HC North Somerset 15.01 215 11542.21 242 0.09 167 29358.66 123 21902 101 9250.50 98 00CK North Tyneside 23.51 102 17833.10 115 0.24 86 30159.33 90 33233 70 15048.00 57 44UB North Warwickshire 16.18 197 14356.77 177 0.03 223 24495.88 219 6668 310 2971.00 294 31UH North West Leicestershire 46UC North Wiltshire 8.82 318 6931.67 319 0.00 300 20064.47 301 10708 222 3840.75 245 34UF Northampton 21.15 129 16553.87 140 0.18 112 29527.37 118 27967 82 10286.00 86 33UG Norwich 27.84 62 20729.13 59 0.36 49 30054.00 96 24239 94 9539.25 96 00FY Nottingham 37.46 13 25184.19 12 0.56 11 31845.38 26 68470 13 24899.75 12 44UC Nuneaton and Bedworth 31UJ Oadby and Wigston 10.51 293 8479.47 297 0.00 309 21376.59 281 5225 327 2025.00 329 00BP Oldham 30.82 42 20996.83 53 0.40 34 31904.08 23 50682 39 17216.00 49 39UD Oswestry 17.48 173 15556.07 160 0.03 231 24297.14 224 4788 337 2098.00 326 38UC Oxford 18.80 155 15763.63 155 0.11 155 27592.70 162 17401 129 6075.75 152 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 9.55 309 7585.08 310 0.01 271 20755.55 291 15269 150 5764.75 168 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 30UJ Pendle 30.24 44 21036.96 51 0.38 40 31786.15 29 19005 118 6931.75 134 15UF Penwith 31.61 36 24240.66 21 0.35 53 30095.91 94 12102 198 4592.75 209 00JA Peterborough 24.49 90 18741.09 99 0.26 78 30055.81 95 30136 76 9740.25 91 00HG Plymouth 26.11 76 19539.71 84 0.28 70 30921.14 65 40643 54 18189.50 42 00HP Poole 14.93 216 12532.42 218 0.05 196 25854.49 193 16203 139 5774.75 166 00MR Portsmouth 24.21 93 18953.15 92 0.20 105 30911.43 66 29616 77 10457.25 82 30UK Preston 29.78 48 20181.32 73 0.39 39 31979.03 20 25328 90 10150.25 89 19UG Purbeck 13.49 241 12385.76 222 0.00 309 18237.56 321 4403 341 1516.75 348 00MC Reading 19.30 151 15924.32 152 0.12 142 27643.46 161 19339 117 6733.25 136 00BC Redbridge 20.36 143 17541.50 121 0.08 172 26960.05 175 46236 46 13507.50 63 00EE Redcar and Cleveland 29.69 50 20513.16 63 0.33 55 32115.96 12 27866 83 12686.75 67 47UD Redditch 21.05 131 16421.43 144 0.21 100 28868.87 135 11532 208 4590.00 210 43UF Reigate and Banstead 8.59 322 6632.77 323 0.00 293 20382.37 294 9739 248 3746.50 252 15UG Restormel 24.51 89 20711.43 60 0.13 135 27979.27 156 14955 153 6028.25 154 30UL Ribble Valley 10.07 302 8524.88 296 0.00 309 16990.16 332 3635 349 2158.50 323 00BD Richmond upon Thames 36UE Richmondshire 10.94 282 9407.63 276 0.00 309 18218.94 322 3593 350 1578.75 346 00BQ Rochdale 33.89 25 22524.40 35 0.43 28 32177.92 10 48122 44 18475.75 40 22UL Rochford 9.22 314 7250.35 315 0.01 285 19879.50 305 7078 304 2678.75 306 30UM Rossendale 24.23 92 19492.57 85 0.20 104 29357.65 124 10526 228 4811.75 200 21UG Rother 17.85 166 15409.20 163 0.07 184 26471.63 182 10880 219 3934.00 239 00CF Rotherham 26.71 68 20007.43 76 0.29 65 31084.82 60 46488 45 19322.75 38 44UD Rugby 13.08 246 11000.58 248 0.03 229 24261.43 225 9038 268 3558.75 264 43UG Runnymede 8.33 328 6495.35 328 0.00 309 18384.19 319 5738 319 2050.75 328 37UJ Rushcliffe 8.13 331 6301.40 330 0.00 309 18122.32 323 7448 298 3315.75 281 24UL Rushmoor 11.62 268 9452.41 275 0.04 211 23908.88 230 8501 280 3049.75 290 00FP Rutland 7.49 334 5596.63 335 0.00 309 13134.66 351 2175 352 810.50 352 36UF Ryedale 14.49 225 13270.33 207 0.00 309 19784.17 307 5211 328 1693.25 341 00BR Salford 36.51 15 23830.96 24 0.48 20 32248.59 7 50545 40 20901.75 28 46UD Salisbury 11.32 275 9477.64 274 0.02 243 22020.47 265 9684 251 3592.75 262 00CS Sandwell 37.03 14 25478.69 10 0.56 10 31470.23 47 74920 11 24766.50 14 36UG Scarborough 24.06 97 18659.59 103 0.20 101 30906.08 67 17544 126 7298.00 129 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 6.46 351 4450.02 351 0.00 309 11859.18 353 4796 336 1942.50 332 16.46 190 14147.94 183 0.05 192 26355.19 183 10660 225 4457.75 215 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 20UG Sedgefi eld 29.05 54 21890.41 44 0.35 52 30045.62 98 16887 135 8609.00 106 40UC Sedgemoor 17.76 169 14771.41 169 0.10 160 27552.70 164 13938 162 5609.25 174 00CA Sefton 25.13 83 18335.77 107 0.25 80 31506.26 46 48123 43 22028.00 23 36UH Selby 12.17 257 10159.06 263 0.02 238 23934.59 229 6745 307 3245.00 285 29UK Sevenoaks 10.34 295 8416.03 300 0.02 246 22287.05 259 9829 243 3305.00 282 00CG Sheffi eld 27.84 63 19229.66 89 0.34 54 31763.75 30 96205 6 36459.25 5 29UL Shepway 21.35 123 17375.19 126 0.13 140 29280.32 128 15677 147 6308.00 145 39UE Shrewsbury and Atcham 00MD Slough 22.31 115 19094.64 90 0.10 161 26499.29 181 21863 103 6552.25 140 00CT Solihull 16.16 199 12030.92 231 0.15 124 29663.08 111 23375 97 9552.75 95 09UE South Bedfordshire 11.95 263 9889.80 265 0.02 235 24077.40 228 11966 202 4419.00 218 11UE South Bucks 8.35 327 6671.96 321 0.00 309 15472.55 342 4189 343 1502.75 349 12UG South Cambridgeshire 6.55 350 4704.58 350 0.00 309 13654.91 350 8618 275 3421.50 276 17UK South Derbyshire 13.93 235 11952.09 233 0.03 224 24525.38 217 8649 274 4069.50 231 00HD South Gloucestershire 9.58 308 7768.17 308 0.01 286 20198.60 298 20528 111 8322.25 112 18UG South Hams 14.31 230 12819.20 215 0.01 275 21746.61 274 9366 255 3438.75 273 32UF South Holland 16.21 195 14699.80 172 0.01 277 22092.61 263 9330 257 3665.25 257 32UG South Kesteven 11.49 271 9381.26 277 0.03 220 23622.90 238 12271 192 4781.75 203 16UG South Lakeland 11.67 267 10183.01 262 0.00 297 20222.63 297 8265 284 3846.00 244 33UH South Norfolk 10.84 286 9352.37 280 0.00 309 18502.57 318 10388 232 4157.25 226 34UG South Northamptonshire 38UD South Oxfordshire 7.75 333 5850.56 333 0.00 309 17067.50 329 8472 282 3091.00 289 30UN South Ribble 14.10 233 11804.85 237 0.04 207 25249.01 206 9985 240 5176.50 187 39UF South Shropshire 16.50 189 14961.08 166 0.01 260 22230.91 262 4553 340 1644.00 343 40UD South Somerset 13.86 237 12048.24 230 0.03 222 24176.23 226 16242 138 5943.25 160 41UF South Staffordshire 11.62 269 9869.63 266 0.01 278 22353.92 258 10336 233 4100.50 229 00CL South Tyneside 31.16 38 22435.26 37 0.43 29 30997.06 64 34062 68 15254.50 55 00MS Southampton 24.31 91 19336.65 87 0.22 92 29622.83 114 35415 64 13024.00 66 00KF Southend-on-Sea 22.47 111 17445.49 124 0.19 107 30293.89 83 28036 81 10170.25 88 00BE Southwark 33.33 26 24569.19 19 0.48 18 29766.51 104 65034 18 22177.75 22 43UH Spelthorne 12.18 256 10416.15 259 0.01 284 22451.11 256 7969 286 2904.25 299 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 16.36 192 14144.73 184 0.05 194 26044.88 191 9176 263 5189.50 185 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 26UG St Albans 8.88 317 6981.34 318 0.00 291 20871.63 288 10165 238 3764.75 250 42UF St. Edmundsbury 12.06 260 10433.51 258 0.00 303 21408.49 279 9143 264 3545.25 265 00BZ St. Helens 29.82 47 21207.01 49 0.36 51 31686.05 34 33192 71 16273.50 51 41UG Stafford 12.71 253 10524.43 257 0.04 204 25542.46 201 11061 215 5467.00 180 41UH Staffordshire Moorlands 26UH Stevenage 16.42 191 14711.74 171 0.02 237 22642.54 251 11244 212 3683.50 256 00BS Stockport 18.06 161 13804.45 190 0.13 141 30207.26 84 34177 67 14775.50 59 00EF Stockton-on-Tees 23.80 98 16641.31 138 0.26 77 31698.47 33 31630 75 14077.50 62 00GL Stoke-on-Trent 36.03 16 24285.51 20 0.51 16 31932.91 22 53082 34 24155.50 17 44UE Stratford-on-Avon 9.63 307 8026.87 305 0.00 309 17041.02 330 9184 261 3484.00 270 23UF Stroud 11.14 280 9532.01 273 0.00 309 20781.19 290 10231 235 4109.50 228 42UG Suffolk Coastal 11.33 274 9663.96 270 0.01 283 20743.38 292 10902 218 3800.00 247 00CM Sunderland 31.79 35 22638.75 33 0.41 33 31524.87 43 59628 24 27844.75 7 43UJ Surrey Heath 5.75 352 3862.34 352 0.00 309 16738.21 337 4825 335 1720.25 339 00BF Sutton 13.98 234 11683.94 240 0.05 199 25722.50 197 20650 110 7410.75 126 29UM Swale 22.10 116 17549.83 120 0.18 108 30172.37 87 19948 112 7164.50 131 00HX Swindon 16.94 182 12980.64 212 0.14 131 29759.11 106 22571 98 9005.75 102 00BT Tameside 28.78 56 21294.65 47 0.33 56 31322.74 54 39905 56 17794.75 44 41UK Tamworth 19.76 148 16390.59 147 0.11 148 27912.35 157 10229 236 4202.75 224 43UK Tandridge 8.49 324 6777.92 320 0.00 309 14723.89 347 5333 325 2126.00 324 40UE Taunton Deane 15.65 204 13310.66 206 0.06 189 26286.85 185 11998 201 4868.75 195 20UH Teesdale 15.52 209 13680.15 195 0.03 214 24826.50 210 2802 351 1324.50 351 18UH Teignbridge 17.29 179 15152.79 165 0.05 200 25767.91 195 15022 152 5625.00 173 00GF Telford and Wrekin 22.35 113 17372.14 127 0.20 102 29637.37 112 27425 85 10201.50 87 22UN Tendring 23.45 103 18983.26 91 0.15 126 29677.20 109 22496 99 8697.50 104 24UN Test Valley 8.88 316 6990.43 317 0.01 287 20136.35 300 8483 281 3130.25 287 23UG Tewkesbury 11.23 279 9329.90 281 0.01 254 21974.34 268 7071 305 2582.50 310 29UN Thanet 27.61 65 20520.94 62 0.28 71 31582.30 37 25905 88 9726.25 93 26UJ Three Rivers 10.74 287 8611.00 293 0.02 236 22928.10 248 7388 299 2538.00 311 00KG Thurrock 21.31 124 17014.84 131 0.15 123 29742.54 107 21441 106 8422.25 107 29UP Tonbridge and Malling 10.95 281 9158.22 283 0.01 274 21392.20 280 9719 250 3463.25 271 00HH Torbay 26.42 71 20764.24 57 0.23 89 30559.54 75 24387 93 9663.50 94 Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 21.19 127 17089.75 130 0.17 115 29309.92 125 9027 269 4093.25 230 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 18UK Torridge 21.13 130 18789.44 97 0.04 205 25464.20 204 8752 272 3366.25 277 00BG Tower Hamlets 44.64 3 27770.27 3 0.75 3 31933.09 21 86022 8 19439.75 36 00BU Trafford 17.33 178 13415.18 204 0.13 134 29307.57 127 28112 80 12062.25 76 29UQ Tunbridge Wells 11.45 273 9749.93 268 0.01 279 21966.79 269 10529 227 3445.00 272 35UF Tynedale 13.13 244 11541.94 243 0.01 282 22039.30 264 5450 324 2806.75 304 22UQ Uttlesford 6.94 347 4984.24 347 0.00 309 11999.67 352 4662 338 1586.00 345 38UE Vale of White Horse 7.23 341 5299.09 339 0.00 294 14920.27 344 7789 289 2871.50 301 13UH Vale Royal 16.18 196 12925.29 213 0.10 165 28449.99 142 14037 161 6583.75 138 00DB Wakefi eld 27.07 66 20157.98 74 0.30 62 30866.56 68 51675 37 25352.00 11 00CU Walsall 30.14 45 21220.49 48 0.41 32 31276.60 55 58327 27 19553.50 34 00BH Waltham Forest 33.19 27 24706.47 15 0.42 30 30582.32 73 55713 30 16603.50 50 00BJ Wandsworth 20.34 144 17276.67 128 0.10 159 27534.08 166 43071 49 15727.00 54 35UG Wansbeck 29.89 46 21445.70 46 0.37 45 31380.75 50 11637 205 6155.50 151 00EU Warrington 17.89 165 13434.78 202 0.15 122 30114.82 92 22205 100 11088.75 79 44UF Warwick 11.97 262 10115.22 264 0.01 256 22555.00 253 11602 206 4804.00 201 26UK Watford 15.81 203 13732.03 193 0.03 212 24706.19 212 9637 252 3424.50 275 42UH Waveney 22.32 114 17809.36 116 0.16 118 30179.41 86 18876 120 7591.25 121 43UL Waverley 6.86 348 4981.59 348 0.00 309 15886.12 340 7697 291 2911.50 298 21UH Wealden 10.86 284 9078.73 285 0.01 257 21082.37 285 12205 195 4249.00 223 20UJ Wear Valley 31.85 33 23059.45 26 0.36 50 31542.11 42 13311 176 6021.00 156 34UH Wellingborough 17.79 168 14311.41 179 0.11 149 28080.27 153 9788 245 3639.50 258 26UL Welwyn Hatfi eld 14.18 231 12319.19 225 0.02 239 23592.86 239 10695 223 3984.25 235 00MB West Berkshire 8.19 330 6344.10 329 0.00 298 17139.94 328 10796 221 4036.75 234 18UL West Devon 17.08 181 15557.44 159 0.00 296 21923.41 270 5520 323 2093.75 327 19UH West Dorset 15.51 210 14149.52 181 0.01 253 22383.79 257 9736 249 3628.00 259 30UP West Lancashire 20.40 141 15715.05 156 0.16 117 30389.21 80 16180 141 7452.25 125 32UH West Lindsey 16.75 185 13911.35 188 0.08 176 27900.52 158 10128 239 4420.50 217 38UF West Oxfordshire 6.67 349 4711.77 349 0.00 309 14045.85 349 6520 311 2250.00 318 40UF West Somerset 23.16 106 20421.79 64 0.05 191 25493.74 203 5181 330 1916.00 335 46UF West Wiltshire 11.24 278 9179.56 282 0.02 240 23542.68 240 12177 196 4465.25 213 00BK Westminster 26.30 72 20349.68 67 0.26 79 30765.52 69 39703 57 14743.25 60 19UJ Weymouth and Portland Rank of Employment Scale Employment Scale Rank of Income Scale Income Scale Rank of Local Concentration Local Concentration Extent Rank of Extent Rank of Average Rank Average Rank Rank of Average Score 8.51 323 6651.45 322 0.00 309 19476.82 312 10263 234 3721.00 255 LA CODE LA NAME Average Score 00BW Wigan 26.91 67 19870.36 80 0.30 63 31323.19 53 48880 41 27295.75 9 24UP Winchester 7.16 342 5292.87 340 0.00 309 16786.62 335 7564 293 2936.00 296 00ME Windsor and Maidenhead 00CB Wirral 27.90 60 18899.92 95 0.32 59 32088.94 14 60481 21 27359.25 8 43UM Woking 8.70 321 6577.86 326 0.02 250 21047.45 286 7533 294 2673.00 307 00MF Wokingham 5.36 353 3385.03 353 0.00 309 15139.78 343 7676 292 3241.75 286 00CW Wolverhampton 33.02 28 23007.18 28 0.47 22 31514.19 44 57550 29 20747.50 30 47UE Worcester 18.03 162 14079.68 185 0.14 130 29374.08 121 12061 200 4861.25 196 45UH Worthing 17.48 172 14683.96 173 0.08 174 27037.80 174 11577 207 4666.50 208 47UF Wychavon 11.99 261 10234.70 261 0.01 259 21830.71 272 10692 224 4366.75 221 11UF Wycombe 10.65 291 8656.70 292 0.01 251 22838.29 249 16526 137 5105.75 189 30UQ Wyre 17.70 170 14149.00 182 0.13 139 29598.48 117 13633 167 5973.50 157 47UG Wyre Forest 19.09 154 15481.01 161 0.12 147 28275.13 148 13215 178 5483.50 177 00FF York 13.40 242 10758.70 251 0.07 182 26679.74 179 17485 127 7661.25 120 ## References Alcock, P. (1997), *Understanding Poverty* (Macmillan, Basingstoke). Atkinson, A. B., (1998), 'Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment', in A. B. Atkinson and J. Hills (eds.) *Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity* (London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion), pp1–20. Blane, D. and Drever, F. (1998), 'Inequality among men in standardised years of potential life lost, 1970–93.' BMJ 317 (7153) pp255–260. Gordon, D. *et al*, (2000), *Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain* (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York). Noble, M., Smith, G.A.N., Penhale, B., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Owen, T. and Lloyd, M. (2000b), Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the Small Area Level: The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (DETR, Regeneration Research Summary, Number 37, 2000). Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Smith, G.A.N., McLennan, D., Anttila, C., Barnes, H., Mokhtar, C., Noble, S., Gardner, J., Braswell, S., Covizzi, I. and Lloyd, M. (2004), The English Indices of Deprivation 2004, Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. Nolan, B. and Whelan, C. (1996), *Resources, Deprivation and Poverty* (Clarendon Press, Oxford). Townsend, P. (1987), 'Deprivation', *Journal of Social Policy*, Vol. 16, Part 2, pp125–146. Townsend, P. (1979), *Poverty in the United Kingdom* (Penguin).

en

0038-pdf

Manchester City Council Report for Resolution Report to: Cultural Engagement Task and Finish Group - 15 August 2012 Subject: What are cultural organisations in the city doing? What work is Manchester Art Gallery doing to directly engage residents of the city in arts and culture? Report of: Fran Toms, Head of Culture Summary: This report responds to the purpose detailed for meeting three in the work programme for the Cultural Engagement Task and Finish Group; To investigate the work which organisations in Manchester undertake to engage residents in their work, including but not limited to museums, theatres and art galleries. To consider the different ways in which the Council influences external organisations that the Council contributes funds to directly as well those which it does not fund. To focus on how well the organisations engage hard to reach groups, including young people and people from deprived or isolated communities and explore what measures are already in place or could be implemented to support the engagement more fully. To invite representatives from various arts organisations to give their views on the work they do to engage with members of the public, how the Council fulfils its role in this and ways in which they would improve this work. Recommendations 1. That the Committee note the contents of the report and are invited to lead a discussion to examine the detail of the work. Wards Affected: All Contact Officers: Name: Fran Toms Position: Head of Culture Telephone: 0161 234 4256 E-mail: f.toms@manchester.gov.uk Name: Jo Johnston Position: Team Leader, Cultural Partnership Telephone: 0161 234 4267 E-mail: j.johnston3@manchester.gov.uk Name: Zoe Williams Position: Team Leader, Cultural Regeneration Telephone: 0161 234 4260 E-mail: z.williams@manchester.gov.uk Background documents (available for public inspection): The following documents disclose important facts on which the report is based and have been relied upon in preparing the report. Copies of the background documents are available up to 4 years after the date of the meeting. If you would like a copy please contact one of the officers above. Appendices Appendix 1: Overview of local cultural organisations (not exhaustive) Appendix 2: Additional information Manchester Music Hub Appendix 3: Case studies cultural delivery 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Manchester has a thriving, diverse and high quality cultural offer that attracts international attention, as well as providing an accessible, high quality offer for our local communities and residents. The cultural and creative sector helps residents to understand their collective history and defines what it means to be part of Manchester. Working with education culture helps build aspiration and increase attainment, whilst also contributing a richness to other services to improve health and well being, skills and opportunities for employment. 1.2 The local cultural sector comprises a broad range of organisations varied in terms of workforce, turnover, art form, target audience and engagement practice. Attached in appendix 1 is an overview of some of the organisations which the City Council works with; this ranges from the small community arts group working with adults with mental health issues, the innovative creative and digital organisations, the medium sized youth theatres and art centres through to the large scale organisations of international significance. This is not intended to be exhaustive but only to provide an illustration of the diverse offer available to our communities. 1.3 The City Council has supported the cultural sector for many years, providing information, advice and guidance on a range of sector specific issues to over 70 local cultural organisations. Working with such a diverse sector Manchester City Council has developed a broad range of interventions and support processes to enable the growth and long term sustainability of the sector, in addition to the continuous improvement of local resident engagement. 2.0 Strategic Support to Local Organisations 2.1 In order to establish comprehensive support the Culture Team works closely with strategic funders and policy shapers, including AGMA, ACE and Heritage Lottery Fund. Together, the Cultural Ambition for the city was developed and launched in 2010 outlining five themes of future development; Culturally Distinctive, Community Inspired, Creative Investor, Talent City and Culturally Connected. Each of these themes touches on the quality of life of our local communities; however the strongest connections are made through the aims of Community Inspired and Talent City:  To make the people of Manchester proud participants and architects of the city's cultural life  To provide communities with real opportunities to develop the cultural offer and build an enhanced sense of neighbourhood, identity and place  To ensure that culture makes the fullest possible contribution to the health, wealth and cohesion of Manchester's many communities.  To open up pathways to employment and channelling the skills and creativity of Manchester's residents towards education and work opportunities 2.2 The Ambition was a call to action which was answered, in part, through a cultural leaders group which developed the Manchester Culture Model; a collaborative response outlining four priority areas which have the most significant and immediate impact on achieving the city's ambition; Digital Content Development, Collaborative Arts Programming, Engaging and developing Talent, Strategic Marketing and Cultural Tourism. 2.3 The Engaging and Developing Talent Strand aims to map a creative learning journey from 0 - 19 for a young Manchester person, with appropriate signposts, support, interconnections for both young people and their schools and parents. This should give the best possible experience to young people and also ensure the best possible return on public investment in creative education. 2.4 To support the sector to collectively respond to the Ambition and drive its growth and sustainability the Cultural Partnership has been refreshed. The Board now comprises strategic funders in the region and focuses its agenda on both attracting and best use of investment and coordinated and collaborative delivery. The Board is complemented by a sub group structure and an annual event, which address key issues for the sector; both have open invitations to any interested organisations. The cultural Partnership also host a website (www.manchesterculturalpartnerhsip.org) which provides regular news updates regarding national policy development, sign posting to funding, events and training for the sector. In order to support regular real time information for the sector the Cultural Partnership also uses twitter (@ManchesterCP) to promote any time limited opportunities. 3.0 Joint work; Pilots and Best Practice 3.1 As discussed in previous reports (Report 1, Report 2 and supplementary information for meeting 2), the Culture Team also develop and support pilot initiatives exploring better ways to engage certain groups of people in culture and the arts. For example;  Developing the Valuing Older People Cultural Offer initiative in partnership with the Joint Health Unit's Valuing Older People Team.  Embedding Cultural Activity Project as part of the Ardwick City Region Pilot, which sought to integrate cultural organisations in to the new ways of working being piloted, in particular connecting with work to improve mental health and well being and tackle worklessness.  Cultural Attendance and Well-being Pilot will offer cultural attendance opportunities to Health Trainer clients as an intervention intended to improve well being and, in the long term, life expectancy.  Working proactively with cultural employers, the Manchester College and the National Apprenticeship Service to develop new entry routes into employment in the sector for local young people through initiatives such as the Future Jobs Fund and Creative Apprenticeships.  Supporting volunteer training and development programmes such as In Touch, led by Manchester Museum and Imperial War Museum  Previously commissioned the Sharp Project to deliver a series of 'Digital Summit' discussion events during 2011/12, supported by Arts Council England. These events brought together key digital businesses to debate how the sector could best develop and take forward their collective ambitions to ensure Manchester distinguishes itself as a highly competitive creative and digital hub. 3.2 Other work developed by the Culture Team to target resident engagement is outlined below. 3.3 The newly formed Manchester Music Hub aims to build further cohesion between informal and formal education music offers, development pathways and performance opportunities within accessible geography for young residents. Music Hubs were introduced by DfE following Darren Henley's review of music education provision and the guidance is published in 'The Importance of Music: A National Plan for Music Education'. A cornerstone of future provision is that music education funds will not be allocated directly to Local Authority's music education services, but to the lead organisation of a 'Music Education Hub', comprising of partners engaged in the delivery of music to children and young people. The Culture Team is represented on Manchester Music Hub's Strategic Board to support its integration into the wider cultural landscape and collaborative opportunities in the city. 3.4 The culture team supported a consortium application to the AGMA Grant Funding Programme; this was phase five of a partnership between the ten Greater Manchester Authorities arts and culture departments, AGMA and the Arts Council England. Since it was first developed in 2004 this partnership, unique in the country, has led the way nationally in local authority partnerships in the arts. This application has secured over £1m investment in 2012-15 across Greater Manchester to develop local arts infrastructure and activity in addition to cross-borough joint working on high impact interventions including:  The Arts Room provides advice and support to emerging and established artists to improve employability through platforms to market their work and signpost to training opportunities and networks  Bringing high quality opportunities for digital engagement and training to priority communities  Collaborative and joint working  Developing an innovative new methodology for monitoring and evaluating arts services and activities, creating a toolkit for project management, evaluation and advocacy. 4.0 MCC Funded Organisations 4.1 The Culture Team manages a portfolio of strategic investments, which are made with organisations that the City Council has a strategic interest in, for example where we own a related property such as Z-Arts (formerly Zion Arts Centre), enabling the Halle to perform at the Bridgewater Hall, National Football Museum at Urbis or the newly merged Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company being housed in the new First Street Cultural Facility. This portfolio also includes the regular support provided to Manchester International Festival. These agreements are long standing and subject to annual review at full Council budget setting. Each agreement has a bespoke performance management agreement; these are currently under review. 4.2 To complement the Strategic Investments, the Culture Team also have a portfolio of 15 Partnership Agreements which provide three year funding to Local Cultural Organisations delivering against the Cultural Ambition and demonstrating impact in our neighbourhoods and working with communities. As part of the decision making process in awarding the Partnership Agreements some consideration was given to programme fit to ensure we funded a comprehensive mix of organisations that delivered across the city, to a variety of audience through varied artform/medium. This funding is intended to provide support for mainstream provision and build up capacity within the organisations. These investments, along with snapshot summaries of over 40 cultural organisations operating in Manchester, are highlighted in Appendix 1. 4.3 Other funding to engage residents in arts and culture is allocated through the Neighbourhood Arts Funding, working with Community Cultural Services Area teams to develop local arts projects which meet the aims of the Cultural Ambition, Neighbourhood Focus Strategy and Arts Council priorities. 5.0 Manchester Cultural Organisations Mainstream delivery 5.1 In addition to appendix 1, appendix 3 explores in more detail the type of offer available to local communities and residents. Included here are a range of case studies highlighting specific impacts of work with hard to reach communities:  HMF Community Theatre, Library Theatre Company  The Storybox Project, Library Theatre Company  Give Get GO! Lime Arts  Manchester City South Housing Association, People's History Museum  Horace, Venture Arts  Karen, Venture Arts  Olympic Swimming Screen/Art Competition, Victoria Baths  Sat'dy Allsorts, Z-Arts 5.2 To discuss specific work, its impact and potential improvement of the local cultural community provision the following organisations have been invited to join the meeting.  Katy Archer, Director, Peoples History Museum  Debra King, Director, Brightersound  Janine Waters, Artistic Director, Waters Edge Arts 5.3 For Member's interest a number of visits to cultural are also being arranged. All About Audiences Contact name: Gareth Davies Address: All About Audiences. Green Fish Resource Centre. 46 - 50 Oldham Street. Manchester. M4 1LE. Tel: 0161 234 2955 Email: hello@allaboutaudiences.com Website: www.allaboutaudiences.com What we do All About Audiences is the audience development agency for the North West region. Their role is to support arts, culture and heritage organisations to help better understand and grow their audiences. The organisation does this by providing professional expertise in audience development, community engagement, market research, marketing planning. They also provide tactical marketing services, which include print distribution and digital services. Band on the Wall Contact name: Gavin Sharp Address: 25 Swan Street, Manchester, M4 5JZ Tel: 0161 830 3885 Email: gavin.sharp@bandonthewall.org Website: What we do Band on the Wall is a not-for-profit venue run by registered charity Inner City Music. We exist to present the best music from around the world and support our main stage events with a dynamic education programme which operates throughout the year - both in the venue and in the community and at local schools. Band on the Wall's Learning and Participation Programme offers a range of inspiring, interesting and challenging opportunities for non-formal, hands-on learning. Some of our programmes are aimed at experienced music makers, some are open to everyone, some are for younger and for older people. All will be inspiring, supportive and give opportunities to learn perform and practice in Manchester's best live music venue. Band on the Wall in partnership with Brighter Sound are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding NBAA (Black Arts Alliance) Contact name: SuAndi Address: PO Box 86, Manchester. M21 7BA. UK. Tel: 0161 832 7622 / 07757278188 Email: baa@blackartists.org.uk Website: www.blackartists.org.uk What we do NBAA is the North West's only dedicated Black Arts & Culture Library. NBAA works across art forms to create productions that challenge perceptions of Black culture and that celebrate the many dimensions of Black heritages. The organisation employs the arts as a learning vehicle to assist disadvantaged and disenfranchised individuals particularly where they run the risk of civil law infringement. Using the wide ranging creative skills and social experiences of the company, NBAA offers: Education & Community Workshops, Teachers CPD, Exhibitions, Performances, Community Cohesion, Seminars, Conferences, Public Art Leadership Creative Participation, Empowering Collective Unity Training and much more. Brighter Sound Contact name: Deborah King Address: Picturehouse Building, 29 Swan Street, Manchester M4 5JZ Tel: 0161 830 3899 Email: info@brightersound.com Website: www.brightersound.com What we do Brighter Sound : Providing the best in music education workshops in Greater Manchester. Since 2000, we have worked with over 10,000 young people aged 0 - 19, leading to amazing performances at The Bridgewater Hall, The Lowry, Contact Theatre & Band on the Wall. Working with young people from all backgrounds and circumstances, we provide opportunities to create, share and develop under the leadership of experienced music professionals. As experts in the field, we are Matrixaccredited to deliver advice and guidance to small arts organisations and community projects. We also deliver training in leading workshops to volunteers and youth workers. Brighter Sound in partnership with Band on the Wall are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Castlefield Gallery Contact name: Kwong Lee Address: 2 Hewitt Street, Manchester, M15 4GB Tel: 0161 832 8034 Email: info@castlefieldgallery.co.uk Website: www.castlefieldgallery.co.uk What we do Since its formation by artists in 1984, arts charity Castlefield Gallery has been at the forefront of developing emerging contemporary artists, and a venue for audiences to see new art. It runs an exhibitions programme that has included subsequent Turner Prize winners and national and international exhibitors, e.g. in the British Art Shows, Tate Triennials and the Venice Biennale. It has also mentored artists who have gone on to win major commissions, e.g. Manchester collective Owl Project who has just launched their Cultural Olympiad Artists Taking the Lead project in the North East. Castlefield are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Chinese Arts Centre Contact name: Sally Lai Address: Market Buildings, 13 Thomas Street, Manchester Tel: 0161 832 7271 Email: sally.lai@chinese-arts-centre.org Website: www.chinese-arts-centre.org What we do Chinese Arts Centre is the leading organisation for the promotion of contemporary Chinese art in the UK. Our aim is to advance the education of the public in all forms of Chinese culture. CAC believes in the importance of ongoing dialogue and exchange and the need for a diversity of perspectives in contemporary visual arts. We create meaningful encounters between artists, audiences, cultures and ideas that make contemporary art and culture relevant to diverse audiences. Working with the best creative talent we run a lively programme of exhibitions, residencies, engagement projects, festivals, international projects and events which support innovation and reflect the dynamism of contemporary Chinese art. Comma Press Contact name: Ra Page Address: 36-40 Edge Street, Manchester, M4 1HN Tel: Email: admin@manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk Website: www.manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk What we do Comma press is a not for profit publishing initiative dedicated to promoting new fiction and poetry with an emphasis on the short story. It is committed to a spirit of risk taking and challenging publishing, free of the commercial pressures on mainstream houses. From the outset Comma has published a biannual new writers showcase as a way of bringing in new talent alongside collections by already established writers. Community Arts North West Contact name: Angela Bezer Address: Green Fish Resource Centre, Oldham Street, Manchester, M4 1LE Tel: 0161 234 2975 Email: angela@can.uk.com Website: www.can.uk.com What we do Community Arts North West (CAN) is a Manchester based, arts development organisation who since 1978, have worked in partnership with communities, artists and agencies to encourage, create, and produce cultural programmes of work. CAN's main priority is to create access to cultural production for people that are excluded or on the fringes of mainstream cultural resources. Our work gives voice and visibility to the complex and diverse communities that make up Greater Manchester. Community Arts North West recently became an Arts Council England - National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) client recognising CAN's strong track record of producing excellent quality art. Community Arts NW are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Contact Contact name: Suzie Henderson Address: Contact, Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6JA Tel: 0161 274 0659 Email: suziehenderson@contactmcr.com Website: http://contactmcr.com What we do Contact is a dynamic charity based in Manchester with young people at the heart of everything we do. We work locally, nationally, and internationally to provide life changing opportunities for the next generation of creative leaders, artists, and audiences.Contact redefine theatre for the 21st Century, presenting and producing a diverse artistic programme in our building, surprising places, and virtual spaces. Contact are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company (GMAC) Contact name: Afroditi Barmparousi Address: Cornerhouse, 70 Oxford Street, Manchester. M1 5NH. Tel: 0161 228 7621 Email: Afroditi.barmparousi@cornerhouse.org Website: www.cornerhouse.org What we do Cornerhouse is Manchester's international centre for contemporary visual arts and culturally diverse independent film. Cornerhouse has three floors of contemporary art galleries, three screens showing the best in independent cinema, a bar, café and a bookshop. We also operate an international distribution service for contemporary visual arts books and catalogues. Founded in 1952, the Library Theatre Company has produced consistently high quality seasons of drama, musical theatre, plays for families, and comedies. It has both helped to develop, and adapted to, Manchester's changing theatre landscape. A key feature of its current work is a flourishing Education and Community programme. The norfox Young People's Theatre Company is now an integral part of the theatre. In April 2012 Cornerhouse and Library Theatre Company merged to become GMAC. The merger is the first step in the creation of a dynamic, vibrant new producing arts organisation. GMAC is a strategic delivery partner of the council. Creative Times Contact name: Andy Lovatt Address: 165 E Burton Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 2LN Tel: 0161 4462 991 Email: info@creativetimes.co.uk Website: www.creativetimes.co.uk What we do Creative Times is an online community and magazine for the creative sector. It mixes high-quality editorial from a team of respected and up-and-coming industry contributors, with news, views and events posted by members of the free-to-join Creative Times Directory. Creative Times originally launched in October 2005 as a paper-based journal for Manchester's Creative Industries sector - distributed to over 5,000 contacts and published by the Creative Industries Development Agency. The original Creative Times website launched in 2008, winning both Fresh and Manchester Digital awards for its design and functionality. The site was relaunched in 2010 through a partnership between Cornerhouse and The White Room and covers all sectors in the creative, cultural and digital industries including art, performance and technology, ensuring a diverse readership of over 9000, with over 4000 followers on Twitter. Dance Initiative Greater Manchester Contact name: Miriam Wild Address: Dance Initiative Greater Manchester, Zion Arts Centre, Stretford Road. Manchester. M15 5ZA Tel: 0161 232 7179 Email: miriam@digm.org.uk / info@digm.org.uk Website: www.digm.org/dev/ What we do Dance Initiative Greater Manchester a.k.a DIGM (pronounced Dime!) is Greater Manchester's central dance organisation, providing a whole range of opportunities for dance. Specialising in sited and outdoor dance, we provide a whole range of opportunities, run caretive projects throughout the region & offer advice and information. We are a charity working to increase access to high quality activity to underrepresented communities, working throughout the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester in partnership with local authorities, communities, educators and artists. Dance Initiative Greater Manchester are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Feelgood Theatre Productions Contact name: Caroline Clegg Address: Production House, 21 Lindum Avenue, Manchester, M16 9NQ Tel: Email: thefolks@feelgoodtheatre.co.uk Website: www.feelgoodtheatre.co.uk What we do Feelgood have been creating award winning theatre for 17 years. Since it was founded in 1994, the company has designed a range of accessible workshops and educational experiences for participants of all ages from a range of backgrounds. We believe that by giving people the opportunity to work alongside theatre professionals that they can acquire skills, have fun and take part in opportunities that can both enhance their lives and enrich local communities. Full Circle Arts Contact name: Chris Hammond Address: Full Circle Arts, 7 Schoolhouse, Second Avenue, Trafford Park Village, Manchester, M17 1DZ Tel: 0161 872 0326 Email: chris@fullcirclearts.co.uk Website: www.fullcirclearts.co.uk What we do Full Circle Arts, a user led arts organisation, are a resource for the sector by providing practical resources and services that help others work inclusively, more collaboratively, more effectively and more coherently. They offer partnerships and online support for arts organisations and artists to take inclusion in the arts forward within the landscape of emerging technologies, developing digital practice, social media and corresponding cultural shifts creating lasting social change. They believe in great art WITH everyone, encouraging inclusive participation to give people the capacity, inspiration and tools to be part of the cultural conversation. Full Circle Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Gorton Visual Arts Contact name: Ian Mackay Address: The Angels Centre, Endcott Close, Gorton, M18 8BR Tel: 0161 830 3885 Email: info@gortonvisualarts.co.uk Website: www.gortonvisualarts.co.uk What we do Gorton Visual Arts has been creating artwork in and around Gorton and Manchester since 2006. We meet once a week at the Angels Centre opposite Gorton Monastery. The group is made up of 18 local residents and Lead Artist Ian McKay.By involving elderly residents, vulnerable adults and residents with learning difficulties, in a safe studio environment our projects are created to contain a strong element of outreach session delivered to a wide range of communities. The objective of Gorton Visual Arts is to develop new artistic skills for all group members who are encouraged to share these new skills with individuals and groups within the community. These opportunities for all residents take place at the studio and at external venues such as Gorton Monastery and Gorton Market. Habarts Limited Contact name: Tamsin Drury Address: Tamsin Drury, hÅb, c/o Zion Arts Centre, 335 Stretford Road, Manchester, M15 5ZA Tel: 0161 232 6086 / (0)781 369 3862 Email: tamsin@habarts.org Website: www.wordofwarning.org / www.habarts.org What we do hÅb is a Manchester production and development organisation, specialising in contemporary performance, live art and sited intervention, with a focus on developing Manchester and North West emergent artists through projects like emergency, Turn, Hazard and Works Ahead. hÅb also produces Word of Warning, a new regular public programme of events in Manchester and a weekly e-mailer: Word of Warning is a one-stop shop for the bonkers, the beautiful and the bizarre of live performance; an attempt to keep alive the best of the 25 year greenroom legacy and to introduce new people to the possibilities of seeing live work. Habarts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Halle Contact name: John Summers Address: Halle Concerts Society, The Bridgewater Hall. Manchester. M1 5HA. Tel: 0161 237 7000 / 0161 237 7023 Email: development@halle.co.uk Website: www.halle.co.uk What we do Now in its 154th season, the Hallé ranks among the UK's top symphonic ensembles, with a distinguished history of acclaimed performances in this country and around the world; award-winning recordings, radio broadcasts and educational outreach programmes; and a visionary commitment to building audiences and developing orchestral repertoire. The Halle is one of the Council's strategic delivery partners. Lime Arts Contact name: Brian Chapman Address: High Elms, Upper Park Road, Manchester, M14 5RU Tel: 0161 256 4389 Email: lime@limearts.org Website: www.limearts.org What we do Lime develops, co-ordinates and delivers a wide range of creative projects within healthcare. The aim is to show how the arts can play an important part in enhancing quality of life and quality of care. It is an award-winning arts charity within the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We work to: Improve Health Care Environments through working with architects and commissioners, staff and patient groups adding new dimensions to public spaces and clinical settings. Show how the arts can play an important role in public health - exploring issues through different creative languages to find new solutions to health inequalities and health promotion. Engage with Communities - delivering projects that connect, involve and consult with local people, hospital populations, schools, student groups, voluntary sector agencies, other cultural organisations. Manchester Camerata Contact name: Bob Riley Address: Manchester Camerata, RNCM, 124 Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9RD Tel: 0161 226 8696 Email: briley@manchestercamerata.com Website: www.manchestercamerata.co.uk What we do Manchester Camerata, perform high quality chamber music to the people of Manchester, the North West of England and Cumbria. Creativity and energy are the hallmarks of Camerata's work and reflect the spirit of its home city, Manchester, where the orchestra is in residence at the Royal Northern College of Music, and The Bridgewater Hall. Manchester Camerata performs regularly in Ulverston, Colne, Stafford and Doncaster, with major education projects in Chester. Manchester Camerata are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Cathedral Contact name: The Reverend Canon Shanks Address: Manchester Cathedral, Victoria Street, Manchester. M3 1SX. Tel: 0161 833 2220 Email: canon.shanks@manchestercathedral.org Website: www.manchestercathedral.org What we do Manchester Cathedral is the medieval 'mother church' of the Diocese of Manchester (Church of England). It is open every day, for people to come and pray; to admire the architecture, carvings, paintings and stained glass; or to learn about the often somewhat quirky history of the place. Regular guided tours are offered. The Cathedral is home to a fine choir. And, besides all sorts of religious events, it hosts a variety of concerts, ranging from classical to rock; also drama, art exhibitions, displays relating both to history and current affairs, lectures and other educational and cultural events. Manchester Community Radio: All FM, North Manchester FM, Wythenshawe FM, Unity Radio, Radion Regen, Peace and Gaydio What we do Community radio stations are not-for-profit stations with a social purpose, and work to involve the target community in running the service. The 7 community radio stations currently operating in Manchester serve a wide range of community groups and geographic areas. As well as programming targeted towards a wide range of community groups, the radio stations also take part in community engagement opportunities including training opportunities for young people and community events. All FM in partnership with North Manchester FM are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Craft and Design Centre Contact name: Kate Day Address: 17 Oak Street, Manchester, M4 5JD Tel: 0161 832 4274 Email: info@craftanddesign.com Website: www.craftanddesign.com What we do In the heart of the city's creative Northern Quarter, Manchester Craft & Design Centre is home to some of the finest designer makers in the region. Shop for original and bespoke contemporary items including textiles, jewellery, furniture, ceramics, lighting, cards and paintings. Take a look around the 19 studio boutiques housed over two floors within the unique surroundings of our Victorian market building. Watch the designers at work, commission a piece designed specifically for you or browse the latest exhibition. Foodies can also grab a bite to eat at the new Oak St. Cafe, which serves delicious homemade food and great coffee. You can also learn a new skill at one of our artist-led workshops or Creative Business Development events. Manchester Digital Laboratory (MadLab) Contact name: Dave Mee Address: 36-40 Edge Street, Manchester, M4 1HN Tel: Email: dave@madlab.org.uk Website: www.madlab.org.uk What we do A 1000 sq. ft. former shop in the Northern Quarter, it's a space you can get together with like-minded individuals and work on your urban gardening, crochet, hacking, programming, media arts, filmmaking, animating project without worrying that you're in a library, coffee shop, pub or other unsuitable venue. We know hackers and craftspeople need work space and may need to get down and dirty - we also know sometimes you need a quiet area to present and show works to your peers. We support both activities. And we hope there will be a rich mix of individuals who'll get out of the usual zones, the knitter talking to the software architect, the cupcake maker scheming with the laser etching builder. To confirm Manchester's rightful place as the home of technical and creative innovation and invention in the North West and beyond; to bring together the various communities of doers and thinkers that make this city brilliant and see what comes of it; to build interesting things that inspire others; and most important of all, because it's fun. Manchester International Festival Contact name: Alex Poots Address: Blackfriars House, Manchester, M3 2JA Tel: 0161 238 7300 Email: info@mif.co.uk Website: www.mif.co.uk What we do Manchester International Festival is the world's first festival of original, new work and special events, and takes place biennially in Manchester, UK. The Festival launched in 2007 as an artist-led, commissioning festival presenting new works from across the spectrum of performing arts, visual arts and popular culture. Highlights from the past three festivals - 2007, 2009 and 2011 have included group shows Il Tempo del Postino and **11 Rooms**, Damon Albarn and Jamie Hewlett's Monkey: Journey to the West, Punchdrunk's immersive Dr Who experience **The Crash of The Elysium**, Music Boxes, a wonderful commission for children aged 6 months-7 years, Victoria Wood's **That Day We Sang** and the premieres of special gigs from Bjork to Snoop Dogg and Sinead O'Connor. The festival also encompasses MIF Creative, the community and learning focused arm of the festival, bringing MIF to the people and communities of Manchester and learning from them in its turn. Manchester International Festival is a strategic delivery partner of the Council. Manchester Jazz Festival Contact name: Steve Mead Address: Manchester Jazz Festival, 223 Ducie House, Ducie Street, Manchester M1 2JW Tel: 0161 228 0662 Email: festival@manchesterjazz.com Website: www.manchesterjazz.com What we do MJF present 9 days of live music each July; typically showcasing 400 musicians across 7-10 venues over 70-80 events. They present free gigs and concerts round the clock, day and night, indoors and out, bringing the best contemporary jazz to Manchester from the region, the UK and abroad. MJF joins forces with all Manchester's leading music venues and promoters such as RNCM, Band on the Wall, Matt & Phred's Jazz Club, Bridgewater Hall and Midland Hotel. They encourage multiple genres of contemporary jazz and break down musical boundaries run, as well as commissioning new work from talented regional artists with the mjf originals and mjf introduces schemes. Manchester Jewish Museum Contact name: Max Dunbar Address: 190 Cheetham Hill Road, Manchester, M8 8LW Tel: 0161 834 9879 Email: admin@manchesterjewishmuseum.com Website: www.manchesterjewishmuseum.com What we do Manchester Jewish Museum (MJM) is for Jewish and non-Jewish people offering a unique experience as both a social history museum and as a resource for learning. Housed in Manchester's oldest surviving synagogue building, MJM's displays tell the diverse story of Manchester's Jewish heritage. MJM's exhibition and events programme has covered issues ranging from the Holocaust, Jewish family history, sport, kosher food tasting and has hosted concerts by the Manchester Halle. MJM's award-winning learning and outreach programme reaches schools from across the UK, covering subjects such as Judaism, Jewish Festivals and the Holocaust. Manchester Jewish Musuem are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Manchester Literature Festival Contact name: Cathy Bolton Address: Beehive Mill, Jersey Street, Ancoats, Manchester, M4 6JG Tel: 0161 236 5555 Email: admin@manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk Website: www.manchesterliteraturefestival.co.uk What we do Manchester Literature Festival (MLF) provides unique and imaginative opportunities for audiences to experience high quality live literature via an annual festival format and associated project activities. Our main objectives are: to showcase the very best in contemporary writing from across the world, to commission innovative literature from established and emerging writers, to provide opportunities for writers to experiment with new media in the production and presentation of their work, to promote Manchester as a hub for international cultural exchange, and to provide inspirational opportunities for children and young people to engage in creative writing and reading activities. The Manchester Museum Contact name: Esme Ward Address: The Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL Tel: 0161 275 2650 Email: esme.ward@manchester.ac.uk Website: www.manchester.ac.uk/museum What we do The Manchester Museum, at The University of Manchester, hosts an array of treasures from the natural world and the many cultures it is home to. Highlights include a T-rex and fossils of other pre-historic creatures, ancient Egyptian artefacts, the new Living Worlds gallery and live amphibians and reptiles. The Museum's events programme includes handling objects from the collection, hands-on activities or exploring the latest ideas in science, culture and the arts. The engagement team deliver sessions in schools and community venues throughout the year. MOSI Contact name: Rebecca Leese Address: Museum of Science & Industry, Liverpool Road, Castlefield. Manchester. M3 4FP Tel: 0161 833 0027 Email: education@mosi.org.uk / r.leese@mosi.org.uk Website: www.mosi.org.uk What we do MOSI is a fascinating and fun day out for everyone. Located on the historic site of the world's oldest surviving passenger railway station, and housed in five listed buildings, MOSI's inspirational galleries, daily demonstrations, and exciting events and activities tell the story of Manchester's scientific and industrial past, present and future. Music Stuff Contact name: Lenny Portersmith Address: Units 3-4 The Cuthbert Centre, 877 Ashton Old Road, Manchester, M11 2NA Tel: 0161 223 8700 Email: music.stuff@virgin.net Website: www.musicstuff.org.uk What we do Music Stuff work across Manchester and with a number of specifically targeted groups including, NEET young people, young people at risk of becoming NEET, vulnerable young people, young people at risk of exclusion, recovering substance abusers, young Parents, young Offenders, care leavers, asylum seekers & refugees, looked after children, homeless young people, adult learners, young people with an interest in music and media, ,children with a disability and their families, elderly people with dementia, people with mental health issues etc. We have been particularly successful at achieving certain outcomes such as engaging challenging and hard to reach young people, achieving accredited outcomes, achieving positive progressions for young people, working effectively within community settings and building partnerships around the client. Within often challenging environments Music Stuff have delivered a range of successful arts provision that is focused on participation. These include writing and performing plays, song writing, performances from bands and individuals, writing poetry, dance, drama groups, story telling, visual art exhibitions, learning about music technology, learning to play instruments etc. The National Football Museum Contact name: Kevin Moore Address: Urbis Building, Cathedral Gardens, Manchester, M4 3BG Tel: 0161 605 8200 Email: info@nationalfootballmuseum.com Website: www.nationalfootballmuseum.com What we do The National Football Museum exists to explain how and why football has become 'the people's game', a key part of England's heritage and way of life. It also aims to explain why England is the home of football, the birthplace of the world's most popular sport. The Museum is for everyone regardless of age, gender, disability, sexuality, religion or any other factor. Is not just for those who are interested in or passionate about the sport. NFM aims to be the first point of contact with football for non-fans and an introduction to wider aspects of culture and history for football fans. NFM has a particular focus on those sections of the community that do not usually visit museums and galleries. In the coming months, resources will be available for formal and informal learning groups with learning activities taking place around the museum and in our dedicated Learning Suite. The Museum has a long-term mission, a responsibility to protect football's heritage and culture for future generations as well as current audiences. The National Football Museum are a strategic delivery partner of the Council. Noise Festival Contact name: Denise Proctor Address: NOISE Festival Ltd., P.O. Box 4106, Manchester, M60 1WW Tel: 0161 237 9009 Email: communications@NOISEfestival.com Website: www.NOISEfestival.com What we do The award-winning NOISE charity provides opportunities for those with talent to kickstart a debt-free, creative industries career. From Summer 2012, NOISE re-launches www.NOISEfestival.com to offer enhanced portfolios, e-learning and mentoring. Designed to support the transition from amateur to professional-level. NOISE pioneers enterprise and employability skills opportunities via innovative, industry-led projects and endorsements from globally recognised creatives (Zaha Hadid, Wayne Hemingway...). We showcase young people's talents professionally via international media partnerships (MTV, BBC), online and high-profile, national-career events, to promote them to their full potential. We also work with educational and community organisations, to enhance their offering. Pankhurst Centre Contact name: Yvonne Edge Address: 60-62 Nelson Street, Manchester, M13 9W Tel: 0161 273 5673 Email: admin@thepankhurstcentre.org.uk Website: www.thepankhurstcentre.org.uk What we do The birthplace of the Suffragette movement is now the Pankhurst Centre, a women's community centre. This historically significant building was the home of Emmeline Pankhurst and family who led the Suffragette campaign for Votes for Women. Within the Centre there is a small heritage area with information about the Pankhursts and the Suffragette movement. This is open to the general public. As a women's community centre it provides and offers space for activities and events run by women for women. It offers a unique place in which women can learn together, work on projects and socialise. This vibrant centre plays host to a number of women's organisations and projects that support women. The Pankhurst Centre in partnership with Victoria Baths are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. People's History Museum Contact name: Kirsty Mairs Address: People's History Museum, Left Bank, Spinningfields, Manchester. M3 3ER. United Kingdom Tel: 0161 838 9190 Email: learning@phm.org.uk Website: www.phm.org.uk What we do The People's History Museum is the only museum which tells the story of the development of democracy in Britain. They engage, inspire and inform all audiences that 'there have always been ideas worth fighting for'. PHM interprets the museum's collections through permanent galleries, exhibitions and events; engaging children, young people, families and adults with the development of democracy and citizenship through our learning programmes. PHM enable world class research using their archive. They promote the textile conservation studio as the international centre of excellence for banners conservation. The People's History Museum are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Performing Arts Network & Development Agency (PANDA) Contact name: Anne-Marie Crowther Address: PANDA, Black Lion, 65 Chapel Street, Salford. M3 5BZ Tel: 0161 274 0629 Email: anne-marie@panda-arts.org.uk Website: www.panda-arts.org.uk What we do PANDA, supports the generation of innovative creativity in performing arts. PANDA's mission is to proactively support a vibrant enterprise culture by nurturing talent, creating connections and providing an authoritative voice for the performing arts sector. PANDA supports anyone working, or aspiring to work, within the performing arts sector within the North-West and neighbouring regions. PANDA are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Reclaim Contact name: Ruth Ibegbuna Address: Reclaim, Suite 3B2, Portland Buildings, Portland Street, Manchester. M1 4PZ. Tel: 0161 233 4090 Email: r.ibegbuna@reclaimproject.org.uk Website: www.reclaimproject.org.uk What we do RECLAIM is a charity working in the most disadvantaged communities of Greater Manchester, providing positive pathways young people. RECLAIM identifies young leaders (aged 12 and 13) who have influence among their peers but who face real (and imagined) barriers to success. The RECLAIM ethos is one of targeted-support and close-mentoring, leading to self-reliance and success. We guide our young people towards exciting leadership opportunities, supported by a safe network of caring adults. We work to raise aspirations within our participants and link them with the decision-makers in their community in order to affect positive change. Redeye Contact name: Alex Hodby Address: Redeye, Chinese Arts Centre, Market Buildings, Thomas St, Manchester M4 1EU, UK Tel: 0845 456 0260 Email: alex@redeye.org.uk Website: www.redeye.org.uk What we do Redeye, is a not-for-profit organisation set up to support photographers at every level, and improve the health of photography generally. It is based in Manchester, UK, and has subscribers and users across the UK and globally. It aims to form a clear picture of the ways photographers and photographic artists are working now, and give them access to events, opportunities, advice and information that are relevant to their work and difficult to find elsewhere. Alongside this it works to bring photographic and other organisations together, to encourage ethical and best practice, and to build a voice for photography. Royal Exchange Contact name: Ben Turner Address: St Anns Square, Manchester, M2 7DH Tel: 0161 615 6697 Email: education@royalexchange.co.uk Website: www.royalexchange.co.uk What we do The theatre's Education Department offers people of all ages, backgrounds and experiences the chance to explore every aspect of theatre, to get involved in creative projects, take part in tours, discussions, play readings and talks, and to make the Royal Exchange their own. In all of our work we seek to develop partnership links - with schools, practitioners, other agencies and arts organisations across Greater Manchester and beyond. The Royal Exchange Theatre is one of seven organizations across Britain working in partnership with the Co-operative Foundation to deliver their major new initiative, Truth about Youth, which challenges and changes negative perceptions about young people by supporting projects which enable them to work with adults, the media and the wider community. The Truth About Youth Festival (TaY:Festival), which takes place over 14 days in July 2012, has been created by 958 young people and 211 adults from Manchester. The Sharp Project Contact name: Tom Clarke Address: The Sharp Project, Thorp Road. Manchester. M40 5BJ. Tel: 0161 205 5508 Email: Tom.Clarke@thesharpproject.co.uk Website: www.thesharpproject.co.uk / www.thesharpproject.co.uk/thecampus What we do The Sharp Project, home to digital entrepreneurs and production companies, is where Space, Power, Connectivity and People converge. Occupants at The Sharp Project make, manipulate or move around the world, digital content. The Sharp Project is based in a 200,000 sq ft refurbished warehouse previously occupied by electronics company Sharp; it offers flexible office, production and event space at affordable prices. Streetwise Opera Contact name: Bridget Rennie Address: Booth Centre, Manchester Cathedral, Manchester, M3 1SX Tel: 020 7730 9551 Email: br@streetwiseopera.org Website: www.streetwiseopera.org What we do Streetwise Opera's mission is to give homeless and formerly homeless people opportunities to further their personal development through participation in music making of the highest professional quality and to promote more positive attitudes towards homeless people It aims to: produce musical work of a professional standard so that participants benefit from being involved in something of quality, to develop the creativity, self-esteem, confidence, social networks, enjoyment and skills of homeless and formerly homeless people through regular music workshops and related activities that provide a welcoming, safe and non-judgmental environment, to demonstrate through the development of these qualities and skills, positive changes in the lives of participants, to help create positive attitudes and understanding of homelessness amongst the general public and policy makers and to mitigate the social exclusion felt by participants. Venture Arts Contact name: Amanda Sutton Address: 43 Old Birley St, Manchester, Greater Manchester M15 5RF Tel: 0161 232 1223 Email: info@venturearts.org Website: www.venturearts.org What we do Venture Arts works with people from across Manchester, young and old who have a learning disability. Their focus is to provide a light, bright, creative environment where people can learn about and produce fantastic visual artworks and showcase them to large audiences. Venture Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Victoria Baths Contact name: Gill Wright Address: Hathersgate Road, Manchester, M13 0FE Tel: 0161 224 2020 Email: gill.wright@victoriabaths.org.uk Website: www.victoriabaths.org.uk What we do Victoria Baths provides an inspirational setting for educational activities in many curriculum areas, particularly history and creative arts. We can provide tours of the building to suit any age group from primary up to further education and are happy to tailor tours for specialist learners. We can also provide space for a range of activities from one-off visits to longer projects. We believe that Victoria Baths has made a distinctive contribution to the arts in Manchester by providing a unique and changing setting for arts activities with links to a variety of audiences. Victoria Baths in partnership with the Pankhurst Centre are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Waters Edge Arts Contact name: Janine Waters Address: The Edge Theatre and Arts Centre, Manchester Road, Chorlton, M21 9JG Tel: 0161 615 6697 Email: janine@watersedgearts.com Website: www.royalexchange.co.uk What we do The Edge provides opportunities for all ages and backgrounds to be involved in the arts as participant and spectator. It is housed within a beautiful Victorian building and has excellent transport links. The Edge's productions, in-house/visiting, participatory/amateur/professional, bring high-quality theatre to Chorlton. Two workshop/rehearsal studios, 70-seat theatre, writers' room, music room. Arts Café (scheduled January 2013): part-funded by MCC learning-disability unit, this café gives learning-disabled adults volunteer/ employment opportunities, exhibition space and performance platform. Our activities develop confidence, self-esteem, group working skills, communication, presentation skills. They address community cohesion, conflict resolution, and give people a voice. Our projects include JUMP (unemployed people); Expressive Edge (learning disabled adults); Young Expressive (children with Downs) opens 2013; two new projects for newly-released prisoners and hard-to-reach young people from Barlow-Moor Community-Centre. Waters Edge Arts are now in receipt of Cultural Partnership Agreement funding. Whitworth Art Gallery Contact name: Ed Watts Address: Oxford Road, Manchester. M15 6ER Tel: 0161 275 7450 Email: ed.watts@manchester.ac.uk Website: www.whitworth.manchester.ac.uk What we do Whitworth Art Gallery is part of The University of Manchester. It is home to internationally renowned collections of modern art, textiles, watercolours, prints, drawings and sculpture. Created in 1908 as the first English gallery in a park, the Whitworth is today developing a new vision for the role of a university gallery, and is forging stronger connections between park, community and landscape through its development and extension opening in 2014. www.manchester.ac.uk/whitworth Z - Arts Contact name: Liz O'Neill Address: Z-Arts, 335 Stretford Road, Hulme. M15 5ZA. Tel: 0161 232 6076 Email: liz@zionarts.com Website: www.z-arts.org What we do Z-arts mission is to inspire and enable generations of young people from across Manchester and beyond to use creativity to reach their potential. We believe that being engaged in creative activity can have a lasting and transforming effect on the lives of young people so we work with both formal and informal education to provide creative learning opportunities. We have recently announced our ambition to become Manchester's dedicated venue for children and families, aiming to build a theatre and arts programme that reflects our values of being welcoming and vibrant forwardthinking as much as our participatory work does. Z-Arts (formerly Zion Arts) are the Council's Strategic Delivery Partner for children and young people. Appendix 2 Manchester Music Hub In November 2011 DfE published its arrangements for the future funding of music provision in a document entitled 'The Importance of Music; A National Plan for Music'. A cornerstone of future provision is that Music funds will not be directly to LA's music education services but to the lead organisation of a 'Music Education Hub'. 'Music education hubs will ensure that every child aged 5-18 has the opportunity to sing and learn a musical instrument, as well as perform. It will also allow young people to take their talent further - this might be through local ensembles, choirs, partnerships with nationally funded music organisations, including (Arts Council) National Portfolio Organisations or through involvement in the Music and Dance Scheme. It is intended that Music Education Hubs build on existing music services through a collection of organisations working together in a local area, to create joined up music education provision for children and young people, both in and out of school. Arts Council England were charged with leading on the Music Hub funding process and in May 2012 Manchester was awarded £2,345,777 over 3 years; 2012 -15. It should be noted that although Manchester was successful in securing the full allocation for the city, it is a considerable reduction in grant compared to previous years. In addition to a national cut to funding for music education, the area allocation process was changed from historic amounts based on out of date formulas to a more equitable apportionment based on pupil numbers. The formation of the music hub is intended to encourage deliverers to look at new ways of attracting funding and providing value for money; including making better use of additional resources achieved through effective partnerships. Manchester Music Hub's lead organisation is the City Council's, Children's Services and it is supported by a Strategic Board comprising of Manchester schools, MCC Culture Team, the Royal Northern College of Music, Brighter Sound and One Education (formerly Manchester Music Service). Delivery partners include organisations such as Drake Music, the Halle, Manchester Jazz Festival, Manchester Camerata, Z-Arts, Chethams School of Music, Royal Northern College of Music and Brighter Sound. A Quality Assurance Group comprising of Primary and Secondary school Head Teachers will form an important part of the governance of the Hub providing feedback on services to schools and contributing to the future development of the Hub. The Manchester Hub is based on strong foundations and will create opportunities to support the achievement of the Manchester Cultural Ambition and the City's Neighbourhood Focus Strategy. With the diversity and quality of music organisations and practitioners based in the city, a Manchester Hub has the opportunity to build further cohesion between informal and formal education music offers, development pathways and performance opportunities within accessible geography for young residents. Within the city boundaries there is access to a wealth of talent and expertise, including world class orchestras and the largest pool of freelance musicians outside of London. The Manchester Hub will devolve a large proportion of the funding (73%) directly to schools. This is a tried and tested approach, begun in Manchester in 2008 to ensure effective provision of first access music tuition. This model provides several key benefits; presently Manchester schools spend in excess of £500,000 from their own resources to augment core and extension work, it is envisaged they will continue to do so; schools make the decision what to offer - often based on continuation activities available both in school or in the local community, increasing sustainability; the One Education Music senior leadership team have strong links with all Manchester schools and will continue to provide professional guidance. One Education have been commissioned through the remainder of the funding (27%) to provide out of school ensembles ,exciting performance opportunities, a vocal strategy, training and CPD for teachers in schools / academies, capacity building in music technology and Special Education Needs music, data collection and quality assurance. The Manchester Hub is committed to developing ensembles and providing regular performance opportunities for students. These take the form of school based ensembles e.g. class band / choir, school band / orchestra / choir or through One Education Music's Activities Programme. There are presently 65 ensembles delivered in Music Centres and a further 60 that are delivered in schools. Approx 4500 pupils attend these ensembles weekly. The Junior Royal Northern College of Music, Chetham's School of Music and the Halle also offer ensemble programmes for gifted and talented pupils and it is an ambition of the Hub, through closer partnership working, to increase the number of pupils from the City of Manchester in these programmes. The hub also has the potential to identify and support hard to reach pupils who may not be attending school, for example Brighter Sound's strategic and delivery focus in relation to the Hub will be children in challenging circumstances. The monitoring required by Arts Council England regarding data capture of children and young people accessing hub activity is detailed and will provide challenges, however it should also be helpful in providing a more comprehensive picture of how children and young people are accessing music across the city and their progression routes. Manchester Music Education Hub will officially begin operating in September 2012 although the media launch was held at the Bridgewater Hall on July 5th at the annual "Big Sing" event when over 1500 pupils celebrated the culture of Manchester Music. The communications strategy for the Music Hub includes the development of a new website aimed at young people and families - 'MY HUB'. The site is currently under development and aims to be operational in September 2012. Case Studies Library Theatre Company HMF Community Theatre HMF Theatre is the Library Theatre Company's community theatre company for people living in the city of Manchester. It's the opportunity for anybody aged over 18 to get involved in theatre, to develop their skills and create their own performances with the support of the team at the LTC. The group was set up in 2011 and originally engaged with adults living in Hulme, Moss Side and Fallowfield. More recently we have opened the group up to include people from across Manchester City Centre. The group meets weekly at Cornerhouse and takes part in performance skills workshop. The participants have the opportunity to work with different theatre practitioners allowing them to experience varying theatre techniques. HMF Community Theatre Company makes theatre that is reflective on their own lives and their place with in the rich history of Manchester. They devise and write their own work, which we aim to perform in local community spaces. The company performed a play on a stall on King's Street at the Christmas Market. The show received coverage form the MEN newspaper and BBC Manchester radio and drew in large crowds each evening. It was a challenging but rewarding experience for all involved.  I can't tell you how much confidence I have gained from being part of HMF. I still can't believe I stood on a market stall at Christmas and performed to people in the street. I never would have been able to do something like that before joining the company. - Pamela  It is great to mix with such a diverse group of people. It is such a warm and welcoming group, I don't suppose I would normally meet people like this in my everyday live. And the fact we all get on and support each other is such a nice feeling. - Liam  I look forward to coming every week! I'm getting on a bit now and there's not much else that is this interesting in my life. I love seeing everyone each week and have really grown in confidence with my performing. - Shamza The Storybox Project The project delivers creative storytelling workshops for older people with Alzheimer's and dementia, as well as offering training for artists and carers. The Library Theatre Company and Manchester University will then evidence the impact of creative activity on the participants' wellbeing. The project is being delivered over three years with funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. The idea is to use music, props and costume to support make-believe worlds for stories to be told in and acted out. Artists Sara Cocker and Lowri Evans chose themes that were accessible, evocative and with filmic qualities; such as 'A Hollywood Premiere', 'A Seaside Pier' or 'A Western Saloon'. These archetypal themes were easy for participants to relate to; as well as play in. The emphasis of the sessions is on the present. Whilst naturally the stimulus evokes memories and there is space to share these: Storybox is not a reminiscence project. Working with personal memories can be frustrating or confusing to people with dementia, so the sessions were designed to be a celebration of the moment. This has a fun, freeing effect on the participants where there is no right and wrong, and each participant is made to feel valued and valid. Over three years of running the project 30 art practitioners have been specially trained and over 300 people have participated. Older people are showing improvement in their well being and as well as reduced isolation. The project has increased arts activities for older people at LTC, which has increased the number of carers who believe in the benefits of cultural activities. Leaving a legacy of practical activities, creative ideas and a person-centred approach is an essential part of the project. Later in the year there will be training events for artists and carers offering specific skills and advice for working with the arts and older people. Lime Arts Give Get GO! - Volunteering Campaign for Manchester's Joint Health Unit. In April 2010, Lime was approached by the Joint Health Unit to run workshops across the city to create art for a print media campaign on the mental well-being benefits of volunteering. There were 34 workshops conducted by five artists working in different disciples. The workshops included several day long workshops at a project cost of £16,800 (plus printing costs, which were covered via the council JHU), which attracted a total of 60 participants. The event was able to produced 60 bus stop poster; postcards. 1000 z-cards; 1000 A3 posters; 1000 A4 posters; a short film by Shawe Thing; a series of 6 sculptures at City Centre Project and a series of self portraits at Manchester Foyer. The body of works produced from the project was exhibited on 30th October 2010 at 2 events in Manchester. People's History Museum Manchester City South Housing Association The tour was designed in collaboration with Niall Power Head of Regeneration at City South. The Housing Association have been working with a number of cultural venues in Manchester including the Royal Exchange, Library Theatre, Whitworth Art gallery and Contact, so it seemed apt to connect with them as a provider to promote PHM's wellbeing programme. After attending a regeneration meeting and presenting an overview of the museum; its activities, programmes and exhibition spaces, the team expressed an interest in developing a programme that supports their more active residents in promoting the museum to other residents living in the community with a view to improving neighbourhood relations and community cohesion. The Group City South recruited 17 people to attend the day who came from the following wards:-  Hulme  Fallowfield  Mosside  Salford The group was made up of young people and adults many of whom had not visited the museum for a long time and the majority were visiting for the first time. It was also the first time they'd met as a group. The Activity The tour was designed as a taster session to sample and experience the Living History performance, a tour of the galleries and hands on session in the Learning Studio. It ended with a discussion about what they enjoyed and ideas for future sessions. Watching the performance of, *No Bed of Roses*, after a welcome and introduction, worked really well as a lead into the galleries and displays. The Living History session provoked emotion and curiosity in the group and helped to illustrate citizenship and themes explored in the gallery in an active way. Some people did not get past the Revolution section of the gallery they were so absorbed, whilst a few were happier to look around alone to take in the story. The hands on session - making clay parts inspired by the ceramics on display - was wonderfully received and helped the group to really gel. There was lots of laughter, joking and friendly banter. When asked if this bonding formed because they were in the PHM doing these activities as opposed to somewhere else the response was mixed. One person felt it could have taken place anywhere, more of the group said there was something about doing the activities in the People's History Museum, which is about ordinary people's history - 'people like me' and Manchester's history that helped the connections to be made in the group. Venture Arts Horace Horace does not access any support from the community or from services. Up until 3 years ago he was looking after his mother who was suffering from dementia - the responsibilities for him were enormous and life was not easy. His mother died 3 years ago. This was an incredibly difficult time for him and he always came to Venture Arts, but he didn't seem to get any other help along the way; no grief counselling or support. He now lives with his elderly father and they look after each other to a certain extent but, for Horace, life at home has been difficult for many years. He has been attending Venture Arts for over twenty years and this really has been a life line for him. Without us he would undoubtedly have spent much of his life behind closed doors. In his time at Venture Arts he has been involved in a huge variety of arts projects. He is very creative and hugely talented. He likes to express ideas that are important to him through his art work. More recently he trained to become a Venture Arts 'learning mentor, helping to teach art to young people in schools. This was a milestone for him as a person as he has never had any sort of a job before. In his words: 'My life would have been nothing without Venture Arts.' 'There are over 1.5 million adults with learning disabilities in England, around 10% of who are currently known to social services' Thanks to coming to Venture Arts every day and living in his local community Horace is well known and loved by many around him. We feel that we can provide long term support for some who are not in care. Karen Karen has not had an easy time in life. She has a learning disability and physical disabilities. Karen was brought up by her parents but moved from her parent's house over 25 years ago. From that time her life was unsettled and she was moved from home to home. Having suffered all her adult life with people not understanding her needs or giving her appropriate services, things hit breaking point about two years ago when people in charge of her care accused her of being 'wicked and attention seeking'. Her sister eventually stepped in and moved Karen into her home. Karen has been attending Venture Arts for the past eight years. For her, through this time we have been the only 'constant' in her life ', a place where she can express herself and feels she is doing something useful, where she feels proud of her achievements, where she feels that she is not different from everybody else. Despite what others have accused her of, we have always got on with Karen like a house on fire - she is funny and charming, will most likely be found chatting away and making every one feel at home. As her sister has said 'Karen reacts badly when she is being treated badly'. At Venture Arts Karen has been involved in many arts projects and has exhibited her work professionally in 3 major exhibitions. She is extremely proud of this. She has also helped us to design our new leaflet and always plays an important role in steering group meetings. Now that Karen is living with her sister, she is over the moon, she absolutely loves it and it seems, at last, that she has love, consistency and stimulation in her life. We find that when people are having a hard time in their lives, (which comes with the territory if you happen to have been born with a learning disability) we are proud to be the friendly faces - the people who aren't involved in the 'services', the getaway where people can learn and develop as they wish and meet up with their friends in a supportive environment. Victoria Baths Olympic Swimming Screen / Swimming Art Competition Victoria Baths hosted the Olympic Swimming Screen to bring people together to celebrate Olympic Swimming past, present and future, engaging local families and the community. We put up a big screen in our Females Pool and screened the first evening of Olympic Swimming (28th July) - an open, free event targeted particularly at local residents and Manchester's swimming community. People were invited to explore the building and/or take a guided tour before the screening (tours for Tung Sing tenants were translated into Chinese). Your Housing, who own Grove Village and Tung Sing, sponsored the event and advertised it directly to their tenants. The local schools were invited to take part in a Swimming Art competition in the run up to the event. Entries were displayed on the night and prizes were presented. Jess Lloyd (one of Team GB's youngest swimmers) also visited and met Yr 5 children from Plymouth Grove School, and did a Q&A session. It was a great evening resulting in a mixed audience with positive numbers from the target groups, with a great atmosphere and with positive feedback. Z-Arts Sat'dy Allsorts Sat'dy Allsorts is a music-making project that has been running for 3 years and is very well known within the community. The young people targeted are 10-18 year olds who are interested in music-making from all across Greater Manchester but principally from the Hulme/Moss Side area. The project encourages musical talent and potential in young people encompassing those in challenging circumstances by delivering weekly workshops in music making; focusing on songwriting and performance. It offers free creative activity and raises aspirations to flourish creative talent. The activities take place at Z-arts; during regular Saturday morning weekly workshops, as well as outside touring to other youth-centred venues and festivals. Each session is 2 hours long with increased activity during festival periods and running up to performances. This gives participants a sense of continuity and support. Young people in these areas are too used to having projects stop when funding runs out, which they report as leaving them with a sense of being "forgotten" and "left behind". Sat'dy Allsorts also have access to the Z-arts recording studio and equipment so they can record tracks, as well as access to computers and production software so they can produce their tracks and access to PA equipment, microphones and rehearsal space so they can practice. The Mac Suite at Zion is equipped with six AppleMacs, with Logic, Garageband, Final Cut Express and the iLife suite. Access to this, alongside instruction in the different programmes is an essential part of this project. Sat'dy Allsorts has improved the quality and standards of music delivery for children and young people and the provision for young people's musical opportunities has increased as a result of creative collaborations.

en

1119-pdf

# Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables For The 2012/2013 Academic Year ## Guidance Notes Date of issue 16 April 2014 Publication intent NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Contents Section 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of this document ................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Apprenticeships national success rates tables ............................................ 2 Location of national success rates tables for 2012/2013 ..................................................... 2 Changes to the Apprenticeships national success rates tables ........................................... 2 Section 2 - Apprenticeships national success rates tables worksheets .................................. 3 Contents of the tables ......................................................................................................... 3 Format of the Apprenticeships national success rates tables .............................................. 3 Overall report .................................................................................................................. 3 Sector subject area and framework report ...................................................................... 4 Institution report for overall measure and timely measure ............................................... 4 Excluded framework report for overall and timely measure ............................................. 4 Section 3 - Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files ............................. 5 Format of Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files ........................ 5 Overall report .................................................................................................................. 5 Sector subject and framework report .............................................................................. 6 Institution report .............................................................................................................. 6 Excluded frameworks report ........................................................................................... 6 Section 4 - Contents of national success rates tables ............................................................ 7 Report columns .................................................................................................................. 7 Institution type ................................................................................................................ 7 Age group ....................................................................................................................... 7 Apprenticeship level and type ......................................................................................... 7 Framework name and framework code ........................................................................... 7 Sector subject area tier 1 and tier 2 ................................................................................ 8 Overall leavers and timely leavers .................................................................................. 8 Report measures ................................................................................................................ 8 Overall success rate ....................................................................................................... 8 Timely success rate ........................................................................................................ 8 Success rates percentiles ............................................................................................... 9 Section 5 - Exclusions from the national success rates tables ............................................. 10 Section 6 - Choosing information on the national success rates tables ................................ 11 Further information and help ................................................................................................. 12 ## Section 1 - Introduction Purpose of this document 1. This document provides information about the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for the 2012/2013 academic year. ## Purpose Of The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 2. The national success rates tables for Apprenticeships set out levels of success in Apprenticeships provision in England for the 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 academic years. We publish national success rates tables every year. 3. The information in the tables is consistent with the Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports for 2012/2013 published in January 2013. It expands upon the success-rate information made available in the January statistical first release (see www.gov.uk/government/publications/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-ofhighest-qualification-held). 4. Apprenticeships national success rates tables help providers to raise the standard of their work. It allows providers to assess their performance, and helps them plan action programmes to improve their apprentices' success rates. 5. Throughout this guidance we refer to 'national success rates tables' rather than 'benchmarking data'. National success rates tables allow for comparison, and are not a standard of best practice. ## Location Of National Success Rates Tables For 2012/2013 6. The national success rates tables for 2012/2013 are on the data.gov.uk website at [enter URL for website]. ## Changes To The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 7. The changes made to the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for 2011/2012 are as follows. - The information from the 2012/2013 Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports has been added to the national success rates tables for 2012/2013. - The information from the 2009/2010 Apprenticeships qualification success rates reports has been removed from the national success rates tables for 2012/2013. - For the first time we are publishing qualification success rates reports for providers, to help them measure their success. - Only funded framework aims are included in the success rates tables. ## Section 2 - Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Worksheets Contents Of The Tables 8. Our aim in publishing the Apprenticeships national success rates tables is to provide a useful but manageable amount of information, drawing on existing statistics. 9. The information for the Apprenticeships national success rates tables has been created from providers' Individualised Learner Record (ILR) returns, and they provide a range of national-level and provider-level statistics for success. The method of calculating success rates is available on the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-success-rates-2012- to-2013. 10. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables contain information on success rates for three academic years (2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013). The information for each academic year comes from the success rates dataset produced for that year, calculated using the method that applied to that year. 11. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are calculated using the 'overall' success rate and 'timely' success rate. The timely success rate is only shown on the provider-level report. ## Format Of The Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables 12. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are published as four compressed files. Each compressed file holds a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that contains a number of worksheets. The separate spreadsheets are: - Overall report; - Sector subject area and framework report; - Institution report for overall measure and timely measure; and - Excluded framework report for overall and timely measure. The contents of the spreadsheets are shown below. ## Overall Report 13. The overall report contains separate worksheets that show national success rates at headline level, which is an overview of all national success rates. This report also presents the success rates by: - sex; - learning difficulty or disability; - ethnic background; - apprentices' local authority (based on the apprentices' home postcodes); and - the local authority for where the learning is delivered (based on the postcode of the providers' delivery locations). 14. The overall report also shows success rates percentiles on a separate worksheet. For a further explanation of success rates percentiles and how they are calculated, see paragraphs 47 to 52. The report shows percentiles at headline level and by: - ethnic background; - sex; and - learning difficulty or disability. 15. Percentile sheets for apprentices' and delivery locations' local authorities have not been included in the overall report as the dataset contains many small groupings (cohorts), which would have a significant effect on the rates presented. ## Sector Subject Area And Framework Report 16. The sector subject area and framework report contains worksheets that show the national success rates by: - sector subject area tier 1 and 2; and - framework. ## Institution Report For Overall Measure And Timely Measure 17. The institution report contains worksheets that show the success rates of each institution at headline level, which is a high-level overview of the overall success rates for each provider, by: - sex; - ethnic background; - learning difficulty or disability; - sector subject area; and - framework. 18. The hybrid end date (which is the actual end date or the planned end date, whichever is later) is shown for the overall success rate and the planned end date is shown for the timely success rate. 19. The sector subject area and framework reports could be split by year over separate worksheets if you go over the row limit of 65,536 in Excel 2003. 20. A timely success rate report is published for the first time in 2012/2013. This shows timely national success rates for providers in the same worksheet format as the institutions' overall national success rates reports. ## Excluded Framework Report For Overall And Timely Measure 21. Due to the rules described in section 5, the full coverage of frameworks delivered nationally, and at institution level, is not available in the national- and institution-level framework spreadsheets for the overall success rates. 22. The excluded frameworks are published in the excluded framework worksheets to allow the full scope of frameworks delivery to be seen. The report indicates the reasons for the particular frameworks being excluded. It is split into four worksheets: - Excluded Apprenticeship frameworks at national level for 2010/2011, 2011/2012 and 2012/2013; - 2010/2011 overall excluded frameworks for institutions; - 2011/2012 overall excluded frameworks for institutions; and - 2012/2013 overall excluded frameworks for institutions. 23. As the timely success rate is only being published for the institution report, excluded frameworks at institution level will be shown in the timely excluded frameworks report along with the reasons for the exclusions. The report is split into three worksheets: - 2010/2011 timely excluded frameworks for institutions; - 2011/2012 timely excluded frameworks for institutions; and - 2012/2013 timely excluded frameworks for institutions. 24. The excluded frameworks for institutions are displayed by year on separate worksheets as the volume of data goes over the Excel 2003 row limit of 65,536. ## Section 3 - Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Open Data Files Format Of Apprenticeships National Success Rates Tables Open Data Files 25. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables are also published in a non-proprietary format to make sure they meet the 'three-star open data standard'. The comma-separated variable (CSV) file is our preferred non-proprietary format. For more information on open data, see the published white paper written by the Cabinet Office. This is on the website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-white-paperunleashing-the-potential. 26. The Apprenticeships national success rates tables open data files are published as 27 separate compressed files. The contents of each file, and where the information comes from, are listed below. ## Overall Report 27. There are 10 files containing data from the overall report worksheets explained in paragraphs 13 and 14. - NSRT201 - headline success rates - NSRT202 - headline percentiles - NSRT203 - success rates by gender - NSRT204 - percentiles by gender - NSRT205 - success rates by ethnic background - NSRT206 - percentiles by ethnic background - NSRT207 - success rates by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT208 - percentiles by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT209 - success rates by apprentices' local authority - NSRT210 - success rates by delivery locations' local authority. ## Sector Subject And Framework Report 28. The sector subject area and framework report worksheets explained in paragraph 16 is published as two files listed below. - NSRT211 - sector subject area and framework success rate - NSRT212 - sector subject area success rates. (All the sector subject area worksheets are in this file.) ## Institution Report 29. There are 12 files containing the institution report worksheets explained in paragraphs 1 to 20. - NSRT213 - overall headline success rates for the institution - NSRT214 - overall success rates for the institution by gender - NSRT215 - overall success rates for the institution by ethnic background - NSRT216 - overall success rates for the institution by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT217 - overall sector subject area success rates for the institution - NSRT218 - overall framework success rates for the institution - NSRT222 - timely headline success rates for the institution - NSRT223 - timely success rates for the institution by gender - NSRT224 - timely success rates for the institution by ethnic background - NSRT225 - timely success rates for the institution by learning difficulties or disabilities - NSRT226 - timely sector subject area success rates for the institution - NSRT227 - timely framework success rates for the institution ## Excluded Frameworks Report 30. There are three files containing excluded frameworks report worksheets as explained in paragraphs 21 and 24. - NSRT219 - overall excluded national frameworks - NSRT220 - overall excluded institution frameworks - NSRT221 - timely excluded institution frameworks 31. All the excluded institution framework worksheets are in a single file. ## Section 4 - Contents Of National Success Rates Tables 32. This section explains the columns in the Apprenticeships national success rates tables worksheets. ## Report Columns Institution Type 33. Providers are classified into one of six institution types. The institution types reported on are as follows. - General further-education or tertiary college - Other publicly funded institution - Private-sector publicly funded institution - School - Sixth-form college - Specialist college 34. The 'specialist college' category includes agriculture and horticulture colleges, and art, design and performing arts colleges. An 'all institution type' category is also available on some of the worksheets. ## Age Group 35. The age group of a cohort is based on an apprentice's age on the start date of the framework aim. Apprentices of unknown age are included in the 25 and over age group. Apprentices under 16 are included in the 16 to 18 age group. All tables show information divided into the following age groups. - 16 to 18 - 19 to 24 - 25 and over - All ages ## Apprenticeship Level And Type 36. Apprenticeships are grouped according to their level and type. The Apprenticeship levels and types reported on are as follows. - Level 2 - intermediate Apprenticeship - Level 3 - advanced-level Apprenticeship - level 4 + - higher-level Apprenticeships (this includes level-4 and level-5 Apprenticeships) - All levels and types ## Framework Name And Framework Code 37. The framework name and framework code of an Apprenticeship is in the learning aim reference application (LARA). ## Sector Subject Area Tier 1 And Tier 2 38. The sector subject area tier 1 and sector subject area tier 2 for an Apprenticeship framework are in the data lookup used in the October 2013 statistical first release and qualification success rate reports. ## Overall Leavers And Timely Leavers 39. The 'overall leavers' column shows the number of Apprenticeships that are planned to be completed, or have actually completed, within a given academic year. 40. The 'timely leavers' column shows the number of Apprenticeships that are expected to be completed by the planned end date, or within 90 days of the planned end date, within a given academic year. 41. A 'leaver' is defined as an apprentice who: - has not transferred to a different programme with the same provider; - has not transferred to another provider due to intervention by us or the Education Funding Agency; - is not on a planned break; and - has not withdrawn within the first six weeks of study. 42. The number of leavers in a sub-cohort (a distinct group of apprentices within a cohort) may not add up to the total number of apprentices in the cohort because: - the number of leavers is rounded to the nearest 10 at all levels; and - small cohorts of leavers (fewer than five) are not included in the published tables. ## Report Measures 43. The overall and timely success rates are calculated in line with our Apprenticeship qualifications success rates business rules and methods. These are on the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-successrates-2012-to-2013. ## Overall Success Rate 44. The overall success rate measures the percentage of Apprenticeship frameworks achieved against the overall number of Apprenticeship frameworks completed. The overall success rate is based on the hybrid end year. The hybrid end year is the actual learning end year or the planned learning end year, whichever is later. 45. The definition of 'leaver' in paragraph 41 is also used to exclude Apprenticeship frameworks from the calculation of the overall success rate. ## Timely Success Rate 46. For the first time, the Apprenticeships national success rates tables for 2012/2013 provide a limited set of information for providers using the timely success rate. The timely success rate measures the percentage of Apprenticeship frameworks that were achieved by their planned end date, or within 90 days after their planned end date, against the number of frameworks that were expected to be completed. The exclusions for the overall success rate also apply to the timely success rate. ## Success Rates Percentiles 47. Success rates percentiles allow providers to compare their results against the range for their sector or particular types of provider. One way of interpreting percentiles is as follows. - Providers with a success rate on or above the 90th percentile are in the top 10% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate on or above the 75 percentile are in the top 25% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate on or above the 50 percentile are in the top 50% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate below or on the 25 percentile are in the bottom 25% of providers. th - Providers with a success rate below or on the 10 percentile are in the bottom 10% of providers. 48. This is illustrated by the following table. A provider with a success rate of 45% would be in the bottom 10% of providers, whereas a provider with a success rate of 76% would be in the top 25% of providers. | Percentile | Example overall | |----------------|--------------------| | success rate | | | 10 | 46.5% | | 25 | 59.4% | | 50 | 68.6% | | 75 | 74.5% | | 90 | 81.3% | 49. An alternative way of looking at this for provider types is that: - the top 10% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 90th percentile; th - the top 25% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 75 percentile; th - the top 50% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate on or above the 50 percentile; th - the bottom 25% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate below or on the 25 percentile; and th - the bottom 10% of providers in a particular category have a success, retention or achievement rate below or on the 10 percentile. 50. Percentiles are calculated at provider level in order to display the differences between providers. This is different from the mean success rates, which are calculated as the mean rate for all the relevant leavers, averaging each leaver equally. 51. When calculating percentiles, the success rate for each provider is used to create an average. This means that apprentices with smaller providers have a greater bearing on results than those from larger providers. The results for small groupings, such as Apprenticeships being studied in sixth-form colleges, will be affected by the average. 52. Both the mean success rate and the percentiles are valid and useful measures, depending on whether you are interested in the overall performance of the sector (consider mean success rates) or the differences between providers (consider percentiles). ## Section 5 - Exclusions From The National Success Rates Tables 53. The rules on excluding small cohorts, suppressing figures and rounding figures in the success rates worksheets are listed below. - Cohorts with fewer than five 'overall leavers' are not shown on any worksheets. - Cohorts with five or more 'overall leavers' but fewer than 30 have the number of leavers replaced with a dash (–). - The number of overall leavers is rounded to the nearest 10. This prevents the possibility of individual apprentices being identified. 54. The rules on exclusions, suppressions and rounded figures on the percentiles worksheet are listed below. - If there are 20 or more providers, the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles are shown on the worksheet. th - If there are between 11 and 19 providers, only the 50 percentile is shown on the worksheet. - If there are 10 or fewer providers, no percentiles are shown on the worksheet. 55. Where individual framework success rates are reported, if a framework is only delivered at a single institution, the framework is not included in the report. This affects the overall report (framework success rate worksheet) and the institution report (success rates for institutions by framework) worksheet for both the overall success rates and timely success rates. Any frameworks that are excluded are listed in the excluded frameworks report worksheets, together with the reasons why they are excluded. 56. As rows on the framework spreadsheet are excluded, the total of the leavers for the individual institution types may be less than the number of leavers for the 'all institution type' row. The excluded institution types are shown in the excluded frameworks report spreadsheets, together with the reason for them being excluded. ## Section 6 - Choosing Information On The National Success Rates Tables 57. The success rate data is presented as a series of rows in Excel worksheets. Each row shows the success rate of a specific cohort of apprentices. Summary information is shown at many levels (for example, all ages, all Apprenticeship levels, all institution types). All the columns in the worksheets contain drop-down menus that allow you to choose the information you want. 58. The screenshot below shows an example of how the information will appear in the headline success rate worksheet of the overall report. 59. The drop-down menus are used to choose the level of information. The screenshot below shows the effect of using the drop-down menus to choose success rates broken down by age for all Apprenticeship levels for 2012/2013. ## Further Information And Help 60. If you would like any more information about the Apprenticeship national success rates tables, phone our service desk on 0870 267 0001 or email servicedesk@sfa.bis.gov.uk. 61. We produce Apprenticeships national success rates tables in line with our Apprenticeship qualifications success rates business rules. The business rules and technical specifications are on the success rate pages of the gov.uk website at www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-qualification-success-rates-2012- to-2013. 62. If you need more help, give our service desk a detailed explanation of your query. Published by: Skills Funding Agency Version: 1.0 Date: 16 April 2014

en

1407-pdf

## Office Of Rail Regulation # Minutes Of The First Session Of The 93Rd Board Meeting On 29 April 20131 ## (14:00 - 18:30) In Room 1, Orr Offices, One Kemble Street, London Board present: Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Peter Bucks, Mark Fairbairn Mike Lloyd, Stephen Nelson, Ray O'Toole, and Steve Walker. Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Michael Beswick (Director, Rail Policy), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Alan Price (Director, Railway Planning and Performance), and Cathryn Ross (Director of Railway Markets and Economics) In attendance, all items: Dan Brown (Director, Strategy), Richard Emmott (Interim Director, External Affairs), Carl Hetherington (Deputy Director, RME), John Larkinson (PR13 programme Director, Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), and Gary Taylor (Assistant. Board Secretary). In attendance, specific items: Richard Gusanie (PR13 project manager), Andrew Wallace (Head of Planning and Operations), Sue Johnston (Deputy Director, RSD), Chris Fieldsend (Industry Planning manager), Jonathan Hulme (Financial analyst), Richard Fitter (Financial Analyst) ## Item 1: Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies for absence. ## Item 2: Declarations Of Interest 2. There were no declarations of interest. ## Item 3: Pr13 - Decisions Relating To The Content Of The Draft Determination 3. Richard Price introduced the item. The Board had spent a great deal of time discussing and debating elements of the CP5 package both in Board meetings and through the PR13 Committee (PRC). The executive had listened carefully to all of those discussions and held extensive debates internally. They believed that the package presented met the Board's intentions and struck a good balance between setting tough targets and allowing sufficient flexibility for Network Rail (NR) to manage its business and to deliver additional benefits through good management. The proposal still included a number of scoped options where the Board's judgement would be sought and applied. In particular the Board would be clearly shown areas where the evidence was not good enough to support a strong recommendation or where the executive had not reached consensus on a recommendation, and they would be asked to reach judgements. There was a day and a half of meetings scheduled and it was important that decisions were reached so that the timetable for publication could be met. Overall it was a robust, well developed package and he commended it to the Board. ## 4. John Larkinson explained how he would take the Board through the agenda. He had confidence that the overall package would stand up well to scrutiny but it was important that the Board took this opportunity to test and challenge the proposals as this would be the last chance to do so before the final run of the financial model which would populate the draft determination document. To that end, all the project leads would be available to answer any questions from the Board on the detail of the proposal or the process that had led to a particular recommendation. 5. The Section 4 duties and the guidance from the Secretary of State and the Scottish Minister had been circulated with the Board papers as a refresher for Board members. At each significant point John would explain how the Executive had applied the duties and guidance in reaching their recommendations. 6. Cathryn Ross reminded the Board that they were required to consider the framework of ministerial guidance and S4 duties, but that they were constrained in some other areas - such as by the Access and Management Regulations. [The rest of this section has been redacted from the published minutes because it relates to the formulation of policy] ## Evening Session Item 8 Of The Board Agenda From 30 April Network Rail Performance And Remco Letter 71. Alan Price explained that ORR wrote each year to NRs Remuneration committee with our initial assessment of NRs performance for the year so they could take this into account when considering management performance. A draft had been circulated with the Board papers. Paragraphs 72-75 to be redacted as they contain sensitive information Redaction ends 76. The Chair and Chief Executive should agree a revised draft and the Chair should sign the letter. It should be copied to the Board. ## Board 29.04.2013 Action Ii: Revised Letter To Nr Chair To Be Circulated To The Board After Sending. Anna Walker Chair Minutes approved by the Board on 21 May 2013

en

4583-pdf

## Department Of Health Permanent Secretaries Meetings With External Organisations 1 October - 31 December 2011 Meetings With External Organisations (Including Meetings With Newspaper And Other Media Proprietors, Editors And Senior Executives)1 Permanent Secretary Department of Health, Una O'Brien Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 McKinsey Catch up October 2011 Macmillan Cancer Care Catch up October 2011 Edward Troup Catch up October 2011 McKinsey To discuss Monitor To discuss DH and service user voice November 2011 Royal National Institute for the Blind, MacMillan, Carers UK, Marie Curie, National Association of LINKs members, National Voices, NCH, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, MIND, Age UK, Men's Health Forum November 2011 Odgers Berntson appointments November 2011 NHS Confederation Catch up December 2011 Royal College of Surgeons Catch up NHS Chief Executive, David Nicholson Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 Diabetes UK Update Discussion Discussion of NHS Innovation Review November 2011 Higher Education Funding Council for England & Oxford University Update Discussion November 2011 National Association of Primary Care (NAPC) November 2011 NAPC & NHS Alliance Update Discussion December 2011 NHS Confederation Update Discussion Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies DBE Date of Meeting Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting October 2011 Medical Research Council Update October 2011 The Welcome Trust and Glaxo SmithKline Informal Dinner discussion Development of the South-East Biosciences Cluster October 2011 Faculty of Public Health (FPH) Regular Catch Up November 2011 The Wellcome Trust Update on Research Matters Update Meeting November 2011 University College London Institute of Health Equity November 2011 McKinsey Update on Life Sciences November 2011 FPH, Royal Society of Public Update on Public Health and Public Health England Health (RSPH) and Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) Update on Public Health November 2011 London Assembly Advisor on Health November 2011 Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Regular update discussion meeting items covered the new system, education and Public Health December 2011 Medical Schools Council Discussion with speakers wide ranging Agenda, including research, education and public health December 2011 FPH, RSPH and ADPH Update on Public Health England December 2011 UK Network of Health Promotion Academics, Open University and Anglia Ruskin University. Meeting to discuss importance of Health Promotion professional education and expertise in research and the evidence base December 2011 Age Exchange Update meeting on their work December 2011 General Medical Council Regular Update Meeting Regular Update Meeting December 2011 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Update Meeting December 2011 Advisory Committee for the Regius Professorship of Physic

en

4511-pdf

| Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | ATHRODAX HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL LTD | 1111678 | 30,712.50 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 1118272 | 78,660.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BAYER PLC | 1123219 | 78,660.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | BIGHAND LTD | 1124202 | 33,543.54 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | BIGHAND LTD | 1124359 | (33,543.54) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | BIGHAND LTD | 1124360 | 31,547.48 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 1126146 | 4,052,101.92 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 1126010 | 1,059.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 1126010 | 32,033.08 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | CSL BEHRING UK LTD | 1116954 | 34,125.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 EDMS PROJECT | EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS | EDM GROUP LTD | 1124910 | 35,557.47 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1122089 | 10,708.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1122089 | 64,770.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1124200 | 8,244.05 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1124200 | 78,644.22 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1126006 | 5,398.10 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1126006 | 72,875.03 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1127940 | 9,102.65 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | HCL DOCTORS | 1127940 | 116,411.70 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HEALTHCARE AT HOME LTD | 1119774 | 54,240.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 1123122 | 74,460.90 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 1123122 | 13,503.98 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | AUC ADDITIONS | JCP CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD | 1117634 | 62,658.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 MYH TELECOMS | DATA LINES | KCOM | 1101239 | 37,611.94 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | BUSINESS RATES | KIRKLEES COUNCIL | 1126478 | 70,892.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | LLOYDS PHARMACY LTD | 1116467 | 513,747.07 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 GASTROENTEROLOGY TRUSTWIDE | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | MEDINET CLINICAL SERVICES LTD | 1112144 | 26,093.08 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS | PACEMAKERS | MEDTRONIC LTD | 1115682 | 51,120.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | MERZ PHARMA UK LTD | 1115983 | 48,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | MINDRAY (UK) LTD | 1117754 | 63,451.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 GENERAL OFFICE PGH | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | NEOPOST LTD | 1126307 | 30,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 MYH TELECOMS | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | NETCALL TELECOM LIMITED | 1121441 | 68,061.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 45312 | 125,927.58 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 45313 | 40,305.83 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR | NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY | 44826 | 102,575.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/12/2017 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 45630 | 47,351.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/12/2017 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 45631 | 2,287,821.36 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1119461 | 111,307.18 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1119461 | 6,544.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1121583 | 104,269.76 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1121583 | 3,125.52 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1121594 | 148,027.12 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1122086 | 148,668.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1122326 | 37,526.20 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1122498 | 31,719.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1122499 | 31,249.43 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1124189 | 149,476.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125237 | 99,345.18 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125237 | 4,219.24 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125336 | 105,409.56 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125336 | 3,512.17 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125338 | 93,285.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1125994 | 243,202.56 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1127310 | 118,962.17 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS LTD | 1127310 | 3,207.96 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45099 | 34,638.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45100 | 174,783.77 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45156 | 33,914.66 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45160 | 155,483.38 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45266 | 174,817.68 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45269 | 36,387.75 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45335 | 40,420.13 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45336 | 173,238.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45445 | 38,905.43 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45446 | 151,145.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45497 | 174,407.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 45499 | 30,661.06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 A&E PGH & PGI | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | NORTHERN HEALTH LTD | 1115003 | 26,928.00 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 1114460 | 80,193.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 1116885 | 80,302.78 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | OLYMPUS KEYMED GROUP | 1113820 | 26,379.94 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | OLYMPUS KEYMED GROUP | 1117825 | (26,379.94) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 SLEEP SERVICE | MED & SURG EQUIP | PHILIPS RESPIRONICS | 1123332 | 33,585.67 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 07/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 1124400 | 67,372.47 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 1126801 | 110,324.06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 1128759 | 89,525.54 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 AGENCY HOLDING CODE | AGENCY OTHER MEDICAL | QX LIMITED | 1130260 | 93,425.01 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 1117402 | 65,453.52 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 1119752 | 64,400.64 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 1121800 | 28,290.24 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | STRYKER UK LTD | 1113659 | 41,820.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 FACILITIES DDH | EXT CONTR LAUNDRY | SYNERGY HEALTH (UK) LTD | 1115290 | 25,322.47 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/12/2017 BLOOD SCIENCES NON PAY | LABORATORY REAGENTS | SYSMEX UK LTD | 1115440 | 167,928.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BLOOD SCIENCES NON PAY | LABORATORY REAGENTS | SYSMEX UK LTD | 1123595 | 184,601.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 SPEC NURSES - NEUROLOGY | NURSE BAND 6 | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 43689 | 38,158.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 44404 | 36,778.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 WOMEN'S MEDICAL STAFFING TW | CONSULTANT | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 44404 | 2,141.42 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 44837 | 36,591.83 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 45240 | 36,591.83 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 STRATEGY & PLANNING | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 45256 | 178,909.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/12/2017 RADIOLOGY MEDICAL STAFFING | SPECIALIST REGISTRAR | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 45525 | 45,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | THE LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 45560 | (38,614.59) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 22/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | UNISON | 44259 | 62,696.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | BUSINESS RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 1126492 | 32,054.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/12/2017 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | BUSINESS RATES | WAKEFIELD COUNCIL | 1126493 | 180,375.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD | 1121596 | 38,991.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | WALTER WEST BUILDERS LTD | 1121597 | 41,740.69 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 29/12/2017 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | AUDIT FEES: INTERNAL | YORK TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 45583 | 34,375.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 19/12/2017 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S < 1YR | EDEN RED | 64910 | 44,844.57 |

en

2766-pdf

## Food Hygiene Rating Scheme The scheme helps you choose where to eat out or shop for food by giving you clear information about the businesses' hygiene standards. We run the scheme in partnership with local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The scheme gives businesses a rating from 5 to 0 which is displayed at their premises and online so you can make more informed choices about where to buy and eat food. 5 - hygiene standards are very good 4 - hygiene standards are good 3 - hygiene standards are generally satisfactory 2 - some improvement is necessary 1 - major improvement is necessary 0 - urgent improvement is required ## Search For Food Hygiene Ratings The scheme is set out in law in Wales and Northern Ireland but display of the rating sticker is voluntary in England. Food Hygiene Rating Sticker with a rating of five ## What The Rating Covers Ratings are a snapshot of the standards of food hygiene found at the time of inspection. It is the responsibility of the business to comply with food hygiene law at all times. This includes: handling of food how food is stored how food is prepared cleanliness of facilities how food safety is managed The food hygiene rating scheme does not provide information on the following factors: quality of the food customer service culinary skill presentation comfort For suspected food poisoning, seek medical advice from your GP and contact your local environmental health or food safety team. ## Understanding Ratings The rating shows how well the business is doing overall, based on standards found at the time of inspection. The ratings can be found online and on stickers which are displayed at business premises. The back of the sticker and the online rating will also show the date of the inspection by the local authority's food safety officer. Ratings are typically given to places where food is supplied, sold or consumed, such as: restaurants, pubs and cafes takeaways, food vans and stalls canteens and hotels supermarkets and other food shops schools, hospitals and care homes A food safety officer from the local authority inspects a business to check that it follows food hygiene law so that the food is safe to eat. At the inspection, the officer will check the following three elements: how hygienically the food is handled - how it is prepared, cooked, re-heated, cooled and stored the physical condition of the business –including cleanliness, layout, lighting, ventilation, pest control and other facilities how the business manages ways of keeping food safe, looking at processes, training and systems to ensure good hygiene is maintained. The officer can then assess the level of confidence in standards being maintained in the future ## Exemptions There are two groups of exempt businesses which are inspected by the local authority food safety officer but are not given a food hygiene rating: businesses that are low-risk to public health, for example, newsagents, chemist shops or visitor centres selling pre-wrapped goods that do not require refrigeration childminders and businesses that offer caring services at home ## The Rating Scale The hygiene standards found at the time of inspection are then rated on a scale: 5 is top of the scale, this means the hygiene standards are very good and fully comply with the law 0 is at the bottom of the scale, this means urgent improvement is necessary To get the top rating, businesses must do well in all three elements which are referenced above. If the top rating is not given, the officer will explain to the business the necessary actions they can take to improve their hygiene rating. A breakdown of the three elements making up the food hygiene rating for business is also provided with the online rating. This information is available for businesses inspected since April 2016 in England and Northern Ireland and for businesses inspected in Wales since November 2014. Detailed information is included in the food safety officer's inspection report. If you want to see this you could make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the local authority that carried out the inspection. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business. The local authority will consider your FOI request and will usually send you a copy of the report. In some cases, the local authority may decide that they cannot do so but will let you know this and explain why. Any concerns relating to a business's food safety can be reported to the local food safety team who are responsible for the business. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business. ## Finding A Rating Browse our ratings online. Ratings can be displayed in an obvious location within the business' window or door. You can also ask a member of staff what rating was given at the last inspection. Putting a hygiene rating on show is a good advertisement for businesses that meet the requirements of food hygiene law. If the rating is low you can then choose to buy your food or meal from a place with a higher rating. Businesses in England do not have to display their rating at their premises but are encouraged to do so. Businesses in Wales are legally required to display their ratings in a prominent place, like the front door, entrance or window of the business. All businesses in Wales must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone. The scheme applies to businesses who sell to businesses including food manufacturers and wholesalers. Takeaways must include a bilingual statement on menu leaflets and flyers which tells consumers how to find details of the rating on our website. Businesses in Northern Ireland are legally required to display their ratings at or near each customer entrance like the front door, entrance or window of the business. Stickers must be displayed in a location where they can be readily seen and easily read by customers before they enter the establishment when it is open for business. All businesses in Northern Ireland must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone. ## Differences Between Online Ratings And Rating Sticker Displayed There may be temporary differences between the rating displayed at a business and online rating for which there are valid reasons, such as: the business has appealed its latest rating and is awaiting the result the local authority is in the process of uploading the new rating to our website Even if a business achieves the top rating there can be a short delay while the local authority updates the website. Local authorities upload ratings at least every 28 days. If you cannot find a rating for business then you will need to contact the local authority responsible for inspecting the business. You should also contact the local authority if you are concerned that a business is deliberately displaying a higher rating to the one on the website to suggest it has higher hygiene standards than it actually does. Find your local authority food safety team. ## Businesses With Poor Ratings Businesses which are given low ratings must make urgent or major improvements to hygiene standards. The local authority food safety officer has several enforcement options available as well as giving advice and guidance to make sure these improvements are made. The food safety officer will also tell the business how quickly these improvements must be made and this will depend on the type of issue that needs to be addressed. If the officer finds that a business's hygiene standards are very poor and there is an imminent risk to public health, when food may be unsafe to eat, the officer must act to ensure consumers are protected. This could result in stopping part of the business or closing it down completely until it is safe to recommence. ## Frequency Of Inspections A new rating is given each time a business is inspected by a food safety officer from the business's local authority. Each local authority plans a programme of inspections every year. The frequency of inspections depends on the potential risk to public health. The assessment takes account of the following factors: type of food that is handled the number and type of customers, for example vulnerable groups types of processes carried out before the food is sold or served hygiene standards seen on the day of the last inspection Businesses that pose a higher risk are inspected more often than businesses that pose a lower risk, for example a small retailer selling a range of prepacked foods that only need to be refrigerated. The time between inspections varies from six months for the highest risk businesses to two years for lower risk businesses. For some very low risk businesses, the interval between inspections may be longer than two years, however there may be some exceptions to this. In between inspections, local authorities may also monitor businesses in other ways to ensure they are maintaining hygiene standards. If these checks reveal anything that might indicate that hygiene standards have deteriorated, the officer will carry out an inspection and the business will get a new rating. If the local authority receives a complaint or new information about a business that they are not due to inspect, and this suggests hygiene standards are not being maintained, the local authority will investigate and may inspect the business and give it a new hygiene rating.

en

0233-pdf

| Organisation Name | Purchase_Order_Number | Order_Date | Total_Value | Supplier_Name | Account_Name | |--------------------------|-------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057409 | 01/04/2016 | £13,975.00 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057410 | 01/04/2016 | £5,350.00 TLC GARDEN SERVICES | SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020358 | 01/04/2016 | £8,533.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020360 | 01/04/2016 | £12,253.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020361 | 01/04/2016 | £11,483.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020362 | 01/04/2016 | £11,044.67 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020363 | 01/04/2016 | £12,659.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020364 | 01/04/2016 | £12,210.00 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020365 | 01/04/2016 | £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020366 | 01/04/2016 | £31,848.00 WINGS SCHOOL EDUCATION LTD | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020368 | 01/04/2016 | £6,007.46 ROCHDALE SIXTH FORM COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020369 | 01/04/2016 | £12,294.62 HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020370 | 01/04/2016 | £21,675.00 ROSSENDALE SCHOOL PRIORY | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020371 | 01/04/2016 | £16,281.65 BRIGHT FUTURES SCHOOL LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004594 | 01/04/2016 | £40,000.00 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057422 | 04/04/2016 | £10,363.00 ORCHARD RECYCLING SERVICE LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057424 | 04/04/2016 | £21,048.25 THE RIVERSIDE GROUP LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057431 | 04/04/2016 | £217,557.28 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057457 | 04/04/2016 | £9,143.54 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057468 | 04/04/2016 | £6,380.00 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD | ROOF WORK/REPLACEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057469 | 04/04/2016 | £5,187.45 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER | BASIC SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020375 | 04/04/2016 | £16,720.00 ARC SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020376 | 04/04/2016 | £11,344.66 BEECHKEYS CARE AND EDUCATION | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020377 | 04/04/2016 | £26,393.00 CEDAR HOUSE SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020378 | 04/04/2016 | £15,969.00 CUMBERLAND SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020379 | 04/04/2016 | £16,149.00 CUMBERLAND SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020380 | 04/04/2016 | £32,470.00 PONTVILLE SCHOOL | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020381 | 04/04/2016 | £12,139.34 ROYAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF DERBY | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020382 | 04/04/2016 | £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020383 | 04/04/2016 | £8,828.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020384 | 04/04/2016 | £16,038.83 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020385 | 04/04/2016 | £13,495.14 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020386 | 04/04/2016 | £8,745.88 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020387 | 04/04/2016 | £8,310.37 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020388 | 04/04/2016 | £14,432.33 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020389 | 04/04/2016 | £14,827.66 THE TOGETHER TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020390 | 04/04/2016 | £11,197.29 WATERLOO LODGE SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020393 | 04/04/2016 | £7,500.00 NORTH WEST EMPLOYERS | CONSULTANT FEES | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004601 | 04/04/2016 | £5,000.00 G4S CASH SOLUTIONS UK LIMITED | SECURITY | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020203 | 04/04/2016 | £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD | ADAPTATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057482 | 05/04/2016 | £6,930.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGH SHOPMOBILITY | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057501 | 05/04/2016 | £24,042.15 SPRINGFIELD CITROEN GATESHEAD | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057506 | 05/04/2016 | £14,000.00 PETRUS | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057507 | 05/04/2016 | £41,250.72 ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | CONDITION SURVEYS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057509 | 05/04/2016 | £5,500.00 THE SANCTUARY TRUST | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057521 | 05/04/2016 | £7,000.00 ROCHDALE HOUSING INITIATIVE | FEES / COMMISSION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020395 | 05/04/2016 | £319,218.72 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020398 | 05/04/2016 | £5,200.00 MEG BOUSTEAD LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020403 | 05/04/2016 | £6,622.00 BOLTON COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020404 | 05/04/2016 | £6,622.00 BOLTON COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020405 | 05/04/2016 | £8,769.48 BURY MBC | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006760 | 05/04/2016 | £10,103.00 EXQUIP NETWORK SERVICES LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006761 | 05/04/2016 | £10,066.50 SOFTCAT LTD | PURCHASE OF ICT HARDWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001372 | 05/04/2016 | £11,261.00 ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED | SUPPORT ASIAN CARERS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001373 | 05/04/2016 | £9,458.00 ROCHDALE GATEWAY LEISURE LIMITED | SUPPORT ASIAN CARERS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057546 | 06/04/2016 | £8,500.00 REDFOX COUNTRYSIDE SERVICES | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057549 | 06/04/2016 | £12,000.00 EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY TRUST LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057557 | 06/04/2016 | £5,623.00 GLENDALE HORTICULTURE LTD | TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020407 | 06/04/2016 | £13,200.00 PERMANENT FUTURES LTD | AGENCY STAFF | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020409 | 06/04/2016 | £405,410.82 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006775 | 06/04/2016 | £30,000.00 P AND MM EMPLOYEE BENEFITS | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006776 | 06/04/2016 | £75,000.00 TUSKERDIRECT LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020212 | 06/04/2016 | £8,680.00 MICK TAYLOR LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020214 | 06/04/2016 | £5,000.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020215 | 06/04/2016 | £5,000.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | REMOVAL EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020216 | 06/04/2016 | £5,000.00 ADASS | SUBSCRIPTIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001376 | 06/04/2016 | £23,893.00 MAKING SPACE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001377 | 06/04/2016 | £29,459.00 MAKING SPACE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001378 | 06/04/2016 | £21,419.00 FRIENDS OF OLDER PARENT CARERS | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057565 | 07/04/2016 | £10,386.88 BURNT TREE GROUP | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057566 | 07/04/2016 | £14,488.00 GLENDALE HORTICULTURE LTD | TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020434 | 07/04/2016 | £10,800.00 ME LEARNING LIMITED | IT MAINTENANCE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020435 | 07/04/2016 | £107,465.16 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020436 | 07/04/2016 | £95,783.76 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057632 | 08/04/2016 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020229 | 08/04/2016 | £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD | ADAPTATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020230 | 08/04/2016 | £5,000.00 ADAPT BUILDING SERVICES LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020459 | 11/04/2016 | £10,032.00 INTRAQUEST TRAINING | TRAINING | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020474 | 11/04/2016 | £727,648.87 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004607 | 11/04/2016 | £9,000.00 NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) LTD | EXTERNAL CONTRACTED PRINTING | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006805 | 11/04/2016 | £40,913.88 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION | SUBSCRIPTIONS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006806 | 11/04/2016 | £5,750.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006807 | 11/04/2016 | £82,000.00 HEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED | OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006808 | 11/04/2016 | £17,160.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006809 | 11/04/2016 | £6,176.25 JGM AGENCY | MARKETING EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001379 | 11/04/2016 | £8,100.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER | ALCOHOL & DRUGS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057676 | 12/04/2016 | £9,000.00 D AND M DEMOLITION AND RECYCLING LTD | SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057679 | 12/04/2016 | £29,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057681 | 12/04/2016 | £18,750.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057692 | 12/04/2016 | £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057693 | 12/04/2016 | £6,940.00 POWERMASTER SERVICE LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057698 | 12/04/2016 | £8,358.56 OTIS LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057702 | 12/04/2016 | £16,176.00 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC LIMITED | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057706 | 12/04/2016 | £12,230.40 GELPACK EXCELSIOR LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020508 | 12/04/2016 | £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020509 | 12/04/2016 | £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020510 | 12/04/2016 | £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020512 | 12/04/2016 | £22,500.00 CROSSROADS CARE IN GREATER MANCHESTER | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006815 | 12/04/2016 | £9,900.00 ENCRIPTION LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020237 | 12/04/2016 | £11,135.00 NEWLINE ADAPTATIONS LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001380 | 12/04/2016 | £15,628.00 PM PROPERTIES | RENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057740 | 13/04/2016 | £6,000.00 A & W DAWSON | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057743 | 13/04/2016 | £14,430.00 A & W DAWSON | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020521 | 13/04/2016 | £28,729.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101278 | 13/04/2016 | £138,408.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006819 | 13/04/2016 | £13,680.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006820 | 13/04/2016 | £26,000.00 SENITOR RECRUITMENT | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006822 | 13/04/2016 | £21,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006823 | 13/04/2016 | £22,750.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006824 | 13/04/2016 | £40,000.00 FORBES SOLICITORS | INPUT VAT - ADJUSTMENTS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057768 | 14/04/2016 | £6,240.00 J AND S TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057770 | 14/04/2016 | £7,150.00 J AND S TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057771 | 14/04/2016 | £7,800.00 J AND S TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057782 | 14/04/2016 | £50,000.00 CLYDE & CO | LEGAL SERVICES EXTERNAL | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020534 | 14/04/2016 | £1,020,969.96 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020535 | 14/04/2016 | £10,104.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020537 | 14/04/2016 | £10,658.00 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020538 | 14/04/2016 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020539 | 14/04/2016 | £10,871.16 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020540 | 14/04/2016 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020541 | 14/04/2016 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020542 | 14/04/2016 | £10,977.67 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020543 | 14/04/2016 | £11,197.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020544 | 14/04/2016 | £11,197.33 BELMONT SCHOOL LIMITED | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006834 | 14/04/2016 | £7,200.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006835 | 14/04/2016 | £15,600.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006838 | 15/04/2016 | £8,950.02 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006839 | 15/04/2016 | £9,961.09 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GTR MANCHESTER | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057826 | 18/04/2016 | £5,350.00 TLC GARDEN SERVICES | SITE CLEARANCE -ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057827 | 18/04/2016 | £6,563.58 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD | OTHER SURVEYS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057833 | 18/04/2016 | £17,000.00 GMCA | LEGAL SERVICES INTERNAL | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020560 | 18/04/2016 | £28,755.90 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101286 | 18/04/2016 | £13,480.00 LGBT FOUNDATION | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101287 | 18/04/2016 | £15,750.00 CENTRAL MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101288 | 18/04/2016 | £34,678.00 BIG LIFE CENTRES | ACTIVITIES | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006845 | 18/04/2016 | £22,750.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012434 | 18/04/2016 | £9,000.00 NUGENT CARE | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012435 | 18/04/2016 | £9,000.00 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057861 | 19/04/2016 | £30,000.00 N G BAILEY | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057862 | 19/04/2016 | £71,262.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020565 | 19/04/2016 | £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020566 | 19/04/2016 | £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020572 | 19/04/2016 | £12,294.62 HORIZON CARE AND EDUCATION | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101292 | 19/04/2016 | £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006852 | 19/04/2016 | £21,000.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006858 | 19/04/2016 | £8,205.90 WEIGHTMANS LLP | PROFESSIONAL FEES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020268 | 19/04/2016 | £182,000.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | SP BLOCK PAYMENTS - EXTERNAL | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057888 | 20/04/2016 | £53,748.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020586 | 20/04/2016 | £78,105.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101294 | 20/04/2016 | £67,223.05 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD | RENTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006863 | 20/04/2016 | £44,038.11 XEROX UK LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001487 | 20/04/2016 | £7,989.80 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD | AGENCY STAFF | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020589 | 21/04/2016 | £79,718.38 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101295 | 21/04/2016 | £12,856.00 NHS GREATER MANCHESTER CSU | PROFESSIONAL FEES | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006880 | 21/04/2016 | £17,000.00 DAISY COMMUNICATIONS LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006881 | 21/04/2016 | £20,904.00 DAISY COMMUNICATIONS LTD | IT MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020280 | 21/04/2016 | £7,000.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057932 | 22/04/2016 | £14,920.05 ISAAC BUTTERWORTH (IRONFOUNDERS) LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004627 | 22/04/2016 | £264,713.96 LIFE FITNESS UK LIMITED | PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004628 | 22/04/2016 | £18,610.00 LIFE FITNESS UK LIMITED | PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006887 | 22/04/2016 | £22,924.35 LIQUIDLOGIC LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006888 | 22/04/2016 | £21,819.26 IDOX SOFTWARE LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006891 | 22/04/2016 | £6,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PRINTING | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006893 | 22/04/2016 | £32,826.00 GAMMA BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020284 | 22/04/2016 | £24,978.58 ROSS CARE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020288 | 22/04/2016 | £200,000.00 ROSS CARE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057958 | 25/04/2016 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057986 | 25/04/2016 | £5,890.00 JMHA | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1057990 | 25/04/2016 | £7,490.00 STEPHEN BURKE | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020636 | 25/04/2016 | £94,500.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101298 | 25/04/2016 | £19,216.50 ROCHDALE & DISTRICT MIND | PH BUSINESS CASES | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006913 | 25/04/2016 | £43,566.00 PHS RECORDSMANAGEMENT | DATA COLLECTION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006916 | 25/04/2016 | £96,180.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006917 | 25/04/2016 | £12,000.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058000 | 26/04/2016 | £6,484.00 GPD TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058001 | 26/04/2016 | £5,200.00 ANDYS MINIBUS | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058002 | 26/04/2016 | £6,214.00 ALCO MINI TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058003 | 26/04/2016 | £7,638.00 GPD TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058006 | 26/04/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058007 | 26/04/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006920 | 26/04/2016 | £32,380.57 LIQUIDLOGIC LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020293 | 26/04/2016 | £5,035.00 HANDICARE | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020296 | 26/04/2016 | £5,665.00 STANNAH LIFT SERVICES LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020304 | 26/04/2016 | £7,895.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020311 | 26/04/2016 | £10,034.00 TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020313 | 26/04/2016 | £7,440.00 KINGKRAFT LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058030 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058031 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058032 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058033 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058035 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058057 | 27/04/2016 | £7,540.00 ANDY HARROP | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058058 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058059 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058060 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058061 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058062 | 27/04/2016 | £8,450.00 ROYTON MINIBUSES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058063 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058064 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058065 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058066 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058067 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058068 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058069 | 27/04/2016 | £8,320.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058070 | 27/04/2016 | £10,320.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058071 | 27/04/2016 | £12,960.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058072 | 27/04/2016 | £10,720.00 DALE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058073 | 27/04/2016 | £7,215.00 CONNECT CARS MIDDLETON LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058075 | 27/04/2016 | £5,980.00 WHEELDON BROTHERS WASTE LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058104 | 27/04/2016 | £15,850.00 GROUNDWORK LANDSCAPES LIMITED | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058105 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 S P EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058106 | 27/04/2016 | £6,370.00 COACH OPTIONS LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058107 | 27/04/2016 | £7,800.00 COACH OPTIONS LIMITED | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058108 | 27/04/2016 | £5,200.00 CASTLEROYLE PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058109 | 27/04/2016 | £5,200.00 CASTLEROYLE PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058110 | 27/04/2016 | £5,070.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058111 | 27/04/2016 | £5,200.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058112 | 27/04/2016 | £5,200.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058113 | 27/04/2016 | £7,000.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058114 | 27/04/2016 | £6,110.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058115 | 27/04/2016 | £6,460.00 CAR 2000 HEYWOOD LLP | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020659 | 27/04/2016 | £83,774.32 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004635 | 27/04/2016 | £36,908.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | POSTAGE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006933 | 28/04/2016 | £48,000.00 UPDATA INFRASTRUCTURE UK LTD | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006939 | 28/04/2016 | £94,708.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006940 | 28/04/2016 | £917,514.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006941 | 28/04/2016 | £563,111.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006942 | 28/04/2016 | £6,780.00 ALONGSIDE | BUDGET TO BE ALLOCATED | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058155 | 29/04/2016 | £399,140.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058173 | 29/04/2016 | £22,045.30 N G BAILEY | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020676 | 29/04/2016 | £83,984.32 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020683 | 29/04/2016 | £11,408.57 SEASHELL TRUST | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058202 | 03/05/2016 | £6,078.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058203 | 03/05/2016 | £7,443.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058204 | 03/05/2016 | £6,175.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058205 | 03/05/2016 | £6,450.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058206 | 03/05/2016 | £8,744.00 OLYMPIC EXECUTIVE TRAVEL | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058233 | 03/05/2016 | £7,224.00 GLOBECAR LTD | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004643 | 03/05/2016 | £31,465.11 ANYTIME LEISURE LIMITED | PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020325 | 03/05/2016 | £7,350.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020327 | 03/05/2016 | £43,546.84 ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020328 | 03/05/2016 | £25,000.00 PETRUS | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058260 | 04/05/2016 | £300,000.00 A E YATES LTD | DRAINAGE AND SEWERS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058262 | 04/05/2016 | £7,000.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058265 | 04/05/2016 | £9,100.00 STRAND PRIVATE HIRE | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058266 | 04/05/2016 | £6,000.00 CARLTON MINIBUSES | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058268 | 04/05/2016 | £8,531.96 NORTHGATE VEHICLE HIRE LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020707 | 04/05/2016 | £16,788.50 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | WATER CHARGES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020712 | 04/05/2016 | £321,383.95 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020713 | 04/05/2016 | £400,752.96 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004645 | 04/05/2016 | £16,835.00 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020331 | 04/05/2016 | £33,000.00 CARNALL FARRAR LTD | EXPENSES - GENERAL | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058274 | 05/05/2016 | £10,000.00 GTM ELECTRICAL SERVICES LIMITED | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058292 | 05/05/2016 | £10,560.00 YOTTA LIMITED | ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058293 | 05/05/2016 | £16,672.50 VAISALA LIMITED | MAINTENANCE | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058294 | 05/05/2016 | £10,338.50 YOTTA LIMITED | ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020725 | 05/05/2016 | £10,250.00 THE DARTINGTON HALL TRUST | SUBSCRIPTIONS | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020728 | 05/05/2016 | £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101308 | 05/05/2016 | £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101310 | 05/05/2016 | £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058304 | 06/05/2016 | £130,402.45 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058319 | 06/05/2016 | £8,491.74 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONSULTANTS FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058321 | 06/05/2016 | £6,302.00 ATI CREMATORS | SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058326 | 06/05/2016 | £54,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058327 | 06/05/2016 | £75,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058334 | 06/05/2016 | £60,000.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020736 | 06/05/2016 | £9,800.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020738 | 06/05/2016 | £8,247.90 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020739 | 06/05/2016 | £11,550.00 NEW BRIDGE SCHOOL | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020341 | 06/05/2016 | £9,800.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020342 | 06/05/2016 | £15,000.00 HOURGLASS ENVIRONMENT LTD | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058337 | 09/05/2016 | £75,534.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058338 | 09/05/2016 | £54,868.45 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058339 | 09/05/2016 | £25,450.00 JEREMY BENN ASSOCIATES LTD | OTHER SURVEYS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058344 | 09/05/2016 | £7,785.00 NORDEN AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTORS | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058356 | 09/05/2016 | £8,407.90 SPUR INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED | IT EQUIPMENT | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058358 | 09/05/2016 | £68,742.38 CARIBOU GREEN WARMTH LLP | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058359 | 09/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058360 | 09/05/2016 | £13,237.50 ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MANAGEMENT CO | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020754 | 09/05/2016 | £38,068.70 TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER | STUDENT TRAVEL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006986 | 09/05/2016 | £23,843.00 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | ELECTION MATERIALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006987 | 09/05/2016 | £8,654.71 ROYAL MAIL GROUP PLC | POSTAGE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006988 | 09/05/2016 | £10,225.60 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | ELECTION MATERIALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058379 | 10/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058380 | 10/05/2016 | £8,968.58 PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020795 | 10/05/2016 | £22,891.18 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004654 | 10/05/2016 | £6,547.44 CO-OP PAYPOINT | BANK CHARGES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1006997 | 10/05/2016 | £271,402.00 MUNICIPAL MUTUAL INSURANCE LTD | PROVISIONS UTILISED IN YEAR | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058429 | 11/05/2016 | £138,262.20 RIVERSIDE TRUCK RENTAL | LONG TERM CONTRACTED EXTERNAL HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058434 | 11/05/2016 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058464 | 11/05/2016 | £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020808 | 11/05/2016 | £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101319 | 11/05/2016 | £151,095.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007004 | 11/05/2016 | £16,983.00 CIVICA UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007011 | 11/05/2016 | £15,789.38 MAYRISE LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020356 | 11/05/2016 | £63,000.00 PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058478 | 12/05/2016 | £962,627.17 N G BAILEY | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058478 | 12/05/2016 | £962,627.17 N G BAILEY | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058486 | 12/05/2016 | £5,278.00 EARLEY ORNAMENTALS LTD | TREES, SHRUBS, PLANTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058488 | 12/05/2016 | £6,178.05 BALMERS GM LTD | VEHICLE MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058489 | 12/05/2016 | £8,601.46 BURNT TREE GROUP | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001499 | 12/05/2016 | £320,620.61 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020359 | 12/05/2016 | £7,620.00 TERRY GROUP LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020360 | 12/05/2016 | £9,553.17 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058520 | 13/05/2016 | £14,266.00 GROUNDWORK LANDSCAPES LIMITED | PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020826 | 13/05/2016 | £94,500.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020832 | 13/05/2016 | £673,175.20 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007023 | 13/05/2016 | £6,000.00 EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LTD | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007026 | 13/05/2016 | £5,021.00 AGILISYS LIMITED | AGILISYS CONTRACT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020362 | 13/05/2016 | £84,000.00 ELDERCARE UK LTD | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020840 | 16/05/2016 | £6,333.27 ROC NORTHWEST LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020841 | 16/05/2016 | £12,537.00 BOLTON IMPACT TRUST | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004661 | 16/05/2016 | £50,000.00 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007032 | 16/05/2016 | £21,785.48 AGILE APPLICATIONS LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007045 | 16/05/2016 | £64,499.20 PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED | SOFTWARE LICENSES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020381 | 16/05/2016 | £5,440.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER | TRAINING | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058555 | 17/05/2016 | £12,073.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058556 | 17/05/2016 | £8,425.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058563 | 17/05/2016 | £10,498.50 PERMASTEELISA UK LTD | PROPERTY - WORKS ELEMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058565 | 17/05/2016 | £65,700.00 BRENTWOOD | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007048 | 17/05/2016 | £7,010.00 MODERN MINDSET LTD | BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058579 | 18/05/2016 | £29,865.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058586 | 18/05/2016 | £35,000.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058594 | 18/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058595 | 18/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058596 | 18/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058597 | 18/05/2016 | £6,180.00 KAPPA LAMBDA SQUARED LTD | ICT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058604 | 18/05/2016 | £14,468.50 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE GROUNDWORK TRUST LTD | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058610 | 18/05/2016 | £348,084.00 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101328 | 18/05/2016 | £249,149.16 BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007065 | 18/05/2016 | £7,030.00 I BRANDED LTD | EVENTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007075 | 19/05/2016 | £353,766.00 PHOENIX SOFTWARE LIMITED | SOFTWARE LICENSES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020399 | 19/05/2016 | £26,000.00 CAREWATCH CARE SERVICES LTD | HOME CARE - ADULT SERVICES | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020400 | 19/05/2016 | £37,000.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | RENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020401 | 19/05/2016 | £5,950.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020870 | 20/05/2016 | £15,319.35 FAMILY ACTION | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007078 | 20/05/2016 | £23,002.00 OPTEVIA LTD | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007079 | 20/05/2016 | £26,474.00 GAMMA BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012548 | 20/05/2016 | £18,000.00 STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058694 | 23/05/2016 | £5,860.68 TYRE FORCE NW LTD | TYRES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020875 | 23/05/2016 | £9,500.00 PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101332 | 23/05/2016 | £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007097 | 23/05/2016 | £44,951.11 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020897 | 24/05/2016 | £141,303.00 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020899 | 24/05/2016 | £24,406.17 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020903 | 24/05/2016 | £57,081.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | HEALTH AUTH - SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020409 | 24/05/2016 | £7,200.00 MACK4 LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001475 | 24/05/2016 | £108,000.00 POSSABILITIES CIC TRADING | CONTRACTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058772 | 25/05/2016 | £70,200.00 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007116 | 25/05/2016 | £5,768.00 THALES UK LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020413 | 25/05/2016 | £23,250.00 PETRUS | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058793 | 26/05/2016 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058794 | 26/05/2016 | £9,500.00 BARTEC AUTO ID LTD | MAINTENANCE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020921 | 26/05/2016 | £94,136.10 BURY COLLEGE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020922 | 26/05/2016 | £15,319.36 FAMILY ACTION | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004677 | 26/05/2016 | £10,725.78 OFFICE DEPOT UK LIMITED | PRINTING & STATIONERY | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001502 | 26/05/2016 | £7,311.57 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD | AGENCY STAFF | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058811 | 27/05/2016 | £14,238.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058813 | 27/05/2016 | £14,238.00 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058814 | 27/05/2016 | £12,407.40 SSI SCHAEFER LIMITED | PURCHASE OF OTHER EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020926 | 27/05/2016 | £100,373.66 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101337 | 27/05/2016 | £355,416.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101338 | 27/05/2016 | £355,416.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058844 | 31/05/2016 | £10,560.00 MEASURE 2 IMPROVE | ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058845 | 31/05/2016 | £5,306.40 YOTTA LIMITED | ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS & SURVEYS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007134 | 31/05/2016 | £20,000.00 KEOGHS LLP | INPUT VAT - ADJUSTMENTS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020936 | 01/06/2016 | £5,900.00 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | CONSULTANTS FEES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020943 | 01/06/2016 | £7,000.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020944 | 01/06/2016 | £7,000.00 CHRISTINE FOSTER LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020945 | 01/06/2016 | £14,853.80 ROSS CARE | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007137 | 01/06/2016 | £14,562.00 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | ELECTION MATERIALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058884 | 02/06/2016 | £8,642.00 ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING | ROADWORKS | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020946 | 02/06/2016 | £320,836.15 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020947 | 02/06/2016 | £392,211.27 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECTCO2 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020955 | 02/06/2016 | £10,385.21 SPORT WORKS | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007153 | 02/06/2016 | £11,658.52 ZURICH INSURANCE PLC | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007154 | 02/06/2016 | £71,589.44 ZURICH INSURANCE PLC | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001504 | 02/06/2016 | £14,000.00 HALCROW GROUP LTD | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020441 | 02/06/2016 | £90,000.00 MANCHESTER WORKING LIMITED | MAINTENANCE STAIRLIFTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020957 | 03/06/2016 | £36,096.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | TEACHERS - BASIC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020958 | 03/06/2016 | £8,448.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | TEACHERS - BASIC | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020964 | 03/06/2016 | £17,196.67 NUGENT CARE | OTHER EST - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020967 | 03/06/2016 | £6,333.27 ROC NORTHWEST LTD | OTHER LA`S - SEN PROVISION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001484 | 03/06/2016 | £7,304.50 HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CIRCLE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058944 | 06/06/2016 | £9,000.00 KASHMIR YOUTH PROJECT | ACTIVITIES | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020974 | 06/06/2016 | £5,689.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020975 | 06/06/2016 | £336,256.32 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020978 | 06/06/2016 | £7,373.00 ONESTAGE LIMITED | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020983 | 06/06/2016 | £7,220.78 DIOCESE OF SALFORD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1020984 | 06/06/2016 | £47,000.00 ROCHDALE PIONEERS TRUST | COURIER SERVICE | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004692 | 06/06/2016 | £6,050.00 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES LTD | SUBSCRIPTIONS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101349 | 06/06/2016 | £90,750.00 PENNINE CARE NHS | PH PENNINE CARE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020445 | 06/06/2016 | £7,350.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058948 | 07/06/2016 | £109,200.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058949 | 07/06/2016 | £17,640.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007176 | 07/06/2016 | £9,635.34 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | ELECTION MATERIALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007177 | 07/06/2016 | £70,829.60 WEIGHTMANS LLP | PROFESSIONAL FEES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020454 | 07/06/2016 | £38,400.00 THE PENNINE ACUTE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | AGENCY STAFF | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058988 | 08/06/2016 | £5,000.00 STREAMLINE TAXIS | TAXI HIRE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1058997 | 08/06/2016 | £5,776.00 ENTERPRISE MANCHESTER PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059002 | 08/06/2016 | £5,660.00 D H WELTON & COMPANY (BUILDERS) LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059010 | 08/06/2016 | £10,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD | ADVERTISING | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059013 | 08/06/2016 | £18,000.00 PROFILE SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007189 | 08/06/2016 | £51,908.53 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007190 | 08/06/2016 | £5,512.02 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007191 | 08/06/2016 | £26,280.00 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007194 | 08/06/2016 | £15,573.09 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007195 | 08/06/2016 | £5,953.38 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007196 | 08/06/2016 | £12,213.78 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007197 | 08/06/2016 | £73,912.50 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007200 | 08/06/2016 | £6,477.80 THOMSON REUTERS | REFERENCE BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/PERIODICALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020456 | 08/06/2016 | £32,500.00 COUNCIL FOR VOLUNTARY SERVICE ROCHDALE | VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059024 | 09/06/2016 | £18,000.00 TYRE FORCE NW LTD | TYRES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059025 | 09/06/2016 | £17,185.00 BRIT TIPP LTD | PURCHASE OF VEHICLES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059047 | 09/06/2016 | £5,800.00 J A CRYER EXCAVATION & GROUNDWORK CONTRACTORS LTD | GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021023 | 09/06/2016 | £29,072.12 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | MEALS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021026 | 09/06/2016 | £674,309.11 AXIOM EDUCATION (ROCHDALE) LIMITED | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004697 | 09/06/2016 | £5,968.00 NORTHGATE PUBLIC SERVICES (UK) LTD | EXTERNAL CONTRACTED PRINTING | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101354 | 09/06/2016 | £268,556.00 VIRGIN CARE SERVICES LIMITED | VIRGIN CARE | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007213 | 09/06/2016 | £20,630.00 NORTH WEST EMPLOYERS | SUBSCRIPTIONS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059071 | 10/06/2016 | £27,000.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059077 | 10/06/2016 | £14,254.70 DOBSON UK LTD | EQUIPMENT - GENERAL | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021035 | 10/06/2016 | £6,800.00 MEG BOUSTEAD LTD | CONSULTANT FEES | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001487 | 10/06/2016 | £136,799.00 ALTERNATIVE FUTURES GROUP LTD | SUPPORTED LIVING | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059087 | 13/06/2016 | £47,769.60 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004700 | 13/06/2016 | £6,786.45 CO-OP PAYPOINT | BANK CHARGES | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101355 | 13/06/2016 | £40,517.43 NHS HEYWOOD MIDDLETON AND ROCHDALE CCG | ACTIVITIES | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101356 | 13/06/2016 | £373,723.50 BIG LIFE CENTRES | PH BIG LIFE CONTRACT | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007219 | 13/06/2016 | £9,660.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007220 | 13/06/2016 | £5,980.00 TURNING POINT SERVICES LIMITED | CONTRACTED SERVICES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007224 | 13/06/2016 | £11,578.37 ROYAL MAIL GROUP PLC | POSTAGE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020465 | 13/06/2016 | £9,450.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012625 | 13/06/2016 | £27,000.00 BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BC | ADOPTION PAYMENTS | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012626 | 13/06/2016 | £9,016.00 THE FOSTERING NETWORK | FEES / COMMISSION | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059119 | 14/06/2016 | £144,720.00 PETRUS | GRANTS TO THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059130 | 14/06/2016 | £5,880.64 TYRE FORCE NW LTD | TYRES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059131 | 14/06/2016 | £8,508.15 TYRE FORCE NW LTD | TYRES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | x1012641 | 14/06/2016 | £5,504.00 ADOPTION MATTERS NORTHWEST | ACTIVITIES | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021087 | 15/06/2016 | £14,500.00 RESPECT | ACTIVITIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007241 | 15/06/2016 | £5,760.00 STHREE PARTNERSHIP LLP | CAPITAL SALARIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020471 | 15/06/2016 | £17,219.00 K P DODD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED | IMPROVEMENTS-EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004706 | 16/06/2016 | £19,240.00 MERITEC LIMITED | AGENCY STAFF | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001491 | 16/06/2016 | £136,799.00 FUTURE DIRECTIONS CIC | SUPPORTED LIVING | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059203 | 17/06/2016 | £51,943.07 AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT UK LTD | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | |----------------------------|------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007280 | 17/06/2016 | £24,157.40 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007281 | 17/06/2016 | £467,981.26 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001511 | 17/06/2016 | £8,477.02 URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD | AGENCY STAFF | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059227 | 20/06/2016 | £10,000.00 TRINITY MIRROR PUBLISHING LTD | ADVERTISING | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059228 | 20/06/2016 | £9,000.00 PIPER MUSIC MANAGEMENT LTD | EVENTS | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059232 | 20/06/2016 | £22,983.44 BRAHM FUNDCO 1 LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPI | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059241 | 20/06/2016 | £7,671.00 D HUGHES DEMOLITION | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021155 | 20/06/2016 | £5,225.00 PSYCHOLOGY PEOPLE | BASIC SALARIES | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | ph101366 | 20/06/2016 | £54,797.00 TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL | PH NETWORK COSTS | PUBLIC HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001515 | 20/06/2016 | £145,143.24 VBA JOINT VENTURE LTD | NEW CONSTRUCTION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020487 | 20/06/2016 | £7,700.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021157 | 21/06/2016 | £285,835.72 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021158 | 21/06/2016 | £5,689.00 INSPIREDSPACES ROCHDALE PROJECT CO1 LTD | IMPROVEMENTS-MODERNISATION | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007295 | 22/06/2016 | £5,800.00 VODAFONE LTD | TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059359 | 23/06/2016 | £5,160.00 DAVID OGILVIE ENGINEERING LTD | ACTIVITIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059365 | 23/06/2016 | £8,601.46 ENTERPRISE FLEX-E-RENT | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021175 | 23/06/2016 | £44,100.00 POSITIVE STEPS | EXTERNALLY MANAGED FUNDS | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007307 | 23/06/2016 | £7,200.00 SCOPED SOLUTIONS LIMITED | SOFTWARE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007314 | 23/06/2016 | £12,850.25 BINDMONT PRINT SERVICES LTD | ELECTION MATERIALS | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007320 | 23/06/2016 | £8,250.00 THE UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD | TRAINING | | | CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE | | | | | | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059396 | 24/06/2016 | £15,350.00 F S MOULT & SON | PROPERTY REFURBISHMENT (HOUSING) | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059399 | 24/06/2016 | £13,500.00 ROCHDALE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | FEES -CONSTRUCTION CONVERSION RENOVATION | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059408 | 27/06/2016 | £44,168.49 UNITY PARTNERSHIP LTD | CONSULTANTS FEES | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059436 | 27/06/2016 | £11,240.00 F S MOULT & SON | DEMOLITION | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059437 | 27/06/2016 | £70,000.00 THE BOND BOARD LIMITED | GRANTS TO OTHER BODIES | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007331 | 27/06/2016 | £10,000.00 AON LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | FINANCE SERVICES | | Rochdale Borough Council | q1007334 | 27/06/2016 | £28,359.00 XMA LIMITED | IT EQUIPMENT | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020507 | 27/06/2016 | £5,600.00 ACTION FIRST IPEOPLE LTD | FEES / COMMISSION | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | s1020508 | 27/06/2016 | £45,250.69 ROSS CARE | OTHER AGENCIES | BETTER CARE FUND POOLED BUDGET | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001496 | 27/06/2016 | £111,835.00 POSSABILITIES CIC TRADING | CONTRACTS | LEARNING DIS & MENTAL HEALTH | | Rochdale Borough Council | r1001527 | 28/06/2016 | £9,000.00 PENNINE PROSPECTS | GRANTS TO THE NON VOLUNTARY SECTOR | ECONOMY DIRECTORATE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001497 | 28/06/2016 | £61,000.00 CAREWATCH CARE SERVICES LTD | HOME CARE - ADULT SERVICES | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | w1001498 | 28/06/2016 | £26,000.00 ROYAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE | SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS | PHYSICAL DIS & OLDER PEOPLE | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059474 | 29/06/2016 | £31,500.00 EMO OIL LIMITED | TRANSACTIONS-EXPENDITURE | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | e1021209 | 29/06/2016 | £5,175.00 CATHERINE HOW SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS PARTNER SERVICE | CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT | EARLY HELP AND SCHOOLS | | Rochdale Borough Council | f1004732 | 29/06/2016 | £14,436.65 NORDEN COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL | RENTS | NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT | | Rochdale Borough Council | d1059526 | 30/06/2016 | £322,169.51 COMMUNITY LIGHTING PARTNERSHIP ROCHDALE LTD | PFI SCHEMES RPIX | PROPERTY AND HIGHWAYS |

en

4387-pdf

# Annual Assessment Of Highways England End Of Road Period 1 2015-2020 Annual Assessment Of Highways England End Of Road Period 1 2015-2020 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 10(8) of the Infrastructure Act 2015 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2020 ## © Crown Copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at 25 Cabot Square, London, E14 4QZ. ISBN 978-1-5286-1995-0 CCS0520654868 07/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office ## Contents | Foreword | 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | 1. Executive summary | 3 | | Introduction | 3 | | Key messages for Road Period 1 | 3 | | 2. Operational performance | 9 | | 3. Investment delivery | 27 | | 4. Efficiency | 47 | | 5. Priorities for our monitoring of RIS2 | 58 | | Annex A: Performance against outcome areas | 60 | | Outcome: Making the network safer | 60 | | Outcome: Improving user satisfaction | 65 | | Outcome: Supporting the smooth flow of traffic | 69 | | Outcome: Encouraging economic growth | 72 | | Outcome: Delivering better environmental outcomes | 74 | | Outcome: Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users | 77 | | Outcome: Achieving efficient delivery | 78 | | Outcome: Keeping the network in good condition | 82 | | Annex B: Financial performance | 86 | | Annex C: Network investment delivery | 99 | | Glossary | 122 | ## Foreword This assessment of Highways England is different from our previous annual publications. This year provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the first road period and assess Highways England's performance for the whole five years. Highways England is still relatively new, formed in 2015 as a result of the UK government's programme for roads reform. At the same time, the Roads Monitor (the role we undertake) and the Watchdog (Transport Focus) were created. Roads reform brought an unprecedented level of investment planning and government's promise of the funding security to deliver it. This has necessitated a fundamental change in the way in which our motorways and major A-roads are constructed, maintained and operated. We have seen Highways England changing the way it works and several key successes have come from its approach; an enhanced focus on improving safety on the strategic road network, an increased focus on what is important to road users' experience and communities, the supply chain more engaged and able to plan their work better and improvements in the transparency around the company's financial performance. It has also responded positively to issues we have investigated. At the same time, there have been challenges; too many people still die on our road network despite it being one of the safest in the world, the capital programme for major improvements proved to be overly optimistic needing to be substantially changed from 112 schemes due to have started construction to 73, and Highways England has not quite achieved all of its KPIs. The coronavirus pandemic, which has changed so much of our daily lives, only began to affect the country in the last few weeks of the road period, and as such has not materially affected the company's performance. The first road period has also been a time of growth and learning for the Office of Rail and Road. We have embraced our new role as Highways England's monitor and I take pride that we have incentivised Highways England to deliver for road users. We have ensured that there have been increases in the transparency and quality of Highways England's financial reporting, and improvements to road surface condition. We have also pursued an overdue backlog of structures inspections, as well as relentlessly monitoring Highways England's work to improve road users' experience following aspects of poor performance. So, Highways England has made very good progress in its first five years, but now that it is an established company, more is expected of it in the second road period. It must continue to improve safety for all on the network, further integrate its customers in its planning and decision making, and needs to work even more efficiently to deliver a larger programme of works. We are going to provide greater transparency against a backdrop of an investment plan and performance specification that has been developed having learned lessons from the first road period, and broaden our role, e.g. through monitoring and reporting of the company in its delivery of the Department for Transport's Smart Motorway safety action plan and the delivery of environmental commitments. We are also uniquely placed to look at a wider transport context, due to our role on rail. I am keen that there is further coordination between Highways England and Network Rail on delivery of their respective capital programmes; something we wish to measure in the future and I believe that Highways England can learn lessons from Network Rail on the potential benefits of regional transparency and accountability. I can confidently say that we are seeing the intended benefit of roads reform. This is important: most of the public use motorways and main A-roads and much of commerce and industry depends on them. A high-performing, safer, network has been vital in supporting the economy and will continue to be so in the future. ## 1. Executive Summary Introduction 1.1 Highways England was set up as a government owned company in 2015, tasked with managing the strategic road network - the motorways and main A-roads of England. In the first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1), government specified a set of outcomes and investments that Highways England was required to deliver over Road Period 1 (RP1), from April 2015 to March 2020. 1.2 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) independently monitors Highways England's delivery of these outcomes and investments. In monitoring the company we have proactively investigated a number of issues during the five year period to secure better performance and value for money from the strategic road network for the benefit of road users and the wider public. 1.3 This report sets out our assessment of Highways England's performance in RP1. Our key messages are largely unaffected by coronavirus (COVID-19), which emerged at the very end of the five year period. Where there is an impact on performance, this is discussed within the report. ## Key Messages For Road Period 1 Key message 1. In the first road period, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network, but must continue to work hard to meet its challenging target. In response to ORR's probing, the company has taken action to improve road user satisfaction and shown an increased focus on meeting the needs of those users. It has met most of its performance targets. 1.4 In RP1, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network. The company has delivered an extensive programme of actions aimed at improving safety. In this area, the strategic road network in England compares well to other road networks, both nationally and internationally. 1.5 However, further hard work is required if Highways England is to meet its safety target. The company's performance against its RP1 safety target will not be known until summer 2021, when the Department for Transport publishes road casualty statistics for 2020. In 2018, a total of 2,152 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network. This represents a 30% reduction from the baseline period (2005-09); if this rate of improvement were to be sustained by Highways England it would not meet its target of a 40% reduction by the end of 2020, therefore further work is required to achieve this. Provisional data for the first six months of the year indicates that further reductions may have been achieved in 2019, but we must wait for the publication of the data by DfT before drawing conclusions. 1.6 Highways England has met its targets for smooth flow of traffic - keeping 98.2% of the network open to traffic, against a target of 97%, and clearing 89.1% of incidents within an hour, against a target of 85%. However, congestion slightly increased in RP1 - from 8.9 seconds delay per vehicle mile at the start of the road period to 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile in 2019-20 - as traffic levels and the amount of improvement work being undertaken on the network increased. 1.7 During RP1, ORR challenged Highways England to improve road user satisfaction, following a decline in its customer satisfaction score. The company subsequently developed and delivered a series of annual customer service plans which demonstrated an increased focus on meeting the needs of road users. Overall satisfaction subsequently increased, and ended RP1 at 89.2% - just below the company's target of 90%. 1.8 Highways England met its target to mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas in RP1 - it mitigated 1,174 by the end of the road period. It has also delivered the actions set out in the Biodiversity Action Plan it published at the start of RP1. Against its commitment to support vulnerable users, Highways England has delivered 211 new and 227 upgraded crossings in RP1. Key message 2. Highways England has successfully achieved 95% of its commitments for delivery of major improvement schemes in Road Period 1. The actual number of commitments delivered is lower than originally set out in 2015, but is in line with the revised plan it agreed with Government. Addressing concerns raised by ORR, the revised plan also reduces disruption to road users. The accuracy of Highways England's planning of renewals delivery has improved through the road period, reflecting an increased maturity in asset management capability. Highways England has largely exceeded its planned delivery of renewals across Road Period 1. 1.9 Highways England's delivery of its investment plan matured over RP1. The company has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital improvement delivery plan. Originally 112 schemes were planned to start work by the end of the first road period, which was revised to 73 schemes. It has substantially agreed these changes with the Department for Transport. 1.10 The company has predominantly delivered its major improvement schemes to the latest agreed plan. Of the 73 RIS1 schemes, Highways England started work on 67, provided funds on two schemes for a third party to start work, and missed its commitment on four schemes. There are two additional schemes, which have been deferred to RP2, that have their commitment status under review. It successfully opened for traffic 36 schemes and missed its commitment on one scheme. 1.11 Highways England's planning of asset renewals has improved through RP1. Whilst it delivered more renewals than planned across the majority of its asset types, delivery was much closer to the plan in the last two years of the road period. This reflects the company's maturing approach to asset management and gives us more confidence that it is managing a safe and serviceable network. 1.12 Highways England met its target for keeping the network in good condition. At the end of RP1 pavement condition was 95.5%, above the target of 95%. This is significant progress from when the target was missed in the first two years of the road period. Following our investigation, Highways England put plans in place to improve its processes for reporting and managing the condition of the road that has led to improved performance in this area. 1.13 The company spent 4% less on renewals than it was funded for across RP1 (£3.494bn spent, against funding of £3.637bn). 1.14 Whilst Highways England improved its reporting of renewals delivery in the latter half of the road period, the nature of reporting does not provide complete assurance that the right assets have been treated, at the appropriate time. This is particularly the case for assets where the condition metrics provides a weak line of sight between renewals plans and delivery of work. 1.15 Highways England's increased maturity in asset management is underpinned by processes and procedures set out in new strategic documentation. This includes its published asset management policy and strategy. The company's knowledge of its asset base has been strengthened by improvements in data collection and management through its operational transition to new ways of working, known within the company as Asset Delivery. This has included addressing inspection backlogs across key assets such as structures, prompted by our enhanced monitoring, and migration of historic data to a new central management system. Key message 3. Highways England has met its KPI target to deliver more efficiently in Road Period 1. The company has responded positively to ORR's constant challenge to improve the evidence used to support reported efficiency. 1.16 In RP1, Highways England was set a key performance indicator to deliver £1.2bn of efficiencies, and was required to provide evidence of its progress against this target. This initially proved challenging to the new company in part because the rapid development of the RIS led to several changes to scheme scope and funding assumptions during RP1. However, Highways England has developed its capability in this area, and by the end of RP1 had provided a stronger evidence base to support its increased efficiency. 1.17 Highways England has reported £1.4bn of efficiency in RP1 against the KPI to achieve £1.2bn capital efficiency savings. This is supported by good evidence of the actions taken to manage expenditure and deliver within its funding. 1.18 Throughout the road period we have constantly challenged the quality of other types of evidence of efficiency - specifically unit cost movement and delivery of the RIS. This remains less robust but has improved and we now agree that it provides reasonably sufficient evidence of the KPI having been achieved. 1.19 To demonstrate achievement of the KPI Highways England is required to provide evidence in the three different ways: a) Primary evidence from efficiency case-studies 1.20 The company provided 200 case studies of management action taken to deliver more efficiently during the road period. The majority of the efficiency has come from renewals (54%) and major improvement schemes (43%). 1.21 The case studies have been assured internally by Highways England and reviewed by the ORR. We found this evidence to be of good quality. b) Unit costs 1.22 Highways England has developed unit cost models to verify the value reported through case studies. This proved challenging and the company's own assurance found sources of uncertainty with some models. However, after adjustments for some efficiencies, which are excluded from the models, they provide a reasonable quality of evidence above the KPI target. ## C) Delivery Of The Ris 1.23 Highways England has also provided supporting evidence by demonstrating that it has delivered most of the RIS1 outputs for its post-efficient funding. This was not straightforward as the cost of schemes that were deferred or cancelled was more than expected within RIS1, and the company has benefited from lower than expected inflation. However, it delivered greater scope on some schemes and did not receive sufficient funding for some business costs. This evidence was developed by Highways England late in the road period in response to our challenge and we have disagreed in some areas. Ultimately, our review found that there was reasonable evidence of efficiency exceeding the KPI target. ## Impact Of Coronavirus (Covid-19) 1.24 The coronavirus pandemic emerged in the final weeks of RP1. This resulted in significantly reduced traffic on the strategic road network towards the end of March 2020. Highways England's performance in RP1 is largely unaffected because most performance indicators are measured on an annual basis, and cover a full year up to the end of March 2020. The main exception is safety, where Highways England's RP1 target runs to December 2020. The impact of this is discussed in more detail in chapter 2. We will continue to take a pragmatic approach to reporting performance which is affected by the coronavirus pandemic, including using Highways England's actions to provide wider context where appropriate1. ## Summary Of Performance 1.25 We measure Highways England's performance against the outcomes in the RIS. This sets out eight outcome areas, each with one or more key performance indicators, as well as a number of performance indicators2. Our assessment of delivery against each key performance indicator in RP1 is summarised in the table below. | Outcome | KPI and target | |---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Performance in | | | Road Period 1 (RP1) | | | Rating | | | Making the | | | network safer | | | Killed or seriously | | | injured | | | Target: 40% reduction | | | by end of 2020 | | | Data for the end of RP1 will not | | | be published until summer | | | 2021. The latest figures show | | | 2,152 KSIs in 2018 - a 30% | | | reduction from the baseline. | | | 89.2% satisfaction at the end of | | | RP1 - below the target of 90%. | | | A | | | Target | | | missed | | | Improving | | | user | | | satisfaction | | | Road user satisfaction | | | Target: 90% by March | | | 2017 | | | 98.2% availability - above the | | | RP1 target of 97%. | | | G | | | Target | | | met | | | Network availability | | | Target: 97% lane | | | availability | | | Supporting | | | the smooth | | | Incident clearance | | | flow of traffic | | | Target: 85% of | | | 89.1% cleared within one hour | | | motorway incidents | | | - above the RP1 target of 85%. | | | G | | | | Target | | met | | | cleared within one hour | | | Encouraging | Average delay (secs per | | 9.3 seconds delay per vehicle | No | | economic | | | vehicle mile) | | | mile. An increase of 0.4 seconds A | | | Target | | | growth | | | Target: No target set | from 2015-16. | | Noise important areas | | | 1,174 noise important areas | | | Target: Mitigate at least mitigated in RP1 - the target | | | 1,150 noise important | | | Delivering | | | of 1,150 was met. | | | areas by 2020 | | | better | | | environmental | | | Highways England has | | | Improved biodiversity | | | outcomes | | | delivered the actions set out | | | Target: Publish | | | the biodiversity action plan it | | | biodiversity action plan | | | published in 2015. | | | Helping cyclists, | | | Number of new and | | | 211 new and 227 upgraded | | | walkers and | | | upgraded crossings | | | crossings completed by | | | other vulnerable | | | Target: No target set | | | Highways England in RP1. | | | users | | | Capital expenditure | | | savings | £1.4bn of capital efficiencies | | Target: Savings of at | reported in RP1 - exceeding the | | least £1.212 billion on | | | target of £1.212bn. | | | Achieving real | | | capital expenditure | | | efficiency | | | Progress of work, | | | Highways England achieved | | | No | | | relative to delivery plan | | | 95% of its capital delivery | | | Target: No target set | | | milestones in RP1. | | | Pavement condition | | | 95.5% requires no further | | | Keeping the | | | Target: 95% of | | | investigation for maintenance | | | network in | | | pavement requiring no | | | - above the target of 95% for | | | good condition | | | further investigation for RP1. | | | possible maintenance | | A Provisional: data not yet available G Target met G Target met G No target set G Target met G target set G Target met ## 2. Operational Performance In the first road period, Highways England has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safety on the strategic road network, but must continue to work hard to meet its challenging target. In response to ORR's probing, the company has taken action to improve road user satisfaction and shown an increased focus on meeting the needs of those users. It has met most of its performance targets. The number of people killed or seriously injured each year on the strategic road network has reduced since the start of Road Period 1, but Highways England must continue to focus on safety, and deliver further safety improvements. The company has met its targets to deliver better environmental outcomes, and to minimise the disruption caused by incidents and roadworks. However, road user delays have increased in Road Period 1 as traffic levels, and the amount of improvement work being undertaken, has increased. It narrowly missed its target for road user satisfaction, but has demonstrated an increased focus on meeting the needs of road users. ## Safety 2.1 The first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) set a key objective for Highways England to improve safety for all road users and workers on the strategic road network. Over the past five years, the company has shown a strong commitment to achieving this. It has consistently identified safety as its top priority, and has delivered a range of interventions aimed at improving safety. 2.2 Highways England's key performance indicator for safety in Road Period 1 (RP1) is to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by 40% by 2020, compared to the 2005-09 average baseline. The final outcome against this target will not be known until summer 2021, when the 2020 road casualty statistics are published. 2.3 The most recent road casualty data show that 2,1523 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 20184. This represents a 30% reduction from the baseline period (2005- 09); if this rate of improvement were to be sustained by Highways England it would not meet its target of a 40% reduction by the end of 2020, therefore further work is required to achieve this. Provisional data for the first six months of the year indicate that further reductions may have been achieved in 2019 but we must wait for the publication of the data by DfT before drawing conclusions. 2.4 In 2018, there were 250 deaths on the strategic road network, which is 14 (6%) higher than in 2017. Of these, 85 deaths were on motorways - a reduction of six (7%) from the previous year. However, rates of fatalities and serious injuries are lower on the strategic road network than on other roads in England. In 2018, the strategic road network carried 34% of all traffic in England, but accounted for 16% of all road deaths. 2.5 Since 2010, the trend for the number of fatalities on the strategic road network has been broadly flat, which is in-line with the trend on all roads in Great Britain. to achieve the target in 2020. Killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network (adjusted data), 2005-2018 2.6 Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, traffic on the strategic road network is expected to be significantly lower in 2020 than in previous years5. Early indications are that road traffic casualties have also declined, which increases the likelihood that the company will meet its safety key performance indicator for RP1. However, any significant reduction in casualties in 2020 is likely to be temporary. Highways England should therefore continue to focus on its longer term goal of zero casualties by 2040, and explore every avenue to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads. 2.7 Early in RP1, Highways England set out its approach to safety in its 5-year Health and Safety Action Plan, which set out 130 actions that the company then completed over the course of the road period. In June 2019, Highways England launched its current safety strategy: Home Safe and Well6. This sets out the company's approach to achieving its longer term goal that by 2040 nobody is harmed when travelling or working on the strategic road network. This is an important long term goal for Highways England, and we will monitor the company's progress in delivering this strategy in RP2. 2.8 In RP1, Highways England and ORR have worked together to identify opportunities to share best practice in areas such as risk management. For example, ORR has shared its experience of managing health and safety risks through the Risk Management Maturity Model (RM3) that it developed for the rail industry. We will continue to look for opportunities to share knowledge and experience in RP2 and beyond. 2.9 The actions taken by Highways England to improve safety in RP1 have covered the company's three areas of focus: safer roads, safer people and safer vehicles. Projects delivered by the company in RP1 have included: z **Using ring-fenced funds to deliver small scale safety interventions.** In RP1, Highways England delivered 109 small scale safety schemes aimed at improving safety on higher risk sections of the strategic road network. z **Information campaigns** which have focussed on improving the driver behaviours which contribute to a high proportion of KSIs on the network. This has included the 'Space Invaders' campaign which targeted tailgating (close following) - a factor in one in eight casualties on the strategic road. Other campaigns have targeted winter driving, drink/drug driving, and users of commercial vehicles. z **Funding three unmarked heavy goods vehicle (HGV) tractor units** to support police in capturing evidence of driving offences. Known as Operation Tramline, this has involved cooperation with over 30 police forces, and identified over 10,000 offences, mainly around mobile phone use, seatbelt use, and the driver not being in proper control of their vehicle. The unmarked HGVs have also been used to support specific campaigns, such as the M1 safety week, when all three vehicles were deployed on the M1 from 13 to 19 of May 2019. This resulted in fewer collisions than average on the M1 that week, with the police recording almost 200 driving offences. z **Driving for better business** campaign. Highways England partnered with other safety organisations to deliver a campaign aimed at improving awareness of work-related road safety. It aims to help employers make better decisions to improve the safety of their vehicles and drivers. By the end of RP1, businesses representing almost 900,000 drivers had signed up to the programme. This is discussed in more detail in the case study below. 2.10 Other actions taken by the company include interventions to support improved post-collision response, and better use of research and analysis to ensure its plans are informed by a strong evidence base. Each year Highways England publishes detailed statistical breakdown of all collisions on the network that resulted in serious or fatal injuries. This provides a valuable evidence base to support Highways England's work to reduce road casualties, but also demonstrates a wider commitment to transparency by enabling wider use of the data by road safety professionals. ## Safety Case Study - Driving For Better Business In RP1, Highways England delivered the Driving for Better Business (DfBB) campaign with the aim of reducing the risks for commercial and business users of the strategic road network. This is also an area of particular interest for ORR under its wider safety remit in the rail sector. Developed in partnership between Highways England and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), DfBB provides information and resources to help employers make effective interventions with their drivers and vehicles to improve safety. It is designed to benefit both employers - through a reduction in incident rates for their staff, fuel use, carbon emissions, insurance claims and costs - and Highways England - by supporting a safer, free-flowing network. Since the programme began in April 2017, employers responsible for almost 900,000 drivers, and 500,000 vehicles have signed up. DfBB supports employers in achieving compliance with legislation, guidance and good practice through a seven-step process including an online assessment of work related road risks with guidance and resources. The programme also includes advice and guidance on the next steps to maintain, and improve, driving standards amongst employees. Employers that d t' ir have signed up to the programme have reporte significant reductions in the number of 'at faul incidents and improved the fuel efficiency of the fleets. e n h g a The safety of people driving for work is an exampl of an area where ORR and Highways England ca work together on issues that are relevant to bot rail and road to deliver benefits to the travellin public. In 2020, ORR successfully prosecuted rail contractor over the deaths of two workers in a traffic accident on the strategic road network. Renown Consultants Ltd were found to have failed to follow both its own fatigue management policies and the working time limits on safety critical work, and were fined £450,000. This case will provide a greater incentive for employers to ensure the safety of their workforce when driving for business, as Highways England continues to expand its DfBB programme in RP2. 2.11 In RP1 Highways England surveyed its roads to provide a safety star rating assessment of the strategic road network. Star ratings use road inspection data to provide an objective measure of the level of safety of a road based on the systems used for the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). RIS1 set Highways England a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, by 2020. The company met its target, with an estimated 95% of travel on roads rated as at least 3-star in 2019. 2.12 Highways England has not met its commitment to improve the majority of 1-star and 2-star roads to 3-star or more by 2020. In response to this, the company has explained to ORR that it takes account of both the star rating, and statistical risk of death or serious injury, of a road when prioritising safety interventions. We recognise that targeting its finite resources in this way can help the company achieve a greater reduction in casualties than if it focused on improving starratings alone. 2.13 The company is currently surveying the network to provide an updated star rating for 2020, and forecast for 2025. This work has been delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, with results now expected by summer 2021. 2.14 In 2019, the Office of Rail and Road commissioned the Road Safety Foundation to review how Highways England prioritises its expenditure on safety to ensure it delivers the maximum possible benefit for road users. Key findings include: z A recognition that Highways England's commitment to safety, and its performance framework for monitoring and measuring safety outcomes, is world class. z Highways England has made real progress since it was established in 2015, and the company should further develop how it uses safety performance metrics to guide investments to achieve its goals and targets. z Further action is required if Highways England is to meet its safety target for 2020; and further investment is required to meet its longer term goal that nobody should be harmed on the network by 20407. z A recommendation that the company can make more use of data within the star-rating system to inform its investment programmes. 2.15 The full report is published on ORR's website8. We will work closely with Highways England in RP2 to address the recommendations to drive further safety improvements in the second road period, and beyond. ## Road Worker Safety 2.16 Highways England has two performance indicators, measuring accident frequency rates of the workforce. This is measured by the number of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation) accidents per 100,000 hours worked, reported separately for Highways England's supply chain, and for the company's own staff working in the operations directorate, which includes its Traffic Officer Service function. 2.17 For both measures, Highways England has achieved significant improvements over RP1. At the end of March 2020: z The accident frequency rate for the supply chain was 0.07. This is an improvement on the score of 0.15 reported at the end of the 2015-16, the first year of the road period. z The accident frequency rate for Highways England's operations directorate was 0.02. This was down from a score of 0.77 at the end of 2015-16. 2.18 Highways England has delivered a number of interventions over RP1 specifically aimed at improving safety for the workforce and reducing the accident frequency rates. These have included: z Creating regional safety performance teams, to address regional priorities for improvement and co-ordinate with national and local improvement teams. z Delivering workshops and information campaigns to increase awareness of near-miss and accident reporting. z Improving how it collects and uses workforce accident data to help develop preventative and corrective action plans. z Rolling out a health and safety leadership programme for Highways England and supply chain staff. ## Smart Motorways 2.19 In RP1 Highways England has built, and operated, a number of sections of smart motorway. The term 'smart motorway' can be used to describe three different designs: z **Controlled motorways**, which retain a permanent hard shoulder, and have overhead electronic signs which can be used to set variable speed limits and display messages to drivers, such as warning of an incident ahead. z **All lane running motorways**, which deploy the technology used on controlled motorways. In addition, the hard shoulder is permanently converted to a running lane, with refuge areas available for drivers to use in an emergency. The distance between emergency refuge areas varies from 0.3 miles to 1.6 miles. z **Dynamic hard shoulder running motorways** also use the technology deployed on controlled motorways. Here, the hard shoulder is used as a live running lane at peak times to mitigate congestion. Electronic signs inform drivers when the hard shoulder is in use as a running lane. Emergency refuge areas are installed in the same way as on all lane running motorways. 2.20 There has been considerable public debate on the safety of smart motorways in recent years - particularly relating to those designs where the hard shoulder has been permanently removed. This follows a number of incidents where road users have been killed or seriously injured in collisions, after coming to a stop in a live running lane. 2.21 Highways England has engaged closely, and shared evidence, with ORR and the Department for Transport in relation to smart motorway safety. This culminated in the Department commissioning a smart motorway evidence stocktake in late 2019, which was published in March 20209. 2.22 Based on analysis of road casualty data from 2015 to 2018, the stocktake concluded that, in most ways, smart motorways are as safe as, or safer than, conventional ones. It also recognised that, while some risks are reduced on smart motorways, other risks (in particular the risk of collision between a stationary and moving vehicle) are increased. 2.23 Alongside the stocktake, the Department for Transport set out an action plan for improving safety on smart motorways. This listed 18 separate actions, including speeding up the deployment of stopped vehicle detection technology, reducing the distance between emergency refuge areas, and increasing funding for public awareness campaigns on using smart motorways. 2.24 ORR will monitor Highways England's delivery of the actions it is responsible for in the Department for Transport's action plan in RP2. We also believe that it is vital that Highways England continues to review and assess any evidence relating to smart motorway safety as more data becomes available. ## Satisfaction 2.25 Highways England must deliver a service that meets road users' needs and maintain a high level of satisfaction. Satisfaction over the first road period was measured by the National Road User Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS), which is conducted by Transport Focus. Highways England was set a target to achieve a score of 90% overall user satisfaction by the end of 2016-17, which it then had to at least maintain for the remainder of the road period. 2.26 At the end of RP1, overall satisfaction score was 89.2%, 0.8 percentage points below the 90% target. This is slightly below the score at the beginning of the road period (89.3%), but above the previous year's score (88.4%). Highways England has developed and delivered a series of annual customer service plans which we consider demonstrates an increased intent and focus on meeting the needs of road users. 2.27 In response to Highways England missing its performance target in 2016-17, ORR began a period of enhanced monitoring and required the company to produce a recovery plan. The company achieved this in the form of its annual customer service plans. ORR met with the company's Customer Service Directors every quarter to discuss the progress and impact of customer service schemes, ensuring it maintained improvement regionally and across the components of its satisfaction score. 2.28 As part of its customer service strategy, Highways England worked effectively with Transport Focus to gather insight from road users and to identify improvements. Many of those improvements focused on roadworks and signage, two of the five components that make up NRUSS overall satisfaction. The other three are safety, general upkeep and journey time. satisfaction increased over the road period. Roadworks satisfaction scores increased from 65.1% to 75.5% by the end of the road period while satisfaction with safety was below 90% for the first time in 2019-20. User satisfaction score by component in RP1. 2.29 Although overall satisfaction was below the 90% target across the road period, there have been improvements in some of the performance indicators. Figure 2.3 shows that satisfaction scores increased across all components, except safety, in the final year of the road period. Satisfaction with roadworks management, signage and journey time improved when compared to the start of the road period. As discussed above, in response to our enhanced monitoring, Highways England has focused on actions to improve roadworks management and signage as part of its customer service action plan. 2.30 The signage satisfaction score was above 90% throughout the period, reaching a peak of 93.3% in 2019-20. Satisfaction with journey time also recorded the highest score (88.8%) in the final year of RP1. 2.31 Customer satisfaction with roadworks management is consistently lower than the other four components, but increased substantially from 65.1% at the start of the road period to 75.5% in 2019-20. The case study below highlights Highways England's approach to increasing satisfaction with roadworks. ## Case Study - Improving Road User Satisfaction With Roadworks Road user satisfaction with roadworks management consistently ranked lower than other a e s. s components of Highways England's overall satisfaction score. In 2016, ORR commissioned study to explore Highways England's approach to roadworks planning and communications. Th report examined ways to improve road user satisfaction and made actionable recommendation In response, Highways England reviewed its approach to roadworks management and ha subsequently increased roadworks satisfaction scores towards the end of RP1. Three innovative customer led approaches resulted in a significant rise in roadworks management satisfaction, especially in the last two years of the road period. 1 Understanding customers: Highways England undertook extensive research in RP1 during roadwork schemes. It also developed customer insight tools including a Customer Panel. 2 Implementation: Highways England produced a 'customer view' toolkit to capture road users' needs and best practice. Embedding the toolkit in its project governance gives project managers and suppliers a clear path to improving delivery quality. 3 Innovation: Highways England introduced specific initiatives to address areas of concerns for road users, including: z **Improving journey time:** Highways England carried out various trials for increasing speed limits during roadworks. Before each trial, a risk assessment was conducted to ensure safety was maintained. To evaluate the effect, drivers' behaviour in differing speed limits was logged using biometric data. Highways England also received feedback from customers and stakeholders which was implemented into its approach. The introduction of increased 60mph speed limits in roadworks, where safe to do so, reduced journey time through roadworks by an average of 10%. It also led to better speed compliance, reduction in close following and an overall improvement in driver behaviour. z **Clear messaging:** Active communication with road users using electronic billboards and roadside information. Highways England explained what work it was undertaking, and displayed expected construction completion dates. z **Visibility of temporary road barriers:** Installation of reflective studs and white lining alongside the barrier to better delineate the edge of the carriageway lane. The project received positive feedback from road users, including comments that it improved their perception of safety. Highways England identified 20 principles for improving customer experiences. The company is consolidating its understanding from these trials and will roll out best practices across its major improvement projects. We will ensure that Highways England continues its collaboration with ORR and Transport Focus for an improved customer approach in RP2. 2.32 This customer-centric approach is reflected in the improvement in signage and road management satisfaction scores which created a boost to the overall satisfaction score in 2019-20. 2.33 However, the improvements from signage and roadworks were offset by declining safety satisfaction across the road period. Highways England is working to understand how safe road users feel on their journey and addressing other accessibility issues. 2.34 Although Highways England missed its satisfaction target, we consider the actions it has identified and carried out have generally been the right ones. The latest data also indicates that these were having a positive impact on the key performance indicator by the end of the period. 2.35 At the end of the road period, user satisfaction was highest in the Yorkshire & the North East region (92.6%). The North West (85.2%) trailed other regions throughout RP1 but improved from its 2015-16 user satisfaction score of 83.5% to 85.2% in 2019-20. 2.36 Highways England has highlighted steps it has taken in RP1 and will continue its customer service action plan in RP2, building on improvement areas. These include: z Understanding satisfaction on roadworks management; z Creating an operational culture of 'every second counts'; z Improving maintenance planning to focus on making a difference to customer satisfaction and; z Developing plans to help road users feel safer. 2.37 In RP2, customer satisfaction will be measured by the Strategic Roads User Survey (SRUS). This replaces the NRUSS and will again be administered by Transport Focus. Surveying is currently suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic, but during the period of dual-running both surveys, Transport Focus was already reporting that SRUS provides a more reliable and richer measure of road user satisfaction. 2.38 We expect Highways England to build on work from the first road period and develop clearer links between the actions it takes and the resulting impact on user satisfaction. The company must ensure that best practice and lessons learnt are shared across its regions to drive up performance across England. It should also achieve a consistent level of performance across all elements of satisfaction to create a better overall experience for road users. We will continue to monitor the delivery of its customer service plans to ensure that the progress made at the end of RP1 is built upon in RP2. ## Supporting The Smooth Flow Of Traffic 2.39 Highways England has met its RP1 targets to support the smooth flow of traffic on the network. The company's performance was measured by two key performance indicators in this area - network availability and incident clearance. 2.40 Highways England's target for network availability measured disruption caused to road users by planned events on the network, such as roadworks. At the end of the road period, 98.2% of the network was available to traffic - above the target of 97%. The company has performed well against this target throughout the road period, taking actions such as using narrow lanes during roadworks to maximise network availability. 2.41 Highways England's target for incident clearance captured disruption caused to road users by unplanned events on the motorways network, such as breakdowns or collisions. At the end of RP1, 89.1% of motorway incidents were cleared within one hour - above the target of 85%. The company consistently met its target throughout RP1, and increased performance by three percentage points since 2015-16 (the first year of RP1). Figure 2.5: Highways England has consistently met its target of clearing 85% of incident within 1 hour in RP1. 2.42 Actions taken by Highways England to support performance against this target in RP1 include: z Providing better coverage for incident management on the network by increasing the number of traffic officers trained to work as a single-crew. z Enabling control centre staff to request vehicle recovery before a traffic officer is at scene - it is estimated that this can reduce incident duration by approximately 20 minutes. z Learning lessons from incidents which were not cleared within the one hour target through holding post-incident debriefs. z Setting internal 'stretch' targets for regions, which has improved understanding of the measure, and also created additional motivation for regions to improve performance. 2.43 Despite taking these actions, average delay has increased on the strategic road network over RP1 - as discussed below. In RP2 we will monitor Highways England against the new, and more stretching, targets it has been for both network availability and incident clearance. ## Supporting Economic Growth 2.44 A smooth flowing strategic road network, which enables the safe and timely movement of people and goods, is vital to the economic health of the country. Highways England's contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by a key performance indicator for average delay on the network. The company was not set a target for average delay in RP1. 2.45 Average delay on the strategic road network was 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of RP1. This is a small increase in delay from 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of 2015-16, but down slightly from a delay of 9.4 seconds per vehicle mile at the end of 2018-19. The slight reduction in the last year is possibly a result of lower levels of traffic in March 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Average delay in the rolling year to February 2020 (before travel restrictions were introduced) was 9.5 seconds per vehicle mile. Average delay on the strategic road network in RP1 2.46 The increase in average delay over RP1 has coincided with increased traffic - the network carried 94.7bn vehicle miles in 2018, an increase of 6% compared to 2015. There were also more major road improvement schemes in construction at the end of the road period - 32 at the end of March 2020, compared to 16 at the start of the RP1. 2.47 By meeting its targets to maximise lane availability, and clear incidents quickly, Highways England has helped mitigate increases in delay in RP1. Actions the company has taken to improve user satisfaction, such as increasing speed limits to 60mph through roadworks, have also supported performance in this area. 2.48 In RP2, we will monitor Highways England against an ambition that average delay will be no worse at the end of the second road period than it is at the end of RP1. The longer term impact of coronavirus on traffic levels - and therefore delay - is still unclear, but ORR will continue to challenge the company to seek new ways to mitigate delays in RP2. ## Delivering Better Environmental Outcomes 2.49 An important area for Highways England in RP1 was to deliver better environmental outcomes. The company has performed well in this area, delivering its two key performance indicators, covering noise and biodiversity. 2.50 Highways England met its target to mitigate noise at 1,150 noise important areas in RP1. At the end of the road period, the company had mitigated 1,174 noise important areas - exceeding the target by 24. 2.51 Of the 1,174 noise important areas mitigated, the majority (772) were delivered through Highways England's noise insulation programme to fit double glazing to noise affected properties. The remainder were delivered through low-noise surfacing (288), noise barriers (29), bypasses (25) and a combination of these measures (60). Noise important areas mitigated in RP1 by mitigation type 2.52 In total, 914 properties had double glazing installed as part of the noise insulation programme. A further 1,016 properties were counted as mitigated where the homeowner either refused the offer of double-glazing, or did not respond to at least three attempts to contact them. In this situation, the offer from Highways England remains open, and these properties will continue to have the option of double glazing installation in RP2. 2.53 Highways England originally expected a higher proportion of noise important areas to be mitigated through resurfacing. However, as the company developed its resurfacing plans during RP1, it became clear that this would deliver fewer mitigations than initially thought. Therefore, the noise insulation programme was expanded to support delivery of this target. Highways England has a new key performance indicator to mitigate noise for 7,500 households in RP2. 2.54 Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in the first year of RP1. The company subsequently delivered the majority of commitments set out in the plan, and published annual updates of its progress. In RP1, the company: z Met its commitment to deliver 40 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. It has also increased the number of SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition. z Developed and trialled a new biodiversity metric, which will be used to measure progress against its new biodiversity target, to deliver no net biodiversity loss in RP2. z Published annual updates of its progress against the Biodiversity Action Plan. 2.55 The company also delivered 575 hectares of species rich grassland. However, the area of grassland delivered is less than the 3,500 hectares originally set out in the delivery plan at the start of the road period. ## Environment Case Study - Catterick Flood Alleviation Scheme The A1 at Catterick was one of the worst flooding hotspots on the strategic road network. In 2012, a major flood closed the A1, and affected 130 homes. The cost to the local economy was estimated to be £2m. Working in partnership with the Environment Agency, and North Yorkshire County Council, Highways England used designated funds to deliver a £6.2m flood attenuation reservoir which would deliver a wide range of benefits to the local area. Opened in 2018, the reservoir was built using spoil from an adjacent A1 Leeming to Barton major e n g e a y m improvement scheme, therefore avoiding th use of landfill. It is capable of holding 91millio gallons of water, which will help alleviate floodin during severe weather. Since opening, the schem has worked well. The reservoir partially filled number of times in 2018 and 2019 following heav rainfall, protecting Catternick, and the A1, fro flooding. s, d d s g It provides five hectares of new habitat including wetland, bat habitats, owl nesting an meadowland, while rerouting the river provide increased fish habitat. The new area also provide a better amenity for the local population, usin bridleways and footpaths in the area. 2.56 Highways England has worked with DfT and the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) to support the government's air quality policies. In RP1 the company reviewed 101 links on the strategic road network, highlighted by the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model, to assess compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the end of the road period, work was ongoing to identify the number of links that required intervention. 2.57 Highways England has assessed which of these 101 road links are potentially non-compliant, and expects to publish details of this in the next year. Based on this assessment, the company has developed mitigation measures (where possible) for how it can address air quality on road links where nitrogen dioxide levels are above legal limits. Potential measures include lower speed limits, traffic management solutions and barriers. In 2019-20, ORR worked with DfT, and JAQU to review Highways England's delivery of the actions to improve air quality. By the end of RP1, the company had put reduced speed limits in place on four PCM links to address air quality. However, a number of other proposed mitigations are currently paused, primarily due the decreased levels of traffic, and pollution, due to the coronavirus pandemic, meaning that further monitoring and analysis is required to better understand when measures will be delivered to achieve compliance in the shortest time possible. 2.58 ORR will take a more formal role in monitoring Highways England's progress in this area in RP2, as the company has been set a key performance indicator to bring the remaining road links into compliance in as short a time as possible. 2.59 Highways England has taken action to address litter on the strategic road network in RP1. Actions taken by the company include: z Collecting 39,000 bags of litter in RP1 as part of Keep Britain Tidy's annual 'British Spring Clean' initiative. The company was unable to provide data for the total amount of litter collected in the road period. It must develop better information relating to its litter picking activities in RP2. z Working with local authorities to arrange litter picking on A-roads to coincide with lane closures for other maintenance work. z Installing car and lorry-height funnel bins at motorway service areas to make it easier to dispose of litter. The initial trial in 2016 demonstrated a significant reduction in littering on the slip road immediately after the service area. Service area operators have subsequently installed 41 of these bins, across three sites, with more planned in the future. 2.60 Despite this, Highways England has more to do to achieve the vision set out in its litter strategy of "a network predominately free from litter without compromising safety and delivered affordably". In RP2, we will report on Highways England's performance in clearing litter as a new formal performance indicator. ## Vulnerable Users 2.61 As part of RIS1, Highways England was required to help cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users using the strategic road network. This was measured by a key performance indicator for the company to report the number of new and upgraded crossings for vulnerable road users. 2.62 In RP1, Highways England delivered 211 new and 227 upgraded crossings on the strategic road network. Over a third (166) of these crossings were delivered in 2019-20 - more than any other year of the road period. 2.63 ORR identified this as an area where Highways England could produce clearer plans for delivery, and improve the accuracy and timeliness of the information it reports. The company subsequently took steps to address this, including rolling out training within the business to improve the quality of reporting. 2.64 Highways England completed construction on 59 cycling schemes in 2019-20, bringing the total delivered in RP1 to 160. This is 10 more than the company had committed to at the start of the road period. ## 3. Investment Delivery Highways England has successfully achieved 95% of its commitments for delivery of major improvement schemes in Road Period 1. The actual number of commitments delivered is lower than originally set out in 2015, but is in line with the revised plan it agreed with Government. Addressing concerns raised by ORR, the revised plan also reduces disruption to road users. The accuracy of Highways England's planning of renewals delivery has improved through the Road Period, reflecting an increased maturity in asset management capability. Highways England has largely exceeded its planned delivery of renewals across Road Period 1 (RP1). Highways England's delivery of its investment plan matured over RP1. The company has predominantly delivered its major improvement schemes to the latest agreed plan. It has substantially agreed changes to the programme of improvements that means it had a revised commitment to start 73 schemes by the end of RP1, compared to 112 set out in the initial RIS1. ## Development Of Highways England'S Capital Plan 3.1 Highways England's original delivery plan (2015-16) included the start of work on all 112 RIS1 major improvement schemes by the end of the first road period. 3.2 The original commitment to progress 112 major improvement schemes during the first road period was reviewed and optimised, following observations we made on the delivery risk of a back-ended programme. 3.3 During RP1, Highways England continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan. It reviewed its major improvement schemes with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. As a result of the review, the company improved how it scheduled major improvement schemes, which impact on the same routes or geographical locations, in order to reduce expected road user disruption. 3.4 In 2017-18, the company introduced an optimisation of the capital programme as follows: z Paused or stopped - schemes that did not demonstrate value for money; and z Scheme schedule change - based on a corridor approach, a number of schemes started work earlier than originally planned, with others starting later. 3.5 ORR supported the company's approach to improved scheduling of RIS1. We will monitor that Highways England has embedded the lessons learnt from this in RP2 and future road periods. 3.6 During 2019-20, the company also re-evaluated some schemes in the pre-options phase. It concluded further work was required to ensure that these schemes represented value and delivered the necessary outcomes for road users and communities. Therefore these schemes reverted back to the options development phase, to be included in RIS2 as part of the RIS3 pipeline package for potential delivery in future road periods. ## Image Courtesy Of Highways England 3.7 Changes to the programme reduced the original 112 RIS1 scheme commitment by: z 8 schemes - paused or stopped due to low value for money; z 2 schemes - stopped due to lack of stakeholder support; and z 2 schemes - moved to the RIS3 pipeline. Further schemes were deferred to RP2, as follows: z 15 schemes - to minimise expected road user disruption; z 10 schemes - due to other external factors, for example an outcome of judicial/statutory process or a need for further work; and z 2 schemes - decision as to whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change is to be confirmed by DfT. This reduced the number of major improvement schemes due to start of works by the end of RP1 to 73. Figure 3.1 illustrates the changes to the RIS1 portfolio. The map below (figure 3.2) shows the status of RIS1 schemes at the end of RP1. 3.8 Highways England substantially agreed the changes to its RIS1 portfolio and delivery plan with government, through the Department for Transport's formal change control process. The company revised its baseline plan which then reflected the changes made to schemes through its optimisation exercise. 3.9 The changes to portfolio described above and other changes to individual project scope have not resulted in a change to the company's funding. This is because the funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. As was common practice with the company's predecessor (the Highways Agency), at the start of RP1 more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding. This was in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping poor value for money schemes. The value of the reduced scope in RP1 for these changes exceeds the anticipated 'overprogramming' in RIS1. However, the company reports that it has delivered additional scope on some of the remaining 67 schemes. This is discussed further in paragraph 4.35 and Annex C. ## Major Investment Delivery - Start Of Work 3.10 As part of its revised plan, Highways England was committed to start work on 40 schemes by the end of the first four years of RP1. It successfully started work on 44 schemes. 3.11 The delivery programme for 2019-20 represented the largest number of schemes required to start work, compared with any other year in the road period (figure 3.4). Highways England's plan was to start construction of 27 schemes in-year, of which 21 were in the final quarter of the year. 3.12 In addition to the back-end loaded programme, the company faced a number of other in-year delivery challenges: Brexit uncertainty, an unplanned general election, adverse weather events and the coronavirus pandemic in the last weeks of RP1. 3.13 The company put in place mitigation plans to successfully manage these risks to start of work. We have closely monitored the company's approach to these risks and, where appropriate, challenged some of its mitigation plans while they were in development. ## 2019-20 Commitments 3.14 The company had a commitment to start work on 27 RIS1 schemes in 2019-20, of which: z 23 schemes - started construction in year; z 2 schemes - Highways England met its commitment to contribute to the overall funding for a third party to start work; and z 2 schemes (M2 junction 5 Improvements and A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling) - Start of work has been deferred to RP2. Both schemes have been submitted to the Department for Transport's formal change control process, on which final decisions will be made following the completion of the statutory planning processes for both schemes. Highways England also started work on the A27 East of Lewes scheme, in the final quarter of the year. This scheme was funded for feasibility study in RIS1, but did not appear in the company's published delivery plans during RP1, and is not one of the defined 112 RIS1 major improvement schemes. It has, however, been funded and work has started. This has happened outside of the governance process for changes to the RIS1 plan agreed between Highways England and DfT. ## Ris1 Commitments 3.15 For the overall RIS1 portfolio, comprising of a revised 73 schemes, Highways England started construction on 67 RIS1 schemes as follows: z 16 schemes - started work prior to RP1 and the creation of Highways England; and z 51 schemes - started work during RP1. For the remaining six schemes: z 2 schemes - the company met its commitment by providing funds for a third party to start work; and z 4 schemes - missed the stated delivery commitment. Through carrying out work, or providing funding, Highways England met its commitment on 69 of the 73 RIS1 schemes. These numbers are subject to change, if the status of the M2 J5 improvements and/or the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling schemes are altered by DfT. Figure 3.3 summarises Highways England's delivery of its RIS1 portfolio delivery. 3.16 Highways England made good progress in starting work on schemes during RP1 and has generally had success in the construction phase of projects, once started on site. The case study below - for the A14 Cambridge to Huntington scheme - provides an example of the company's focus on delivery. ## Case Study - A14 Cambridge To Huntington Major Scheme z The A14 Cambridge to Huntington Project is Highways England's biggest ever improvement project, costing £1.5bn. It will improve the economic links between the Midlands and the East of the UK and upgrade a vital link to Europe, via the east coast ports. The project has created the opportunity to open up new land to the development of over 10,000 new homes and associated infrastructure. z The project includes a 12 mile bypass, 8 new junctions, 34 new bridges and structures, the demolition of old structures and the upgrading of local roads. It also includes 24 miles of new routes for cyclists, walkers, and horse riders to improve the integration with local roads and existing routes as well as converting the spoil pits into amenity areas. The project will also allow the original road to be "downgraded" to a more lightly trafficked local road. z The project started work in November 2016 and was scheduled to open for traffic in RP2. However, Highways England was able to complete the offline bypass in December 2019 and allow its customers to fully use it. z This project was one of the biggest and most complex archaeological projects ever undertaken in the UK, resulting in significant finds including 18 settlements, 15,000 objects, 500 human burials and cremations, six tonnes of pottery and five tonnes of animal bone. z Highways England was challenged to deliver an improved road link that is sympathetic to the environment and wildlife. It has met the challenge by delivering 18 new habitat areas and facilitated safe crossing for animals through the provision of 24 wildlife tunnels. z ORR visited the site in October 2017 and February 2019 and witnessed a number of good practices, including pre-fabrication of structures and locating concrete and asphalt plants on site that reduced transportation requirements. z Highways England and its suppliers have won 20 awards and been shortlisted for a further 32. In 2019 it was awarded the Considerate Constructors Scheme "ultra award site of the year", which recognises the role that the project team played and the manner in which the large number of suppliers have become integrated. z It is good project management practice to share the lessons learned and good practice when developing and delivering future projects. Highways England recognises this and intends to use the people, and their experience, from this project when delivering other complex projects during RP2. ## Major Investment Delivery - Open For Traffic (Oft) 3.17 Highways England was originally committed to open for traffic 28 schemes during RP1, as listed in its 2015-16 delivery plan. 3.18 During RP1, Highways England faced a number of challenges and has continued to identify the need for changes to its capital delivery plan. This resulted in changes to the number of schemes opening for traffic. 3.19 The company put in place mitigation plans to manage challenges to opening for traffic and successfully achieved this in the majority of cases. We have worked closely with the company to monitor these risks and challenged its mitigation plans. 3.20 Highways England had a commitment to open for traffic seven schemes during 2019-20, in addition to opening one scheme that was delayed from 2018-19. The company missed its commitment on the M271/A35 Redbridge roundabout upgrade, but did open the M20 Junction 10a, which was delayed from 2018-19. Therefore, Highways England has opened for traffic seven schemes (including the delayed 2018-19 scheme) and missed its commitment on one scheme. Figure 3.5 shows the number of schemes that opened for traffic in RP1. 3.21 In RP1 as a whole, Highways England has opened 36 schemes for traffic and missed its commitment on one scheme. These schemes added 343 lane miles to the capacity of the network. Figure 3.5 gives a breakdown of open for traffic schemes. 3.22 At the end of RP1, there were 31 schemes in construction that are due to open for traffic in RP2. There is also the A27 East of Lewes scheme that also started construction in RP1 (see 3.14 above). We will continue to monitor Highways England's delivery of these projects in RP2. ## Highways England'S Programme Management 3.23 Highways England has delivered the majority of its improvement scheme commitments during RP1 on time. It has met its delivery plan commitments to start construction on planned schemes, but missed its RIS1 commitment on four schemes as discussed earlier. For the open for traffic commitments, the company has missed a number of its delivery plan commitments, with one scheme also missing its commitment to open in RP1 and had its open for traffic date deferred to RP2. 3.24 By the end of RP1, Highways England met its commitment to start work on 69 schemes and open for traffic 36 schemes. Figure 3.6 summarises the delivery of the RIS1 major schemes portfolio. The charts do not include the four scheme classified as missed start of works commitments in the RIS1 portfolio that are not covered in a delivery plan. *Awaiting decision on whether status is categorised as deferral or missed 3.25 The company has taken steps during RP1 to proactively manage its programme and to smooth the profile of RIS1 projects. However, the plan to start construction on a significant number of schemes in the final quarter of the final year of RP1 was a considerable increase compared with a typical quarter during the road period. This raised concerns on the approach to programme management. Although the company strengthened its capital portfolio management capability, its programme and portfolio planning capability needs to develop further during the second road period if it is to meet its commitments. 3.26 Highways England's cost estimation processes are well developed. However, during RP1 the company has been managing a significant funding pressure as the forecast cost of the portfolio increased above the original baseline estimate. This has been managed through changes to the portfolio discussed above, rescheduling work within milestone commitments and other capital savings. This resulted in a net underspend of 1% as the final RP1 position for major improvement schemes. At programme level, the cost pressure was largely driven by the Smart Motorway Programme (see figure 3.7). 3.27 Over the first road period, Highways England's data matured and its reporting progressively improved. It has robust processes for developing and managing delivery of individual schemes. However, there are still areas for improvement in reporting progress that will provide us with greater confidence in its programme management capability. For example, the company has found it challenging to provide accurate, robust data on its earned value management reporting. 3.28 In RP1, we commissioned consultants to review the reasons for changes in schedule and cost. This review found that the main reason was immature scope definition (in lifecycle development terms) at its starting point, with consequential delivery and cost risk emerging during scheme development, so plans have inevitably changed. There is also some evidence of over-delivery, i.e. enhanced scope delivery with no additional funding arrangement which offsets this to a degree. The review's report is published on ORR's website10. 3.29 ORR identified concerns around Highways England's ability to identify best practice, and apply lessons learnt, to future projects. We therefore commissioned consultants to review the company's processes for evaluating and assessing the benefits realised from its major improvement investment, and how it implements these processes. This included reviewing Highways England's approach to publishing post-opening project evaluation (POPE) reports. 3.30 The review found that Highways England has a well-established approach to evaluating the benefits delivered by major schemes through the POPE process and compares well with other organisations. It also recommended that Highways England should publish POPE reports in a timely manner in order to maximise their value, improve transparency and benefit interested stakeholders. We will work with the company to monitor the evaluation and publication of future POPE reports. The review's report is published on ORR's website, alongside this assessment11. ## Renewals Planning And Delivery 3.31 Highways England delivered more renewals than planned in RP1 across the majority of asset types. Only two asset types, bridge bearings and network resilience schemes, saw marginal under-delivery. 3.32 The company created annual delivery plans for its asset renewals, detailing the exact interventions required to keep the network safe and serviceable. Whilst it over-delivered against those plans, it has improved its planning in RP1 and delivery was much closer to plan in the last two years of the road period, compared with performance in the first three years. 3.33 This improvement has been due to its increased maturity as an asset manager during RP1. A key factor supporting this development has been a refresh of its asset management governance. Highways England published its asset management policy and strategy, as required under its Licence, but also took key steps to improve its practice through its asset management plans. 3.34 During RP1, the company has brought in changes in how it operates with its service providers which has enabled it to align itself operationally to the approach required by its asset management framework. This way of working, known as Asset Delivery (AD), has allowed the transfer of responsibilities such as asset inspections, data management and maintenance decision making from suppliers directly to Highways England. This has enabled improvements to asset management processes where decision-making sits directly with Highways England, rather than with external suppliers. 3.35 As a result of these changes, Highways England was able to respond well to challenges from ORR on its significant structures inspection backlog, and the reporting of road defects and maintenance performance, particularly in regions where the company has transitioned to AD. Greater direct ownership of asset data has supported the migration of historic data systems to new central asset management systems. 3.36 We have also requested that the company provide more comprehensive reporting of operations, maintenance and renewals activity through regular quarterly review and challenge sessions between company specialists and ORR. These sessions will be vital to our monitoring of RIS2. 3.37 Improving its understanding of its asset base allowed Highways England to increase its renewals planning horizon from annual plans to three year and then five year plans. This improvement to the planning process contributed to the reduced delivery variance to plan seen in the last two years of RP1. Figure 3.8 shows that the assets with the highest over-delivery for the road period, such as lighting and bridge joints, saw the biggest variance from plan early in RP1, with the variance broadly improving for the last two years. 3.38 Highways England recognises that further improvements can be made to its planning processes. Two key challenges to renewals planning during RP1 have been planning for additional renewalss a result of efficient delivery, and planning other asset type renewals, such as road markings, to occur whilst the carriageway surface is renewed. These challenges have contributed to Highways England's over-delivery of renewals in RP1 and we will monitor performance improvements in the next road period. 3.39 Early in RP1, we expressed concern at the proportion of renewals delivered in the final quarter of the year (January to March) and the associated peak in spend. Roads reform provided Highways England with the opportunity to move away from annualised funding cycles, which typically leads to delivery of high output volumes to meet budget by year end. In addition to inefficiency concerns when peak delivery is in January to March, winter weather conditions may drive higher work delivery costs and reduce the quality of the work, thereby increasing whole-life costs. 3.40 As well as delivering renewals closer to plan in the latter years of RP1, Highways England improved its delivery of a smoother profile of renewals in-year. This is shown in figure 3.9 where the company has reduced the proportion of pavement renewals delivered in Q4 of each year, from a peak in the second of year RP1. Quarterly volumes of pavement renewals delivered in each year of RP1 ## Network Condition 3.41 The condition of the strategic road network is monitored by a key performance indicator, which measures the percentage of the road surface that does not require further investigation for possible maintenance. Highways England met the target and returned the network in a better condition than it was at the start of the road period. At the end of RP1, 95.5% of the network did not require further investigation. This is above the KPI target of 95%, and an improvement on the 92.3% recorded in the first year of RP1. 3.42 During the first two years of RP1, Highways England's performance against pavement condition was below target. This led us to review the company's compliance with its requirements against the RIS and Licence. We found areas for improvement in Highways England's reporting of road condition. We concluded that the company recognised the issues that we raised and had put in place plans to improve performance. ORR implemented a programme of additional monitoring to ensure that Highways England delivered improved performance. Subsequently, the company reached acceptable performance in 2017-18 and has maintained it above target since. 3.43 The performance of Highways England's other main assets (structures, geotechnical, drainage and technology) has been either broadly stable or marginally improved over RP1 as defined through the range of performance indicators. 3.44 The metrics used to define the performance of the non-pavement assets do not all report the condition of each asset type. Instead, they report a range of other performance measures including asset data availability, data coverage and asset functionality. It was recognised that for some assets, incomplete datasets meant that the focus on performance would be on expanding data inventory or on asset availability. 3.45 Whilst it is not possible to provide a definitive assessment of the condition of all non-pavement assets, the stable or marginally improved performance of those metrics provide assurance of Highways England effectively carrying out its role as a custodian of its assets and therefore represents a good outcome. ## Renewals Expenditure 3.46 In RP1, Highways England spent £3,494m on renewals, £143m less than its funding of £3,637m. This was mainly due to a decision for this part of the business to help manage the funding pressure the company was facing on major improvement schemes and other capital expenditure. As such, in the final three years of the road period, renewals was allocated a smaller budget than the level of funding anticipated within the RIS1 package. 3.47 The improvement in planning and then delivering volumes to plan, can also be seen in the company's monthly expenditure on renewals during the road period. The chart below (figure 3.11) shows an improvement in the monthly expenditure profile in the last two years of RP1, with delivery closer to plan and a reduction in the size of the year-end peak in expenditure (and associated delivery). ## Renewals Assurance 3.48 Highways England has delivered more renewals than planned over RP1, across the majority of its assets with less expenditure than funded. However, a significant challenge has been generating the confidence that the right assets have been treated at the right time. Unlike the delivery of defined major improvement projects, reporting of renewals plans and outturn delivery is not done against schemes or associated risks and needs. The impact of not renewing the right assets at the right time is not usually felt immediately but can lead to a deterioration of asset condition over time, which could then impact users, and ultimately increase costs in the longer term. Whilst some of the performance metrics provide an indicator that the delivery of renewals has led to improved asset condition, this is not the case for the majority of assets. This has limited our assessment of the impact of over-delivery of renewals, or more-for-less, on the performance or value of the asset. 3.49 We have challenged Highways England robustly to develop its reporting of renewals and undertaken in-depth reviews to improve assurance and the quality of our monitoring assessment. The company has engaged well with our reviews and improved its reporting throughout the road period. 3.50 The company has also developed metrics that improve the relationship between renewals activity and asset performance for use in RP2. Whilst not all of the metrics are ready in time for formal use, we look forward to shadow reporting during the second road period to improve reliability. 3.51 Highways England's maturing approach to asset management seen during RP1 gives us confidence that it is managing a safe and serviceable network. We will continue to challenge Highways England to provide assurance that it is efficiently sustaining the condition and value of its asset base. ## Ring-Fenced Funds 3.52 The RIS1 investment plan included a series of ring-fenced funds (also known as designated funds) with a value of £675m. The purpose of these funds was to specifically address a range of issues beyond the traditional focus of road investment. They were split into five areas: air quality; cycling, safety and integration; environment; innovation; and growth and housing. 3.53 On the whole, Highways England has performed well in delivering schemes through these funds. Earlier in RP1, ORR raised concerns that the company's plans for delivery were heavily loaded towards the end of the road period, which risked the funds not being fully utilised. Highways England subsequently addressed this by strengthening its leadership and resources for managing the programme. At the end of RP1, Highways England had spent £652m of the allocated £675m, and delivered a wide range of projects across the portfolio. 3.54 Each fund delivered close to, or slightly above, its budget - except the air quality fund, where the company spent £38.7m of the available £75m. The underspend on air quality reflects that Highways England was unable to identify effective solutions on which to spend the funds during RP1, despite putting in significant effort. Due to the lack of effective solutions, the company has moved its focus to reducing emissions at source. The resulting underspend of £36.1m was balanced by overspends on other budget lines. Highways England has asked the Department for Transport to consider if it can spend £21.2m in 2020-21 to deliver some of the air quality measures that could not be delivered in the previous year - the outcome of this request is pending at the time of publication. That money would come from the Major Projects budget and the spending would be additional to the RIS2 designated funds. 3.55 The overspends reported for the innovation, environment, and cycling, safety and integration funds reflect where Highways England has identified opportunities to begin delivering RP2 priorities ahead of schedule or have enabled some exceedance of environmental and cycling performance metrics for RP1. 3.56 A summary of the projects delivered through ring-fenced funds is provided in figure 3.12, below. Figure 3.12. Highways England spent close to its budget for all ring-fenced funds, except air quality. Funding Spent Budget Fund (£m) in RP1 spent Delivery in RP1 (£m) (%) Projects delivered through the air quality fund in RP1 include: - A scheme to encourage businesses to switch to electric Air quality 75 38.7 52 vans (initially in partnership with Leeds City Council). - Trials of air quality barriers. - Rolling out a network of 60 automatic air quality monitoring stations. In RP1, Highways England delivered: - 109 safety schemes, which focussed on single carriageway Cycling, routes with a higher accident rate or lower star rating. 175 180.1 103 safety and - 160 cycling schemes, against a commitment to delivery integration 150. - 62 integration schemes aimed at making the network more accessible and safer for vulnerable users. Highways England used environmental ring-fenced funds to support delivery of its environment key performance indicators in RP1, including: - 914 properties fitted with noise insulation. Environment 225 230.3 102 - 83 biodiversity schemes. - 45 flooding and water quality mitigations. - 92 landscape schemes. - 39 carbon schemes. - 14 cultural heritage and three legacy schemes. Over 170 innovation schemes funded in RP1, including: - Trialling 60mph speed limits through roadworks on the M1. Innovation 120 123.8 103 - Installing renewable low power infrastructure on the network to reduce carbon emissions. - Trialling mobile safety cameras to protect roadworkers from dangerous driving. Highways England has delivered 18 growth and housing schemes, and supported a further 28, through the growth Growth and and housing fund in RP1. This has supported delivery of up housing 80 79.5 99 to: - 44,000 homes. - 45,000 jobs. - 1.74 million m2 of commercial floor space. ## Congestion Relief Programme 3.57 In the 2016 Autumn Statement, government announced a £220 million fund to help motorists beat congestion by making junction upgrades, roundabout improvements and better traffic signalling for traffic hotspots on the SRN. The Congestion Relief Programme (CRP) announcement included: z £14m contribution to Essex County Council for delivery of a new junction at M11 J7a; z £30m for the A69 Northern Transpennine Programme; and z £176m towards 25 named schemes across the country to tackle congestion hotspots and to fund small schemes to further tackle road safety and congestion hotspots. 3.60 At the end of RP1: z 21 named schemes were open for traffic; z 3 named schemes are in construction and due to complete in early RP2, missing its commitment to open for traffic z 1 named scheme is in development and due to complete in early RP2, missed its commitment to open for traffic; z 90 small schemes were open for traffic; and z The A69 Northern Transpennine Programme originally included improvements to its junctions with the A6079 at Hexham and the A68 at Corbridge. The Corbridge junction improvement was decoupled from the overall project and is subject to ongoing review. The Hexham part of the scheme has started construction but is delayed and will continue into RP2. 3.58 Highways England has completed 21 out of 25 planned named schemes, but delivered 90 small schemes resulting in 111 road safety and congestion hotspot schemes open for traffic in RP1. 3.59 The four schemes yet to be completed are associated with technological and capacity improvements on the M5 (J17-18; J19; J24-J23; and J24-J25). Highways England reports that progress with these schemes has been affected by the transition to AD in the South West region and poor weather, but also the early stage of design the schemes were in when the programme was developed. ## 4. Efficiency Highways England has met its KPI target to deliver more efficiently in Road Period 1. The company has responded positively to ORR's constant challenge to improve the evidence used to support reported efficiency. Highways England has reported £1.4bn of efficiency in the road period supported by good evidence of actions taken. We had previously challenged the quality of the company's top-down evidence of efficiency from unit cost movement and delivery of the RIS. This remains less robust but has improved and provides reasonable evidence of the KPI having been achieved. 4.1 RIS1 required Highways England to deliver the outcome 'Achieving efficient delivery' as part of its performance specification. One of the KPIs we use to monitor Highways England's performance in delivering this outcome is the Efficiency KPI: Total savings of at least £1.212bn over Road Period 1 (RP1) on capital expenditure. Importantly RIS1 also required Highways England to demonstrate how these efficiencies have been achieved. 4.2 This chapter initially discusses the efficiency reported by Highways England and then the broader evidence presented by the company for meeting the KPI. ## Highways England Reported Efficiency 4.3 Highways England has reported that during RP1 it has delivered (gross) capital efficiency savings of £1.448bn. It is important to note that this figure does not reflect the impact of any inefficiency or other overspend positon against budgets. This does form part of the evidence for achievement of the KPI and is discussed later in this chapter. 4.4 In the first road period, 54% of efficiency has come from renewals and 46% from road improvements (major projects). This includes 18% from the Smart Motorway Programme, 16% from the company's Complex Infrastructure Programme and 9% from the Regional Investment Programme. Figure 4.1 shows the breakdown of contributions from across the business. 4.5 Highways England's Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan12 separated the initial KPI target of £1,212m to a programme level. Figure 4.2 shows that the intention was for the total efficiencies to be split with 54.8% relating to renewals, 43.6% to major projects and 1.6% to other capital. Each programme has exceeded its target and the proportions of the final reported efficiencies are very close to the original plan with differences of less than 1% against renewals and major projects. Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan (£m) % share Final efficiencies reported (£m) % share Renewals 664 54.8% 783 54.0% Major projects 528 43.6% 624 43.1% Other capital expenditure 20 1.6% 42 2.9% Total 1,212 100% 1,448 100% 4.6 Figure 4.3 shows the cumulative reported efficiency by each programme type through RP1. This figure is based upon the year in RP1 that an efficiency relates to, which may differ from the year it was submitted for review. It shows that most of the efficiency identified related to the middle years of the road period. This likely reflects new efficiency approaches being rolled out across the business, the shape of the company's capital expenditure profile during RP1 and potentially a time lag in identifying and reporting efficiency meaning some potential under-reporting in the final two years. 4.7 In the first three years of RP1 the majority of efficiencies related to asset renewals. As the road period progressed, the value of efficiency claims related to major projects increased, especially in 2018-19 and 2019-20. This reflects that major improvement schemes made up an increasingly large part of the company's capital programme13. 4.8 Figure 4.4 shows that the majority of efficiency in RP1 has been derived from improved scheduling of major improvement schemes, adopting Lean management approaches and changes in contracts and design. 4.9 The scheduling of schemes category accounts for 31% of the total, captures efficiencies relating to the way schemes are scheduled and delivered. This covers both a reduction in the duration of a single scheme, or improvements to ensure tasks are carried out at an appropriate time. A good example of this is where Highways England introduced a Programme Mapping App tool, which allowed for the visualisation of operations and major projects forward programmes. This results in a focused approach on the works that will deliver the greatest benefits for a particular route, allowing for the cancellation of obsolete proposals. 4.10 Lean techniques, which account for 17% of the total, identify issues within the design and production process of schemes. This allows more efficient ways of working to be implemented. 4.11 Contractual changes, which account for 15% of the total, captures all efficiencies related to improved procurement methods, creating economies of scale or gaining access to better procurement rates. 4.12 The introduction of new design methods, including standardised products, regional traffic modelling, off-site production, value engineering and process improvement has generated 12% of the total efficiencies in RP1. ## Case Study - Impact Of Roads Reform On The Efficiency Of The Spending Profile z One of the drivers for roads reform, which saw the creation of Highways England, was increased long-term certainty of investment on the network and a five year funding allocation. z The largely annual allocations that were provided to Highways Agency impaired the organisation's ability to plan long term, provide certainty to the supply chain and operate in the most efficient way. z Figure 4.5 shows the difference in annual average spend profile from 2007-2013, pre-roads reform, and 2015-2020 (RP1). *Source: DfT's roads reform impact assessment; Figure 5 z Prior to roads reform there was a clear trend where higher levels of expenditure occurred in the final months of the financial year. This was mainly due to uncertain annualised funding creating a culture of asset renewals and many improvement schemes being planned in the first half of the financial year and delivered in the second. This meant that more works were being completed in the winter months where adverse weather can often cause cost increases. This could also have led to inefficient delivery as scheme development may have to be rushed to ensure delivery before year end. z In comparison, the RP1 spend profile shows a significant improvement, where the spend profile is mostly consistent across the whole year. There is still a small peak in spend for March, however this is no longer to the same extent as was seen before roads reform. ## Evidencing Efficiency In Rp1 4.13 In September 2015, Highways England published its Efficiency & Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM). It set out how efficiency would be reported and monitored during RP1. ORR and DfT contributed to the development of the EIMM and gave agreement to the final document. 4.14 The EIMM set out that Highways England should provide evidence from three different sources: z Primary evidence - Bottom-up: detailed register of efficiency measures and their quantified benefits, z Supporting evidence - Top-down: movement in unit costs, z Supporting evidence - Top-down: assessment of performance against the RIS (delivering the RIS1 outcomes/outputs for the post-efficient funding). 4.15 In general during RP1, Highways England has provided good primary evidence of efficiency. However, until recently the quality of supporting evidence has lagged behind. We have continually challenged the company on this, and highlighted it in previous Annual Assessments. In our 2018- 19 Annual Assessment, one of our key messages was that "Highways England is delivering more efficiently, but better evidence is needed to support reported levels". 4.16 We recognise that the application of the methodology described in the EIMM has been difficult, in part because of how the EIMM was set-up. There were also challenges because of: significant overspends due to scope change on some schemes; reported underfunding; and changes to RIS1. In addition, Highways England had to develop new data, required for efficiency unit cost models. These factors have informed the development of RIS2 and changes to the EIMM for RP2. 4.17 In September 2019, we appointed consultants to assist us in reviewing supporting evidence (particularly unit cost and 'performance against the RIS' evidence relating to inflation). The findings are reflected in parts of the following sections. ## Primary Evidence: Bottom-Up Description Of Efficiency Measures 4.18 The primary evidence of efficiency against the KPI comes from a bottom-up description of measures taken to deliver more efficiently. Highways England has provided evidence of £1.448bn of efficiency from this source in RP1, 19% ahead of the KPI target of £1.212bn. 4.19 At the beginning of the road period, Highways England developed a Capital Efficiency Delivery Plan. This plan identified milestones for reported efficiencies each year. Figure 4.6 shows the efficiency reported each year by the company against these milestones. We can see that in each year of RP1 the milestone for efficiency was exceeded. Given the sharp increase in efficiencies required in the final two years of RP1, Highways England made a conscious decision to focus on over-delivery earlier in RP1 to help mitigate any potential risk. Cumulatively, the five year £1,212m target was exceeded by £236m against primary evidence. 4.20 Highways England completes case studies describing what has been done to deliver efficiently and the quantified benefit of those actions. For each case study Highways England undertakes several layers of internal assurance, including internal audit, prior to them being shared with us for final review. The value of efficiency derived from this process is recorded against the KPI, however this is verified using the top-down supporting evidence described in the following two sections. This helps protect against the risk of selecting examples of good practice and ignoring areas of inefficiency. 4.21 During RP1, Highways England has produced over 200 case studies ranging in value from £0.75m (de-minimus threshold) to £40m. We review each case study and via quarterly sessions with the company we sought further clarity and provided challenge on more than half of them. 4.22 When considering the depth of internal assurance applied, in addition to our external scrutiny, we found that Highways England has provided good primary evidence from this source for achievement of the KPI. ## Top-Down Movement Of Unit Costs 4.23 As supporting evidence to the bottom-up evidence from its efficiency register, Highways England has developed unit cost models for its major programmes of capital expenditure. The company has presented evidence of £1,578m of efficiency from this source in RP1. This includes £1,107m as the output from unit cost modelling and £471m of adjustments for items excluded from the models to ensure comparability with the other sources of evidence. 4.24 Whilst the approaches to modelling unit costs have been quite similar across the programmes, renewals and major improvement schemes have presented different challenges. 4.25 For asset renewals, Highways England has produced a model that provides evidence of £556m efficiency in RP1. The company changed its approach to the modelling of unit costs during the road period to address limitations in the approach used in early years which relied heavily on the correct classification of costs/activities by the company's supply chain. The new approach takes into account variances in high-level unit costs by using probability distribution curves. However, it still has limitations and Highways England's internal analytical assurance process found that there were a number of sources of uncertainty with the model and provided an overall amber assurance rating. Therefore we could not have complete confidence in the company's ability to provide a fully accurate picture using this method. 4.26 Within the major improvements portfolio, all programmes use a similar unit cost model to provide evidence of efficiency. This involved analysing the cost of elements of pre-2015 baseline schemes to build an expected pre-efficient cost for each major improvement scheme, based on the composition of those elements and adjusting for scheme type. The project cost is compared to the pre-efficient baseline to determine the efficiency of the scheme. This approach was established and used early in the road period for the Smart Motorway Programme and identified efficiency of £260m. However, it took several years to develop further for modelling unit costs of the more diverse schemes in the Complex Infrastructure Programme (£208m) and the Regional Investment Programme (£84m). 4.27 Highways England's internal analytical assurance process found the approach to be fit for purpose and gave it a green/amber assurance rating. This gave us greater confidence in the suitability of this approach for evidencing efficiency. 4.28 Highways England has done some detailed work in attempting to address the challenges that they have encountered whilst modelling unit costs. However, development of high-quality unit cost data takes time and is built on the experience of the actual costs of completed projects. This has been recognised by the company to the extent that unit cost models will not be used to provide evidence of efficiency in the early years of RP2. We support deferring the use of unit costs for efficiency evidence until there is greater maturity and granularity in the data used. 4.29 In addition to the unit cost models, we have reviewed the £471m of adjustments Highways England has made to ensure comparability with other types of efficiency evidence. These can be split between; z Renewals (£338m): z Whole-life costs (£203m). This results in a reduction of maintenance costs for the asset in future road periods and therefore does not result in a comparable change in unit costs. z Oldbury viaduct (£62m). Excluded from the model due to its abnormal scale as a renewals scheme and data not being available until completion. z Avoidance of work/reduced outputs (£42m). Either unit costs are not generated, the value is unchanged or the post and pre-efficient costs are not comparable. z Change in delivery method (£31m). There is a reduction in the number of units being delivered, but no change to the unit cost. z Major projects (£91m): Schemes to which unit cost model could not be applied. z Central & IT (£42m): A combination of whole-life costs not impacting on unit costs and a claim that does impact unit costs, but where no unit cost data was produced. 4.30 Our consultants reviewed Highways England's approach to unit cost modelling and found that it was sensible and that the models provided good coverage. In addition, they reviewed the adjustments made for comparability with the other evidence sources and concluded that it was appropriate that such schemes were excluded. 4.31 On balance, particularly taking into account the internal assurance of the models used and the consultant's findings, we conclude that in this area Highways England has provided reasonable evidence for achievement of the KPI. ## Top-Down Assessment Of Performance Against The Ris1 4.32 The second area of supporting evidence is based on whether Highways England has delivered the requirements of RIS1 for its post-efficient funding. Highways England has presented evidence for delivering £1.349bn of efficiency using this source of evidence. 4.33 As Highways England has delivered most of the requirements in the performance specification and investment plan, our focus in this area of evidence has been on considering whether the company has spent within its capital funding settlement. 4.34 Throughout RP1, Highways England has forecast total capital spending in excess of its funding. As the following chart shows, this reduced considerably to £18m by the end of RP1. 4.35 A net overspend of £18m initially suggests underperformance of this value against the KPI, therefore demonstrating achievement of £1,194m (£1,212m - £18m) efficiency in RP1. However, as we reviewed this area of evidence with Highways England, it was clear that there were a number of factors which either aided or hindered the company's ability to deliver within its funding that had to be taken into consideration. These are discussed in more detail below: z Over-programming & major scheme scope reduction (deferral/cancellation) The funding provided for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the specified schemes. In common with practice adopted by the Highways Agency, more schemes were programmed than could be delivered for the funding. This was in the expectation of some scheme deferral, or stopping poor value for money schemes. The value of over-programming for RP1 was reported by the National Audit Office (NAO)14 in 2017 to be £652m. Our monitoring suggests that there has been £781m of costs removed due to schemes that have been deferred or stopped through formal change control. This exceeds the value of over-programming by £129m. This indicates that Highways England has been funded at a greater level than intended, for the portfolio of schemes that were delivered. z Inflation Highways England recognises that it has benefited from lower actual inflation than was forecast and built into RIS1 funding levels. Our initial assessment was that the benefit was in excess of £600m. Highways England then made a case for a number of adjustments, giving a benefit value of £275m. Following our challenge, Highways England then modified this to £358m. Our conclusion, having reviewed further evidence from the company and the findings of our consultant (Rebel Group), is that the inflation benefit value is £407m. z Scope change Highways England have argued that they have delivered additional scope beyond the level funded on a number of major improvement schemes. This included £109m for Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs (ROTTMS) to improve road worker safety on Smart Motorways and a further £125m attributable to external factors, including stakeholder conditions and client requirements. In total the company requested £342m of adjustments for taking into consideration. Our review found there was reasonable evidence for £291m of adjustments. z Unfunded business costs Highways England has made a strong case that it was not funded for some essential expenditure incurred during RP1. This included upgrades to IT systems for monitoring traffic flows and increasing process and system capacity for new portfolio, programme and customer service functions required with the scaling up of the business. This is supported by both the findings of the NAO review in 2017 and in our recognition of the future need for this expenditure as part of our review of Highways England's RIS2 draft Strategic Business Plan. We challenged the company's initial claim for £545m of unfunded business costs and found that there was reasonable evidence for £320m. 4.36 The scale of the adjustments made in this category of evidence are clearly significant and we have spent considerable time assessing their validity. We have also drawn on information from an external study by the NAO, ORR commissioned studies from Ankura and from Rebel Group looking specifically at this evidence. We have given weight to Highways England's relative immaturity as a company and the rapid development of RIS1, e.g. impacting the (then) Highways Agency's ability to predict future costs for the new company. 4.37 Our review of this area of evidence has identified circa £500m of underfunding or other mitigation claimed by the company which is not fully supported by the evidence provided, in our view. We have taken this into account and balanced underfunding which is supported by evidence against the 'windfall' inflation benefit and major scheme scope reduction in RIS1 (beyond the over-programming level). We conclude that Highways England has provided reasonable evidence of achievement of the KPI in this area. ## Conclusion: Balanced View Of Efficiency Evidence In Ris1 4.38 Highways England has demonstrated that it has achieved the efficiency KPI through bottomup evidence of efficiency initiatives and top-down evidence from movement in unit costs and delivery of the RIS1. 4.39 The quality of evidence across the three areas varies. The strongest area of evidence (on which Highways England's reported efficiency is based) comes from the bottom-up case-studies. Whilst there is some uncertainty in the supporting top-down evidence, our view is that the quality is sufficient to support the achievement of the KPI. ## 5. Priorities For Our Monitoring Of Ris2 5.1 Road Period 2 started in April 2020, and ORR will now monitor Highways England's performance against the new set of targets set out for RIS2. It is a more mature organisation than at the start of RP1, so more will be expected of it. However, we are also mindful that the new road period has begun in extraordinary circumstances, due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. 5.2 Our approach to monitoring Highways England during the pandemic is set out in more detail in a letter that we sent to the company, and shared with DfT. In summary, our approach will be pragmatic and flexible, and take account of the changing circumstances, while still holding Highways England to account for delivering efficiently and effectively. 5.3 Across RP1, we have worked with the company to identify a number of areas which we require Highways England to develop and improve, in order to provide us with better monitoring outputs. Highways England has produced several key documents that demonstrate its approach to delivering RIS2. 5.4 We scrutinised Highways England's plans for RIS2 through a robust process of detailed review, challenge workshops, written questions / responses and deep-dive sampling of the company's plans. We complemented this with a programme of benchmarking and by assessing the efficiency improvements the company might realise through increased capability in areas such as procurement, asset management and portfolio management. 5.5 Highways England's plans had good supporting evidence and represented a step-change in quality compared to plans produced for the first road period. This reflects the company's growing maturity, increasing safety and customer focus, and improving portfolio management capability. 5.6 On safety, our monitoring of Highways England's key performance indicator is likely to be affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Reduced levels of traffic at the end of RP1, and beginning of RP2, will make it difficult to evaluate trends for the number of people killed or seriously injured. It is therefore important that the company continues to focus on its longer term goal that, by 2040, nobody is harmed while travelling or working on the strategic road network. In RP2, we will also monitor Highways England's delivery of the actions set out in DfT's action plan to improve safety on smart motorways. 5.7 The company should also build on the progress it has already made to develop its customer service capability - for example, showing that it is acting on results from the new Strategic Road User Survey. 5.8 The RIS2 enhancement portfolio has a number of challenges including: the development and delivery of 46 projects; inclusive of three nationally important complex projects; and 32 schemes already in construction at the end of RP1. The projects being undertaken should be less affected by the issues faced in RP1 as a result of lessons learnt and Highways England's improved capability. Over the next five years, we expect an evenly distributed delivery profile and a much more stable portfolio with limited changes occurring, given the greater opportunity Highways England has had to develop and plan this work. Highways England should ensure that the enhancement programme is sustainable in delivery terms and that disruption to the traveling public is mitigated. ORR will closely monitor Highways England to ensure that it is doing everything it reasonably can to deliver in an efficient manner. 5.9 During RP1, volumes of planned asset renewals within Highways England's annual delivery plans did not indicate which assets were at the highest risk of failure and therefore where renewal need was greatest. Year-end reporting provided limited visibility of the relationship between those assets renewed and those assets included within plans. In RP2, we will be looking for improved assurance that assets renewed, at a regional level, were the right ones and therefore those included within the original plans. It is important that the pursuit of short-term performance goals are not disproportionately prioritised over maintaining the long-term condition of the asset base. 5.10 Towards the end of RP1, Highway England developed a statement for reporting inspections and maintenance activity. This includes reporting performance for fixing defects like potholes and for keeping the network clear of litter. The improved reporting has been enabled in-part by the company updating the risk-based approach to its regular safety inspections and assessment of defect priority. In RP2, we are keen to gain assurance that the approach to, and appreciation of, risk is consistent across the entire network. This will ensure that robust comparisons in performance between regions can be made. 5.11 Regarding efficiency performance, we have worked with Highways England and DfT to develop and agree a revised Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual. It reflects a new approach for reporting and monitoring against the efficiency KPI in RP2. This recognises both the growing maturity of Highways England and that the major enhancement portfolio contains schemes at a more advanced project lifecycle stage, when compared to the start of RP1. The approach places greater emphasis on top-down efficiency evidence, in contrast to RP1 where bottom-up evidence provided the primary evidence. 5.12 Early in RP2, we plan to set out how we will approach our role in the RIS3 planning process. The core aspects of our role are likely to stay the same. We will advise government on the levels of challenge, deliverability and efficiency in RIS3 plans; and monitor how Highways England meets its licence obligations that relate to setting a new RIS. We will also make sure that we learn the lessons from the RIS2 process and continue to evolve our approach to our role as appropriate. ## Annex A: Performance Against Outcome Areas Outcome: Making The Network Safer Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Achieve An Ongoing Reduction In Network Ksi (Killed Or Seriously Injured) To Support A 40%+ Decrease By The End Of 2020 Against The 2005-09 Average Baseline Rp1 Assessment: Final Data Not Yet Available Since 2018, the Department for Transport has published adjusted road safety statistics that take account of changes in how police forces record road casualty data. Highways England's performance against its key performance indicator is measured using this adjusted series. Further details relating to the adjusted casualty statistics can be found on the Department for Transport website15. At the time of publication, the latest available road casualty figures are for 2018. The Department for Transport expects to publish 2019 figures later in 2020; the casualty figures for 2020 are expected to be published in summer 2021. Figure A1 compares adjusted and unadjusted KSIs on the strategic road network up to 2018. The adjusted figures show that 2,152 people were killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network in 2018, which is 165 higher than the 1,987 reported in the unadjusted data. Reported KSIs for each year between 2005 and 2018 have increased as a result of the adjustment. The baseline period for the RIS1 target (2005 to 2009) is subject to larger increases than more recent years. This is because, as more police forces move to new systems for recording road casualty data, less adjustment to the series is required. The number of fatalities reported each year is unaffected by the adjustment. In 2018 there were 250 deaths on the strategic road network. This is 12% higher than in 2015 (the year Highways England was created), when there were 224 fatalities. Since 2010, the trend for fatalities occurring on the strategic road network has been broadly flat, which is in-line with the trend on all roads in Great Britain. ## Performance Indicators Safety Star Rating Safety star ratings for the strategic road network use road inspection data to provide an objective measure of the level of safety of a road, based on the systems used for the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). Highways England was set a target to achieve 90% of travel on roads given a 3-star rating, or above, by the end of 2020. It achieved this, with an estimated 95% of travel on roads rated at least 3-star in 2019. In RP2, Highways England will set a new baseline for the safety star rating of the network in 2020, using a new 5-star model. Work to set the baseline is due to complete by summer 2021. ## Casualty Number For All-Purpose Trunk Roads The Department for Transport's road casualty statistics are also used to monitor the total number of casualties, of all severity, on Highways England's A-road network (all-purpose trunk roads). Unlike KSIs, these figures are unaffected by revisions made to road casualty data by the Department for Transport. This is because the adjustment picks up changes in the relative proportion of minor and serious injuries over time. In 2018, there were 6,873 casualties on Highways England's all-purpose trunk roads. This is 18% less than recorded in 2015 (the year Highways England was created). ## Incident Number On Motorways In 2019-20, there were 64,408 incidents recorded on Highways England's motorway network. The number of incidents has increased each year of RP1, in 2019-20 there were 38% more than in 2015-16. ## Incidents On The Motorway Network, Rp1 The increase in incidents coincides with a 19% decrease in the number of casualties on the motorway network between 2015 and 2018 (shown in figure A3). The three most common contributory factors to casualties on the motorway network in 2018 were 'loss of control', 'failure to look properly', and 'failure to judge other person's path or speed'. This is consistent with the most common contributory factors on the all- purpose trunk road network. ## Accident Frequency Rates Highways England reports accident frequency rates for workers in its supply chain, as well as internal staff working in the operations directorate - which includes the traffic officer service. This is measured as the ratio of RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation) accidents per 100,000 hours worked. Both measures have shown significant improvement over RP1. At the end of 2019-20, the accident frequency rate for staff in the operations directorate was 0.02 (compared to 0.77 in 2015-16), and for the supply chain it was 0.07 (compared to 0.15 in 2015-16). This improvement follows significant focus from Highways England on delivering safety improvements for workers, which were set out in the company's 5-year health and safety action plan. ## Outcome: Improving User Satisfaction Key performance indicator: Highways England must achieve a score of 90% of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied by 31 March 2017 and then maintain or improve it RP1 assessment: Target missed Satisfaction improved in the last year of the road period, narrowly missing the 90% target Highways England's satisfaction scores are calculated from the National Road Users Satisfaction Survey (NRUSS), which is run by Transport Focus. The overall satisfaction measure was 89.2% in 2019-20, below the target of 90% but higher than the 88.4% recorded in 2018-19. ## Performance Indicators Overall Satisfaction With Motorways Was Lower Than For All-Purpose Trunk Roads Throughout Rp1 Satisfaction on motorways decreased by 0.8 percentage points when compared to the start of RP1, but increased by 0.5 percentage points to 88.3% when compared with 2018-19. Satisfaction with allpurpose trunk roads at the end of RP1 was 90.2%, this is 0.7 percentage points higher than the start of RP1 and 1.2 percentage points higher than 2018-19. Satisfaction with the journey elements in NRUSS: The NRUSS asks respondents about their satisfaction with five elements of their most recent trip on the strategic road network: journey times; roadworks management; general upkeep; signage; and safety. Highways England's focus on road user satisfaction with roadworks appears to have been effective in increasing satisfaction scores. Satisfaction with roadworks continued to improve into the last year of RP1, increasing by 10.4 percentage points to 75.5% when compared to 2015-16. In contrast, satisfaction with safety decreased by 2.9 percentage points to 89.5% in the same period. ## Satisfaction With Different Components Of The Journey In Rp1 Yorkshire & the North East, the North West and the Midlands had higher levels of satisfaction at the end of the road period, when compared to 2015-16. All other regions saw satisfaction levels decrease. Overall satisfaction in the Yorkshire & the North East region rose from 86.1% at the start of the road period to 92.6% in 2019-20, the highest score of all regions in 2019-20. The North West region consistently underperformed against other regions but ended the road period at 85.2%, 1.7 percentage points above its 2015-16 score of 83.5%. while scores declined in the South West and East regions. ## Outcome: Supporting The Smooth Flow Of Traffic Key performance indicator: Highways England must maximise lane availability so that it does not fall below 97% in any rolling year RP1 assessment: Target met Figure A9: Highways England achieved its target of maintaining lane availability above 97% throughout RP1. Lane availability in 2019-20, and for individual years in RP1 Network availability measures the percentage of road lanes that are available to traffic as a percentage of the total road lanes on the network. Performance is calculated over a rolling year. Highways England has consistently met its target of achieving at least 97% availability throughout RP1. In 2019-20, lane availability was 98.2%. ## Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Clear At Least 85% Of Incidents On Motorways Within One Hour Incident clearance in 2019-20, and for individual years in RP1 Highways England's RP1 incident clearance target was to clear at least 85% of motorway incidents within one hour. The company met this target throughout the road period, and in 2019-20 it cleared 89.1% of motorway incidents within one hour. ## Performance Indicators Traffic On The Strategic Road Network Traffic estimates for the strategic road network are produced by the Department for Transport. The latest available figures16 show that 94.7bn vehicle miles were travelled on the strategic road network in 2018. This is the highest volume recorded to date, and 5.6% more than in 2015, at the start of RP1. Traffic growth on the strategic road network has slowed to under 1% in recent years. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, it is possible that significant reductions in traffic will be recorded in 2020. This will have a relatively minor impact on RP1, and is expected to mainly affect the network during RP2. ## Planning Time Index The planning time index is designed to provide an indication of the additional time that road users should allow for their journey to arrive on time 19 times out of 20. It is calculated by taking the ratio of the 95th percentile journey time to the free flow journey time. In 2019-20, the planning time index was 1.66, which is the same as reported at the start of RP1. ## Acceptable Journeys Acceptable journeys are measured by the percentage of journeys that are above 75% of the free flow speed. In 2019-20, 82.6% of journeys were above this threshold. This is one percentage point lower than in 2015-16, when 83.6% of journeys were above 75% of the free flow speed. ## Average Speed In 2019-20, the average speed for all journeys on the strategic road network was 58.9mph. This is 0.4mph lower than in 2015-16, when it was 59.3mph. ## Outcome: Encouraging Economic Growth Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Report On Average Delay - Time Lost Per Vehicle Mile Highways England's contribution to supporting economic growth is measured by average delay on the strategic road network. At the end of RP1, average delay was 9.3 seconds per vehicle mile This has increased throughout the road period, up from 8.9 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16. This has coincided with increased traffic on the network and Highways England undertaking more improvement work as part of its investment programme. The small reduction in average delay between 2018-19 and 2019-20 is probably a result of lower levels of traffic in March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Average delay in the rolling year to February 2020 (before travel restrictions were introduced) was 9.5 seconds per vehicle mile. ## Performance Indicators Average Delay For Gateway Routes Gateway routes are a subset of the strategic road network, comprising key connections linking cities and industry with the busiest ports, airports, and rail freight services. Average delay on these routes at the end of RP1 was 8.6 seconds per vehicle mile. This measure has increased over the road period (from 8.1 seconds per vehicle mile in 2015-16), which is in-line with average delay on the full network. It also records a reduction in average delay between 2018-19 (9 seconds per vehicle mile) and 2019-20, which is probably a result of coronavirus pandemic related travel restrictions. ## Responding To Formal Planning Applications In 2019-20, Highways England responded to 99.9% of planning applications within 21 days. The company has consistently met this target throughout RP1. ## Spend On Small And Medium Sized Enterprises (Smes) Highways England is required to support the government target to achieve 25% spend through SMEs. In 2019-20, Highways England estimates that the proportion of its expenditure on goods and services from SMEs was 29.9%. ## Outcome: Delivering Better Environmental Outcomes Key performance indicator: Highways England must mitigate at least 1,150 noise important areas Highways England mitigated 1,174 noise important areas in RP1. This is 24 more than its target of 1,150. The majority of mitigations were delivered through Highways England's noise insulation programme, which offers to install double glazing to noise affected properties at no additional cost to the homeowner. ## Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Publish A Biodiversity Action Plan By 30 June 2015 And Report Annually On How It Has Delivered Against The Plan Rp1 Assessment: Target Met Highways England published its Biodiversity Action Plan in the first year of RP1, and has subsequently delivered the majority of commitments set out in the plan. Key achievements in the road period have included: z Met its commitment to deliver 40 management plans for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on its estate. z Increased the number of SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition. z Developed and trialled a new biodiversity metric which will be used to measure the company's performance in RP2. ## Performance Indicators Air Quality Pilot Studies Highways England completed 10 air quality studies in RP1, and published the conclusions from these studies on its website. ## Carbon Dioxide (Highways England'S Activities) Highways England reported emissions of 66,046 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents from the company's activities in 2019-20. This is a 31% reduction from 2015-16, the first year of RP1. ## Carbon Dioxide (Highways England'S Supply Chain) In 2019-20, Highways England reported 563,847 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by the company's supply chain. This is 38% higher than reported in 2015-16. The large increase is a result of Highways England collecting more complete emission data from its supply chain at the end of RP1 than it has done previously. ## Number Of Flooding Hotspots And Culverts Mitigated In RP1, Highways England mitigated 248 flooding hotspots, and 12 culverts considered to be at risk of flooding. ## Number Of Outfalls And Soakaways Mitigated In RP1, Highways England mitigated 30 outfalls that posed a risk to pollution of surface water. No soakaways were reported as mitigated during the road period. ## Outcome: Helping Cyclists, Walkers And Other Vulnerable Users Key performance indicator: Highways England must report on the number of new and upgraded crossings RP1 assessment: No target set Highways England has delivered 211 new, and 227 upgraded, crossings for walkers, cyclists and other vulnerable users in RP1. ## Performance Indicators Identification And Delivery Of The Annual Cycling Programme Highways England delivered 160 cycling schemes in RP1. This is 10 more than the 150 that the company originally committed to deliver in the road period. ## Vulnerable User Casualties The latest available road casualty data is for 2018. Figures for 2015 to 2018 are shown below. These show a reduction in the number of casualties across all categories of vulnerable user. | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |----------------|--------|--------|--------| | 849 | 864 | 760 | 785 | | Motorcyclists | | | | | Pedal cyclists | 153 | 152 | 137 | | 148 | | | | | Pedestrians | 158 | 154 | 153 | | Equestrians | 0 | | | | 0 | 0 | | | | 0 | | | | ## Outcome: Achieving Efficient Delivery Key Performance Indicator: Highways England Must Deliver Capital Expenditure Savings Of At Least £1.2Bn Over The First Road Period. Rp1 Assessment: Target Met In 2019-20 Highways England reported £600.1m of new achieved efficiencies, bringing the cumulative reported efficiency for Road Period 1 (RP1) to £1,448m. This value exceeds the KPI target of £1,212m by £236m. The £600.1m reported this year is also £111m (23%) ahead of the company's internal capital efficiency delivery milestone for 2019-20. Highways England's Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual (EIMM) sets out how efficiency is reported and monitored in RP1. There are three components to our assessment of Highways England's efficiency performance. These are: z Primary evidence from efficiency case-studies; z Supporting evidence from unit cost modelling; and z Supporting evidence from delivery of the RIS (for post-efficient funding). The evidence presented by the company in each of these areas supports achievement of the KPI. Detail about our full assessment of these three areas of evidence can be found in Chapter 4 of this report. ## Performance Indicators We monitor Highways England's performance in the construction phase of major improvement scheme delivery using two commonly used earned value measures: Cost performance index (CPI) - is a ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to date against actual cost to date. Schedule performance index (SPI) - measures the relationship between the actual progress of work to date and planned (or scheduled) progress. In 2018-19, Highways England reviewed how it collects CPI and SPI data. This work continued in 2019- 20 with the goal of reporting more robust earned value data, at a scheme level, for the end of the road period. However, the company reported that it had encountered difficulty in quality assuring the CPI and SPI data for all relevant schemes and was not able to report on all of the schemes in construction. This is an area of concern and we are working with Highways England to ensure that there is improvement in the quality and breadth of data reported on these indicators in RP2. The chart below shows reported aggregated CPI and SPI performance information for schemes in construction as at the end of 2015-16 to 2018-19. In these years, the reported values were close to 1 which indicated that on average projects were progressing close to target cost and schedule. The data reported to us at the end of 2019-20 for schemes in construction shows some significant variability, in particular for SPI, with schemes ranging from 0.69 and 2.23. We are engaging closely with Highways England to understand the reasons for the reported performance on these schemes, whether there will be impacts on users or funding, and what lessons can be learnt for the cost and schedule performance of future schemes. | Scheme | SPI | CPI | |---------------------------------|-------|-------| | 1.00 | 0.87 | | | A1 (M) Junctions 6-8 | | | | M1 Junctions 13-16 | 0.72 | 0.88 | | M3 Junctions 9-14 | 0.98 | 0.85 | | M6 Junctions 13-15 | 0.71 | 0.84 | | M20 Junctions 3-5 | 0.94 | 1.01 | | M23 Junctions 8-10 | 1 | 1.02 | | M27 Junctions 4-11 | 0.69 | 0.89 | | M62 Junctions 10-12 | 0.92 | 0.98 | | A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon | 0.97 | 1.01 | | M6 Junctions 2-4 | 0.98 | 1 | | A19 Norton to Wynyard | 0.73 | 0.85 | | A1 Scotswood to North Brunton | 2.12 | 1.18 | | 1.11 | | | | M621 Junctions 1-7 Improvements | 0.93 | | | 0.76 | 0.91 | | | A500 Etruria Valley | | | | 1.29 | | | | M6 Junction 10 improvement | 2.23 | | | 0.93 | | | | M40/M42 Interchange | 0.91 | | | M62 Junctions 20-25 | 1 | 1.06 | | A52 Nottingham Junctions | 1.36 | 0.99 | Highways England started work on 67 schemes, provided funds on two schemes for a third party to start work, and missed its commitment on four schemes. Additionally, there are two schemes, which have been deferred to RP2, that have their commitment status under review by government. It successfully opened for traffic 36 schemes and missed its commitment on one scheme. Figure 3.6 (section 3) summarises the delivery of the RIS1 major schemes portfolio. The map below illustrates progress of improvement works on the strategic road network in relation to Highways England's delivery plans. ## Outcome: Keeping The Network In Good Condition Key performance indicator: Highways England must maintain the pavement asset such that at least 95% of it does not require further investigation for possible maintenance RP1 assessment: Target met At the end of 2019-20, Highways England reported that 95.5% of its pavement (road surface) asset did not require further investigation for possible maintenance. This is above the target of 95% and is the same as the score recorded in 2018-19. Highways England has therefore returned the asset in a better condition than it started the road period with, as defined by the metric. ## Performance Indicators Structures assets: Highways England has continued to improve its structures inventory information, which is now 98.57% complete. This is an improvement of 0.27 percentage points from 2018-19. The score represents an improvement of 0.77 percentage points since 2015-16, the first year of the road period. The condition of Highways England's structures is measured by three performance indicators. The first two - the average condition of the stock (SCav), and the condition of the assets' most critical elements (SCcrit) - show a slight decrease in 2019-20, compared to 2018-19. However, both these scores have improved over the road period. The third indicator - the percentage of structures which have been inspected and rated as 'good' (SCI) - shows a slight improvement in 2019-20, compared to 2018-19, and across the road period. Geotechnical assets: Highways England reports that 97.3% of its geotechnical assets did not require (and are not recommended for) remedial interventions at the end of 2019-20. This is a slight improvement compared to the position reported at the end of 2018-19. The score represents an improvement of 0.7 percentage points since 2015-16, the first year of the road period. Drainage assets: Highways England reports that it has drainage inventory data for 90% of its network, which is a decrease of 1 percentage point from its 2018-19 position. The percentage of the network with drainage condition data is 36% in 2019-20, up from 33% in 2018-19. Both indicators have improved over the road period. Technology asset availability: The availability of operational technology assets is measured by the percentage of time lost by service affecting faults. During 2019-20, performance has been reported as above Highways England's targets for all three technology systems: control centre technology, national roads telecommunications services technology and roadside technology. All three indicators have remained broadly stable across the road period, and above Highways England's targets. | Asset | Performance Indicator | 2019-20 | |-----------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------| | Inventory | 98.57% | | | Condition (SCav) | 85.16 | | | Structures | | | | Condition (SCcrit) | 63.23 | | | SCI Rating of 'Good' | 80.49% | | | Condition | 97.3% | | | Geotechnical | | | | Inventory | 12,979 km | | | Inventory Coverage | 90.0% | | | Drainage | | | | Condition Coverage | 36.0% | | | Control Centre | 99.97% | | | National Roads | | | | Technology Availability | Telecommunication | 99.99% | | Services | | | | Roadside | 98.21% | | | Key: Relative position in 2015-16 | | | | | | | | increase | no change | decrease | ## Ris2 - A Well Maintained And Resilient Network During RP1, Highways England has developed new metrics for use in RP2 to satisfy the RIS2 outcome area: a well maintained and resilient network. The company has consulted with us during the development process and we have provided advice to DfT on their use in the next road period. Pavement: The metric for pavement will improve upon the RIS1 metric by capturing condition data for all lanes of the road, rather than just lane 1. It is also linked more closely to the company's maintenance requirements. Whilst this metric has been developed, it still requires a full data baseline against which a target can be set. Therefore, for the first two years of RP2, the RIS1 metric will be formally reported against, with the same target of 95%. We will monitor the dual running of the pavement metrics and provide advice to DfT on the establishment of a target for the new metric to be used from 2022-23. Structures: The indicators used in RP1 are well established metrics used by Highways England and local highway authorities across England. The company has developed a new metric to simplify existing indicators by providing a singular representation of asset condition. It was agreed that the existing indicators will be used during RP2, but that the new metric will be developed further. Geotechnical: Highways England have developed a new metric that provides a single indicator of good condition rather than the multiple indicators used in RP1. This new metric will be used from the start of RP2 as the measure for geotechnical assets. Drainage: In RP2, Highways England will report a new measure of resilience to carriageway flooding, rather than the measures of data coverage used in RP1. Technology: Highways England has improved its metric for measuring the availability and functionality of its roadside assets that it will report against during RP2. The company is required to develop an alternative indicator to further improve performance reporting, as recommended in ORR's in-depth review of technology assets. ## Annex B: Financial Performance Funding Highways England's funding for delivering the RIS1 outputs in RP1 was set in 2015 at £11,351m capital (specified in the RIS) and £5,310m resource (specified in Spending Review 2015). Over the course of RP1, the funding was subject to a number of approved changes which both increased and decreased its value. The final position as at March 2020 was agreed capital funding of £12,142m and resource funding of £5,513m. | Capital | |---------------------| | Major schemes 7,149 | | Renewals 3,637 | | PFI 2,116 | | Mainten- | | ance, | | 1,306 | | Ring-fenced | | funds 675 | | Other capital | | 682 | | Support | | 730 | | Traffic | | Mgt | | 640 | | Operat- | | ions | | 430 | | Protocols | | 292 | The most significant change to capital funding was the additional funding for the Lorry Park in Kent of £234m in 2016-17. Subsequently this was reduced by £170m in 2018-19 when the scheme was cancelled, before the start of construction. Other notable changes related to additional funding for the completion of some pre-RIS1 schemes, early start of construction works on the M62 junctions scheme and accelerating works on other schemes due to start construction in RP2. Most recently, in 2019-20, the funding was increased by £35m to cover increased costs related to unrecoverable VAT and updates to IFRS16, treatment of leases17. Resource funding increased by £203m over RIS1. The most significant changes were an increase of £70m in 2016-17 for the Severn River Crossing and more recently, in 2019-20, there was £108m of additional funding provided to cover increased costs related to unrecoverable VAT (£84m), Operation Brock (£21m) and HMRC (£3m). RIS1 required Highways England to manage the construction of a significantly larger number of major improvement schemes as RP1 progressed. This was reflected in the profile of its capital funding, which was 70% higher in 2019-20 than it was in 2015-16. However as Highways England grew from being a £3bn to £4.5bn business, its resource funding did not increase in-line with capital and actually reduced as a proportion of its total funding from 36% in 2015-16 to 27% in 2019-20. Figure B4: In RP1 capital funding grew with major scheme delivery but resource funding remained broadly constant ## Resource And Capital Funding By Year In Rp1 (£M) Overprogramming & Scope Change Highways England's capital funding for RIS1 was not enough to deliver all of the improvement schemes specified. As was common practice in (Highways England's predecessor) the Highways Agency, the capital portfolio was 'overprogrammed' in the expectation of some scheme deferral or low value for money schemes being cancelled. The value of overprogramming at the start of RP1 was estimated to be £652m. During RP1, DfT approved changes to the outputs of the RIS1 with some schemes being cancelled, deferred or changed in scope. The value of the change within RP1 has exceeded the anticipated level of overprogramming by £129m. This means that there were fewer schemes being delivered in the road period than intended, given the funding provided. However, there is evidence that additional scope was delivered on some schemes of up to £291m. Other schemes delivered less scope but there is less certainty about this value. The impact of these factors and others affecting delivery within capital funding (e.g. underfunding of business costs and windfall inflation) are discussed in chapter 4 as part of our efficiency evidence assessment. ## Capital Expenditure In the first road period, Highways England spent £12,160m of capital expenditure delivering the outputs within the RIS, as amended through change control and agreed by DfT. This marginally exceeded the company's funding of £12,142m by £18m (0.1%). However, during RP1 Highways England had been managing a significant funding pressure as the forecast cost of the RIS1 major improvement scheme portfolio increased above the original baseline estimate. At the end of RP1, the forecast total costs for the RIS1 portfolio of schemes across RP1 and future road periods, was £1.7bn higher than baseline. This was caused mainly by immature schemes estimates when the original baseline was set. A revised baseline and funding package for RP2 has now been agreed. At the outset of the road period, the programme carried a RP1 pressure of £652m, reflecting the overprogramming within the investment plan. During the first year, the company began to develop clearer forecasts for major improvement schemes (many of which were immature in their scope/design when RIS1 was created) and the pressure grew to £1.8bn. Since this point, the gap has reduced through; 1. the delivery of efficiency, or other capital savings, not identified or reflected in the early scheme forecasts, 2. change control reducing RIS1 major outputs to the level of expected overprogramming and beyond, and 3. in later years asset renewals, and designated ring-fenced funds underspending their funding allocation. During the road period, overall funding has increased. However, this was matched by additional outputs, suggesting that this has not contributed to a reduction in the funding gap. Figure B6 shows the cumulative capital underspends and overspends across RP1. It compares the baseline funding against actual spend. At the end of RP1, there were underspends against funding in ring-fenced funds, asset renewals and major improvement schemes. These underspends were largely offset by an overspend on other capital business costs (discussed below). ## Major Schemes Highways England spent £7,060m on major improvement schemes in RP1, compared to its funding of £7,149m. The company has been able to spend within its major improvement schemes total baseline funding for RP1. This is notable because the forecast funding pressure, illustrated in figure B5 and discussed above, arose mainly within the major improvement schemes and 'other capital' expenditure categories. Within the major improvement schemes expenditure category, the pressure has been mainly mitigated through underspends on other schemes, or change control reducing the size of the RIS1 portfolio. Analysis of schemes with the largest underspend variances indicates that they were mainly due to either DfT agreed change control deferring milestone delivery commitments or rescheduling and resequencing works to RP2, but within existing milestone commitments. We commissioned consultants to review the reasons for the largest cost increases on major improvement schemes. They analysed the variances on a sample of schemes that had the largest overspends and concluded that immaturity in the assumptions on which scheme estimates were calculated was the largest driver of scope change and cost variance. They found that there was a lower risk of recurrence for RIS2 schemes, due to a greater level of development maturity. We have further analysed cost variances on schemes of different types and sizes to see whether this factor has affected the portfolio equally, or if particular programmes or scheme sizes are impacted differently. Figure B7 shows the major improvement schemes that Highways England was required to have started construction on during RP1 and the variance against its RIS1 baseline, categorised by tier18 (project size based on total baseline funding). Analysis in these sections is based on the funding and spending related only to RP1. Work on many schemes will span road periods, so the total cost/funding for a scheme will differ to that relating purely to RP1. In general, other than an overspend of £60m (5%) to RP1 funding on a Tier 1 scheme (the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon), the largest overspends are against Tier 3 schemes (£50m-£200m). On these schemes, the average variance was a £9m overspend and half of them had an overspend greater than 10%. Whilst there are also some large overspends against Tier 2 schemes, these are relatively small in percentage terms when compared to the schemes' larger baselines. This suggests that schemes of relatively smaller size created the cost pressure in RIS1. This may be due to their quantity within the portfolio or indicate that there is stronger financial control and more mature baseline assumptions on the larger, more high profile, Tier 1 and 2 schemes. We will look further into this during RP2. Figure B8 shows the major improvement schemes that Highways England was required to have started construction during RP1 categorised by programme type. This shows that the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) contributed many of the largest major scheme overspends to RP1 funding, with eight schemes overspending by more than £20m (average SMP RIS baseline £109.5m) and 10 overspending by more than 10%. There were also several large overspends on the Regional Investment Programme (RIP) schemes in the portfolio. Whilst on average the variances were smaller the RIP schemes were generally smaller projects generating some larger percentage variances. (Under)/overspends against baseline by programme type (£m) Figure B9 shows the RIS1 underspends and overspends against baseline for the schemes that were open for traffic (completed) as at March 2020. Most of the schemes that opened during RP1 spent more than their RIS1 funding. Of the 17 Regional Investment Programme schemes that opened in RP1, 10 overspent their RIS1 funding and of the 11 SMP schemes that opened, 10 were overspent. Figure B9: The majority of schemes opening in RP1 overspent their RIS funding, in particular smart motorways Over/(Under)spends to RIS funding on schemes opening during RP1 (£m) ## Renewals Highways England Spent £3,494M Renewing Assets In Rp1, Compared To Its Funding Of £3,637 M. In the final three years of RP1, Highways England allocated a lower budget than its baseline funding to asset renewals. The purpose of this was to share the burden of the funding pressure faced by major projects in the early years of RP1. Asset renewals contributed c£131m of its funding to help meet this pressure. Overall for RP1, spending on asset renewals was within 0.3% of budget and was 3.9% less than funding. Figure B10 shows the profile of asset renewals expenditure from 2013-14 to 2019-20. This illustrates how the profile has changed prior to the creation of Highways England and the start of RP1 in April 2015, through to the end of the first road period. In previous years of RP1, we raised concerns around the disproportionate delivery of asset renewals in Q4 due to the potential inefficiency caused by higher costs in winter weather conditions. We can see that in the final two years of RP1 this profile has flattened, suggesting improved planning and control. ## Ring-Fenced Funds Highways England spent £652m on ring-fenced funds in RP1, compared to funding of £675m. The company underspent its Air Quality ring-fenced fund by £36m and overspent or spent in-line with budget on other funds. This is discussed further in Chapter 3. ## Other Capital Highways England spent £954m on other capital expenditure, compared to baseline funding of £682m (a 40% overspend). The apparent growth of this cost pressure in the final two years of the road period was caused by several different factors. This category includes c£600m of costs of developing capacity to deliver the significantly larger capital programme, in particular major improvement schemes. There was no assigned funding for this within the RIS1 package and it was a leading cause of the cost pressure in RP1. This was identified by the company early in the road period, but the impact was mostly felt during later years as the business grew. Similarly, Highways England capitalised more of its staffing cost because the company employed more people than originally anticipated to meet the demanding major improvement scheme delivery profile in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The company was experiencing cost pressure to a lesser extent in earlier years but this was in part masked by additional funding being provided by DfT for the M20 Lorry Park in 2016-17 before its cancellation and funding being returned in 2018-19. Other capital also included additional funding for small scale congestion relief schemes. An underspend of £27m on this item, due to delays in delivery, were more than offset by other pressures arising on the budget. ## Resource Expenditure During RP1, Highways England spent £5,579m of resource expenditure delivering the outputs within the RIS1. This exceeded the company's funding of £5,513m by £66m (1.2%) and was agreed by DfT. Figure B11 shows the cumulative resource underspends and overspends across RP1. It compares the baseline funding against actual spend. At the end of RP1, there were overspends against funding in maintenance, support and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts. These overspends were offset by underspends against operations, traffic management and protocols. ## Private Finance Initiative (Pfi) Highways England spent £2,136m on its PFI contracts, £20m (1%) more than its funding of £2,116m. This was due to higher costs at close of contracts than anticipated, offset by lower indexation and traffic volumes than assumed and a refinancing of the M25 contract during 2018-19. ## Maintenance Highways England spent £1,396m on maintenance, £90m (7%) more than the funding of £1,306m. The funding for maintenance during RP1 assumed that costs would reduce during the road period. The company has changed its procurement and contracting approach over to Asset Delivery during RP1. This has cost more than the funding assumption set for maintenance. However, Highways England report it is delivering more efficiently for the same funding as the previous type of Asset Support contracts. Furthermore, they believe that had the Asset Support contracts been renewed, market conditions meant that costs would have exceeded those incurred on Asset Delivery. ## Operations Highways England spent £405m on operations, £25m (6%) less than the funding of £430m. However, we understand this mainly relates to a categorisation error whereby the contractor spend on IT and operations projects was budgeted for in this category, but the expenditure is categorised as support costs. ## Traffic Management Highways England spent £602m on traffic management, £38m (6%) less than its funding. During most of RP1, the company set a budget that was lower than its funding of £640m by c£30m and spent in-line with its budget. ## Support Highways England spent £799m on support, £69m (9%) more than the funding of £730m. As described above, expenditure on contractor IT and operations projects is categorised here but the budget resides in operations and traffic management. Additionally, this pressure likely reflects the additional costs of supporting a company growing in size to manage delivery of the larger capital programme. ## Protocols Highways England spent £240m on protocols, £52m (18%) less than the funding of £292m. This is partially due to costs being allocated to other expenditure categories in 2015-16. In recent years, the variance has grown due to lower than anticipated costs on the contracts for the Severn Crossing tolling and Dartford-Thurrock crossing. ## Annex C: Network Investment Delivery This annex describes Highways England's performance against its investment plan during RP1. The RIS1 set the outcomes, outputs and capital investments that Highways England had to deliver over the first road period. The Investment Plan, part of the RIS, outlined a five-year capital funding package of £12.1 billion for Highways England to invest in maintaining, renewing and improving the strategic road network. This included: 1. a programme of major improvement schemes, of more than £7.1bn; 2. a maintenance and renewals programme, of approximately £3.6bn; 3. a £675m programme of ring-fenced investment funds; and 4. £680m of other capital investment including congestion relief schemes. We measure and report on Highways England's performance against the network investment required by the investment plan. ## Development And Delivery Of Major Scheme Programme In Rp1 At the start of RIS1, Highways England was committed to start the construction of 112 schemes. Since the start of RP1, Highways England has improved its scheduling of major improvement schemes, with particular focus on their scope, value for money and impact on road user experience. Highways England made changes to optimise its improvement plan, by considering the best way of scheduling major schemes which impact on the same routes or geographical locations (road corridors) to reduce customer disruption. During the RP1, Highways England continued to assess how it delivers its capital plan during the remainder of the road period. As a result, some major improvement schemes are now programmed for delivery in future road periods, while other schemes have been brought forward within RP1. Further changes were introduced for other reasons. The company substantially agreed the changes to its RIS1 commitments and delivery plan with government and has taken these through the Department for Transport's formal change control process. There are two schemes (M2 Junction 5 improvements and the A303 Sparkford - IIchester dualling) that have been deferred to RP2, but the company is yet to agree whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change with the Department for Transport. Highways England's progress in developing its capital programme during RP1 is shown in figure C1. Changes to the major improvements programme during RP1 Schedule impact Number of schemes RIS1 scheme number - name #45 - A1 & A19 Technology enhancements #48 - M62/M606 Chain Bar #53 - M53 Junctions 5-11 #54 - M56 new Junction 11A 8 Schemes paused that do not currently demonstrate value for money #67 - M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - technology upgrade #69 - A12 whole-route technology upgrade #87 - M5 Bridgwater Junctions #89 - A14 Junction 10a #37- A27 Chichester Improvement 2 #96 - A628 Climbing Lane Stopped due to lack of stakeholder support, to avoid adverse environmental impacts or to align with local authority plans #34 - M60 Junctions 24-27 & J1-4 2 #52 - M6 Junction 22 upgrade Schemes moved to RIS3 Pipeline to enable formal options development and avoid the risk of progressing the wrong proposal. #33 - M6 Junctions 21A-26 #59 - A5 Dodwells to Longshoot widening #68 - A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening- #74 M25 Junction 25 improvement 15 Start of works deferred from RP1 to RP2 to minimise road user disruption #75 - M25 Junction 28 improvement #78 - M25 Junctions 10-16 #79 - M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange #80 - M3 Junction 9 improvement Shedule imapct Number of Schemes RIS1 scheme number - name #85 - A31 Ringwood #95 - A1 Birtley to Coal House widening #100 - A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Start of works deferred #101 - A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling from RP1 to RP2 to minimise road user disruption (cont) #104 - A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction #105 - A47 Guyhirn Junction #106 - A47 Wansford to Sutton #36 - M54 to M6/M6 Toll link road #38 - A38 Derby Junctions #43 - A19 Down Hill Lane junction improvement #51 - A5036 Princess Way - Access to Port of Liverpool Start of works deferred from RP1 to RP2 due to #66 - A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet 10 #83 - M27 Southampton Junctions other factors, for example an outcome of public consultations and schemes' options appraisals #103 - A47 & A12 junction enhancements #108 - A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements #109 - A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down #111 - A358 Taunton to Southfields #77 - M2 Junction 5 improvements 2 #110 - A303 Sparkford - Ilchester dualling Start of work has been deferred from RP1 to RP2, schemes have been submitted to the Department for Transport's formal change control process, on which final decisions will be made following the completion of the statutory planning processes The company has progressed RIS1 schemes through its Project Control Framework (PCF) governance process. Figure C2 illustrates the number of schemes progressed through the PCF process. Number of schemes that progressed through project control framework process during RP1 The revised plans mean that, of the 112 major schemes originally planned to start works in RP1, Highways England committed to start work on 73 schemes by March 2020. The 73 schemes were progressed as follows: I. two schemes are to be delivered by third parties: z M11 junction 7a - junction upgrade (commitment met by Highways England with agreement to transfer funds to Essex County Council) the start of work is dependent on a third party; and z A5 Towcester Relief road - we consider that Highways England has met its obligation and the start of work is dependent on a third party. II. four schemes missed their commitment: z A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling - due to the delay to the development consent order submission; z Mottram Moor link road - delay to delivery arising from air quality issues compounded by supplier poor performance; z A57 (T) to A57 link road - delay to delivery arising from air quality issues compounded by supplier poor performance; and z A27 Arundel Bypass - to complete a further non-statutory consultation, prepare a revised preferred route announcement - ensuring the scheme delivers against the outcomes stated in the RIS and the strategic outline business case. III. 67 schemes have successfully started construction by the company: z 16 schemes started prior to RP1; and z 51 schemes started during RP1. There are two additional schemes which have been deferred to RP2 (M2 J5 improvements and the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester dualling), but the company is yet to agree whether it is a missed commitment or an approved change with the Department for Transport. If either status changes, then these numbers will be affected. Highways England also started work on the A27 East of Lewes, on 24 March 2020. This is in addition to the 112 major improvement schemes listed in RIS1 and in the company's 2019/20 delivery plan. Figure C3 summaries the progress made on RIS1 schemes. ## Major Scheme Delivery Status For Rp1 | Progress | No. | |------------------------|-------| | Status | | | Phase | | | Original delivery plan | | | commitments (2015-20) | | | Started | 67 | | To be delivered | | | by 3 | | | rd | | | party | 2 | | Missed | | | commitments | | | 4 | | | 4 schemes missed RIS1 | | | - | | | commitments | | | 112 | | | - | | | 37 approved changes | | | Start | | | of | | | works | | | Removed from | | | RIS1 portfolio | | | Opened | | | 37 | | | Open | | | for | | | traffic | | | Missed | | | commitment | | Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule Milestone on schedule or ahead of schedule Milestone changed 16 started construction - prior to RP1 51 started in the five - years of RP1 2 HE provided funds - for 3rd party to deliver schemes - 8 low VfM schemes - paused - 2 schemes stopped 39 - 2 moved to RIS3 pipeline - 25 deferred from RP1 to RP2 - 2 deferred from RP1 to RP2 - status to be confirmed by DfT - 36 36 opened for traffic in the five years of the road period 1 - 1 scheme missed its RIS1 commitment ## At The End Of Rp1: z the company had opened for traffic 36 schemes adding extra capacity to the SRN of 343 lane miles. (This does not include the partially completed M1 Junction 13-19 scheme, which added capacity of 29 lane miles, because the scheme was not officially OFT by the end of RP1); and z there were 31 schemes in construction on the SRN (excluding the A27 East of Lewes). The map below illustrates schemes that were OFT or in construction. The map below illustrates RIS1 schemes' status at the end of RP1. Figure C4 illustrates the status of RIS1 major schemes in terms of: start of work, open for traffic, additional lane miles delivered and status at the end of RP1. | Scheme name | Start of Work | |------------------------|--------------------------| | Scheme | | | ref on | | | map | | | 1 | A556 Knutsford to Bowdon | | 2 | | | A1 Coal House to Metro | | | Centre | | | Pre-RIS 1 | 2016-17 Q1 | | 3 | A1 Leeming to Barton | | 4 | M1 Junctions 28-31 | | 5 | A453 Widening | | 6 | | | Pre-RIS 1 | | | A14 Kettering bypass | | | widening | | | 7 | Pre-RIS 1 | | M1 Junction 19 | | | improvement | | | 8 | Pre-RIS 1 | | A45-A46 Tollbar End | | | 9 | A5-M1 Link Road | | 10 | M25 Junction 30 | | 11 | M6 Junctions 10a-13 | | Pre-RIS 1 | 2017-18 Q2 | | A30 Temple to Higher | | | Carblake | | | 13 | M1 Junctions 32-35A | | 14 | M1 Junctions 39-42 | | 15 | | | M60 Junction 8 to M62 | | | Junction 20 | | | Pre-RIS 1 | 2018-19 Q2 | | 16 | M3 Junctions 2-4A | | 17 | A160/A180 Immingham | | 18 | A21 Tonbridge to Pembury | | 19 | M1 Junctions 13-19 | Open for Traffic Scheme status Lane miles delivered 2016-17 Q4 0 OFT 2015-16 Q2 14 OFT 2015-16 Q1 6 OFT 2016-17 Q3 0 OFT 2016-17 Q3 4 OFT 2017-18 Q2 5 OFT Not fully OFT 29 In construction | Scheme name | Start of Work | Open for Traffic | |----------------------------|---------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | | ref on | | | | map | | | | 20 | M5 Junctions 4A-6 | 2015-16 Q3 | | 21 | M6 Junctions 16-19 | 2015-16 Q3 | | 22 | | | | A14 Cambridge to | | | | Huntingdon | | | | 2016-17 Q3 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 23 | M20 Junction 10a | 2017-18 Q4 | | 24 | A19 Coast Road | √ 2016-17 Q1 | | 25 | M4 Junctions 3-12 | 2016-17 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 26 | A63 Castle Street | 2019-20 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 27 | M1 Junctions 24-25 | 2016-17 Q4 | | 28 | M6 Junctions 2-4 | 2017-18 Q4 | | 29 | M6 Junctions 13-15 | 2017-18 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 30 | M20 Junctions 3-5 | 2017-18 Q4 | | 31 | M23 Junctions 8-10 | 2017-18 Q4 | | 32 | M27 Junctions 4-11 | √ 2018-19 Q1 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 33 | M6 Junctions 21A-26 | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disrupton | | | | 34 | | | | M60 Junctions 24-27 & J1-4 | | | | Scheme is | | | | moved into RIS3 | | | | pipeline | | | | 35 | A19 Testos | 2018-19 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | Scheme status Lane miles delivered | Scheme name | Start of Work | Open for Traffic | |------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | | ref on | | | | map | | | | 36 | | | | M54 to M6/M6 Toll link | | | | road | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 37 | | | | A27 Chichester | | | | Improvement | | | | Stopped Other | | | | factors | | | | 38 | A38 Derby Junctions | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 39 | | | | A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet | | | | junctions | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 40 | M62 Junctions 10-12 | 2017-18 Q4 | | 41 | M56 Junctions 6-8 | 2019-20 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 42 | M3 Junctions 9-14 | 2019-20 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 43 | | | | A19 Down Hill Lane | | | | junction improvement | | | | 44 | A19 Norton to Wynyard | 2019-20 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 45 | | | | A1 & A19 Technology | | | | enhancements | | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low V M | | | | 46 | | | | M1 Junction 45 | | | | Improvement | | | | √ 2016-17 Q4 | 2017-18 Q4 | 0 | | 47 | | | | M621 Junctions 1-7 | | | | improvements | | | | 2019-20 Q3 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 48 | M62/M606 Chain Bar | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low V M | | | | 49 | M62 Junctions 20-25 | √ 2019-20 Q2 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 50 | | | | A585 Windy Harbour | | | | - Skippool | | | Scheme status Lane miles delivered Judicial/ Statutory process Further work required Further work required | Scheme name | Start of Work | Open for Traffic | |-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | | ref on | | | | map | | | | 51 | | | | A5036 Princess Way - | | | | Access to Port of Liverpool | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 52 | M6 Junction 22 upgrade | | | Scheme is | | | | moved into RIS3 | | | | pipeline | | | | 53 | M53 Junctions 5-11 | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 54 | M56 new Junction 11A | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 55 | | | | M6 Junction 19 | | | | Improvements | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 56 | A500 Etruria widening | 2018-19 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 57 | M1 Junctions 23A-24 | √ 2016-17 Q4 | | 58 | | | | M6 Junction 10 | | | | improvement | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 59 | | | | A5 Dodwells to Longshoot | | | | widening | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 60 | M42 Junction 6 | 2019-20 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 61 | | | | A46 Coventry junction | | | | upgrades | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 62 | | | | M40/M42 interchange | | | | Smart Motorways | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 63 | | | | A45/A6 Chowns Mill | | | | junction improvement | | | | √ 2019-20 Q3 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 64 | | | | M5 Junctions 5, 6 & 7 | | | | junction upgrades | | | | √ 2015-16 Q2 | 2018-19 Q4 | 0 | Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required | Scheme name | Start of Work | Open for Traffic | |---------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | | ref on | | | | map | | | | 65 | A43 Abthorpe Junction | √ 2015-16 Q4 | | 66 | | | | A428 Black Cat to Caxton | | | | Gibbet | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 67 | | | | M11 Junctions 8 to 14 - | | | | technology upgrade | | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 68 | | | | A12 Chelmsford to A120 | | | | widening | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 69 | | | | A12 whole-route | | | | technology upgrade | | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 70 | | | | A1(M) Junctions 6-8 Smart | | | | Motorway | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 71 | | | | M11 Junction 7 junction | | | | upgrade | | | | Commitment | | | | met by HE - | | | | transfer funds | | | | to third party | | | | (Essex CC) | | | | 72 | A34 Oxford Junctions | 2019-20 Q2 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 73 | | | | A34 Technology | | | | enhancements | | | | 2019-20 Q2 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 74 | | | | M25 Junction 25 | | | | improvement | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 75 | | | | M25 Junction 28 | | | | improvement | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 76 | | | | M4 Heathrow slip road | | | | 2017-18 Q2 | 2017-18 Q4 | 0 | | 77 | | | | M2 Junction 5 | | | | improvements | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required Developer to start construction Statutory process | Scheme name | Start of Work | Open for Traffic | |---------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | | ref on | | | | map | | | | 78 | M25 Junctions 10-16 | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 79 | | | | M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley | | | | interchange | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 80 | | | | M3 Junction 9 | | | | improvement | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 81 | | | | M3 Junction 10-11 | | | | improved sliproads | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | 82 | | | | M3 Junctions 12-14 | | | | improved sliproads | | | | 2019-20 Q4 | | | | In | | | | construction | | | | Deferred | | | | external factors | | | | 83 | | | | M27 Southampton | | | | Junctions | | | | 84 | | | | M271 / A35 Redbridge | | | | roundabout upgrade | | | | 2019-20 Q1 | | | | Missed | | | | commitment | | | | 85 | | | | A31 Ringwood | | | | Deferred | | | | minimise | | | | disruption | | | | 86 | M49 Avonmouth Junction | √ 2017-18 Q3 | | 87 | M5 Bridgewater Junctions | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 88 | A52 Nottingham junctions | √ 2016-17 Q4 | | In | | | | construction | | | | 89 | A14 Junction 10a | | | Paused-stopped | | | | Low VM | | | | 90 | A5 Towcester Relief Road | | | Scheme will be | | | | delivered by | | | | a third party | | | | (developer) | | | Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required In construction Developer to start construction Scheme name Start of Work Scheme ref on map 91 2019-20 Q4 A30 Chiverton to Carland Cross 92 A1 North of Ellingham (re-scoped) √ 2018-19 Q3 2019-20 Q4 0 OFT 93 A1 Morpeth to Ellingham dualling Missed commitment 94 A1 Scotswood to North Brunton 2019-20 Q4 In construction 95 A1 Birtley to Coal House widening Deferred minimise disruption 96 A628 Climbing Lanes Stopped Other factors 97 A61 Dualling 2019-20 Q4 In construction 98 Mottram Moor link road Missed commitment 99 A57(T) to A57 Link Road Missed commitment 100 A47 North Tuddenham to Easton Deferred minimise disruption 101 A47 Blofield to North Burlingham dualling Deferred minimise disruption 102 A47 Acle Straight √ 2016-17 Q4 103 Deferred external factors A47 & A12 junction enhancements 104 A47/A11 Thickthom Junction Deferred minimise disruption Open for Traffic Scheme status Lane miles delivered In construction 2017-18 Q4 0 OFT Further work required | Scheme name | Start of Work | |---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------| | Scheme | | | ref on | | | map | | | 105 | | | A47 Guyhirn Junction | | | Deferred | | | minimise | | | disruption | | | 106 | | | A47 Wansford to Sutton | | | Deferred | | | minimise | | | disruption | | | 107 | A27 Arundel Bypass | | Missed | | | commitment | | | 108 | | | A27 Worthing and Lancing | | | improvements | | | Deferred | | | external factors | | | Deferred | | | external factors | | | 109 | | | A303 Amesbury to Berwick | | | Down | | | 110 | | | A303 Sparkford - Ilchester | | | dualling | | | Deferred | | | external factors | | | 111 | | | A358 Taunton to | | | Southfields | | | Deferred | | | external factors | | | 112 | A50 Uttoxeter | | 2015-16 | | | (delivered by | | | third party) | | | Scheme meet commitment | | | Scheme missed its delivery date, but delivered with RP1 | | | Scheme deferred to RP2 | | | Scheme deferred to RP2 commitment status undecided yet | | | Scheme is moved into RIS3 pipeline | | | Scheme paused/stopped | | | Scheme missed commitment | | | √ | | | Delivered ahead of schedule | | Scheme status Lane miles delivered Further work required Further work required Statutory process Judical/ Statutory process √ 2018-19 Q3 0 OFT ## Maintenance And Renewals Highways England's increased maturity in asset management during RP1 has underpinned its improved planning of renewals, as well as its reporting of renewals and maintenance activity. ## Maintenance And Inspections Highways England's reporting of maintenance performance was limited in the first few years of RP1. This prompted our concern that Highways England was not demonstrating the extent to which it was managing a safe and serviceable network. However, the company has responded well to our challenge to develop a reporting statement over the last two years of the road period. Development of the statement first produced in 2018-19 during 2019-20, has demonstrated that Highways England has an improved understanding of the condition of the network and the need for maintenance across the SRN. The updated maintenance statement, published by Highways England within its annual performance monitoring statements, now provides a measure of performance for inspecting and maintaining its network. It includes information relating to defects resolution, litter clearance, cyclical and reactive maintenance performance and planned asset inspections. We look forward to the dataset being used consistently during RP2, such that a baseline of performance can be established and monitored. As with improvements to the reporting of asset renewals information, the developed reporting has been enabled by Highways England's maturing approach to asset management. This has been supported by internal improvement programmes, such as Operational Excellence, along with a new way of working that the company has almost completed its transition to, known as Asset Delivery. As such, the maintenance reporting statements do not yet provide a complete picture for regions that have not fully transitioned to Asset Delivery. For example, 24 hour defect resolution is not reported in the South East, or in the East, regions. We consider the reporting of the scale of need for highway maintenance, for example inspection performance and numbers of potholes, as important as Highways England's performance at fixing defects. This is because the data provides an understanding of condition and state of the network not provided by formal metrics. They therefore improve the line-of-sight between asset condition and asset renewal activity by highlighting areas of longer-term need and indicating whether the network is safe for use. If Highways England can show that it is making regular effective maintenance interventions, for example cleaning drainage runs, then it provides assurance that the asset will achieve its design life. This in turn will show whether the value and condition of its assets is maintained and renewal is therefore not premature. The maintenance reporting statements also provide an indication of Highways England's performance against its statutory obligations. Red claims are processed where a loss has occurred to a user as a result of the company not meeting its requirements to maintain the highway. The maintenance reporting statement provides a measure of current claims. During 2018-19, we raised our concern at the significant number of overdue detailed inspections of Highways England structures assets. By the end 2018-19 the company had reduced the number down from approximately 3500 to 21 and we have continued to monitor this closely during 2019-20. At the end of the road period one inspection remained outstanding, which was subsequently completed in June 2020. Many of those with the longest overdue dates were assets where access to railway infrastructure is required. We are currently engaging with Highways England and Network Rail, to explore improvements to access arrangements. In addition to inspections of structures assets, we raised our concern at overdue inspections for geotechnical assets, vehicle restraint systems, tunnels and lighting during the road period. In response Highways England has improved its presentation of inspection progress such that performance and any backlogs can be monitored. This data has been included within Highways England's published annual performance monitoring statements in 2019-20. ## Asset Management During RP1, we completed in-depth reviews of Highways England's asset management approach to its main asset types: pavement and structures; geotechnical and drainage; and technology. We also completed a review of Highways England's ability to improve efficiency from its asset management capability. The studies sought to understand whether the company manages its assets safely, robustly, sustainably and efficiently. They broadly recognised that Highways England is a competent asset manager, applying many examples of good practice across its asset base, and that it is maturing in its asset management approach. The studies also identified a range of recommendations that might support its maturity journey. During 2019-20, we sought to understand how Highways England is engaging with recommendations made within the studies, and more generally pursuing increased maturity. Highways England has responded positively to our findings and is applying aspects of the various recommendations in the management of its assets. ## Renewals In 2019-20, Highways England met its planned renewals volumes against all asset types. Over the whole road period, the company delivered more renewals volumes than planned across the majority of asset types. Only two asset types, bridge bearings and network resilience schemes, saw marginal underdelivery. This is shown in the table in figure C5 below and graphically in figure C6. | 2019-20 | Road Period 1 | |-------------------------------|-----------------| | 2019-20 Commitments | | | Planned | | | Output | | | Actual | | | Output | | | Output | | | Variance | | | Planned | Actual | | Output | Output | | Output | | | Variance | | | Pavement | | | Renewal of roads (lane | | | - pavement | | | kilometres) | | | 1,450 | 1,648.9 | | Kerbs | | | (kilometres) | | | 11.6 | 43 | | Lighting | | | (number) | | | 750 | 860 | | Guardrail | | | (kilometres) | | | 0.4 | 1.3 | | Road Markings | | | (kilometres) | | | 3,300 | 4,466.8 | | Drainage | | | Renewal of roads (kilometres) | | | 115 | 144.3 | | Boundary | | | Fencing | | | (kilometres) | | | 24.5 | 27.1 | | Traffic Signs | | | (number) | | | 400 | 1,030 | | Geotechnical | | | (kilometres) | | | 7.2 | 7.6 | | 114 | 117.2 | | Vehicle | | | Restraint | | | System (VRS) | | | (kilometres) | | Bridge Joint (number) 320 444 39% 1,281 2,893 126% Parapet (kilometres) 3.4 5.1 50% 10 15 57% Renewal of structures Waterproofing (square 69,000 89,791 30% 263,567 331,176 26% metres) Bridge Bearing 180 278 54% 855 830 -3% (number) Motorway Comms Equipment 160 306 91% 703 1,731 146% (number) Renewals and Improvements 550 656 19% 1,684 2,610 55% Renewal of (number) technology Winter Resilience 42 63 50% 174 254 46% (number) Network Resilience 36 38 6% 125 124 -1% (number) Figure C7 shows the average volumes of renewals delivered compared to plan for all asset types over each of the five years of RP1. The size of the variances show an improvement in delivering renewals that more closely reflect its assets plans in the last two years of the road period, compared with the first three years. We recognise that change to plans is an inevitable and proper aspect of effective asset management. For example, asset inspections or road user feedback could show that plans need to be adjusted. A variance between plans and delivery is to be expected, particularly when functioning at the more reactive end of the asset management scale - for example 'do-minimum' or 'do-something'. Therefore, whilst we are not necessarily looking for zero variance between planned and delivered, we are looking for consistency in the variance at an asset type level, and robust reporting that explains any changes. In 2019-20, Highways England continued to reduce the proportion of its asset renewals delivered at the end of the financial year, over the winter months. Figure C8 shows the spread of pavement renewals delivered each quarter for each year of RP1. We had been concerned in the first half of RP1 that disproportionately high delivery in Q4 was inefficient and might affect the quality of completed renewals work. The improved profile of quarterly delivery demonstrates improvements made by Highways England in planning its asset renewals. The company has also improved the transparency of its planning and delivery of asset renewals through the road period through quarterly reporting and review groups initiated by ORR. This has allowed us to better understand planned renewals profiles and the reasons for variances from those plans. It reflects how Highways England has a better central understanding of its asset base and regional work plans and delivery, demonstrating increased maturity as an asset manager. As the company transitions to RP2, we will monitor particular areas for development, such as planning of secondary asset renewals, and planning that allows for efficiency. We will also look for further improvements to reporting in RP2, such as regional breakdowns of asset renewal plans and delivery. ## Glossary Delivery plan - Highways England's plan, which sets out in detail how it will deliver its strategic outcomes and measure success. Highways England - The government owned company with responsibility for operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic road network. Launched on 1 April 2015, it replaced the Highways Agency. Highways monitor - The division within the Office of Rail and Road with responsibility for monitoring the performance of Highways England. Investment plan - The part of the road investment strategy which set out the planned investments and the funds available for the first road period. Key performance indicators (KPI) - The performance specification set out 11 key performance indicators which were used to measure Highways England's performance in Road Period 1. Full details of each indicator can be found in the operational metrics manual (referenced on page 7 of the report). Killed or seriously injured (KSI) - A person killed or seriously injured in a road traffic collision. Office of Rail and Road (ORR) - The independent safety and economic regulator for Britain's railways and monitor of Highways England. Performance indicators (PI) - Indicators which sit below, and give context to, the key performance indicators. Full details of each indicator can be found in the operational metrics manual (referenced on page 7 of the report). Performance specification - The part of the road investment strategy which set out the level of performance that Highways England must deliver in the first road period. Region - Where regions are discussed in this report, it refers to Highways England's operational regions, which are: Eastern; Midlands; North Eastern; North West; South East; South West; and M25. Road investment strategy 1 (RIS1) - This document set out a long-term vision for England's motorways and major roads, including a multi-year investment plan for improving the network and high-level objectives for the first road period. Road period 1 (RP1) - The period that the road investment strategy covers. RP1 covered April 2015 to March 2020. RP2 covers April 2020 to March 2025. Roads reform - The package of reforms implemented by government in the Infrastructure Act 2015 which included the creation of Highways England. Strategic road network - The road network which Highways England is responsible for managing, comprising the motorways and main A-roads in England (also 'the network'). Transport Focus - The independent transport user watchdog which represents users of the strategic road network and is responsible for managing surveys of road user satisfaction. CCS0520654868 ISBN 978-1-5286-1995-0

en

4902-pdf

## Hm Revenue & Customs Business Expenses: 1 April 2011 - 30 June 2011 Please note - these figures may not include some costs that have yet to be invoiced and will be updated to reflect any additional spend. ## Lesley Strathie - Chief Executive And Permanent Secretary | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 16/05/11 | Exeter | Office Visit | | £54.00 | | 23/05/11 | Harwich | Office Visit | | £31.40 | | 26/05/11 | Manchester | Staff Event | | £149.50 | | 20/06/11 | Sheffield | Office Visit | | £86.00 | | | | | | | ## Dave Hartnett - Permanent Secretary For Tax | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-------------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 13/04/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 15/04/11 | | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | France & | | | | | | Netherlands | | | | | | £283.51 | £125.47 | £111.33 | £407.95 | | | Personal expenses | | | | | | = £20 | | | | | | £948.26 | | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | 20/04/11 | Liechtenstein | | | | | £174.55 | | £40.00 | | | | 27/04/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 28/04/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 04/05/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 06/05/11 | | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | £164.41 | | £102.31 | £142.91 | | | Personal expenses | | | | | | = £20 | | | | | | £429.63 | France | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | 17/05/11 | Switzerland | £192.31 | | £15.00 | | 18/05/11 | London | | | | | Speaking | | | | | | Engagement | | | | | | | | £23.00 | | | | 07/06/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 10/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 11/06/11 | | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | £189.31 | £78.17 | | £45.99 | | | Personal expenses | | | | | | = £10 | | | | | | £323.47 | Switzerland | | | | | 21/06/11 | Cambridge | Conference | | £21.96 | | 23/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 24/06/11 | | | | | | Inter- | | | | | | governmental | | | | | | meeting | | | | | | £149.24 | | £124.77 | £171.56 | | | Personal expenses | | | | | | = £10 | | | | | | £455.57 | | | | | | Italy | | | | | | 28/06/11 | London | Conference | | | ## Stephen Banyard - Acting Director General, Personal Tax | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|------------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 06/04/11 | Newcastle | Office Visit | | £159.96 | | 02/06/11 | Nottingham | Office Visit | | £65.00 | | 09/06/11 | Liverpool/Bootle | Office Visit | | £104.00 | | | | | | | ## Steve Lamey - Director General, Benefits & Credits | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 14/04/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 15/04/11 | | | | | | St Austell | | | | | | Departmental | | | | | | Business | | | | | | £133.90 | £15.95 | | £98.50 | | | 27/04/11 | Preston | Meeting | | £78.46 | | 26/05/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 27/05/11 | | | | | | Preston/ | Departmental | | | | | Business | | | | | | | £132.92 | £58.69 | £92.54 | | | Washington | | | | | | 08/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 09/06/11 | | | | | | Liverpool | Staff Event | | £123.96 | | | 16/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 17/06/11 | | | | | | Preston | Staff Event | | £64.11 | £37.40 | | 27/06/11 | Lincoln | | | | | Departmental | | | | | | Business | | | | | | | £51.96 | £50.00 | | | | | | | | | ## Melanie Dawes - Director General, Business Tax | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 05/05/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 10/05/11 | Cheshunt | Meeting | | £10.70 | | 26/05/11 | Bristol | Office Visit | | £64.00 | | 31/05/11 | Grimsby | Office Visit | | £63.50 | | 0106/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 02/06/11 | | | | | | Rugby | Meeting | | £92.80 | £15.00 | | 14/06/11 | Nottingham | Office Visit | | £62.96 | | 17/06/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 20/06/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 21/06/11 | Wrexham | Office Visit | | £149.46 | | 22/06/11 | London | Meeting | | | | | | | | | ## Mike Eland - Director General, Enforcement And Compliance | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 15/04/11 | London | Office Visit | | £3.80 | | 06/05/11 | Sheffield | Office Visit | | | | 16/05/11 | Lincoln | Conference | | | | 17/05/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 18/05/11 | | | | | | Rugby | Meeting | | | £81.10 | | 19/05/11 | London | | | | | Speaking | | | | | | Engagement | | | | | | | £3.80 | | | | | 25/05/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 26/05/11 | | | | | | Manchester | Conference | | £94.00 | | | 07/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 08/06/11 | | | | | | Leeds | Office Visit | | £143.00 | | | 23/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 24/06/11 | | | | | | Newcastle | Office Visit | £184.32 | | £60.40 | | 30/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 01/07/11 | | | | | | Leeds | Office Visit | | £127.50 | | | | | | | | ## Simon Bowles - Chief Finance Officer | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 06/04/11 | Worthing | Office Visit | | | | 18/05/11 | Southend | Office Visit | | £18.90 | | 14/06/11 | Bootle | Staff Event | | £144.19 | | 20/06/11 | Southend | Staff Event | | £13.75 | | | | | | | ## Mike Falvey - Chief People Officer | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 16/05/11 | York | Office Visit | | £124.96 | | 07/06/11 | Newcastle | Office Visit | | £198.76 | | | | | | | ## Anthony Inglese - General Counsel And Solicitor | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | NIL RETURN | | | | | | | | | | | ## Phil Pavitt - Chief Information Officer | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 31/05/11 | Kent | Office Visit | | £18.30 | | 08/06/11 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 09/06/11 | | | | | | Telford | Staff Event | | | £179.96 | | 21/06/21 | | | | | | - | | | | | | 23/06/11 | | | | | | Workington/ | | | | | | Carlisle | | | | | | Office Visit | | | £112.70 | £191.55 | | 30/06/11 | Telford | Office Visit | | | | | | | | | ## Mike Clasper - Non Executive Chairman | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|--------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 15/04/11 | London | Meeting | | | | 19/04/11 | Maidstone | Office Visit | | £21.26 | | 18/05/11 | London | | | | | Departmental | | | | | | Business | | | | | | | | £25.13 | | | | 31/05/11 | Southend | Office Visit | | £32.36 | | 13/06/11 | Leeds | | | | | Speaking | | | | | | Engagement | | | | | | | £87.42 | £83.00 | £80.00 | | | | | | | | ## John Spence - Non Executive Director * John Spence is registered blind therefore the expenses claimed are higher than that of other Non Executive Directors | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 10/05/11 | London | HMRC Board | | £15.40 | | 17/05/11 | London | Meeting | | £15.40 | | 15/06/11 | London | Meeting | | £15.40 | | 21/06/11 | London | Meeting | | £15.40 | | 27/06/11 | London | Meeting | | £15.40 | | 30/06/11 | London | Meeting | | £15.40 | | | | | | | ## Phil Hodkinson - Non Executive Director | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | 12/04/11 | London | HMRC Board | | £21.25 | | 21/04/11 | London | HMRC Board | | £21.25 | | | | | | | ## Colin Cobain - Non Executive Director | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | NIL RETURN | | | | | | | | | | | ## Philippa Hird - Non Executive Director * Philippa does not make individual claims for business costs. | DATES | DESTINATION | PURPOSE | TRAVEL | OTHER (Including | |-----------------|----------------|------------|-----------|---------------------| | Hospitality | | | | | | Received/Given) | | | | | | Total | | | | | | Cost £ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Air | Rail | | Meals | | | | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | NIL RETURN | | | | | | | | | | |

en

4604-pdf

# Policy For Handling Unreasonably Persistent Enquiries Paul Davies, Operations Director July 2020 ## 1. Introduction The National Archives is committed to providing excellent customer service to everyone who contacts us. Everyone is entitled to be treated respectfully, courteously and in a polite manner. When a user raises a complaint or enquiry with us, they have a right to expect to be dealt with fairly and impartially, and to receive a response which fully addresses their concerns in a timely manner. The purpose of this policy is to provide a tool for The National Archives when considering whether enquirers are displaying unreasonably persistent behaviour, and to explain the appropriate actions that The National Archives will take in this instance. The National Archives handles thousands of enquiries a year. While it will only be in exceptional cases that enquirers are deemed to be unreasonably persistent, it is desirable for robust audit purposes to have established guidance in this area. No enquirer should be treated as unreasonably persistent without prior agreement from the Quality Manager and responsible Director/s. ## 2. Who Does This Policy Apply To? 2.1 The policy applies to all enquirers who contact us. 2.2 The term 'enquirer' is employed in its widest sense within this policy to encompass people or organisations who use any of our services, whether writing, emailing, telephoning or accessing The National Archives' live chat service. Contact via social networks or digital platforms are also covered by this policy. 2.3 This policy does not apply to requests which are being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Requests which may be vexatious will be considered using the 'Guidance on vexatious or repeated requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000' document. This policy also excludes requests arising under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. ## 3. Determining Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour 3.1 Deciding whether an enquirer is being unreasonably persistent requires judgment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. There is no standard definition of unreasonably persistent, however the Information Commissioner's Office have produced guidance for the similar circumstances of "vexatious requests", when considering requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This guidance provides a useful framework that can aid the consideration process, and has been adapted to meet the needs of this policy:  Could the enquiries fairly be seen as excessive or the accusations unfounded?  Is the enquirer harassing the organisation or causing distress to staff?  Does complying with the enquirers' requests impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction (e.g., frequent, overlapping requests; no obvious intent to obtain information; futile or frivolous requests; scattergun approach)?  Is the contact designed to cause disruption or annoyance?  Does the enquiry lack any serious purpose or value? 3.2 An individual enquiry may not be unreasonable in isolation but in context it may form part of a wider pattern of unreasonably persistent behaviour, e.g. a wider dispute or the latest in a lengthy series of overlapping requests or other correspondence. In order to determine whether an enquirer is unreasonably persistent, it is necessary to look at both the context and the history of the communications between The National Archives and the enquirer, as well as the particular enquiry or contact that has triggered consideration of invoking this policy. This may include correspondence the requester has had with other business areas, including requests for information handled by the Freedom of Information Centre. It is likely that a pattern of behaviour over a period of time may trigger an assessment as much as a particular enquiry. 3.3 Individuals may act out of character when frustrated or unhappy with our service. There may have been upsetting or distressing circumstances leading up to contact with The National Archives. We do not consider behaviour that is forceful or emotional to necessarily be unacceptable. However, the actions of individuals who are angry, demanding or persistent may result in unreasonable demands on The National Archives or unacceptable behaviour towards staff. It is these actions that we may consider unacceptable and aim to manage under this policy. The key question for The National Archives must be whether continued correspondence or transactions with the enquirer is likely to cause disproportionate or unjustified distress, disruption or irritation to either staff or the organisation. There are three main actions that could be deemed unacceptable: 3.3.1 Aggressive or Abusive Behaviour Unacceptable behaviour is not limited to acts of aggression. It also includes behaviour or language (whether oral or written), the impact of which is to cause staff to feel fearful, threatened or abused. Examples of behaviours grouped under this heading include threats, personal verbal abuse (including the use of sexually-explicit language) and derogatory remarks. We also consider that inflammatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations can be abusive behaviour. Where the behaviour is extreme or it threatens the immediate safety and welfare of staff, we will consider other options, for example reporting the matter to the Police or taking legal action. In such cases, we may not give the individual prior warning of that action. 3.3.2 Unreasonable Demands Members of the public may make what we consider to be unreasonable demands on The National Archives through the amount of information they seek, the nature and scale of service they expect or the number of approaches they make. What constitutes an unreasonable demand will depend on the circumstances, the seriousness of the issues raised and the impact on individual members of staff and/or the functioning of The National Archives. Examples of actions grouped under this heading include: demanding responses within an unreasonable time-scale, insisting on speaking to a particular member of staff, continual phone calls or letters, repeatedly changing the substance of a request or enquiry, or raising unrelated concerns. 3.3.3 Unreasonable Persistence We recognise that some enquirers will not or cannot accept that The National Archives is unable to assist them further in their enquiry. Enquirers may persist in disagreeing with the action or decision taken in relation to their enquiry or contacting The National Archives persistently about the same or similar issue(s). Persistent actions will be considered unacceptable when they take up what a Director regards as being a disproportionate amount of time and/or resources. 3.3.4 Other See Appendix A for expanded criteria of an unreasonable persistent enquirer. ## 4. Managing Unreasonable Persistence Actions 4.1 There are relatively few enquirers whose actions would be considered unreasonable. How we aim to manage these actions depends on their nature and extent. 4.2 Alerting enquirers to this policy It will be the responsibility of the relevant service manager to bring to the attention of the Quality Manager situations where enquirers might be identified as being unreasonably persistent, against the criteria set out in Appendix A. It will normally be appropriate for a service manager, or the Complaints team, to draw an enquirers' attention to the existence of this policy before any decision is made. They will inform the enquirer in writing that their continued correspondence or interactions with The National Archives on a particular subject matter may lead to them being treated as unreasonably persistent. The National Archives will try to resolve matters before invoking this procedure and / or the sanctions detailed within it. If The National Archives is to continue dealing with the enquirer, it may be appropriate to draw up a signed agreement which establishes a code of behaviour for the parties involved. If this agreement is breached, consideration should be given to implementing other actions. 4.3 If it adversely affects our ability to do our work and provide a service to others, we may need to restrict an enquirers' contact with The National Archives in order to manage the unreasonable action. Wherever possible we aim to do this in a way that still allows the enquirer to receive appropriate information and assistance. We may restrict contact by telephone, letter or by electronic means, or by any combination of these, although we will try to maintain at least one form of contact if it is appropriate to do so. If it is, not all contact will be ceased. 4.4 We do not engage with written contact that is aggressive, abusive or offensive to staff. When this happens, we will inform the enquirer that we consider their language offensive and state that we will not respond to their correspondence if they do not moderate their use of language. We may require future contact to be through a third party. 4.5 We will always explain what action we are taking and why. Where enquirers continue to correspond on a wide range of issues, and this action is considered excessive (see 3.3.3 Unreasonable Persistence), then they will be told that only a certain number of issues will be considered in a given period and asked to limit or focus their requests accordingly. 4.6 Equality & Diversity considerations If we think the unreasonable or persistent behaviour may relate to a disability: that is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities, such as eating, washing, walking and going shopping, and/or the customer discloses such a disability, then this must be taken into account when decisions are made about applying this policy. ## This should not be taken to mean that the existence of a disability per se would prevent the application of the policy to a person who meets the unreasonably persistent behaviour criteria set out at section 3. For the avoidance of doubt; nor should it be taken to mean that information held by the National Archives should automatically be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act because it would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual. There is a public interest test for this exemption that must be applied. Therefore any physical or mental impairment must be weighed against the public interest in making this information available. For further information see the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 in Appendix C and vulnerable persons in Appendix D. For further information on the application of section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 see the Information Commissioner's guidance: https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1624339/health-and-safety-section-38-foia.pdf ## 5. Deciding To Restrict Enquirer Contact 5.1 Once it is clear that the enquirer meets any two or more (or are in serious breach of one) of the criteria set in section 3.3 or Appendix A, the responsible Director will review the evidence and decide, against the criteria, whether the enquirer should be identified as being unreasonably persistent. 5.2 When this decision is made, the responsible Director will notify the enquirer in writing, within 10 working days of the decision, of the reasons why the enquirer has been classified as unreasonably persistent and of the actions taken. The different options for dealing with unreasonable persistent enquirers are detailed in Appendix B. Wherever possible, we will give the enquirer the opportunity to modify their behaviour or action before such a decision is taken. ## 6. Appealing A Decision To Restrict Contact Appeal to the Chief Executive Enquirers have the right to appeal a decision to restrict contact. If you are dissatisfied with the decision to restrict or cease contact, you can, within one calendar month from the date of our final response to you, appeal the decision. The review will be carried out by a director and we will contact you within five working days of receipt of your request (the day of receipt being Day 0) to notify you of their name and contact details. All appeals are decided 'on the papers', i.e. all submissions must be in writing. There is no provision for oral submissions (i.e. by telephone or in person), except where the appellant would be disadvantaged (such as an appellant with a disability or condition that made written submission difficult). The person hearing the appeal will decide whether to permit oral submissions. The appointed director has ten working days to complete the review, if they are unable to complete the report within that time, they will write to explain the reasons why and tell you when you can expect a response. The report will then go before the Chief Executive for consideration. After consideration, and usually within a further ten working days, you can expect a formal written response from the Chief Executive. The appeal is to hear and determine:  whether the decision to restrict or cease contact was fair and justifiable;  and, if so, whether the enacted restrictions were appropriate and proportionate Unless otherwise agreed, any other appeal conditions are outside the scope of this procedure, and are dealt with according to TNA's complaints procedure. The possible findings are:  the original decision is upheld without change  the original decision is upheld but the nature of restriction is varied  the original decision is overturned (i.e. the appeal is successful) In the event that an appeal is successful, there is no authority within the appeals process to award any form of compensation or redress, other than to recommend an apology. Any decision to offer compensation or redress is dealt with outside the appeal process, with due to regard to Ombudsman best practice guidelines and also to any restrictions on offering redress that may apply to TNA as a government department. The decision is final and there is no further route of appeal within this procedure. Dissatisfaction with the handling of a complaint is dealt with by TNA's complaints procedure (for details, go to nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/complaints.htm). ## 7. Record Keeping All contact that causes concern must be recorded and kept as evidence to support further action, escalation and allow for any appeal or annual review to be carried out. This information will be stored and managed in line with our Privacy notice ## Appendix A Criteria Of An Unreasonable Persistent Enquirer Enquirers (and/or anyone acting on their behalf) may be deemed to be unreasonably persistent where current or previous contact with them shows that they have met two or more (or are in serious breach of one) of the following criteria: 1.1 Persisting in pursuing a complaint where The National Archives complaints procedure has been fully and properly implemented and exhausted; 1.2 Persisting in pursuing an enquiry which in the view of a service manager has been fully answered and no further assistance can be given; 1.3 Persisting in disagreeing with the action or decision taken in relation to their enquiry or contacting The National Archives persistently about the same or similar issue(s); 1.4 The substance of an enquiry is changed or new issues are raised persistently or users seek to prolong contact by unreasonably raising further concerns or questions upon receipt of a response whilst the enquiry is being dealt with; 1.5 Enquirers who are unwilling to accept documented evidence as being factual or deny receipt of an adequate response despite correspondence specifically answering their questions/concerns. This could also extend to complainants who do not accept that facts can sometimes be difficult to verify after a long period of time has elapsed; 1.6 Enquirers who do not identify clearly the precise issues they wish to be investigated/answered despite reasonable efforts to help them do so by staff and, where appropriate, their advocates; 1.7 Where the concerns identified are not within the jurisdiction of The National Archives to investigate; 1.8 Enquiries that focus on a peripheral matter to an extent that is out of proportion to its significance and continue to focus on this point; 1.9 Enquirers have, in the course of pursuing an enquiry, had an excessive number of contacts (or unreasonably made multiple requests) with The National Archives placing unreasonable demands on staff. Such contacts may be by telephone, letter, fax or electronically; 1.10 Enquirers that have harassed or been abusive, including racist, sexist or homophobic abuse, or verbally aggressive on more than one occasion towards staff dealing with their enquiry. If the nature of the harassment or aggressive behaviour is sufficiently serious, this could, in itself, be sufficient reason for ceasing contact; 1.11 Enquirers displaying unreasonable demands or expectations and failing to accept that these may be unreasonable after a clear explanation has been provided as to what constitutes an unreasonable demand (for example insisting on responses to complaints or enquiries being provided more urgently than is reasonable or recognised practice). 1.12 Comments or complaints which are proved to contain unfounded allegations and or includes behaviour or language (whether oral or written), the impact of which is to cause staff to feel fearful, threatened or abused. ## Appendix B Options For Dealing With Unreasonable Persistent Enquirers 1.1 When enquirers have been identified as being unreasonably persistent, in accordance with the above criteria, a Director will review the evidence and decide what action to take. 1.2 The Director will implement such action and notify the enquirer in 10 working days and in writing, of the reasons why they have been classified as unreasonably persistent and the actions to be taken. 1.3 The Director may decide to deal with unreasonably persistent enquiries in one or more of the following ways: a) Decline further contact with the enquirer either by telephone, fax, letter or electronically - or any combination of these - whilst ensuring that one form of contact is maintained (if appropriate). Alternatively, further contact could be restricted to liaison through a third party; b) Notify the enquirer in writing that the Director has responded fully to the points raised and has tried to resolve the issue but there is nothing more to add and continuing contact on the matter will serve no useful purpose. The enquirer should be notified that correspondence is at an end and that further communications will be acknowledged but not answered; c) Temporarily suspend all contact with the enquirer, or handling of an enquiry/case, whilst seeking legal advice or guidance from senior managers, or other relevant colleagues. 1.4 If this policy is to be implemented, it should be remembered and explained to the enquirer that any course of action taken as a result only relates to contact with The National Archives over their specific enquiry(s). It does not, and is not intended to, have any impact on any other dealings between The National Archives and the enquirer on other, unrelated issues. There may be occasions where it is not appropriate to maintain contact with an enquirer, for example, if an enquirer has exhausted our processes and policies and continues to correspond or after an enactment annual review and the behaviour continues. In these cases all contact will be ceased. 1.5 An enquiry which may appear spurious or tedious to the organisation may have genuine value to the individual. Furthermore, an enquiry with a very serious purpose or value may be enough to prevent it being unreasonable, even if it imposes a significant burden and is harassing or distressing to staff. The serious and proper purpose must justify both the enquiry itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern of behaviour has been taken. ## 2. Withdrawing Unreasonable Persistent Enquirers Status 2.1 Once an enquirer has been classified as unreasonably persistent, the Customer Service and Complaints team will arrange for such status to be reviewed after a period of 12 months, the review to again be carried out by a Director, as before. If it is decided that unreasonably persistent status will be re-imposed for a further period of 6 or 12 months, all relevant parties involved will be informed of this decision. However, there also needs to be a mechanism for withdrawing this status earlier if, for example, the enquirer subsequently demonstrates a more reasonable approach. If they submit further enquiries, relating to a new matter, the normal procedures would apply. 2.2 If the enquirer subsequently demonstrates a more reasonable approach for a period of up to 6 months a review of the status can be carried out. If a Director deems that there has been a significant change in behaviour the status could be withdrawn. It should be noted that all criteria of what constitutes an unreasonable persistent enquirer as set out in this policy will be considered when the status is reviewed and during the probation period. 2.3 When the unreasonably persistent status is withdrawn, there will be a six month probation period. If there is a repeat of the behaviour within the probation period, the policy can be reengaged by a Director as a continuation of the original decision. The status would be reviewed after 12 months in line with point 2.1. ## Appendix C The Definition Of 'Disability' Under The Equality Act 2010 In The Act, A Person Has A Disability If:  they have a physical or mental impairment  the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:  'substantial' means more than minor or trivial  'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)  'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping People who have had a disability in the past that meets this definition are also protected by the Act. Progressive conditions considered to be a disability: There are additional provisions relating to people with progressive conditions. People with HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis are protected by the Act from the point of diagnosis. People with some visual impairments are automatically deemed to be disabled. Conditions that are specifically excluded: Some conditions are specifically excluded from being covered by the disability definition, such as a tendency to set fires or addictions to non–prescribed substances. ## Appendix D Definition Of A 'Vulnerable' Person A 'Vulnerable Adult' May Be Defined As Any Person Aged 18 Or Over Who May Not Be Able To A) Care For Him/Herself By Reason Of Mental, Physical Or Learning Disability, Age Or Illness And B)Care For, Or Protect Him/Herself Against Significant Harm Or Serious Exploitation Vulnerable Person A 'vulnerable person' is any child or vulnerable adult. Responsible Adult A person over the age of 18 who is responsible for a 'vulnerable person'

en

1214-pdf

# Copyright Greater London Authority July 2005 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk In collaboration with Association of London Government, British Transport Police, City of London Police, Government Office for London, Housing Corporation, London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, Metropolitan Police Authority, Metropolitan Police Service, Transport for London, Youth Justice Board The partners are grateful to Mike Hough, Jessica Jacobson and Andrew Millie, of the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, King's College London, for their help in preparing this strategy. ## Isbn 1 85261 757 8 Photographs © Adam Hinton; Liane Harris Contents Summary 5 1 The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy 7 2 Principles of the strategy 15 3 Aims and objectives 19 4 Programme of action 21 5 Implementation plan 38 Appendix Participants in the consultation 47 ## Summary This strategy has been produced by 11 cross-London agencies with shared responsibilities at a regional level for tackling anti-social behaviour - either directly or indirectly. As the partners in this strategy, we are committed to building on our existing work on anti-social behaviour (ASB) and to developing new actions where necessary. The strategy will be a regional framework for action on ASB, which will bridge the gap between the national ASB strategy and the local programmes being implemented by London's 33 crime and disorder reduction partnerships. The London ASB Strategy reflects our commitment to the following principles: - ASB must be tackled effectively. - Effective action on ASB demands a balance between rigorous enforcement and prevention. - Remedies for ASB must promote long-term social inclusion. - Measures to tackle ASB must be consistent with human rights legislation. The strategy is focussed on five key objectives, which are the basis of a wide-ranging programme of action: ## 1 We Will Energise And Support Local Action By Crime And Disorder Reduction Partnerships And Their Partners. Most work to tackle ASB is carried out at a local level, as it should be. We already support this work in a wide variety of ways: through the provision of funding, training and technical support. We are committed to strengthening and extending this support. ## 2 We Will Improve Co-Ordination And Co-Operation Between Local Agencies And Between Partnerships. Effective action against ASB depends on co-operation between local agencies and between partnerships. We will encourage partnership working at a local level and will promote and facilitate co-ordination across borough boundaries. ## 3 We Will Supplement Local Action With Cross-London Work, Where Needed. Under this strategy, we are launching a range of regional initiatives that will directly address ASB. The delivery of programmes on a regional rather than a local basis can bring benefits in terms of efficiency or effectiveness. The regional initiatives are being undertaken in the areas of: - Neighbourhood policing - Transport - Fire - Housing and planning. ## 4 We Will Ensure Consistency And Sustainability In Policy Responses To Asb Across London. Different strands of social policy can pull against each other, as can different approaches to tackling ASB. We aim to ensure that: a) the London ASB Sstrategy is internally consistent; and b) other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. ## 5 We Will Identify Regional Structures For Tackling Asb. We will only achieve Objectives 1-4 if responsibility for this strategy is allocated to regional bodies that are competent to pursue them. We will ensure that this happens. Association of London Government British Transport Police City of London Police Government Office for London Greater London Authority Housing Corporation London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority Metropolitan Police Authority Metropolitan Police Service Transport for London Youth Justice Board ## 1 The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy This document sets out the London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy for 2005 to 2008. The strategy has been produced by 11 cross-London agencies with shared responsibilities at a regional level for tackling antisocial behaviour (either directly or indirectly). As the partners in this strategy, we are committed to building on our existing work in this area and to developing and implementing new actions where necessary. The strategy will identify, co-ordinate and direct the many strands of our developing work on anti-social behaviour (henceforth ASB). The strategy partners Association of London Government (ALG) British Transport Police (BTP) City of London Police (CoLP) Government Office for London (GOL) London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) Housing Corporation (HC) Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Transport for London (TfL) Greater London Authority (GLA Youth Justice Board (YJB) What is anti-social behaviour? The statutory definition of ASB, as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is behaviour: ...that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as (the perpetrator). This definition covers a very wide range of behaviours. Acts of minor thoughtlessness and rudeness are 'anti-social'. So too, of course, are serious crimes. In recognition of the fact that the statutory definition 'lacks specificity and measurability', the Home Office has developed a 'typology of anti-social behaviour' which provides a guide to the categories of behaviour that are generally assumed to be anti-social by practitioners and the public. These categories comprise behaviours that cause major concern to the public, but are not serious crimes. 1 Serious crime has a different definition within the police service. It refers to rape, murder, GBH and other serious offences. The London ASB Strategy adopts the same approach as the Home Office typology, in focusing on behaviour in the middle range between minor incivilities and serious serious crime. Thus, for the purposes of the strategy, ASB is deemed as minor incivilities that are serious is behaviour that is serious enough to merit intervention from the relevant authorities, but not so serious as toa crime that would demand criminal prosecution and punishment. Individual acts are not necessarily criminal; or, if they are criminal, they may in isolation constitute relatively minor offences. Very often the harm caused by ASB is a consequence of the *cumulative* impact of repeated incidents. Most Londoners encounter ASB from time to time. It can take many forms - boisterous behaviour on public transport, rowdy drunks on the streets, litter and graffiti, abandoned cars, noisy neighbours. For some of us, it is an occasional irritant. For others it is more intrusive, and some people's lives are blighted by relentless, intrusive ASB. In some cases individuals are singled out as targets, and this is particularly unsettling. The corrosive and debilitating effect of persistent exposure to ASB - including the potential effect on the mental and physical health of victims - cannot be underestimated. ASB can affect whole communities, not just individuals. Where it is frequent, it can amplify people's worries about crime, and lead to a sense that crime and disorder isare spiralling out of control. If this sense becomes widespread in a neighbourhood, it has tangible consequences. Investment in the area - whether financial or emotional - may be withdrawn. Regeneration may be hampered or blocked. Where problems of disorder are brought under control, on the other hand, people may regain a sense of optimism about their neighbourhoods, and communities' capacity to regulate crime and disorder may increase. Tackling anti-social behaviour effectively is the first step towards civil renewal. The main forms of ASB Interpersonal/malicious ASB is behaviour directed against specific individuals or groups, that causes harassment, alarm or distress. Examples include: - intimidation/threats by neighbours - minor violence - hoax calls - vandalism directed at individuals or groups - serious verbal abuse (eg directed at public sector workers) Environmental ASB is behaviour that - deliberately or through carelessness - degrades the local environment, such as: - dog-fouling - allowing animals to roam - noise nuisance - setting fire to rubbish - graffiti (eg on the transport network) - abandoned vehicles - littering - fly-tipping ASB restricting access to public space refers to threatening or physically obstructive behaviours that stop people using public spaces, such as: - intimidating behaviour by groups of youths - drug abuse in public places - under-age drinking and rowdy behaviour - street drinking/drunkenness - night-time alcohol-related disorder - aggressive begging - soliciting and kerb-crawling - obstructive use of vehicles - use of motor-bikes on pavements/in parks The national strategy for tackling ASB Various factors have produced today's problems of ASB in London and elsewhere. There have been some broad cultural shifts in urban life in Britain over the last half-century. City-dwellers now tend to lead more anonymous lives, with a reduced sense of community. Traditions of deference to authority have weakened - whether it is the authority of the family head, the teacher, the employer or the police officer. Bingedrinking and use of illicit drugs have increased. We live in a more affluent age, with great emphasis on individualism and on consumerist values, and this has brought both benefits and costs. A growth in levels of ASB can be seen as one of the least desirable consequences of the combined effects of these social trends. However, that is only one part of the picture. Over the last fifty years, the ways that the economy has evolved, and some of the policy responses to this evolution, have accelerated problems of disorder. These problems are at their worst in large cities. Within cities, deprived neighbourhoods suffer the most. Areas of public housing are vulnerable, especially where large concentrations of poor, socially excluded families have developed. It can be argued that a consequence of many social and economic developments over the last half-century has been a decline in the social capital of these areas. Until recently, many of the resultant problems of ASB were not 'owned' by any single agency. The police had a responsibility to tackle crime, but ASB was not a performance priority. Schools' responsibilities for the behaviour of their pupils did not necessarily extend far beyond the school gate. Housing departments often took a relatively narrow view of their responsibilities to their tenants. Dealing with ASB was 'core business' for none of these agencies. In recognition of the high levels of public concern about ASB, central Government has undertaken a large number of initiatives that encourage and help key agencies to tackle ASB effectively. Legislative measures include the passing of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Licensing Act 2003, which introduced new powers and extended existing powers for taking enforcement action. In January 2004, the Home Office Anti-Social Behaviour Unit launched the TOGETHER campaign to support delivery of ASB action. The main elements of this campaign are outlined below. Elements of the TOGETHER campaign - The TOGETHER Actionline: a helpline for practitioners providing advice and assistance on all the tools available for tackling ASB, and supported by the TOGETHER website (www.together.gov.uk). - The TOGETHER Academy: a centre of excellence which provides training, conferences and specialist master classes for all relevant practitioners. - The provision of funding for local ASB work in every area of England and Wales. - ASB Prosecutors: a new national team in the Crown Prosecution Service supporting all CPS prosecutors dealing with ASB-related cases, and promoting better partnership working between local prosecutors and local agencies. - The establishment of TOGETHER Action Areas and trailblazers, in which pioneering initiatives are being undertaken on: - **nuisance neighbours**, eg through the Nuisance Neighbours Panel and by providing additional help for parents - **begging** - including a trailblazing campaign in Camden and Westminster - **environmental crime** - through various operations including Scrap-it, Gate-it and Scrub-it. - Victims and witnesses first: action research and funding to identify and promote effective ways of supporting victims and witnesses of ASB. In line with the national strategy, local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) throughout the country are now engaged in an impressive and varied range of activities focused on problems of ASB in their respective areas. ASB in London London is one of the world's most populous and diverse capital cities. It is a city with an immensely rich history and vibrant cultural life, which attracts vast numbers of tourists and other visitors. London is Europe's premier financial centre, and contains both large concentrations of wealth and large concentrations of poverty (often alongside each other). Like any large, modern city, London also has its share of problems of ASB. Indeed, at a general level, concern about ASB appears to be higher in London than elsewhere in England and Wales. For example, the 2003/04 British Crime Survey found that 25 per cent of London respondents perceived the levels of disorder in their area to be 'high', compared to 17 per cent across England and Wales as a whole. Within London there is a marked inner-outer split, with 32 per cent of people in inner London perceiving disorder as 'high', compared to 22 per cent in outer London. What are the specific concerns of Londoners with respect to ASB? The findings of the 2002 London Household Survey, conducted by the GLA (and part funded by the Housing Corporation), provides some insight into this. When asked about problems in their neighbourhoods, a number of ASB issues were described as a 'serious problem' by respondents: | ASB issue | % respondents describing as 'serious problem' | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | Litter & rubbish in the streets | 28% | | Vandalism and hooliganism | 24% | | Graffiti | 18% | | Presence of drug dealers/users | 17% | | Troublesome teenagers/children | 16% | In the areas covered by the Metropolitan Police Service's safer neighbourhood teams the police have been consulting local people about their concerns and the problems that make them feel unsafe. The most frequently mentioned issues were: - Youth crime - Anti-social behaviour in general - Anti-social behaviour by motorists - Graffiti. It is difficult to assess the extent to which Londoners' perceptions of ASB reflect actual incidents, because of the limitations of current methods of measuring ASB. A national one-day count of ASB was conducted in September 2003, drawing on information from a range of statutory and voluntary organisations. Across London almost 13,000 incidents of ASB were reported, over half of which related to environmental ASB. This included rubbish (17 per cent), criminal damage and vandalism (16 per cent), noise (11 per cent) and vehicle nuisance (10 per cent). The remainder comprised: nuisance (9 per cent), rowdy behaviour (8 per cent), begging (6 per cent), abandoned vehicles (6 per cent), harassment (6 per cent), drugs/substance misuse (5 per cent), prostitution (2 per cent) and animals (2 per cent). On the basis of the day-count figures it is estimated that over 3 million incidents are reported in London annually, with estimated costs of £60 to £150 million. Another source of information on ASB in London is calls recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service Computer-Aided Dispatch Management Information System (CADMIS). In the three years to March 31st 2004, just under 2.5 million CADMIS incidents related to ASB (of a total of 23 million). Of these, almost three-quarters (73 per cent) involved ASB that restricted people's use of public space, the rest being interpersonal/ malicious ASB (15 per cent) and environmental ASB (12 per cent). These ASB incidents were concentrated across the inner London boroughs with the highest densities being in Westminster and Camden. Londoners' views on ASB Qualitative research conducted to inform this strategy, in the form of focus groups with Londoners from different backgrounds, demonstrates that an enormously wide range of behaviours can fall under the heading of ASB - from dog-fouling, littering and general rudeness through to intimidation, homophobic and racist abuse, and drink-related violence. But it appears that while ASB takes many specific forms, there is a common thread in much of it. This common thread is a lack of respect: more specifically, ASB is said to reflect the perpetrators'' lack of respect for other people and/or for their environment. Notwithstanding survey and police data, which indicate relatively high levels of ASB in London, it seems that a substantial majority of Londoners are happy with where they live. Both the GLA Annual London Survey of 2003 and the London Household Survey of 2002 found that just under 80 per cent of respondents were fairly or very satisfied with their local neighbourhoods. This suggests that local problems of ASB have only a minor impact on the lives of most Londoners. It is clear, however, that the consequences of ASB can be devastating for the individuals and communities who suffer the most. Why have an ASB strategy for London? The decision to develop this strategy was initially taken by the Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group (which brings together London-wide organisations to co-ordinate action on community safety), in recognition of the signatory agencies' shared responsibilities with respect to ASB in London. As signatories to this strategy, we are committed to tackling ASB in London in a co-ordinated and effective way. We share a concern to ensure that efforts to reduce ASB are properly tailored to the unique needs of this city. London is set apart from other large cities in Britain by its sheer scale and the resulting complexity of its local government and community safety structures. The great diversity of London's population, and the city's role as a seat of government, and a tourist and financial centre, also make the task of developing effective and comprehensive ASB policies more challenging. ASB solutions that work elsewhere may not necessarily be right for London. This strategy provides a regional framework for ASB work. As such, it will bridge the gap between the national strategy on ASB and the local programmes of action being developed and implemented by the 33 CDRPs that exist across London. Most front-line work on ASB in London is carried out by these partnerships, as it should be. Each CDRP has an ASB co-ordinator, and has developed an ASB strategy as part of its general crime and disorder strategy. But we, the cross-London agencies, also have vital roles to play in relation to ASB: - We provide strategic direction for local services. - We provide expertise, training and support for local services. - We provide front-line services ourselves. The London ASB strategy Strategy will clarify and enhance these roles. In so doing, it will also help to ensure that gaps in provision are filled, and that duplication of effort in ASB work is avoided. It will support regionallevel action against ASB where this is deemed more cost-effective and efficient than local action. It will ensure that best practise is passed on and replicated. Perhaps most importantly, the strategy will facilitate a coordinated approach to ASB both within and between the London boroughs. In order to develop a strategy that will meet the needs of local partnerships as well as reflect the policies and goals of our own agencies, we have developed this strategy in a two-stage process. The first stage entailed discussion among the signatory agencies, and initial contact with CDRPs and other interested bodies, with the aim of producing a consultation document. The document 'The London Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy: Proposals for Consultation with Stakeholders' was produced in April 2004. This document set out the strategy's key elements, and invited the views of stakeholders - that is, statutory and non-statutory agencies and partnerships engaged in tackling ASB across London - about the details of the strategy. The second stage of strategy development involved the collection and analysis of responses to the consultation document. (Respondents to the consultation are listed in the appendix to this document.) These responses were then assessed against the capacity and resources of the signatory bodies. This strategy document represents the outcome of this process. ## 2 Principles Of The Strategy Any strategy for tackling ASB needs to be clear about what it is trying to do. Whilst accepting that whether or not behaviours are anti-social depends to some extent on the vulnerability of the victim and the degree of upset they experience, we need broad definitions of ASB, so that the parameters of the strategy are clear, and the different agencies involved know that they are using the same language and have the same objectives. The strategy must also be clear about the reasons for tackling ASB, and the end results that are desired. As the signatories to this document, we have a shared vision on tackling ASB. This vision is expressed in the following principles. 1 ASB must be tackled effectively If ignored, ASB can ruin the lives of individuals. Serious ASB may make its victims feel extremely uncomfortable and fearful in their own homes or local communities; it may also have a severe impact on their mental or physical health. At a broader level, ASB can contribute to neighbourhood decline and weaken communities. Alcohol-related ASB in town centres causes serious damage - to the individuals caught up in it, to the physical environment, and to businesses. It is therefore critically important that local agencies take effective action against ASB, in the variety of forms in which it appears. 2 Effective action on ASB demands a balance between rigorous enforcement and prevention When ASB is creating a problem, the first action must be to put a stop to it. Enforcement is therefore always a key element of efforts to tackle ASB. Local agencies now have a wide range of tools available for tacking enforcement action against ASB. These powers include Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs)Anti- Social Behaviour Contracts, injunctions, parenting orders, child safety orders and dispersal orders, (a full list is available on the TOGETHER websiteTOGETHER website). AASBOs, in particular, are a powerful but flexible remedy, which can have a real and significant impact on the behaviour of ASB perpetrators. Social landlords have some specific tools that they can use to prohibit or contain ASB by tenants: demoted tenancies, possession, and introductory and starter tenancies. The Anti-Social Behaviour unit (ASBU) at the Home Office and its TOGETHER Campaign have worked successfully with London boroughs to drive forward these approaches with a clear message that ASB should be tackled and not tolerated, e.g. Crack house closures in Hackney and Hammersmith and Fulham. They have encouraged London boroughs to actively improve and sustain levels of enforcement in their boroughs, e.g. Camden haves employed ASBOs to address drug markets and street robbery in the Kings Cross area. To ensure that responses to ASB are sustainable, it is important to undertake preventive as well as enforcement activity. Enforcement measures used in isolation may, in some circumstances, displace rather than resolve ASB problems; or may further alienate individuals or groups who are already disengaged from wider society. Whilst supporting the Ggovernment's line of not tolerating anti-social behaviour, balancing enforcement and prevention means: - Tackling the **underlying causes** of ASB (eg in terms of family problems as well as wider social, cultural and economic factors) as well as the symptoms. - Combining enforcement action against perpetrators with packages of intervention and support. - Using strategies of **diversion, mediation** and **reparation** wherever thiese are appropriate. - Ensuring that responses are **proportionate** to the seriousness of the behaviour, and that they **graduate** from less to more stringent measures, as required. 3 A balanced approach to ASB ASB often involves clashes of values and standards. Young people look for excitement and action; their elders may prefer peace and quiet. People have different levels of tolerance for noise, for untidiness, for rowdiness. Some ASB is so grossly thoughtless, or so obviously malicious, that most people would want and expect the authorities to take firm action against it. But sometimes matters are less clear-cut. How intimidating do groups of young people have to be before action is needed? How loud can a neighbour play music before it becomes an unacceptable intrusion? What level of rowdiness at pub-closing time can just be put down to harmless high spirits? Work to tackle ASB should involve partnership working to consider what is order; and what levels of tolerance could be expected of those exposed to disorder. Definitions of order, and levels of tolerance, differ widely within and between the various communities that make up London's population. Negotiating levels of acceptable behaviour has to be done in an even-handed and open way whilst dealing firmly with those whose behaviour is unacceptable. ## 4 Measures To Tackle Asb Must Be Consistent With Human Rights Legislation Article 8 Of The European Convention On Human Rights States That: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Victims of serious ASB are, clearly, denied their right to respect for private and family life and home. Another human rights consideration is the need for compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, when tackling ASB committed by children. Article 3 (1) of the Convention requires that: In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Article 3 (2) reads: States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians or other individuals legally responsible for him or her and to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. In a great deal of public debate about ASB, it is a spoken or unspoken assumption that ASB is essentially misbehaviour by children and young people. In fact, ASB can be committed by people of all ages; and children and young people are frequently victims of ASB. Moreover, where children or young people are perpetrators of ASB, particular sensitivity is needed in responding to it. Frequently, there is a need to address risk factors - for example, relating to parenting or educational problems – that can underlie the commission of ASB by children. ## 3 Aims And Objectives The goal of maintaining standards of civil behaviour runs like a thread through the work of all public services. Education, social services, leisure services, youth services, transport, housing, the police, probation and fire services all play a part in minimizing minimising ASB. The range of local and regional programmes in London that impact on ASB in some way - or promote socially acceptable behaviour - is vast. The London ASB Strategy is not intended to review or even chart the totality of local and regional action that has a bearing on ASB. Nor does it intend to 'performance manage' work being carried out by London's 33 crime and disorder partnerships that specifically focuses on ASB. The strategy recognises that these local partnerships, and the agencies that comprise them, are best placed to identify local problems and concerns, and to design and implement responses. The overarching aim of the London ASB Strategy is to promote effective, co-ordinated action against ASB at both local and regional levels. This entails providing various forms of practical assistance and support to local partnerships, and building capacity for communication and co-operation within and between boroughs. It also involves identifying gaps in existing provision, and filling these gaps with regional work where this brings benefits in terms of efficiency or general effectiveness. Pursuing its overarching aim of promoting effective, co-ordinated action against ASB, the strategy will support the work of the Home Office towards its second Public Service Agreement target for 2005/06 to 2007/08. This target is to: Reassure the public, reduce the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, and build confidence in the criminal justice system without compromising fairness. Performance indicators for this target include levels of perception of ASB, as measured by the British Crime Survey. The London ASB Strategy is focussed on five key objectives, outlined below. These objectives are the basis of a wide-ranging programme of action to which all the strategy partners are committed. Although some elements of the work are already underway, the main part of the programme of action will run for three years from April 2005, so as to coincide with the timetable for production of crime and disorder strategies by CDRPs. Details of the programme of action are provided in Chapters Four and Five of this document. ## The Five Objectives Of The London Asb Strategy 1 To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners. Most work to tackle ASB is carried out at a local level, as it should be. We already support this work in a wide variety of ways: through the provision of funding, training and technical support. We are committed to extending and strengthening this support. 2 To improve co-ordination and co-operation between local agencies and partnerships. Effective action against ASB depends on co-operation between local agencies and between partnerships. We will encourage partnershipworking at a local level and will promote and facilitate co-ordination across borough boundaries. 3 To supplement local action with cross-London work, where this is needed. Under this strategy, we are launching a range of regional initiatives that will directly address ASB. The delivery of programmes on a regional rather than a local basis sometimes brings particular benefits in terms of efficiency or effectiveness. Regional initiatives are to be undertaken in the following four broad areas: - neighbourhood policing - transport - fire - housing and planning. 4 To ensure consistency and sustainability in policy responses to ASB across London. Different strands of social policy can pull against each other, as can different approaches to tackling ASB. We aim to ensure that: a) the London ASB sStrategy is internally consistent; and b) other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. 5 To identify regional structures for tackling ASB. We shall only achieve Objectives 1-4 if responsibility for the strategy is allocated to regional bodies that are competent to pursue them. We shall ensure that this happens. ## 4 Programme Of Action Objective 1: To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners Regional agencies are already engaged in a large amount of work to support local action against ASB. However, more needs to be done in order to: - energise local action and maintain the momentum - help local partnerships locate funding - provide training for practitioners - develop guidance for practitioners and identify and promulgate good practice. a Maintaining the momentum in tackling ASB We will ensure that the subject of ASB remains high on the local crime and disorder agenda, and that proactive policies to tackle ASB are implemented locally. - The MPS, City of London Police and LFEPA are represented on CDRPs and are therefore well-placed to influence local strategies. As providers of front-line services, these agencies are fully engaged in communitybased consultation and the development and implementation of local initiatives on ASB. All CDRPs are required by Statutory Instrument to invite the BTP to participate in the formulation and implementation of strategies. - Through their involvement in CDRPs, the MPS, City of London Police and LFEPA will also help to ensure that problems of alcohol-related disorder associated with licensed premises are effectively tackled on a local basis. - The MPA is also represented on CDRPs, and can thereby seek to ensure that local community safety work is consistent with the ASB priorities set out in the London Policing Plan, and with the priorities of the London ASB Strategy. - ALG will ensure that ASB remains high on the local political agenda by placing ASB as a standing item for consideration by the ALG's Crime and Public Protection Steering Group, and through ongoing work to shape future policy and legislation, eg work on the London Local Authorities Bill. - ALG members' groups and forums will allow representatives from the London boroughs to come together to share experiences and expertise in tackling ASB, and thereby help to maintain their boroughs' focus on the key issues. - ALG is well-placed to develop councillors' awareness and knowledge of ASB issues. Over the next three years ALG expects to include ASB among the topics covered in its programme of conferences and training. - GOL will ensure that ASB is prioritised in CDRP crime and disorder strategies for 2005. - GOL will ensure that CDRPs are linked into the national TOGETHER campaign on ASB and will support CDRPs which are nominated as Trailblazers or Action Areas as part of the TOGETHER campaign. - BTP & TfL will ensure that considerations of transport-related ASB are incorporated within CDRP strategies and processes. - YJB, through Crime Concern, will support key ASB preventive remedies that are locally-based, including Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) and Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) - for example through training, quality assurance and providing networking opportunities. b Helping local partnerships to identify funding opportunities for ASB work There is extensive funding available to local agencies and partnerships for (directly or indirectly) tackling ASB. However, there are untapped sources, both from national government and elsewhere. Additionally, local resources may already be available but could be deployed more effectively to tackle local ASB problems. - ALG will work with its members to highlight the need for targeted and flexible funding sources for locally-led initiatives to tackle ASB. - In the medium term there may be some scope for directing ALG grant aid for community organisations to ASB work. - For the future, it is expected that Local Area Agreements will result in simplified and more flexible funding streams to local authorities via regional government; a key theme will be Building Safer and Stronger Communities. - YJB has secured funding for expansion of YISPs and YIPs through Spending Review 2004; this will be used to expand provision in London from April 2005. c Providing training for ASB practitioners Many ASB practitioners, including ASB Co-ordinators, are new to the work, and need training. Whilst there is some national provision, much training is best provided regionally; it sustains networks of local practitioners whilst providing economies of scale. - GOL will develop its training programme for ASB co-ordinators, started in January 2004, and will extend this to other appropriate groups throughout 2005 and beyond. - GOL will ensure CDRPs are accessing and linked into the Home Office TOGETHER Academy training programme. - The MPS ASB Team is committed to supporting a continuing programme of training for multi-agency groups, the new Safer Neighbourhoods teams and local police managers. Its work also includes the exchange and collation of initiatives across London and the UK. - The MPS ASB Team has established a practitioners' forum comprising police practitioners from most London boroughs. Other legal and professional practitioners are also becoming involved in the forum. - The MPS will support the ALG to extend and enhance training provision on ASB in and around licensed premises (ie training for licensees, door staff and others). - GLA will work with ALG in order to develop child-specific training provision for practitioners within local and regional structures. Training will cover issues such as child protection, children's rights, and referral information. - ALG provides training and guidance on ASB and a broad range of public realm issues through its Transport and Environment Committee. - YJB will ensure YOT staff receive briefings on the use of new ASB powers, and participate fully in their implementation with respect to young people. - ASB strategy partners will work with the London Retail Consortium to develop training on tackling ASB for staff in London businesses. d Developing guidance for ASB practitioners The TOGETHER Academy, Actionline and website provide wide-ranging guidance and advice to ASB practitioners. Other agencies and partnerships also provide guidance on tackling ASB: for example the Housing Corporation Bank of Good Practice, and the good practice database of the Registered Social Landlords' Crime and Nuisance Group. We will ensure that practitioners have ready access to all the available advice, and that any gaps in existing guidance are identified and filled. - The ALG provides regular guidance on all aspects of enviro-crime, including ASB, through its Transport and Environment Committee. - The Housing Corporation has issued Statutory Management Guidance (August 2004) for housing associations which covers the production of ASB policies and procedures. It has produced separate guidance (July 2004) on eligibility for housing, tenancy demotions, and evictions on grounds of ASB. - The Housing Corporation will continue to use its web-based Bank of Good Practice (www.bankofgoodpractice.org) to promulgate housing association good practice in tackling ASB. - Strategy partners (to be identified by Crime and Disorder Plus) will establish common methods of identifying, developing, evaluating and promulgating good practice in tackling ASB. Objective 2: To improve co-ordination and co-operation between local agencies and partnerships There is a need for better co-ordination within and especially between local partnerships. This will involve: - tackling ASB - improving information on local ASB activity - improving information on regional ASB activity - co-ordinating enforcement within and across boroughs - co-ordinating support for ASB victims, witnesses and perpetrators - improving links between CDRPs and the court process and improving support for victims and witnesses - facilitating data exchange - helping to engage local people and promoting communication strategies - helping to get local agencies engaged in ASB work. a Tracking borough activity on ASB There is now an impressive amount of local action against ASB, but little shared knowledge about what is in hand. Boroughs need to know what their neighbours are doing to respond to ASB, so that they anticipate displacement and co-ordinate activities where possible. They also need to be able to contact relevant personnel in other boroughs. - GOL will continue its existing system of tracking borough activity on ASB to ensure that information on local initiatives and programmes is available to all London ASB co-ordinators, and other relevant practitioners. This information will be shared with ASBU and available to boroughs. b Tracking regional activity on ASB The range of service provision at regional level that has relevance to ASB is enormous and complex. Local practitioners need to be fully aware of regional initiatives that have a bearing on their work. An overview of regional activity is also needed for strategic development. - In parallel with the local mapping exercise described above, GOL will mount a mapping exercise of regional activity currently undertaken by regional partners. - This information will be shared with ASBU and boroughs. c Co-ordinating enforcement within and across boroughs Those responsible for ASB do not confine themselves to a single borough, and increasingly, conditions attached to ASBOs are general, rather than place-specific. Local areas need to have access to information on all current ASBOs, including the conditions they impose. Regionally, it is also important to monitor the profile of those who are subject to orders in terms of age, ethnicity and gender. - GOL will support development of an ASBO register of people subject to ASBOs in London (including ASBOs that are passed as part of criminal proceedings). The register will include particulars of the individual, the conditions attached to the order, the duration of the order, the authority that sought the order and the court that granted it. - Entries will be submitted and updated by ASB co-ordinators. A possible location of this could be the existing London Analysts' Support Site which has secure, password-restricted access. - The ASBO register will be used to assist ASBO enforcement across London, and also to carry out monitoring of ASBO recipients in terms of age, ethnicity and gender. d Co-ordinating intervention with perpetrators Those who are responsible for ASB, especially young and other vulnerable people, often need active intervention and support. Whilst their behaviour is unacceptable, they themselves may experience a range of problems, for example relating to mental health, alcohol or other substance misuse or special educational needs. They risk falling through gaps in service provision, by falling on the boundaries between boroughs or between services' referral criteria. - The task of developing new mechanisms for co-ordinating intervention with perpetrators is complex. A working party to take forward this task will be established; the regional agencies that will be involved in this working group are yet to be identified. - The working party will first identify the key issues that need to be addressed, and then consider possible ways of tackling these issues (eg through building on current provisions for Individual Support Orders which can be made with respect to ASBO recipients aged 10 to 17). - There is a particular need for mechanisms for co-ordinating a) packages of intervention with ABC and ASBO recipients and b) referral procedures between housing authorities with respect to evicted ASB perpetrators. - A key issue to be addressed here is the provision of training for key workers - including ASB practitioners - on how to recognise signs of mental distress in young people; this ties in with work under the Mayor's Children and Young People's Strategy. e Improving local co-ordination with the courts and CPS and support for ASB victims and witnesses ASB practitioners need closer links with the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, to improve their confidence in the capacity of these agencies to respond to ASB. Practitioners need to feel confident that: - The courts are responsive in dealing with applications for ASBOs, parenting orders, child safety orders and dispersal orders. - Breaches of orders are effectively and consistently dealt with. - Serious offenders are dealt with through criminal proceedings, wherever appropriate - thus obviating the need to use stand-alone ASBOs as a substitute for criminal prosecution. It is also critically important that victims and witnesses of ASB are supported, and that this support takes into account their particular needs (for example, relating to the fact that they often live in very close proximity to perpetrators). - The cross-London agencies are committed to developing a framework for improved liaison between local ASB practitioners, the CPS and the courts. The lead agencies for this work will be identified by Crime and Disorder Plus. - This project may involve collaboration with the London Criminal Justice Board; and court user groups attached to courts may provide suitable forums for local liaison. - The project will build on ongoing work by the CPS to extend their involvement in CDRPs, and the provision of ASB expert prosecutors (funded by the TOGETHER campaign) and ASB response courts in London and elsewhere. These ongoing developments have the aims of improving and expediting the prosecution of ASB-related cases, and promoting partnership working between the courts, CPS and local agencies. - The project will also explore ways of extending community-based victims support schemes and court-based witness services to ASB victims and witnesses. - The MPS is leading on a pan-London ASBO training project encompassing the CPS, barristers, court staff, YOTS, housing associations and police. The training will cover the application process, ASBO hearings, and the policing of ASBOs. - The pan-London ASBO project will also involve the standardisation of all ASBO case papers, to ensure consistency in ASBO applications and policing across London, and the production of a CD-Rom containing all relevant information and templates. - YJB will promote the involvement of YOT staff in court proceedings relating to ASBO applications, Individual Support Orders and ASBO breaches. - YJB will encourage the use of restorative justice options with victims of ASB that has been committed by young people referred to YOTs. f Facilitating data gathering, analysis and exchange Within CDRPs there needs to be better information exchange on ASB problems and perpetrators. Local agencies are often poorly equipped to measure and map local ASB incidents. Furthermore, there is still a degree of reluctance about the exchange of personal data on ASB perpetrators between CDRP agencies - which increases the chances that action will be taken only when enforcement brings perpetrators in front of the courts. - The MPA and MPS will collaborate with GOL and the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group to develop guidance on data-related issues, for example on: - how to record and measure ASB incidents - the management of case work information - general performance measurement and monitoring and evaluation of specific ASB initiatives. - It is important that local agencies should gather data in forms that allow for cross-borough comparisons and analysis. In collaboration with the MPA and MPS, GOL will develop a minimum functional specification for local ASB information systems. - The government is considering strengthening information sharing requirements in a review of the Crime and Disorder Act; when more is known about this, GOL will consider how best to develop protocols for the exchange within (and between) partnerships of data on individuals subject to ASBOs, ISOs and ABCs. Effective information exchange on ASB perpetrators does not only play a crucial part in enforcement activity, but also in preventive work with individuals at risk of engaging in crime and ASB. - Local agencies and partnerships should be able to carry out equality impact assessments on their ASB work, as there are risks that enforcement tools could serve to amplify discrimination and social exclusion. The GLA will develop guidance on mounting these assessments. - The Housing Corporation will collect (from May 2005) annual data on housing association lettings, tenancy demotions and evictions related to ASB. Other data relating to ASB are collected on an ongoing basis. - The MPS is exploring ways in which police ASB data can be collected from London boroughs, to gain insight into the levels and kinds of ASB being perpetrated in different areas. g Helping to engage local people and promoting communications strategies Local efforts to address ASB will only have a significant impact if they draw in local people. Community engagement and community capacity building is a regional, as well as a national, priority. This work entails involving local people in ASB action, prioritising the local issues of concern, and feeding back progress on ASB to communities - so that people develop confidence in the willingness and capacity of local agencies to tackle ASB. The development of communications strategies is hence a critical element of community engagement work. - At the regional level, the MPA and MPS are shifting their community engagement agenda from consultation and securing consent to providing much fuller involvement of communities in local work on crime and ASB. - The locally-based Safer Neighbourhood policing teams, currently being established under the MPA/MPS Safer Neighbourhoods Programme, aim to engage directly with local communities and agencies in order to identify local problems and foster a shared sense of responsibility for tackling them. - The MPA will develop a Community Engagement Strategy, which will take full account of the need to involve local people and businesses in the policing of ASB. This will provide a framework within which local police and CDRP plans for community involvement can be developed. - The MPA will ensure that the diversity agenda is addressed as part of the Community Engagement Strategy; the ALG and GLA will work with regional partners to support this development. - The GLA, in conjunction with the MPA and MPS, will undertake work to promote dialogue between younger and older members of local communities, to improve social cohesion and reduce perceptions and fear of ASB. - GOL will encourage CDRPs to develop local communications strategies which will focus on building public confidence in local action on ASB. - The Housing Corporation requires housing associations to consult residents in drawing up their ASB policies, and to be responsive to residents' views and priorities. h Helping to get local agencies on board Effective local work on ASB depends on the full commitment of all CDRP partners. In the past, some partners have been less engaged than others. The cross-London agencies will exert what levers they can to encourage fuller participation of relevant local agencies in CDRPs. - ALG will work through the relevant committees to encourage fuller engagement of local education authorities, social services and other local authority departments in CDRPs. - To encourage greater involvement of health agencies in CDRPs, GLA will work through the London Health Commission. - GOL will support GLA and ALG's efforts to promote local partnership; for example, GOL will encourage the engagement of health agencies by working through the five London Strategic Health Authorities. - The MPS will work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. - The Housing Corporation will stress the importance of housing association engagement with CDRPs, either directly or through bodies that represent several associations. Objective 3: To supplement local action with cross-London work, where this is needed Some forms of ASB are best tackled by regional as well as local agencies. This is especially true when displacement is an issue, or when perpetrators are highly mobile. Regional action can also bring benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness or efficiency. In recognition of these benefits, a range of regional initiatives to address ASB directly are being launched by this strategy. These regional initiatives are to be undertaken in the following four broad areas: - neighbourhood policing - transport - fire - housing and planning. The Mayor is responsible for setting the budget for policing, transport and the fire brigade in London, and will ensure that addressing ASB is a funding priority over the lifetime of this strategy. In addition to the regional work described here, the cross-London agencies are engaged in many other regional programmes that have a bearing on ASB. These other programmes are not, however, covered by this strategy because they address ASB only as one dimension of wider community safety and social welfare concerns. The wider programmes include work to tackle alcohol-related violence under the GLA's London Agenda for Action on Alcohol, which ties in with the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. Much regional work addressing issues of children, young people and education also has an important ASB dimension. Key initiatives include the DfES London Challenge. This initiative aims to improve secondary schools in London and encompasses multi-agency work to reduce truancy and exclusions across the Capital. a Neighbourhood policing Effective ASB work must address specific local concerns and problems, and one of the best ways of doing this is through dedicated teams of neighbourhood-based officers. - The joint MPA/MPS Safer Neighbourhoods Programme is part of the National Reassurance Programme. It aims to reduce the fear of crime and disorder and improve the environment and quality of life in local communities, through the provision of dedicated, community-based policing teams. - Each Safer Neighbourhoods Team will have a minimum staffing of at least one sergeant, two constables and three PCSOs. When the programme is fully rolled out, all areas of London will have their own dedicated policing teams. - The BTP are undertaking a similar approach on the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway with the establishment of Group Station teams. - By working in partnership with other agencies and carrying out consultation, the teams will identify the issues of most concern to local people and will respond to these issues through focused policing activity. - GOL, GLA and MPS will develop and implement regional responses to problems associated with begging. - GOL, GLA and MPS will develop and implement regional responses to problems associated with alcohol-related disorder. - Through the Capital Standards programme, GOL, GLA, MPS and other partners will support a consistent response to environmental crime and provide tools for schools and other organisations to make London cleaner and greener. - Locally-based neighbourhood and street warden schemes have an important role to play in local work to combat ASB. Schemes that are funded by ODPM will continue to receive support and guidance from GOL. - The MPS will work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. b Transport Transport-related ASB can seriously disrupt the lives of Londoners. By its nature, it must be responded to at regional as well as local level. - BTP and TfL/London Underground have produced a joint Community Safety Strategy for 2004-2005. ASB issues addressed by the strategy include begging, ticket touting and inconsiderate behaviour by groups of youths in stations. - BTP has successfully obtained a large number of ASBOs against prolific ASB offenders which has had a significant impact on the level of ASB on the rail network. - TfL has funded a transport-focused Operational Command Unit (TOCU) in the MPS that targets low level crime and disorder issues on London's surface transport. - TfL will continue to support and fund existing transport policing resources on London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway. - TfL will continue to support the work of London Underground operational staff who gather evidence for ASBO applications against regular London Underground offenders. - TfL is funding 200 additional BTP officers to provide high visibility reassurance policing on the Underground, major transport interchanges and Docklands Light Railway. - TfL is drafting a Policing Plan (encompassing the work of BTP and TOCU) to include plans for common approaches to transport policing and ASB issues in London, such as anti-graffiti tactics, the use of relevant orders, co-ordination of CCTV facilities and ways of tackling ticket touting. - TfL will ensure that there is co-ordination of bus CCTV activities with the MPS and bus operators. - TfL will assist in producing CCTV images for offenders for identification by schools, YOTs and Safer Neighbourhood Teams. c Fire A significant proportion of ASB in London takes the form of arson and fire-setting. Hoax calls to emergency services are also a large problem. A regional response to these problems is required. - LFEPA has published its first London Safety Plan for 2004/05, which includes plans for tackling fire-related ASB. - LFEPA's youth engagement programme, Local Intervention Fire Education (LIFE), currently operates in five London boroughs. It is a week-long course aiming to improve young people's lives, and primarily targeted at young people who have engaged, or may be at risk of engaging, in ASB. The Authority will continue to seek external funding to sustain and expand the LIFE programme across London. - A pan-London Arson Task Force (ATF) has been established with funding from the ODPM. The initiative involves LFEPA and other agencies, and aims to find sustainable solutions in the 60 wards with the highest arson levels. LFEPA will absorb the lessons learned during the life of the ATF and share this knowledge with others. - LFEPA's Juvenile Fire-setters Intervention Scheme seeks to address the fire-setting behaviour of children and young people across London, by working with the young people in their own homes. - In addition to the above, LFEPA is involved in various other projects focussing on young people, including a course provided in partnership with the Prince's Trust, the Prison Me No Way and Best Buddy projects, and Junior Citizens Events. - LFEPA has reached agreements with telephone companies which allow for the disablement of telephones regularly used to make hoax calls to the fire service. LFEPA is also establishing social interventions to reduce incidents of hoax calls further. d Housing and planning The nature of social housing is such that many of the most severe ASB problems tend to occur within this sector. As a growing proportion of social housing is now managed by housing associations, these agencies - with the support of the Housing Corporation - have a vital role to play in addressing problems of ASB, alongside local authority housing departments. Broader and longer-term planning issues, particularly as set out in the Mayor's London Plan, also have a direct relevance to work to prevent ASB. - The Housing Corporation will continue to promote a balanced approach by housing associations in tackling ASB, as part of their contribution to neighbourhood management. - Under Section 12 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, housing associations must produce and publish policies and procedures on ASB by 30 December 2004. As the lead strategic body in relation to London's housing associations, the Housing Corporation issued guidance in August 2004 on the production of ASB policies. - The Housing Corporation issued guidance to housing associations in July 2004 on the eligibility of housing applicants with a history of ASB, or previous convictions; the use of starter and demoted tenancies; and the use of evictions (only to be considered when other interventions have failed to protect the wider community). - The Housing Corporation requires housing associations to plan new developments with proper attention to crime and nuisance reduction measures. The Housing Corporation's design quality initiatives offer practical, physical ways of preventing or reducing ASB. Future assessments of the impact of investment decisions on communities and neighbourhoods will involve both subjective and objective measures, including those associated with crime and nuisance reduction. - The Housing Corporation will also expect to see consideration of playspace and community facilities in the design of new developments and regeneration projects. - Under the London Plan, the GLA will work with the London boroughs in developing sub-regional planning frameworks. Issues relating to safety, security and community will be key elements of these frameworks. Objective 4: To ensure consistency and sustainability in policy responses to ASB across London Different strands of social policy can pull against each other. Stimulating the night-time economy is desirable, for example, but there are problems to be tackled associated with ASB. There can be tensions between promoting the welfare of children and carrying out enforcement with respect to children engaged in ASB. We aim to ensure that: - the London ASB Strategy is internally consistent; and - other work and strategic initiatives undertaken by the cross-London agencies are in harmony with this strategy. a Ensuring the internal consistency of the London ASB Strategy All work carried out under this strategy must be fully consistent with the principles that underpin this strategy, as set out in Section 2 of the document: - ASB must be tackled effectively - there must be sustainable and long-term solutions, combining prevention and enforcement - ASB measures must be consistent with human rights legislation - ASB measures must foster, rather than undermine, social inclusion and cultural diversity. - In April 2006, all the strategy partners will assess the extent to which their work on ASB to date has been consistent with the principles of the strategy. - The GLA will mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of this programme of work on minority groups such as BME groups, refugees and asylum seekers, religious minorities. - This impact assessment will pay particular attention to whether enforcement has the effect of further marginalising and stigmatising vulnerable groups (eg children, homeless people and mentally ill people) and how any such negative effects can be mitigated. - In carrying out work under this strategy, we shall ensure that the positive as well as negative behaviours of children and young people are recognised and that the work is consistent with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. - YJB will consider the impact of ASB legislation on the use of custody for young people, in line with the need to reserve custody for the most serious and persistent young offenders. b Ensuring harmony between the London ASB Strategy and other regional programmes The cross-London agencies are collectively responsible for a wide range of policy issues. Inevitably different agencies - and departments within agencies - have differing priorities. It is essential to minimise the tension between different policy agendas. - All signatories to the London ASB Strategy will ensure that their work on ASB is consistent with the strategy's principles. - The GLA will mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of the strategy's programme of work on minority groups. - YJB will consider the impact of ASB legislation on the use of custody for young people. - Other London-wide programmes and strategies will be assessed in order to identify and address any inconsistencies with the London ASB Strategy. The lead agencies for this task will be identified by the working party. - Key issues to be addressed by the audit of London-wide programmes include: - Ensuring that the voices of children and young people are heard in developing and implementing work that has a bearing on ASB in London. - Ensuring that local responses to ASB involving children and young people are consistent with the Mayor's Children and Young People's Strategy; and that potential conflicts of interest between care and control of children are resolved. - Reviewing youth provision, school exclusion policies and school admission policies in London, especially in the light of recent legislative changes and the forthcoming Youth Green Paper (autumn 2004), to address the deficit in out-of-school provision for children and young people. - Ensuring that any changes in legislation relating to the night-time economy in commercial areas of London results in consideration of how to reduce any related alcohol-related crime and disorder. - Ensuring that the implications for ASB are taken fully into account in decisions made throughout London (and under the Mayor's London Plan) relating to housing allocation, planning, land use and building design. - Ensuring that the London ASB Strategy contributes to the sustainable development of London, as defined by the Mayor's Sustainable Development Framework for London. Objective 5: To identify regional structures for tackling ASB We shall only achieve Objectives 1-4 if overall responsibility for the strategy is allocated to a regional body that can drive it forward and review progress. The Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group will take on this responsibility. The Group is chaired by the GLA, and brings together London-wide agencies to co-ordinate work on crime and disorder. Crime and Disorder Plus will identify appropriate working groups to take forward the work of the strategy. If this is deemed appropriate, the working party responsible for producing this document will direct and oversee implementation of the strategy. Where necessary, new working groups may be established to take forward particular tasks under the strategy. However, the guiding principle will be that it is preferable to use existing viable structures than to create new ones. The first step in implementation of the strategy will be the development of an outcome-focused action plan, which will be an elaboration of the programme of action presented in this document. The action plan will set out the specific actions to be undertaken by each of the strategy partners, together with detailed time-scales, targets and performance indicators. It will also be necessary to establish a system for monitoring and review of the actions. ## 5 Implementation Plan Objective 1:To energise and support local action by CDRPs and their partners | a | |-----------------------------------------------| | All (through | | C & D+ and ASB | | working group). | | b Helping local partnerships identify funding | | ALG | | opportunities for ASB work | | c | | Providing training for ASB practitioners | | GOL | | d Developing guidance for ASB practitioners | | GOL | | Agency | | MPS/LFEPA/ | | City of London | | MPA | | ALG | | GOL | | - | | - | | BTP & TfL | | YJB | | YJB | | MPS | | MPS/ALG | | ALG | | GLA/ALG | | YJB | | Various | | ALG | | Housing Corp | | Various | | TfL | •As concerns in London are higher than elsewhere in the country, then it is appropriate that the capital should develop new or innovative approaches to tackle the problem. The Crime and Disorder Plus Steering Group and its working group on ASB will devise three or four high-profile new cross-borough initiatives each year in discussion with ASBU and find ways to develop, fund, launch and evaluate them. •As CDRP partners, these agencies will continue to ensure that action on ASB is prioritised by the partnerships (including action on night-time alcohol-related Police disorder), and to engage fully in local consultation and the design and implementation of initiatives. •MPA members sitting on CDRPs will seek to ensure that local community safety strategies reflect ASB priorities in the London Police Plan and the priorities of the London ASB Strategy. •Ensure prioritisation of ASB in workstreams and ensure that ASB remains high on the local political agenda. •Promote the sharing of experiences and expertise of local authority Membersthrough ALG groups and forums. •Include ASB among topics covered in programme of conferences and training. •Ensure prioritisation of ASB in CDRP strategies and that ASB strategies are implemented effectively. •Ensure that CDRPs are linked to the national TOGETHER campaign on ASB. •Support CDRPs nominated as Trailblazers or Action Areas under TOGETHER campaign. •Ensure that considerations of transport-related ASB are incorporated within CDRP strategies and processes. •Support locally-based preventive remedies eg YISPs and YIPs. •Prioritise ASB issues in the next funding round and consider scope for directing ALG funding to ASB work in the medium term. •Use funding to expand provision of YISPs and YIPs. •Develop existing training programme for ASB co-ordinators. •Ensure CDRPs are linked into TOGETHER Academy training programme. •Continue involvement in multi-agency training on ASB; the exchange and collation of information on ASB initiatives; and the development of the ASB practitioners' forum. •Extend and enhance training provision for licensees, door staff and others on ASB in and around licensed premises. •Provide ongoing guidance, advice and training in public realm issues through its Transport and Environment Committee and to organise an ASB event for members in 2005. •Assist in the development of child-specific training provision for practitioners. •Ensure YOT staff are briefed on new ASB powers and participate in their implementation. •Work with the London Retail Consortium to develop training on tackling ASB for staff in London businesses. •Provide guidance/best practice on effective delivery structures for CDRPs. •Provide guidance on all aspects of enviro-crime through Transport and Environment Committee. •Issued Statutory Management Guidance to housing associations on the production of ASB policies, and guidance on dealing with applicants, evictions, starter tenancies and demoted tenancies. •Continue to develop web-based good practice bank. •Establish common methods of identifying, developing, evaluating and promulgating good practice in tackling ASB. •TfL is drafting a TfL-wide Crime and Disorder Strategy (encompassing the work of BTP and TOCU) to include plans for common approaches to transport policing and ASB issues in London, such as anti-graffiti tactics, the use of relevant orders, co-ordination of CCTV facilities and ways of tackling ticket touting. ## Objective 2: To Improve Co-Ordination And Co-Operation Between Local Agencies And Partnerships | a | Tracking borough activity on ASB | |------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------| | GOL | | | b Tracking regional activity on ASB | | | GOL | | | c | Co-ordinating enforcement | | GOL | | | d Co-ordinating support for perpetrators | | | Working group | | | to be established | | | e | Improving local co-ordination with the courts and | | To be identified | | | support for ASB victims and witnesses | | | f | Facilitating data gathering, analysis and exchange | | MPA/MPS/GOL | | | GLA | | | g Helping to engage local people and promoting | | | MPA/MPS | | | communications strategies | | | h Helping to get local agencies on board | | | ALG | | | Agency | | | MPS | | | YJB | | | GOL | | | GLA | | | Housing Corp | | | BTP & MPS | | | MPA | | | GLA/ALG | | | GLA/MPA/MPS | | | GOL | | | Housing Corp | | | GLA | | | GOL | | | MPS | | | Housing Corp | | •Extend and develop electronic tracking of borough activity on ASB. •Mount a mapping exercise of regional activity on ASB. •Support development of an ASBO register. •Develop new mechanisms for co-ordinating support for ASB perpetrators, including ABC and ASBO recipients and perpetrators who have been evicted for ASB. •Develop framework for liaison between local ASB practitioners, courts and the CPS - building on current CPS and developments eg provision of ASB expert prosecutors and ASB response courts. •Framework to include improved provision for ASB victims and witnesses. •Implement new framework. •Lead on pan-London ASBO project involving multi-agency training on ASBOs and the production of standardised ASBO case papers. •Promote involvement of YOT staff in ASB court proceedings. •Encourage use of restorative justice options with victims of ASB committed by young people. •Develop guidance on data-related issues eg recording and measuring ASB incidents, management of case-work information, evaluation etc. •Develop a minimum functional specification for local ASB information systems. •Develop model protocols for information exchange (within and between CDRPs) on ASB perpetrators. •Provide guidance on equality impact assessments. •Annual data collection from housing association on range of ASB-related activities, eg evictions, demoted tenancies; continuous data collection on lettings, applicants' histories (previous experiences of ASB), properties available as the result of evictions. •Collect and review police data on ASB incidents from all boroughs. •Ensure that the new Safer Neighbourhood policing teams fully engage with local communities and agencies in identifying and tackling ASB issues. •Develop a Community Engagement Strategy to promote the involvement of local people and businesses in the policing of ASB; and ensure that the diversity agenda is addressed as part of this work. •Support an emphasis on the diversity agenda in work to promote community engagement. •Co-ordinate work promoting dialogue between younger and older members of local communities. •Encourage CDRPs to develop communications strategies, focused on building public confidence in local action on ASB. •Require housing associations to consult residents in drawing up their ASB policies, and to be responsive to residents' views and priorities. •Work through Member groups to encourage the engagement of local education authorities, social services and other local authority departments in local work to tackle ASB. •Encourage the involvement of relevant health agencies in the work of CDRPs, through the London Health Commission. •Support ALG and GLA's promotion of local partnerships. •Work in partnership with the London Retail Consortium to develop responses to ASB within business and retail premises. •Promote housing association engagement with CDRPs. ## Objective 3: To Supplement Local Action With Cross-London Work a Neighbourhood policing MPA/MPS b Transport BTP c Fire LFEPA d Housing and planning Housing Corp Agency GOL/GLA/MPS GOL BTP BTP BTP All Agencies TFL TFL TfL/MPS/BTP TFL TFL TFL TFL GLA •Establish Safer Neighbourhood Teams across London which will engage in focused, community-based policing. The teams will work in partnership with local communities and agencies, and will identify, prioritise and tackle those issues that are causing the greatest concern. •Multi-agency work to develop regional responses to problems associated with begging. •Multi-agency work to develop regional responses to problems associated with alcohol-related disorder. •Work with partners to support a consistent response to environmental crime, building on the Capital Standards programme. •Continue to support established warden schemes. •Ensure that tackling ASB remains one of the fundamental priorities. •Continue to enhance the quality of life for those using and working on the railway by the use of ASBOs and other interventions. •Work closely with TFL, MPS and COLP to further enhance a joined-up policing approach to ASB across London. •Further enhance information sharing between transport policing and other agencies, particularly targeting ticket touts (travel cards, concert and football tickets). •Actively use the National Graffiti Database (hosted by BTP in partnership with the Home Office and London Underground). •Continue to support and fund existing transport policing resources on London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway. •Continue to support work of LU operational staff who gather evidence for ASBO applications. •Implement Community Safety Strategy, developed by BTP and TfL/London Underground. •Continue to support and fund the MPS Transport OCU. •Co-ordinate bus CCTV activities between TfL, MPS and bus operators, and assist in producing CCTV images of offenders for identification by schools, YOTs and Safer Neighbourhood Teams. •Develop and implement TfL-wide Policing Plan. •Support and fund 200 additional reassurance police to augment current BTP resources on the Underground, major interchanges and DLR; these to be in place by beginning of 2005/06. •Implement London Safety Plan. •Continue to seek external funding to sustain and expand the LIFE programme. •Continue work of Arson Task Force and share lessons learnt. •Continue work of Juvenile Fire-setters Intervention Scheme. •Continue work to tackle hoax calls. •Undertake other young people's initiatives. •Continue stressing importance of housing association working in partnership to tackle ASB. •Promote good practice in ASB work by housing associations through guidance on production of ASB policies, and guidance on housing eligibility and the use of starter and demoted tenancies and evictions. •Ensure that housing associations take ASB issues into account in the design of new housing developments and regeneration projections. •To work with London boroughs under the Mayor's London Plan, in developing sub-regional planning frameworks - taking into account design issues relating to safety, security and community. ## Objective 4: To Ensure Consistency And Sustainability In Policy Responses To Asb Across London | a | |-------------------------------------------| | All signatories | | London ASB Strategy | | b Ensuring harmony between the London ASB | | To be identified | | Strategy and other regional programmes | | Agency | | GLA | | YJB | •Assess the extent to which the cross-London agencies' work on ASB is consistent with the principles of the London ASB Strategy. •Mount an equality impact assessment to assess the impact of the strategy's programme of work on minority groups. •Consider impact of ASB legislation on use of custody for young people. •Carry out assessments of other cross-London programmes and strategies to identify and address inconsistencies between these and the London ASB Strategy. ## Appendix: Participants In The Consultation London CDRPs Barking and Dagenham Islington Camden Kensington and Chelsea Corporation of London Lewisham Croydon Merton Enfield Richmond Hackney Southwark Hammersmith and Fulham Sutton Haringey Tower Hamlets Harrow Waltham Forest Havering Wandsworth Hounslow Westminster Housing associations/housing association representatives Family Housing Association G17 Anti-Social Behaviour Group Gallions Housing Association Genesis Housing Group Hyde Group Notting Hill Housing Group Orbit Bexley Housing Association Richmond Housing Partnership Southern Housing Group Other Home Office ODPM Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Crown Prosecution Service, London ASBO Solutions Black Londoners Forum Camden LGBT Forum Crimestoppers Croydon Churches EC1 New Deal for Communities Groundwork Mediation UK NSPCC Revolving Doors Agency Royal Parks Police Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below: Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458 The Queen's Walk www.london.gov.uk London SE1 2AA You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require. If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above. | Chinese | Hindi | |------------|----------| | Vietnamese | Bengali | | Greek | Urdu | | Turkish | Arabic | | Punjabi | Gujarati | City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458

en

3269-pdf

## New And Expectant Mothers Who Work A Brief Guide To Your Health And Safety Introduction This leaflet is aimed at new and expectant mothers. It answers some basic questions you may have about carrying on working while you are pregnant or returning to work after giving birth. It sets out what action your employer should take to protect your health and safety and your child's, and any action you need to take. Being pregnant or a new mother does not prevent you from working and developing your career. Many women work while they are pregnant and return to work while they are breastfeeding. In some workplaces, there are risks that may affect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers and that of their child and there are specific laws that require employers to protect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers. ## What Specific Regulations Are There To Protect New And Expectant Mothers' Health And Safety? Specific laws relating to new and expectant mothers at work are mainly contained in: ■ ■ the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW) which require employers to protect the health and safety of new and expectant mothers; ■ ■ the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which require employers to provide suitable rest facilities; ■ ■ the Equality Act 2010 which provides protection to pregnant women and those on maternity leave against discrimination. Depending on the circumstances, this can include failing to carry out a risk assessment under MHSW regarding a pregnant worker. These regulations cover female employees of childbearing age and expectant or new mothers, including those who are breastfeeding. ## What Sort Of Risks Might I Be Exposed To? You may be at risk from processes, working conditions or physical, biological and chemical agents and these risks will vary depending on your health, and at different stages of your pregnancy. Some of the more common risks might be: ■ ■ lifting/carrying heavy loads; ■ ■ standing or sitting still for long lengths of time; ■ ■ exposure to infectious diseases (further information can be found at www.hse. gov.uk/pubns/books/infection-mothers.htm); ■ ■ exposure to lead; ■ ■ exposure to toxic chemicals; ■ ■ work-related stress; ■ ■ workstations and posture; ■ ■ exposure to radioactive material; ■ ■ threat of violence in the workplace; ■ ■ long working hours; ■ ■ excessively noisy workplaces. ## Do I Have To Tell My Employer That I Am Pregnant Or That I Am Breastfeeding? If you are pregnant, have given birth in the last six months or are breastfeeding, you are not required to inform your employer. However, it is important for you and your child's health and safety protection, and for maternity leave purposes, that you provide them with written notification as early as possible. When they have had written notification from you, your employer may revisit their original risk assessment to identify if they need to do more to make sure you and your baby are not exposed to risk. Your employer can also ask for a certificate from your GP or your midwife showing you are pregnant. ## Do I Have To Be Pregnant Before My Employer Takes Action To Protect My Health And Safety? No. Your employer is required to assess the health and safety risks that any employees are exposed to at work. Any specific risks to female employees of childbearing age and new or expectant mothers and their new baby, do not need to be assessed separately, but can be considered as part of, or as an extension to, the overall risk assessment. When you have told your employer in writing that you are pregnant, they may want to revisit their original, general risk assessment. If the risk cannot be removed, your employer must: Action 1: temporarily adjust your working conditions and/or hours of work - if that is not possible; Action 2: you should be offered suitable alternative work (at the same rate of pay) if available - if that is not feasible; Action 3: you should be suspended from work on paid leave for as long as necessary, to protect your health and safety, and that of your baby. ## What Involvement Should I Have In The Risk Assessment Process? As part of your employer's general duties they must inform you (either directly or through your safety representative) about the preventative and protective measures implemented to reduce, remove or control risk. Your employer may revisit their original risk assessment to identify if there is anything else they need to do to make sure either you or your baby are not exposed to risk. It is important that you tell your employer about any advice you have had from your doctor or midwife (eg pregnancy-related medical conditions such as high blood pressure, a history of miscarriages etc) as that could affect the assessment. Your employer will use this information to review their risk assessment and if necessary to adjust your working conditions accordingly. You can ask to see the outcome of the risk assessment and your employer must show it to you. The flowchart on page 3 outlines the action your employer must take to do this. ## Stage 1: General Risk Assessment Does The Risk Assessment Get Repeated As My Pregnancy Progresses? Employers are required by law to review general workplace risks. Your employer should regularly monitor and review any risk assessment as circumstances may change, particularly at different stages of your pregnancy. If you think you are exposed to a risk at work, you need to talk to your employer about it so they can review the risk assessment. You may also wish to talk to your safety representatives. Any written advice from your GP to your employer may help. ## Can I Rearrange My Hours To Decrease My Stress Level? If the risk assessment identifies stress as a possible risk, your employer should remove the risk, where possible. If that is not possible, your working conditions or hours of work should be adjusted. ## Am I Entitled To More Frequent Rest Breaks? As a new or expectant mother, you are likely to need to go to the toilet more often, as it is important to drink plenty of fluids both while you are pregnant and when you are breastfeeding. It is sensible to agree timing and flexibility of rest breaks with your employer as part of the risk assessment process. ## I Have Told My Gp I Think My Health Problems Are Due To Risks I Have Been Exposed To At Work. I Am Pregnant, So Should I Be Signed Off Work? Signing you off sick from work may not resolve the cause of your ill health and in some circumstances, this may affect your maternity benefits. Once informed that you are pregnant, your employer may revisit their original, general risk assessment and if that identifies a risk, take the appropriate action. ## Can I Still Work Nights? Yes. But, if your GP or midwife has provided a medical certificate stating that you must not continue to work nights, then your employer must offer you suitable alternative day work on the same terms and conditions. If that is not possible, then your employer should suspend you from work on paid leave for as long as necessary to protect your health and safety and/or that of your child. ## What Are My Maternity Rights? HSE is responsible for areas relating to your health and safety, and that of your child before birth and during breastfeeding. You should contact www.gov.uk for more information about your maternity rights: ■ ■ time off work for antenatal appointments; ■ ■ statutory maternity pay; ■ ■ maternity allowance; ■ ■ protection against unfair treatment or dismissal. ## When Can I Return To Work? You will find information about how much maternity leave you can choose to take by visiting www.gov.uk, but you are required to take compulsory maternity leave for the first two weeks following childbirth. You can decide your return to work after compulsory maternity leave in discussion with your employer. It is important to have this discussion before you return to work, if an earlier assessment has identified risk for the new mother or baby. If this is the case, you may need to be suspended from work on full pay, pending further assessment. For more information about returning to work, visit www.gov.uk. ## I Am Returning To Work. Can I Still Breastfeed? It is your decision if you wish to breastfeed on your return to work. You should provide your employer with written notification, if possible before you return, that you are breastfeeding. Your employer may revisit the original risk assessment (as outlined in Stage Two of the flowchart on page 3), if potential risks had already been identified in the general risk assessment. Your employer must provide suitable rest facilities for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers and it is recommended that employers provide a private, healthy and safe environment for nursing mothers to express and store milk. Toilets are not suitable for this. ## Are There Specific Workplace Risks Associated With Breastfeeding? There may be risks other than those associated with pregnancy to consider, if you plan to continue breastfeeding once you have returned to work. These depend on your working conditions and could include: ■ ■ working with organic mercury; ■ ■ working with radioactive materials; ■ ■ exposure to lead. You should inform your employer, in writing, as early as possible, that you plan to continue breastfeeding when you return to work. Your employer should then take the same action as when you provided notification of pregnancy (see the flowchart on page 3). I am concerned that my employer has failed to take the appropriate action. What should I do? You can talk to, and get advice from, your safety representative, your union (if you belong to one), or your occupational health service (if your employer provides one). You can also visit HSE's website at www.hse.gov.uk for further advice. Specifically you may wish to visit the workers' rights pages (www.hse.gov.uk/ workers/index.htm) for more information, or the complaints page if you feel your employer is not fulfilling their legal duties relating to your health or safety (www.hse.gov.uk/contact/workplace-complaints.htm). ## Further Information For information about health and safety, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this guidance, visit www.hse.gov.uk. You can view HSE guidance online and order priced publications from the website. HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops. This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance. This leaflet is available at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg373.htm. © Crown copyright If you wish to reuse this information visit www.hse.gov.uk/copyright.htm for details. First published 04/13.

en

4464-pdf

## Our Rail And Road Duties Summary How ORR exercises its functions is governed by various statutory duties which we must take into account when making decisions. Different duties apply depending on whether ORR is exercising its economic or safety functions. These duties are listed below. ## Economic Duties For economic regulation our duties are set out under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. These duties include the duty to:  promote improvements in railway service performance;  otherwise to protect the interests of users of railway services;  promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods, and the development of that railway network, to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable;  contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods;  contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;  promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services;  promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services;  promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator;  impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the performance of ORR's functions under Part 1 RA 1993 or the RA 2005 that are not safety functions;  enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance;  protect the interests of users and potential users of services for the carriage of passengers by railway provided by a private sector operator, otherwise than under a franchise agreement, in respect of the prices charged for travel by means of those services, and the quality of the service provided;  protect the interests of persons providing services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway in their use of any railway facilities which are for the time being vested in a private sector operator, in respect of the prices charged for such use and the quality of the service provided;  in exercising functions that are not safety functions: - take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways; - have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected with the provision of railway services; - have regard to any general guidance given to ORR by the Secretary of State about railway services or other matters relating to railways; - have regard to any general guidance given by the Scottish Ministers about railway services wholly or partly in Scotland or about other matters in or as regards Scotland that relate to railways; - in having regard to guidance given by Scottish Ministers, give what appears to ORR to be appropriate weight to the extent to which the guidance relates to matters in respect of which expenditure is to be or has been incurred by the Scottish Ministers; - act in a manner which ORR considers will not render it unduly difficult for persons who are holders of network licences to finance any activities or proposed activities of theirs in relation to which ORR has functions; - have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions in relation to railways or railways services; - have regard to any notified strategies and policies of the National Assembly for Wales, so far as they relate to Welsh services or to any other matter in or as regards Wales that concerns railways or railway services; - have regard to the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to carry out the functions conferred or imposed on them by or under any enactment; - have regard to the ability of the Mayor of London and Transport for London to carry out the functions conferred or imposed on them by or under any enactment;  in exercising its safety functions, other than its functions as an enforcing authority for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, to have regard to any general guidance given to it by the Secretary of State;  have regard to the interests, in securing value for money, of the users or potential users of railway services, of persons providing railway services or of the persons who make available the resources and funds and of the general public;  have regard, in particular, to the interests of persons who are disabled in relation to services for the carriage of passengers by railway or to station services. ## Safety Duties Schedule 3 of the Railways Act 2005 gives ORR a general duty to do such things and make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purposes of railway safety, and to assist and encourage persons concerned with matters relevant to those purposes to further those purposes. Section 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) also gives ORR a general duty to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and of those who might be put at risk as a result of the activities of persons at work. These objectives are called HSWA's general purposes. The railway safety purposes are so much of HSWA's general purposes as relate to the risks relevant to or connected with:  securing the proper construction and safe operation of railways, tramways etc;  securing the proper construction and safe operation of locomotives, rolling stock or other vehicles used, or to be used, on such systems;  protecting the public (whether or not they are passengers) from personal injury and other risks arising from the construction and operation of such systems;  protecting persons at work from personal injury and other risks so arising ## Other Railway Duties Section 21 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides that ORR shall have an overriding duty to exercise its regulatory functions in such a manner as not to impede the performance of any development agreement. Section 22 of the Crossrail Act 2008 provides that section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993 shall be treated as including the objective of facilitating the construction of Crossrail. It also provides that ORR shall consult the Secretary of State about this aspect of the duty. Regulation 31 of The Railways (Infrastructure Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 sets out the various duties to which ORR must have regard when carrying out its functions under these Regulations. ## General Duties Section 72 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 requires us to keep our functions under review and ensure that in exercising these functions we do not:  impose burdens which we consider to be unnecessary, or  maintain burdens which we consider to have become unnecessary. We also have an equalities duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires us to have due regard to the need to:  eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;  advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (relevant protected characteristics are - age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation);  foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. ## Our Road Duties The Infrastructure Act 2015 (IA 2015) gives ORR functions in relation to monitoring and enforcing in its role as Monitor for Highways England (HE). Our monitoring function requires us to carry out activities to monitor how Highways England exercises its functions. Our enforcement function enables us to take enforcement action against Highways England: this is a discretionary function and it is for ORR to determine whether or not to exercise its enforcement powers under the IA 2015. How we exercise our monitoring and enforcement functions is governed by general statutory duties which we must take into account when making decisions. These duties are set out in sections 12 of the IA 2015. The duties are listed below: ## General Road Duties  ORR must exercise its functions in the way we consider most likely to promote the performance and efficiency of Highways England;  In exercising our functions, we must also have regard to the following factors: - the interests of users of highways; - the safety of users of highways; - the economic impact of the way in which HE achieves its objectives; - the environmental impact of the way in which HE achieves its objectives; - the long-term maintenance and management of highways; - that regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent; and - regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed. ORR must also have regard to Statutory Guidance, issued by the Secretary of State and HM Treasury as to the manner in which we carry out our monitoring and enforcement functions. ## © Crown Copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at orr.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at orr.gov.uk

en

2453-pdf

## Disposal Of Asbestos Waste Em9 Asbestos Essentials Equipment And Method Sheet Non-Licensed Tasks What This Sheet Covers This sheet describes good practice when you need to dispose of asbestos waste. This information will help employers and the selfemployed to comply with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It is also useful for trade union and employee safety representatives. Any asbestos product or material that is ready for disposal is defined as asbestos waste. Asbestos waste also includes contaminated building materials, tools that cannot be decontaminated, personal protective equipment and damp rags used for cleaning. If in doubt, always treat waste as 'Hazardous' or 'Special'. See the table for more details. Only carry out work if you are properly trained and have the right equipment. England and Wales Asbestos waste is 'Hazardous Waste' when it contains ## Remember: • Asbestos fibres can cause fatal lung disease and lung cancer. • Check what you're working on before you start. • Read the safety checklist and sheet a0. • You must be trained to work Scotland Asbestos waste is 'Special Waste' when it contains more than 0.1 % asbestos. The Special Waste Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 apply. Complete a Hazardous Waste Consignment Note. Contact the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for more information. safely with asbestos materials. England, Scotland and Wales ## Caution: Don'T Mix Asbestos Waste With Other Waste To Get Below 0.1 %. ˜ z Waste must be packed in UN-approved packaging with a CDG hazard label and asbestos code information visible. ˜ z Double-wrap and label asbestos waste. Standard practice is to use a red inner bag with asbestos warnings, and a clear outer bag with the CDG label, if required. more than 0.1 % asbestos. The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 apply. Complete a Hazardous Waste Consignment Note. Contact the Environment Agency for more information in England. Contact Natural Resources Wales for more information in Wales. All asbestos waste is subject to Schedule 2 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and most waste is subject to The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009 (CDG 2009). CDG does not apply to firmlybound asbestos - asbestos cement or articles with asbestos reinforcement which do not release hazardous or respirable fibres easily. However, the hazardous and special waste regulations still apply. CDG applies for all other asbestos waste. ## Caution ˜ z Avoid breaking up large pieces of asbestos waste. Instead double wrap in suitable polythene sheeting (1000-gauge) and label accordingly. Don't overfill bags. ˜ z To transport waste, you need a waste carriers licence. Beware of sharp objects that could puncture plastic. ˜ z If you carry waste, use a sealed skip, or a vehicle with the following: ˜ z segregated compartment for asbestos; ˜ z easily cleanable; ˜ z lockable (it is not good enough to throw sheeting over a standard skip). ˜ z Otherwise, arrange for transport by a registered waste carrier. ˜ z Safe disposal - make sure you use a licensed disposal site. ˜ z Complete a Waste Consignment Note. Keep copies of these documents for three years. For information about health and safety, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this guidance, visit www.hse.gov.uk/. You can view HSE guidance online and order priced publications from the website. HSE priced publications are also available from bookshops. This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Executive. Following the guidance is not compulsory, unless specifically stated, and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance. This document is available at: www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/essentials/

en

4869-pdf

| | Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PACS (IT) | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | ACCENTURE | 579101 | 67,779.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 582520 | 30,225.06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 585277 | 30,988.62 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 585277 | 1,439.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | MEDICAL EQUIP ADDITIONS PURCH | ARX LTD | 571376 | 88,988.70 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY | 23449 | 33,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2012 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 583889 | 81,840.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | CONTR OTHER EXTERNAL | CALDERDALE AND HUDDERSFIELD FOUNDATION TRUST | 23824 | 50,129.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 584885 | 3,218,484.75 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 580466 | 40,013.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 580468 | 52,679.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 580485 | 32,146.12 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | GAS | CORONA ENERGY RETAIL 4 LTD | 580489 | (33,535.67) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE | CHIEF EXECUTIVE | COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT | 23502 | 25,037.89 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2012 CHIEF EXECUTIVE | CHIEF EXECUTIVE | COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON NHS FT | 23713 | 26,991.96 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH | MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE | DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE | 583642 | 259,260.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 579985 | 64,123.55 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 579989 | 73,912.82 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 579990 | 75,325.35 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 STAFF RESIDENCES PGI | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 579991 | 34,232.38 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583261 | 74,070.94 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583264 | (73,912.82) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583943 | 68,953.69 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583944 | 74,372.58 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583946 | (74,070.94) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 583948 | (68,507.21) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 586164 | 31,704.53 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 586166 | 71,267.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 586169 | 70,445.01 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 ESTATE MANAGEMENT DDH | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 586170 | 58,549.01 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 EDMS PROJECT | EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS | EDM GROUP LTD | 582415 | 46,500.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 31/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SYSTEMS (UK) LTD | 583306 | 40,170.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | ERNST & YOUNG LLP | 580713 | 220,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | ERNST & YOUNG LLP | 585599 | 335,414.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 | 579819 | 27,120.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | HEALTHCARE PRODUCT SERVICES-INV 939,945,971 | 582548 | 27,120.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED | HEALTHCARE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS | 582732 | 47,641.44 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 578902 | 64,655.88 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 578902 | 5,652.95 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 MRI SERVICE | INDEPENDENT SECTOR | INHEALTH LTD | 583580 | 56,425.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE | SENIOR LECTURER | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23309 | 80,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 THERAPIES SLA | HEALTHCARE SRV REC PCTS | LOCALA COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS C.I.C | 584311 | 45,423.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 REG SPINAL INJURIES CENTRE PGH | PAIN MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT | MEDTRONIC LTD | 578763 | 28,260.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 23357 | 115,401.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 23360 | 41,767.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | ERET PROVN STAFF UTILISN >1YR | NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY | 23690 | 107,999.15 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 17/07/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 23677 | 947,690.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 17/07/2012 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 23679 | 26,637.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 578139 | 89,770.23 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP FIXED FEE CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 578477 | 52,000.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 580493 | 63,540.18 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 580493 | 15,761.51 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 583231 | 69,486.69 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 583231 | 12,897.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 583436 | 54,984.79 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 583436 | 16,799.57 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23256 | 51,239.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23256 | 1,484.09 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23257 | 43,505.85 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23257 | 1,260.07 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23258 | 62,112.65 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23258 | 1,798.97 | Transaction Reference Amount | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23259 | 62,112.65 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------|--------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23259 | 1,798.97 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23260 | 67,605.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23260 | 689.85 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23262 | 141,004.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23262 | 1,438.86 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23266 | 97,698.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23335 | 128,110.21 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23336 | 75,297.71 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23441 | 200,780.61 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23442 | 59,242.49 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23501 | 32,893.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | X-RAY EQUIP MAINT/REPAIR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23501 | 168.70 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23521 | 67,185.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | NHS PAYABLES < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 23523 | 159,066.05 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 580704 | 143,015.04 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 580745 | 44,207.76 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 584192 | 75,114.38 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/07/2012 EDMS PROJECT | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | PHOENIX PARTNERSHIP | 579396 | 44,000.40 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 BIOCHEMISTRY TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY REAGENTS | RADIOMETER LTD | 580294 | 31,084.37 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 578861 | 25,146.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 583101 | 26,742.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 20/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 583103 | 78,220.80 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | SOFTWARE ADDITIONS PURCHASED | SCC SPECIALIST COMPUTER CENTRES | 569884 | 33,808.38 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY | GAS | TOTAL GAS & POWER | 574517 | 339,976.33 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY | GAS | TOTAL GAS & POWER | 581614 | 77,445.55 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 06/07/2012 ESTATES SERVICES CLAY | GAS | TOTAL GAS & POWER | 581615 | (339,976.33) | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 04/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | UNISON | 25024 | 70,856.32 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL | 585724 | 237,651.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/07/2012 ERROR SUSPENSE | RATES | WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL | 585726 | 58,052.00 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 586609 | 549.60 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/07/2012 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 586609 | 27,372.30 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 24/07/2012 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | EDENRED | 21271 | 55,932.05 |

en

1024-pdf

## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14 march 2015 london plan 2011 implementation framework ## Copyright GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY March 2015 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Crown Copyright All rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2015) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning /researchreports/monitoring-london-plan Updated May 2015 to add figures on long term vacant properties returning to use to KPI 4 and Table 3.1 as these were not available at the time of initial publication. The data in Table HPM1 was also corrected. ## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14 march 2015 ## Contents | executive summary | | | | 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|-----| | chapter one introduction | | | | 6 | | Scope and purpose of the AMR | | | | 7 | | The London Development Database | | | | 8 | | The London Plan and its Implementation | | | 9 | | | Further Alterations to the London Plan | | | | 9 | | chapter two perfoRmance against kpi targets | 10 | | | | | KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously | | | | | | developed land | | | | 11 | | KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development | | | | 14 | | KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space | | | | 16 | | KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes | | | | 19 | | KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes | | | | 21 | | KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities | | | | 25 | | KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity | | | | 26 | | KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market | 27 | | | | | KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available | | | 30 | | | KPI 10 Employment in outer London | | | | 31 | | KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from | | | | | | disadvantage in the employment market | | | | 32 | | KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services | 34 | | | | | KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable | | | | | | modal split for journeys (public /private transport modal split) | | | 36 | | | KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable | | | | | | modal split for journeys (zero traffic growth) | | | | 37 | | KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable | | | | | | modal split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share) | | | | 39 | | KPI 16 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable | | | | | | modal split for journeys (increased passenger and freight transport on the | | | | | | Blue Ribbon Network | | | | 40 | | KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values | 42 | | | | | KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat | | | | 43 | | KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination | | | | | | of waste to landfill by 2031 | | | | 45 | | KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development | | | 47 | | | KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources | | | | 49 | | KPI 22 Increase in urban greening | | | | 50 | | KPI 23 Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network | | | | 51 | | KPI 24 Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm | | 53 | | | chapter three Additional performance measures and statistics 55 Housing and Design 56 Environment and Transport 99 Planning 106 chapter four other contextual data sources 120 chapter five conclusions and looking ahead 124 ## Executive Summary i This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives of the London Plan (published in July 2011), by showing how London is performing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the eleventh AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fourth using the KPIs in the 2011 London Plan. ii Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered. iii The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be: Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth, Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city, Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods, Objective 4- A city that delights the senses, Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment, Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities. iv Different KPIs contribute to measuring the performance of the London Plan against these six objectives; Objective 1 - KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14 Objective 2 - KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24 Objective 3 - KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15 Objective 4 - KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24 Objective 5 - KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23 Objective 6 - KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17 v Overall, the performance is positive: 17 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For two of them the baseline data is changing, which creates some uncertainty. Six KPI targets have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For 1 KPI target the performance is mixed. The performance against the individual London Plan Objectives is summarised as follows: ## Objective 1- A City That Meets The Challenges Of Economic And Population Growth vi A very high and above target proportion of new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen back from the previous year peak. In total 29,382 dwellings were completed in 2013/14 against the 32,210 ten-year average annual target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease. ## Objective 2 - An Internationally Competitive And Successful City vii London's employment rate (over 70%) has reached its highest annual average level since records began in 1992, almost closing the gap with that for the country as a whole. The office pipeline continues to tighten but remains above the benchmark. The proportion of office and all B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. Whilst the rate of loss of industrial land decreased significantly on the previous year, it still remains considerably above the monitoring target. This trend will be monitored closely. ## Objective 3- A City Of Diverse, Strong, Secure And Accessible Neighbourhoods viii Employment specifically in Outer London has increased by 3% on the previous year. The gap in lone parent income support between London and England and Wales as a whole has almost closed. The increase in pupil/ teacher ratios in London as a whole has stopped, with more boroughs seeing a reduction than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (28% of conventional completions in 2013/14) remain below the numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 3% on the previous year. ## Objective 4- A City That Delights The Senses ix The proportion of designated heritage assets at risk has remained largely unchanged. Improved monitoring arrangements have been put in place for river restoration activities. Significantly more designated open space (20 ha) has been lost than in the previous year, but it should be noted that although the creation of new open space, potentially even as part of the same development is not recorded. For example the proposed loss at the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed. In terms of cycling, growth in journey stages by bicycle has slowed over the last few years. ## Objective 5- A City That Becomes A World Leader In Improving The Environment x Both waste recycling rates and landfilling continue to go into the targeted direction of travel. Carbon dioxide emissions savings are above target and there has been an increase in renewable energy generation. The area of green roofs in the CAZ has been assessed in more detail and increased by at least 75% since 2007. There has been a loss of over 15 ha of protected habitat in terms of development approvals, but completions on protected habitat sites are down on the previous year. ## Objective 6- A City Where It Is Easy, Safe And Convenient For Everyone To Access Jobs, Opportunities And Facilities xi Public transport use continues to grow annually, while private car use and road traffic across the whole of London continue to decline. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. In terms of the use of London's waterways, freight transport on the Thames is up by 27% on the previous year. More comprehensive and accurate monitoring arrangements have been put in place for passenger transport. ## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview | KPI target | |----------------------------------------| | 1 | | Maintain at least 96 per cent of | | new residential development to be | | on previously developed land | | + | | Both approvals and completions above | | target and up on previous year | | 2 | | Over 95 per cent of development | | to comply with the housing density | | location and the density matrix | | - | | 3 | | No net loss of open space | | designated for protection in LDFs | | due to new development | | - | | 4 | | Average completions of a minimum | | of 32,210 net additional homes per | | year | | - | | 9% below target | | 5 | | Completion of 13,200 net | | additional affordable homes per | | year | | - | | 6 | | Reduction in the difference in life | | expectancy between those living in | | the most and least deprived areas | | of London (split by gender) | | + | | Difference has shrunk | | 7 | | Increase in the proportion of | | working age London residents in | | employment 2011-2031 | | + | | 8 | | Stock of office permissions to be at | | least three times the average rate of | | starts over the previous three years | | + | | 9 | | Release of industrial land to be | | in line with benchmarks in the | | Industry SPG | | - | | 10 | | Growth in total employment in | | Outer London | | + | | Total employment in Outer London | | increased by 3% on previous year | | 11 | | Reduce employment rate gap | | between BAME groups and the | | white population; and reduce | | the gap between lone parents | | on income support in London vs | | England & Wales average | | 12 | | Reduce the average class size in | | primary schools | | + | | 13 | | Use of public transport per head | | grows faster than use of private car | | per head | | + | | 14 | | Zero car traffic growth for London | | as a whole | | + | | Annual decrease in road traffic for | | London as a whole continues | | 15 | | Increase in share of all trips by | | bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 | | per cent by 2026 | | + | | Continued, but only very slight, | | increase in journey stages by bicycle | | Below target and fall of proportion | | within density matrix range from | | previous year's peak | | Loss of 20 ha, significantly up on | | previous year, but new open space not | | recorded | | Below numeric target. Three-year | | average affordable homes share of | | overall conventional housing provision | | down by 3% on previous year | | Increase by 1.2% on previous year and | | continuing reduction in gap between | | London and the rest of the UK | | Stock of office permissions continues | | to tighten but still remains six times | | the average rate of starts | | Continuing reduction in loss of | | industrial land, but still 68% above | | target | | + | | Little change in BAME gap in recent | | years; gap in lone parent income | | support almost closed | | Rise in class sizes stopped and | | reduction in more boroughs than in | | previous year | | Public transport use continues to | | grow annually, and private care use | | continues to decline | ## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview | KPI target | comment | |---------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | 16 | | | A 50% increase in passengers and | | | freight traffic transported on the | | | Blue Ribbon Network from 2011- | | | 2021 | | | ?/+ | | | Passenger numbers on Thames - | | | change of baseline; 27% increase in | | | freight on previous year | | | 17 | | | Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 | | | development in PTAL zones 5-6 | | | + | | | With 62% well above benchmark and | | | 13% increase on previous year | | | 18 | | | No net loss of Sites of Importance | | | for Nature Conservation. | | | - | | | 19 | | | At least 45 per cent of waste | | | recycled/composted by 2015 and | | | 0 per cent of biodegradable or | | | recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 | | | + | | | 20 | | | Annual average percentage carbon | | | dioxide emissions savings for | | | strategic development proposals | | | progressing towards zero carbon in | | | residential developments by 2016 | | | and in all developments by 2019 | | | 21 | | | Production of 8550 GWh of energy | | | from renewable sources by 2026 | | | + | | | Generation increased by over 6% on | | | previous year | | | 22 | | | Increase in total area of green roofs | | | in the CAZ. | | | + | | | Increase of at least 75% since 2007 | | | 23 | | | Restore 15km of rivers and streams | | | 2009-2015 with an additional 10km | | | by 2020 | | | ?/+ | | | 24 | | | Reduction in proportion of | | | designated heritage assets at risk | | | as a percentage of the total number | | | of designated heritage assets in | | | London. | | | +/- | | | | Assets at risk largely unchanged | 15.3 ha loss to approved development, significantly up on previous year, but completions on SINC down; new designations not recorded Both rates going into targeted direction of travel, but change only very slight in recent years + 11% above 25% carbon dioxide emissions savings target (2010-2013) Additional restoration, but significantly less than in recent years, although under-reporting likely ## Chapter One Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr 1.1 This is the eleventh London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 10). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of his Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation. 1.2 While this is the eleventh AMR published by the Mayor, it is the forth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These indicators are intended to be a mixture of those carried forward from the previous London Plan (to help ensure some comparability over time) and new/ amended ones (reflecting new or changed policies, or changes in the availability of data). What has not changed is the importance the Mayor places' in effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a "plan-monitor-manage" approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary. 1.3 The AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes. 1.4 At the core of this AMR are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London's performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2013/14. 1.5 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves. 1.6 This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA's London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a "live" system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA's Intelligence Unit, the GLA's Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority. ## The London Development Database 1.7 The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation has agreed to enter the data for its area. The GLA provides the software and carries out a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce a diverse range of reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work done by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource. 1.8 It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data. 1.9 As a result of the 2013 review of the Information Scheme (the legal document that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and the London Boroughs in relation to LDD), Class J Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential use without the need for a full planning permission are now included in the scope of the scheme. Other forms of consent that can lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) are currently submitted on a voluntary basis so are not included in the data in our AMR. A formal consultation to bring them within the scope of the scheme is currently underway. 1.10 The LDD system itself has remained fundamentally unchanged since it was first developed in 2004, with changes being made incrementally as required. A substantial project to modernise the IT infrastructure that supports the database is nearing completion. Once this is finished, the LDD Management Team, which comprises representatives from the GLA and a number of London boroughs, will look closely at the system and decide if any further changes are required. Discussions so far have not identified any major changes that need to be made, although we are looking to introduce a new method to measure the length of time between an initial planning permission being granted and the final scheme reaching completion. 1.11 A new version of the LDD public page, which can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/ went live in December 2014. The new version adds thematic maps based on the data published in the last AMR, as well as improvements to the way the permission data is displayed and the facility to load additional spatial layers from the London Plan. The thematic maps will be updated following the publication of each successive AMR. ## The London Plan And Its Implementation 1.12 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs' local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor. 1.13 At the centre of the Mayor's approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents that together make up a London Planning Implementation Framework. The keystone of this approach is an Implementation Plan, which sets out the overall approach to London Plan policy implementation. It provides details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered and contains detailed information about London's infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. The published first edition was published in January 2013 and is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/ publication/implementation-plan. It will be updated regularly. 1.14 The Implementation Framework also includes: • Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), • Opportunity Area/Intensification Area Frameworks, Implementation guides • This Annual Monitoring Report. 1.15 The key distinction between the Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes. ## Further Alterations To The London Plan 1.16 In March 2015 the Mayor published his Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) now called 2015 London Plan, rolling the London Plan forward to 2036, particularly to address key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of the most recent census data. The Further Alterations propose minor changes to four KPI targets that reflect changes elsewhere in the Plan. These are KPIs 4, 5, 19 and 21. Next year's AMR will be based on the 2015 London Plan and the amended set of KPIs. ## Chapter Two Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets Key Performance Indicator 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land Target: Maintain at least 96 % of new residential development to be on previously developed land 2.1 This KPI looks at the proportion of residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that will be lost is then compared to the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses. 2.2 98.4% of units approved during 2013/14 are on brownfield land, above the Mayor's 96% target and an improvement on the 98.2 figure for 2012/13. Only three boroughs; Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Hounslow; are significantly below the 96% target. Barking and Dagenham and Havering are both below the benchmark for the second year in a row, however the loss of greenfield in Barking and Dagenham is solely down to the submission of details for the extant permission for the development of Lymington Fields which was first granted in 2009. This site was also responsible for the borough missing the target in 2012/13. Havering's 65.1% is comprised of a number of small schemes on greenfield sites in addition to 242 units on parkland and sports pitches off Gooshays Drive, Harold Hill. The greenfield development in Hounslow is the redevelopment of the Heston Leisure Centre and surrounding lands. In addition to new residential units, the scheme will deliver new indoor and outdoor leisure facilities. 2.3 The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 97%, above the benchmark and an improvement on the 95.7% reported in AMR10. The largest schemes to reach completion are both in Merton, 169 units on Brenley Playing Fields and 118 units on the site of Rowan High School. Year % of development approved on previously developed land by units by site area by units by site area 2006/07 98.6 98 97.2 96.5 2007/08 97.3 96.7 96.6 94.8 2008/09 98.1 96.6 98.9 98.1 2009/10 97.3 96.8 98.8 97.9 2010/11 96.8 95.3 97.1 95.7 2011/12 99 97.4 97.6 95.0 2012/13 98.2 97.8 95.7 95.3 2013/14 98.4 97.2 97 96.6 Source: London Development Database % of development completed on previously developed land borough % of development approved on previously developed land by units by site area by units by site area Barking and Dagenham 84.2% 81.5% 84.2% 81.5% Barnet 95.2% 95.8% 95.2% 95.8% Bexley 100% 100% 100% 100% Brent 99.4% 98.8% 99.4% 98.8% Bromley 100% 100% 100% 100% Camden 99.9% 100% 99.9% 100% City of London 100% 100% 100% 100% Croydon 98.5% 96.3% 98.5% 96.3% Ealing 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% Enfield 99.3% 97% 99.3% 97% Greenwich 95.7% 96.3% 95.7% 96.3% Hackney 99.3% 99.7% 99.3% 99.7% Hammersmith and Fulham 100% 100% 100% 100% Haringey 100% 100% 100% 100% Harrow 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% Havering 64.2% 67.9% 64.2% 67.9% Hillingdon 100% 100% 100% 100% Hounslow 91.2% 91.6% 91.2% 91.6% Islington 100% 100% 100% 100% Kensington and Chelsea 97.7% 98.2% 97.7% 98.2% Kingston upon Thames 97.6% 97.7% 97.6% 97.7% Lambeth 100% 100% 100% 100% Lewisham 100% 100% 100% 100% Merton 94.4% 96.3% 94.4% 96.3% Newham 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.6% Redbridge 99.8% 98.7% 99.8% 98.7% Richmond upon Thames 98.9% 98.4% 98.9% 98.4% Southwark 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.8% Sutton 99.7% 99.3% 99.7% 99.3% Tower Hamlets 99.9% 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% Waltham Forest 100% 100% 100% 100% Wandsworth 100% 100% 100% 100% Westminster 100% 100% 100% 100% London 98.4% 97.2% 97% 96.6% Source: London Development Database % of development completed on previously developed land Optimise the density of residential development Target: Over 95 % of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2) 2.4 The tables below compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport matrix - all schemes | | financial year | % of units approvals | |---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------| | within range | above range | below range | | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | | 2010/11 | 37% | 58% | | 2011/12 | 40% | 55% | | 2012/13 | 58% | 37% | | 2013/14 | 43% | 50% | | Table 2.4 Residential approvals compared to the density | | | | matrix - schemes of 15 units or more | | | | financial year | % of units approvals schemes 15+ | | | within range | above range | below range | | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | | 2010/11 | 31% | 68% | | 2011/12 | 37% | 60% | | 2012/13 | 59% | 39% | | 2013/14 | 40% | 56% | Source: London Development Database Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes. 2.5 Compliance within the density matrix for approvals during 2013/14 stands at 43%, down on the previous year but still better than has been achieved in the six years prior to 2012/13. 40% compliance in schemes of 15 units or more is also below the previous year's peak but again better than the six before that. 2.6 The proportion within the range has been squeezed by schemes above the range but also by an increase in those below, even in more central areas. 5% of all unit approvals in inner London boroughs are below the desired range. This compares to 10% in outer London boroughs. It might be expected that the introduction of the Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 would have an impact on the figures, but they appear to share a similar pattern to all approvals with 42% of these falling within the appropriate range. For the prior approvals with more units though, 61% of schemes with 15 units or more have a density above the desired range. 2.7 Land in London is a scarce resource and building costs in London are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable. The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable. ## Key Performance Indicator 3 Minimise The Loss Of Open Space Target: No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development 2.8 The performance monitoring for this KPI target focuses more specifically on designated open space rather than open space overall. 2.9 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the changes in open space as a result of planning permissions. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by the LDD. Reprovision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR. The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17 and does not include private residential gardens. 2.10 Table 2.5 shows the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2013/14, was just under 20 hectares. This is a very large increase on the previous financial year where the figure was less than 0.6 ha. The number of approvals on protected open space has also risen sharply from four to 29. Two proposed development sites account for over 12 ha alone - Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park. It is worth noting that the proposed loss at the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed. 2.11 There have been 23 schemes completed on protected open space over the same period, amounting to 6.98 ha in total. This represents a slight increase of 0.5ha on the previous year. The majority of protected open space lost in 2013/14 was MOL (5.8ha). Athough the biggest recorded loss of MOL was in Merton on the Rowan Park site, where 217 residential units were built. the development also proposed a 2.5 ha park. Borough Name Borough Reference Barnet B/00354/13 Local Open Spaces 0.391 Bexley 13/01616/FULM Metropolitan Open Land 0.041 Brent 131501 Local Open Spaces 0.071 Brent 132490 Local Open Spaces 0.224 Bromley 13/02593/FULL1 Green Belt 0.034 Camden 2013/1889/P Metropolitan Open Land 0.075 Camden 2013/1969/P Other Designated Protection 0.008 Croydon 13/00891/P Other Designated Protection 0.119 Ealing P/2012/0708 Local Open Spaces 0.679 Enfield P13-01332LBE Metropolitan Open Land 0.022 Greenwich 12/1168 Local Open Spaces 0.255 Greenwich 13/0117 Local Open Spaces 0.000 Greenwich 13/0161 Other Designated Protection 0.050 Greenwich 13/0364 Local Open Spaces 0.026 Havering P0995/12 Green Belt 0.130 Havering P1451/10 Local Open Spaces 0.082 Hillingdon 68911/ APP/2012/2983 Hounslow 00798/Q/S4 Local Open Spaces 2.440 Hounslow 01187/A/S10 Local Open Spaces 0.670 Hounslow 01270/G/P1 Green Belt 0.857 Kingston upon Thames 13/16542/FUL Metropolitan Open Land 0.188 Merton 13/P0692 Other Designated Protection 0.178 Richmond upon Thames 13/2826/FUL Metropolitan Open Land 0.086 Sutton C2013/67958 Green Belt 0.017 Sutton D2005/54794 Metropolitan Open Land 0.283 Sutton D2011/64908 Metropolitan Open Land 0.300 Sutton D2012/66220 Metropolitan Open Land 7.000 Sutton D2013/67938 Metropolitan Open Land 0.060 Wandsworth 2012/0758 Metropolitan Open Land 0.009 London (Gross hectares): 19.795 Source: London Development Database Protection Designation Area of Open Space (HA) Green Belt 5.500 | Borough Name | Borough | |--------------------------|----------------| | Reference | | | Brent | 093104 | | Bromley | 09/01715/FULL1 | | Bromley | 09/02881/DET | | Bromley | 10/00504/ | | EXTEND | | | Bromley | 10/03407/FULL1 | | Bromley | 11/00994/FULL1 | | Croydon | 11/00768/P | | Croydon | 11/01068/P | | Croydon | 12/00174/P | | Croydon | 12/00198/P | | Ealing | P/2010/1894 | | Ealing | P/2012/1991 | | Enfield | P12-00244PLA | | Enfield | P12-00245PLA | | Enfield | P12-01762PLA | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 2009/00758/FR3 | | Hounslow | 00092/J/P1 | | Hounslow | 00132/A/P12 | | Islington | P060898 | | Kingston upon Thames | 10/14545/FUL | | Merton | 11/P1509 | | Richmond upon Thames | 08/4383/FUL | | Sutton | C2011/63884 | | London (Gross Hectares): | | Source: London Development Database Protection Designation Area of Open Space (HA) Metropolitan Open Land 0.133 Increase supply of new homes Target: Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year. 2.12 This target comprises three elements: • conventional completions of selfcontained houses and flats, • the non-conventional supply of student bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and houses in multiple occupation • long-term empty properties returning to use. The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG. The components of this 32,210 total at borough level can be found in Annex 4 of the London Plan. 2.13 Net conventional completions stand at 23,986, representing 80% of the 29,830 target in the 2011 London Plan. The total net completions of non-self-contained accommodation units are 4.339, or 265% of the 1,634 target. This is the second year in a row in which completions of nonself-contained accommodation are well in excess of the relevant benchmark. This net increase is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there has been a net decrease in sui generis (SG) bedrooms. Approximately 60% of these have been replaced by a smaller number of self-contained residential units. Of the remainder, the majority have provided new bedrooms in hostels or halls of residence. This can therefore be seen as the replacement of sub-standard accommodation. Together the conventional and non-conventional supply amount to 28,325 completions, 90% of the 31,464 combined benchmark. 2.14 The final element of the 32,210 monitoring benchmark in the 2011 London Plan is for 749 empty homes to return to use each year. This is measured using the Government's housing live table 615 and taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but represents the best source of information available. In the reporting period covered by this AMR 1,057 long term vacant homes were returned to use. 2.15 These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. The development industry is showing signs that it is recovering from the impacts of the economic downturn. With scheme starts containing over 40,000 residential units recorded on the LDD during 2013/14, the highest level since 2007, and capacity for over 240,000 homes in the pipeline (up from 215,000 in the previous year), there is considerable potential for the delivery of an increased number of newhomes in the coming years. The revised population projections and increased housing delivery benchmarks set out in the recently published London Plan 2015 show that the need for additional housing is more pressing than ever. | Net | Net | |------------------------|--------| | Borough | | | conv | non- | | conv | | | Barking and Dagenham | 868 | | Barnet | 1,009 | | Bexley | 528 | | Brent | 680 | | Bromley | 605 | | Camden | 475 | | City of London | 429 | | Croydon | 1,298 | | Ealing | 769 | | Enfield | 512 | | Greenwich | 1,282 | | Hackney | 1,120 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 542 | | Haringey | 454 | | Harrow | 301 | | Havering | 156 | | Hillingdon | 559 | | Hounslow | 835 | | Islington | 1,244 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 234 | | Kingston upon Thames | 261 | | Lambeth | 1,256 | | Lewisham | 753 | | Merton | 440 | | Newham | 1,971 | | Redbridge | 258 | | Richmond upon Thames | 364 | | Southwark | 1,651 | | Sutton | 340 | | Tower Hamlets | 684 | | Waltham Forest | 392 | | Wandsworth | 1,186 | | Westminster | 530 | | London | 23,986 | Sources: London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants Total London Plan target % of target longterm empty homes returning to use* An increased supply of affordable homes Target: Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year 2.16 This KPI measures the completion of affordable units as granted in planning permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or transfers of stock post completion. 2.17 During 2013/14 a net total of 6,592 affordable units were completed. This represents a decrease from 7,773 the previous year (revised upwards from the figure of 7,539 published in last year's AMR). 2.18 While the supply of affordable housing decreased in the last year, the total level of conventional completions increased. The share of affordable housing has therefore fallen from 35% (revised from 34%) to 27.5%. 2.19 Net affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2013/14. During this period affordable housing output averaged 34% of total provision, down 3% on the 37% reported in the last AMR. 2.20 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average of 34%. Over the three years, Barking and Dagenham have reported the highest percentage of affordable housing. At 54% they are the only borough to exceeded 50% of total provision. 2.21 The lowest proportion, as in the previous year, was recorded in the City of London (5%), followed by Redbridge (10%) and Westminster (12%). 2.22 The amount of affordable housing delivered through the planning system has been adversely affected by the recession. During this period it has proved necessary for developers to renegotiate s106 agreements drawn up before the economic crisis to make schemes viable and ensure they are delivered. This process has led to a decline in the amount of affordable housing in both absolute and percentage terms over the last two years. It remains to be seen whether the quantity of affordable homes delivered through the planning system will increase as the economy recovers. 2.23 As noted in previous AMRs, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by DCLG. 2013/14 borough Total net conventional affordable completions 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total Barking and Dagenham 113 243 588 944 30% 48% 68% 49% Barnet 441 408 274 1,123 35% 29% 27% 30% Bexley 165 30 166 361 55% 7% 31% 31% Brent 412 224 243 879 74% 34% 36% 48% Bromley 214 142 92 448 36% 20% 15% 24% Camden 62 299 201 562 17% 53% 42% 37% City of London 0 0 24 24 0% 0% 6% 6% Croydon 362 415 179 956 51% 46% 14% 37% Ealing 333 301 220 854 47% 30% 29% 35% Enfield 79 243 164 486 26% 44% 32% 34% Greenwich 416 87 679 1,182 27% 41% 53% 40% Hackney 430 575 451 1,456 37% 46% 40% 41% Hammersmith & Fulham 80 107 90 277 16% 24% 17% 19% Haringey 316 352 150 818 46% 58% 33% 46% Harrow 251 310 33 594 51% 43% 11% 35% Havering 177 122 57 356 45% 46% 37% 43% Hillingdon 343 387 45 775 34% 26% 8% 23% Hounslow 319 49 79 447 54% 21% 9% 28% Islington 489 315 401 1,205 41% 30% 32% 35% Kensington & Chelsea 19 4 164 187 16% 7% 70% 31% Kingston upon Thames 81 38 84 203 30% 19% 32% 27% Lambeth 348 269 444 1,061 41% 42% 35% 40% Lewisham 469 592 152 1,213 39% 33% 20% 31% Merton 69 196 138 403 15% 43% 31% 30% Newham 412 305 503 1,220 53% 30% 26% 36% Redbridge 54 52 2 108 10% 20% 1% 10% Richmond upon Thames 79 167 109 355 36% 34% 30% 33% Southwark 593 462 433 1,488 55% 43% 26% 41% Sutton 235 103 49 387 40% 44% 14% 33% Tower Hamlets 714 274 104 1,092 62% 26% 15% 35% Waltham Forest 358 269 3 630 72% 57% 1% 43% Wandsworth 269 308 224 801 27% 34% 19% 26% Westminster 71 125 47 243 9% 21% 9% 13% London 8,773 7,773 6,592 23,138 39% 35% 28% 34% Source: London Development Database Affordable as % of total net conventional supply Reducing health inequalities Target: Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women) 2.24 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level based on mortalities over a ten year period. The London Plan's regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the LSOA based Indices 20% of wards, by sex year Male Female 2004-2008 2009-2013 2004-2008 2009-2013 Most deprived 20% wards 75.2 77.5 80.7 82.8 Least deprived 20% wards 80.4 82.2 84.2 85.8 London average 77.7 79.7 82.2 83.8 Difference - most deprived to least deprived 5.2 4.6 3.5 3.0 Difference - most deprived to London average 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.0 Figures may not sum due to rounding Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile summarised in the table are simple averages of the published figures. 2.25 When comparing the figures for 2004-08 and 2009-13 (see table 2.9), the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has shrunk at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.2 to 4.6 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.5 years to 3.0 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this as explained above, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two time periods needs to be treated with some caution. Sustaining economic activity Target: Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011– 2031 2.26 Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate# during 2013 as the economy continued its recovery following a downturn between 2009 and 2011. This has taken London's employment rate to its highest annual average level at any time since records began for London in 1992. Year London workingage residents in employment London residents of working age 2004 3,448,300 5,050,000 68.3 72.4 -4.1 2005 3,490,100 5,118,900 68.2 72.5 -4.3 2006 3,538,000 5,178,900 68.3 72.4 -4.1 2007 3,600,000 5,224,100 68.9 72.4 -3.5 2008 3,662,400 5,269,000 69.5 72.1 -2.6 2009 3,639,300 5,318,900 68.4 70.5 -2.1 2010 3,639,200 5,349,900 68.0 70.1 -2.1 2011 3,669,400 5,395,000 68.0 70.0 -2.0 2012 3,737,300 5,424,600 68.9 70.6 -1.7 2013 3,828,500 5,458,700 70.1 71.3 -1.2 # This includes self-employment Source: Annual Population Survey 2.27 Historically the rate of engagement in economic activity for London residents has been below that for the country as a whole. However as Table 2.10 shows, the gap has shrunk steadily between 2005 and 2013, from 4.3 percentage points to just 1.2 percentage points - a reduction in the gap of over 70 % and the narrowest annual average gap at any time since records began for London in 1992. employment rate %# London UK Difference Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market Target: Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years 2.28 In this edition of AMR we continue to use data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts in Central London at end-2014 was 5.9:1 (table 2.11). In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2013, the ratio of permissions to starts was 7.1:1 according to EGi and 4.5:1 according to LDD. Although it can be noted that the EGi and LDD ratios are down from their peaks in 2011 and 2010 respectively, both measures remain ahead of the target of 3:1. The trend should, however, continue to be monitored closely. 2.29 Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2014 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for that year. The variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets1. It is known that the EGi database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market. ## Starts And Completions 2.30 Based on EGi data, Figure 2.2 illustrates starts of 488,561 sqm2 for 2014. The 2014 figure is slightly lower than the 502,620 sqm achieved in 2013, but similar to the ten year average of 485,973 sqm. However, it is somewhat below the 1985-2014 average of 576,025 sqm but similar to the three year average for starts over the period 2012-2014 with 578,763 sqm. 2.31 The five largest starts were all in the City or City Fringe. These were at: Principal Place, E1 (56,092 sqm); Angel Court, EC2 (33,897 sqm); Fore Street, London Wall, EC2 (28,744 sqm); New Street, EC4 (25,672 sqm) and 26-28 Mitre Square, EC3 (25,353 sqm). Beyond the City, the largest schemes were in Rathbone Place, WI (20,067 sqm) and Haymarket, W1 (18,580 sqm). The largest start in E14 was at Orchard Place (4,339sqm). 2.32 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2014 totalled 3,390,534 sqm according to the EGi data (compared to 3,716, 078 sqm at the end of 2013). These compare to a even higher ten year average of 3,871,963 sqm. 2.33 The data shows renewed activity in the Docklands (compared to the level of starts in 2013) and a number of very large schemes. The three largest schemes are at: Wood Wharf, E14 (297,500 sqm); North Quay, E14 (222,036 sqm) and Battersea Power Station, SW8 (157,777 sqm). These are followed by 49 Leadenhall Street, EC3 (105,033 sqm), and Heron Quays, E14 (103,886). These five schemes together account for 26% of the consented space at the end of 2014. 2.34 The mean size of unimplemented permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 14,791 sqm; followed by the City at 11,423 sqm, and Westminster, at 3,555 sqm. year average starts in Central London# year EGi LDD 2004 11.9:1 6.4:1 2005 8.1:1 7.4:1 2006 8.3:1 8.7:1 2007 6.3:1 4.7:1 2008 7.5:1 4.1:1 2009 10.0:1 7.0:1 2010 13.0:1 11.6:1 2011 13.5:1 8.0:1 2012 8.3:1 3.9:1 2013 7.1:1 4.5:1 2014 5.9:1 N/A # Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices ## Overview Of Office Market 2.35 During 2014, the central London office market continued its recovery from the Financial Crisis. The occupational markets and investment markets were both strong. Overall, central London take-up levels exceeded those of 2013 and were ahead of pre-Crisis levels. As a result, vacancy levels across central London have fallen over the past year, to less than 7%, with the lowest availability being recorded in the West End. Knight Frank recorded availability in the West End at just 4.5% during Q3 20143. 2.36 Falling vacancy has also signalled rising rents. In the latter part of 2014, King's Cross reported two leasing deals at £70 sq ft and £80 sq ft - levels which exceed prime rents in the City. In the West End, the oil company Trafigura was reported to have signed a deal at £150 sq ft - a record for the market. 2.37 In the City, while banking has been relatively quiet in leasing terms, the insurance sector has been active. Both new towers in Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street have been letting well. There is also firm evidence that the occupier base of the City is becoming more diverse with more technology and creative businesses operating from there. For example, while Finance & Insurance employment shrank by 9% since 2010, Professional & Technical grew by 12% and Information & Communications grew by 29%4. 2.38 There has also been a sharp increase in serviced offices and co-working spaces. Total serviced office space in the City doubled between 2000 and 2014 with 60% of the centres opening since 2008. 5The trend illustrates the importance of the SME market in particular to the area. 2.39 Occupier mobility also continued. For example, in the advertising sector, Ogilvy & Mather decided to move from Canary Wharf to Southbank, at Sea Containers House; Havas Worldwide is moving to King's Cross and Omnicom has committed to a 370,000 sq ft sublet from RBS at Bankside, also on the Southbank. The growing attraction of central London to tech companies was also underscored during 2014 with a number of signature deals. For example, Amazon has pre-leased over 400,000 sq ft at Brookfield's Principal Place development in Shoreditch. 2.40 Meanwhile interest in purchasing 'trophy' buildings, particularly among overseas buyers has intensified. Yields have fallen significantly, and the levels of purchasing is increasingly influenced by diminishing availability. 2.41 The impact of Permitted Development Rights (PDR) continues apace. A growing amount of central London office stock is also being lost to residential use (albeit that the Central Activities Zone, Tech City and North of the Isle of Dogs are currently exempt from PDR). The growing pressure for residential conversions is illustrated by the recent purchase of New Scotland Yard by Abu Dhabi Financial Group, with the intention of converting the building into apartments. The GLA will continue to monitor the impact of PDR through the London Development Database. Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available Target: Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG 2.42 Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 61.6 hectares of industrial land recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2013/14. Almost half (46%) of the area approved for transfer is in East London and a further 25% in West London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include The Old Vinyl Factory, Blyth Road in Hillingdon (just over 5 hectares) and Five Oaks Lane in Redbridge, Lionel Road in Hounslow, the Tower Bridge Business Complex, Clements Road in Southwark and the Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth (each 3-4 hectares). Over Subregion Annual average release 2001-2006 Annual average release 2006-2011 Release in planning approvals 2011/12 Central 6 5 9.4 6.0 7.3 2.3 East 57 54 38.6 29.2 28.3 19.4 North 2 2 1.5 6.5 3.6 3.4 South 11 4 31.7 5.1 6.7 4.4 West 10 18 35.1 25.7 15.6 7.2 London 86 83 116.3 72.5 61.6 36.7 Source: London Development Database, the 2015 London Plan and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites 94% of the approvals involve transfers of less than one hectare of industrial land. 2.43 Compared with 2011/12 and 2012/13 the level of planning approvals for industrial land release in 2013/14 is significantly lower but still 68% above the annual benchmark in the London Plan and the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The target is exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in East London. The annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 are included as additional context. Release in planning approvals 2012/13 Release in planning approvals 2013/14 LP/SPG annual benchmark 2011-2031 ## Key Performance Indicator 10 Employment In Outer London Target: Growth in total Employment in Outer London 2.44 In 15 outer boroughs the number of employee jobs has grown; in the remaining 4 outer boroughs the number of such jobs has fallen. Since 1984, the growth in the number of employee jobs in Outer London has not been as large as in Inner London (12.3 % compared to 27.3 %). London overall experienced an increase in the number of employee jobs of 21.1 %. 2.45 The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Nine Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 % growth in the number of employee jobs since 1984, whereas four saw a reduction in employee jobs. 2004-2013 Year Outer London London % in Outer London 2004 1,918,000 4,565,000 42% 2005 1,937,000 4,667,000 42% 2006 1,963,000 4,717,000 42% 2007 1,945,000 4,772,000 41% 2008 1,986,000 4,910,000 40% 2009 1,924,000 4,808,000 40% 2010 1,923,000 4,803,000 40% 2011 1,911,000 4,879,000 39% 2012 1,998,000 5,088,000 39% 2013 2,047,000 5,249,000 39% Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Self-employed jobs are calculated by applying estimates of borough shares of London's total self-employed jobs from the Annual Population Survey data to the London total self-employed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission's recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan's new policies for outer London. 2.46 Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2004 to 2013. In 2011 the total number of jobs in Outer London had fallen by 75,000 from its 2008 peak. However by 2013 it had recovered strongly, increasing by 136,000 between 2011 and 2013, or by 7.1 %. This represents a weaker rise than in both inner London (8.0 %) and London overall (7.6 %). Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market Target: Reduce the employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales 2.47 Table 2.14 shows that employment rates for White and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups continue to increase. The gap between employment rates for White vs BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend, although there has been little change in recent years. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points and the downward trend reduced this to 13.2 percentage points by 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points before falling again to 14.0 percentage points in 2012 and was 14.1 in 2013. Over the whole nine-year period the gap has reduced by 2.5 percentage points. 2.48 London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in the deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment. 2.49 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents with dependent children has continued to fall. In London it fell by eight percentage points between 2012 and 2013 compared with four points in England and Wales overall. Since 2004 the gap has fallen from eight to one percentage point, after a peak in 2006 at thirteen percentage points. 2.50 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales. BY CALENDAR YEAR Year All Persons White Groups BAME Groups Employment rate gap in employment rate % rate % in employment 2004 3,448,300 68.3 2,532,100 73.5 908,300 56.9 16.6 2005 3,490,100 68.2 2,517,500 73.6 967,300 57.3 16.3 2006 3,538,000 68.3 2,503,700 73.8 1,026,800 57.9 15.9 2007 3,600,000 68.9 2,500,500 73.9 1,095,500 59.7 14.2 2008 3,662,400 69.5 2,542,700 74.7 1,115,500 60.0 14.7 2009 3,639,300 68.4 2,541,800 73.9 1,091,100 58.4 15.5 2010 3,639,200 68.0 2,476,400 72.8 1,155,500 59.6 13.2 2011 3,669,400 68.0 2,459,700 73.5 1,203,400 58.9 14.6 2012 3,737,300 68.9 2,494,100 74.2 1,239,700 60.2 14.0 2013 3,828,500 70.1 2,560,100 75.5 1,264,900 61.4 14.1 Source: Annual Population Survey Note that due to changes in the ethnicity questions on the Annual Population Survey during 2011 these estimates cannot be reliably viewed as a timeseries. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups. | London | England and Wales | |----------------|---------------------| | Annual | | | Report | difference | | families on IS | | | as % of | | | lone parent | | | families | | | # | | | lone | | | parent | | | families | | | on IS | | | 2004 | 165,120 | | 2005 | 163,620 | | 2006 | 162,770 | | 2007 | 160,450 | | 2008 | 152,520 | | 2009 | 141,720 | | 2010 | 129,100 | | 2011 | 109,200 | | 2012 | 102,590 | | 2013 | 83,050 | Source: DWP's Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS #Lone parent families with dependent children only in employment rate % White/ BAME as % of lone parent families# Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services Target: Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools 2.51 Between 2008 and 2014 the average class size across London has increased, with a few exceptions in some boroughs in certain years. Between 2013 and 2014 overall class size remain unchanged. 13 boroughs saw a reduction in average class size compared to 10 boroughs the previous year, 5 staying the same and 15 boroughs increasing in average class size. The trend across the whole of England has been on the up with average class sizes currently just under 27. 2.52 The main drivers of increasing class sizes in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as the pressure on London's primary schools to reduce costs. It is unclear if the recent change in migration patterns driven by the economic downturn is structural or temporary with previous trends resuming. This is something that will be monitored closely. 2.53 The building of new schools is likely to continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2013, a further 27 new Free Schools were set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and opportunities to enable local people and communities to do the same. The draft Social Infrastructure SPG, published for consultation in March 2014 suggests additional ways to link the provision of schools with housing growth through co-located and multi-use facilities. Borough 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Barking & Dagenham 26.9 27.2 27.5 27.9 27.9 28.3 28.0 Barnet 27.5 27.6 27.9 28.1 28 28.2 28.4 Bexley 27.3 27.8 28 28.2 28.3 28.5 28.4 Brent 28 27.8 28.1 28.5 28.6 28.7 28.9 Bromley 27.2 27.7 27.8 28.1 28.3 28.4 28.3 Camden 26.9 26.6 27.1 27.1 27.5 27.5 27.6 City 24.8 24.7 25.9 25.9 24.7 25.9 25.9 Croydon 27.6 27.7 27.9 28.1 28.2 28.2 28.2 Ealing 27.5 27.2 27.7 27.8 28 28.3 28.0 Enfield 28.3 28.6 28.2 28.7 28.8 28.8 28.7 Greenwich 26.2 26.2 26.5 26.9 27 27.1 27.4 Hackney 25.8 25.8 26.1 26.3 26.3 26.2 26.8 Hammersmith & Fulham 25.8 26.2 26.4 26.1 26.8 26.1 26.1 Haringey 27.5 27.5 27.6 28 27.9 28.2 28.0 Harrow 26.1 26.9 26.7 28 28.5 28.8 29.8 Havering 27 27.4 27.8 28 28.2 28.6 28.4 Hillingdon 26.5 27.2 27.4 27.4 27.5 27.9 28.0 Hounslow 27.2 27.4 27.8 28.2 28.4 28.4 28.1 Islington 25.5 25.5 25.3 26.2 26.4 26.3 26.6 Kensington & Chelsea 26 25.7 26.2 26.8 27 26.7 26.7 Kingston 27.1 27.1 27.7 27.6 27.5 27.7 27.6 Lambeth 25.8 25.6 25.7 26 26.3 26.6 26.3 Lewisham 25.9 26.3 26.3 26.8 26.9 27.2 27.4 Merton 26.7 27 27.1 27.5 27.9 27.7 27.8 Newham 26.8 27 27.4 27.8 28.1 27.9 26.6 Redbridge 29.2 29.1 29 29.5 29.6 29.1 29.3 Richmond 26.5 26.9 27.4 28 27.9 28.2 28.5 Southwark 24.6 24.6 24.8 25.3 25.8 26.3 26.4 Sutton 27.9 27.7 27.9 28.2 28.5 28.7 28.8 Tower Hamlets 26.3 26.3 26.9 27.3 27.7 27.6 27.7 Waltham Forest 28 28.1 28.5 28 28.5 28.2 28.4 Wandsworth 25.5 25.3 25.9 25.6 26.3 25.9 25.8 Westminster 25.8 25.4 26.3 26.7 26.6 26.0 25.6 London 26.8 27 27.2 27.6 27.7 27.8 27.8 Source: Department for Education Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head 2.54 The indices in Table 2.17 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 7 (TfL Planning December 2014). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). | Year | Public transport index | Private transport index | |--------|--------------------------|---------------------------| | 2001 | 100 | 100 | | 2002 | 103.1 | 99.5 | | 2003 | 108.1 | 97.1 | | 2004 | 113.8 | 95.1 | | 2005 | 112 | 92.6 | | 2006 | 114.7 | 92 | | 2007 | 124.4 | 90.9 | | 2008 | 128.2 | 86.4 | | 2009 | 127.5 | 85.6 | | 2010 | 127.8 | 84.8 | | 2011 | 131.2 | 82.8 | | 2012 | 133.6 | 80.7 | | 2013 | 134.2 | 78.8 | Source: Transport for London 2.55 Total daily journey stages in 2013 were 30.6 million, up from 30.2 million in 2012, and 5.0 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 33% were by private transport, and 45% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 34%, and increased slightly by 0.6% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by over 21% since 2001, and is down almost 2% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year. Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole 2.56 Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes continued to fall in the latest year for London as a whole, down by 0.3% between 2012 and 2013, and 10.7% since 2001. In 2013, traffic volumes fell in Inner London by 2.0%, while traffic in Outer London grew slightly by 0.4%. Traffic levels in Inner London are over 17% lower than in 2001, whereas in Outer London, traffic levels are over 7% lower than 2001. So despite a very slight upwards trend in Outer London since 2011, for the longer term London as a whole, the trend in car traffic is declining rather than growing across all parts of London. 2.57 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the Environment and Transport section of chapter 3. Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 All roads: Greater London 32.26 32.14 31.95 31.59 31.38 31.49 31.16 30.27 30.07 29.70 29.10 28.90 28.82 Inner London (excl City and Westminster) 8.98 8.90 8.84 8.66 8.51 8.52 8.58 8.29 8.19 8.05 7.82 7.57 7.42 Outer London 22.04 22.03 21.92 21.72 21.66 21.76 21.42 20.90 20.83 20.63 20.28 20.35 20.43 All roads index (2001=100) All roads index (2001=100) Greater London 100.0 99.6 99.0 97.9 97.3 97.6 96.6 93.8 93.2 92.1 90.2 89.6 89.3 Inner London (excl City and Westminster) 100.0 99.2 98.4 96.4 94.8 94.9 95.5 92.3 91.2 89.6 87.1 84.2 82.6 Outer London 100.0 99.9 99.5 98.6 98.3 98.7 97.2 94.8 94.5 93.6 92.0 92.3 92.7 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 % in 2009 to 5 % by 2026 2.58 Table 2.19 shows that in 2013 in absolute terms around 0.59 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 83% compared to 2001 and 0.5% more than in the most recent year (2012 to 2013). Table 2.19 also shows that almost 2% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001. Year Daily Cycle stages (millions) 2001 0.320 1.2 2002 0.323 1.2 2003 0.370 1.4 2004 0.380 1.4 2005 0.415 1.6 2006 0.466 1.7 2007 0.467 1.6 2008 0.489 1.7 2009 0.514 1.8 2010 0.544 1.9 2011 0.572 1.9 2012 0.582 1.9 2013 0.585 1.9 Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 7, tables 2.3 and 3.4 2.59 Growth will need to strengthen again to meet the Mayor's objective to see a cycling revolution by achieving the target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Cycle mode share (percentage) Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 2.60 Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger journeys on all river boat services on the Thames - those boarding at TfL London River Services (LRS) piers and non-LRS piers and also Woolwich Ferry Passengers. This explains the reason for the 102% increase on 2012/13 figures as previously the Woolwich Ferry and services operating from independent piers were excluded from the figures. The new system uses an electronic method of counting to give a clearer reflection of the total number of passenger journeys on the Thames. This will become the new monitoring baseline. 2.61 Table 2.20 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. After the small decline in 2010/11 and 2012/11, numbers rose by 0.5 % in 2012/13 and by over 100% in the latest year, as explained above. A figure for LRS-only piers that allows a comparison to the previous year is unfortunately not available. 2.62 In April 2012, a new extension to London Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier. 2.63 The achievement of the KPI target still requires considerable further investment, as detailed in the Mayor of London and Transport for London's River Action Plan. The plan has already helped deliver an enhanced Putney to Blackfriars River Bus service with faster journey times and more frequent River Bus services on this route. Plans to deliver better information at London's piers has begun with the introduction of real time boat arrival information, called iBoat. 2.64 Work is currently underway to extend existing piers, build new piers and better better integrate river services into the wider transport network. A new pier at Plantation Wharf is due to open in 2015. 2.65 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. 2.66 The overall figure is a combination of both the interport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the seaward limits) such as sea dredged aggregates or sugar and intraport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination within the Port of London or within the seaward limits). Both elements of the total saw an increase in 2013 accounting to a total increase of 27%. A principal driver of the increase in interport trade was aggregates, with a large increase in particular at terminals in Greenwich (up almost 11%). In terms of intraport trade, material from both the Lea Tunnel and Crossrail schemes resulted in an increase in the volume of construction, excavation and demolition waste (CE&DW) transported on the river from Greater London of almost 140% in 2013. However, increases were also seen in transhipped aggregates (33%) and containerised waste (11%) to the Belvedere Energy for Waste (EfW) facility. . | Year | Number of passengers | % change on previous year | |-------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------| | April 2000 - March 2001 | 1 573 830 | - | | April 2001 - March 2002 | 1,739,236 | + 10.5 | | April 2002 - March 2003 | 2 030 300 | + 16.7 | | April 2003 - March 2004 | 2,113,800 | + 4.1 | | April 2004 - March 2005 | 2,343,276 | + 10.9 | | April 2005 - March 2006 | 2,374,400 | + 1.3 | | April 2006 - March 2007 | 2,746,692 | + 15.7 | | April 2007 - March 2008 | 3,078,100 | + 12.1 | | April 2008 - March 2009 | 3,892,693 | + 26.5 | | April 2009 - March 2010 | 4,188,530 | + 7.6 | | April 2010 - March 2011 | 4,142,226 | - 1.1 | | April 2011 - March 2012 | 4,136,200 | - 0.1 | | April 2012 - March 2013 | 4,160,500 | + 0.5 | | April 2013 - March 2014 | 8,411,200 | +102.2 | Source: TfL London Rivers Services | Year | Tonnes of cargo | % change on previous | |--------|--------------------|-------------------------| | year | | | | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | + 9% | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | + 6% | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | - 5% | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | + 6% | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | + 0.5% | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | - 7% | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | + 8% | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | - 13% | | 2010 | 7,754,000 | - 5% | | 2011 | 9,022,000 | + 16% | | 2012 | 8,715,000 | -3% | | 2013 | 11,087,000 | + 27% | Source: Port of London Authority Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values Target: Maintain at least 50 % of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 2.67 This indicator aims to show that highdensity employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses. The data is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000m2 for B1 uses so schemes proposing less than this are not recorded. 2.68 62% of all B1 floorspace approved during 2013/14 is located in areas with good public transport accessibility, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 13% | | PTAL level | all B1 | offices (B1a) | |------------------|--------------|-----------------|-----------------| | floorspace (m2) | % | floorspace (m2) | % | | 5 or 6 | 709,363 | 62 | 696,254 | | 4 or less | 438,648 | 38 | 267,880 | | Total floorspace | 1,148,011 | 964,134 | | Source: London Development Database above the previous year's figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 72% up 10% on the previous year. These figures reflect the location of the proposed floorspace. From roughly 515,000m2 of B1 floorspace granted outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), less than 15% is in an area of high PTAL. Of 340,000m2 of offices outside CAZ, 21.5% is in an area of high PTAL. This compares to 100% in the highly accessible CAZ area. 2.69 As noted above, the figures are based on gross approvals. Overall approvals during 2013/14 would result in a net loss of both B1 and B1a office floorspace for the second year in a row. Perhaps surprisingly the loss of office is also mostly (75%) in areas with a high PTAL score. ## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat Target: No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) 2.70 Tables 2.23 and 2.24 are based on the changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions and completions. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations: • Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, • Site of Metropolitan Importance, • Site of Borough Grade I Importance • Site of Borough Grade II Importance • Site of Local Importance 2.71 Open Space designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3. 2.72 Table 2.23 shows 17 approvals on SINCs in 2013/14, 12 more than the previous financial year. The total area covers 15.3 Ha, up from 0.87 Ha in the previous year. The largest losses are on the Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park both mentioned in KPI 3. 2.73 Table 2.24 shows 6 completions on SINC sites, one more than in the previous year. The largest completion on a SINC was in Brent where 21 homes were built on a site of Borough Grade 2 Importance located within a churchyard. The total net loss of SINCS was 0.895 Ha, down 0.45 Ha on last year. | Nature Conservation Type | Borough Name | Borough | |------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | Reference | | | | Bexley | 08/11096/FULM | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Brent | 122995 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Brent | 131501 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | Camden | 2013/1889/P | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | Ealing | P/2012/0708 | Site of Local Importance | | Ealing | P/2013/5324 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | Havering | P0151/13 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Havering | P1451/10 | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | | Hillingdon | | | | 68911/ | | | | APP/2012/2983 | | | | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 5.500 | | | Kensington and | | | | Chelsea | | | | PP/11/01937 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.565 | | Kensington and | | | | Chelsea | | | | PP/13/03968 | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | 0.635 | | Kingston upon | | | | Thames | | | | 13/16542/FUL | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.188 | | Merton | 13/P0692 | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | | Sutton | D2005/54794 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Sutton | D2011/64908 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Sutton | D2012/66220 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Wandsworth | 2012/0758 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | London (Net | | | | hectares): | | | | | Sum: | 15.310 | Source: London Development Database | Nature Conservation Type | Borough Name | Borough | |-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------| | Reference | | | | Brent | 093104 | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | | Hammersmith and | | | | Fulham | | | | 2009/00758/FR3 Site of Local Importance | 0.102 | | | Hounslow | 00132/A/P12 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | | Islington | P060898 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | Richmond upon Thames 08/4383/FUL | Site of Metropolitan Importance | 0.293 | | Sutton | C2011/63884 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | | london (Net hectares): | Sum: | 0.895 | Source: London Development Database Area of Open Space (Ha) Area of Open Space (Ha) Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031 Target: At least 45 % of waste recycled/ composted by 2015 and 0 % of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 2.74 Table 2.25 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste has continued to decline - by about 800,000 tonnes between 2002/03 and 2013/14 and by over 60,000 tonnes during the last year alone. 2.75 It also shows that London's recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 30 % in 2012 and remaining there over the past two years. There is still some way to go towards reaching the 45% target that has been set for 2016. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats and less garden waste. 2.76 The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has gone down by over 1 % last year, after over 5 % in the year before and the amount has more than halved since 2007/8 to under 25 % with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. tonnes) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total~ 4,446 4,342 4,370 4,223 4,235 4,154 3,975 3,862 3,797 3,648 3,576 3,640 Landfill 3,163 3,021 2,856 2,692 2,404 2,209 1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116 911 889 (%) 71.0% 70.0% 65.4% 63.7% 56.8% 53.2% 49.0% 48.7% 44.7% 30.6% 25.5% 24.4% Incineration with EfW 872 826 869 767 929 919 912 803 896 1,303 1,462 1,525 (%) 20.0% 19.0% 19.9% 18.2% 21.9% 22.1% 22.9% 20.8% 23.6% 35.7% 40.9% 41.9% Incineration without EfW 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Recycled/ composted 410 494 643 763 844 925 994 1,060 1,076 1,105 1,088 1,110 (%) 9.0% 11.0% 14.7% 18.1% 19.9% 22.3% 25.0% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 30.4% 30.5% Other# 0 0 0 0 59 101 123 117 130 124 115 116 (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% # Other includes material which is sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processess. ~ Total may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes of ondon's local authority collected waste since 2005/06. Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2013/14, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annualresults-tables Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development Target: Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and all developments by 2019 2.77 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the Government's zero carbon targets - see Tables 2.26 and 2.27 below. 2.78 An analysis6 of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2013 was undertaken by the GLA in 2014 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide targets set out in London Plan Policy 5.2. The assessment was made against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations and showed an approximate 36 % reduction in regulated7 carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of the 2010 building regulations. This is 11% above the 25 % target. The 40 % target for 2013- 16 was applied to applications received at Stage I from 1 October 2013. Only one application to which the 40 % target applies was determined at Stage II in 2013, and is included in this analysis, but this target will become more relevant in future AMRs. 2.79 Although the number of applications determined by the Mayor at Stage II was slightly up from 2012 (174 compared to 171), the quantum of development was less. Overall, applications determined by the Mayor in 2013 included 43,178 dwellings, 12,701 fewer dwellings and 0.9million m2 less floorspace than in 2012. The amount of non-domestic development remained stable at 2.3 million m2 of floorspace approved. The number of smaller schemes is reflected in the total savings achieved and commitments to installation of infrastructure and technologies. 2.80 Of each of the elements of the energy hierarchy, combined heat and power (CHP) produced the largest carbon dioxide savings. It accounted for 21 % of all projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2013. Approximately 41,000 dwellings (more than 95 % of those proposed) were proposed to be connected to heat networks. 2.81 Nine % of the projected savings were due to energy efficiency - a higher figure than in 2011 and 2012, indicating greater investment in the 'fabric first' approach. Renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately six % of the overall savings. The most popular renewable energy technology installed was photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays, with developers committing to the installation of over 71,000m2 of PV panels. 2.82 The carbon dioxide savings from developments where CHP is unsuitable were substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are less likely to meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in the London Plan. 2.83 Boroughs are being encouraged to set up carbon dioxide off-setting funds in line with Policy 5.2 to further reduce carbon dioxide across London. The Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance was published in April 2014. This provides the boroughs with further guidance on what to consider when setting up an off-set fund. reduction targets for residential buildings Year improvement on 2010 Building Regulations 2010-2013 25 per cent 2013-2016 40 per cent 2016-2031 zero carbon Source: London Plan 2011 reduction targets for non-domestic buildings | Year | improvement on 2010 Building | |-------------|---------------------------------| | Regulations | | | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2019 | as per Building Regulations | | 2019-2031 | zero carbon | Source: London Plan 2011 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources. Target: Production of 85508 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 2.84 This renewable energy generation target has been developed using data in the Mayor's Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies9 which marked out the role renewables could play in our future energy mix by 2026. The renewable energy generation figure includes the potential energy production from various electricity and heat supply technologies, including: photovoltaics, wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste; as well as solar thermal, ground and air and water source heat pumps. GENERATION IN LONDON Electricity: 2011-2013 Year bio-mass landfill gas Capacity (MW)/ (GWh) wind and wave 2011# Total (MW) 0 3.7 0.3 20.6 165.7 25.0 215.3 Total (GWh) 0 8.0 1.7 49.9 558.7 7.0 625.3 2012# Total (MW) 0 4.4 0.3 23.4 167.0 42.3 42.3 237.5 Total (GWh) 0 10.9 1.3 46 679.7 34.2 772.1 2013# Total (MW) 0 4.4 0.3 23.4 169.5 49.1 246.8 Total (GWh) 0 11.5 2.3 60.2 706.3 39.7 820.1 # Updated July 2014 Source: Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Installed Capacity, Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2.85 The most authoritative datasets for energy generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Table 2.28 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2013. Generation has been increasing by 6.2% to over 820 GWh but is well below the 2026 target. In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and Renewable Heat Premium Payments (RHPP)10, the following renewable heat installations have been achieved: • 9.8MW of installed capacity installed through the non-domestic RHI; • 0.7MW of installed capacity from heat pumps and biomass, through the RHPP in domestic dwellings; • A total of 181 domestic accredited installations from domestic RHI11. sewage gas bioenergy photovoltaics total ## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ 2.86 In 2014 the GLA, working with the Green Roof Consultancy, mapped all known green roofs in the CAZ that were visible on aerial imagery taken in the summer of 2013. A total of 678 green roofs covering an area of over 175,000m2 (17.5 ha) were found. The map is published here: https://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ greening-london/urban-greening/ greening-roofs-and-walls/green-roof-map It provides a more accurate estimate of total green roof area in central London than the estimates included in the previous AMR, which have relied on random sampling. The latest estimates confirm previously identified trends of increasing green roof area since 2007, when the total was less than 10 ha. The total of 17.5ha still represents an underestimate of green roof cover. Through the website linked above the GLA is asking installers or purchasers of green roofs to inform the GLA of any green roofs that may have been missed, or that have been installed since the summer of 2013, to update our map accordingly. Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network Target: Restore 15km of rivers and streams* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (*defined as main river by the Environment Agency - includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance) 2.87 Restoration is defined as a measure that results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement. 2.88 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London's Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made. • River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice). • Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice). • Pre and post fixed point photography. 2.89 The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system. 2.90 Table 2.29 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007, except for the last year. This may have been caused by the changed reporting process for river restoration schemes in 2014/15. Project delivery is now reported directly to the River Restoration Centre through the 'Restore' database. This makes reporting simpler and improves the access to project details. However, it is likely that there has been under-reporting for the year 2014/15. To improve reporting, a River Restoration Group has been established that will review and promote the new process. Over 12.5 km restoration in total (more than 2 km per year) since 2008 still represents progress towards the 2015 target of 15 km. 2.91 There is uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3). Table 2.29 River restoration London 2000 to 2014 Year restoration (metres) cumulative restoration (metres) 2000 680 680 2001 150 830 2002 600 1,430 2003 2,300 3,730 2004 500 4,230 2005 0 4,320 2006 100 4,330 2007 5,100 9,430 2008 2,000 11,430 2009 1,500 12,930 2010 1,808 14,738 2011 3,519 18,257 2012 3,000 21,257 2013 2,395 23,652 2014 330 23,982 Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group and the London Catchment Partnership Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm Target: Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London 2.92 The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures on development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year's. There are 24 new listed 2011 2012 2013 2014 number % at number % at risk World Heritage Sites* 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Listed Buildings# 18,745 2.53% 18,854 2.8% 18,872 2.7% 18,896 3% Conservation Areas 1000 6.4% 949 6.8% 1,009 6.3% 1017 6.3%** Schedule Monuments 154 22.7% 154 22.7% 155 20.6% 156 19.87% Registered Parks and Gardens 149 5.40% 150 8% 150 7.3% 150 7.3% Registered Battlefield 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0% *designated by UNESCO # does not include Places of Worship **there are a total of 1017 Conservation Areas in London, the figure given for the number of conservation areas at risk is based on the number of LPAs who responded to the Conservation Area at Risk survey (953), not the total number of Conservation Areas given above Source: English Heritage buildings, eight new conservation areas and one more scheduled monument in London. 2.93 In terms of designated assets at risk, between 2013 and 2014 there was an increase of 0.3% of listed buildings at risk; a decrease of 0.73% of scheduled monuments at risk; and for all other designed assets the situation remained the same in terms of both their number and their condition as in the previous year. For detail on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/. English Heritage also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has produced a Heritage at Risk 2014 summary for London. | | number % at | number % at | |------|----------------|----------------| | risk | risk | risk | ## Endnotes 1 EGi data for permissions are based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sqm gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2011, the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition). 2 All figures sited are sqm net internal area 3 Knight Frank Central London Quarterly Q3 2014 4 Office for National Statistics (2014) Inter Department Business Register, Number of Businesses (Local Units) by Broad Industry Group 5 Ramidus (2014) Serviced Offices and Agile Occupiers in the City of London. 6 Energy Planning. Monitoring the implementation of London Plan energy policies in 2012. GLA. 2013 7 The carbon dioxide emissions controlled by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans. 10 Target not specified in London Plan. It has been included since AMR 8. 11 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ environment/tackling-climate-change/ energy-supply 12 https://www.gov.uk/government/ statistical-data-sets/rhi-and-rhppdeployment-data-january-2013 13 DECC do not publish installed capacity figures achieved through domestic RHI installations. ## Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2013/14 Introduction 3.1 This report provides further detail on housing provision in London, adding to that provided in the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD). The LDD was established by the GLA in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London. 3.2 This section deals with housing provision as defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by the London boroughs. LDD records all Full and Outline permissions that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. Variations to these, whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 agreements, are also recorded. Changes of use from office to residential via the prior approval process are also included following their introduction on 30th May 2013. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of their proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals not matching across tables in this report. Prior approvals from retail to residential are not currently being recorded on LDD so do not contribute to these figures. Temporary permissions are excluded. 3.3 The Mayor's London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition. 3.4 Although some individual schemes are referenced in this report, it is intended to give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local level can be found in borough AMRs. ## Key Statistics And Findings a There were 23,986 net conventional housing completions in London in 2013/14. b Taking into account net supply of 4,339 non-self-contained units, total housing provision excluding long-term vacant properties returning to use was 29,382. This amounts to 91% of the benchmark for completions in the London Plan 2011. c New build accounted for 85% of net conventional supply in 2013/14, conversions 5% and changes of use 10%. d Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions through planning permissions amounted to 23,148 homes. Social rented units make up 60% of affordable completions over this period, intermediate housing just over 36% and affordable rent just over 3%. e Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 36% of homes completed during 2013/14 had one bedroom, 42% had two bedrooms and 22% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 23% in 2012/13. f 29% of gross affordable housing completions in 2013/14 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms, including 7% with four bedrooms or more. g 15% of net units approved and 20% of net units in schemes started during 2013/14 are affordable housing. h As of 31 March 2014, the net housing pipeline consisted of over 240,900 homes. 54% of these are in schemes that had not yet started. i The average density of new housing approvals in 2013/14 was 137 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 118 dph. ## Completions 3.5 Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained bed spaces, and long-term empty homes returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. KPI 5 in chapter 2 and Tables HPM1 and HPM2 show housing provision at borough level. 3.6 Net conventional completions for 2013/14 are 23,986. This is the highest total for four years, but still below the peak of over 29,500 in 2008/09. 3.7 The non-self-contained element of the benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in student halls of residence, hostels and houses in multiple occupation. The net total of 4,339 is the highest since the LDD was established in 2004. 3.8 The figures for the change in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. The change is calculated from the number of vacant dwellings as at October each year so does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but it remains the best source of net change available. 3.9 Figure 3.1 shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last seven years. As noted above, data on the third element of the total, vacants, is not yet available. Based on just conventional and non-conventional supply, completions have risen sharply since last year. It is not known at this stage whether vacants will be a positive or negative figure, but it is likely that the total will remain well above that for the previous year. 3.10 In 2013/2014 a total of 27,537 homes have been completed, with 3,551 lost or replaced to give the net total of 23,986 (see Table HPM1). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply, but this does not appear to have been a major issue for any boroughs this year. 3.11 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD; new Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Conventional 25,300 25,084 27,226 28,215 29,534 24,732 19,185 21,988 21,923 23,986 Non- Conventional 4,164 449 2,973 1,284 2,408 1,426 1,922 1,491 2,653 4,339 Vacants back in use 2,519 -61 3,608 287 -398 2,223 4,882 5,670 2,018 1,057 Total 31,983 25,483 33,955 31,230 32,996 30,185 27,596 30,400 26,600 29,382 build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 85% of net conventional supply in 2013/14 (it was 87% in 2012/13), conversions 5% and changes of use 10%. 3.12 New builds account for more than half of all net gains in every single borough, the lowest proportion being found in Hammersmith and Fulham and Harrow, both at 57%. By contrast both Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich gained 98% of their new units from new build and Kensington and Chelsea saw a net loss from the other development types so have a net % in excess of 100. In gross terms the figure for Kensington and Chelsea is much lower at 74%. The gross London average is 80%. Conversions led to a net loss of units in three boroughs, Westminster (-52 units), Kensington and Chelsea (-42) and Richmond upon Thames (-21), most likely through buildings being de-converted from flats back to houses. Hammersmith and Fulham (146) and Lambeth (144) gained the most units through residential conversions. It is worth noting that conversion of flats to a house is not defined as development in the legislation that governs planning and may be done without planning permission. They are sometimes recorded on certificates of proposed lawful development and the London boroughs are currently being consulted on whether these should be recorded on LDD. This should improve the accuracy of figures on de-conversions in future years. Changes of use accounted for 10% of net completions in net terms and 9% gross. The introduction of permitted development rights for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 had very little impact on completions during 2013/14, but it is anticipated that the percentage may rise in the coming years as the large volume of consents across London start to be implemented (see table HPM 15). 3.13 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in Table HPM14) was 118 dwellings per hectare (dph), an slight decrease on the previous year's figure of 120. As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Havering was just 30dph and in Bromley it was 32dph. The City of London has the highest density at 808dph. Tower Hamlets and Newham delivered at the next highest densities, 316 and 242 dph respectively. 3.14 Table 3.2 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 2013/14 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms was not recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced, however boroughs are now recording it on a voluntary basis so net data may become available in future AMRs. One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 36% and 42% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 38% of social rented supply, compared to 9% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. The proportion for all tenures is 22%. These figures are very similar to those reported in AMR10. The biggest change is for affordable rented properties where 50% of approximately 500 units have three bedrooms or more. 3.15 Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. Barking and Dagenham has delivered the most affordable family housing, completing 351 homes with 3 bedrooms or more. This represents 60% of their affordable completions. None of the 24 affordable units completed in the City of London are family housing. 3.16 Total net affordable housing supply in 2013/14 was 6,618, down from 7,773 2012/13. Affordable units represent 27.5% of all net completions during this year, this is also down on the previous year's figure of 35%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportions of affordable housing supply were found Table 3.2 Gross conventional housing Completions by tenure and number of bedrooms 2013/14 dwellings 1 bed 2 beds 3 beds 4+ beds Total Social Rented 1,166 1,641 1,259 448 4,514 Intermediate 1,171 1,135 208 19 2,533 Affordable Rent 147 113 178 82 520 Market 7,314 8,625 2,835 1,222 19,996 All Tenure 9798 11514 4480 1771 27,563 as a % of total 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Total Social Rented 26% 36% 28% 10% 100% Intermediate 46% 45% 8% 1% 100% Affordable Rent 28% 22% 34% 16% 100% Market 37% 43% 14% 6% 100% All Tenure 36% 42% 16% 6% 100% Source: London Development Database in Kensington and Chelsea (70%) and Barking and Dagenham (68%). Barking and Dagenham have the highest three year average at 54% 3.17 Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 23,164 homes, with social rented units accounting for 60% of these and intermediate products 36%. Affordable rent units are starting to appear in completions, accounting for just over 3%. ## Approvals 3.18 Annual approvals include all units in planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be for renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year. Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2013/14 approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by bedrooms. 3.19 Approvals have bounced back since the significant dip in 2012/13 which followed the introduction of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the end of 2011/12. The total of 55,407 is slightly below the average across the time series. The borough to approve the highest number of units is Hammersmith and Fulham thanks largely to the outline application for the redevelopment at Earls Court that proposes a net gain of 4,887 units. The next biggest scheme in terms of net units is another outline application for The Warren in Greenwich that proposes 2,032 units. Details of the units proposed for this scheme are vague and will be firmed up in subsequent applications. The outline permission or the redevelopment of the South Acton Estate was also approved in this year which proposes an initial 2,350 units to replace 1,851 existing homes. 3.20 In terms of tenure, 85% of approved units are for market sale or rent, leaving 15% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 4% Affordable Rent and 5% social rented. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association. 3.21 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table HPM 13 is 137 dph, an increase on last year's 127 dph. This is still significantly lower than the figure of over 165 dph for 2011/12. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest densities are in the City of London (431 dph) and Tower Hamlets (430 dph). The lowest is in Bromley which is just 29 dph, kept low by schemes for replacement dwellings on large sites that drag down the average. 3.22 Excluding the office to residential prior approvals, the density of approvals stands at 132 dph. ## Starts 3.23 In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year. 3.24 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 40,192 starts, a big increase on the 26,764 in the previous year. The low total in the previous year contradicted anecdotal evidence at the time that the construction sector was showing signs of recovery, so the relatively high level of starts recorded this year is welcome evidence the anticipated recovery has begun. The healthy number of units in the pipeline discussed below shows that the lack of new starts is not necessarily a major cause for concern. In terms of tenure, 20% of net starts in 2013/14 were affordable housing. The breakdown by tenure is affected by a number of large net losses of social rented housing as boroughs continue to redevelop existing estates, the replacement units being for intermediate or affordable rent. Consequently social rented units account for 1% of net starts, despite being the biggest single tenure in gross terms. 3.25 The majority of the units recorded as starts are 1 and 2 bed units, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 24% of starts (see HPM10). ## The Pipeline Of New Homes 3.26 The 'pipeline' of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are 'not started' and those that are 'under construction'. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above, the under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes. The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made. 3.27 Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 240,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver over 7½ years of supply at the target level in the 2011 London Plan and more than 5½ years at the higher target in the London Plan 2015. 3.28 Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline as of 31 March 2013. At the end of the year there were just under 130,000 units (net) which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started, as well as over 110,000 units (net) in schemes under construction. This is a big jump on the position at the same time in the previous year. The boroughs with the largest pipeline are mainly concentrated in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. Greenwich has a net pipeline of nearly 25,000 units, nearly 14,600 of which are in schemes that are classified as under construction. Newham's pipeline has grown to over 23,600, of which 5,700 are under construction. Tower Hamlets also have over 23,000 units in the pipeline of which over 10,000 are under construction. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of nearly 18,000 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a total pipeline of under 1,000 units. 3.29 HPM 12 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 22% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more. ## Gypsy And Traveller Sites 3.30 Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2013/14 no permissions relating to pitches for gypsies and travellers were either approved or completed. There are no permissions relating to gypsy and traveller pitches in the pipeline. | Borough Name | Lost | Gained | Net | |----------------------|--------|----------|--------| | Barking and | | | | | Dagenham | | | | | 3 | 871 | 868 | 1,041 | | Barnet | 130 | 1,139 | 1,009 | | Bexley | 17 | 545 | 528 | | Brent | 107 | 787 | 680 | | Bromley | 67 | 672 | 605 | | Camden | 129 | 604 | 475 | | City of London | 18 | 447 | 429 | | Croydon | 124 | 1,422 | 1,298 | | Ealing | 274 | 1,043 | 769 | | Enfield | 200 | 712 | 512 | | Greenwich | 39 | 1,321 | 1,282 | | Hackney | 104 | 1,224 | 1,120 | | Hammersmith and | | | | | Fulham | | | | | 107 | 649 | 542 | 564 | | Haringey | 107 | 561 | 454 | | Harrow | 54 | 355 | 301 | | Havering | 17 | 173 | 156 | | Hillingdon | 27 | 586 | 559 | | Hounslow | 165 | 1,000 | 835 | | Islington | 144 | 1,388 | 1,244 | | Kensington and | | | | | Chelsea | | | | | 164 | 398 | 234 | 530 | | Kingston upon Thames | 40 | 301 | 261 | | Lambeth | 204 | 1,460 | 1,256 | | Lewisham | 90 | 843 | 753 | | Merton | 72 | 512 | 440 | | Newham | 73 | 2,044 | 1,971 | | Redbridge | 48 | 306 | 258 | | Richmond upon | | | | | Thames | | | | | 88 | 452 | 364 | 210 | | Southwark | 76 | 1,727 | 1,651 | | Sutton | 38 | 378 | 340 | | Tower Hamlets | 10 | 694 | 684 | | Waltham Forest | 351 | 743 | 392 | | Wandsworth | 141 | 1,327 | 1,186 | | Westminster | 323 | 853 | 530 | | London | 3,551 | 27,537 | 23,986 | Source: London Development Database London Plan 2011 benchmark Supply as % of benchmark Hackney 22 933 911 79 154 75 3 137 134 104 1,224 1,120 Croydon 30 1,110 1,080 78 211 133 16 101 85 124 1,422 1,298 Ealing 157 650 493 112 171 59 5 222 217 274 1,043 769 Enfield 153 535 382 32 63 31 15 114 99 200 712 512 Greenwich 32 1,286 1,254 7 16 9 0 19 19 39 1,321 1,282 City of London 14 353 339 4 16 12 0 78 78 18 447 429 Camden 71 437 366 55 58 3 3 109 106 129 604 475 Barnet 64 943 879 66 135 69 0 61 61 130 1,139 1,009 Bexley 9 478 469 8 28 20 0 39 39 17 545 528 Brent 28 679 651 77 80 3 2 28 26 107 787 680 Bromley 50 559 509 17 44 27 0 69 69 67 672 605 Barking and Dagenham 0 851 851 3 6 3 0 14 14 3 871 868 Borough Name Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net New Build Conversion Change of use Total Redbridge 12 207 195 29 63 34 7 36 29 48 306 258 Merton 41 437 396 30 44 14 1 31 30 72 512 440 Newham 11 1,899 1,888 55 111 56 7 34 27 73 2,044 1,971 Lambeth 65 1,070 1,005 135 279 144 4 111 107 204 1,460 1,256 Lewisham 42 697 655 40 81 41 8 65 57 90 843 753 Kingston upon Thames 28 226 198 12 22 10 0 53 53 40 301 261 Hounslow 115 842 727 45 88 43 5 70 65 165 1,000 835 Islington 87 1,138 1,051 52 151 99 5 99 94 144 1,388 1,244 Kensington and Chelsea 39 294 255 113 71 -42 12 33 21 164 398 234 Havering 13 159 146 4 10 6 0 4 4 17 173 156 Hillingdon 17 544 527 9 22 13 1 20 19 27 586 559 Harrow 13 184 171 41 98 57 0 73 73 54 355 301 Haringey 10 285 275 94 187 93 3 89 86 107 561 454 Hammersmith and Fulham 23 330 307 83 229 146 1 90 89 107 649 542 Source: London Development Database Southwark 34 1,579 1,545 37 64 27 5 84 79 76 1,727 1,651 Sutton 10 263 253 25 67 42 3 48 45 38 378 340 Tower Hamlets 6 652 646 4 12 8 0 30 30 10 694 684 Waltham Forest 291 591 300 60 128 68 0 24 24 351 743 392 Wandsworth 41 1,102 1,061 95 120 25 5 105 100 141 1,327 1,186 Westminster 99 407 308 196 144 -52 28 302 274 323 853 530 London 1643 22085 20442 1767 3022 1,255 141 2430 2,289 3551 27537 23,986 Richmond upon Thames 16 365 349 70 49 -21 2 38 36 88 452 364 Borough Name Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net Lost Gained Net New Build Conversion Change of use Total Rent Total Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Social Rent Int. Aff. Borough Name Table HPM 3: Net conventional affordable housing completions by tenure 2010/11 to 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham -36 149 0 167 76 0 370 17 201 944 Barnet 303 138 0 285 123 0 223 43 8 1123 Bexley 126 39 0 17 12 0 99 47 20 360 Brent 268 144 0 174 50 0 151 92 0 879 Bromley 204 10 0 129 13 0 62 30 0 448 Camden 37 25 0 194 105 0 159 29 13 562 City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 Croydon 308 54 0 255 98 62 57 59 63 956 Ealing 264 69 0 168 132 0 98 115 7 853 Enfield 55 24 0 106 137 0 123 41 0 486 Greenwich 257 159 0 74 13 0 450 217 12 1182 Hackney 247 183 0 378 184 13 305 146 0 1456 Hammersmith and Fulham 0 80 0 5 102 0 -11 101 0 277 Haringey 62 254 0 204 148 0 68 82 0 818 Harrow 62 189 0 187 95 28 10 23 0 594 Havering 154 23 0 90 32 0 51 1 5 356 Hillingdon 253 90 0 258 129 0 22 23 0 775 Hounslow 222 97 0 28 21 0 20 59 0 447 Islington 295 194 0 137 178 0 160 241 0 1205 Kensington and Chelsea 19 0 0 0 0 4 143 21 0 187 Kingston upon Thames 56 25 0 29 9 0 48 23 13 203 Lambeth 217 131 0 174 95 0 334 97 13 1061 Lewisham 272 197 0 257 265 70 103 49 0 1213 Merton 31 38 0 98 98 0 50 74 14 403 Newham 261 135 16 64 160 81 334 169 0 1220 Redbridge 20 34 0 44 8 0 1 1 0 108 Richmond upon Thames 44 35 0 118 49 0 81 28 0 355 Southwark 459 134 0 300 162 0 239 160 34 1488 Sutton 159 76 0 70 33 0 17 5 27 387 Rent Total Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Rent Int. Aff. 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Social Source: London Development Database Borough Name Tower Hamlets 547 167 0 172 102 0 73 31 0 1092 Waltham Forest 299 59 0 125 144 0 -234 147 90 630 Wandsworth 128 141 0 199 109 0 62 175 0 814 Westminster 31 40 0 97 28 0 9 37 0 242 London 5624 3133 16 4603 2910 258 3701 2383 520 23,148 net conventional supply, 2011/12 to 2013/14 borough Total net conventional affordable completions 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 113 243 588 30 48 68 Barnet 441 408 274 35 29 27 Bexley 165 29 166 55 7 31 Brent 412 224 243 74 34 36 Bromley 214 142 92 36 20 15 Camden 62 299 201 17 53 42 City of London 0 0 24 0 0 6 Croydon 362 415 179 51 46 14 Ealing 333 300 220 47 30 29 Enfield 79 243 164 26 44 32 Greenwich 416 87 679 27 41 53 Hackney 430 575 451 37 46 40 Hammersmith and Fulham 80 107 90 16 24 17 Haringey 316 352 150 46 58 33 Harrow 251 310 33 51 43 11 Havering 177 122 57 45 46 37 Hillingdon 343 387 45 34 26 8 Hounslow 319 49 79 54 21 9 Islington 489 315 401 41 30 32 Kensington and Chelsea 19 4 164 16 7 70 Kingston upon Thames 81 38 84 30 19 32 Lambeth 348 269 444 41 42 35 Lewisham 469 592 152 39 33 20 Merton 69 196 138 15 43 31 Newham 412 305 503 53 30 26 Redbridge 54 52 2 10 20 1 Richmond upon Thames 79 167 109 36 34 30 Southwark 593 462 433 55 43 26 Sutton 235 103 49 40 44 14 Tower Hamlets 714 274 104 62 26 15 Waltham Forest 358 269 3 72 57 1 Wandsworth 269 308 237 27 34 20 Westminster 71 125 46 9 21 9 London 8,773 7,771 6,604 39 35 28 Source: London Development Database Affordable as % of net conventional supply borough Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 251 160 337 123 53% Barnet 398 530 145 66 19% Bexley 186 211 103 45 27% Brent 259 333 136 59 25% Bromley 104 333 151 84 35% Camden 224 249 103 28 22% City of London 301 119 21 6 6% Croydon 534 760 84 44 9% Ealing 316 563 115 49 16% Enfield 260 315 102 35 19% Greenwich 384 661 230 46 21% Hackney 452 498 206 68 22% Hammersmith and Fulham 355 211 62 21 13% Haringey 280 190 59 32 16% Harrow 140 140 50 25 21% Havering 15 56 70 32 59% Hillingdon 111 213 220 42 45% Hounslow 441 411 108 40 15% Islington 652 583 100 53 11% Kensington and Chelsea 143 87 133 35 42% Kingston upon Thames 108 116 52 25 26% Lambeth 506 517 342 95 30% Lewisham 290 418 110 25 16% Merton 221 182 45 64 21% Newham 539 972 400 133 26% Redbridge 123 119 26 38 21% Richmond upon Thames 155 188 55 54 24% Southwark 683 667 313 64 22% Sutton 110 87 118 63 48% Tower Hamlets 198 432 61 3 9% Waltham Forest 286 311 80 66 20% Wandsworth 466 602 121 138 20% Westminster 307 280 197 69 31% London 9798 11514 4455 1770 23% Source: London Development Database completions by number of bedrooms 2013/14 borough Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3 4+ % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 170 67 272 79 60% Barnet 100 99 74 18 32% Bexley 38 56 49 23 43% Brent 54 101 61 27 36% Bromley 4 60 27 1 30% Camden 90 70 33 8 20% City of London 20 4 0 0 0% Croydon 56 99 15 10 14% Ealing 99 180 41 16 17% Enfield 120 147 31 9 13% Greenwich 224 348 105 2 16% Hackney 148 181 89 43 29% Hammersmith and Fulham 59 32 27 0 23% Haringey 84 37 17 12 19% Harrow 12 16 5 0 15% Havering 8 9 22 18 70% Hillingdon 14 21 9 2 24% Hounslow 86 66 18 2 12% Islington 224 198 35 24 12% Kensington and Chelsea 93 13 59 3 37% Kingston upon Thames 19 29 31 5 43% Lambeth 132 153 163 36 41% Lewisham 40 108 29 17 24% Merton 82 27 15 39 33% Newham 99 218 110 76 37% Redbridge 1 0 0 1 50% Richmond upon Thames 36 52 21 1 20% Southwark 109 183 127 35 36% Sutton 16 12 24 0 46% Tower Hamlets 19 61 24 0 23% Waltham Forest 68 123 56 37 33% Wandsworth 127 85 15 0 7% Westminster 33 34 16 4 23% London 2484 2889 1620 548 29% Source: London Development Database Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing proposed net Net % affordable Market Social Barking and Dagenham 78 150 0 0 550 159 23 106 472 9 23 106 23% Table HPM 7: Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14 Borough Name Barnet 298 374 0 0 2,319 299 60 10 2,021 -75 60 10 -0% Bexley 18 141 0 0 453 236 70 0 435 95 70 0 28% Brent 104 0 0 0 1,234 151 101 57 1,130 151 101 57 21% Bromley 94 0 46 0 575 5 4 10 481 5 -42 10 -6% Camden 244 106 0 0 1,245 182 37 0 1,001 76 37 0 10% City of London 3 0 0 0 506 0 0 0 503 0 0 0 0% Croydon 109 16 0 0 2,961 95 104 227 2,852 79 104 227 13% Ealing 676 1,802 45 0 2,657 1,227 457 23 1,981 -575 412 23 -8% Enfield 131 117 0 0 989 31 217 191 858 -86 217 191 27% Greenwich 66 81 0 0 2,558 442 406 127 2,492 361 406 127 26% Hackney 261 9 0 0 1,857 164 222 43 1,596 155 222 43 21% Hammersmith and Fulham 346 615 0 0 5,914 1,211 300 31 5,568 596 300 31 14% Haringey 124 0 0 0 551 6 20 4 427 6 20 4 7% Harrow 75 0 0 0 1,405 28 0 0 1,330 28 0 0 2% Havering 29 0 0 0 617 8 38 180 588 8 38 180 28% Hillingdon 57 32 0 0 1,276 89 8 49 1,219 57 8 49 9% Hounslow 23 9 0 0 1,253 239 154 79 1,230 230 154 79 27% Islington 72 23 0 0 471 108 32 0 399 85 32 0 27% Kensington and Chelsea 259 11 0 0 1,454 76 79 12 1,195 65 79 12 12% Kingston upon Thames 49 36 1 0 362 41 0 1 313 5 -1 1 2% Lambeth 154 251 0 0 2,431 270 191 359 2,277 19 191 359 20% Lewisham 48 0 0 46 798 27 0 68 750 27 0 22 6% Merton 53 0 0 0 439 44 0 0 386 44 0 0 10% Newham 75 0 0 0 1,623 195 221 130 1,548 195 221 130 26% Redbridge 78 38 0 0 750 198 24 1 672 160 24 1 22% Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing proposed net Net % affordable Market Social Source: London Development Database Table HPM 7: Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14 Borough Name Richmond upon Thames 157 10 1 0 841 77 16 0 684 67 15 0 11% Southwark 93 314 0 0 3,409 577 307 15 3,316 263 307 15 15% Sutton 34 76 0 0 1,439 4 34 13 1,405 -72 34 13 -2% Tower Hamlets 46 189 0 0 2,690 654 308 160 2,644 465 308 160 26% Waltham Forest 59 0 0 0 1,195 0 199 377 1,136 0 199 377 34% Wandsworth 202 39 0 0 2,107 86 101 1 1,905 47 101 1 7% Westminster 555 2 0 0 2,675 44 118 39 2,120 42 118 39 9% London 4,670 4,441 93 46 51520 6973 3851 2313 46850 2532 3758 2267 15% | | | | borough | Number of Bedrooms | |------------------------|--------|--------|-----------|----------------------| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | | Barking and Dagenham | 209 | 325 | 167 | 137 | | Barnet | 817 | 1,017 | 551 | 283 | | Bexley | 194 | 378 | 138 | 49 | | Brent | 490 | 616 | 283 | 154 | | Bromley | 140 | 245 | 95 | 114 | | Camden | 497 | 577 | 287 | 102 | | City of London | 259 | 198 | 35 | 14 | | Croydon | 1,617 | 1,363 | 328 | 79 | | Ealing | 1,465 | 1,873 | 852 | 174 | | Enfield | 512 | 493 | 275 | 143 | | Greenwich | 1,609 | 1,469 | 423 | 32 | | Hackney | 1,013 | 888 | 403 | 84 | | Hammersmith and | | | | | | Fulham | | | | | | 3,476 | 2,261 | 1,308 | 411 | 23% | | Haringey | 239 | 218 | 74 | 47 | | Harrow | 615 | 618 | 116 | 84 | | Havering | 103 | 389 | 213 | 124 | | Hillingdon | 634 | 610 | 101 | 77 | | Hounslow | 818 | 677 | 162 | 68 | | Islington | 251 | 241 | 90 | 29 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 516 | 472 | 330 | 234 | | Kingston upon Thames | 177 | 137 | 38 | 52 | | Lambeth | 1,307 | 1,305 | 456 | 180 | | Lewisham | 392 | 381 | 91 | 28 | | Merton | 274 | 126 | 38 | 45 | | Newham | 716 | 892 | 475 | 86 | | Redbridge | 374 | 421 | 137 | 41 | | Richmond upon Thames | 382 | 381 | 70 | 103 | | Southwark | 1,534 | 1,892 | 786 | 96 | | Sutton | 597 | 725 | 118 | 49 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,583 | 1,421 | 650 | 152 | | Waltham Forest | 646 | 785 | 299 | 41 | | Wandsworth | 842 | 929 | 365 | 156 | | Westminster | 819 | 1,011 | 815 | 229 | | London | 25,117 | 25,334 | 10,569 | 3,697 | Source: London Development Database Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing Proposed Net % aff Borough Name Market Social Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 13 275 0 0 575 189 92 113 562 -86 92 113 17% Barnet 85 0 0 0 663 54 24 0 578 54 24 0 12% Bexley 35 602 0 0 691 7 168 408 656 -595 168 408 -3% Brent 62 32 0 0 4,089 853 833 125 4,027 821 833 125 31% Bromley 51 0 0 0 179 5 8 10 128 5 8 10 15% Camden 105 193 0 0 1,176 357 142 14 1,071 164 142 14 23% City of London 4 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0% Croydon 93 13 0 0 1,158 157 147 506 1,065 144 147 506 43% Ealing 550 1,686 0 0 1,966 1,081 399 43 1,416 -605 399 43 -13% Enfield 54 63 0 0 520 40 105 26 466 -23 105 26 19% Greenwich 9 2 0 0 1,677 260 169 63 1,668 258 169 63 23% Hackney 102 125 0 0 605 109 41 23 503 -16 41 23 9% Hammersmith and Fulham 138 32 0 0 2,074 22 519 49 1,936 -10 519 49 22% Haringey 116 0 0 0 608 32 155 139 492 32 155 139 40% Harrow 62 64 0 0 958 11 21 0 896 -53 21 0 -4% Havering 11 45 0 0 441 156 60 114 430 111 60 114 40% Hillingdon 22 1 0 0 242 0 12 0 220 -1 12 0 5% Hounslow 70 64 0 0 1,178 286 264 96 1,108 222 264 96 34% Islington 58 40 0 0 806 204 89 0 748 164 89 0 25% Kensington and Chelsea 197 3 0 0 661 120 55 5 464 117 55 5 28% Kingston upon Thames 27 0 0 0 163 22 0 0 136 22 0 0 14% Lambeth 166 61 0 0 1,969 149 197 151 1,803 88 197 151 19% Lewisham 48 67 0 0 1,471 327 177 35 1,423 260 177 35 25% Merton 53 47 0 0 316 74 0 14 263 27 0 14 13% Rent Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Rent Market Social Rent Int. Aff. Existing Proposed Net % aff Borough Name Market Social Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 Newham 86 0 0 0 2,026 67 226 127 1,940 67 226 127 18% Redbridge 66 37 0 0 198 108 4 1 132 71 4 1 37% Richmond upon Thames 80 10 0 0 200 16 0 0 120 6 0 0 5% Southwark 148 1,544 0 0 3,486 552 531 76 3,338 -992 531 76 -13% Sutton 47 20 0 0 229 45 3 0 182 25 3 0 13% Tower Hamlets 6 14 0 0 350 79 24 66 344 65 24 66 31% Waltham Forest 50 0 0 0 735 28 139 262 685 28 139 262 39% Wandsworth 134 41 39 0 1,688 121 283 137 1,554 80 244 137 23% Westminster 278 6 0 0 1,814 123 173 15 1,536 117 173 15 17% London 3,026 5,087 39 0 35012 5654 5060 2618 31986 567 5021 2618 20% Source: London Development Database borough Number of Bedrooms | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |------------------------|--------|--------|-------|-------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 322 | 426 | 191 | 30 | 23% | | Barnet | 220 | 308 | 130 | 83 | 29% | | Bexley | 205 | 626 | 238 | 205 | 35% | | Brent | 1,961 | 2,585 | 1,204 | 150 | 23% | | Bromley | 33 | 81 | 52 | 36 | 44% | | Camden | 583 | 764 | 273 | 69 | 20% | | City of London | 26 | 45 | 15 | 14 | 29% | | Croydon | 770 | 953 | 160 | 85 | 12% | | Ealing | 1,112 | 1,432 | 789 | 156 | 27% | | Enfield | 157 | 263 | 184 | 87 | 39% | | Greenwich | 1,299 | 616 | 225 | 29 | 12% | | Hackney | 323 | 274 | 124 | 57 | 23% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,049 | 1,175 | 333 | 107 | 17% | | Haringey | 346 | 397 | 134 | 57 | 20% | | Harrow | 289 | 544 | 137 | 20 | 16% | | Havering | 111 | 375 | 223 | 62 | 37% | | Hillingdon | 86 | 128 | 18 | 22 | 16% | | Hounslow | 530 | 752 | 445 | 97 | 30% | | Islington | 409 | 482 | 163 | 45 | 19% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 259 | 298 | 199 | 85 | 34% | | Kingston upon Thames | 90 | 49 | 17 | 29 | 25% | | Lambeth | 922 | 1,073 | 349 | 122 | 19% | | Lewisham | 626 | 1,047 | 293 | 44 | 17% | | Merton | 156 | 156 | 46 | 46 | 23% | | Newham | 978 | 741 | 634 | 93 | 30% | | Redbridge | 110 | 89 | 77 | 35 | 36% | | Richmond upon Thames | 98 | 59 | 18 | 41 | 27% | | Southwark | 1,191 | 1,871 | 1,233 | 350 | 34% | | Sutton | 103 | 100 | 49 | 25 | 27% | | Tower Hamlets | 199 | 252 | 58 | 10 | 13% | | Waltham Forest | 310 | 573 | 214 | 67 | 24% | | Wandsworth | 671 | 1,174 | 270 | 114 | 17% | | Westminster | 697 | 707 | 599 | 122 | 34% | | London | 16,241 | 20,415 | 9,094 | 2,594 | 24% | Source: London Development Database Not Started Under construction Total pipeline Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 Borough Name Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Barking and Dagenham 230 2295 2065 602 11832 11230 832 14127 13295 Barnet 1152 13092 11940 2302 6644 4342 3454 19736 16282 Bexley 166 1064 898 651 1901 1250 817 2965 2148 Brent 405 1876 1471 105 6855 6750 510 8731 8221 Bromley 303 1498 1195 320 979 659 623 2477 1854 Camden 517 1901 1384 618 3686 3068 1135 5587 4452 City of London 5 595 590 3 378 375 8 973 965 Croydon 180 4791 4611 75 2892 2817 255 7683 7428 Ealing 461 5322 4861 3197 5070 1873 3658 10392 6734 Enfield 235 1609 1374 102 753 651 337 2362 2025 Greenwich 233 10436 10203 1942 16594 14652 2175 27030 24855 Hackney 692 3706 3014 2224 6342 4118 2916 10048 7132 Hammersmith and Fulham 916 8672 7756 127 4329 4202 1043 13001 11958 Haringey 150 2368 2218 94 1115 1021 244 3483 3239 Harrow 139 2951 2812 398 1241 843 537 4192 3655 Havering 469 2001 1532 336 2277 1941 805 4278 3473 Hillingdon 153 1989 1836 84 2683 2599 237 4672 4435 Hounslow 46 1774 1728 163 2447 2284 209 4221 4012 Islington 98 1389 1291 358 2627 2269 456 4016 3560 Kensington and Chelsea 228 2089 1861 892 3139 2247 1120 5228 4108 Kingston upon Thames 121 523 402 25 663 638 146 1186 1040 Lambeth 554 3134 2580 1926 5734 3808 2480 8868 6388 Lewisham 891 6507 5616 108 3424 3316 999 9931 8932 Merton 95 564 469 194 855 661 289 1419 1130 Newham 99 18021 17922 286 5999 5713 385 24020 23635 Redbridge 81 923 842 93 543 450 174 1466 1292 Richmond upon Thames 168 1072 904 110 404 294 278 1476 1198 Southwark 440 5026 4586 1923 8205 6282 2363 13231 10868 Not Started Under construction Total pipeline Source: London Development Database Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 Borough Name Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Existing Gross Net Sutton 142 2515 2373 683 666 -17 825 3181 2356 Tower Hamlets 1069 13664 12595 1197 11361 10164 2266 25025 22759 Waltham Forest 66 2257 2191 26 1231 1205 92 3488 3396 Wandsworth 195 11532 11337 554 6786 6232 749 18318 17569 Westminster 715 3394 2679 429 4339 3910 1144 7733 6589 London 11414 140550 129136 22147 133994 111847 33561 274544 240,983 borough Number of Bedrooms | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |------------------------|-------|--------|-------|-------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 2334 | 6459 | 3856 | 1478 | 38% | | Barnet | 5632 | 8297 | 2776 | 1208 | 22% | | Bexley | 631 | 1575 | 488 | 271 | 26% | | Brent | 2931 | 3824 | 1615 | 361 | 23% | | Bromley | 630 | 1129 | 349 | 369 | 29% | | Camden | 1989 | 2203 | 944 | 450 | 25% | | City of London | 465 | 397 | 72 | 39 | 11% | | Croydon | 3423 | 3403 | 659 | 198 | 11% | | Ealing | 3079 | 4560 | 2118 | 635 | 26% | | Enfield | 675 | 863 | 544 | 275 | 35% | | Greenwich | 10376 | 10729 | 4661 | 494 | 20% | | Hackney | 3649 | 3624 | 2127 | 648 | 28% | | Hammersmith and | | | | | | | Fulham | | | | | | | 5509 | 4696 | 2150 | 646 | 22% | | | Haringey | 1961 | 1021 | 321 | 165 | 14% | | Harrow | 1322 | 1864 | 568 | 438 | 24% | | Havering | 1131 | 1924 | 836 | 373 | 28% | | Hillingdon | 1462 | 2005 | 615 | 590 | 26% | | Hounslow | 1518 | 1705 | 823 | 175 | 24% | | Islington | 1707 | 1706 | 464 | 139 | 15% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1653 | 1950 | 1049 | 507 | 31% | | Kingston upon Thames | 466 | 466 | 135 | 119 | 21% | | Lambeth | 3137 | 4113 | 1244 | 371 | 18% | | Lewisham | 3490 | 4951 | 1142 | 347 | 15% | | Merton | 605 | 459 | 162 | 193 | 25% | | Newham | 5986 | 7292 | 3295 | 638 | 23% | | Redbridge | 643 | 563 | 175 | 85 | 18% | | Richmond upon Thames | 580 | 615 | 118 | 163 | 19% | | Southwark | 4360 | 5659 | 2641 | 571 | 24% | | Sutton | 1087 | 1444 | 474 | 175 | 20% | | Tower Hamlets | 10620 | 9271 | 4013 | 1113 | 20% | | Waltham Forest | 1093 | 1650 | 603 | 142 | 21% | | Wandsworth | 5365 | 9113 | 2942 | 895 | 21% | | Westminster | 2155 | 2710 | 2299 | 567 | 37% | | London | 91664 | 112240 | 46278 | 14838 | 23% | Source: London Development Database Note: The table excludes units where the bedroom data is not known. Table HPM 13: Density of residential approvals by borough (dph) Borough 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 80 130 273 126 67 71 Barnet 112 102 100 70 65 71 Bexley 110 83 80 101 64 77 Brent 133 182 185 146 134 147 Bromley 36 49 52 35 40 29 Camden 136 140 140 181 188 128 City of London 329 235 457 469 452 431 Croydon 131 97 141 167 102 165 Ealing 162 153 144 112 103 120 Enfield 65 72 61 61 91 75 Greenwich 211 145 337 239 233 222 Hackney 200 244 206 235 189 242 Hammersmith and Fulham 187 300 180 243 218 390 Haringey 96 107 116 214 156 105 Harrow 62 83 62 84 91 61 Havering 55 99 121 53 53 46 Hillingdon 91 39 57 70 60 55 Hounslow 159 61 75 124 67 137 Islington 243 271 293 285 193 199 Kensington and Chelsea 132 193 225 192 170 144 Kingston upon Thames 75 64 64 50 33 58 Lambeth 130 195 183 168 226 214 Lewisham 166 229 133 230 128 137 Merton 80 69 65 75 51 78 Newham 368 266 398 465 127 149 Redbridge 87 373 158 108 71 99 Richmond upon Thames 58 46 106 71 51 89 Southwark 334 230 224 208 372 283 Sutton 101 58 57 106 56 146 Tower Hamlets 303 362 318 487 224 430 Waltham Forest 132 121 111 144 128 140 Wandsworth 168 142 206 290 194 162 Westminster 155 199 206 219 196 177 London 138 153 136 165 127 137 Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare Table HPM 14: Density of residential completions by borough (dph) Borough 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barking and Dagenham 139 238 111 50 166 152 Barnet 98 64 84 80 101 87 Bexley 76 81 65 70 98 62 Brent 145 150 156 141 134 130 Bromley 35 30 49 46 48 32 Camden 229 187 196 119 194 180 City of London 505 500 306 857 376 808 Croydon 98 121 101 75 82 77 Ealing 159 110 112 103 101 121 Enfield 68 61 86 59 73 98 Greenwich 122 110 239 217 99 104 Hackney 223 245 198 223 223 237 Hammersmith and Fulham 207 209 232 283 157 235 Haringey 159 108 106 118 106 110 Harrow 71 116 79 60 93 83 Havering 71 72 53 63 50 30 Hillingdon 60 94 44 25 96 56 Hounslow 119 184 94 78 51 115 Islington 285 199 187 297 207 214 Kensington and Chelsea 173 126 194 153 157 112 Kingston upon Thames 49 45 52 90 68 54 Lambeth 172 157 290 167 158 192 Lewisham 136 188 164 160 140 174 Merton 47 67 101 78 132 96 Newham 267 240 216 166 253 242 Redbridge 110 100 217 173 84 84 Richmond upon Thames 83 71 53 59 89 98 Southwark 220 226 373 213 164 190 Sutton 88 66 66 79 97 50 Tower Hamlets 313 354 363 284 258 316 Waltham Forest 131 118 169 125 133 114 Wandsworth 172 165 104 125 149 112 Westminster 274 260 142 195 208 216 London 127 136 130 111 120 118 Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare Table HPM 15: class j prior approvals by number of bedrooms 2013/14 Borough number of bedrooms Percentage 1 2 3 4+ % 1 % 2 % 3+ Barking and Dagenham 25 24 0 0 51% 49% 0% Barnet 348 220 58 2 55% 35% 10% Bexley 0 3 0 0 0% 100% 0% Brent 101 128 13 1 42% 53% 6% Bromley 44 87 3 1 33% 64% 3% Camden 137 82 20 17 54% 32% 14% City of London n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Croydon 800 447 16 0 63% 35% 1% Ealing 81 24 7 0 72% 21% 6% Enfield 180 32 6 0 83% 15% 3% Greenwich 7 4 0 0 64% 36% 0% Hackney 15 2 1 0 83% 11% 6% Hammersmith and Fulham 81 56 12 3 53% 37% 10% Haringey 43 23 4 0 61% 33% 6% Harrow 355 234 5 0 60% 39% 1% Havering 5 3 0 0 63% 38% 0% Hillingdon 161 66 6 0 69% 28% 3% Hounslow 406 137 12 1 73% 25% 2% Islington 47 25 10 2 56% 30% 14% Kensington and Chelsea n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kingston upon Thames 139 94 5 0 58% 39% 2% Lambeth 155 93 4 9 59% 36% 5% Lewisham 68 73 2 0 48% 51% 1% Merton 201 62 5 0 75% 23% 2% Newham 13 3 0 0 81% 19% 0% Redbridge 101 56 0 0 64% 36% 0% Richmond upon Thames 254 179 21 7 55% 39% 6% Southwark 71 16 2 0 80% 18% 2% Sutton 227 200 6 0 52% 46% 1% Tower Hamlets 36 14 7 0 63% 25% 12% Waltham Forest 73 30 0 0 71% 29% 0% Wandsworth 170 90 13 0 62% 33% 5% Westminster 6 0 0 0 100% 0% 0% London 4,350 2,507 238 43 61% 35% 4% Source: London Development Database ## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor 3.31 The measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor's London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is typically higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor. 3.32 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government2. DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level. 3.33 These statistics are compiled from a range of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases. 3.34 Table AHM2 shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2010/11 to 2013/14. Over this period a total of 49,150 affordable homes were delivered, of which 28,900 were social rented housing, 17,580 were intermediate housing and 2,660 were for affordable rent. 3.35 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at 17,150 in 1995/96, fell to 8,270 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,220 in 2011/12 before falling again to 8,701 in 2013/14 and 9,210 in 2013/14. 3.36 Table AHM3 shows delivery of social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing by London borough in 2013/14. The borough with the highest affordable housing delivery by this definition in 2013/14 was Newham with 1,350, followed by Tower Hamlets (880) and Greenwich (640). As with conventional supply, there was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing. ## Intermediate Housing 3.37 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2015 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is submarket housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £71,000. This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (from 2014) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £66,000 in AMR 10. 3.38 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out a higher intermediate housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. The upper threshold for intermediate family housing can therefore be updated by adding 20% to the general threshold of £71,000 and rounding for a figure of £85,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements. 3.39 For dwellings to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income, based on the household income limits set out above. Further guidance will be provided in the forthcoming Housing SPG. 3.40 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £46,250 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,500 (updated from AMR 10 in line with RPI) and £71,000). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,079 a month or £249 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes. 3.41 These intermediate income caps £71,000 for most households increased to £85,000 for families accessing family sided (3 bed or more accommodation) are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products. ## Local Affordable Housing Policies 3.42 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) in paragraph 50 requires boroughs, which have identified a need for affordable housing, to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 (17,000 in 2015 London Plan) affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table AHM1 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies. | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY | |----------------------------|-------------------| | TARGET IN 2010 | | | BOROUGH | | | POLICY | | | TARGET | | | % (OR | | | PRACTICE) | | | AS AT 2002 | | | Barking & | | | Dagenham | | | None | | | None, use London | | | Plan | | | Use London Plan Policy | n/a | | Barnet | 30 | | Bexley | 25 | | 50% and a minimum of 35% | | | of units to be affordable | | | housing (Feb 2012) | | | n/a | | | Brent | 30-50 | | Bromley | 20 | | Camden | | | 50 | | | Proposed | | | 50% for >50 | | | dwellings, | | | 10-50% for >10 | | | (or 1,000sqm) <50 | | | dwellings | | | City of | | | London | | | None | | | None, use London | | | Plan | | | 30% on-site; 60% off-site | | | (Jan 2015) | n/a | | Croydon | 40 | | Ealing | 50 | | Enfield | 25 | | Greenwich | 35 | | 35% minimum onsite for 10 | | | or more homes or sites 0.5 | | | ha or more (July 2014) | | | n/a | | | Hackney | 25 | | Hammersmith | | | & Fulham | | | 65 | 50% | | Haringey | 30 | | 50% Affordable | | | Harrow | 30 | | Havering | None | | Hillingdon | 25 | | Hounslow | 50 | | Islington | 25 | | Kensington & | | | Chelsea | | | 33 | | | Min of 200 units per | | | an from 2011/12 | | | with site specific | | | policy of 50% | | | affordable by floor | | | area | | | ADOPTED BOROUGH | | | POLICY TARGET | | | AS AT DECEMBER | | | 2014 (NUMERICAL / | | | PERCENTAGE) | | | EMERGING | | | BOROUGH | | | POLICY | | | TARGET | | | 50% for >50 dwellings, | | | 10-50% for <50 dwellings | | | (Nov 2010) | | | 50% for ≥ 30 | | | dwellings, | | | 10-50% in 2% | | | increments for | | | each additional | | | dwelling | | | between 10 (or | | | 1,000sqm) and | | | 30 dwellings. | | | Housing on site (March | | | 2013) | | | 40% | | | 50% (Dec 2010) or | | | "maximum reasonable | | | amount" | | | n/a | | | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY | |-----------------------------|-------------------| | TARGET IN 2010 | | | BOROUGH | | | POLICY | | | TARGET | | | % (OR | | | PRACTICE) | | | AS AT 2002 | | | Kingston | | | upon Thames | | | 50 | 35% | | Lambeth | 35-50 | | 40% (50% with | | | grant) | | | 40% (50% with grant) (Jan | | | 2011) | | | 50% when | | | public subsidy, | | | 40% without | | | Lewisham | | | An element | | | 35% | 50% (June 2011) | | London | | | Legacy | | | Development | | | Corporation | | | Merton | 30 | | Newham | 25 | | Redbridge | 25 | | Richmond | | | upon Thames | | | 50 | 50% | | reasonable (2011) | | | n/a | | | Southwark | 25 | | 50% overall (40% | | | in CAZ, 35% in E&C | | | and suburban zones) | | | Sutton | 25 | | Tower | | | Hamlets | | | 50% overall, 35-50% | | | on individual sites | | | 50% overall (2010) Equates | | | to approx. 1,965 units | | | annually (London Plan | | | target) | | | Adopted | | | UDP 1998 | | | = 25% | | | Interim | | | Planning | | | Guidance - | | | 35-50% | | | Waltham | | | Forest | | | 40 | 50% | | To provide at least 50% | | | (5,700 homes) of homes | | | as affordable over the plan | | | period | | | n/a | | | Wandsworth | None | | Min 373 units per an | | | (to be reviewed on | | | adoption of the LP) | | | Currently being | | | reviewed (on | | | individual sites | | | at least 33%) | | | Westminster | - | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2014 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET Maximising with 35% target Maximum reasonable amount Currently being reviewed 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) (April 2011) On individual sites a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable (Oct 2010) | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | Total | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------| | Table AHM 2: Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2010/11 to | | | | | | 2013/14 | | | | | | Affordable housing delivery | | | | | | type | | | | | | Social Rent, of which: | 8,890 | 11,370 | 5,060 | 3,580 | | GLA (new build) | 5,810 | 9,070 | 4,470 | 2,960 | | GLA (acquisitions) | 2,080 | 810 | 160 | 80 | | Affordable Housing Guarantees | 50 | 50 | | | | HCA or GLA Schemes | 230 | 420 | 0 | 40 | | Local authorities | 510 | 600 | 120 | 150 | | of which HCA grant funded (new | | | | | | build) | | | | | | 260 | 500 | 100 | 110 | 970 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 150 | 220 | 100 | 90 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 90 | 80 | 50 | 30 | | Private Finance Initiative | 120 | 160 | 90 | 0 | | Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | | Other | 90 | 120 | 210 | 420 | | Affordable Rent, of which: | 130 | 280 | 2,250 | 2,660 | | GLA (new build) | 90 | 200 | 1,390 | 1,680 | | GLA (acquisitions) | 50 | 80 | 380 | 510 | | Affordable Housing Guarantees | 50 | 50 | | | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | | Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches | 10 | 10 | | | | Local authorities | 0 | 380 | 380 | | | Other | 10 | 20 | 30 | | | Intermediate Affordable Housing | 5,120 | 5,710 | 3,360 | 3,390 | | Intermediate Rent, of which: | 1,350 | 890 | 380 | 490 | | GLA (new build) | 1,210 | 760 | 330 | 440 | | GLA (acquisitions) | 140 | 30 | 10 | 0 | | Other | . | 110 | 40 | 50 | | Affordable Home Ownership, of | | | | | | which: | | | | | | 3,770 | 4,820 | 2,980 | 2,900 | 14,470 | | GLA (new build) | 2,790 | 4,190 | 2,580 | 2,290 | | of which, FirstBuy | 290 | 600 | 20 | 910 | | GLA (acquisitions) | 80 | 100 | 30 | 90 | | Affordable Housing Guarantees | 190 | | | | | Other Homes and Communities Agency | | | | | | Schemes | | | | | | 20 | 0 | 20 | | | | Local authorities | 10 | 10 | 20 | 40 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build - | | | | | | total | | | | | | 300 | 210 | 250 | 190 | 950 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 260 | 100 | 120 | 190 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 610 | 280 | 110 | 120 | | Other | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | | All affordable | 14,010 | 17,220 | 8,710 | 9,210 | See DCLG live table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions. Figures for some previous years have been revised. Table AHM 3: Affordable delivery in London by tenure, 2013/14 Borough Social rent Affordable Rent Barking and Dagenham 120 360 20 500 Barnet 170 90 130 390 Bexley 20 20 50 90 Brent 40 130 110 280 Bromley 10 30 20 60 Camden 130 40 40 210 City of London 20 0 0 20 Croydon 0 230 120 350 Ealing 70 100 130 300 Enfield 0 60 60 130 Greenwich 370 90 190 640 Hackney 360 60 130 550 Hammersmith and Fulham 40 10 140 180 Haringey 40 30 80 150 Harrow 30 20 30 70 Havering 10 180 80 260 Hillingdon 0 100 30 120 Hounslow 60 60 160 270 Islington 140 0 180 330 Kensington and Chelsea 110 0 10 130 Kingston upon Thames 0 60 40 90 Lambeth 120 60 70 260 Lewisham 120 50 70 240 Merton 80 20 30 120 Newham 700 20 640 1,350 Redbridge 0 0 10 10 Richmond upon Thames 0 40 10 50 Southwark 260 70 220 560 Sutton 30 20 30 90 Tower Hamlets 440 190 260 880 Waltham Forest 0 110 80 190 Wandsworth 40 10 200 260 Westminster 50 10 40 100 London 3,580 2,250 3,390 9,210 Source: DCLG Intermediate Total ## Achieving An Inclusive Environment 3.43 The LDD has been collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http:// www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at https:// www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/ publications/accessible-london-achievingan-inclusive-environment. The figures in the table are 'gross' approvals and calculated at scheme level. so units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor. 3.44 Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes for which 100% compliance is a more achievable goal. 3.45 The data in Table 3.5 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all approvals is 75%, down from 85% in 2012/13. The total rises to 93% for new builds. 8.0% of all homes, and 10.2% of new builds are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. 3.46 Despite these standards now being accepted as the norm in London, the achievement of London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains out of reach in terms of all units. One of the key reasons is that several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more, even on new build schemes. The inclusion of applications for change of use from office to residential via permitted development has also affected the level of compliance for non-new build schemes. The streamlined application process does not require applicants to provide details of compliance with these standards or permit local authorities to require it. In the absence of better information, these Class J prior approvals have been assumed to not comply. If these consents are excluded, the % compliance is comparable with the previous year. Accessible Homes standards for Residential units approved during FY2013/14 Borough Name % Lifetime homes, all units % Wheel- Chair Homes, all units Barking and Dagenham 91.6 8.0 99.9 8.5 Barnet 61.8 5.6 92.5 8.5 Bexley 82.3 14.1 91.8 15.7 Brent 75.0 13.6 98.1 17.6 Bromley 17.4 1.1 21.1 2.3 Camden 55.7 5.4 95.5 9.2 City of London 87.2 8.1 99.7 9.9 Croydon 44.6 7.2 86.3 13.6 Ealing 92.5 9.0 97.6 9.6 Enfield 79.4 8.7 98.7 10.9 Greenwich 98.9 10.0 99.9 10.2 Hackney 69.5 8.5 87.0 10.4 Hammersmith and Fulham 90.8 9.4 93.8 10.6 Haringey 39.9 1.7 78.8 4.4 Harrow 53.5 8.0 97.7 14.0 Havering 66.4 13.2 69.4 14.3 Hillingdon 82.8 8.6 99.5 10.9 Hounslow 52.8 7.0 82.6 11.3 Islington 58.8 4.9 96.6 8.1 Kensington and Chelsea 81.0 11.5 91.7 12.9 Kingston upon Thames 30.9 4.2 100.0 14.8 Lambeth 74.0 6.9 92.8 8.4 Lewisham 69.2 5.5 93.9 7.5 Merton 34.6 1.2 98.7 3.9 Newham 91.7 8.7 97.4 9.3 Redbridge 79.9 5.5 95.2 7.3 Richmond upon Thames 29.3 1.0 82.7 3.2 Southwark 91.0 8.8 97.1 9.4 Sutton 55.2 9.1 91.2 18.0 Tower Hamlets 94.1 9.5 97.7 10.0 Waltham Forest 82.0 6.9 96.1 8.2 Wandsworth 65.0 7.2 87.3 9.0 Westminster 42.0 4.4 75.6 7.4 London 74.7 8.0 93.2 10.2 Source: London Development Database % Lifetime homes, new build % WHeelchair homes, new build ## Environment And Transport Ptal Map 3.47 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2014 PTAL map (map 6) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL. ## Crossrail Funding 3.48 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £600m from developer contributions via both S106 contributions related to the Crossrail funding SPG and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Mayor's CIL came into effect from April 2012 and it raises funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail. The CIL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses. In April 2013 the Mayor published the updated "Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy" SPG. 3.49 Table 3.6 shows funding secured for Crossrail to date from each funding stream. The CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CIL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 3.6A. It is not possible to link CIL to a specific type of expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding Account (SFA), which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project's requirements. The amount of CIL 'in hand' is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis. Net of CIL administration costs. | S106 | Year | CiL | |---------|----------|--------| | 0.24 | | | | 2010/11 | 0 | | | 1.43 | | | | 2011/12 | 0 | | | 17.20 | | | | 2012/13 | 6.03 | | | 13.31 | 2013/14 | 46.20 | | 8.03 | 2014/15* | 54.75 | | | 2015/16 | | | | 2016/17 | | | | 2017/18 | | | | 2018/19 | | | | 2019/20 | | | 40.21 | Total | 106.98 | | Category | £ | |-----------------------------|-----| | Total CIL Expenditure | | | 106,990,843# | | | Amount used to repay | | | borrowing | | | 0 | | | Amount spent (2014/15) | | | on administration by TfL/ | | | GLA (1%) | | | 580,508# | | | Amount spent (2014/15) | | | on administration by | | | collecting authorities (4%) | | | | | | 2,290,783# | | | Amount of CIL 'in-hand' | 0 | * figures for 2014/15 are based on actual income up to the end of December 2014. # figures correct to the end of December 2014 Source: Transport for London ## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations 3.50 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) First Review was published in August 2014 and suggests some changes to the recommendations. It now contains 14 recommendations - progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at Febuary 2015. ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations | No. | Recommendation | |------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities | | should consider in their SFRAs and put | | | in place Local Plan policies to promote | | | the setting back of development from | | | the edge of the Thames and tidal | | | tributaries to enable sustainable and | | | cost effective upgrade of river walls/ | | | embankments in line with Policy 5.12, | | | CFMPs, TE2100 and advice from the | | | Environment Agency. | | | 2 | The London Boroughs of Richmond, | | Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth | | | should put in place policies to ensure | | | alternative responses to managing | | | fluvial risk such as flood resilience | | | measures (e.g. flood gates) or | | | potentially safeguarding land for | | | future flood storage or, on the fluvial | | | tributaries, setting back local defences | | | or any resilience measures between | | | Teddington Lock and Hammersmith | | | Bridge in line with TE2100 findings. | | | LB Hounslow has a policy in its Local Plan, | | | now at examination stage, which supports | | | flood resilience, making space for water and | | | specifically references to TE2100. | | | LBs Richmond, Kingston, and Wandsworth | | | have policies in their Local Plans to address | | | flood risk management from all sources. | | | Wandsworth's policy in particular ensures that | | | developments take into account the ability | | | to implement future improvements to flood | | | defences, in accordance with the TE2100 | | | Plan. | | | 3 | The London Boroughs of Newham | | and Greenwich should work with the | | | Environment Agency on issues such as | | | the potential safeguarding of potential | | | land needs around the existing Thames | | | Barrier, and the London Borough | | | of Bexley should work with the | | | Environment Agency on future flood | | | risk management options in line with | | | TE2100 findings. | | ## Future Monitoring Of Suds 1.51 The potential benefits and feasibility of monitoring the implementation of SUDS is being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. This will be explored further in cooperation with the Environment Agency. Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. RB Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan policies in place to ensure the potential safeguarding of land needs around the existing Thames Barrier. LB Newham and LB Bexley are both working with the Environment Agency to update the flood risk policies in their emerging Local Plans, including TE2100 Plan requirements. ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations | Recommendation | |-------------------------------------------------| | No. | | 4 | | Boroughs at confluences of tributary | | rivers with the River Thames should | | ensure Flood Risk Assessments | | (FRAs) include an assessment of the | | interaction of all forms of flooding, but | | fluvial and tidal flood risks in particular. | | These are the London Boroughs of | | Havering, Barking & Dagenham, | | Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, | | Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, | | Richmond and Kingston. | | 5 | | Regeneration and redevelopment of | | London's fluvial river corridors offer | | a crucial opportunity to reduce flood | | risk. SFRAs and policies should focus | | on making the most of this opportunity | | through appropriate location, layout | | and design of development as set out | | in the Thames CFMP. In particular | | opportunities should be sought to: | | • Set back development from the river | | edge to enable sustainable and cost | | effective flood risk management | | options | | • Ensure that developments at residual | | flood risk are designed to be flood | | compatible and/or flood resilient | | • Maximise the use of open spaces | | within developments which have a | | residual flood risk to make space for | | flood water. | | 6 | | Developments all across London | | should reduce surface water discharge | | in line with the Sustainable Drainage | | Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the | | London Plan, the emerging Sustainable | | Design and Construction SPG and the | | emerging London Sustainable Drainage | | Action Plan. | | 7 | | Thames Water should continue its | | programme of addressing foul sewer | | flooding. | | 8 | | The groundwater flood risk in identified | | locations (see IPEG map) should be | | considered in FRAs and SFRAs to | | ensure that its impacts do not increase. | | Tidal influences are generally taken into | | account in the SFRA modelling addressing the | | interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at | | confluences. | | These measures are becoming increasingly | | regularly built into SFRAs, local policies, | | development frameworks and planning | | applications. | | Since the Sustainable Design and | | Construction SPG was updated in 2014 | | the Environment Agency has seen an | | improvement in drainage strategies they have | | reviewed. Larger reductions in run-off rates | | are being achieved. | | The London Sustainable Drainage Action | | Plan will be published later in 2015 and will | | focus on retrofitting sustainable drainage to | | existing land and buildings. | | Thames Water continues to address localised | | sewer flooding problems and has undertaken | | the first stage of consultation in respect of a | | major project in the Hammersmith-Kensington | | area known as Counters Creek. | | As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be | | included, and is starting to be addressed in | | some site specific FRAs as well. | ## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations | Recommendation | |---------------------------------------------| | No. | | 9 | | The reservoir flood risk in identified | | locations (see reservoir flood maps) | | should be in considered in FRAs and | | SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not | | increase. | | 10 | | Detailed flood risk assessments should | | be undertaken at an early stage at the | | level of individual major development | | locations and town centre development | | sites, and opportunities to reduce | | flood risk should be maximised where | | possible. | | 11 | | Relevant transport authorities and | | operators should examine and regularly | | review their infrastructure including | | their networks, stations, depots, | | underpasses and tunnels for potential | | flooding locations and flood risk | | reduction measures. For large stations | | and depots, solutions should be sought | | to store or disperse rainwater from | | heavy storms. | | 12 | | Emergency service authorities | | and operators covering hospitals, | | ambulance, fire and police stations | | as well as prisons should ensure that | | emergency plans in particular for | | facilities in flood risk areas are in place | | and regularly reviewed so that they | | can cope in the event of a major flood. | | These plans should put in place cover | | arrangements through other suitable | | facilities. | | 13 | | Education authorities should ensure | | that emergency plans in particular for | | facilities in flood risk areas are in place | | and regularly reviewed so that they | | can cope in the event of a major flood. | | These plans should put in place cover | | arrangements through other suitable | | facilities. | | 14 | | Operators of electricity, gas, water, | | sewerage, and waste utility sites should | | maintain an up to date assessment of | | the flood risk to their installations and, | | considering the likely impacts of failure, | | establish any necessary protection | | measures including secondary flood | | defences. | Source: GLA and Environment Agency As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well. This is generally being achieved and the GLA is leading work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including VNEB and Old Oak Common. London Underground and Transport for London are undertaking a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted. Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London. During 2015 Drain London will be examining the risks to prisons and secure health. The London Resilience Forum is also working on these issues. Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at secondary school sites across London. The GLA recognises that it needs to confirm progress with these utility providers. ## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance 3.52 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2014 the Mayor published the following SPGs: • Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment SPG (October 2014) • The control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition SPG (July 2014) • Town Centres SPG (July 2014) • Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG (June 2014) • London Planning Statement (May 2014) • Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (April 2014) 3.53 In addition a draft Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2014) was also published. 3.54 All complete and draft SPG are available on the following website http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/ supplementary-planning-guidance. ## London Boroughs Policy Consultations 3.55 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area. 3.56 All London borough Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation. 3.57 Under Regulation 19, before submitting the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only. 3.58 In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor's response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them. Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Barking & Dagenham Barking and Dagenham Employment Areas Local Development Order Last Orders? Preserving Public Houses (SPD) Barnet Contributions to Skills, Training, Employment and Enterprise from new development SPD Bexley Community Infrastructure Levy - Submission Bexley's Growth Strategy - emerging vision consultation Brent Joint West London Waste Plan Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan Bromley Local Plan draft policies and designations Camden Fitzrovia AAP adopted on 3 March 2014 Euston Area Action Plan submitted on 10 April 2014, adopted on 26 January 2015 Amendments to the following Camden Planning Guidance (CPG) documents were published on 3 September 2014: CPG 1 Design City of London Draft Local Plan - submission CIL Charging Schedule Croydon Old Town Masterplan SPD Ealing Draft West London Waste Plan (DPD) Residential gardens SPD Enfield Development Management Document North Circular AAP –Adopted North East Enfield AAP - Submitted Greenwich Adopted: Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) Woolwich Common Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Strategy (July 2014) Greener Greenwich SPD (Sept 2014) Draft: Draft Charging Schedule - Submission to Secretary of State (Nov 2014) Spray Street Woolwich Masterplan SPD - consultation draft (Nov 2014) Article 4 Directions: Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area - Confirmation of nonimmediate Article 4 Direction (21 May 2014) Greenwich Peninsula (Pier Walk and Mitre Passage) - Notice of non-immediate Article 4 Direction (28 January 2014) Hackney Finsbury Park SPD (July 2014) Queen Elizabeth Lordship Neighbourhood Area (November 2014) Hammersmith & Fulham None Haringey CIL Charging Schedule implemented on 1 November 2014 Draft Planning Obligations SPD Harrow Draft West London Waste Plan Havering None Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Hillingdon Draft Local Plan Part 2 Planning Obligations CIL Charging Schedule - adopted Hounslow Draft Local Plan CIL Draft Charging Schedule Draft West London Waste Plan Draft Planning Obligations and CIL SPD Islington Finsbury Park SPD Inclusive Design SPD Kensington & Chelsea Partial review of core strategy (adopted in 2014):- • Conservation and design, • Basement developments • Miscellaneous Matters, Partial review of the Core Strategy • Enterprise (Issues and Options) Notting Hill Gate SPD (second draft) Trellick-Edenham SPD (Draft) Royal Brompton SPD (Draft) Kingston upon Thames Draft North Kingston Development Brief (stage 2) Draft Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD Lambeth CIL Charging Schedule Lewisham DM Policies - Adoption Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan -Adoption Planning Obligations London Legacy Development Corporation Draft Local Plan- Regulation 19 Merton Sites and Policies Plan (site allocations and DM policies) - (adopted July 2014) Policies Map - (adopted July 2014) CIL Charging Schedule - applied April 2014 Morden Station planning brief - adopted March 2014 Estates Local Plan - reg 18 (regeneration of three estates) Planning Obligations SPD - draft for consultation approved. Newham None Redbridge Draft Redbridge Local Plan 2015 - 2030 - Preferred Options Report Extension (Alternative Development Strategies) Borough-wide Conservation Area Management Proposals SPD Richmond upon Thames Site Allocations Plan pre-publication - additional sites consultation and new educational sites consultation Affordable Housing SPD Planning Obligations SPD 2 Village Plan SPDs - Kew, Whitton and Heathfield Joint West London Waste Plan - consultation on submission Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule Southwark Peckham and Nunhead AAP Draft New Southwark Plan: Issues and Options version Revised draft CIL charging schedule Draft S106/CIL SPD Draft Revised Canada Water AAP Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014 borough policy documents Sutton Sutton's Community Infrastructure Levy adopted in 2014 Tower Hamlets Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD Waltham Forest Development Management DPD (October 2013) Walthamstow Town Centre Area Action Plan (October 2014) Blackhorse Lane Area Action Plan (February 2015) Local Plan Review: Core Strategy, Development Management Policies Document and Site Specific Allocations Document - submitted and 2nd proposed submission Wandsworth Local Views SPD Refuse and Recyclables in Development SPD Westminster Revision to Westminster's City Plan - Issues booklets: Design Health, Well-being and Personal Safety Open Space and Green Infrastructure Planning and Pollution Control Public Realm and Advertisements Transport and Movement Food, Drink, Entertainment, Arts & Housing Need, Delivery and Quality Social and Community Uses Westminster's Economy Flood Risk Mayfair & St James's Source: London Boroughs/GLA ## Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies 3.59 Table 3.9 provides an overview of London borough Core Strategy progress. borough Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 2015) Core Strategy stage no. of boroughs Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published 0 Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy 2 Bromley Have published Core Strategy for Submission 0 Core Strategy adopted 31 Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) Barnet (Sep 2012) Bexley (Feb 2012) Brent (July 2010) Camden (Nov 2010) City of London (Sep 2011) Croydon (April 2013) Ealing (April 2012) Enfield (Jan 2010) Greenwich (July 2014) Hackney (Nov 2010) Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) Haringey (March 2013) Harrow (Feb 2012) Havering (2008) Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) Islington (Feb 2011) Kensington & Chelsea (2010) Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) Lambeth (Jan 2011) Lewisham (June 2011) Merton (2011) Newham (Jan 2012) Redbridge (March 2008) Richmond upon Thames (2009) Southwark (April 2011) Sutton (Dec 2009) Tower Hamlets (2010) Waltham Forest (March 2012) Wandsworth (October 2010) Westminster (Nov 2013) (Hounslow progressing to full Local Plan without adopting a Core Strategy) ## Borough Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 2015) Core Strategy stage no. of boroughs Local Plan being reviewed 16 Barking and Dagenham Bromley Camden - Regulation 18 consultation (Feb 2015) City of London - Publication Croydon Hammersmith & Fulham Haringey Havering Hillingdon Hounslow –Publication Islington Kensington & Chelsea - partial review part Adopted and part Publication stage Lambeth - Publication Lewisham - Publication LLDC - Submitted Redbridge Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets - Review to be undertaken Wandsworth - Publication Westminster - Adopted and review Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates 3.60 Please note that many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it. ## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification 3.61 Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification are included in Annex 1 of the London Plan. As a result of the 2015 London Plan new Opportunity Areas are being designated in Bromley, Canada Water, Harrow and Wealdstone, Old Kent Road and Old Oak Common. The following three maps provide an overview of the current status and scale of all Opportunity Areas Planning Frameworks (OAPFs), which are facilitating the delivery of the Opportunity Areas. For some Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) studies are prepared to support the delivery of the infrastructure required. 3.62 During 2014/15, the GLA adopted OAPFs for Euston (the Euston Area Plan) and Southall. Draft Frameworks were published for consultation for City Fringe, London Riverside and Old Oak Park Royal. A DIF study was published for the Southall OA, another one is being prepared for the Upper Lee Valley to be published later in 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA | | REF LOCATION | REF LOCATION | REF LOCATION | |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Bexley Riverside | 14 Harrow and Wealdstone | 27 Old Oak Common | | 2 | Bromley | 15 Heathrow | 28 Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront | | 3 | Canada Water | 16 Ilford | 29 Southall | | 4 | Charlton Riverside | 17 Isle of Dogs | 30 Thamesmead and Abbey Wood | | 5 | | | | | City Fringe/Tech City | 18 Kensal Canalside | 31 Tottenham Court Road | | | 6 | Colindale/ Burnt Oak | 19 King's Cross-St.Pancras | 32 Upper Lea Valley (including Tottenham Hale) | | 7 | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | 20 Lewisham-Catford-New Cross | 33 Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | | 8 | Croydon | 21 London Bridge/ Bankside | 34 Victoria | | 9 | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | 22 London Riverside | 35 Waterloo | | 10 Earl's Court / West Kensington | 23 Lower Lea Valley including Stratford | 36 Wembley | | | 11 Elephant and Castle | 24 Old Kent Road | 37 White City | | | 12 Euston | 25 Paddington | 38 Woolwich | | | 13 Greenwich Peninsula | 26 Park Royal/Willesden Junction | | | 3.63 To bring about positive change on the ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Planning Decisions Unit in helping to implement the London Plan. The table below shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 4% over 2013. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he 'called-in' one scheme (Mount Pleasant sorting office, Islington and Camden). Table 3.10 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor 2000- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 2000-2014 Total 1,871 334 240 258 300 307 359 373 4042 Strategic Call-ins - - 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 Source: GLA Planning ## London Planning Awards 3.64 The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2014/15 Awards Ceremony was held on 03 February 2015. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 3.11 below: 1: BEST NEW PLACE TO WORK (sponsored by The international Quarter) WINNER: **Pill Box**, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Refurbished by Workspace Group PLC, the historical industrial 65,000 square feet warehouse was converted to accommodate 90 new and growing businesses employing over 450 people in total. With generous cycling facilities and located only a few minutes walk from Bethnal Green Station it's easily accessible. Not only does the development benefit from the facilities in Bethnal Green local town centre, it also provides an award winning café and restaurant, events space, flexible workspace, meeting rooms and a gym all carefully designed to encourage collaboration and interaction between tenants to help their businesses grow. 2: BEST COMMUNITY LED PROJECT (sponsored by Land Securities) WINNER: **Shree Swaminarayan Mandir temple**, in the London Borough of Brent. A fantastic example of a community led project. The manifestation of a vision the local Swaminarayan community have nurtured for 25 years. The temple was funded and built by the local community, and whilst specific to the local Hindu population, the complex also serves the wider community. The multi-function hall is a bookable resource for local schools and residents, and approximately one third of the site provides subsidised work space for local businesses. The opening of the temple was marked by a parade attended by 2000 local people. It achieves BREEAM 'excellent' with rainwater harvesting and solar panels on the roof and is considered one of the first 'eco-temples' in the world. ## Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 3: Best Conceptual Project (Sponsored By Berwin Leighton Paisner) WINNER: **The London Underline**, developed by Gensler in collaboration with PaveGen Systems and Momentum. The project proposes the innovative re-use of disused tube tunnels as pedestrian walkways. In particular, Gensler identified the tunnels between Green Park and Charing Cross Road and between Holborn and Aldwych linking strategic pedestrian destinations and significantly alleviating the pressure on footway and public transport between them. These underground spaces would be activated by stalls and other commercial and cultural uses helping pay for the project, as well as making them safe and attractive. Power for the network would be generated by kinetic paving systems - making the whole project self-sustaining. 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by Ballymore) WINNER: **Vivo & So Stepney**, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Designed by Levitt Bernstein, for the East Thames Group and Bellway Homes. The scheme transforms the previously poor quality 2.98 Hector site into a traditional permeable and legible street based development, providing 704 good quality flats and private communal spaces. 50% of the homes are affordable and all are larger than the London Plan space standards. The site is located within walking distance of the local town centre providing access to schools, shops and other social infrastructure. 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells) WINNER **Clapham Old Town Regeneration Project**. Designed by Urban Movement for the London Borough of Lambeth. The project involved the remodelling of the 1960's gyratory to drastically increase the ratio of footway to carriageway achieving an increase of 35% to 65% in pedestrian space, significantly improving the overall quality of the environment. Street furniture was rationalised maximising space for pedestrians and minimising visual clutter, crossings were located on key desire lines, and 60 new cycle stands and 102 trees were planted. All this was achieved whilst increasing pedestrian space, reducing traffic speeds and ensuring the funding streams for its long-term management were secured. 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA) WINNER **Bow Cross** in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets by Swan Housing Association. Originally a deprived estate, isolated from the surrounding community with high crime levels and poor quality environment, Bow Cross has been transformed into a traditional street-based neighbourhood where people want to live. Part redevelopment and partrefurbishment, a new road bridges over the railway infrastructure connecting the area to surrounding neighbourhoods; multi-levelled walkways were removed; and previously underused open spaces consolidated and given stronger sense of ownership. The success of the project is made evident by the large number of residents choosing to stay or return to the area, a doubling of tenant applications, and the success of private sales. ## Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 7: Best Heritage Led Rpoject (Sponsored By English Heritage) Tottenham Town Hall in the London Borough of Haringey. Newlon Housing Trust restored the Grade II Listed Edwardian Town Hall into a sustainably managed local community business centre with affordable housing to the rear around a courtyard. The scheme managed to turn the previously inaccessible Town Hall into a fully DDA compliant building. A close working relationship with English Heritage meant a thorough restoration took place including replacing tiny terrazzo mosaic tiles in the floor of the Town Hall and recreating the original clock tower on the roof of the previously derelict workshops. Demand from small, start-up businesses is strong and all residential properties are fully let. 8: BEST TOWN CENTRE PROJECT (sponsored by Turley Associates) WINNER **Stockwell Street, Greenwich**. Designed by Heneghan Peng Architects for Deloitte Real Estate and the University of Greenwich. The project exemplifies the type of diversification town centres and high streets need to strive for to secure their future. Whilst designed and run by the University, the Stockwell Street building brings a large library, exhibition and educational space and other cultural activities to the heart of town centre. Open to the public, the development has created a significant increase in footfall and vitality to the high street, helping local businesses and creating a truly mixed use town centre. 9: LONDON PLANNING PERSON OF THE YEAR WINNER **John Turner**, Head of Planning at the Ballymore Group. For his role in negotiating the new pedestrian bridge across the River Lee at Leamouth, connecting Tower Hamlets and Newham; overseeing the submission of major planning applications such as of Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Arrowhead Quay, Brentford Town Centre; and leading on the delivery of major residential developments such as London City island, Embassy gardens, Providence Tower and Royal Wharf. 10. MAYOR'S AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE WINNER Bow Cross ## Endnotes 1 See table 615 here http://is.gd/clgstocktables 2See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable ## Chapter Four Other Contextual Data Sources 4.1 This AMR cannot and does not attempt to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links IN TABLE 4.1 should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data. 4.2 A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/mayor/publications/glaintelligence/demography ## London Datastore 4.3 The primary source of data and statistics held by the GLA is the London Datastore. http://data.london.gov.uk/ which includes data not just from the GLA but also a range of other public sector organisations. ## London Development Database 4.4 For more information on the London Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The relaunched LDD public page can be found Table 4.1 Updates from the GLA Demography and Policy Analysis Group Reference Title 01-2013 Children in Poverty 2010 - Jack Ryan 02-2013 The wealth gap in London - Rachel Leeser 04-2013 Cross border mobility of primary school age children in London (2012) - Monica Li 09-2013 Poverty figures for London 2011/12 - Rachel Leeser 11-2013 ONS Mid-2012 Population Estimates - Monica Li 12-2013 Migration Indicators: August 2013 - Monica Li 13-2013 2012 Round Final Ethnic Group Population Projections - Ed Klodawski at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ ldd/ ## Development And Projects 4.5 More information on the activities of the Mayor's Development and Projects unit (Formerly the Planning Decisions Unit) can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/ priorities/planning/strategic-planningapplications ## Gla Economics Reports 4.6 The latest reports can be found at http:// www.london.gov.uk/priorities/businesseconomy/publications 4.7 For the latest news the Mayor's Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ business-economy 4.8 The London Sustainable Development Commission website is at http://www. londonsdc.org/ ## London Energy Partnership 4.9 Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/ ## Other London Data Sources Waste 4.10 The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ publications/the-mayors-wastemanagement-strategies 4.11 DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http:// www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/ waste/ 4.12 Up to date London specific data is available on the Local Authority Waste and Recycling Information Portal http://laportal.wrap. org.uk/Login.aspx ## Minerals (Aggregates) 4.13 Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ planning/research-reports/londonaggregates-working-party-0 ## Waterways 4.14 The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php ## Transport 4.15 The latest information on The Mayor's work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ transport 4.16 Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx 4.17 Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov. uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibilitylevels/resource/86bbffe1-8af1-49baac9b-b3eacaf68137 4.18 A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://www.webptals.org.uk/ 4.19 The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-transport 4.20 London First are monitoring how the London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/ our-focus/londons-built-environment/ community-infrastructure-levy/ ## Health 4.21 London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/ 4.22 London Health Observatory monitors health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/ 4.23 As of April 2013 the LHO became part of Public Health England. https://www.gov. uk/government/organisations/publichealth-england ## Government Data Sources 4.24 Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain, https:// www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future. 4.25 Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/department-for-education, which contains a section on Research and Statistics. 4.26 Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publica tions?departments%5B%5D=departmentfor-education ## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs 4.27 Various data and studies on the environment can be found at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-environment-food-ruralaffairs ## Department For Communities And Local Government 4.28 The latest information on Government policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www. gov.uk/government/topics/planning-andbuilding. ## Chapter Five # Conclusions And Looking Ahead 5.1 This AMR covers a period when at national level the National Planning Policy Guidance came into effect to support the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also seeing a range of important reforms to the planning system. In London the new 2015 London Plan has just been published rolling the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 Census. The next AMR will be based on this new Plan. In addition, a range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents were published during 2014. 5.2 Looking forward, 2015 will see the progression of minor alterations to address the Government's Housing Standards Review and Government policy on parking. A number of further SPGs will also be published during 2015, and the first steps towards the preparation of a Full Review of the London Plan are also being made. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform these processes. 5.3 The continued exploration of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help fund and deliver strategic infrastructure to help ensure that growth and development can proceed sustainably in the capital will also continue to be a priority. This will be facilitated by the emerging high-profile London Infrastructure Plan setting out London's infrastructure needs and explore costs and funding opportunities. The AMR/LDD are also supporting these activities. 5.4 Robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so if the areas where further work is needed are to be addressed. This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners' quality of life - and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximized.

en

4635-pdf

## Placing A Regulated Product On The Market Pre-market approval procedure for food and animal feed products and processes requiring authorisation. Certain food and feed products, called regulated products, require authorisation before they can be sold in the UK. Authorisation is required for the following regulated product types: extraction solvents feed additives feed for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTS) feed detoxification processes flavourings food contact materials food additives food enzymes genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as food and feed irradiated food novel foods smoke flavourings For most regulated product types, once products or processes are authorised, they are listed in relevant legislation, which also sets out how they can be used. These lists are referred to as positive lists. The positive lists for the following substances or processes are not currently set out in legislation: food enzymes food contact materials - recycled processes food contact materials - active and intelligent materials Until the positive lists are in place, these products may be placed on the market if they meet requirements of: the General Food Law any general criteria in the food enzyme and food contact material legislation You can find more information on these requirements, including when you will need to apply for authorisation of these products in Great Britain (GB), in our guidance for regulated products applicants. If you are not sure whether your product requires authorisation, contact us at regulatedproducts@food.gov.uk ## Placing Your Product On The Market In Great Britain The FSA with Food Standards Scotland (FSS) will carry out a risk analysis process for regulated products and provide advice to ministers, who will decide whether the product can be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. When a decision is made to authorise a product, this will mean a change to the legislation. The legislation will set out how the product can be used and any associated conditions of use. ## Authorisation Process Our risk assessment will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of retained EU law and the guidance previously developed by EFSA. For more details on what you'll need to supply with your application for each product type, read our guidance for regulated product applicants. After you submit your application, we will carry out initial checks to make sure it contains all the necessary information. We will then carry out an assessment to decide if the product or process is safe to be placed on the market in England, Wales and Scotland. This will involve risk assessment by one of our Joint Expert Groups and/or Scientific Advisory Committees and a consideration of other legitimate factors (for example, risks to the environment). These will be combined to form an evidence package. Based on this evidence, we will consider possible risk management options and make a recommendation to ministers. The ministers will then decide whether the product should be authorised for use in Great Britain. There will be an opportunity to comment on the application by taking part in a consultation during the risk analysis process and before the final recommendation is made. If a decision is taken to support an authorisation, the legislation will be updated to reflect the change. The timing of the full risk analysis process will depend on how complex the application is and on the type of product. It is likely to be at least a year. For some products the deadlines are set in legislation. Throughout the process we will keep in touch to clarify any elements of the application or to seek additional information if needed. If more information is needed to complete the evaluation, we will be able 'stop the clock' on an assessment and start it again once we receive the required information. ## New Authorisations To apply for a new regulated product authorisation, use our regulated products application service . ## Ongoing Applications If you submitted your application to the EU before 1 January 2021 and the assessment process has not been completed, you will need to submit your application to us using our regulated products application service. It will be worth including your EFSA question number in your submission. This applies both to new authorisations and re-authorisation applications. We may take into account the published EFSA opinion and the outcome of any risk management discussions at the end of the transition period (31 December 2020), but in some cases we may still need to carry out a full risk assessment and consider risk management options. ## Existing Authorisations If your product or process has been authorised by the European Commission (EC) before 1 January 2021 and the necessary legislation applies, that authorisation will remain valid in the UK. ## Re-Authorisations Re-authorisations are required every ten years for the following product types: genetically modified (GM) food and feed feed additives smoke flavourings You can find more details on how when to apply for these in our regulated products guidance. ## Getting Help If you have any questions about authorisations of regulated products, contact us at regulatedproducts@food.gov.uk ## Placing Your Product On The Northern Ireland Market The EU law that applies to Northern Ireland is specified in Annex II to the Northern Ireland Protocol. This means that any business seeking a new authorisation for a regulated food and feed product marketed in Northern Ireland will have to continue to follow EU rules.

en

2459-pdf

## Sir Nicholas Macpherson - Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 04.10.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £357.07 £357.07 05.10.12 The Hague Official meetings £276.53 £276.53 Edinburgh Official meetings £151.41 £151.41 09.10.12- 10.10.12 24.10.12 Oxford Official meetings £27.14 £27.14 £132.87 £132.87 13.11.12- 14.11.12 Coventry Joint Permanent Secretary and Local Authority Chief Executive event 23.11.12 Oxford Official meeting £46.60 £46.60 Sydney, Australia Official meetings £6,482.29 £6,482.29 09.12.12- 15.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 09.10.12 Scottish Financial Enterprise Dinner 17.10.12 Breakingviews Reception 23.10.12 Lord Carter Lunch | 24.10.12 | Exeter College, Oxford | Dinner | |-------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | 30.10.12 | The Centre for Policy Studies | Lunch | | 30.10.12 | Queen Mary, University of London | Reception | | 02.11.12 | Queen Mary, University of London | Lunch | | 06.11.12 | Lazard | Dinner | | 12.11.12 | Rothschild | Lunch | | 13.11.12 | J P Morgan Cazenove | Lunch | | 15.11.12 | National Institute of Economic and Social Research | Reception | | 20.11.12 | UBS | Dinner | | 22.11.12 | National Grid and Tate & Lyle | Lunch | | 23.11.12 | Nuffield College, Oxford | Dinner | | 26.11.12 | British Bankers' Association | Lunch | | 27.11.12 | Diageo | Lunch | | 27.11.12 | The Financial Times | Reception | | 30.11.12 | The Daily Telegraph | Lunch | | 18.12.12 | BBC | Lunch | | | | | | | | | ## John Kingman - Second Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 09.10.12 Oxford Official meeting £86.37 £86.37 09.11.12 Heathrow Official meetings £14.28 £14.28 13.11.12 Heathrow Official meeting £28.80 £28.80 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 09.10.12 All Souls College, Oxford Dinner 30.10.12 Rothschild Lunch 13.11.12 Santander Dinner and speaking engagement 20.11.12 Ondra Partners Lunch 21.11.12 Rio Tinto Breakfast 26.11.12 British Bankers' Association Lunch 28.11.12 Imperial College London Lunch 07.12.12 Prudential Lunch 10.12.12 Dame Amelia Fawcett Lunch ## Tom Scholar - Second Permanent Secretary, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 08.10.12 Tokyo Official meetings £3,020.00 £3,020.00 Official meetings £3,801.19 £3,801.19 28.11.12- 03.12.12 New York/ Washington Hong Kong Official meetings £5,781.09 £5,781.09 04.12.12- 08.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 24.10.12 City UK Dinner 06.11.12 Spencer Stuart Dinner 12.11.12 Lazard Dinner 15.11.12 National Institute of Economic and Social Research Reception 27.11.12 The Financial Times Reception ## Michael Ellam - Director General, International And Finance, Hm Treasury Total Cost £ DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Brussels Official meetings £23.61 £23.61 19.09.12- 20.09.12 Mexico Official meetings £19.00 £229.84 £248.84 22.09.12- 25.09.12 Brussels Official meetings £141.27 £141.27 27.09.12- 28.09-12 04.10.12 Brussels Official meetings £380.89 £380.89 Official meetings £651.33 £132.86 £153.74 £937.93 08.10.12- 09.10.12 Frankfurt/ Luxembourg Tokyo Official meetings £3,461.18 £19.00 £23.94 £3,504.12 10.10.12- 14.10.12 Moscow Official meetings £784.29 £19.00 £803.29 22.10.12- 23.10.12 Brussels Official meetings £380.33 £176.68 £557.01 29.10.12- 30.10.12 Mexico Official meetings £5,946.89 £38.00 £70.00 £485.93 £6,540.82 02.11.12- 06.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £124.30 £537.07 £315.74 £977.11 12.11.12- 14.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £293.86 £154.66 £448.52 22.11.12- 23.11.12 Brussels Official meetings £555.97 £555.97 03.12.12- 05.12.12 Brussels Official meetings £290.80 £290.80 12.12.12- 14.12.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 06.09.12 Breugel Dinner 01.11.12 Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum Dinner 27.11.12 The Financial Times Reception 04.12.12 HSBC Dinner Indra Morris - Director General, Tax and Welfare, HM Treasury No expenses were incurred during this period. Hospitality Received Indra did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Dave Ramsden - Director General And Chief Economic Adviser, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Official meetings £87.96 £69.34 £712.30 £14.85 £884.45 16.09.12- 23.09.12 Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo Paris Official meetings £387.03 £56.13 £11.73 £454.89 23.10.12- 25.10.12 Paris Official meetings £350.84 £54.16 £15.45 £2.50 £422.95 11.11.12- 13.11.12 Paris Official meetings £358.35 £13.04 £330.05 £701.44 10.12.12- 12.12.12 17.12.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £198.43 £38.00 £236.43 18.12.12 Newport Official meetings £85.05 £8.50 £93.55 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 24.10.12 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Lunch and dinner 02.11.12 Standard Chartered Dinner 15.11.12 National Institute of Economic and Social Research Reception 07.12.12 Goldman Sachs Lunch and speaking engagement 18.12.12 JP Morgan Dinner and speaking engagement ## Jonathan Taylor - Director General, Financial Services And Stability, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals Glasgow Official meetings £322.25 £38.00 £47.00 £80.00 £487.25 25.10.12 - 26.10.12 Hospitality Received Date Organisation Name Type of Hospitality Received 01.10.12 International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) Dinner Reception 05.10.12 London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange (New York Stock Exchange) 11.10.12 The Mansion House Reception 16.10.12 London Metal Exchange Dinner 23.10.12 Wholesale Financial Markets and Services Dinner 24.10.12 The Mansion House Dinner 12.11.12 The Lord Mayor of London Dinner ## Sharon White - Director General, Public Services, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 05.10.12 The Hague Official meetings £216.53 £216.53 18.10.12 Italy Official meetings £716.65 £716.65 Hospitality Received Sharon did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## James Bowler –Director, Strategy, Planning And Budget, Hm Treasury DATES Total Cost £ DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 02.08.12 Edinburgh Official meetings £18.90 £18.00 £36.90 17.10.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £41.11 12.12.12 Brussels Official meetings £295.90 £295.90 Hospitality Received James did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Alison Cottrell - Corporate Services Director, Hm Treasury DATES DESTINATION PURPOSE TRAVEL OTHER (Including Hospitality Given) Air Rail Taxi/Car Accommodation/ Meals 17.10.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £6.50 £47.61 27.11.12 Norwich Official meetings £41.11 £19.50 £60.61 Hospitality Received Alison did not receive any hospitality during this period. ## Total Cost £

en

1536-pdf

Research center on sustainable development (OPERA) Prof. Ettore CAPRI Università del Sacro Cuore - Italy ettore.capri@unicatt.it ## The 5 Aspects Of Meat Sustainability Economic Value Of The Meat Sector In Italy Meat Traceability: Main Controls Carried Out Mediterranean Diet: All The Foods, Right Quantities Nutrients Of Meat Fats And Cholesterols: A Problem Solved Apparent Consumption Vs Real Consumption In Italy Animals And Plants: Two Systems Interlocked The Water Footprint Of Meat To Reduce Impacts Searching For Efficiency THE EUROPEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ARE AMONG THOSE CHARACTERISED BY A LOWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PER KG OF PROTEIN* ## The Commitment Of Livestock Sector THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR HAS MANY WAYS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AND BREEDING PHASES THAT HAVE THE HIGHER RELEVANCE. ## Production Of Biogas Solar Power Managing Manure Precision Agriculture Project Change-R The Environmental Hourglass THE ENVIRONMENTAL HOURGLASS IN A VIDEO ## How Was It Built • The Mediterranean Diet includes the balanced consumption of every food type, without any exclusion • Environmental claims and labels aim to support the consumers in identifying the most «virtuos» product within the same food/product group. Different food groups should never be compared on the basis of their environmental impact since they have different functionalities. • There is no «perfect food»: every choice should be taken on the basis of one's ethical values and taking the context into consideration • The meat sector should commit to improving those critical aspects that still exist: this can only be achieved by focusing on mid-term goals. ## Scientific And Educational Goals For The Future • Developing realistic scenarios for risk assessment and management of the meat productions • Developing archive, data storing for quantitative assessment (LCA) • Setting benchmark and transformation factor for realistic LCA assessment • Linking ecosystem services and protecion goal of the above scenarios at different temporal and spatial scales. • Developing reliable sustanaible programs for meat production and farm organisation • Set up certification label and corporate social responsability • Educational, training programs for helping cultural challeng in the meat chain sector ## The Activities Of Carni Sostenibili The Association Sustainable Meats Activities are based on three main areas covering: • The "institutional" communication • The presence in the social world; • The organization of technical support documents for scientific communication. • Organization of scientific events, press ## Conference, Ect The sustainability meat and cured meat in Italy .Publishing of scientific report. Media comunication, event, symposium,ect Social media presence ## The Published Materials The Meat Sustainability In Italy Technical Repository Of Information On Sustainability Of The Meat In Italy. First edition published in 2014, second in 2016. Versione completa - 280 pagg. Sintesi - 36 pagg. Nutritional document At each event they were published thematic and specific documents on the topics discussed from time to time

en

2677-pdf

## Reason. 1. Standard Filming Fees Basic fee Interview with expert *Presence of conservator*** £300 per hour + £50 per hour (minimum £50) + £50 per hour (minimum £50) TV & film (6 person crew* max) Radio recordings £150 per hour + £50 per hour (minimum £50) + £50 per hour (minimum £50) * The term 'crew' covers both technical and non-technical personnel, plus any presenters, researchers or external interviewees. ** In certain circumstances a conservation specialist will need to be present during the ## Filming/Recording, And An Additional Fee Will Be Payable. **Please Note:** - All fees are subject to an additional Value Added Tax (currently 20%) - Fees are charged from the moment the crew is met by the member of staff until the crew leaves the building. - Cancellations or changes to a booking with less than 48 hours notice will be liable for a **cancellation fee** representing 20% of the total fee, plus VAT. - For out-of-office hours filming, larger film crews (including feature films and TV dramas) the fee is negotiated on separate basis. ## 2. Image Library Transmission Fees To use images from the records, including photographs, you must seek permission from The National Archives Image Library, which will charge a transmission fee. Transmission fees are charged on any close-up shots of documents held by The National Archives which are used in the broadcast version of your film. Charges are dependent on the number of images and transmissions and the breadth of the rights required for example: - Two UK transmissions of one image = £113 plus VAT (£75 first flash and £38 repeat) - Worldwide buyout of one image (all TV, media and perpetuity) = £350 plus VAT It is your responsibility to contact Paul Johnson in The National Archives Image

en

4138-pdf

## ਸੇਧ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ: ਘਰ ਰਹੋ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਪੂਰੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਵੱਧ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ। ਪਤਾ ਕਰੋ ਿਕ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। 4 ਜਨਵਰੀ 2021 Ã ਪਰ੍ਕਾਿਸ਼ਤ ਆਖਰੀ ਵਾਰ 6 ਜਨਵਰੀ 2021 Ã ਅੱਪਡੇਟ ਕੀਤਾ - ਸਾਰੇ ਅੱਪਡੇਟ ਵੇਖੋ ਵੱਲÐ: ਕੈਿਬਨ ੇਟ ਆਿਫਸ ਇਹਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ: ## ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵਸ਼ਾ-ਸੂਚੀ ਸਾਰ: ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਿਕਸਦੇ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ। ਤੁਸÍ ਕਦÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਦੇ ਹੋ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਿਜ਼ਆਦਾ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਣਾ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਟੀਆਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਦੇ ਦੌਰੇ ਅੰਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਿਵਆਹ, ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਰੀਰਕ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਸਹਤ-ਸੰਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਇਸ ਪੇਜ Ã ਿਪਰ੍ੰਟ ਕਰੋ ਸਾਰ: ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੌਕਡਾਊਨ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਕੀ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। NHS ਦੀ ਰੱਿਖਆ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਜਾਨਾਂ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਸਭ ਤÐ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਜੋ ਅਸÍ ਸਾਰੇ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਉਹ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਇਸ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ## ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ, ਜਾਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਿਸਵਾਏ ਜਦÐ ਇਹ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ। ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: - ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਲਈ ਮੁਢਲੀਆਂ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਖਰੀਦਦਾਰੀ ਕਰਨੀ - ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ, ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨੀਆਂ, ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਵਾਜਬ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਇਹ ਘਰÐ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰੇਲੂ (ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ) ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ, ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। - ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ, ਪਰ ਿਸਰਫ ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਲੈਣੀ ਜਾਂ ਸੱਟ, ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ - ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਇਜ਼ਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰ ਛੱਡ ਿਦੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਅੱਗੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ। ਸਥਾਨਕ ਰਿਹਣ ਦਾ ਮਤਲਬ ਹੈ ਿਪੰਡ, ਕਸਬੇ ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਿਹਰ ਦੇ ਉਸ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੰਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਨਹÍ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ## ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ)। ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣੇ-ਆਪ, ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਸÍ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ, 2 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ। ## ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਕਾਲਜ, ਪਰ੍ਾਇਮਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕੰਡਰੀ ਸਕੂਲ ਿਸਰਫ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਕੀ ਸਾਰੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੀ ਅੱਧੀ ਟਰਮ ਤੱਕ ਦੂਰÐ ਹੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ## ਕਰਨਗੇ। ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਸਾਲਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੈਿਟੰਗਾਂ ਖੁੱਲੀਆਂ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ। ਭਿਵੱਖ ਦੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਦਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੇ ਅੱਧ ਤੱਕ ਆਨਲਾਈਨ ਰਹੇਗਾ। ## ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਿਕਸਦੇ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤ ਅਤੇ ਠੀਕ ਹਨ। ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੰਭਾਵੀ ਜਾਂ ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀ ਕੀਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਾਗ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵਧੀਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਚਾਲੂ ਕੀਤੀ ਸ਼ੀਲਡ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸੇਧ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕੰਮ, ਸਕੂਲ, ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਸੀਿਮਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ। ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਵਾਲੇ ਲਗਭਗ 3 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਿਵਚÐ 1 Ã ਕੋਈ ਲੱਛਣ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਅਿਹਸਾਸ ਕੀਤੇ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਇਸ Ã ਫੈਲਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋਣਗੇ। ਯਾਦ ਰੱਖੋ - 'ਹੱਥ। ਿਚਹਰਾ। ਜਗਹ੍ਾ।' - ਹੱਥ - ਆਪਣੇ ਹੱਥ ਿਨਯਿਮਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ 20 ਸਿਕੰਟਾਂ ਲਈ ਧੋਵੋ - ਿਚਹਰਾ - ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਚਹਰਾ ਢੱਕ ਕੇ ਰੱਖੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ਕਰੋਗੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਤੁਸÍ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਦੇ ਹੋ - ਦੂਰੀ - ਿਜਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਤÐ 2 ਮੀਟਰ, ਜਾਂ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਸਾਵਧਾਨੀਆਂ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਚਹਰਾ ਢੱਕਣਾ) ਦੇ ਨਾਲ 1 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ ਸਾਰੇ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਤੁਸÍ ਕਦÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਿਸਵਾਏ ਜਦÐ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ 'ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ' ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ 'ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ' ਤÐ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਿਖਲਾਫ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜੁਰਮਾਨਾ (ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ) ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਪਿਹਲੇ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ £200 ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ ਿਦੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਸ Ã ਅਗਲੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ, £6,400 ਤੱਕ ਦੁਗਣਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਕਸੇ 'ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ' ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: ## ਕਾਰਜ-ਸਥਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਆਪਣੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਵਾਜਬ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਹ ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਿਜਹੜੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਬੁਿਨਆਦੀ ਢਾਂਚੇ, ਉਸਾਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਿਨਰਮਾਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ ## ਵਲੰਟੀਅਿਰੰਗ (ਸਵੈ ਇੱਛਾ ਨਾਲ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ) ਤੁਸÍ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਖਰੀਦਣ ਜਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਸÍ ਅਪਾਹਜ ਜਾਂ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ Ã ਅਲੱਗ ਰੱਖ ਰਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਵੀ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ, ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਅਧੀਨ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚਾ ਭਾਗ ਲੈਣ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹੈ। ਸਕੂਲੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ 'ਤੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੇਖੋ। ਤੁਸÍ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਲਈ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਵੀ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵਚਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ) - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਮਾਿਪਆਂ Ã ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ, ਬਾਲਗਾਂ ਿਵਚਾਲੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ Ã ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ) - ਅਸਮਰਥ ਜਾਂ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ (15 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਤਕ) - ਰਾਹਤ ਵਾਲੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜਾਂ ਅਪਾਹਜ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਦੇ ਸੰਬੰਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਛੋਟਾ ਿਜਹਾ ਬਰ੍ੇਕ ਹੈ। ## ਕਸਰਤ ਤੁਸÍ ਇਕੱਲੇ, ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਦੇਖੋ। ## ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਕਾਰਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਟੈਸਟ ਕਰਵਾਉਣਾ, ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਲਈ ਅਤੇ ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ## ਮੈਟਰਿਨਟੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੋ ਜਨਮ ਦੇ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ, ਜਣੇਪੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਹੋਰ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਜਨਮ ਤÐ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ। ਗਰਭ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਅਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਬਾਰੇ NHS ਮਾਰਗਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਹੈ। ## ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਸੱਟ ਜਾਂ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ) ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਹਮਦਰਦੀ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਉਸ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ, ਜੋ ਮਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ (ਜੇ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਲਈ ਸੇਧ ਅਧੀਨ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ), ਹੋਸਿਪਸ, ਜਾਂ ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਜਾਂ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਲਈ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਜਾਂ ਇਲਾਜ ਲਈ ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਜਾਣਾ। ## ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਪੂਜਾ ਅਤੇ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਘਟਨਾਵਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਪੂਜਾ ਲਈ ਿਕਸੇ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ, ਿਕਸੇ ਅੰਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਮੌਤ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਸਮਾਗਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ, ਿਕਸੇ ਮੁਰਦਾ-ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਬਾਗ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਵਆਹ ਦੇ ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ 'ਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਵਰਤÐ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਿਵਆਹਾਂ, ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ, ਿਵਸ਼ਵਾਸ-ਅਧਾਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਘਟਨਾਵਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੀ ਮੌਤ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਇਹ ਸਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਿਖਆਵਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਹਨ। ## ਹੋਰ ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ ਹੋਰ ਵਾਜਬ ਕਾਰਨ ਹਨ। ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਤੁਸÍ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ੀ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ ਖਰੀਦਣ, ਵੇਚਣ, ਿਕਰਾਏ ਦੇਣ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਪਕਿਟੰਗ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਿਚਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਚੋਣ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਮਤ ਸੰਗਰ੍ਿਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਵੋਟ ਪਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ## ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਦੋਸਤਾਂ Ã ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਕਾÃਨ ਦੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਹੈ ਜਦÐ ਤਕ ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦਾ ਿਹੱਸਾ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ। ਤੁਸÍ ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਜਾਂ ਮਨਪਰਚਾਵੇ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਪਕਿਨਕ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਮੀਿਟੰਗ ਲਈ)। ## ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਘੱਟ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਤੁਸÍ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਹ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਤਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ। ਤੁਸÍ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਸਥਾਨ 'ਤੇ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ: ## - ਇਕੱਲੇ - ਉਨÁਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ (ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਹ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ) - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ - ਜਾਂ, ਜਦÐ ਇਕੱਲੇ ਹੋਵੋ, ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਘਰ ਦੇ 1 ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੌੜਨਾ, ਸਾਈਕਿਲੰਗ, ਤੁਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਤੈਰਾਕੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਨੱਜੀ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਇਕ-ਨਾਲ-ਇੱਕ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਦÐ ਤਕ ਹਰ ਕੋਈ ਇੱਕੋ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੋਵੇ। ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਪਾਰਕ, ਸਮੁੰਦਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਨਾਰੇ, ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਲਈ ਕੰਟਰੀਸਾਈਡ, ਜੰਗਲ - ਜਨਤਕ ਬਗੀਚੇ (ਭਾਵÎ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਭੁਗਤਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ਜਾਂ ਨਹÍ) - ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਸਥਾਨ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ: - ਟੈਿਨਸ ਕੋਰਟ - ਗੋਲਫ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ 5 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ, ਅਤੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਅਪਾਹਜਤਾ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ, ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਿਨਰੰਤਰ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਲਈ 2 ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ Ã ਬਾਹਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਇਕੱਠ ੇ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ (ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਅਧੀਨ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ) Ã ਿਸਹਤ ਸਮੱਿਸਆ ਹੈ ਿਜਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਿਸਹਤ Ã ਬਣਾਈ ਰੱਖਣ ਲਈ ਿਨਯਿਮਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਪÏਦਾ ਹੈ - ਸਮੇਤ ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਂ ਿਦਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਈ ਵਾਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਪÏਦੀ ਹੈ - ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜਦÐ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਸ ਪਾਸ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਉਸ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ 2 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੂਰ ਰਹੋ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ - ਮਤਲਬ ਉਹ ਲੋਕ ਿਜਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ, ਵਾਧੂ ਸਾਵਧਾਨੀਆਂ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ) ਦੇ ਨਾਲ 1 ਮੀਟਰ ਦੀ ਦੂਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਰਹੋ । ## ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਪਿਹਨਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ 'ਤੇ, ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਛੋਟ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਾÃਨ ਹੈ। ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਵਿਰੰਗਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਪੜਹ੍ੋ। ## ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੁਝ ਯੋਗਤਾ ਦੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਪਵੇਗਾ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਹਰ ਕੋਈ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਬਣਾ ਸਕੇਗਾ। ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਨ ੈੱਟਵਰਕ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਦੋ ਘਰਾਂ Ã ਜੋੜਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਆਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੋਗਤਾ ਦੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾਉਣਾ ਕਾÃਨ ਦੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣ (ਅਤੇ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਰਿਹਣ) ਲਈ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਇੱਕ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾÇਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਸਭ ਤÐ ਵਧੀਆ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਵੇ ਜੋ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਫੈਲਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਵਾਇਰਸ Ã ਰੋਕਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਮਦਦ ਿਮਲੇਗੀ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਲਾਗ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਦੇ ਦੋਸਤ ਜਾਂ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਨਾਲ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ, ਅਤੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਮÎ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਿਰਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਿਰਆਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕੱਥੇ ਅਤੇ ਕਦÐ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ, ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਿਜਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਿਮਲਣ-ਜੁਲਣ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਰਫ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ Ã ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਏਗਾ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣਗੇ: - ਕੰਮ ਲਈ, ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਜਾਂ ਚੈਰੀਟੇਬਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਘਰÐ ਇਹ ਕਰਨਾ ਵਾਜਬ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ, ਸਫਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ, ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀ ਜੋ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰਾਂ Ã ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ। ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਵੇਖੋ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਮੀਿਟੰਗਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਬਗੀਚੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦੀ, ਅਿਜਹਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ ਤੁਸÍ ਇੱਕ ਿਨੱਜੀ ਟÀੇਨਰ Ã ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਿਕਸੇ ਬਾਲ-ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ (ਿਸਰਫ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ) - ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ, ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ, ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਹੇਠ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਪਰ੍ਿਤਬੰਿਧਤ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਦੇਖੋ। - ਉਹਨਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਉਸੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਾਪੇ ਜਾਂ ਸਰਪਰ੍ਸਤ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ - ਜਨਮ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ, ਅਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਭੈਣ- ਭਰਾ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਦੇਣੀ - ਸੰਭਾਵੀ ਗੋਦ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਕਸੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਰੱਖੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਸਰਿਵਿਸਜ਼ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਜਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਿਵੱਚ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਜਾਂ ਰੱਖਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਨੀ - ਜਨਮ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਾਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ - ਐਮਰਜÏਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਅਤੇ ਸੱਟ ਜਾਂ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਿਕਸੇ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਜਾਣਾ ਜੋ ਮਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਹੌਸਿਪਸ ਜਾਂ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਇਲਾਜ ਕਰਵਾ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰਕ ਮÏਬਰ ਜਾਂ ਦੋਸਤ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ - ਿਕਸੇ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ Ã ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੋਰਟ ਜਾਂ ਜੂਰੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਣਾ - ਫ਼ੌਜਦਾਰੀ ਿਨਆਂ ਦੀ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਜਾਂ ਇਮੀਗਰ੍ੇਸ਼ਨ ਨਜ਼ਰਬੰਦੀ ਕÎਦਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਇਕੱਤਰ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ - ਿਕਸੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ Ã ਰਾਹਤ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ਿਵਆਹ ਜਾਂ ਇਸਦੇ ਬਰਾਬਰ ਦੀ ਰਸਮ ਲਈ। ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ 6 ਲੋਕਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਹੈ। - ਅੰਿਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਲਈ - ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ 30 ਿਵਅਕਤੀ। ਜਾਗ (ਵੇਕ) ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਜੁੜੇ ਰਸਮੀ ਸਮਾਗਮ 6 ਤਕ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। - ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਿਖਡਾਰੀਆਂ (ਅਤੇ ਜੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੋਚਾਂ, ਜਾਂ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ/ਸਰਪਰ੍ਸਤਾਂ ਜੇ ਉਹ 18 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹਨ) - ਜਾਂ ਜੋ ਅਿਧਕਾਰਤ ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਰਸਤੇ 'ਤੇ ਹਨ, ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ - ਘਰ ਦੀ ਬਦਲੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਸਮੂਹ ਜੋ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, 15 ਭਾਗੀਦਾਰਾਂ ਤਕ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਆਪਸੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ, ਥੈਰੇਪੀ ਜਾਂ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਿਕਸਮ ਦੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਰਸਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸੰਗਿਠਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ - ਪਰ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਿਕਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ 'ਤੇ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇੱਕ ਸਮੂਹ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਨਾਲ ਕਵਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਵੇ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਜੋ ਕੰਮ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟੀਅਰ ਬਣ ਿਰਹਾ ਹੈ), ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਆਮ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਕੱਠ ਦੀ ਸੀਮਾ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ, ਕੋਈ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ, ਸੀਮਾ ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਕੀਤੇ ਬਗੈਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਉਹ ਉਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਿਵਆਹ ਦੇ ਅਿਧਕਾਰੀ Ã ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਏਗਾ। ## ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਵੱਡੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲਦੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਿਵਰੁੱਧ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਗੈਰਕਾÃਨੀ ਇਕੱਠਾਂ Ã ਤੋੜਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਨ ੇ (ਿਨਸ਼ਿਚਤ ਜੁਰਮਾਨ ੇ ਦੇ ਨ × ਿਟਸ) ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ਪਿਹਲੇ ਅਪਰਾਧ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾÃ £200 ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਿਫਕਸਡ ਪੈਨਲਟੀ ਨ × ਿਟਸ ਿਦੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਸ Ã ਅਗਲੇ ਜੁਰਮਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ, £6,400 ਤੱਕ ਦੁਗਣਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ 30 ਤÐ ਵੱਧ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਗੈਰਕਾÃਨੀ ਇਕੱਤਰਤਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਕਰਵਾਉਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਪੁਿਲਸ £10,000 ਦਾ ਜੁਰਮਾਨਾ ਲਗਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਿਜ਼ਆਦਾ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਚਾਅ ਕਰਨਾ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਤÐ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਿਬਮਾਰੀ ਦਾ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਖ਼ਤਰਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੋ ਲੋਕ ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵਧੀਕ ਸਲਾਹ ਹੈ । ਜੋ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਚਾਲੂ ਕੀਤੀ ਸ਼ੀਲਡ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸੇਧ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕੰਮ, ਸਕੂਲ, ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਬਤਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਮÎ Ã ਸੀਿਮਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਸਰਫ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਮÏਟਾਂ, ਕਸਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਇਹ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਕੰਮ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਸਰਫ ਤਾਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਵਾਜਬ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਲੋਕ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਆਪਣੀ ਕੰਮ ਵਾਲੀ ਥਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਖੇਤਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ: - ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਢਾਂਚਾ - ਉਸਾਰੀ - ਿਨਰਮਾਣ - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਇਹ ਦੇਸ਼ Ã ਚੱਲਦਾ ਰੱਖਣ ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਲਈ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ, ਸਫਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰੀਗਰ - ਤੁਸÍ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਨਹÍ ਤਾਂ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਕਸੇ ਪਰ੍ਾਈਵੇਟ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਬਗੀਚੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਿਮਲਣ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਉਪਾਅ ਸਥਾਿਪਤ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ਮਾਲਕਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਕੰਮਕਾਜੀ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ-ਵਟਾਂਦਰਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਮਾਲਕ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸਹੂਲਤ ਲਈ ਹਰ ਸੰਭਵ ਕਦਮ ਚੁੱਕਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਢੁਕਵÎ ਆਈਟੀ ਅਤੇ ਉਪਕਰਨ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਲੋਕ ਘਰÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਰੁਜ਼ਗਾਰਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ Ã ਜਨਤਕ ਆਵਾਜਾਈ ਤੇ ਿਵਅਸਤ ਸਮÎ ਅਤੇ ਰੂਟਾਂ ਤÐ ਬਚਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਮਦਦ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕਦਮ ਚੁੱਕਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਸੇਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਨ ੇੜਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਸੰਚਾਰ ਦੇ ਜੋਖਮ Ã ਕਾਫ਼ੀ ਹੱਦ ਤੱਕ ਘਟਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਵਧੇਰੇ ਜੋਖਮ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਵਾਧੂ ਿਵਚਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਜਾਣਾ ਕਾਲਜ, ਪਰ੍ਾਇਮਰੀ (ਿਰਸੈਪਸ਼ਨ ਤÐ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਏ) ਅਤੇ ਸੈਕੰਡਰੀ ਸਕੂਲ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਕੀ ਸਾਰੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੀ ਅੱਧੀ ਟਰਮ ਤੱਕ ਦੂਰÐ ਹੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰਨਗੇ। ## ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਿਵੱਚ, ਗਰਮੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧਣਾ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਿਵਭਾਗ Ofqual ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲ ਕੇ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਿਵਕਲਿਪਕ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ- ਵਟਾਂਦਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕੰਮ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਿਨਰਪੱਖ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਨਾਲ ਅੱਗੇ ਪਰ੍ਗਤੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਣ। ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ ਅਤੇ ਤਕਨੀਕੀ ਇਮਿਤਹਾਨਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਜਨਵਰੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਕ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਸਹੀ ਹੈ। ## ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਟੀਆਂ ਿਜਹੜੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਹੇਠ ਿਲਿਖਆਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਯੋਜਨਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਹਮੋ-ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਦੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ: - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਦੰਦਾਂ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ/ਿਸਹਤ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੇ ਿਵਸ਼ੇ - ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸਾਇੰਸ - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ (ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਅਿਧਆਪਕ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ) - ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਵਰਕ - ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਲਈ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ, ਿਵਧਾਿਨਕ ਅਤੇ ਰੈਗੂਲੇਟਰੀ ਬਾਡੀ (PSRB) ਦੇ ਮੁਲਾਂਕਣ ਅਤੇ ਜਾਂ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਜਨਵਰੀ ਲਈ ਤੈਅ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ Ã ਮੁੜ ਿਨਰਧਾਰਤ ਨਹÍ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ (ਜੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸੂਿਚਤ ਕਰੇਗੀ)। ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸੀ 'ਤੇ ਦੋ ਵਾਰ ਟੈਸਟ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ Ã ਇਸ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ ਦਸ ਿਦਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਜਹੜੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ, ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ, ਉਥੇ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟੋ-ਘੱਟ ਫਰਵਰੀ ਦੇ ਅੱਧ ਤਕ ਆਪਣੀ ਟਰਮ Ã ਆਨਲਾਈਨ ਅਰੰਭ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਲਜ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਸਹੂਲਤ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਸੂਚੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਗਏ, ਹੋਰ ਿਵਹਾਰਕ ਕੋਰਸਾਂ ਦੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ। ਅਸÍ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਪਰ੍ਕਾਿਸ਼ਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਿਕਵÎ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਸਪਿਰੰਗ ਟਰਮ ਿਵੱਚ ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹ ਸੇਧ ਦੱਸਦੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਿਕਵÎ ਅਸÍ ēਚ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਿਲਆਂ ਦੀ ਿਕਵÎ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਕਰਾਂਗੇ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਸਰਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਰ੍ੇਕ ਤÐ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਉਹਨਾਂ Ã ਿਜੰਨਾ ਸੰਭਵ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਇਸਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਿਸਟੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਟਰਮ ਸਮÎ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਥਾਈ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਆÇਦੇ-ਜਾਂਦੇ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਜਹੜੇ ਆਹਮੋ-ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਦੀ ਪੜਹ੍ਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ, ਤੁਸÍ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ, ਆਪਣੀ ਰਸਮੀ ਿਸਿਖਆ ਜਾਂ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਵਜÐ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ ਦੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਿਵਿਦਆਰਥੀਆਂ Ã ਸੇਧ ਅਤੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਉਮੀਦ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਉਸ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਤÐ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾਉਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਹਨ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਮਾਪੇ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲਕਰਤਾ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ: - ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਸਾਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ (ਨਰਸਰੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਚਾਈਲਡ ਮਾÆਡਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ) ਖੁੱਲÁੇ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ - ਚਾਈਲਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ Ã, ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਣ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਸਧਾਰਨ ਵਾਂਗ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਦੇਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਕੂਲੀ ਉਮਰ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ (ਿਰਸੈਪਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਸਮੇਤ) ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਚਾਈਲਡਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ Ã ਿਸਰਫ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ Ã ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਣ ਦੇਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਬੱਚੇ ਅਤੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਕਾਿਮਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਰਿਜਸਟਰਡ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ, ਚਾਈਲਡਮਾਇੰਡਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ (ਰੈਪਅਰਾÇਡ ਕੇਅਰ ਸਮੇਤ) ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਮਾਪੇ ਗੈਰ ਰਸਮੀ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਇੱਕ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਿਰਵਾਰ ਨਾਲ ਬਾਲ-ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰਾ ਬਣਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਦੀ ਉਮਰ 14 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਮੁੱਖ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮਾਿਪਆਂ Ã ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਬਾਲਗਾਂ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ à ਸਮਰੱਥ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਨਹÍ ਵਰਿਤਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ - ਕੁਝ ਘਰਾਂ Ã ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਲਾਭ ਵੀ ਿਮਲੇਗਾ - ਘਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ, ਨ ੈਨੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਣਗੀਆਂ ## ਯਾਤਰਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਨਹÍ ਛੱਡਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਜਦ ਤੱਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਕੰਮ ਜਾਂ ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ)। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਭਾਵ ਆਪਣੇ ਿਪੰਡ, ਕਸਬੇ ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਸ਼ਿਹਰ ਦੇ ਿਹੱਸੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ - ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਸਮੁੱਚੀ ਯਾਤਰਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਗਣਤੀ Ã ਵੀ ਘਟਾਉਣ 'ਤੇ ਿਧਆਨ ਿਦਓ। ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਛੱਡ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਿਦੱਤੇ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੱਕ ਹੀ ਸੀਿਮਤ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ: - ਕੰਮ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਿਚਤ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਿਜ਼ੰਮੇਵਾਰੀਆਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਕਰਨੀ - ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ - ਜਾਂ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵਚਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣ ਜਾਣਾ - ਹਸਪਤਾਲ, ਜੀਪੀ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਅਪਾਇੰਟਮÏਟਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਣਾ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਕੋਈ ਦੁਰਘਟਨਾ ਵਾਪਰ ਗਈ ਹੋਵੇ ਜਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਿਸਹਤ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਚੰਤਾ ਹੋਵੇ - ਉਹ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਖਰੀਦਣੀਆਂ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਦੀ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਖੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ - ਬਾਹਰੀ ਕਸਰਤ। ਿਜੱਥੇ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਇਹ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਜੇ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਆਪਣੇ ਖੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਥੋੜਹ੍ੀ ਦੂਰੀ ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਖੁੱਲੀ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚਣਾ) - ਿਕਸੇ ਜਾਨਵਰ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਕਸਰਤ, ਜਾਂ ਵੈਟਰਨਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣਾ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੋਵੇ ਤੁਰ ਕੇ ਜਾਂ ਸਾਈਕਲ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਓ, ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਅਤੇ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਬਣਾਓ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ 'ਤੇ ਿਵਅਸਤ ਸਿਮਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਰੂਟਾਂ ਤÐ ਬਚੋ। ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਸÍ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਪਾਲਣ ਕਰ ਸਕੋਗੇ। ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਨਾਲ ਵੀ ਕਾਰ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਕਰਨ ਤÐ ਪਰਹੇਜ਼ ਕਰੋ। ਕਾਰ ਸਾਂਝੀ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧਦੇਖੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਜਨਤਕ ਟÀਾਂਸਪੋਰਟ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਸਰਫ ਅੰਤਰਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਪੱਧਰ 'ਤੇ - ਜਾਂ ਯੂਕੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ - ਯਾਤਰਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ– ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਦੀ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਉਸ ਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਜਨਤਕ ਿਸਹਤ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ ਬਾਰੇ ਿਵਚਾਰ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ। ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਦਾ ਸਫਰ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ (ਅਤੇ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਿਕÇਿਕ ਇਹ ਕੰਮ ਲਈ ਹੈ), ਭਾਵÎ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਸ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ 'ਤੇ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ਿਜਸ ਤÐ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਗਏ ਸੀ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੰਜ਼ਲ 'ਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ 'ਤੇ ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਫਾਰੇਨ, ਕਾਮਨਵੈਥ Éਡ ਡੈਵਲਪਮÎਟ ਆਿਫਸ (FCDO) ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ Ã ਵੇਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ । ਇਸ ਸਮÎ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਬਰ੍ਟੇਨ ਦੇ ਵਸਨੀਕਾਂ Ã ਤੁਰੰਤ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਵਾਪਸੀ ਦੇ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਏਅਰ ਲਾਈਨ ਜਾਂ ਟÀੈਵਲ ਆਪਰੇਟਰ ਤÐ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਨਾਗਿਰਕ 'ਘਰ ਰਹੋ' ਿਨਯਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਹਨ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਯਾਤਰਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਛੁੱਟੀ 'ਤੇ ਨਹÍ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਯੂਕੇ ਜਾ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਕੀ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਮੰਜ਼ਲ 'ਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਲਾਗੂ ਹਨ। ## ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਛੁੱਟੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਰਿਹਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣਾ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਉਹ ਜਗਹ੍ਾ ਨਹÍ ਛੱਡ ਸਕਦੇ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ ਜਦ ਤਕ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਅਿਜਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਉਿਚਤ ਕਾਰਨ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਸਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਯੂਕੇ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੁੱਟੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਦੂਜੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਕਾਰਾਵੈਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਇਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਮੁਢਲੀ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਿਜਹੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਦ ਤਕ ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਰਾਤ ਭਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਦੂਰ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ: - ਆਪਣੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ - ਆਪਣੀ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸ ਜਾਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਅਸਮਰਥ ਹੋ - ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਿਕਸੇ ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਸਮਾਗਮ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਕੰਮ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਜਾਂ ਵਾਲੰਟਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ - ਸਕੂਲ ਜਾਂ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਵਾਲਾ ਬੱਚਾ ਹੋ - ਬੇਘਰ ਹੋ, ਸ਼ਰਣ ਮੰਗ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਪਨਾਹ ਮੰਗ ਰਹੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਹੋ, ਜਾਂ ਜੇ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਤÐ ਬਚ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ (ਘਰੇਲੂ ਦੁਰਿਵਹਾਰ ਸਮੇਤ) - ਇੱਕ ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਅਥਲੀਟ ਜਾਂ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਹਾਇਕ ਸਟਾਫ਼ ਜਾਂ ਮਾਪਾ ਹੋ, ਜੇ ਐਥਲੀਟ 18 ਸਾਲ ਤÐ ਘੱਟ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਜਾਂ ਮੁਕਾਬਲੇ ਲਈ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਹੀ ਛੁੱਟੀ 'ਤੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਿਜੰਨੀ ਜਲਦੀ ਿਵਹਾਰਕ ਹੋ ਸਕੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਮਿਹਮਾਨਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ੀ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੋਟਲ, B&B ਅਤੇ ਕਾਰਾਵੈਨ ਪਾਰਕ ਕਾÃਨ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਰਸਾਏ ਗਏ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਕਰਕੇ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਮਿਹਮਾਨ ਆਪਣੀ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਵੱਚ ਵਾਪਸ ਨਹÍ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਉਸ ਮਿਹਮਾਨ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ Ã ਆਪਣੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਨਵਾਸ ਵਜÐ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਹਨ, ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ, ਕਾÃਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਸਵੈ-ਇਕੱਲਤਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਰਿਹ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ Çਝ ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵਜÐ ਬੇਘਰ ਹੋ ਜਾਣਗੇ। ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ। ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾਵਾਂ Ã ਬੇਘਰ ਸਮੇਤ, ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ Ã ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਥਾਨਕ ਅਥਾਰਟੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਿਮਲ ਕੇ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਿਹਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ## ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮ ਦੇ ਦੌਰੇ ਕੇਅਰ ਹੋਮਾਂ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧਨ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਜਵÎ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਸ¿ੀਨਾਂ, ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਦੇ ਪੋਡ ਜਾਂ ਿਖੜਕੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਿਪੱਛੇ। ਨ ੇੜਲੇ-ਸੰਪਰਕ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਅੰਦਰੂਨੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ। ਰੋਗ ਦੇ ਫੈਲਣ ਦੀ ਸਿਥਤੀ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਵੇਗੀ। ਇਹ ਪਤਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਕ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤਾਂ ਿਕਵÎ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਦੌਰਾਨ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਘਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਦੌਰਾ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸੇਧ Ã ਦੇਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਿਨਵਾਸੀ ਬਾਹਰ ਦੌਰੇ ਵੇਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ à ਇਮਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ (ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ, ਪਿਰਵਾਰਕ ਘਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਆਪਣੇ ਿਰਸ਼ਤੇਦਾਰਾਂ Ã ਿਮਲਣਾ)। ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਜੀਵਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਵੱਖਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਅੰਤਮ ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਸਖ਼ਤ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਇਜਾਜ਼ਤ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ COVID-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਕੋਈ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ਅੰਿਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਿਵੱਚ ਵੱਧ ਤÐ ਵੱਧ 30 ਲੋਕ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੁੜੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ, ਿਵਸ਼ਵਾਸ-ਅਧਾਰਤ ਜਾਂ ਯਾਦਗਾਰੀ ਸਮਾਗਮਾਂ, ਿਜਵÎ ਪੱਥਰ ਲਗਾਉਣਾ ਅਤੇ ਫੁੱਲ ਿਖੰਡਾਉਣਾ ਵੀ 6 ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਿਕਸੇ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਇਹਨਾਂ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਗਿਣਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਿਵਚਕਾਰ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਇਕੱਠ ੇ ਨਹÍ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਜਾਂ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਮÏਬਰ ਨਹÍ ਹਨ। ## ਿਵਆਹ, ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਅਤੇ ਧਾਰਿਮਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਿਵਆਹ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪ ਦੀਆਂ ਰਸਮਾਂ ਿਸਰਫ 6 ਤਕ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਕੰਮ ਕਰ ਿਰਹਾ ਕੋਈ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਇਸ ਸੀਮਾ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਨਹÍ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਿਸਰਫ ਅਸਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਵਜÐ, ਇੱਕ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਿਵਆਹ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਿਵਆਹ ਕਰਾ ਰਹੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀਆਂ ਿਵੱਚÐ ਇੱਕ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਰੂਪ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਬਮਾਰ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸਦੇ ਠੀਕ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਉਮੀਦ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ, ਜਾਂ ਉਸ ਨ ੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਇਲਾਜ ਜਾਂ ਜੀਵਨ ਬਦਲਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਸਰਜਰੀ ਕਰਾਉਣੀ ਹੈ। ਿਵਆਹ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਵਲ ਪਾਰਟਨਰਿਸ਼ਪਾਂ ਿਸਰਫ COVID-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਥਾਂਵਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਹੀ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਕ ਕੋਈ ਅਸਾਧਾਰਨ ਸਿਥਤੀਆਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ। ## ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਕਸੇ ਸੇਵਾ ਲਈ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ, ਤੁਹਾÃ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਿਕਸੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ Ã ਨਹÍ ਿਮਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਹਰ ਸਮÎ ਸਖ਼ਤ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਰੱਖਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਤੁਹਾÃ ਪੂਜਾ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਵਰਤÐ ਬਾਰੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ## ਖੇਡਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਰੀਰਕ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀ ਇਨਡੋਰ ਿਜਮ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਬੰਦ ਰਿਹਣਗੇ। ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ, ਬਾਹਰੀ ਿਜਮ, ਗੋਲਫ ਕੋਰਸ, ਬਾਹਰੀ ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ, ਤੀਰਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ/ਡÀਾਈਿਵੰਗ/ਸ਼ੂਿਟੰਗ ਰÎਜਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਰਾਈਿਡੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ ਵੀ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ। ਅਪਾਹਜ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਆਯੋਿਜਤ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡਾਂ Ã ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ēਚੇ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ēਚੇ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਖੇਡਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੜਾਅਵਾਰ ਵਾਪਸੀ ਬਾਰੇ ਹੋਰ ਸੇਧ ਹੈ। ## ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਅਜੇ ਵੀ ਘਰ ਬਦਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਘਰ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਵਾਲੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਨਹÍ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਜਦÐ ਤੱਕ ਿਬਲਕੁਲ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ। ਏਸਟੇਟ ਅਤੇ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਏਜੰਟ ਅਤੇ ਹਟਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਫਰਮਾਂ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤਾਂ ਤੁਸÍ ਜਾਇਦਾਦ Ã ਵੇਖਣ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ। ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਘਰ ਬਦਲਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਸੇਧ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰੋ, ਿਜਸ ਿਵੱਚ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਦੂਰੀਆਂ, ਤਾਜ਼ੀ ਹਵਾ Ã ਅੰਦਰ ਆਉਣ ਦੇਣ, ਅਤੇ ਿਚਹਰੇ ਦੀ ਕਵਿਰੰਗ ਪਿਹਨਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਲਾਹ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੈ। ## ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਤੁਸÍ ਿਜਥੇ ਵੀ ਰਿਹੰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੁਸÍ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਮਦਦ ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪੈਕੇਜ - ਟੀਅਰ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵਜÐ ਬੰਦ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ - ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਜੌਬ ਿਰਟੇਨਸ਼ਨ ਸਕੀਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕਰਮਚਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਤਨਖਾਹ ਲਈ ਦਾਅਵਾ - ਪਤਾ ਕਰੋ ਿਕ ਕੀ ਤੁਸÍ ਸੈਲਫ-ਇੰਪਲੋਇਮÏਟ ਇਨਕਮ ਸਪੋਰਟ ਸਕੀਮ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਗਰ੍ਾਂਟ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ ਹੋ - ਿਵੱਤੀ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਜੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਕੋਰੋਨਾਵਾਇਰਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਕੰਮ ਨਹÍ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ## ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ ਸਮਾਿਜਕ ਸੰਪਰਕ Ã ਘਟਾਉਣ ਲਈ, ਿਵਿਨਯਮ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਪਾਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਲਗਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਿਦੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਿਕ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਿਕਵÎ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ à ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਗੈਰ-ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੱਪੜੇ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਮਵੇਅਰ ਸਟੋਰ, ਵਾਹਨ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੋਅਰੂਮ (ਿਕਰਾਏ ਤÐ ਇਲਾਵਾ), ਸੱਟੇਬਾਜ਼ੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਦਰਜ਼ੀ, ਤੰਬਾਕੂ ਅਤੇ ਵੈਪ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਇਲੈਕਟÀੋਿਨਕ ਸਮਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਬਾਈਲ ਫੋਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਿਨਲਾਮੀ ਘਰ (ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਜਾਂ ਖੇਤੀ ਉਪਕਰਣਾਂ ਦੀ ਿਨਲਾਮੀ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ) ਅਤੇ ਗੈਰ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਵੇਚਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਬਾਜ਼ਾਰੀ ਸਟਾਲ। ਇਹ ਸਥਾਨ ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ-ਕਲੈਕਟ ਚਲਾਉਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ (ਿਜੱਥੇ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਪਿਹਲਾਂ ਤÐ ਆਰਡਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਅਹਾਤੇ ਿਵੱਚ ਦਾਖਲ ਹੋਏ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਇਕੱਤਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ) ਅਤੇ ਸਪੁਰਦਗੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ। - ਪਰਾਹੁਣਚਾਰੀ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਕੈਫੇ, ਰੈਸਟੋਰÏਟ, ਪੱਬ, ਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੋਸ਼ਲ ਕਲੱਬ; ਖਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਅਲਕੋਹਲ ਵਾਲੇ ਪੀਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਟੇਕਅਵੇਅ ਲਈ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ (ਰਾਤ 11 ਵਜੇ ਤੱਕ), ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ-ਕਲੈਕਟ ਅਤੇ ਡÀਾਇਵ-ਥº ਦੇ ਅਪਵਾਦ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ। ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਖਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਪੀਣ ਦੀਆਂ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ (ਅਲਕੋਹਲ ਸਮੇਤ) Ã ਿਡਲੀਵਰੀ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਵਾਉਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਿਖਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। - ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੋਟਲ, ਹੋਸਟਲ, ਗੈਸਟ ਹਾਊਸ ਅਤੇ ਕÏਪ ਸਾਈਟਾਂ, ਕੁਝ ਖਾਸ ਹਾਲਾਤ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਇਹ ਿਕਸੇ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਿਨਵਾਸ ਵਜÐ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਨਹÍ ਆ ਸਕਦਾ, ਬੇਘਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ Ã ਿਰਹਾਇਸ਼ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਕੰਮ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਉਥੇ ਰਿਹਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ - ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਕÎਦਰ ਅਤੇ ਿਜਮ, ਸਵੀਿਮੰਗ ਪੂਲ, ਸਪੋਰਟਸ ਕੋਰਟ, ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਡਾਂਸ ਸਟੂਡੀਓ, ਰਾਈਿਡੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ, ਚੜਾਈ ਦੀਆਂ ਕੰਧਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਗੋਲਫ ਕੋਰਸ। - ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਥੀਏਟਰ, ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਹਾਲ, ਿਸਨ ੇਮਾਘਰ, ਅਜਾਇਬ ਘਰ ਅਤੇ ਗੈਲਰੀਆਂ, ਕੈਸੀਨ × , ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਆਰਕੇਡ, ਿਬੰਗੋ ਹਾਲ, ਬਾਉਿਲੰਗ ਐਲੇ, ਸਕੇਿਟੰਗ ਿਰੰਕ, ਗੋ- ਕਾਰਿਟੰਗ ਸਥਾਨ, ਇਨਡੋਰ ਪਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਫਟ ਪਲੇ ਸÏਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਖੇਤਰ (ਇਨਫਲੇਟੇਬਲ ਪਾਰਕ ਅਤੇ ਟÀਾਮਪੋਲਾਈਿਨ ੰਗ ਸÏਟਰਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ), ਸਰਕਸ, ਮੇਲੇ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ, ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ, ਵਾਟਰ ਪਾਰਕ ਅਤੇ ਥੀਮ ਪਾਰਕ - ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਕਰਸ਼ਣ (ਿਜਵÎ ਿਚੜੀਆਘਰ, ਸਫਾਰੀ ਪਾਰਕ, ਐਕੁਏਰੀਅਮ ਅਤੇ ਵਾਈਲਡ ਲਾਈਫ ਸÏਟਰ) - ਬੋਟੈਨੀਕਲ ਬਗੀਿਚਆਂ, ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਘਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਰ੍ਿਸੱਧ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ ਵਰਗੀਆਂ ਥਾਵਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਇਨਡੋਰ ਆਕਰਸ਼ਣਾ Ã ਵੀ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨਾ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਹੈ, ਹਾਲਾਂਿਕ ਇਨÁਾਂ ਅਹਾਿਤਆਂ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਮੈਦਾਨ ਬਾਹਰ ਕਸਰਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। - ਿਵਅਕਤੀਗਤ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਵਾਲ, ਸੁੰਦਰਤਾ, ਟੈਿਨ ੰਗ ਅਤੇ ਨ ੇਲ ਸੈਲੂਨ। ਟੈਟੂ ਪਾਰਲਰ, ਸਪਾਅ, ਮਸਾਜ ਪਾਰਲਰ, ਸਰੀਰ ਅਤੇ ਚਮੜੀ ਿਵੰਨÁਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਵੀ ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਇਹ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਦੂਜੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਘਰਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਨਹÍ ਿਦੱਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੀਆਂ ਚਾਹੀਦੀਆਂ - ਕਿਮਉਿਨਟੀ ਸÏਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਹਾਲਾਂ Ã ਲਾਜ਼ਮੀ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਸੀਿਮਤ ਸੰਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੋਟ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ Ã ਛੱਡ ਕੇ, ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਦੱਿਸਆ ਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਆਈਟੀ ਅਤੇ ਿਡਜੀਟਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਲਾਇਬਰ੍ੇਰੀਆਂ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲÁੀਆਂ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ - ਉਦਾਹਰਨ ਲਈ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਇਹ ਘਰ ਨਹÍ ਹੈ - ਅਤੇ ਕਿਲੱਕ-Êਡ- ਕਲੈਕਟ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਲਈ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚÐ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਛੋਟੀ ਸੰਿਖਆ ਿਵੱਚ ਛੋਟ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਿਦੱਤੀ ਜਾਏਗੀ। ਛੋਟਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਿਸੱਿਖਆ ਅਤੇ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ - ਸਕੂਲਾਂ ਲਈ ਖੇਡਾਂ, ਮਨ × ਰੰਜਨ ਅਤੇ ਭਾਈਚਾਰਕ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤÐ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਿਜੱਥੇ ਇਹ ਉਨÁਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਮ ਪਰ੍ਬੰਧ ਦਾ ਿਹੱਸਾ ਹੈ - ਬਾਲ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਿਨਗਰਾਨੀ ਅਧੀਨ ਗਤੀਿਵਧੀਆਂ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਬੱਿਚਆਂ ਲਈ ਜੋ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ - ਖੂਨਦਾਨ ਦੇ ਸੈਸ਼ਨ ਅਤੇ ਭੋਜਨ ਬÏਕ ਆਯੋਿਜਤ ਕਰਨ ੇ - ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਇਲਾਜ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ - ēਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੇ ਿਖਡਾਰੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ (ਇਨਡੋਰ ਅਤੇ ਆਊਟਡੋਰ ਖੇਡ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ), ਅਤੇ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰ ਡਾਂਸਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕੋਰੀਓਗਰ੍ਾਫਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ (ਤੰਦਰੁਸਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਡਾਂਸ ਸਟੂਡੀਓ ਿਵੱਚ) - ਦਰਸ਼ਕਾਂ ਤÐ ਿਬਨਾਂ ਿਸਖਲਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਿਰਹਸਰਲਾਂ ਲਈ (ਥੀਏਟਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਮਾਰੋਹ ਹਾਲਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ) ## - ਿਫਲਮ ਅਤੇ ਟੀਵੀ ਿਫਲਮਾਂਕਣ ਦੇ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਲਈ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨ ਜੋ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਦੂਸਰੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã, ਕੋਿਵਡ-19 ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਸੇਧਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਲਣਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਏ, ਖੁੱਲÁਾ ਰਿਹਣ ਦੀ ਆਿਗਆ ਹੈ। ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਚੀਜ਼ਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਸੂਚੀ ਇੰਗਲÏਡ ਿਵੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਥਾਨਾਂ Ã ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੇਧ ਿਵੱਚ ਿਮਲ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ ਿਜਵÎ ਿਕ ਭੋਜਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ, ਸੁਪਰਮਾਰਕੀਟਾਂ, ਫਾਰਮੇਸੀਆਂ, ਗਾਰਡਨ ਸÏਟਰ, ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਵਪਾਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਉਤਪਾਦਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਆਫ ਲਾਇਸÏਸਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਪਲਾਇਰ - ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਪਰ੍ਚੂਨ ਵੇਚਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਮਾਰਕੀਟ ਸਟਾਲ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ - ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ ਵੀ ਖੁੱਲੇ ਰਿਹ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ, ਿਜੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਮੁੱਖ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ - ਪੈਟਰੋਲ ਸਟੇਸ਼ਨ, ਆਟੋਮੈਿਟਕ (ਪਰ ਮੈਨੂਅਲ ਨਹÍ) ਕਾਰ ਵਾਸ਼, ਵਾਹਨ ਦੀ ਮੁਰੰਮਤ ਗੈਰਾਜ ਅਤੇ MOT ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, ਸਾਈਕਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਟੈਕਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਵਾਹਨ ਿਕਰਾਏ 'ਤੇ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ - ਬÏਕ, ਿਬਲਿਡੰਗ ਸੋਸਾਇਟੀਆਂ, ਡਾਕਘਰ, ਥੋੜਹ੍ੇ ਸਮÎ ਦੇ ਲੋਨ ਪਰ੍ਦਾਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੀ ਟÀਾਂਸਫਰ ਕਾਰੋਬਾਰ - ਅੰਤਮ-ਸੰਸਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਡਾਇਰੈਕਟਰ - ਲਾਂਡਰੇਟ ਅਤੇ ਡÀਾਈ ਕਲੀਨਰ - ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਅਤੇ ਡÏਟਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਦੇ ਡਾਕਟਰ ਅਤੇ ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਭਲਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਸਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਖਾਣ ਪੀਣ ਦੇ ਿਰਟੇਲਰ - ਪਸ਼ੂ ਬਚਾਅ ਕÎਦਰ, ਬੋਰਿਡੰਗ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਸ਼ੂ ਪਾਲਕ (ਸੁਹਜਾਤਿਮਕ ਉਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ, ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਭਲਾਈ ਲਈ ਵਰਤਣਾ ਜਾਰੀ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ) - ਖੇਤੀਬਾੜੀ ਸਮਾਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ - ਗਤੀਸ਼ੀਲਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਪਾਹਜਤਾ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦੁਕਾਨਾਂ - ਸਟੋਰੇਜ ਅਤੇ ਵੰਡ ਦੀ ਸਹੂਲਤਾਂ - ਕਾਰ ਪਾਰਕ, ਜਨਤਕ ਟੌਇਲਟ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਟਰਵੇਅ ਸੇਵਾ ਖੇਤਰ - ਬਾਹਰੀ ਖੇਡ ਦੇ ਮੈਦਾਨ - ਕਸਰਤ ਲਈ ਬੋਟੈਨੀਕਲ ਬਗੀਿਚਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਿਵਰਾਸਤੀ ਥਾਵਾਂ ਦੇ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਿਹੱਸੇ - ਪੂਜਾ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨ - ਸ਼ਮਸ਼ਾਨਘਾਟ ਅਤੇ ਕਬਰਗਾਹਾਂ ## ਿਸਹਤ-ਸੰਭਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ NHS ਅਤੇ ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਖੁੱਲÁੀਆਂ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ, ਿਜਨÁਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਦੰਦਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, - ਆਪਟੀਿਸ਼ਅਨ (ਅੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਾਹਰ), - ਆਡੀਓਲੌਜੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, - ਕਾਇਰੋਪੋਡੀ, - ਕਾਇਰੋਪਰ੍ੈਕਟਰ (ਕੰਗਰੋੜ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ੱਗ), - ਓਸਟੀਓਪੈਥ (ਅਸਥੀ ਿਵਸ਼ੇਸ਼ੱਗ) - ਹੋਰ ਮੈਡੀਕਲ ਜਾਂ ਿਸਹਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ, ਮਾਨਿਸਕ ਿਸਹਤ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਿਧਤ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਸਮੇਤ ਅਸÍ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਗੈਰ-ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਸੁਰੱਿਖਅਤ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਲਈ NHS ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਜੋ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਿਵਅਕਤੀ ਸੋਚਦਾ ਹੈ ਿਕ ਉਸ Ã ਿਕਸੇ ਿਕਸਮ ਦੀ ਡਾਕਟਰੀ ਦੇਖਭਾਲ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ ਉਹ ਅੱਗੇ ਆ ਕੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਦੀ ਮੰਗੇ। ਬਹੁਤੀਆਂ ਜਨਤਕ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ ਜਾਰੀ ਰਿਹਣਗੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਸÍ ਉਨÁਾਂ 'ਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਘਰÐ ਬਾਹਰ ਜਾ ਸਕੋਗੇ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਿਵੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹਨ: - ਜੋਬਸÏਟਰ ਪਲੱਸ ਸਾਈਟਾਂ - ਅਦਾਲਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਪਰ੍ੋਬੇਸ਼ਨ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਿਸਵਲ ਰਿਜਟÀੇਸ਼ਨ ਆਿਫਸ - ਪਾਸਪੋਰਟ ਅਤੇ ਵੀਜ਼ਾ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਪੀੜਤਾਂ Ã ਿਦੱਤੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਸੇਵਾਵਾਂ - ਕੂੜਾ ਜਾਂ ਰੀਸਾਈਕਿਲੰਗ ਸÏਟਰ - ਇੱਕ MOT ਪਰ੍ਾਪਤ ਕਰਨਾ, ਜੇ ਤੁਹਾÃ ਕਾÃਨੀ ਤੌਰ 'ਤੇ ਘਰ ਛੱਡਣ ਵੇਲੇ ਗੱਡੀ ਚਲਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ

fi

1949-pdf

## Bid Writing Course Summary On This Course You Will Learn What A Funder Wants To Hear- And What They Don'T. We Will Look At The Most Effective Language And Structure To Use, And Spend The Afternoon Putting This Into Practice With Your Own Project. For This Module We Have Developed A Fantastic Resource Pack, Including Case Studies And Language Guides Which You Can Take Away And Apply To Your Own Bid Writing. Aim Participants Are More Confident, And Have Increased Skills To Prepare Bids And Applications To Public Grant Making Bodies, Trusts And Foundations Learning Objectives The course will enable participants to  Know how to prepare effectively for writing a proposal so you are able to respond to opportunities quickly and efficiently  Understand how to evaluate whether or not to apply for funds  Know how to write in an appropriate and effective style  Understand what makes a successful application or bid  Have experience of being an assessor and scoring an application ## Summary Of Content  What Does A Good Bid Look Like?  When to bid  Deciding whether to apply  Bidding skills o Structure o Language and style o Consistency and completeness  Practical tips (including how to respond to guidance provided)  Applying for funding exercise  Assessor Practice (Interactive practical example)  Reviewing your work

en

2377-pdf

## For more information please see Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales, available online at: https:/

en

0702-pdf

## Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2015 ## By Mrs A Fairclough Ma Bsc(Hons) Llb(Hons) Pgdiplp(Bar) Ihbc Mrtpi an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 October 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/W/15/3033489 Ashmount, Smalldale, Bradwell, Hope Valley S33 9LQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Patricia Lesley Ollerenshaw against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority.  The application Ref: NP/DDD/1114/1157 dated 5 November 2014, was refused by notice dated 23 January 2015.  The development proposed is described as "a lean-to has been constructed on the back on an existing agricultural building, which was granted planning permission several years ago. The lean-to consists of a blocked supporting wall with corrugated roof and doors. It is to be used for storing hay for my livestock. Please note that the dates I have listed below are approximate dates". ## Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. ## Procedural Matters 2. A single storey lean-to extension attached to a building has already been built at the site. However, I consider that the scheme as built is materially different to the appeal proposal before me. In particular, the drawings do not indicate the door or cladding on the northeast facing elevation and as such, the scheme as built is not in accordance with the submitted plans. I will determine this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans. 3. I note that the Council is dealing with enforcement matters relating to this site. However, I am required to determine the appeal on the planning merits alone. Accordingly, I will determine the appeal on this basis. ## Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case are the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside location. ## Reasons Character 5. The appeal site is a field located adjacent to the settlement of Smalldale on its northern fringes. It is located within the open countryside. One of the core planning principles is take account of the roles and character of different areas including recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as stated in the *National Planning Policy Framework* (The Framework). The appeal site is also within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). The two purposes of National Parks1 are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The Framework also states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. 6. The appeal site edged in red is part of an agricultural land holding. The field which form part of the site edged in red, and within which the appeal host building and the scheme as built are located, is undulating and is part of a steeply rising hillside. It has fences, walls and hedges as well as livestock pens and shelters dotted around the field. This is typical of the upland farm landscape within the PDNP and as such, it contributes to the character of the countryside. 7. The appellant seeks approval for a lean-to extension (the appeal proposal). The appeal proposal is attached to the northwestern elevation of the dual pitched host building. The host building is some 9.75m in length and 4.7m wide. The plans indicate that the appeal proposal is some 2.2m wide and some 7.8m in length and is lower in height than the host building as it continues the plane of the host building's roof slope. 8. The Council states that the appeal proposal is not sufficiently justified for its location. Saved Policy LC13 of the *Peak District National Park Local Plan* (LP) adopted in 2001 states, amongst other things, that new agricultural buildings will be permitted if they are close to the main group of buildings and make the best use of existing buildings. The supporting paragraphs to this policy require that applications should be accompanied by full explanations of the agricultural proposals with which they are associated to allow for proper assessment. This policy accords with the Framework and, as such, I accord it significant weight. 9. The Framework also states that sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas should be supported by both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. 10. I have also been referred to a Supplementary Planning Document entitled Agricultural Developments in the Peak District National Park (SPD) dated 2003. This provides guidance for new agricultural buildings, which indicates that if you do not supply sufficient information to justify a new agricultural building then the application may be refused. 11. The agricultural landholding comprises the field in Smalldale, as referred to above in paragraph 6, which is some 1.0ha, 2 parcels of land at Castleton, which total approximately 4ha and further rented land there around 1.5ha. The appellant states she has a flock of 60 ewes, which are kept on her land. One of the parcels of land near Castleton produces hay crops to feed the sheep in the winter months. The land at Castleton includes a small open fronted shelter. The field in Smalldale holds several structures including pens and open structures for the shelter and stabling of livestock. However, she states that the only watertight building on this land is the large block building, to which the scheme as built is attached. The appellant states that this building is used for the storage of machinery, equipment and items in connection with agriculture on the holding e.g. a quad bike, trailer, feeding racks, barriers and other portable items plus tools in connection with maintenance of the small holding. These items are stored here as it is the most secure storage available. 12. She argues that the scheme as built is used for the storage of hay on the basis that other than the host building none of the other structures on the land holding are watertight and that it is accessible by a large vehicles and trailers. Thus, she contends that the host building is required for other agricultural purposes and that the scheme as built is necessary for the storage of hay. 13. The Council indicates that one of the open shelters has been used for the storage of hay. However, the appellant says that the open shelters are also used to house all the sheep in the inclement weather and during the lambing season or for the stabling of horses. 14. At the site visit, the open structures and pens were not in use as there were no livestock present at the appeal site because they were grazing at Castleton. The appeal scheme as built was completely full of bales of hay. 15. The host building is substantial, as described by the appellant, and I saw several large and small items stored within it, including some domestic and gardening items and a boiler/flue as well as items associated with agriculture. However, although the appellant states that there is no possibility of space being made available for the amount of the hay crop, the host building is large and even with the quad bike and trailer storage and the removal of the small number of domestic items, there is no actual evidence before me to suggest that the hay could not be stored within the host building as it is watertight, spacious and accessible by large vehicles and trailers. 16. On the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the best use is made of the host building and linked to that whether the appeal proposal is necessary for agricultural purposes. I note the appellant has suggested a condition restricting the use of the appeal proposal to agriculture. However, although I note the host building has been used for domestic storage purposes in the past, such a condition would not overcome the concern I have regarding whether the proposal is justified as necessary agricultural development in the countryside and PDNP. ## Appearance 17. The originating planning application indicates that the appeal proposal is constructed of blocks with a box profile sheet roof covering, which would match the host building. Whilst the use of concrete block and sheet metal does not reflect the traditional character or appearance of the countryside within the PDNP, and such developments are normally resisted on the grounds they are neither characteristic or recessive in colour/finish, the amount of block work visible is relatively small due to its position, which is the least obtrusive on the appeal site, and its relative height. Therefore, the further impact of the extension in terms of relative form and use of materials is low on the appearance of the locality. 18. However, the roof of the host building is finished in a dark colour and the scheme as built is finished the pale coloured sheet metal roof of the scheme as built, which creates a significant contrast with the adjacent sheet metal roof on the host building, appears prominent and incongruous when viewed from public vantage points on the road and nearby public footpath. Therefore, the scheme as built causes sufficient harm to have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the locality. 19. The appellant has suggested that the appeal proposal could be conditioned in terms of the finish of the roof material such that it could be painted to reflect the dark recessive roof of the host building and this would overcome any harm to the appearance of the PDNP. In my view, the imposition of a condition to ensure that the roofs match each other in terms of dark recessive colour finish would help to lessen the impact of the appeal proposal to the extent it would assist to conserve the natural beauty of the PDNP. 20. The Council also refers to a bright reflective door. However, although a galvanised agricultural specification door was cited under materials on the originating planning application, it was omitted from the submitted plan and elevation drawings and, therefore, cannot be conditioned. This has not been considered in this appeal. ## Conclusions 21. I consider that the harmful effect of the appeal proposal on the appearance of the area could be overcome by the imposition of a condition relating to the roof. On this basis the appeal proposal does not conflict with Policy L1 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework adopted in 2011, which requires, amongst other things, that development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character. In addition, it is not contrary to saved LP Policy LC4 and relevant aspects of saved Policy LC13, which require, amongst other things that development should also relate well in terms of scale, design, mass, colouring in relation to other/existing buildings and be the least obtrusive in terms of location. These policies are consistent with the Framework and as such, I accord them considerable weight. It would also be in accordance with the objectives of the Framework 22. However, I am concerned that the appeal proposal is not necessary and has not been sufficiently justified for the purposes of agriculture in this countryside location within the PDNP. Consequently. I consider that, in terms of character, the statutory duty of conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the PDNP has not been demonstrated. Therefore, this is the determining issue in this case and I consider the appeal proposal would be detrimental to the character of the locality and conflicts with the relevant elements of LP Policy LC13 and the Framework. In addition, it would not follow the objectives of the SPD. 23. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mrs A Fairclough INSPECTOR

en

2710-pdf

## Financial Reporting Council The UK's independent regulator for corporate governance and reporting Paul George Financial Reporting Council 1 The UK's independent regulator for corporate governance and reporting ## What Is The Frc? • The UK's independent regulator responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment • Statutory and non-statutory responsibilities • Sets accounting, auditing and actuarial standards as well as the corporate governance Code • Provides independent oversight of the regulation of the auditing, accounting and actuarial professions by their respective professional bodies • Direct regulatory role in monitoring and discipline of the accounting, auditing and actuarial professions (PIEs only) • Thought leadership in the UK and internationally • Funded by a voluntary levy on companies, the audit profession and local authorities ## History Of The Frc • Originally set up in the 1980s as a private sector body tasked with promoting high quality financial reporting . It consisted of two bodies, the Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Review Panel, respectively setting UK accounting standards and reviewing listed companies' compliance with those standards • Following Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Swift Report recommended that the FRC also take on formal responsibilities for audit and accountancy regulation; this was enacted in 2004 • From 2006 the FRC also took on formal responsibility for actuarial oversight and standard-setting • Publication of "Reform" consultation in 2011 - aimed at cementing FRC's independence, increasing our effectiveness and focusing our activities on capital markets ## Frc Current Structure Frc Proposed New Structure Frc Ltd Board Codes & Standards Conduct Professional Oversight Board - Most of the FRC's statutory responsibilities under the Companies Act currently rest with the POB - Oversight of the Recognised Qualifying Bodies and Recognised Supervisory Bodies for audit - Regular monitoring of the RQBs and RSBs to ensure their continued compliance with the Companies Act - Annual publication of report to Secretary of State on our activities ## Audit Inspection Unit - Part of the Professional Oversight Board - Monitors the audits of listed companies and certain other public interest entities - Around 100 audits inspected annually, selected using a risk model - Also carries out inspections of firm-wide quality control processes at the ten largest firms ## Audit Inspection Unit Reporting - Private reports to firms on outcome of inspections - Public reports detailing the results of its inspections of individual firms, as well as an annual report with an overview of its activities - A letter detailing the AIU's findings on each individual audit is sent to the relevant Audit Committee Chairman - Report to Audit Registration Committee on findings - Post-reform we hope to have the ability to sanction firms whose audits are of unsatisfactory quality ## Frc And Choice In The Audit Market - The FRC has been concerned about the extent of market concentration, and the risk of a major firm failing, for some years - FRC and BIS commissioned Oxera to carry out a study in 2006 - Following on from this the FRC set up the Market Participants Group (MPG) - This was an attempt to reduce both concentration and the risk of a firm leaving the market by means of voluntary action by market participants ## Frc And Choice In The Audit Market (Cont) - The MPG produced a list of 15 recommendations, 14 of which have now been implemented - FRC has monitored progress and published a number of progress reports - It is clear that the recommendations may have helped audit quality but have done nothing to reduce market concentration; indeed there is evidence that the market is becoming more concentrated - FRC has exhausted its audit regulator's toolbox; the issue needs looking at by competition authorities ## Frc Current Work On Audit Market - Focus on contingency planning; working with firms to develop "living wills" - Review of recent audit proposals and meetings with audit committee chairs indicate increased propensity for large companies to put audits out to tender, partially for governance reasons, partially to obtain a cut in fees - Review of recent auditor changes points towards increasing concentration; very few companies switching from Big Four to non-Big Four, but several moving in the opposite direction ## Specific Issues Cc May Wish To Consider - Possibility of an unequivocal statement that under no circumstances would it permit the market to be dominated by three or fewer audit firms - Hyper-concentration in particular industries (eg banking, insurance, utilities) - Propensity for small FTSE companies to use Big Four auditors; contrast with similarly-sized AIM companies - Big Four expanding into AIM markets - International issues: - Regulation of central entities at heart of global networks - Trend for Big Four networks to acquire smaller rival firms in developing markets - Interaction with European Commission proposals ## Appendix A - Aiu Gradings The AIU rates individual audits as:  Good with limited improvements required; or  Acceptable but with improvements required; or  Significant1 improvements required. A variety of factors are considered when arriving at the conclusion, including:  Sufficiency of audit evidence  Quality of audit evidence  Appropriateness or otherwise of audit judgements  Evidencing of thought processes underlying audit judgements  The existence and extent of concerns in other areas ## Appendix B - Mpg Recommendations 1. The FRC should promote wider understanding of the possible effects on audit choice of changes to audit firm ownership rules, subject to there being sufficient safeguards to protect auditor independence and audit quality. 2. Audit firms should disclose the financial results of their work on statutory audits and directly related services on a comparable basis. 3. In developing and implementing policy in auditor liability arrangements, regulators and legislators should seek to promote audit choice, subject to the overriding need to protect audit quality. 4. Regulatory organisations should encourage participation on standard setting bodies and committees by appropriate individuals from different sizes of audit firms. 5. The FRC should continue in its efforts to promote understanding of audit quality and should promote greater transparency by the firms and the FRC of the capabilities of individual audit firms. 6. The auditing profession should establish mechanisms to improve access by the incoming auditor to information relevant to the audit held by the outgoing auditor. 7. The FRC should provide independent Guidance to Audit Committees and other market participants on considerations relevant to use of firms from more than one audit network. 8. The FRC should amend the section of the FRC Guidance to Audit Committees dealing with communications with shareholders to include a requirement for the provision of information relevant to the auditor re-selection process. 9. When explaining auditor selection decision, Boards should disclose any contractual obligations to appoint certain types of auditing firms. 10. Investor groups, corporate representatives, firms and the FRC should promote good practices for shareholder engagement on auditor appointment and reappointments. 11. Authorities with responsibility for ethical standards for auditors should consider whether any rules could have a disproportionately adverse impact on auditor choice when compared to the benefits to auditor objectivity and independence. 12. The FRC should review the Independence section of the FRC Guidance on Audit Committees to ensure that it is consistent with the relevant ethical standards for auditors. 13. Regulators should develop protocols for a more consistent response to audit firm issues based on their seriousness. 14. Every firm that audits public interest entities should comply with the provisions of a Combined Code-style corporate governance guide or give a considered explanation. 15. Major public interest entities (PIEs) should consider the need to include the risk of the withdrawal of their auditor from the market in their risk evaluation and planning.

en

2185-pdf

# Development Networks Evaluation Findings Sharing Event 11 September 2017 The National Archives ## Networks Agenda - Headline findings - Methodology - Development networks - Lessons learned - Recommendations ## Headline Findings - 10 networks funded throughout England (all unique and at different stages) - Over £240K invested (includes TNA and match funding) - Only 1 network no longer in operation - One network has become a new organisation (Archives West Midlands) - Enabled archive services to look beyond their own day to day operations - Helped to raise the profile of services among senior council leaders - Allowed individual archive services to tackle big challenges - Administration is a key area of concern among network members - Services have more power and authority when working collectively ## Methodology The research was undertaken over a four stage process. 1. Initiation 2. Consultation 3. Compilation 4. Dissemination ## Development Networks Membership Investment Survey And Interview Findings Development Opportunities Priority Areas Of Activity Effective Networks Recommendations For Tna - Continue supporting networks - A healthy risk appetite - Adopt a self-selection approach - Continue match funding - Enable the sharing of ideas - Acknowledge Archives Accreditation - Support leadership, governance and management and working with consultants ## Stages Of A Network Top Tips For An Effective Network 1. Agree on a clear purpose 2. Establish priorities 3. Communicate and advocate 4. Get active - do stuff 5. Develop a governance and management framework

en

2499-pdf

## London Borough of Barnet Equalities Policy Aiming for Equal Life Chances in Barnet - ensuring the right approach to equalities in changing times. Revised January 2014 Contents Foreword by Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of the Council What does Barnet Council want to achieve? Who is included in the policy? How will we do it? Expectations of Partners and Citizens How will we know we are making a difference? Foreword by Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of the Council In a time of unprecedented financial challenge, it is important to ensure that the decisions the council takes are fair and that, as an organisation, we are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. Barnet's revised Equalities Policy will help us to deliver our commitment to equal opportunities for all as the council commissions and delivers services during challenging times. Barnet is large, growing and diverse and we are proud that Barnet is a place where people get along well together. The focus of the council is to foster growth in the local economy and we want everyone to benefit from that growth. But we know that some residents will continue to need our support, which we will provide, whilst helping others maintain their independence. The council will be transparent and keep equalities at the heart of decision making as we continue to make tough financial decisions. We will monitor and report our progress, making sure we are aware of any disproportionate impact on particular groups. We want to keep Barnet as a great place for people to live, work and study. I look forward to working with our local partners and residents from across the borough to ensure that everyone can achieve their potential and benefit from all that Barnet has to offer. ## 1. What Does Barnet Council Want To Achieve? At a time of change and continuing financial austerity, the council has made a commitment to treat citizens equally with understanding and respect; provide equal opportunities and quality services in line with Best Value principles. This commitment is at the core of the council's constitution. We will take a borough wide approach to equalities and we recognise that one sector alone cannot reduce inequality, grow the economy or encourage community action. We will work with all our partners in the private, public and community sector and the rich diversity of Barnet's communities to: - Keep Barnet as a good place to live work and study where every Barnet citizen has the opportunity to live, work and study in a safe environment free from harassment and discrimination. - Build on local community strengths and assets so that citizens can support each other to take control of their own lives, optimise their independence, and make a difference in their communities and to local services. - Support communities to get on well together and build understanding about what really matters to Citizens. - Promote active engagement with the rich diversity of Barnet's communities, people who use services, residents and employees. - Seek out the voices of people who are not always heard and those who need extra help to access our services. - Place a clear emphasis on creating the right environment for fair economic growth across the borough which supports the development of diverse markets. We want to ensure that workforces and suppliers can maximise the benefits of jobs and growth for local people and communities. - Use evidence to support the delivery of needs led, appropriate and accessible services which reflect the diversity of need at different stages in people's lives. - Meet our legal, organisational and personal responsibilities to treat people fairly, promote equalities, address inequality, challenge discrimination, and make reasonable adjustments when we identify any physical or attitudinal barriers which limit equal opportunities. ## 2. Who Is Included In The Barnet'S Equalities Policy? Barnet Council's Equalities Policy is relevant to all Barnet Citizens - everyone who lives, works, studies and uses services in the borough. The Policy outlines key ways of working for Barnet Council staff and the organisations who deliver services in partnership with, and on behalf of, the council. ## 3. How Will We Do It? Barnet is a 'Commissioning Council', providing services through a mixed economy of private, public and community organisations to secure the best value for the taxpayer. We will: - Work to reflect and integrate equalities into everything we and our partners do. We will embed equalities into the decisions the council and partners make and into business and financial planning processes. - Work with local partners including public, private, voluntary and community sectors to gather information and data to understand and act on citizen's needs and expectations. Use data to identify trends and barriers and take action to make reasonable adjustments. - Assess the impact on equality as the council and our partners develop and implement specific strategies, policies and programmes. - Be open and transparent, publish information regarding our progress against our equality objectives and ensure partners can be held to account for mutually agreed outcomes. - Make consultation and engagement with the rich diversity of Barnet communities a cornerstone of developing new actions and approaches. - Enable everyone to participate in the life of the community and celebrate its diversity. - Develop a 'Communities Together' network, with the council facilitating different local groups to share information and build an understanding about what really matters to Barnet's communities, and how we can get on well together. ## 4. What Do We Expect From Our Partners? The council expects all its partners to: - Commit to the aims and principles and ways of working set out in Sections 1 and 3 of this policy document and reflect these in the way they do business in Barnet. - Reflect legal requirements for equality including the General Public Sector Equality Duty where it applies, by promoting equality, tackling discrimination and paying due regard to equalities in decision making. - Collect analyse and share equalities data to support the achievement of this policy and report progress, for example, as part of Barnet Council's Strategic Equalities Objective. - Know about and respond to the diverse nature of Barnet as part of their standard business model. - Support people to access services and reflect Barnet's diversity in their service provision by communicating with their customers, making their services accessible and personalising their offer to meet individual needs without a service premium. ## 5. What Do We Expect From Our Citizens? We want to support everyone in Barnet to take control of their own lives, communities and local services. We will foster a culture of personal responsibility where citizens and communities encouraged to promote equalities and community cohesion, maximise their independence, support each other and challenge discrimination. ## 6. How Will We Know That We Are Making A Difference? We will focus on the outcomes of our equality aims as set out in section 1 of this policy. - We will publish our Strategic Equalities Objective and measure our performance against it. These measures will reflect the things that people tell us they value and we will monitor the impact of the economic downturn on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. - In collaboration with our partners we will measure our progress, publish the results and take action to address physical and attitudinal barriers to people having equal life chances. For example, we will monitor the reporting of hate crimes. - We will publish an annual report of our progress against our Strategic Equalities Objective. - We will share best practice and achievements with our partners so that we can collaborate, learn from others and improve. The Leader of the Council, who is the responsible Elected Member for Equalities, the Lead Member for Community Cohesion and the council's Strategic Director for Communities, will review progress against our aims. This Policy will be reviewed with the Corporate Plan in 2015 and in the meantime, we will continue to work with our partners, communities and residents to implement the Action Plan that goes with this policy. Our Strategic Equalities Objective and progress against the performance measures we use to measure it will be kept online and up to date here; http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/200041/equality_and_diversity/224/equality_and_diver sity More information can be found on the Equalities pages on our website, including: - Our Equalities Policy Action Plan which will be updated annually - Our Strategic Equalities Objective and the measures we use to monitor it - Information on our progress and our key achievements - Our staff equalities policy - Links to our partners' equalities policies

en

4107-pdf

Data Quality Statement, 2017-18 Published 13th June 2019 ## Contents | Introduction | 3 | |---------------------------------------------------|-----| | | | | Relevance | 4 | | | | | Accuracy and Reliability | 4 | | | | | Testing | 6 | | | | | Validation | 7 | | | | | Timeliness and Punctuality | 7 | | | | | Timeliness | 7 | | | | | Punctuality | 7 | | | | | Accessibility and Clarity | 7 | | | | | Coherence and Comparability | 8 | | | | | Comparability over time | 8 | | | | | Reduction in participation in 2013-14 and 2014-15 | 8 | | | | | Comparability with other sources | 8 | | | | | Assessment of User Needs and Perceptions | 10 | | | | | | | | | | ## Introduction The National Diabetes Audit (NDA) is managed by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) on behalf of NHS England and delivered by NHS Digital formerly the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), working in collaboration with Diabetes UK and Public Health England (PHE). The NDA is a major national clinical audit, which measures the effectiveness of diabetes healthcare against NICE Clinical Guidelines and NICE Quality Standards, in England and Wales. The NDA collects and analyses data for use by a range of stakeholders to drive changes and improvements in the quality of services and health outcomes for people with diabetes. The NDA answers five key questions: 1. Is everyone with diabetes diagnosed and recorded on a practice diabetes register? 2. What percentage of people registered with diabetes received the NICE key processes of diabetes care? 3. What percentage of people registered with diabetes achieved NICE defined treatment targets for glucose control, blood pressure and blood cholesterol? 4. What percentage of people registered with diabetes are offered and attend a structured education course? 5. For people with registered diabetes what are the rates of acute and long term complications (disease outcomes)? The NDA supports improvement in the quality of diabetes care by enabling participating NHS services and organisations to: - assess local practice against NICE guidelines - compare their care and care outcomes with similar services and organisations - identify gaps or shortfalls that are priorities for improvement - identify and share best practice - provide comprehensive national pictures of diabetes care and outcomes in England and Wales Through participation in the audit, local services are able to benchmark their performance and identify where they are performing well and improve the quality of treatment and care they provide. On a national level, wide participation in the audit also provides an overview of the quality of care being provided in England and Wales. ## Relevance Data is extracted from general practice clinical systems and specialist diabetes services in secondary care hospitals. The audit is a voluntary audit for GP practices, meaning GP practices need to opt in to be included. For specialist services, participation in the audit is mandatory. In 2017-18, the participation rate was 98.3 per cent of all GP practices in England and Wales. The information collected from GP practices for the audit is individual level data and contains demographic information such as age, sex, ethnicity, diabetes duration and geographic variables such as postcode. As the data collected is identifiable data, it is subject to dissent, meaning patients can dissent from the NDA. This means that the registrations for people with diabetes captured may not be a true reflection of the whole population of people with diabetes for that GP practice. For the first time this year, the audit has gathered data on specified drug types prescribed to people with diabetes in the audit. ## Accuracy And Reliability The 2017-18 audit covers the majority of England and Wales with a participation rate of 98.3 per cent. Participation is published at Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Local Health Board (LHB) level. Caution should be taken when looking at areas with low participation and when looking at areas with variable participation over time. Primary care data are extracted from GP clinical systems via the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES); the practice must approve the extraction. Specialist diabetes services submit their data manually through the NDA Data Landing Portal. Data has been reported at GP practice level since the 2013-14 audit. The audit report includes only information on eight of the nine care processes. This is due to an issue in data collection which was identified in the 2011-12 audit. Examination of the issue highlighted inconsistencies in how eye screening was being recorded in GP records. Therefore, this care process is not covered in the audit. ## There are several data quality issues the reader should be aware of when looking at the data included in this report: ## 1. Urine Albumin/Creatinine Ratio Care Process Caution should be taken when using screening test results for early kidney disease (Urine Albumin Creatinine Ratio, UACR) prior to 2013-14 and assessing variation across CCGs for this care process over time. Some areas recorded the albumin values in 'text' field format that did not carry through to the audit during the extraction process. This method of recording is thought to be due to the different ways this test is carried out across localities. Although these values are not brought through to the dataset, the dates for these values are. This means that even if the value is not extracted, the date that the test took place is. Therefore, this date is used to determine if the care process has taken place. Since 2013-14, data have been extracted in a consistent way across all service providers. This resulted in better performance for albumin care process completion in 2013-14. However, due to the retirement of the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicator and the potential refocusing of GP practices, performance in recording this care process has fallen in recent years. ## 2. Blood Pressure Treatment Target A data quality issue for the blood pressure treatment target affected a small number of GP practices in 2015-16. A reading for systolic blood pressure was recorded but measurements of diastolic blood pressure were incomplete. These patients have been recorded as not meeting the treatment target and have not been included in the treatment target calculation. This issue does not affect the recording of whether the annual check for blood pressure has taken place. ## 3. The Hba1C Care Process An issue affected data supplied to NHS Digital for a large number of GP practices in the 2011-12 audit regarding HbA1c (blood glucose) recording. While this did not materially affect the findings in the national report, the CCG level care process and treatment target reports covering potentially affected practices for the 2011-12 publication have been removed from our website. The issue is restricted to the 2011-12 audit data. ## 4. Possible Data File Issues In 2016-17 When Submitted 14-16Th June 2017 We are aware of an issue that may have affected a number of data files collected for the 2016-17 audit that were received between the 14th and 16th June 2017. An error occurred in transit of some files to NHS Digital. Some practices may show as underperforming when this is not necessarily the case. For example, BMI results for Kenyon Medical Centres (M86015) and the HbA1c results for Staithes Surgery (B82046). ## 5. Foot Surveillance Data From Tpp Systmone Gp Clinical System In 2016-17 It has been found that foot surveillance data may have been under-reported in 2016-17 for several GP practices that used the TPP SystmOne clinical system. This may account for some of the fall in overall foot surveillance completion in 2016-17. ## 6. Incorrect Data Submitted For Leicester Royal Infirmary (Rweaa) In 2016-17 It has been identified that the data submitted to the audit from Leicester Royal Infirmary was for far fewer patients than was intended. The results for Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2016-17 should be treated with extreme caution. ## 7. Incorrect Hba1C Data Submitted For Hull And East Yorkshire Hospitals Nhs Trust (Rwa) In 2016-17 It has been identified that the HbA1c data submitted to the audit from Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust was incorrect. The data show a much lower HbA1c reading for patients than was the case. The performance of this trust appears to be much better for 2016-17 than it was, so any relative deterioration in performance should be treated with extreme caution. ## 8. Diabetes Type In 2017-18 Initial data quality checks on the 2017-18 NDA data showed that a higher than expected number of people had a read code which matched to a general diabetes diagnosis, rather than specifically Type 1, Type 2 or one of the smaller Types. Where possible, diabetes Type data collected in previous audits was used to override the general diagnosis with a more specific diabetes Type. This method was also used to complete the diabetes Type for individuals with missing data. Although this method of improving the data worked well, it is still likely that a small number of people with Type 1 diabetes, who have not appeared in a previous audit, will have their data included in the "Type 2 and other" category. ## 9. Body Mass Index (Bmi) Care Process In 2017-18 GP practices using the Vision clinical system supplier were unable to submit a BMI date or value for people registered with the practice under the new GPES collection process, due to a technical issue. To ensure that BMI data could be included in the NDA for these practices, the 2017-18 collection also extracted height and weight data, where available. For all system suppliers, as well as using submitted BMI dates to indicate that the care process had taken place, dates were used where weights had been taken. This may account for some of the uplift in BMI care process completion in 2017-18. ## 10. Bmi Treatment Target In 2017-18 As described above, GP practices using the Vision clinical system supplier were unable to submit a BMI date or value for people registered with the practice. Where no BMI value was submitted for a person, but there were values for height and weight, the BMI value was calculated using the standard formula (weight in kg) / (height in metres)^2. ## 11. Incorrect Organisation Code And Insulin Pump Data Submitted For Manchester Royal Infirmary (Rw3Mr) In 2017-18 Data for Manchester Royal Infirmary were incorrectly submitted, and subsequently reported in the NDA, under the organisation code for Manchester Children's Hospital (RW3RM). Also, all patients were incorrectly submitted as using an insulin pump. Testing Relevant data is extracted from GP systems via read codes. The list of codes is available upon request. The NHS Digital Primary Care Domain developed the specifications specifically for the NDA extract, and these were verified on several system types prior to collection of the data. ## Validation Data were automatically extracted from GP systems in England via system supplierdeveloped queries and GPES. Data submissions were initially checked and certified by GPES using test submissions. Internal validation checks were completed within the NDA team to ensure that data had been received from all eligible participating practices and there were no systematic issues with the data. Comparisons were made with GP practice and CCG level counts from previous years. One file was submitted for Wales by NHS Wales Informatics Service (NWIS) for the 2017-18 audit year and validated. Any data quality issues with the data are included alongside analysis to ensure users can interpret the results appropriately. For example, eye screening information was removed from the 2011-12 publication as the data was not deemed reliable, and the following statement was added to the report: "To improve alignment with NICE guidelines, a revised read code set of terms describing digital eye screening was used. This identified that variation in the use of terminology and its impact on the consistency of data extraction from electronic clinical records rendered it unreliable as a measure of this care process. The NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NHS DESP) records every digital eye screening and we believe that its records should now be used as the preferred measure for this annual care process. Presently this is reported only nationally." ## Timeliness And Punctuality Timeliness The 2017-18 audit collected data covering the period 1st January 2017 to 31st March 2018. Primary care data was extracted from GP clinical systems in May 2018. A 'mop up' extraction was carried out in June 2018 to capture GP practice data that could not be collected in May. Specialist diabetes services submitted their data during a five-week period between May and June 2018. It was processed and ready to analyse in September 2018 and published on 8th November 2018. Punctuality Reports are produced and data presented at National, CCG, LHB and General Practice level for England. The time lag between the end of the audit period and the publication of the data was just over seven months. ## Accessibility And Clarity Key findings and recommendations are presented in the full NDA report published in June 2019. Data was initially provided in November 2018 for England and Wales at GP, CCG and LHB levels in interactive Excel spreadsheets for ease of interrogation and further analysis by users. Web links to the technical specifications of the data are available through the NHS Digital website here: https://digital.nhs.uk/nda The key elements of the data collection are presented in the methodology document that accompanies this document. ## Coherence And Comparability Comparability over time The NDA has been running since 2003-04; however, there are inconsistencies in how the data has been processed prior to 2009-10. Therefore, caution should be taken when looking at data from earlier years of the audit. Users should also bear in mind the differences in participation over time. In the 2012-13 audit, the blood pressure treatment target was amended to be consistent with the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). A paper was produced to show the impact of this change on the previously published data. This can be found here. Reduction in participation in 2013-14 and 2014-15 There was a drop in participation in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 audit collections due to changes in the way the data was collected from GP practices. There was increased complexity to the processes for registrations and submissions due to new Information Governance 'opt in' requirements. The collection used to be on an opt out basis. Changes to the Confidential Advisory Group (CAG) requirements meant that from 2013-14 this changed to an opt in basis. The new governance meant that GP practices had to actively give permission for their data to be extracted or extract the information themselves and provide it directly to the audit. Participation of GP practices in England is variable across the country and this may be due to the varied levels of support for participation offered to GP practices by CCGs. Analysis was completed to ensure that the data collected for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were representative both in demographics and in performance: - There was a change in the age profile of the cohort of patients included in the audit in these collections. Standardising results, to account for this, leads to only a very slight change in the national figures. Therefore, to simplify interpretation and explanation, the results have not been standardised. - With a reduction in participation there was the potential for those practices taking part to skewed towards those that perform well. Analysis was carried out on practices that participated in the latest collections and those that participated in earlier collections. The findings suggest that there is no bias towards high performing practices taking part. Comparability with other sources QOF collects information on people registered with diabetes; however, this is only broadly comparable as there are differences in the collection period and the definitions of the indicators. More information on the differences can be found here. QOF collects the number of patients aged 17 years and above with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, QOF is an aggregated return and is mandatory for GP practices to participate. The table below compares the number of diabetes registrations in the NDA with the number of diabetes registrations in QOF and shows the case ascertainment based on this. ## Diabetes Registrations For Type 1 And Type 2 Diabetes For People Aged 17 Years And Over In England And Wales By Audit Year | Country | Audit year | Percentage of | |----------------------|---------------|------------------| | patients recorded in | | | | NDA registrations | | | | ᵃ | | | | | | | | QOF registrations | | | | NDA compared with | | | | QOF | | | | | | | | 2017-18 | 3,131,775 | | | | | | | 2016-17 | 2,872,565 | 3,139,340 | | | | | | 2015-16 | 2,530,561 | 3,033,529 | | England | | | | 2014-15 | 1,702,610 | 2,913,538 | | 2013-14 | 1,586,380 | 2,814,004 | | 2012-13 | | | | b | | | | | 1,937,705 | 2,703,044 | | 2011-12 | 2,269,580 | 2,566,436 | | | | | | 2017-18 | 195,975 | | | | | | | 2016-17 | 191,260 | 191,590 | | | | | | 2015-16 | 190,731 | 188,644 | | Wales | | | | 2014-15 | 176,472 | 183,348 | | 2013-14 | 159,981 | 177,212 | | 2012-13 | | | | b | | | | | 120,152 | 173,299 | | 2011-12 | 137,768 | 167,537 | ᵃ NDA data is collected over a 15 month period, between 1st January and 31st March, whereas QOF data is collected over a 12 month period, between 1st April and the 31st March. Therefore, the figures are not directly comparable. b In 2012-13 QOF methodology was updated to include all diabetes (apart from gestational diabetes), not just type 1 and type 2. NDA methodology has been updated in accordance. ## Assessment Of User Needs And Perceptions The NDA advisory group (consisting of patient representatives, Diabetes UK, clinicians, GP representatives, researchers and interested analysts from NHS Digital and Public Health England) provide advice on both analysis and content of the reports as well as the direction and development of the audit. The NDA team has an active role in the National Cardiovascular Health Intelligence Network (NCVIN) workshops to gain a better understanding of how the CCG's and localities use the data and how we can improve the publication and supporting information. These workshops are conducted quarterly and are co-ordinated by Public Health England (PHE) and bring together epidemiologists, analysts, clinicians and patient representatives. NHS Digital is keen to gain a better understanding of the users of this publication and of their needs. Your feedback is welcome and may be sent to enquiries@nhsdigital.nhs.uk (please include 'National Diabetes Audit' in the subject line). Alternatively, you can call our enquiries team on 0300 303 5678. Or write to: NHS Digital, 1 Trevelyan Square, Boar Lane, Leeds, LS1 6AE

en

0485-pdf

## Ethnic Disparities And Inequality In The Uk Technical Evidence Submission In Response To The Call From The Commission On Race And Ethnic Disparities Contact Officer Tom Pickup, Principal Policy & Project Officer Tom.pickup@londoncouncils.gov.uk 07763 783966 Organisation London local government technical evidence submission is sponsored by the Chief Executives London Committee Tackling Racial Inequality Working Group. ## Introduction & Context 1. London local authorities welcome the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities' initiative in reaching out to councils and communities to help better understand and tackle ethnic disparities and inequality in the UK. We are keen to support the work of the Commission in tackling racial disparities and we look forward to engaging with the Commissions work. We feel that there is an important window of opportunity to align our system leadership, working with the grain of our communities' appetite for progress. 2. London is proud to be the most diverse city in the UK1 - we embrace our ethnic and cultural diversity which is central to our city and essential to enabling our communities to thrive and prosper. However, evidence suggests that people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds continue to experience disparate outcomes alongside discrimination and exclusion. London local government recognises the importance of addressing this as part of our leadership of place and is committed to understanding what more could and should be done across our sector, and in partnership, to tackle ethnic disparities and inequality. 3. This submission captures themes and evidence that has emerged through collaborative cross-borough working on this agenda. In addition, individual London boroughs hold more local and granular evidence which may be useful to the Commission. This submission opens with an outline of our pan-London programme that is being built to support and embed local action dedicated to improving services and tackling racial inequality. We go on to outline evidence of racial disparity from the thematic areas identified by the Commission *(education, employment and enterprise, health and crime and policing)* and posit key lines of inquiry that we believe the Commission and its partners should consider to help provide a foundation to achieve genuine change. ## London Local Government'S Tackling Racial Inequality Programme 4. In June, in response to the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the disproportionate impact of the Covid 19 pandemic on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities, London Councils, working in partnership with London boroughs, initiated a pan-London programme to tackle racial inequality. In October 2020 the London Councils Leaders' Committee agreed a statement2 committing London Councils to lead and support boroughs on this issue. 5. The Chief Executives London Committee (CELC) is aligning the contribution of London's senior managerial leadership with the London Councils initiative. This is being delivered the CELC Tackling Racial Inequality working group which is chaired by Kim Smith (Chief Executive, London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham) and it engages actively with senior managerial leaders across all London boroughs. The working group seeks to support the work that individual boroughs are undertaking that responds to the needs within their communities and organisations and, where appropriate, develop regional activity. 6. In addition to the above working group collaborative activity is underway across local government service areas to respond to more specific needs such as in health, employment and welfare - this will be explored in more detail when responding to the 4 consultation areas. ## Chief Executives Of London Committee Tackling Racial Inequality Working Group 7. The CELC Tackling Racial Inequality working group was established to develop and lead work to tackle racial inequality across London local government, support boroughs in their 'place' leadership role and help build a fairer and more inclusive capital. By outlining the role of the working group this section will describe the strategic and multi-layered pan-London approach that local government has adopted. To help realise its ambition, the working group has developed a programme that builds on effective models of intervention and programmes in boroughs. The group's work programme consists of three key areas which encapsulates the breadth of activity and action needed but also already underway across London local government: - Demonstrating leadership - ensuring London local government demonstrates visible leadership on this agenda within our organisations but also across partnerships, our 'places' and our communities. This includes: o Establishing public commitments across boroughs to lead and act on this agenda. o Developing tools and guidance to support borough activity and develop solutions to significant regional challenges. o Developing an assurance and accountability approach for local government around tackling racial inequality. - Our role as large employers - as large employers within our communities and across the region, local government must be an exemplar for inclusive workforces and we seek to accelerate action to ensure this. Some boroughs have made significant progress to establish inclusive workforces and others are developing work to become more diverse, culturally aware and to support the development of their staff. This activity is centred around supporting boroughs by unblocking existing barriers (e.g. around recruitment) and sharing good practice: o Developing more robust workforce data across boroughs to improve our understanding of trends within our organisations, consistency around workforce data collection and transparency through data publication. o Collecting and sharing good practice around initiatives to develop 'BAME' staff and to establish more inclusive workforces and work practices. - Challenge and improve practice across services - Sharing and building upon examples of good practices at borough, sub-regional and regional levels to actively tackle racial inequality. There are many positive examples of how boroughs are actively tackling racial inequality, which will be identified in this paper. However, local government can do more to share these examples to enable learning but also understand what could be replicated elsewhere or at different levels (e.g. sub-regional or pan- London). This activity includes: o Creating a repository of good practice that will be shared across London local government. o Reviewing London local government service areas, at a regional level, to understand existing practices and drive additional activity. 8. The working group reflects the level of appetite and ambition in London local government to embed the need to tackle racial inequality in the way we operate and in the services we deliver. The working group and the programme more broadly will continue to develop to best establish a local government approach to this agenda and explore how this can also involve or include wider partnerships. ## Addressing The Causes Of Racial And Ethnic Disparities In The Uk (Question 1) 9. The Causes Of Racial And Ethnic Disparities In The Uk Are Multifaceted And Complex - Inextricably Linked to history and culture, as reflected in our society, systems and institutions. This response will not examine or interrogate these causes as there is a plethora of academic, public sector and personal perspectives that detail this, instead it will focus on solutions, with reference to the activity underway in London local government. 10. Nevertheless, as public services and system leaders, we do recognise the need to consider and reflect on the historical influences that shape contemporary British attitudes to race and ethnicity (e.g. the British colonial past and subsequent perceptions of people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds) - to allow an informed understanding of the origins of existing disparities (e.g. barriers to opportunities). Councils are well placed to continue conversations with our communities, with a view to deepening our collective understanding and subsequently work collaboratively to influence cultural change and seek to rectify any troubled historical relationships with 'BAME' communities. Adopting inclusive language, supported by meaningful actions, provides a solid foundation for enabling people of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures to thrive. 11. The adoption of a London local government Tackling Racial Inequality programme and a supporting statement committing London Councils as an organisation to deliver a programme of activity, is symbolic of our commitment to lead change and to shape an inclusive way forward. The programme outlined in this response demonstrates the need for more tangible action, both in relation to outcomes and experience, but also in relation to cultural attitudes. 12. For example, in relations to the latter, work is being explored in London local government around the use and categorisation of the term 'BAME'. The categorisation of 'BAME' has increasingly come under the spotlight as a term that can serve to homogenise different histories, identities and cultures, including the challenges and inequalities they experience. For local government this can hinder relationships with communities and residents and result in ineffective policy making or service delivery which can leave certain groups behind. Hence, we are exploring an alternative to 'BAME' and seeking to create a culture in local government that aims to understand and tailor initiatives or solutions towards different ethnicities, cultures and communities. 13. London local government recognises the need to understand the challenges and barriers within our own sector. Chief Executives recently sponsored a survey that looked across London local government service areas to identify some of the core challenges and barriers within the sector - these included: - Changing existing workforce and organisational attitudes. - Catering mainstream services to the needs of Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, reflecting the need to improve cultural competency within organisations. - Addressing broader societal disparities to tackle inequality and the persistent disproportionate outcomes and impacts on certain ethnic groups. - Addressing the lack of robust and granular data to better inform policy and decisions. 14. This framework will help act as a cornerstone to our activity, particularly as we recognise the collective need, across boroughs and with other public sectors partners, to ensure the sector is more inclusive and proactively seeks to tackle disproportionality and racial inequality. Reflecting on our own learning in relation to the underpinning causes of racial and ethnic disparities and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following key lines of inquiry: - Culture change and understanding the problems o Cultural and historical attitudes inform our everyday views and perceptions, and public sector agencies have a crucial role in creating inclusivity within our actions and discourse. o How can public sector agencies establish and embed inclusive cultures that consists of a genuine understanding of the root cause(s) of racial and ethnic disparities but also tailored provision to those impacted communities? o What is the role of public sector agencies in promoting inclusive messages? - Language o How can we best work with communities to understand the impact of the language we use and adopt more inclusive terminology e.g. reviewing the use and categorisation of BAME? ## Improving Representation, Retention And Progression Opportunities For People Of Different Ethnic Backgrounds In Public Sector Workforces (Question 2) 15. Accelerating Inclusive Workforces Is A Key Component Of The Tackling Racial Inequality Programme. This means promoting diversity within local government organisations, establishing a culturally competent workforce and actively developing staff with a particular focus on those from 'BAME' backgrounds. This section will focus on the pan-London activity that is being driven and developed both around a regional approach and to support borough level activity. ## Diverse Workforces And Cultural Competency 16. The drive of this focus is the view that, as public sector organisations, we should aim to reflect the communities we serve at all levels of the organisation - this will help improve the services we deliver to residents and build trusting and helpful relations with communities. This is especially important in London given our diverse communities, therefore representativeness across organisations will help acknowledge, incorporate or embed the histories and needs of different communities in our services. 17. London local authorities with leading practice have already made significant progress to establish inclusive workforces - that is, they have a diverse and culturally competent workforce that reflects the communities they serve (i.e. staff from a range of backgrounds and cultures, including knowledge and experience of local communities). One example is the London Borough of Brent which, in their workforce strategy3, aim to ensure the council has a representative workforce and at least 80% of the same representation exists in their senior management. This has largely been achieved as 65% of staff are from BAME backgrounds compared with 62% of the Brent population4 18. At a pan-London level we aim to replicate and build on existing borough initiatives and good practice. This consists of developing pan-London projects to establish consistency and learning across boroughs, particularly around the following themes: - Recruitment - reviewing and sharing recruitment practices. Inclusive recruitment practices are a key gateway to establishing diverse and representative local government workforces. Across boroughs there are many examples of how local government is striving to establish inclusive practices, for example: o Diverse recruitment panels, at all stages and levels of recruitment. o Collecting and reviewing recruitment data to understand the background of applicants e.g. to inform recruitment campaigns. o Establishing apprenticeship and graduate schemes that focus on attracting and developing talent from local areas and communities. - There is increasing appetite across local authorities to adopt more inclusive recruitment practices, hence the London programme seeks to facilitate this through a repository and learning hub that hosts promising and good practice and establish a peer support network that enables different boroughs to connect and learn from each other. The principle of a repository and learning hub also applies beyond recruitment practices and initiatives to encompass activity to tackle racial inequality more broadly. - Data - understanding our workforces. Accessible and robust data is essential to understand the composition of our organisations and understand the perspectives of our staff. For instance, across London local government there are different approaches to workforce data collection and levels of maturity in terms of understanding workforce perspectives in relation to race (e.g. representative leadership, diversity, opportunities etc). Whilst boroughs should remain autonomous in their data collection processes there is a level of inconsistency across boroughs - mainly in reference in the level of detail some explore to understand the diversity and representativeness across their workforce that indicates an opportunity to establish consistency around the type of data collected, particularly to enable reliable benchmarking, but also to develop a more complete picture of London local government workforces. As part of the London programme, we are reviewing data collection and analysing data to develop a more robust picture across local authorities - this includes: o Collecting and compiling data across borough on ethnicity and pay band (rather than grade) to better understand the composition of staff by ethnicity based on roles and seniority. o Conducting an exercise to understand how, across London local government, we can collect more robust workforce data. This also includes how we can better share data, linking into establishing solutions around improving trust and confidence around sharing ethnicity data among 'BAME' staff with organisations. o Exploring how to improve transparency around workforce data in relation to ethnicity. ## Developing Bame Staff And Aspiring Senior Leaders 19. To reflect the diversity within the capital it is important to ensure there is visible 'BAME' leadership within our organisations, in addition to actively enabling aspiring leaders from any background to thrive. London local government established the London Leadership Programme (LLP) which aims to provide leadership development opportunities, in addition to those opportunities already offered across individual London local authorities and service specific development approaches. It seeks to equip staff with the skills and understanding to take on senior positions across the capital in the next three to five years. The programme has been running since the autumn of 2017 and through a pilot and four cohorts 150 senior managers have been offered the development opportunity. 20. It has always been an explicit ambition of the LLP to create a more diverse group of future leaders and a talent pool that better reflects the city and its communities. However, given the drive and momentum to tackle system racism, coupled with recent events, the LLP is currently being updated to reflect this new context and respond to the opportunity to rebalance, reinvent and recreate. 21. The LLP Board is now commissioning two more, sequential cohorts (cohorts 5 and 6) of the LLP over the next two years, and a fundamental review of the programme's content. The Invitation To Tender (ITT) makes explicit the need to reflect throughout the programme content, group work and selection of contributors the need to talk about and tackle social and racial injustices and acknowledge that colleagues from all backgrounds have a role to play in the discussion. This also includes equipping aspiring leaders with the skills to rise to the challenge of leading diverse organisations and places. 22. This reform of the programme is also in acknowledgement of the fact that the ethnicity of local government leaders must better reflect London's diverse communities. As such, the ITT also asks contractors to provide an additional package/ programme of development activity for 'BAME' participants, allowing them to explore and share the challenges and issues specific to their experiences and leadership journeys. This additional offer will be carefully managed and tailored to individual needs. It could, for example, take the form of 1-2-1 professional coaching and/ or mentoring. Reflecting on our own learning **in relation public sector workforces** and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following **key lines of inquiry:** - Inclusive workforce - diversity and cultural competency are essential within any workforce and there is space for the public sector to lead by example. How can we facilitate and support organisations to adopt inclusive recruitment and development initiatives? - Data and information - public sector and other agencies can do more to encourage the collection and publication of data that can help us understand where challenges and barriers are within organisation for 'BAME' staff. This can help ensure employers develop targeted programmes, such as the LLP or similar, that can respond to clear gaps within sectors or organisation and ensure employers are accountable for being inclusive. - Developing 'BAME' staff - there is often a visible challenge around development opportunities for 'BAME' staff and the representativeness at senior levels. There is more that can be done to understand the barriers around development opportunities and leadership positions for BAME staff but there is scope to determine how public sector agencies can show leadership around this but also support other organisations to follow suit. ## Education And Schooling Experience (Questions 3 & 4) 23. Schooling And Education Represent Key Milestones During Any Young Person'S Development And The impact of a negative schooling experience, lack of education and poor educational outcomes can have significant implications for their life experience. In London there are clear disproportionate outcomes for certain ethnic groups, particularly for young Black children and often specifically young Black boys. For example, young Black boys are more likely to achieve lower grades and experience fixed or permanent exclusion. The issue of school exclusions is particularly prominent for Black Caribbean boys as they remain consistently over-represented both national and in London (second only two Roma, Gypsy, Travellers)5, even during the pandemic boroughs have been reporting increases in school exclusions for this cohort. The impact of school exclusions is significant as evidenced in criminal justice data as 89% of children in Young Offender Institutions (2018) had been excluded6 7. The cause of this disproportionality is explored extensively in academic studies (referencing historical, society and school factors; material deprivation, teacher perceptions, discrimination), hence this section will focus on examples in London to tackle the disproportionate outcomes and experiences. 24. Local authorities and schools have an essential role in addressing disproportionality within education and ensuring young people have the learning and skills to provide them with more positive life opportunities. Local authorities, working with schools and other partners, have established and are developing innovative practices and initiatives to improve the schooling experience and attainment of disadvantaged young people. Across London there are examples of tailored initiatives in schools that are aimed at raising aspirations and improving education outcomes for young Black children. ## Lambeth: Raising The Game8. 25. This is a two-year project aimed at tackling the 7-10% academic attainment gap and high exclusion rates that Black pupils of Caribbean heritage experience in the borough. The project is based in selected schools across Lambeth working to improve outcomes at all key stages, to raise aspirations and to reduce exclusions for Black pupils of Caribbean heritage who underachieve in relation to their peers nationally and locally. The project consists of 3 strands: 1. Aim High - which intends to expose Black students of all ages to successful Black role models from different sectors and life experiences. 2. Diversifying the curriculum - a teacher lead initiative, within both primary and secondary schools, that develops tools for teachers, by teachers centred around actively incorporating Caribbean literature into pupil learning; showcasing diversity in different occupations - promoting the mantra of 'the sky is the limit' for Black pupils - and working across primary and secondary schools to support pupils transition. 3. Parental Engagement Network - a repository of tools and resources for parents, that will help them support their child(ren)'s learning. 26. The project has resulted in an 11% improvement for Black students at age related expectations at KS2 in comparison to their peers and 3% improvement at KS4, and an overall reduction in permanent exclusions by 49% and over 70% reduction for Black students of Caribbean heritage. 27. Haringey has the largest gap in Britain at GCSE between higher achieving White British students and lower achieving 'BAME' groups, especially those Black students of Caribbean heritage. In response, HEP have established a programme to address and improve 'BAME' achievement in the borough which is outlined in the BAME Achievement Strategy: Raising Black Caribbean and BAME Achievement: - Achieve outcomes for all children and young people as good as, or better than, anywhere else in the country. - Close the gaps in attainment for our different ethnic groups and disadvantaged pupils. - Tackle related inequalities and negative outcomes such as exclusions, which impact on life chances. 28. To deliver the strategy HEP have established and created several resources for schools, public sector organisations, pupils and parents: - Self-evaluation tools (for schools). - Vulnerable to Underachievement Checklist which aims to: o to promote/target pupils for participation in extra-curricular activities or the need to maintain extra-curricular attendance records o to be proactive in rewarding pupils/ a group of pupils to build self-esteem, e.g. there could be a pattern by gender, ethnicity or ability o to reconfigure a tutor group where there are greater pastoral needs or for more staff training on attachment theory and how to respond. o to help governors in directing resources at greatest need or secure class-wide support from Early Help - 'BAME' action plan template (for schools). - 'BAME' children literature (for parents and pupils). - Achievement database to capture key trends around education in the borough. 29. These are just two examples of important activity to improve the achievement and schooling experiences of young Black people - there are many other programmes and projects across boroughs that are actively addressing this challenge and making a real difference in outcomes. For example: - Brent have an ongoing programme aimed at raising the achievement of young Black men - this has resulted in an improvement in exclusion rates for Black students of Caribbean heritage, including a 9.4% reduction in permanent exclusion in the last year.10 - Lewisham are conducting tailored activity to improve outcomes for 'BAME' pupils, with significant focus on addressing disproportionate schooling outcomes for Black pupils of Caribbean heritage.11 - Hackney have established a programme of work to improve outcomes for young black men, this includes, but is not limited to, addressing educational outcomes for young Black men of Caribbean heritage.12 30. Targeted interventions and tailored initiatives are an essential component of tackling the disproportionate outcomes in education, however to establish genuine change there needs to be a more inclusive system that enables children of all backgrounds the thrive. The examples and the general principles described above are key elements of change that are required in the education system. They also reflect ideas that can be built upon or replicated across different areas. Reflecting on our own learning **in relation to education and schooling** and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following **key lines of inquiry:** - Targeted initiatives to raise the aspiration of 'BAME' children - to achieve a fundamental difference in education for 'BAME' children there needs to be a combination of system wide change and targeted intervention. The examples in this section allude to the challenges within the education system (e.g. attainment gaps, extra-curricular activity; the curriculum) and describes the different possible solutions, but there is also merit in learning from and replicating these solutions at a larger scale. Additionally, it is important to have an increase focused on 'BAME' role models - that is, showcasing young people or adults from various 'BAME' backgrounds that have demonstrated or achieved success to influence young people's ambitions. This will help permeate a culture within education institutions that strives to target and support those ethnic groups that can be left behind. - The role of education in supporting cultural change - the point is twofold. Within education there has been progress to ensure schools and institutions are inclusive but there is still more progress required to sharpen practices and attitudes. This includes improving racial literacy and cultural competency among teachers and school leaders, and ensuring that key agencies recognise the role of people and institutions in potentially holding attainment back. Promoting inclusive institutions has a much broader and important role in helping to establish cultural change by educating future generations and supporting them within an inclusive, diverse environment. This diverse environment can be reinforced through reviewing the representation of school leaders and governors (linking with the ambitions outlined in response to question 2 above). It is important to determine the role schools and similar institutions can play within this context. ## Employment & Opportunity (Question 5) 31. London Local Government Regional Activity Around Employment And Opportunity Is Being Driven Through two programmes - the CELC Economy and Employment working group and the London Recovery Programme13. The former works on local government specific initiatives and the latter, which is Co- Chaired by the London Mayor and Chair of London Councils (Cllr Georgia Gould), is also developing cross-sector initiatives to drive longer term employment and opportunity as the capital recovers from the pandemic. Within these programmes one of the key areas of activity is addressing the challenges and disproportionality around equal opportunities and employment for different ethnic groups. This section will describe the challenges in London around employment and opportunity and solutions being explored by local government. 32. Contextually, before the pandemic, there were clear disparities for 'BAME' Londoners in relation to employment and opportunities. Now, in a similar way to the other areas explored in this consultation, as a result of the pandemic, we can see there has been a disproportionate impact on 'BAME' communities which has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities: - Pre-pandemic o Employment rate: before the pandemic the employment rate for 'BAME' Londoners (67.1) was significantly lower than that of White Londoners (79.3) in 2019.14 o Pay gap: Data on hourly pay (2010 - 2019) also shows that 'BAME' Londoners (£13.50) are paid substantially less per hour than Londoners on average (£15.70). In comparison, White Londoners were paid £16.74 on average an hour for the same period15. In fact, the ethnicity pay gap differs across regions and is largest in London at 23.8%. - Impact of the pandemic o Employment levels16: between April and June 2020, the number of Black Londoners in work has declined by 9.5% on the quarter and 11.7% on the year. In comparison, the number of all Londoners in work decreased by 1.5%, the number of mixed Londoners in work decreased by 5.7% and the number of White Londoners in work decreased by 0.4%. o Employment rate17: although Black Londoners experienced the largest fall in employment levels, those from a mixed background saw the greatest quarterly fall in employment rate - 5.2%, compared to 0.7% for London as a whole. London employment rates in Q2 2020 remain uneven: London average (76.4%), White (79.8%), Asian (72.3%), Black (66.7%), Mixed (68.2%) and Other (72.4%). o Projections for the future18: the London Assembly estimates that 1.1 million jobs are at risk in London. Over a third (38%) of those at greatest risk are from 'BAME' backgrounds. Looking at the UK as a whole, 15% of workers in sector which have shut down because of the coronavirus are from a 'BAME' background, compared to 12% of all workers.19 33. In London a range of barriers and challenges have been identified around the disparities for 'BAME' Londoners' - understanding and tackling these are essential to establish meaningful solutions. In summary those barriers include: - 'BAME' employees working in London are more likely than those working in England to agree that their identity or background can have an effect on opportunities20. - Education and training are a key barrier for Black students and those from low income backgrounds having the highest drop-out rates from higher education21. Higher education is often an important enabler to social mobility, however access to aspiring 'BAME' students can often be limited particularly to the top universities - for example studies have found that Russell group universities are less likely to offer places to pupils from 'BAME' backgrounds even when they have the same grades as white peers22 - According to the Mayor's equality, diversity and inclusion strategy some of the key factors contributing to lower employment rates among these groups include language barriers, family structures, cultural differences and others. However, it also raises concerns about race discrimination in the job market23. - According to research by Community links, the key employment barriers 'BAME' women in East London face include lack of confidence, lack of (financial) independence among women, as well as social and cultural barriers (e.g. not having family support to work), as well as not having the required skills and qualifications and lack of familiarity with recruitment processes24. - According to the London Borough of Camden, the coronavirus crisis is presenting an additional barrier to 'BAME' workers as many of them work in retail, hospitality and construction. Therefore, they are facing additional sector-specific challenges as lockdown and social distancing measures are preventing the businesses in which they work to operate effectively25. - Even those aspiring and thriving entrepreneurs from the 'BAME' backgrounds experience disproportionality - these will be covered in the British Business Bank report and submission to this consultation but some of the facts include lower business success and lower turnover for certain ethnic groups26. 34. The above demonstrates that engagement with different communities and ethnic groups must be at the heart of solutions. There is robust data available that provides concrete facts which indicates clear structural and institutional issues (e.g. employment and pay gaps). However, to develop solutions there is must be a complementary approach to address common, broad challenges (e.g. education and training) and those that require some tailored responses based on the experiences of individual communities or groups. In London activity is being developed to ensure there is a robust response to exacerbated disparities around employment and opportunity for 'BAME' Londoners. Across London local government boroughs have developed targeted initiatives to support 'BAME' communities to help them develop skills to enter or re-enter employment. Furthermore, within the London Recovery Programme, an action plan is being developed that will specifically address structural inequalities in the labour market, including those experienced by 'BAME' communities and this will be reflected in the membership of the steering/expert group overseeing the development of the action plan. Reflecting on our own learning **in relation to employment and opportunities** and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following **key lines of inquiry:** - Addressing barriers and developing solutions with affected communities. There are clear structural and institutional barriers that prevent 'BAME' people from thriving and their voice is essential to inform solutions. How can we best ensure those voices activity inform solutions are all levels? A group designed to explore this, consisting of representation from 'BAME' businesses and public sector leaders may be an effective means to ensure this. - Working with employers - the role of employers is often overlooked, however it is essential that they are included within solutions to both understand their perspective and to encourage them and incorporate them on the journey to become more inclusive. Some studies find that more diverse business, including ethnic diversity, are often higher performing which reinforces the business case for inclusivity. In London there is a challenge around diversity and inclusivity within growth sectors in the economy e.g. the creative and cultural industries and green economy, hence it is important to actively engage and focus and specific sectors. - Equal access to skills development - how can public sector agencies and businesses enable access to skills that can support people, from all ethnic backgrounds, into good and rewarding work? ## Health Inequalities (Questions 6 & 7) 35. London'S Population Is Diverse And Complex, With A Growing Population That Is Predicted To Increase By 3 million people by 2050, reaching a potential 10.5 million by 204127. In relation to ethnic diversity, 40% of Londoners identify themselves as 'BAME', compared to 45% from the white British community, furthermore 26 boroughs are within the most diverse areas in the country. This ethnic diversity is also accompanied by different health needs and inequalities - for example 'BAME' communities are more likely to suffer from infectious diseases, including HIV, tuberculosis, Hepatitis B and C which are compounded by related issues such as deprivation. Additionally, there are also challenges around mental health which also affect overall health outcomes. This section will outline the health inequalities in London including the drivers of these, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic, and describe the activity in London local government to tackle this. ## The Impact Of Covid On Bame Londoners 36. The Public Health England Review 'Beyond The Data: Understanding The Impact Of Covid-19 On Bame groups' (June, 2020) provided the first indication about the disproportionate impact on certain groups, including analysis where people lived and how their occupation made these groups more vulnerable to Covid. The research also included extensive engagement with 4,000 stakeholders from a range of communities across London. The findings suggested that Covid exacerbated and exposed the already deep-seated health inequalities in London, and that the impact of the pandemic did not affect all groups equally. The key findings revealed the following: - The highest age standardised diagnosis rates of Covid-19 per 100,000 population were in Black ethnic groups, 486 in females and 649 in males. Compared to the White population reporting 220 in females and 224 in males. - 'BAME' groups were more likely to be tested and to test positive. - 'BAME' have an increased risk of death associated with Covid. - Ethnicity and income inequality are interdependently associated with Covid-19 mortality. - Mortality rates were higher for residents living in more deprives areas of London. 37. A later PHE report 'Disparities in the Risk and Outcomes of Covid-19' provided an analysis based on PHE surveillance data, providing a better understanding of the impact of the pandemic on 'BAME' communities. The areas identified in terms of the impact of the Covid include: - Age is the greatest factor of people diagnosed with Covid, people over the age or 80 were most at risk, were 70 times more likely to die than those aged under 40 years old. - The risk of Covid cases was higher in those in 'BAME' groups. Among those tested positive for Covid, people from the Bangladeshi ethnicity had twice the risk of death compared to the White British community. - People of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, other Asian, Caribbean and other Black ethnicity and had between 10% and 50% higher risk of death compared to the White British community. - Critical care admissions were 28% more likely in South Asian and 36% more likely in Black ethnic groups, compared to white counterparts (considering age, sex and location). 38. The impact of Covid on 'BAME' communities, must also consider the external factors impacting on the disproportionality. There is also a propensity for economic disadvantage to be associated with unhealthy behaviours such as smoking, obesity, diabetes and hypertension, making Covid symptoms more severe and fatal. Those with pre-existing health conditions, such a diabetes and obesity, which are more prevalent in 'BAME' communities, increased the risk of having severe infection, this is exacerbated when examining living in deprived areas, where there is a higher percentage of people living with chronic diseases and long term conditions. 39. Economic factors, such as unemployment and poverty also influence mental health outcomes, who are disadvantaged economically, especially those from the migrant, refugee population and those with no recourse to public funds. Much of the focus to improve the mental health of Londoners, is carried forward by the pan-London ThriveLDN28 initiative, which is a London supported programme aimed to protect and improve mental health, recent work is also looking at the impact of Covid on the mental health of Londoners. 40. The 'BAME' population are more likely to work in front line positions within the NHS and care sector, with less access to PPE equipment. Care workers nursing auxiliaries, security guards and transport workers, and those working outside of the home, giving rise to a greater exposure of Covid. 'BAME' groups are more likely to use the public transport system to travel to and from work. Equally, people living in poor and high density housing are more at risk, including those living in intergenerational households, along with poor quality and overcrowded housing. 41. A great concern was the response from stakeholders who expressed fear and dismay about the knowledge that their 'BAME' communities were disproportionately impacted. More critically, it revealed that these communities suffered stigma and discrimination, especially among key workers working, working to support those in ill health. The report also revealed that fewer people from ethnic communities are less likely to seek medical help, from fear of being diagnosed with Covid, and present late to medical services, fuelling the lack of trust in medical services and heath care. ## London Local Government Activity 42. London's local government are required to have due regard to reduce health inequalities within their communities. All boroughs are required to produce a local Health Inequalities which sets out the actions each authority wishes to take to reduce the gap within 'BAME' communities. Complementing this work, is the role the Health and Wellbeing Boards, who have a leadership role to promote health equalities as a key element of their work. 43. Following the findings of the initial PHE report, the London Health Board, which is Chaired by the Mayor of London, and represents a range of health partners agreed to set up a Health Equity Group (HEG). The HEG, Chaired by Kevin Fenton (Regional Director for London, PHE) and Will Tuckley (Chief Executive, LB Tower Hamlets), is tasked with addressing immediate issues facing communities, supporting learning from the Covid Response and reducing the impact 'BAME' groups and those with other protected characteristics. 44. At a borough level Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), are working together across London to address health inequalities to build on what they know about their communities, in order to be more responsive to their local population. This includes focusing on population health and gathering data to implement local responses to reducing health inequalities. Activities already being supported include mobilising communities and faith leaders to work with vulnerable communities, and supporting prevention activity, focussing on prevention programmes that can be replicated across London, considering how place and the environment has an impact. This includes looking at how houses in multiple occupation and multigenerational and anchor institutions can support this agenda and making best use of digital intelligence and behavioural insights. 45. London Councils is also supporting the work of the London Vision29 which has a goal to make London the healthiest global city and tackle persistent and structural inequalities of outcome. Through this health partners have committed to reduce the significant and persistent resistant inequalities, promote good health and tackle the causes of poor health. There is commitment to reflect on the experiences of Covid and provide city wide responsive action. Reflecting on our own learning **around health inequalities** and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following **key lines of inquiry:** - Making better use of data - across the system there is an opportunity for public agencies to determine how to better use data to understand the challenges, outcomes and experiences for different ethnic groups i.e. by incorporating learning from the pandemic response and outcomes, how data can be used to improve health outcomes? Across London's health partnerships we are exploring a range of activity, including how to improve mandatory ethnic data collection at death certification; support community participatory research; accelerate the development of culturally competent occupational risk assessment tools; fund and develop culturally competent COVID-19 campaigns and programmes; and ensure that COVID-19 recovery strategies actively reduce inequalities caused by the wider determinants of health to create long term sustainable change. - Locally led responses - communities understand local needs and, as evidenced in the initial lockdown, there is appetite for people to provide active help and support within their local communities. It is essential to ensure communities are embedded within solutions to ethnic and community health inequalities and there is a role for the public sector, with community leaders, to facilitate this. Working in partnership, at local ICS level where there is work being undertaken to support and re-engage with local communities and to co-produce responses tailored to their special needs. - Public health resourcing - the public health grant, which funds local authorities to carry out public health duties, has fallen substantially since 2015. Currently (2020/21) London receives around £649 million funding allocation, £69.64 per head of population - in 2015/16 funding amounted to £698 million, £80.75 per head. In real terms, funding has fallen by £55.8 million since 2015, the equivalent of -13% fall per Londoner. Public health services are at the heart of the pandemic response and the reduction in funding continues to limit to amount of support boroughs, with partners can provide to vulnerable people. The case needs to be made for a substantial increase in public health funding for 2021/2022, across the country, to ensure that the public sectors commitment to public health prevention and activities is sustainable in the longer term. ## Crime & Policing (Question 8 & 9) 46. Disproportionality In The Criminal Justice System (Cjs) And Associated Challenges Around Trust And confidence have been an area of persistent concern both within the London and national contexts. In London the core concern is the link between racial inequality and disproportionate outcomes within the CJS. Black communities, and particularly young Black men, are over-represented and are more likely to experience disproportionate outcomes in the CJS, including the Youth Justice System (YJS). However, the disproportionate outcomes we see in the CJS are, to a significant extent, the product of underlying inequalities that can best be solved by tackling the wider systemic, societal and institutional challenges. This section will highlight the issues in London and identify some of the activity in local government to tackle this. 47. 'BAME' Londoners, particularly those from Black communities, are more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes when encountering the CJS. These issues are exacerbated when examining the YJS which is characterised by over-representation of 'BAME' - particularly Black - children and young people who also have different experiences (whether it be decisions or outcomes) throughout most processes in the system. For example: - Black children are more likely to be arrested than White or Asian children. - White children are more likely to get a caution than Black children. - Black children occupy higher representation in more serious offence groups. - BAME children are more likely to be sentenced to custody. - Black children have experienced the lowest rate of decrease in first time entrants. 48. When interrogating this further, young Black men experience disparity arguably at every stage of the CJS - from policing, through the court system, to prisons and probation. For example, young Black men disproportionately: - Experience a lack of trust and associated animosity with law enforcement. - Experience the hard end of police enforcement (stop and search; tasers; traffic stops). - Experience formal sanctions rather than formal/ informal warnings and out of court disposals, reaching all the way to imprisonment (the court system amplifies disproportionality from the earlier stages of the journey of young Black men). 49. Furthermore, linked to outcomes within the system, the latest national report on youth offending services inspections30 makes emerging findings around the quality of provision for different ethnic groups; whereby, of the inspected out of court cases those involving Asian young people received far better quality of provision than any other ethnic group. Additionally, in London, people of an Asian background have experienced the largest decrease of any ethnic group in custody (-28.8% compared to an average -12%) and the largest decrease in remands for Asian young people31. 50. There are many partners across the system that are working to tackle this disproportionality, including a range of service areas in local government that are a contributing to this agenda. This response will draw upon the example that aim to tackle and reduce disproportionality with youth offending, which then has crucial and subsequent impact on young people's lives and possible paths towards criminality. Within these examples, it is important to recognise that visible action is essential to help build trust between communities and criminal justice agencies. ## Youth Offending Teams (Yots) 51. YOTs have an instrumental role in tackling and preventing criminality among young people, this includes active work to support those groups that are more likely to encounter the YJS and experience subsequent disproportionate outcomes. Many YOTs have been providing tailored and appropriate services and support to these groups. The following are examples of the work and activity being undertaken across boroughs, by YOTs to tackle disproportionality: - Diverting young people away from the courts - Out of Court Disposals (OOCD). OOCDs are an effective way of providing a victim focused and constructive solution to an offence which can also divert or 'triage' young people away from the CJS. However, this option is currently under-utilised by young Black people - hence we see this group over-represented for first-time offending, reoffending and in youth prisons. The causes of this link to a lack trust and confidence in the CJS (i.e. increased likelihood of 'no comment' interviews) and a lack understanding about the options available to them having committed an offence. To tackle this, boroughs have taken steps to actively promote and raise awareness of the alternative options available to those young people who have committed an offence and, by working with partners, seek to increase the use of this option having recognised this as an important contributor to reducing the disproportionate number of young Black people experiencing court outcomes. At the heart of this approach is building relationships with young people and their communities - being transparent around the options available to them and actively diverting them away from the courts contributes significantly towards developing trust. - YOTs also contribute to broader activity being driven by the YJB, for example through the disproportionality toolkit and their submissions to the YJB on national standards. The toolkit enables teams to identify where in the system disproportionality occurs and through submissions to the YJB YOTs outline a cross-sector action plan (involving all key stakeholders) to tackle disproportionality. Through this there are examples of local collaborations to deliver change such as Haringey and Islington YOTs are working with City University in relation to serious youth violence and disproportionality32 33. ## Children'S Services 52. London local governments Children's Services have a core role in supporting young people and ensuring they can thrive throughout life. Across London, boroughs have been undertaking proactive work to improve outcomes for young people from different ethnic backgrounds - this includes an active role in tackling racial inequality. In addition to work of individual borough services, the London Innovation and Improvement Alliance34 have a dedicated disproportionality and anti-racism workstream which attempts to collate good practice across London. Examples of positive action includes: - Establishing Youth Justice disproportionality sub-regional working groups, led by Directors of Children's Services, dedicated to reducing racial disparities for 'BAME' young people, particularly those from Black communities. The first of these groups have been established in North Central London with other sub-regions expected to follow and develop their own networks. - Directors of Children's Services have been working with the YJB on a proposed alternative to custody provision in the London Accommodation Pathfinder project. Children from London are overrepresented in the secure estate and 80% of those receiving a remand or custodial sentence are from 'BAME' backgrounds. The proposed provision will comprise four houses across London providing for twenty places which will be a direct alternative to custody. The Pathfinder will test approaches which, if successful, will directly address the disproportionate use of custody for 'BAME' and particularly young Black men in London. ## The Broader Programme Of Activity 53. The activity of YOTs and Children's Services is part of a broader programme within London local government and across other criminal justice agencies to tackle disproportionality in the CJS. This programme consists of a breadth of action that recognising a range of barriers that must be unlocked across the system if we are develop meaningful and effective solution. The following high-level actions have been committed to by London local government: - Working with partners to build on local activity to establish a strategic pan-London approach around serious youth violence and child criminal exploitation. This is in recognition of clear synergies around the cohort of children that two areas often work with and the negative impact and experience these children experience. - Developing the work of London boroughs to support and advocate for young people, in particular to keep them out of the CJS. For example, reviewing existing contracts for appropriate adult services provision and understanding existing activity and levels of consistency across London. - Improving data by developing existing data repositories (e.g. London Innovation and Improvement Alliance data) to establish a pan-London pitch around critical milestones, with the view of identifying when and what interventions are required. This entails improving data sharing and accessibility in relation to understanding and tackling disproportionality in the CJS, including challenges during the key life milestones of a child or young person's development, and then developing a data dashboard that maps the outcomes and experiences in London for different ethnic groups (i.e. broken down by ethnicity) during key development milestones (e.g. education, mental health, deprivation) and within the CJS (e.g. pre-court; court; secure estate). - Sharing best practice - the good practice shared in this section exemplifies the positive activity underway and the need for partners to do more to promote, learn from and share experiences and outcomes e.g. proactive activity in schools to tackle disproportionate outcomes and sub-regional activity dedicated to tackle racial inequality. There is also merit in prioritising the identification and dissemination of good practice to help establish an immediate impact on practitioners' day-to-day work. Reflecting on our own learning **in disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System** and to help inform possible solutions, we propose the Commission focuses on the following **key lines of inquiry:** - How to understand and tackle the 'upstream' drivers of disproportionality in the CJS: o This would allow a strategic response to disproportionality within the CJS, whilst recognising that the challenges around trust and confidence impacts everyone within the effected communities and ethnic groups. There must be responses for all cohorts within these groups. o A focus on developing solutions for young people is essential, not only because of presenting vulnerabilities, but also as a platform for generational change. o Evidence suggests that criminality for young people is significantly linked with other developmental milestones (education, deprivation etc). Our evidence suggests that locallyled responses that support young people in a joined-up way (learning, for example from the Troubled Families programme) are most effective in turning young people's lives around, and critically, away from criminality o This suggests that the Commission should explore how to support and resource the development of locally led offer that understands existing barriers and challenges and ensures young 'BAME' people have equal opportunities and are able to thrive. This, in turn, will help to deter young people from criminality. - Once in the system, outcomes and experiences for people of Asian backgrounds appears to be improving at a greater rate compared to other ethnic groups. What can we learn from around this? - How to build on and embed promising practice on diverting young people away from the courts - including use of Out of Court Disposals? - How to work with young offenders to develop career opportunities away from criminality? - How to inspire our young people to thrive through the promotion and resourcing of local youth offers that engage creatively with our communities and use inspiring role models to help unlock new, constructive and meaningful opportunities- ranging from sport, volunteering and civic engagement? ## Conclusion 54. The UK currently has an important window of opportunity to establish genuine change that can tackle, reduce and even eradicate persistent ethnic disparities and inequality. Momentum and drive have been developed within our communities, institutions and systems and we must build on this. 55. London local government strives to be at the forefront of driving improvements for our communities and we will continue to develop our programme to ensure the need to tackle racial inequality is embedded in the way we operate as organisations and in the services we deliver. 56. We look forward to seeing the findings and outcomes of the Commission's call for evidence and would welcome the opportunity to be a key partner, working with the commission and wider Government on this important agenda; to pilot any initiative; and to deliver tangible improvements.

en

4892-pdf

# Average Time From Arrest To Sentence For Persistent Young Offenders: April - June 2008 Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin Ministry of Justice and National Statistics logos Published: 4 September 2008 ## Executive Summary Background This Bulletin presents the latest figures on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. These figures are used to monitor the pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days. ## Main Points - The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 56 days for the April-June quarter in 2008 - 4 days lower than in the previous quarter. - The overall average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced in magistrates' courts was 46 days in April-June 2008 - down 4 days from the previous quarter. - Cases sentenced in the Crown Court took an average of 201 days from arrest to sentence during the April-June quarter, down 9 days from the previous quarter. - For the second quarter of 2008, 39 of the 42 criminal justice areas had an average arrest to sentence time of 71 days or less. ## Average Interval From Arrest To Sentence The Bulletin This bulletin contains statistics on the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales. This bulletin presents figures for April - June 2008. In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as more data is entered onto the Police National Computer, and when the arrest dates survey for 2008 has been completed - please see the Notes section for further details. The main body of the bulletin is organised in three parts. This first part contains commentary on the latest figures, the second has detailed tables of results, and the final part comprises of notes on the pledge and methodology used and also includes contact points for enquires. ## England And Wales The average time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders during April - June 2008 was 56 days, 4 days lower than in the previous quarter. The monthly figure for June 2008 was 56 days, equalling the figure for May. Further figures can be found in table 1 (page 6). A graph showing monthly progress from January 1997 is shown in figure 1 below ## Cases Sentenced At Magistrates' Courts For April - June 2008, cases sentenced at magistrates' courts represented 93 per cent of all persistent young offender cases. As table 2 (page 7) shows, the overall average time from arrest to sentence for these cases was 46 days, down 4 days from the previous quarter. ## Cases Sentenced At The Crown Court The average time from arrest to sentence for cases sentenced at the Crown Court during April - June 2008 was 201 days, down 9 days from the previous quarter. For further figures please see table 3 (page 8). Cases sentenced at the Crown Court include both time spent in magistrates' courts before committal to the Crown Court and time spent in Crown Court proceedings after committal. However, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these periods separately. The average arrest to sentence times for cases sentenced at the Crown Court and magistrates' courts between January 1999 and June 2008 are shown separately in figure 2 below. ## Criminal Justice System Areas A breakdown by criminal justice area on a three-month rolling average basis is shown in table 4 (page 9). On this basis, the number of areas achieving the 71-day target in the latest period (April - June 2008) was 39, as shown in figure 3 and 4 below. | | Table 1: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent | |--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | young offenders in England and Wales | | | Period | Days | | 1996 | 142 | | 1997 | 141 | | 1998 | 125 | | 1999 | 108 | | 2000 | | | (1) | | | 95 | 23,131 | | 2001 | 76 | | 2002 | 68 | | 2003 | | | (1) | | | 66 | 26,086 | | 2004 | 69 | | 2005 | 68 | | 2006 | 72 | | 2007 | 65 | | 2007 | | | January - March | | | 72 | 7,813 | | April - June | | | 67 | 7,928 | | July - September | | | 62 | 7,766 | | October - December | | | 60 | 7,176 | | 2008 | | | January - March (r) | | | 60 | 7,251 (+18) | | April - June | | | 56 | 7,389 | | 2,618 | | | 2,486 | | | 2007 | | | January | | | February | | | (1) | | | 72 | | | 69 | | | March | | | 73 | 2,709 | | 2,530 | | | 2,733 | | | April | | | May | | | (1) | | | 70 | | | 66 | | | June | 64 | | July | | | 64 | 2,690 | | August | | | 62 | 2,668 | | September | | | 60 | 2,408 | | October | | | 62 | 2,688 | | November | | | 59 | 2,625 | | December | | | 61 | 1,863 | | 2008 | | | (2) | | | January (r) | 62 | | February (r) | 62 | | March (r) | 56 | | April (r) | 57 | | May (r) | 56 | | June (r) | 56 | | July (p) | 54 | Notes: All period figures denoted by - are not applicable. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. | | Table 2: Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | young offenders sentenced at Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales | | | Period | Days | | 1999 | 96 | | 2000 | | | (1) | | | 83 | 21,146 | | 2001 | 68 | | 2002 | | | (1) | | | 63 | 24,280 | | 2003 | | | (1) | | | 58 | 24,481 | | 2004 | 61 | | 2005 | | | (1) | | | 61 | 25,498 | | 2006 | 63 | | 2007 | 57 | | 2007 | January - March | | 63 | 7,351 | | April - June | | | 58 | 7,469 | | July - September | | | 54 | 7,332 | | October - December | | | 51 | 6,752 | | 2008 | | | January - March (r) | | | 50 | 6,782 (+15) | | April - June | | | 46 | 6,890 | | 2007 | | | January | | | 64 | 2,484 | | February | 61 | | March | | | 63 | 2,517 | | April | | | 61 | 2,372 | | May | 58 | | June | 56 | | July | | | 56 | 2,554 | | August | | | 54 | 2,500 | | September | | | 51 | 2,278 | | October | | | 52 | 2,527 | | November | | | 50 | 2,487 | | December | | | 50 | 1,738 | | 2008 | | | (2) | | | January (r) | 52 | | February (r) | 51 | | March (r) | 46 | | April (r) | 47 | | May (r) | 45 | | June (r) | 45 | | July (p) | 45 | Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. young offenders sentenced at the Crown Court in England and Wales | Period | Days | Number of cases | |---------------------|----------|--------------------| | 1999 | 212 | 2,271 | | 2000 | 218 | 1,976 | | 2001 | 196 | 1,632 | | 2002 | | | | (1) | | | | 178 | 1,829 | | | 2003 | | | | (1) | | | | 188 | 1,590 | | | 2004 | 186 | 1,653 | | 2005 | | | | (1) | | | | 192 | 1,526 | | | 2006 | 214 | 1,704 | | 2007 | 206 | 1,769 | | 2007 | | | | | | | | January - March | | | | 210 | 459 | | | April - June | | | | 206 | 456 | | | July - September | | | | 197 | 433 | | | October - December | | | | 213 | 421 | | | 2008 | | | | January - March (r) | | | | 210 | 453 (+3) | | | April - June | | | | 201 | 490 | | | 2007 | | | | January | | | | 213 | 132 | | | February | 214 | 136 | | March | | | | 206 | 191 | | | April | | | | 208 | 156 | | | May | 216 | 148 | | June | 193 | 150 | | July | 200 | 136 | | August | | | | 187 | 167 | | | September | | | | 207 | 130 | | | October | | | | 220 | 160 | | | November | | | | 213 | 138 | | | December | | | | 204 | 123 | | | 2008 | | | | (2) | | | | January (r) | 223 | 145 | | February (r) | 204 (+1) | 177 (+1) | | March (r) | 202 (-1) | 131 (+2) | | April (r) | 201 | 158 (+2) | | May (r) | 201 | 173 (-1) | | June | 200 | 159 | Notes: All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. All period figures denoted by (p) are based on provisional data. (1) Full application of the new methodology (to remove double counting of Arrest to Charge survey time) required the re calculating of time-series figures. This has resulted in the substantive changes on the previously published numbers. (2) In-year figures for 2008 will be revised as when the arrest dates from the annual Arrest to Charge survey for 2008 are collected in March 2009. Area (1) Nov 07 to Dec 07 to Jan 08 to Feb 08 to Mar 08 to Apr 08 to Jan 08 (r) Feb 08 (r) Mar 08 (r) Apr 08 (r) May 08 (r) Jun 08 Avon and Somerset 66 67 69 67 71 76 Bedfordshire 66 58 49 66 68 68 Cambridgeshire 49 56 65 67 68 65 Cheshire 32 35 37 41 44 44 Cleveland 63 63 63 60 51 53 Cumbria 53 52 58 50 49 46 Derbyshire 52 48 46 45 51 55 Devon and Cornwall 60 61 62 58 53 43 Dorset 54 64 61 75 57 53 Durham 48 55 48 47 35 42 Dyfed-Powys 52 45 54 55 49 38 Essex 53 57 59 52 44 41 Gloucestershire 74 72 69 55 60 62 Greater Manchester 62 61 54 52 53 54 Gwent 42 54 54 58 59 69 Hampshire 63 67 65 62 58 61 Hertfordshire 95 74 69 61 58 66 Humberside 58 62 62 58 49 51 Kent 59 65 68 68 65 77 Lancashire 66 65 56 50 47 48 Leicestershire 63 69 70 73 75 74 Lincolnshire 43 55 86 78 92 68 Merseyside 71 65 57 58 60 59 Metropolitan 72 73 72 71 70 69 Norfolk 52 57 48 43 53 54 North Wales 45 58 61 56 55 53 North Yorkshire 60 62 59 55 48 46 Northamptonshire 53 56 59 50 55 60 Northumbria 61 59 56 53 53 46 Nottinghamshire 58 65 68 71 67 63 South Wales 60 63 65 56 55 51 South Yorkshire 72 76 66 69 59 55 Staffordshire 51 60 64 56 49 47 Suffolk 52 46 49 47 47 43 Surrey 66 78 71 56 43 40 Sussex 64 67 60 52 44 43 Thames Valley 64 65 63 62 60 51 Warwickshire 49 45 62 46 43 31 West Mercia 50 44 42 48 48 52 West Midlands 53 55 53 52 52 56 West Yorkshire 59 61 61 65 62 67 Wiltshire 59 62 69 64 50 63 British Transport Police 69 60 51 62 57 68 England and Wales 60 62 60 58 56 56 Note: All Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and should be interpreted with particular care. All period figures denoted by (r) are based on revised data and replace those provided in the last bulletin in the series. (1) The area classification is based on the Police Force that investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons details on the Police National Computer. In a small proportion of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been handled in different areas to that which first recorded the cases. ## Notes To The Pledge The Pledge 1. The original Government pledge was to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days by 2002. The timely process of these offenders at the target level remains an ongoing commitment. 2. Overall responsibility for the pledge is shared jointly by all Criminal Justice System departments and agencies. However, the agency with the lead responsibility for overseeing delivery nationally is the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. 3. From 2005, the pledge has been applied to all Criminal Justice System areas, who are required to achieve the compliance target on a consistent basis. The Local Criminal Justice Boards are responsible for delivery in the local areas. 4. Since 1997, this National Statistics bulletin published by the Ministry of Justice has presented national and local performance against the target. ## Notes To The Data And Methodology Data Sources 5. The raw data used to identify persistent young offenders, and to calculate the average time interval from arrest to sentence across relevant cases are: - the Police National Computer, which is the police's central management information database. The source provides a full collection of cases, and all the variables needed to determine the offenders classification and to contribute to the calculation of performance against the target; and - the annual Arrest to Charge survey, which is an annual sample survey designed to enable the calculation of robust representative estimates of subsidiary time from the initial to the process stage. Please see the definitional and calculation rules for details on data usage. ## Paths Through The System 6. Offenders can take two paths through the Criminal Justice System: - one where they are arrested and subsequently processed by the police, then listed to appear in court for however many hearings are necessary until the session where the sentence is passed on them; and - another where they are reported and information is laid against them by the police, then they are summoned to appear in court for however many hearings until the final session where the sentence is passed on them. ## Definitional Rules 7. The data used to identify whether a defendant found guilty of an offence is a persistent young offender comes from the Police National Computer. Under the counting rules such an offender is: - a young person who is aged 10 to 17 at the point of process, and 18 or under at the start of the calendar year in which they are sentenced guilty of an offence; - who has been sentenced guilty of offences by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions in the past for one or more recordable offences on each of the occasions; and - within 3 years of the last of these sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested and then found guilty of at least one more recordable offence. Under this definition, it is possible for young adults aged 18 and 19 years at sentence, but not those aged 20 years or over, to fall in the category. ## Calculation Rules 8. The full data used to calculate the overall interval between the initial stage (arrest or reporting / information laid) and the sentence stage for the cases of persistent young offenders comes from the Police National Computer in the main. 9. However, some additional data from the annual Arrest to Charge survey is used in the calculations for an ever-decreasing number of cases. For this minority of cases, survey results are used as proxy for time from the initial to process (charge or summons) stage, where that time is not recorded on the main data source. This time is then added to the usually larger interval from process to sentence stage derived from the aforementioned source. 10. The overall interval is commonly known as the average time from arrest to sentence, owing to the fact the vast majority of cases pass through that path. It can essentially be a national, sentencing court type jurisdiction or local area average of the intervals of all relevant cases in a given period. ## Additional Notes National Statistics 11.This is a National Statistics publication produced by the Ministry of Justice. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference. ## The Bulletin 12.The Ministry of Justice has produced the figures in this bulletin with assistance from the data source owner in the National Policing Improvement Agency. 13.The figures presented in this bulletin are obtained from separate monitoring exercises run on successive monthly data extractions from the Police National Computer from 1997. 14.In accordance with the counting rules, the bulletin covers all cases sentenced in magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales that are recorded on the Police National Computer. ## The Definition 15.A persistent young offender was first defined in the inter-departmental circular 'Tackling delays in the Youth Justice System' issued on 15 October 1997: "A persistent young offender is a young person aged 10-17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against them for a further recordable offence." 16.Individuals can fall within this definition at the date of sentence. This happens where offenders are brought into the group by virtue of one or more offences committed after but dealt with before the fourth sentencing occasion. Essentially, this rearranges the usual order of counting occasions, so that offences which would not be expected to fall on the final occasion do so; with the longest lasting case then contributing to the arrest to sentence averages. ## The Calculations 17.In the instance where an offender is sentenced for more than one offence on the fourth sentencing occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the arrest to sentence averages. ## The Extraction 18.All cases in the consecutive counting of sentencing occasions are extracted from the source. However, some of them are then excluded from the monitoring exercise because the offences were: - committed outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; - handled by a police force outside England and Wales, other than cases handled by the British Transport Police; - proceeded with in courts outside England and Wales; - resulted in no convictions being brought against the offender, for example where individuals were acquitted or cases against them discounted; and - breaches of previous sentence order, for example probation orders. However, from 1 January 2005 breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have been included in the exercise. ## The Amended Methodology 19.From May 2006, all arrest to sentence figures have been calculated using an amended methodology. This new approach has been applied to remove the double counting of Arrest to Charge time for offences processed at arrest, or else that where overall time is recorded on the Police National Computer. 20.The new methodology has been retrospectively applied to backdated periods, so that all time-series are consistent within this bulletin and others released since the change. However, changes to statistics published prior to May 2006 may be partly or wholly due to this amendment and are not comparable. ## The Provisional Statistics 21.From April 2007, more up to date statistics have been made available in this bulletin. The introduction of 2 months in arrears statistics has augmented the headline 3 month in arrears figures. 22.These provisional statistics were introduced after a longitudinal study of data collections from the Police National Computer, which revealed that from January 2005 around 95% of records are consistently inputted 2 months in arrears in England and Wales. 23.The collection of more data earlier has meant that 2 months in arrears statistics have become closer to the published National Statistics for England and Wales and for cases heard in magistrates' courts. These provisional statistics are adjusted in the order reflect observed historical and seasonal fluctuations. ## The Survey 24.The Arrest to Charge survey collects arrest or information laid dates in March for a representative sample of cases for the previous calendar year. 25.Respondents in each of the police constabularies and the British Transport Police complete the survey forms sent by the Ministry of Justice. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary champions the survey, and helps to ensure its prompt completion. 26.In the instance where survey forms contain offenders with more than one offence sentenced on a single occasion, only the longest running of these cases will contribute to the survey results. 27.The previous year's survey estimates are used to calculate in-year arrest to sentence figures until the current survey results are available. ## Symbols And Conventions The following symbols have been used throughout the tables in this bulletin: | - | Not applicable | |-----|-------------------| | 0 | Nil | | .. | Not available | | (r) | Revised data | | (p) | Provisional data | ## Contact Points For Further Information Current and previous editions of this publication are available for download at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/averagetimearresttosentencepyo.htm This bulletin, together with other information about delay in persistent young offender cases can also be found on the Youth Justice Board's reducing delays internet site at: www.yjb.gov.uk/en-b/practitioners/MonitoringPerformance/ReducingDelays/ Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: Press Office Ministry of Justice 9th Floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW Tel: 020 7210 8512 / 8513 Email: press.office@justice.gsi.gov.uk Other enquires about the statistics and requests for additional copies of this bulletin should be directed to: Trushar Pandya Economics and Statistics Division Ministry of Justice 5th floor Selborne House 54–60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW Tel: 020 7210 8910 Email: trushar.pandya@justice.gsi.gov.uk General enquires about the statistical work of the Ministry of Justice can be emailed to: esd@justice.gsi.gov.uk Other National Statistics publications and general information about the official statistics system in the UK are available from: www.statistics.gov.uk

en

4641-pdf

(Notice 1: This notice is to be printed and served on individuals if Certificate B or C is completed) Proposed development at: Take notice that application is being made by: Any owner of the land or tenant who wishes to make representations about this application, should write to the council within 21 days of the date of this notice. Signature Date (dd-mm-yyyy) Statement of owners' rights: The grant of planning permission does not affect owners' rights to retain or dispose of their property, unless there is some provision to the contrary in an agreement or lease. Statement of agricultural tenants' rights: The grant of planning permission for nonagricultural development may affect agricultural tenants' security of tenure. 'Owner' means a person having a freehold interest or a leasehold interest the unexpired term of which is not less than seven years. 'Tenant' means a tenant of an agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in the land.

en

3634-pdf

## Licensing Forum Tuesday 1 November 2016 Conference Room A The National Archives Kew | 10.15-10.45 | Arrival and Coffee | | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----| | | | | | | | | | 10.45-11.00 | Introductory Remarks and News from TNA | | | Malcolm Todd | | | | | | | | 11.00-11.40 | Public Sector Mapping Agreement | | | Jamie Clark, BEIS | | | | 11.40-12.10 | Research and Education Space project | | | Richard Leeming, RES | | | | | | | | 12.10-12.55 | Software Licensing | | | James Lafferty | | | | 12.55-14.00 | Lunch | | | | | | | 14.00-14.40 | Land Registry Open Data | | | Lynne Nicholson, Land Registry | | | | | | | | 14.40-14.55 | Update on the IFTS Review | | | John Williams | | | | | | | | 14.55-15.00 | Arrangements for Next Meeting and Closing | | | Remarks | | | | John Williams | | | | | | |

en

2795-pdf

## Share Museums East Forward Planning A Practical Guide For Museums Supporting excellence, resilience and cooperative working in museums in the East of England. ## Acknowledgements SHARE Museums East would like to thank the pilot group of museums who, through working through the process, contributed so much to the development of this guidance. Since the pilot some have moved on. Nonetheless, we would especially like to thank: - Kate Brown, Cambridgeshire Museums Development Officer - Polly Hodgson, Curator of Cambridge and County Folk Museum - Beverley Donaldson, Partnership Officer at Cambridge Museums Advisory Partnership - Corinna Bower, Curator of Denny Abbey and Farmland Museum - Liz Davies, Nene Valley Railway All were generous in allowing us to SHARE examples from their plans and experience. We also want to acknowledge the work of Margaret Greeves, former Assistant Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum and founder member of the SHARE Steering Group. In leading museums together through the Forward Planning process she has embodied the spirit of SHARE Museums East. Through our ongoing Forward Planning cohorts she continues to support museums across the East of England to develop and implement their forward plans in imaginative and practical ways. This document is largely her work. ## Introduction This practical guide is written for curators and managers who will lead the planning process for their museum. It explores strategic planning through a series of steps that have been developed with a pilot group of museums in Cambridgeshire. The planning process is designed to win support for the organisation's vision, to articulate its strategic priorities, set objectives and allocate resources to support them. It can be used by any arts organisation with a collection and an audience. Many excellent toolkits and guidance materials are freely available online and have been consulted in the preparation this guide. Our document differs in style while matching the requirements of Arts Council England's Accreditation 2012. It is a simple mapping document that shows how to lead the planning process to gain maximum 'buy in' from stakeholders, staff and supporters. SHARE Museums East continues to engage cohorts of museums in Forward Planning work, using the process outlined here as a guide. ## Why Forward Planning? All organisations achieve their aims with less effort, in less time and to greater effect, if they plan. This is particularly true where an organisation has a limited number of staff and relies on enthusiasts and volunteers. The process of planning, particularly the consultation undertaken during the development of the plan, is just as important as the final plan document. Consultation builds consensus and reinforces support for the achievement of the planned aims and objectives. The forward planning process therefore has the potential to refresh or even redefine the purpose and direction of your museum and to energise everyone in the process. ## Using This Guide This Guide will help you to develop the Forward Plan in two closely linked parts ## - The Master Plan - The Action Plan These are designed to serve two distinct audiences and purposes. The Master Plan gives strategic guidance to the governing body and the staff and is a public document. As well as defining the direction of your organisation for all those involved a Master Plan, signed off by the Board, can be used in support of your Accreditation application (or return) and can be sent to the principal funder, to new funders, potential partners and funding bodies. The Action Plan is the day-to-day practical guide that ensures the aims and objectives of the Master Plan are implemented within a framework of available time and resources. It is, in effect, a 'who does what' document. ## The Master Plan And Action Plan Will Achieve Better Understanding Of What Must Be Done And What Must Wait And Why. The Guide is organised in four stages: - Preparation - gathering information - Consultation - involving others - Master Plan - the strategic public document - Action Plan - the operational delivery plan. We also include checklists, resources, links, ideas and examples to support the process. ## Forward Planning Step By Step Follow this process to bring your trustees, stakeholders, staff and volunteers with you as you write your plan. 1 Understand the planning process. Use it flexibly to determine the strategic direction of your museum. 2 Gather and review previous plans and information on current performance. 3 Involve others: Decide how you will involve your trustees or management board, staff and volunteers, stakeholders and supporters. 4 Discuss the vision for the future with the chair of your board and develop values with your staff. 5 Begin drafting your new Master Plan. 6 I**dentify priorities** for the plan period. 7 Prepare a financial statement for the year preceding the plan period and income and expenditure for each year of the plan period 8 Gain the approval of the board for the Master Plan 9 Draw up the Action Plan for the delivery of the priorities, assigning staff and budget across SMART objectives. Discuss and agree this with the team who will deliver it. 10 **Use the Action Plan** to check off your achievements as you proceed, reporting to meetings of the Board. Use this to prepare your annual review. ## Contents Page | 1 | Preparation | |-----|------------------------------------------------| | 7 | | | | | | 1.1 | Accreditation | | 1.2 | Gathering information | | 1.3 | Committing ideas to paper | | 1.4 | Reviewing past achievements | | 2 | Consultations | | 10 | | | 2.1 | Chair of Trustees/Museum Lead - establish the | | 2.2 | Management team | | 2.3 | Trustees | | 2.4 | Staff groups | | 2.5 | Audience groups | | 2.6 | Key stakeholders | | 2.7 | Other supporters | ## 3 Drafting Your 'Master' Plan 14 | 3.1 | Introduction to the Museum | 14 | |--------|------------------------------------------------------|------| | 3.2 | Museum Mission | 16 | | 3.3 | Key aims | 17 | | 3.4 | Vision and values | 17 | | 3.5 | Review of previous plan and key achievements | 18 | | 3.6 | Priorities for 3 or 5 years relating to the key aims | 18 | | 3.7 | Income and Expenditure for the period | 19 | | 3.8 | Appendices | | | 3.9 | Risk assessment | 21 | ## 4 The Action Plan 23 | | 4.1 | Writing SMART objectives | 23 | |-----|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|------| | 4.2 | Putting the Plan to use | 25 | | | 4.3 | Managing Staff and Volunteers using the Action Plan | 25 | | | 4.4 | Training and Development | 25 | | ## 5. Appendices: Checklists & Resources 26 | SWOT | Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats | 26 | |-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | PESTEL | Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal | 27 | | SMART | Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic, Time Limited | 28 | | Further ideas for prioritising key aims | 29 | | | Plan presentation | 32 | | | Useful links | 34 | | | RAPT | Risk Awareness Profiling Tool | 34 | | Accreditation standard and checklist | 34 | | ## 1 Preparation In this section: i. Accreditation ii. Gathering information iii. Making notes iv. Reviewing achievements If you follow the steps in this section you will have completed the initial work required for writing a successful forward plan. These include a review of the health of your organisation, consideration of how you care for your collections and how you use them for the benefit of your museum users. ## 1.1 Accreditation ii. The Forward Plan is the backbone of the Accreditation submission. It is the Arts Council's standard by which your museum (if in England) will be judged by its principal funders. Accreditation has been designed to assist museums to conduct their business in a professional manner. It enables museums and governing bodies to assess their current performance, and supports them in planning and developing their services under the headings: - organisational health - collections - museum users' experiences ## The Accreditation Standard Includes The Following Defining Statements About Forward Planning: Effective forward planning is a requirement (1.4) 'the museum must plan effectively for longterm success and to make sure it can adapt in a changing environment in order to survive'. The Forward Plan is a forward-looking document that sets out the detailed aims and objectives of an organisation, to be achieved within a defined planning cycle. It is sometimes called a Business Plan. Forward Planning is a considered way of setting direction and overarching ambition, of taking stock and prioritising work in line with the organisation's statement of purpose and in consultation with its stakeholders, aligning resources with objectives. The statement of purpose and key aims must be approved in all cases by the governing body. If you are unfamiliar with the scheme, it is a good idea to look at it at this stage. http://www. artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supportingmuseums/accreditation-scheme/ For the Accreditation standard download: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/ uploads/pdf/accreditation_standard_ english_web.pdf ## 1.2 Gathering Information Begin by looking at your existing documents. These may include: - plans - funding applications - reports - surveys - local planning documents - any similar material you have in hard copy or on your computer. You will also need the visitor data you have gathered and analysed, such as - comments cards - visitor books - letters - any staff ideas you have encouraged. Set some time to review them. Reading them will remind you how much work you have already done and will stimulate your ideas about what to retain and what to discard. ## 1.3 Making Notes As you prepare to get others involved in the planning process, make sure you keep jotting down ideas that occur to you. Make sure you review your old plans. ## Ask Yourself: - How suitable are your current vision and overarching aims? - If you are planning a major change do you need to alter them? - Do you need to re-phrase the language used to reflect your vision for the future? - How well has your plan served your organisation? - To what extent were objectives achieved? - Have you been over or under-ambitious? - How could you improve the way you communicate your plan to others? ## 1.4 Reviewing Past Achievements Review and note down what you count as Key Achievements. This is a rehearsal for the work with groups you will undertake shortly. ## Ask Yourself: - What contributed to success? - What lessons should be learned? - What impeded your plans? - How might these constraints or barriers still exist? - How might you avoid or overcome them in future? - Consider these questions against each of the following six areas of the museum's activity: 1. **museum as organisation** - staff, volunteers, administration, systems, finance… 2. **collections** - permanent displays, exhibitions, conservation, stores, documentation… 3. **users and their experiences** - access, learning and outreach services, tours, trails… 4. **income generation and fund-raising** - admission, shop/cafe revenue, sale of images, development… 5. **buildings and facilities** - condition, use of spaces, appearance on approach, development… 6. **partnerships** - with other museums, with tourism, in response to other partners… ## Idea - Table It is helpful to write down some initial ideas that look forward in these areas too. Use the table below as a guide and as a discussion tool with colleagues and supporters when consulting with them. | AREA | PAST ACHIEVEMENT | |--------------------------|---| | ORGANISATION | | | COLLECTIONS | | | USERS and EXPERIENCES | | | INCOME and FINANCE | | | BUILDINGS and FACILITIES | | | PARTNERSHIPS | | ## Idea - Checklists You may find the checklists appended to this guidance will help you complete your preparation SWOT for achievements and the museum's state of health PESTEL for analysis of its situation in its environment Guidance on the Accreditation Standard Near the end of this work - ASK YOURSELF: - What ideas and objectives are emerging? - What are the resource implications? Keep making notes to capture all the ideas. Now that you have gathered and reviewed your current plan and examined your museum's achievements and its health in relation to the environment in which it operates, it is time to begin the consultation phase. ## 2 Consultation The purpose of the plan is to align the efforts of all those involved in the work of the museum. To ensure that the plan is implemented, key groups working for or with the museum should be involved in its development and be able to refer back to the plan's key aims and priorities for action. The plan will succeed only if there is good communication with these groups. Consultation on the plan is central to establishing and maintaining that communication. This section explores a variety of ways to engage different groups of people in the planning process. ## Who Should Be Involved? 1 Chair of Trustees/Museum Lead - establish the vision 2 Trustees 3 Staff groups 4 Audience groups 5 Key stakeholders 5 Other supporters ## Practice Example - Visions Here Are Two Different Examples Of Visions To Help You Think About Yours: Cambridge Folk Museum 2012-15 **http://www.folkmuseum.org.uk** "The Folk Museum is the only museum in Cambridge devoted to the history of the City and its people. Our vision is to become the Museum of Cambridge: a resource for the people of Cambridge, which explores and interprets the growth of the City and its surroundings alongside the development of the University. We will consult with new and existing communities and audiences to provide an experience that is thought-provoking and informative. The proximity of the Museum to Kettle's Yard, the historic house and contemporary gallery of the University, offers an opportunity for collaboration. Together with Kettle's Yard, the Museum can offer a destination on the north side of the town, the oldest settlement. The distinct and different nature of the collections and of the spaces in which they are housed offer visitors complementary heritage experiences. By working in partnership with the City, the University, Magdalene College and other local arts organizations, all organizations in the area will benefit from increased visitors." Or much shorter, but to the point, here is the Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service 2008-2011 Vision http://www.cimuseums.org.uk "Our vision is that we will provide a museum service that not only acts as a source of pride, inspiration and fun, for all the diverse peoples of Colchester and Ipswich but is also recognised a one of the best in the country and a role model for others both inside and outside the museum sector". ## 2.1 Chair Of Trustees/Museum Lead Assuming you are the Museum Lead (curator, director or manager) preparing the strategic document that sets the direction for the museum into the future, you need to capture the essence of this direction, the vision. The vision statement should be both **aspirational** and **achievable**: 'blue skies' tempered with practicality. It must capture the passion and determination that will impel the museum forward, but at the same time it must recognise the need to conserve the organisation's energy and consolidate successes. The process of developing the vision must be steered and shared. Initial conversations about the vision and how to express it are most productive when the Chair of the Trustees and the Museum Lead make an opportunity to discuss ideas 'in private and off the record'. Once there is an understanding and a sharing of ambition at this level the rest of the planning process, especially identifying priorities and curbing wild or over ambitious ideas, is made much easier. When you have captured an expression of the vision, you are ready for discussions with colleagues, trustees and supporters. By the end of your consultations all who work with you should share the vision. ## 2.2 Management Team The Museum Lead will lead the planning process with the staff to prepare for a planning meeting with trustees. You will need to be able to show what resources are available, or what may need to be added in order to implement ideas as they are proposed. By sharing the the work in the first section, including the vision, with your senior colleagues, you will ensure that the forward impetus for the whole enterprise comes from the staff at least as strongly as from the trustees. Staff may also know about developments in the museum sector of which trustees may not be aware and which have a bearing on the museum e.g. funding streams, standards, training and development opportunities. In the course of talking with colleagues about the vision you may also feel it is worthwhile capturing the essential values that underpin the way you all work. These may include things such as integrity, commitment to public benefit, collaboration, equal access for all. Once again be sure to capture ideas and responses on paper. PRACTICE EXAMPLE - Values In support of their Strategic Plan the Fitzwilliam Museum staff produced a small booklet in which they explored their values and what each meant for the conduct of the museum as a whole and for an individual member of staff: Fitzwilliam Museum (2010) Values http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk "Excellence, quality, creativity, inclusiveness, imagination, integrity, collaboration, leadership - these are words that we associate with The Fitzwilliam Museum and they express the values we aspire to. They are drawn from the ideas of people through the Museum" ## 2.3 'Trustees' Members of the museum's governing board or committee, the trustees, have responsibility for the museum's governance and its solvency1. The trustees will contribute ideas and respond to those put to them by the Museum Lead on behalf of the staff. They need to be involved in the development of the plan from the outset to assure themselves that the museum is well-run and achieves its purposes. ## Idea: Hold A Planning Meeting With Trustees Ask the trustees to attend a dedicated half or whole day meeting to plan the museum's future. Prepare for the day well. It is a good idea to send some information about the purpose and structure of the day in advance. Begin with a cup of tea or coffee while they gather, then ask them to take a careful look around the buildings - outside, inside, stores and displays. Many museums have found it useful to bring in an outsider to facilitate these discussions. It is often to useful to request that no comments are given during the walk around, but instead, invite Trustees to record all their observations on paper and then pool ideas afterwards in small groups. Listing thoughts and suggestions under the SWOT headings might help. ## 2.4 Staff Groups All members of staff, including key volunteers, should be given an opportunity to contribute to the plan. This is best done when the shape of the proposals is emerging. If this involvement is left until later they may feel that their contributions will not be considered seriously. Try to make sure such meetings are enjoyable - offer some refreshments and use an 'icebreaker' to encourage positive contributions and avoid 'group think'. ## Idea - Unlock Discussion Ask each person to bring along a small object that represents what attracted them to working in museums or expresses why they enjoy working in the museum. Give each person just a couple of minutes to present their object and explain what it represents and why. By the end of these presentations you will already have quite a range of different ideas and an understanding of what motivates each individual, and they will understand one another better and be ready to make useful comments on the draft plan. ## 2.5 Audience Groups Do not forget the visitor or potential visitor. ASK YOURSELF: - Who are your visitors and users? - Why do individuals come? What brings families in? - What new audiences do you wish to attract? - How can your collections be presented to appeal to them? Remember to consider minority groups or new arrivals to the community and any housing developments. If you are able to do so, reach out to them, and think also about 'shut in' people, including those in care and retirement homes. Try to involve people who represent them in consultations when your plan is in draft. Their responses will be valuable and they will be advocates for any new programmes designed to serve them. ## Idea - In The Mind Of The Visitor If you want your trustees or staff to think about users and their experiences invite them in pairs or threes to take on the 'persona' of an audience group and 'visit' the museum in character e.g. older person interested in local history; school student with a project to research; English language student with time to kill; tourist visitor from the UK; foreign tourist visitor etc. Send them out to visit the museum for 15 - 20 minutes and when they return ask them to jot down any ideas for changes or improvements in signage, information, displays, facilities or services. ## 2.6 Key Stakeholders Stakeholders are individuals or organisations for whom the success of your museum is important. They are likely to include: - local preservation groups and those interested in the heritage of the region or community - benefactors and donors of funds, objects or works of art - the city, district, borough or county council - the parent body [e.g local authority or university] - one or more charitable trusts that may be involved in supporting the museum. All of these may be regarded as stakeholders and will expect at the least to be kept informed, or to be consulted on proposed developments. If additional funding is required for the implementation of the plan from any of the stakeholders, or even continued funding at the current level, the stage at which to involve them should be carefully considered. If you are planning to apply for a major grant, check whether you need to share your Forward Plan as it is developed with the funder. ## Idea: Use Others Remember the value of SHARE: resources, networks, training and consultations that are designed to assist museums across the whole range of their activities At all times when you feel the need for a second opinion, as you develop your plan, help is available within the museums community. The museums represented in our group valued meeting and discussing areas of concern with sympathetic colleagues. They said it was "almost like mentoring", "someone to hear what has gone on" that left them "feeling more positive". ## 2.7 Other Supporters Try to build in time for others to contribute to your draft plan. Your local Museum Development Officer should be pleased to be consulted at an early stage in the planning process and will be able to steer you towards funding and expertise in a range of areas. If your museum belongs to a network by virtue of its type, collections or special projects, then colleagues in your network can be very helpful when you are planning. Time permitting, they will be willing to advise and may have experience in an area where you lack it. In keeping them informed about your ideas you may discover opportunities for working together and forming partnerships to develop certain activities and projects. FINALLY - Gather all the information generated by your consultations and review it. Examine and re-draft any existing plan in the light of new ideas. ALWAYS WRITE IT DOWN! ## 3 Drafting Your Master Plan The Master Plan Should Include The Following Elements 1 Introduction to the Museum and its setting 2 Museum Mission 3 Vision and values 4 Key aims 5 Review of previous plan and key achievements 6 Priorities for 3 or 5 years relating to the key aims 7 Income and Expenditure for the period 8 Appendices 9 Risk Assessment This section will consider each element in turn, citing some examples along the way. ## 3.1 Introduction The Master Plan will be a public document. It needs to introduce your museum to readers who are not familiar with it. The introduction should briefly set your institution in its political, environmental and social context. PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION Here is the introduction to the master plan for The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey http://www.dennyfarmlandmuseum.org.uk "The Farmland Museum is an Independent Trust which was formed in 1992 following the establishment of a museum in the village of Haddenham in 1969. The museum is a registered charity and under a Local Management Agreement also manages the historic monuments of Denny Abbey on behalf of English Heritage. The Museum together with English Heritage actively works with other partners and businesses within the cultural life of its surrounding villages in South Cambridgeshire, the cities of Cambridge and Ely and beyond." PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION This example is from the Cambridge and County Folk Museum http://www.folkmuseum.org.uk "The Cambridge & County Folk Museum is an Independent Trust and a company limited by guarantee (no. 412205). The museum is registered with the Charity Commission (no. 311309) and it holds full Museums Accreditation …" [updated additional information for the 2012-2015 plan] "The museum is located within the oldest part of the City where the Romans settled and established the original river crossing on Magdalene Street. This area is now being developed as the creative independent traders' sector of the City in order to encourage visitors away from the city centre. This is to be enhanced by the re-development of Kettle's Yard Gallery next door to the museum, which will enable the Museum to explore and harness new audiences, whilst also offering partnership opportunities. Recent news that the University Museums of Cambridge (UCM) have been recognized by the Arts Council England as a Major Partner Museum provides potential opportunities for further collaborative work with the Folk Museum. The UCM is one of 16 museums and partnerships which are to receive a share of £20m Renaissance major grants funding. Cambridge City Council's Arts Strategy highlights the vision of the Council to enhance the quality of people's lives through cultural activities. The Museum is able to contribute to and deliver a number of the key priorities laid out in the strategy such as access to art for all, engaging and enabling local communities in cultural activity and enhancing the city's reputation and identity through innovation and excellence of cultural provision. It is expected that the number of new city residents will rise by 27% over the next 20 years due to increased City development. More homes and residents provide the potential for the museum to increase its current visitors as well as opportunities for outreach. It also provides the Folk Museum with the opportunity to reaffirm its goal in delivering a museum which is a centre of excellence for the history of Cambridge and its surroundings." ## 3.2 Museum Mission Can you express the purpose of your museum in a sentence or two? This is your mission statement and although it should be short and succinct, arriving at the mission statement may be a lengthy process. Each word will be weighed and examined for interpretations and nuances. It is a good idea to discuss and refine the mission statement with the Board. Try to express your mission positively: for example, "will provide" is stronger and more positive than "aims to provide". It sounds more resolute and determined. ## Practice Examples: Museum Mission Statements Cambridge Folk Museum Mission Http://Www.Folkmuseum.Org.Uk "The museum will illustrate and interpret the social history of Cambridge and the County through its collections and other resources for the education and enjoyment of all." ## The Farmland Museum And Denny Abbey Http://Www.Dennyfarmlandmuseum.Org.Uk "Our mission is to enable a wider audience to participate in and enjoy the Museum's work, enabling every individual to gain an understanding of rural life in Cambridgeshire, and, to provide visitors to Denny Abbey and those participating in the Museum's outreach work with a sense of change, while evoking an equally strong sense of stability and continuity with the past, which helps in the development of an individual's sense of self worth, place and community." ## Cmap Mission Http://Www.Cambridgeshire.Gov.Uk/Cmswebsite/Apps/Committees "Cambridgeshire Museums Advisory Partnership (CMAP) supports the strategic development of the sector to ensure that Cambridgeshire's museums continue to care for and make accessible the heritage of Cambridgeshire, its people and environment, for everyone's learning and enjoyment." ## 3.3 Vision And Values Following your mission statement, you should insert your vision statement. Have a look at the example below from the Horniman Museum and Garden's plan, which combines introduction, vision, values and objectives in a statement on their website http://www.horniman.ac.uk PRACTICE EXAMPLE: VISION AND VALUES "The Horniman Museum is a charitable company limited by guarantee. …Our vision is central to everything we do, whilst our values help shape our work and give the Horniman its unique character. Our vision: to use our worldwide collections and the Gardens to encourage a wider appreciate of the World, its peoples and their cultures, and its environments. Our values: - respect for the World's diverse cultures, environments and resources - enrichment through learning and understanding - enjoyment for our visitors - communication of our message and awareness of what we do - excellence in research, interpretation and care of our collections - stewardship of our historic listed buildings and Gardens - efficiency and effectiveness in the way we conduct our business - partnership with the community and institutions nationally and internationally - relevance to our urban, multi-cultural setting - valuing difference by working towards a diverse workforce and audience" ## 3.4 Key Aims The key aims will spell out your mission in more detail. Your aims should be broad in scope. They express how you plan to carry out the museum's mission. There may be as many as 10 key aims at this stage. Later these will be prioritised and limited to no more than six. You may find that the aims can reflect the headings that you have used earlier to examine your existing plan: - museum as organisation - collections - users and their experiences - income generation and fund-raising - buildings/facilities - partnerships Aims may begin "to continue…" and relate to an essential on-going activity, or they may begin "to develop…", "to explore…" or "to instigate…" and relate to new initiatives or projects. Both are good so long as you can clearly define the activities related to them when you come to write the more operational Action Plan later **(see part 4)**. PRACTICE EXAMPLE: KEY AIMS The previously cited Horniman Museum outlines just three long term aims, which cover all of its work: Access - we will use the collections and Gardens to stimulate curiosity and wonder, promoting opportunities for people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds to participate in and enjoy exhibitions, educational programmes, activities and events - both face to face and online. Collections - we will safeguard and develop the collections so that they can be made as accessible as possible now and into the future. Enabling - we will secure and effectively manage our resources so that we are able to protect, develop and share our collections for the benefit and enjoyment of our visitors, both real and virtual, now and into the future. ## 3.5 Review Of Previous Plan And Key Achievements One of the most encouraging activities for you and your colleagues in preparing your Master Plan will be to reflect on what has been achieved in the past year, how and why. Some projects will be complete but there will be others, in addition to routine maintenance tasks, that may constitute a major part of your Master Plan. Remember also that new aims and activities may need additional resources. ## Practice Example: Reviewing Acheivements The Farmland Museum And Denny Abbey Http://Www.Dennyfarmlandmuseum.Org.Uk Achievements over the last five years (2006-2010) • Attracting project funding and grants of £500,000 exclusive of SCDC and EH core funding • Working with English Heritage, SCDC and HLF on a joint five year development plan of Abbey interpretation (new text panels, timeline and dressing), production of a new guidebook, storage and display of excavated material, school sessions and children's interactives • Achieving and maintaining Accreditation • Location, photographing and adding more information to the digital catalogue of 10,000 objects in the collection • Six years of HLF funded education and outreach post and ability to support an education officer from core funding from 2007 • Creation of a new temporary exhibition space and ticket office. ## 3.6 Priorities For Three To Five Years - Relating To The Key Aims If, like many museums, you find that you have a long list of aims, you should choose no more than six priorities from among them. Once again use the headings suggested for the review of your achievements in part 1: In each of these areas try to express your aim succinctly. This will help you later when you develop your Action Plan and its related objectives in measurable terms. Look at these possible examples: Aim 1: Museum as organisation - e.g. "to position ourselves as the centre for …" (your priority for the museum's profile and marketing it effectively) Aim 2: Collections - e.g. "to maximise the potential of our collections..." (your priority for management, conservation, storage, displays, interpretation or exhibitions) Aim 3: Users and their experiences - e.g. "to encourage volunteering and play a full part in … " (choose where you can work with greatest impact and long-term benefit in education and outreach) Aim 4: Income generation - e.g. "to identify opportunities to generate income through commercial activities and/or fund-raising / working with partners in culture and business .." Aim 5: Building/facilities - e.g " to maximise the potential of our site for… " (your prioirites for improvements or maintenance. What about your café for example, or your storage?) Aim 6: Partnerships - e.g "to strive for sustainability and greater resilience … " (identify funding opportunities to match your projects; explore joint working with a neighbouring or complementary organisation and consider sharing projects and posts). For more ideas on prioritising your aims see the appendix on **page 29**. ## 3.7 Income And Expenditure The Accreditation standard requires financial information for two consecutive years: reporting on the current year and proposing a budget for the subsequent year. Use your version of the table overleaf to prepare a financial statement for the year preceding the plan period, then to develop an overview of the sources of income expected for each year of the forward plan and the corresponding expected levels of expenditure. The level of detail of income and expenditure given will depend upon the size and complexity of the museum and on the number of different funding streams it receives. ## Idea: Differentiate Between Core And Project Money It is useful to differentiate 'core' income/funding and its source from income generated by activities, subscriptions and donations, from funds raised for 'projects'. Use corresponding distinctions between 'core' and 'project' for expenditure also, as in the example shown. This makes it easy to demonstrate to trustees and funders what can be achieved with each and the effect of losing all or part of one or the other. IMPORTANT NOTE: We recommend that you prepare the financial information as suggested overleaf but **do not incorporate it into the published version of your Master Plan**. This flexibility allows you to attach it or update it, or to append a different presentation of the information according to the use of your Plan. The headings in the table overleaf are only examples. You should choose headings that are most useful for the purposes of your museum. | | | Year 1 | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 2 | |--------------------------------------|-------|------|---------|------|----------| | INCOME | | CORE | PROJECT | CORE | PROJECT | | County/City Council/University grant | | | | | | | Funds raised by development activity | | | | | | | Friends subscriptions | | | | | | | Admission charges | | | | | | | Shop and café sales | | | | | | | Donations | | | | | | | Grants: AIM | | | | | | | | HLF | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | Other | | | | | | | TOTAL | | | | | | | EXPENDITURE | | | | | | | Rent, rates, utilities etc | | | | | | | Salaries: Administration | | | | | | | Collections | | | | | | | Education/outreach | | | | | | | Collections care/Conservation | | | | | | | IT, website, photography | | | | | | | Buildings maintenance | | | | | | | Grounds | | | | | | | Administration costs (printing, | | | | | | | stationery, telephone etc) | | | | | | | Travel and training | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | | TOTAL | | | | | | ## 3.8 Master Plan Appendices: We suggest that the following information is appended to your Master Plan to complete it. - Acknowledgement of funders It is especially recommended that the principal contributors to the achievements mentioned in the plan should be listed, including sponsors and donors as well as trusts, foundations and local or central government grant giving programmes. - List of Board Members - List of key staff, including key volunteers, and support groups such as the friends or development groups. You may also want to include analysis of the lessons learned in the process of your consultations, quoting those consulted where appropriate. ## 3.9 Risk Assessment Once you have completed your Master Plan you should check its feasibility and sustainability by carrying out a risk assessment. The purpose here is to identify risks arising from the plan itself or from the environment in which your museum is operating and then to record what actions will be taken to reduce or mitigate the risks. We do not suggest that your risks are shared outside the organisation and are therefore not suggesting that they are published with your plan. However, identification and consideration of risks are useful to the board and senior management and should be regularly reviewed and revised. Risks for your planned activities may arise from known or unknown circumstances. It is useful and prudent to analyse the priorities you have planned in order to identify potential risks. For each one you will want to identify the likelihood of the risk occurring and the impact if it were to do so. The 'residual risk' is the level of risk remaining after the mitigating actions have been applied. In the example given below 'likelihood' and 'impact' of risk are recorded on a scale of 1 - 3 and are then multiplied to produce the score of the risk. A traffic light system is used so that the highest risks are coloured red and can be seen at once. These are the risks that the Trustees need to consider particularly keenly as they will bear the risks should they be realised. NOTE: Larger organisations preparing their risk assessment may like to consider using the RAPT - Risk Awareness Profiling Tool. It is an online checker using the headings Assets, Systems, Finance and Audience that is very flexible and easy to use. At the end you will have a 'to do' list of areas of risk in order of urgency and impact. http://www.raptonline. org.uk/welcome.asp and see **Appendix**. visitors A Audience volunteers R Resources B1 Rent - see R2 income targets A1 Planned work in B Buildings/facilities R3 Failure to achieve B3 Storage - see C1 C2 Unable to control moth infestation in textile collection A2 Failure to attract active B2 Maintenance by owner is delayed and collections are put at risk adjacent buildings deters negotiation 2 2 4 Curator is monitoring and in working to recruit new volunteers 1 3 3 HLF funded Volunteer Coordinator Reserve plans in place Representations underway Rent is increased Representations underway Representations underway | Ref | Plan | |----------------------------|--------------------------| | failure | | | C | | | Collections | | | M1 | | | Vacancies on Board | | | M2 | | | IT equipment - age of | server and likelihood of | | M | | | Museum as organisation | | | 1 - 3 | hood | | Risk | | | Likeli- | | | 1 - 3 | Impact | | Score | impact | | be sought | | | shared facility. | MDO/Curatorial adviser | | 3 | | | 3 | | | 9 | | | Consultation with staff on | | ## Practice Example: Assessing Risk [See Section 3.9 For Notes] remain unfilled 2 2 4 Appeal for trustees in local press in addition to action by Chairman C1 Additional external storage cannot be found 3 3 9 No large new acquisitions. Further requirements. External expertise will housekeeping. Further searches for M3 Accreditation not achieved 1 3 3 Careful preparation and support from 2 3 6 Urgent appeal for assistance through SHARE scheme Control action to mitigate Current Status of Previous Status of applied Residual Risk after action is i.e. who is responsible for managing each risk ## 4 The Action Plan Your Action Plan is the operational document that puts your Master Plan to work. It is where you spell out your objectives and how you will achieve them within the timeframe of your plan and the limitations of your staff and finances. The Action Plan must be used. It needs to be crisp and clear. It will express the key aims of the Master Plan in terms of a set of objectives that should be regularly reviewed and updated by the Museum Lead. The Action Plan will become the instrument for keeping the efforts of all the staff aligned. In this section we look at: - Writing SMART objectives - Putting the Action Plan to use - Managing staff and volunteers usng the Action Plan - Training and Development - Drawing it all together - 10 steps ## 4.1 Writing Smart Objectives Objectives that are SMART are - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-limited. To develop SMART objectives, take the Key Aims you have prioritised in your Master Plan, one by one. Analyse each one and how you will achieve it. ASK YOURSELF: ## - What Will Actually Happen To Deliver Each Aim? Capture the answers: these are your **Objectives**. As in the example below, try to use an active verb to describe them. For reference use a numbering system that will link the objectives to the key aims they deliver. Indentifying the lead person responsible for an objective, and checking that one person is not responsible for too many of them, is a useful exercise which engages staff in responsibility for delivering the objectives. If you can identify support for the lead person as well this makes their position less lonely and again engages more people in ensuring that the plan is delivered. Breaking down the Master Plan into the Action Plan requires detailed consideration of the resources needed to deliver each objective and will quickly show whether more than 100% of any person's time has been committed, as well as whether funds are sufficient to deliver any action. ## Practice Example: Action Planning Against Aims [Smart Objectives] Aim 4 To Increase Revenue From 'Commercial Activities' And Fundraising. In order to become more self-sufficient, the museum needs to maximize its own income generation and fundraising abilities. The areas that will be focused upon include the museum shop, café, room hire, paying visitors, friends groups and a new fundraising strategy. Each one will be expressed as a **SMART** objective. See table **overleaf**. 4.3 Hire out education room 4.1.5 Energise the Friends 4.4 Increase number of paying visitors 4.1.6 Review current fund-raising with new Chair of Trustees currently visit Identify and target groups who do not Develop trails to increase repeat visits § The amount of income should be discussed and set as a target. | | | Discuss bookings with U3A and WEA, | Clarify structure of Friends and identify | |-----------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | Visitor | of Board | Manager | Collections | | Recruit new Friends and appoint a Chair | | | | | Museum | Lead/ Chair | Services | Manager with | | local untapped sources of funds | | | | | Museum | Lead | | | | Volunteer | External | marketing | advice | | Council | £500 grant | for marketing | from City | | (24 X £30) | | | | | of Friends | | | | | Sept 2012 | | | | | Appointment | | | | | local history society and others | | | | | Education | Officer | | | | Care-taker | | | | | ? | | | | | £720 minimum pa | | | | | Coordinator | | | | | Sept 2012 | | | | | Access to funds for | priorities clarified | | | | when compared with | 2011 | | | | Feb 2012 | | | | | Increased visitor numbers | | | | | | | | | 4.2 | Increase café | activity | |-----------------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | range | large windows | permanent feature of the shop. | * Trial an interactive Pop-Up shop | for families. If successful make it a | Increase frequency of Saturday café; | * Create a 'Made in XXXXXX' product | | 4.1 | Improve Shop | | | | | | | * Increase shop space making use of the | | | | | | | | Visitor | Services | Officer | | | | | | explore viability of Sunday tearoom | | | | | | | | Volunteer | | Education | Officer | With | Education | Officer | | Officer | Trustees | | | | | | | Coordinator | | | | | | | | Friends & | Officer and | Trustees x 1 | Museum Lead | and Education | Officer | SHARE support | | None | advice | In-kind | | | | | ## Aim 4 To Increase Revenue From Income Generation And Fundraising | Museums | Grant £300 | |-------------|--------------| | None | | | | Cambridge | | Jan 2012 | Jan 2012 | | | revenue§ | | Volunteers | | | ? | | | Easter 2012 | | | ££ turnover | | | Objectives | | | Actions | | | Lead Person | | | Additional | Support | | Estimated | Cost | | Source of | Funding | | End Date | | | Performance | Measurement | ## 4.2 Putting The Action Plan To Use Putting The Action Plan To Use Once completed, this action plan will quickly show how everything falls into place: - what needs to be done - who will do it - with what additional support - by what date. Share it with your key staff and volunteers. Check that they agree it can be delivered. Give them their own copy and invite them to highlight the objectives that require their contribution. ## 4.3 Managing Staff And Volunteers Using The Action Plan The SMART Objectives must be practical to be useful. When they are, they offer a framework for staff management, training and development. Because each objective identifies the lead person who will deliver it and where they may find support. For the Museum Lead the objectives present targets for staff. Their performance can be discussed in relation to the targets. Where annual appraisal interviews, whether formal or informal, are conducted, the objectives of the Action Plan can be used and reviewed. The connection of objectives with individuals will further reinforce the feeling that each person makes a recognised contribution to the achievement of the museum's aims and the delivery of the vision. PRACTICE EXAMPLE: MANAGING USING THE ACTION PLAN Your museum aims to increase its income by hiring out a room and the Education Officer has agreed to take this on as she has ideas about potential client groups. At your meeting with her you discuss these ideas and agree that she will contact potential users. She is prepared to commit to getting a regular client within three months and to raising a minimum of £720 in the first year (24 weeks @ £30 for a one hour session). You can discuss a higher rate 'after hours', charges for use of equipment etc. You caution her not to spend too much time on this but leave it to her. As a result you have a SMART objective that is realistic, and you can expect the Education Officer to report to you on this activity. ## 4.4 Training And Development Because the Action Plan shows what must be done, it can be used to check whether there are any skills gaps or development needs among those involved in delivering the plan. A list of any such needs creates your Annual Training Plan. It's easier to apply successfully for funds for training when you can show evidence of need related to your plan in this way. ## Idea: Display The Objectives Get a white-board and put it up in a non-public area where all staff and volunteers can see it. Write up the current month or quarter's objectives and activities and who is taking each forward. Cross them off as they are achieved. It can be an incentive and prove very rewarding. The Master Plan and Action Plan will help you to achieve a better understanding of what your priorities for action are, and what must wait, and why. Follow the step by step process on **page 14** to bring your trustees and stakeholders, staff and volunteers with you. ## Appendices 1. Checklist For Swot This useful self examination can be undertaken with the Board and with groups of staff and applied to the organisation/museum and to the way the groups function. Use this approach in your consultations to gather information for your plan, but use it carefully and constructively inviting others to make suggestions and keeping a positive tone to the discussion. You might put contributions onto a flip chart divided into four quarters. Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats You might ask yourself questions such as those listed below. You will be able to think of others: Strengths - what do we do well? - What advantages does our position in town/out of town give us? - Which are our best assets (collections, buildings, people)? - What support may we rely on? How are our partners a strength? Who have we done great projects with? - How can we build on these areas? How ambitious are we as an organisation? - How clear are we about what we do well? - How are we thought of in the local press and by the tourist information centre? ## Weaknesses - (The Opposite Of Strengths) - Where Do We Not Do So Well? - Where do we lack profile in our marketing? - Are people sure what they will find or experience if they visit? - How suitable is our staff structure for our organisation now? - How active or united is our Board? - What skills and experience do we need for our plans? - How clear are we, from trustees to volunteers, about where we are going and when we are going to get there? ## Opportunities - What Opportunities For Growth Or Development Present Themselves? - How can we take advantage of changed circumstances in our immediate environment or in local or national trends? - How can we work more effectively with partners if we allow others to lead? - How could we explore digital elements to our advantage - for example putting some collections online or having a more attractive website? - Can we turn a threat - such as loss of staff - into an advantage? e.g. by taking the opportunity to refine our activities and re-structure roles ## Threats - (These Are The Opposite Of Opportunities But Can Also Apply Even To Our Strengths). - Is our funding threatened by cuts elsewhere? - Is our lease about to run out? - Who is responsible for the upkeep of our old buildings? - Rival organisations - is another new museum or gallery with more funding about to overshadow ours? Or is a new leisure park or shopping centre planned nearby? Has our setting changed, with new shops or housing around us - Are key members of staff/volunteers soon to retire? ## 2. Checklist For Pestel PESTEL is a very useful approach to recognising and defining the situation in which your museum operates. It invites an analysis under six headings and encompasses governance issues. It is useful to apply the same headings to the organisation itself, as suggested here: Political - this should include both national and local politics in relation to culture and the arts and any effect they may have on your museum's operation. Consideration of political issues with a small 'p', such as the 'standing' of the museum in local public opinion, is also encouraged. Ask yourselves such questions as - What do we want to be known for? e.g. Do you want to be at the cutting edge, offering encounters with innovative practice or do you want to have a reputation of solid, educational work? - How are we seen by others? e.g. Is your organisation seen as 'elitist' or as 'populist'? Is it considered a 'backwater' and 'hobby place' for older citizens or a lively place for families? Economic - this is usually closely related to the political issues that have been identified but should also look more immediately at the financial health of the organisation and how this may be addressed both immediately and in the longer term. - Are there expenses that you are unsure about? Rent, rates and buildings refurbishment? - Do you know enough about cuts to funding in the local authority or your parent body? Have you explored new sources of funding or criteria for applicants e.g. HLF? Social - this should invite an examination of the diversity of visitors and users as compared with the local population and with regional and national statistics. - How well do our staff demographic match the local population? - In what ways might we encourage volunteers from minority groups to come to the museum and become engaged in an activity on site? - How can we demonstrate that we provide learning experiences that can change lives and attitudes to heritage? ## Technological - This Considers All Digital Activities And The Equipment Used To Safeguard Collections. - Does our website serve our aims and objectives and reflect the 'personality' or profile we wish for our museum? - Are we using or might we use social media to reach a new audiences and engage them with our museum, its collections and activities? - Have we thought about digitally sharing our collections with others - working with Collections Link or BBC Your Paintings? - How do we look after our photographic images/digital files? Have we thought about a digital strategy for the management and preservation of your digital assets? - Does our monitoring equipment deliver accurate information, or if we have controls are they set to ensure the appropriate environment for your collections? - What about alarms and security routines? Do we rely too much on technology? ## Environmental - This Overlaps With Technological. - Can we improve our carbon footprint and save our utility bills? Who do we go to for advice? - Should we change our lighting to reduce UV or lux levels or to save energy? ## Legal - If A Charity, Do We Comply With Legal Requirements Of The Charity Commissioners? - Are we well versed in employment legislation? - What about Health and Safety at work, especially in the café? Who is responsible? - Entertainment licensing? Do we need a licence? - Ethical issues - are staff and volunteers clear and do they behave with integrity? - Copyright and intellectual property rights? - Volunteer management? Dignity at work? - Freedom of information and data protection? Disability Discrimination? - Are we protected - security? Insurances? - Is our Board clear about our liabilities? - More generally, have we put policies in place to guide our work and those who carry it out? ## Appendix 3 Further Ideas For Prioritising Key Aims It is essential to focus on a limited number of priorities for the plan period. This gives impetus to new work or a fresh emphasis to continuing work. The priorities will almost certainly emerge from the discussion about aims and objectives. However it may be necessary to force the discussion to arrive at agreement on the priorities. It is all too easy in this process to end up with a longer list of things to do in the new plan than were in the earlier one. It is difficult to drop activities to make room for new ones - but this is essential. Here are two approaches ## A] List Your Priorities Under Theme Headings Themes may emerge from your discussions and help to group the aims. For example, The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey chose four themes to guide their objectives and to be monitored and reviewed quarterly for reporting to the Trustees. The chosen themes related closely to those of the South Cambridgeshire District Council - Education and life-long learning - Stronger resilient communities and volunteering opportunities - Tourism, enterprise, innovation and regional economic growth - Health, happiness and well-being ## B] Consider Priorities Under The Six Areas Of The Museum'S Activity Outlined In Chapter One, The First 3 Of Which Relate Directly To The Headings Of The Accreditation Standard The questions under each suggest useful prompts. ## 1. The Museum As Organisation - How is our museum perceived by others? - Should we be working on raising our profile? - What does this mean for how we promote and position our museum and what it has to offer to the local and tourism markets? - Do we need additional funds for marketing? - Is this a long term or a short-term objective? ## 2. The Collections – - What priorities do we want to set for collections management? - Is the documentation complete? - Do we need to transfer the catalogue to a database and put the collections online? What does this mean for staffing? - What about the permanent displays? Do they need refreshing? Are they attractive and accessible to all our audiences or only to some? - Is this the period in which we prioritise and tackle our storage problems? - Can we get in some loan exhibitions to attract visitors while we concentrate on these essential housekeeping tasks? - Do we know of any remedial conservation that is required? ## 3. Users And Their Experiences - Services, Education And Outreach Activities. There may be real opportunities in this area where funding is easier to find. There may also be new partners in the health or older peoples' services, as well as with schools. Could we encourage visitors to explore the museum by theme as a way of winning repeat visits, increasing the educational value of the visit and appealing to a greater variety of interests of different groups? Might we offer the museum as a meeting place for a booked group or the café as the final destination for a walking group? What about putting the collections online and increasing footfall by linking to city walks? Or sending them out in loan boxes? ## 4. Income Generation And Fund-Raising – Once your priorities are clear you may be able to identify immediately where to turn for funding. Consider also: - Have you got the right connections to help you with this? For example one museum in the cohort group had in-kind assistance from a department store that improved the appearance for their small shop and boosted sales. - Are the Trustees able to help or should you consider forming a development committee? - Are you using the Museum Development support in our area? ## Buildings/Facilities - Is the museum responsible for the upkeep of the buildings? - Has there been a thorough inspection within five years? Should we finally investigate that damp patch in the store? - Did your walk around reveal obstacles for people with mobility difficulty to get to our front door? Is the alternative door sufficiently attractive or does it serve as the goods entrance? - Should this be tackled now or as part of a larger scheme in the next plan? - How good is the signage? For motorists? For pedestrians? ## Partnerships And Funders - What are the key partnerships that you need to nurture and how? - Are you communicating well with them? For many small museums it is simply too difficult to do all that they would like to on their own. Have you considered the joint funding of projects with one or more other museums and perhaps sharing staff? PRACTICE EXAMPLE: Wide Skies project, Cambridgeshire 'Wide Skies' is supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and aims to provide museums in Huntingdonshire and Fenland with increased links into the community. Two Learning Coordinators were appointed to work with a cluster of museums in each district, drawing in new volunteers and equipping them to develop family activities, and reminiscence work as well as the more usual museums volunteer work of collections documentation, storage and front of house services. The project has completed the first year and new volunteers have been recruited across the nine participating museums. The museums have clearly benefited from fresh eyes and new approaches: "The new volunteers have brought with them an enthusiasm which has helped to stimulate and invigorate all aspects of service delivery and work in the Museum." Curator from one of the participating museums ## Appendix 4 Plan Presentation Without going to the expense of hiring a designer there are some simple ways to smarten the look of your plan and to make the message stronger. Instead of tables of figures e.g. for trends in visitor numbers or schools groups using your museum, convert these into bar charts and pie charts from your Excel sheet. It makes the figures easier to 'read' and conveys the message at a glance, as in these examples: ## Presentation Of Visitor Figures - This Distinguishes Schools Visits Within The Total Number Of Visitors Explaining your staff structure, particularly if you want to show how heavily your museum relies on volunteers or that several staff externally funded and on fixed term contracts, is also best done using a diagram. Using images is very important, too. An image of a variety of people enjoying an event at your museum or a new display, information board or exhibition, will save many words and conjure up the atmosphere in the museum. This message reinforces the words you used to express the vision. Offer your Master Plan as a .pdf to be downloaded from your website and print a limited number of hard copies to give to trustees and others, but don't spend a lot of money on an expensive publication. ## Appendix 5. Resources And Useful Live Links Arts Council England (Ace) http://www.artscouncil.org.uk for guidance documents such as Accreditation http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/accreditationscheme/ Self-evaluation **http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/selfevaluation**/ Roll-out of Accreditation in the East of England http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/ supporting-museums/accreditation-scheme/ The resource list to support Accreditation is now available as a downloadable document on the ACE website at http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/ accreditation-scheme/how-do-i-apply Good governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector - Version for smaller organisations. FAQs and downloads http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/codeofgovernance Directory of Social Change (DSC) provides training and information to the voluntary sector to enable charities to achieve their mission and runs courses and publishes charity and voluntary sector books on fundraising, management, organisational and person developments, communication, finance and law. http://www.dsc.org.uk The Charity Commission is established by law as the regulator and registrar of charities for England and Wales. http://www.charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk Risk Awarenss Profiling Tool (RAPT) http://raptonline.org.uk Association of Independent Museums (AIM) Focus papers Creating and Implementing Forward Plans, Michael Day, second ed. Revised by Adrian Babbidge http://www.aim-museums.co.uk Collections Link http://collectionslink.org.uk for Accreditation Guidance to Section Two, Benchmarks in Collections Care and Caring for Collections. You can join interest groups on this site and access a rich bank of free resources. Collections Trust http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk for a range of useful publications on Collections Care and Management, SPECTRUM 4.0 and BSI PAS 197: 2009 Code of Practice for cultural collections management. Collections Trust Collections Management: a Practical Guide especially for a framework and policies. Others in this series: Documentation, Pest Management, Governance. ## Idea: Checking Against Agreed Definitions Check to see if your statement of purpose reflects the accepted definitions of a museum of the **Museums Association** (MA) The MA agreed a definition in 1998. It says: 'Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society.' This definition includes art galleries with collections of works of art, as well as museums with historical collections of objects.' See also the **International Committee for Museums (ICOM)'s definition**.

en

4202-pdf

RUN AT 01/05/2018 11:12:49 | Department family | Entity | Date | Expense Type | Expense area | Supplier | Transaction number | AP Amount (£) | |----------------------|---------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Clinical Other | GP FORWARD VIEW | ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP (THE) | 21823089 | 29,684.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 21779851 | 3,459.14 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 21779851 | 97,247.18 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 21779851 | 8,194.56 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BARNBY GATE SURGERY | 21779851 | 9,873.41 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Voluntary Sector | COMMISSIONING - NON ACUTE | BEAUMOND HOUSE COMMUNITY HOSPICE | 21894050 | 26,710.83 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 697.73 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 28,936.68 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PCO Seniority | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 1,608.10 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 124.20 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 7,576.30 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Other | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 398.70 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 3,272.18 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Pension EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | BILSTHORPE SURGERY | 21779857 | 265.16 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector - Over/ Under Performance | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | BMI HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS | 21634513 | (30,046.32) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | BMI HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS | 21730369 | 102,018.94 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | CARE UK CLINICAL SERVICES LTD | 21730399 | 34,929.85 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Commercial Sector | CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT CENTRES | CIRCLE NOTTINGHAM LTD | 21730318 | 153,866.67 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Learn Dsblty Hlth Chk | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 560.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 1,702.97 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 57,750.36 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 556.40 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 9,091.67 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779836 | 5,861.32 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886585 | (39,961.16) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886585 | (2,476.80) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886586 | 79,292.51 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886586 | 12,725.71 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP | PRESCRIBING | COLLINGHAM MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886586 | 2,476.80 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Not For Profit | NHS 111 | DHU 111 (EAST MIDLANDS) CIC | 21730315 | 33,424.58 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | DONCASTER AND BASSETLAW HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 21730357 | 270,877.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 21779842 | 23,614.43 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 21779842 | 1,203.47 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 21779842 | 2,383.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 21779842 | 83.93 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HILL VIEW SURGERY | 21779842 | 2,490.55 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 877.57 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 32,232.48 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PCO Locum Adop/Pat/Mat | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 1,030.28 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 3,015.25 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 2,643.25 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21797787 | 2,539.99 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21886595 | (36,023.52) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21886595 | (2,743.40) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21886596 | 69,508.07 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21886596 | 11,935.79 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP | PRESCRIBING | HOUNDSFIELD SURGERY | 21886596 | 2,743.40 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779849 | 126,525.43 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779849 | 3,276.74 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PCO Doctors Ret Scheme | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779849 | 3,999.84 | |------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|------------|--------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | LOMBARD MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779849 | 14,608.42 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 2,099.37 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 54,230.17 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 9,392.69 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 44.22 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 380.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 89.99 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 6,006.36 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 3,715.19 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year AVCs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 4,100.16 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MAJOR OAK MEDICAL PRACTICE | 21797786 | 3,767.23 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS GP Statutory Levy | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779833 | (412.37) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Voluntary Levy | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779833 | (62.56) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Pension EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779833 | (16,353.47) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Pension ERs Adjustments | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779833 | (16,564.76) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779834 | 2,804.31 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779834 | 103,909.79 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779834 | 1,403.96 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779834 | 4,483.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | MIDDLETON LODGE SURGERY | 21779834 | 11,511.36 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NHS MANSFIELD & ASHFIELD CCG | 21689498 | 27,467.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NHS NOTTINGHAM CITY CCG | 21707423 | 42,395.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS IT Comm Servs-GP Practices | PRIMARY CARE IT | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21599951 | 11,811.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS IT Comm Servs -GP Practices | PRIMARY CARE IT | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21599951 | 14,283.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-PMS IT Comm Servs -GP Practices | PRIMARY CARE IT | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21599951 | 1,374.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Charges from CCG | NON RECURRENT PROGRAMMES | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21599951 | 1,117.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Computer Network Costs | IM&T | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21599951 | 8,900.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Serv Recd-CCGs | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NHS RUSHCLIFFE CCG | 21663929 | 46,278.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-CQUIN | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21730360 | 29,036.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Independent Sector | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | NOTTINGHAM WOODTHORPE HOSPITAL | 21730336 | 39,363.88 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Clinical&Medical-Othe Public Sector | PROGRAMME PROJECTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL | 21592680 | 260,507.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21731835 | 25,470.29 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21731835 | 1,018,811.63 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | COMMUNITY SERVICES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21731836 | 920,400.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21740240 | 27,737.10 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case | LEARNING DIFFICULTIES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21740246 | 10,003.39 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case | MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES - OTHER | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21740246 | 26,727.90 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787820 | (59,441.00) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | COMMUNITY SERVICES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787822 | (59,290.00) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787823 | (44,343.00) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787833 | (26,215.25) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | COMMUNITY SERVICES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787841 | (226,800.00) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Non Contract | IMPROVING ACCESS TO PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPIES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21787842 | 28,627.03 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | COMMUNITY SERVICES | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21823062 | 148,226.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-CQUIN | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21823095 | (831.90) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21823095 | 48,594.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Cost per Case | MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTS | NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST | 21894106 | 27,732.21 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS Contract Value | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 51,000.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 219.65 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 12,629.17 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 70.95 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 886.73 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-APMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 98.44 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-PMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | PRIMARY INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD | 21657510 | 3,811.47 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 1,932.92 | |------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------| | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 48,057.32 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PCO Other | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 4,526.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Actual Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 16,020.32 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 1,000.25 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 158.40 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 4,741.72 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 5,780.95 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | RAINWORTH HEALTH CENTRE | 21779840 | 5,457.54 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 21730329 | 28,047.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec Fdtn Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD FOREST HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | 21730330 | 5,078,405.64 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 5,800.46 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 121,035.91 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 785.76 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 3,583.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Water Rates | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 1,996.02 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SHERWOOD MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP | 21779845 | 11,575.19 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779854 | 82,983.30 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS MPIG Correction Factor | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779854 | 3,409.03 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779854 | 17,670.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Other | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779854 | 775.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779854 | 10,162.06 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886597 | (40,590.68) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscChrgsCll&RmttdbyGPCntra | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886597 | (3,319.60) | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Cost of Drugs -Dispensing | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886598 | 81,649.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prof Fees Dispensing | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886598 | 12,229.92 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PrscrptnChrgsColl&RmttdbyGP | PRESCRIBING | SOUTHWELL MEDICAL CENTRE | 21886598 | 3,319.60 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS DES Minor Surgery | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 1,844.03 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 96,882.08 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS PCO Locum Adop/Pat/Mat | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 7,002.54 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 2,183.41 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 16,604.00 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 9,811.55 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME - GMS GP Prior Year ERs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 2,357.83 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | ME-GMS GP Prior Year EEs | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE ABBEY MEDICAL GROUP | 21779838 | 2,225.93 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Global Sum | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779847 | 100,540.25 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Clinical Waste | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779847 | 752.13 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS Prem Notional Rent | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779847 | 6,833.33 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | C&M-GMS QOF Aspiration | PRC DELEGATED CO-COMMISSIONING | THE FOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTRE | 21779847 | 11,290.07 | | Department of Health | NHS Newark & Sherwood CCG | 30/04/2018 | Hcare Srv Rec NHS Trust-Contract Baseline | ACUTE COMMISSIONING | UNITED LINCOLNSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 21730374 | 370,755.46 | | TOTAL | 9,904,121.26 | | | | | | |

en

4182-pdf

Email: les.waters@orr.gov.uk 12 March 2020 Jon Haskins Head of Regulatory Compliance & Reporting Network Rail The Quadrant:MK Elder Gate Milton Keynes MK9 1EN Dear Jon, ## Network Rail'S Network Statement, 2021 I am writing to conclude ORR's review of Network Rail's latest network statement, as required of us under The Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 ("the 2016 Regulations"). We commented on your provisional version, on which you consulted in August 2019, and have reviewed your published *Network Statement 2021*, dated 8 November 2019. The summary you have provided showing the key changes was, once again, very useful. We are providing some detailed comments and suggestions in an annotated Word copy of your network statement for you to consider as you prepare your 2022 edition. Most of these are in Chapter 6 (*Charges*), and are generally around the clarity and consistency of text, although one point worth mentioning here is the omission of charter train operators and where they fit in the market segments. Elsewhere, we have identified some hyperlinks that do not work as intended and note that your contacts section needs updating with ORR's new Canary Wharf address. Taken with some minor page numbering issues we would encourage you to refresh the publication. Looking ahead, the area most needing continued improvement is the provision of information relating to service providers' facilities. We note the reinstatement of your summary spreadsheet and welcome the additional information it contains. Although this gives useful at-a-glance information, the Implementing Regulations on Service Facilities require full service facility descriptions, which the spreadsheet was not designed to provide. We recognise that Network Rail can only make available the service facility descriptions it receives. However, we understand that the Rail Delivery Group is looking at how further information about service providers' facilities can best be gathered and we encourage Network Rail to engage with service facility providers to assist this work. Finally, noting that the RailNetEurope common template has changed, we anticipate your provisional 2022 version to follow that format. I am copying this letter to Matthew Blackwell with thanks for his constructive engagement. Yours sincerely Les Waters

en

2222-pdf

## Department Of Health Quarterly Information 1 January - 5 May 2010 GIFTS GIVEN OVER £140 Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date gift given To Gift Value Nil return ## Gifts Received Over £140 Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date gift received To Gift Value Nil return ## Hospitality1 | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | | | | | | | Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | | | | | | | | Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | | | | | | | | Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | | | | | | | | Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | | | | | | | | Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | | | | | | | | Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton | | | | | | Date of | | | hospitality | | | Nil return | | ## Overseas Travel Destination Purpose of Secretary of State for Health, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Health Services), Mike O'Brien MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Public Health), Gillian Merron MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Destination Purpose of Minister of State (Care Services), Phil Hope MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health), Ann Keen MP Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Destination Purpose of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords), Baroness Thornton Date(s) of trip trip 'No 32 (The Royal) Squadron' or 'other RAF' or 'Charter' or 'Eurostar' Nil return Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used ## Meetings With External Organisations2 Secretary of State, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting Discuss local issues January 2010 Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust February 2010 National Autistic Society Autism Strategy March 2010 General Medical Council Introduction Meeting March 2010 GMB Union Public Health Minister of State (Health Services) - Mike O'Brien MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting Introductory meeting January 2010 Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee January 2010 Royal College of General Practitioners To discuss Out of Hours January 2010 Royal College of Surgeons Introductory meeting January 2010 British Medical Association Introductory meeting January 2010 Specialised Healthcare Alliance To discuss specialised commissioning February 2010 Royal College of General Practitioners To discuss Out of Hours February 2010 Social Partnership Forum Roundtable discussion March 2010 NHS Institute To discuss the work of the Institute March 2010 American Pharmaceutical Group Introductory meeting March 2010 NHS Confederation Introductory meeting To discuss NICE processes March 2010 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) To discuss Electronic prescription services March 2010 Great Bear Healthcare and Pelican Healthcare March 2010 Unite To discuss the recruitment and retention of junior pharmacists March 2010 Managers in Partnership To discuss management costs in Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities March 2010 NHS Alliance To discuss Primary Care issues March 2010 Combat Stress To discuss how best to address mental health needs for veterans April 2010 Confederation of British Industry To discuss procurement and commercial issues Minister of State (Public Health) - Gillian Merron MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting January 2010 Alcohol Concern To discuss funding and the work they are doing to reduce alcohol related harm. January 2010 Terrence Higgins Trust Joint meeting with Ann Keen to discuss access to HIV Treatment. To discuss the Family Planning Association's work and sexual health January 2010 Family Planning Association and members of SHOG (Sexual Health Organisation Group) - The Medical Foundation for AIDS & Sexual Health, Brook, Terrence Higgins Trust and National Aids Trust March 2010 Business4Life Change4Life Commercial Partners meeting March 2010 Coeliac UK and members of the APPG on Coeliac Disease To discuss changes proposed by the Food Standards Agency Minister of State (Care Services) - Phil Hope MP Date of Name of Organisation Purpose of Meeting Meeting For people with learning disabilities to ask Minister questions about services January 2010 Various people with learning disabilities from the East Midlands Public Service Agreement 16 Sounding Board January 2010 Children's Palliative Care, National Oversight group - various stakeholders To discuss children's palliative care services To discuss employment for people with learning disabilities January 2010 East Midlands Public Service Agreement 16 Sounding Board - various stakeholders To discuss services for people with learning disabilities January 2010 Northampton Learning Disability Programme Board - various stakeholders January 2010 Aiming High for Disabled Children Ministerial Implementation Group - various stakeholders Joint meeting with Department for Children, Schools and Families to discuss services for people with learning disabilities To discuss issues around Health, Work and Well-being January 2010 Health Work and Well Being National Stakeholder Council - various stakeholders To discuss the volunteering strategy January 2010 Social partnership forum - various stakeholders February 2010 National Autistic Society To discuss the National Autism Strategy February 2010 Social Care Reference Group - various stakeholders To discuss current issues around social care | February 2010 | Care Conference - various | |--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | stakeholders | | | To discuss the National Care Service | | | White Paper | | | To discuss dementia research | February 2010 | | - various stakeholders | | | March 2010 | Unite. | | dementia services | | | March 2010 | Meeting with various independent | | sector care homes | | | To discuss prescribing errors in care | | | homes | | | March 2010 | Independent Safeguarding Authority | | adults | | | To discuss the 'one year on' | | | document published by the National | | | Advisory Council | | | March 2010 | National Advisory Council (NAC) for | | Children and Young People's | | | Psychological Wellbeing and Mental | | | Health | | | March 2010 | Various carer organisations | | understanding | | | March 2010 | Manygates Clinic | | Attention Deficit Hyperactivity | | | Disorder | | | To discuss learning disability policy | March 2010 | | various stakeholders | | | To discuss mental health policy | | | March 2010 | Ministerial Advisory Group on Mental | | Health Inequalities. The following | | | organisations were present: Together, | | | Race Equality Foundation, Equalities | | | National Council, St Mungo's, | | | Stonewall, Age UK, RADAR, Equality | | | Human, Rights Commission, | | | FaithAction, Afiya Trust | | | Men's Health Forum | | | | | | March 2010 | Autism Trust | | March 2010 | Various social care stakeholders | | March 2010 | English Bridge Union | | March 2010 | Autism Programme Board - various | | stakeholders | | | To discuss the National Autism | | | Strategy | | | | | | | | | Parliamentary Under Secretary for Health, Ann Keen MP | | | | | | Date | of | | Meeting | | | January 2010 | Forster - Creative Agency | | Nursing & Midwifery Commissions | | | Brochure | | | | | | January 2010 | Terrence Higgins Trust - Joint with | | Gillian Merron MP | | | Joint meeting with Gillian Merron to | | | discuss access to HIV treatment | | | January 2010 | | | | | | National Society of Epilepsy | To discuss specialist nurses | | | | | Social Partnership Forum | To discuss the workforce implications | |-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | of developing policy | | | January 2010 | | | | | | Social Partnership Forum | To discuss the workforce implications | | of developing policy | | | February 2010 | | | | | | Breakthrough Breast Cancer | Breast cancer cares pledges and | | priorities for the election | | | March 2010 | | | | | | March 2010 | | | | | | Eye Healthcare Alliance | To discuss direct referrals for people | | with age related macular | | | degeneration | | | | | | Forster - Creative Agency | To discuss the Prime Minister's | | Nursing & Midwifery Commission | | | Brochure | | | March 2010 | | | | | | | | | March 2010 | | | | | | Breakthrough Breast Cancer | Meet with breast care nurses and | | discuss breast care nursing | | | | | | To discuss the workforce implications | | | of developing policy | | | March 2010 | | | | | | Social Partnership Forum | | | | | | | | | | | | Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Lords, Baroness Thornton | | | | | | Date | of | | Meeting | | | Introductory Meeting | March 2010 | | | | | Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) | | | | | | SENSE for deaf / blind people | Discuss Free Personal Care at Home | | Bill | | | March 2010 | | | | | | The King's Fund | Introductory Meeting | | | | | Joint Epilepsy Council | Introductory Meeting | | | | | March 2010 | | | | | | | | | | |

en

0146-pdf

1 2 3 4 ## Scientific Committee On Health, Environmental And Emerging Risks 5 Scheer 6 7 8 Preliminary Opinion on 9 ## Potential Risks To Human Health Of Light Emitting Diodes 10 (Leds) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The SCHEER adopted this Opinion by written procedure on 6 July 2017 24 ## Abstract 1 2 Following a request from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Health, 3 Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) reviewed recent evidence to assess potential 4 risks to human health of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) emissions. 5 The review of the published research conducted by the SCHEER has led to valuable conclusions 6 and identified certain gaps in knowledge on potential risks to human health from LEDs. 7 The Committee concluded that there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from LEDs 8 emission in normal use (lamps and displays) by the general healthy population. There is a low 9 level of evidence that exposure to light in the late evening, including that from LED lighting 10 and/or screens may have an impact on the circadian rhythm. At the moment, it is not yet clear 11 if this disturbance of the circadian system leads to adverse health effects. 12 Vulnerable and susceptible population (young children, adolescent and elderly people) have 13 been considered separately. Children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although 14 emissions may not be harmful, blue LEDs (between 400 nm and 500 nm) may be very 15 dazzling and may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern especially for children 16 below three years of age. Elderly population may experience discomfort with exposure to LED 17 systems, including blue LED displays (for example destination displays on the front of buses 18 will be blurred). 19 Although there are cellular and animal studies showing adverse effects raising concerns 20 particularly in susceptible population, their conclusions derive from results obtained using 21 exposure conditions that are difficult to relate to human exposures or using exposure levels 22 greater than those likely to be achieved with LED lighting systems in practice. 23 Reliable information on the dose-response relationship for adverse health effects for the case 24 of the healthy general public is not available in the scientific literature for all wavelengths 25 emitted by LED devices, although a threshold is identified for optical radiation in general based 26 on experimental and injury data. 27 Since the use of LED technology is still evolving, the Committee considers that it is important 28 to closely monitor the risk of adverse health effects from the long term LED usage by the 29 general population. 30 Key words: Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), risk assessment, health effects, SCHEER 31 ## Opinion To Be Cited As: 32 SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks), Preliminary 33 Opinion on Potential risks to human health of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), 6 July 2017. 34 35 ## Acknowledgments 2 Members of the Working Group are acknowledged for their valuable contribution to this 3 Opinion. The members of the Working Group are: 4 5 SCHEER 6 Rodica Mariana Ion 7 Ana Proykova (Chair) 8 Theodoros Samaras 9 10 External experts: 11 Ellen Bruzell 12 Jean-François Doré 13 Massimo Nicolò 14 John O'Hagan (Rapporteur) 15 Celia Sánchez-Ramos 16 Linda van Kerkhof 17 18 All Declarations of Working Group members and supporting experts are available on the 19 following webpage: 20 http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/experts/declarations/scheer_wg_en 21 ## About The Scientific Committees (2016-2021) 1 Two independent non-food Scientific Committees provide the Commission with the scientific 2 advice it needs when preparing policy and proposals relating to consumer safety, public health 3 and the environment. The Committees also draw the Commission's attention to the new or 4 emerging problems that may pose an actual or potential threat. 5 They are: the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) and the Scientific Committee 6 on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER). The Scientific Committees review 7 and evaluate relevant scientific data and assess potential risks. Each Committee has top 8 independent scientists from all over the world who are committed to work in the public 9 interest. 10 In addition, the Commission relies upon the work of other Union bodies, such as the European 11 Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Centre for 12 Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 13 ## Scheer 14 This Committee, on request of Commission services, provides Opinions on questions 15 concerning health, environmental and emerging risks. The Committees addresses questions 16 on: 17 - health and environmental risks related to pollutants in the environmental media and other 18 biological and physical factors in relation to air quality, water, waste and soils. 19 - complex or multidisciplinary issues requiring a comprehensive assessment of risks to 20 consumer safety or public health, for example antimicrobial resistance, nanotechnologies, 21 medical devices and physical hazards such as noise and electromagnetic fields. 22 ## Scheer Members 23 Roberto Bertollini, Teresa Borges, Wim de Jong, Pim de Voogt, Raquel Duarte-Davidson, Peter 24 Hoet, Rodica Mariana Ion, Renate Kraetke, Demosthenes Panagiotakos, Ana Proykova, Theo 25 Samaras, Marian Scott, Remy Slama, Emanuela Testai, Theo Vermeire, Marco Vighi, Sergej 26 Zacharov 27 ## Contact: 28 European Commission 29 DG Health and Food Safety 30 Directorate C: Public Health, Country Knowledge, Crisis management 31 Unit C2 - Country Knowledge and Scientific Committees 32 Office: HTC 03/073 L-2920 Luxembourg 33 SANTE-C2-SCHEER@ec.europa.eu 34 © European Union, 2016 35 36 ISSN 1831- ISBN 978-92-79- 37 doi:10.2772/ ND 38 The Opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists who 39 are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European 40 Commission. The Opinions are published by the European Commission in their original 41 language only. 42 To learn more about the Scientific Committees, please visit 43 http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/index_en.htm 44 45 ## 1. Summary 1 2 The purpose of the present SCHEER Opinion requested by the European Commission is to 3 assess the potential health hazards associated with LED emissions in the general population 4 due to LED usage. 5 The eye and skin are the most susceptible target organs for effects due to optical radiation, 6 and action spectra also exist for effects on skin and eye (ICNIRP, 2013). The type of effect, 7 injury thresholds and damage mechanisms vary significantly with wavelength. There are 8 several variables to be taken into account when referring to effects of optical radiation from 9 LEDs on human health: spectrum of a LED light source; intensity of the lighting, especially in 10 the blue part of the spectrum; duration of exposure; exposure level at the eye or skin; health 11 of the eye or skin; direct staring without deviation versus active eye movement. 12 The specific safety requirements and risk assessment methods regarding photobiological 13 hazards are contained within several European safety standards. In order to assess the 14 potential health hazards associated with LEDs, it is necessary to take into account all exposure 15 parameters - the *irradiance* (the flux of optical radiation that reaches a target, distance 16 dependent), the *radiance* (radiation flux leaving the source depending on emission angle, 17 independent of distance to target), and the exposure duration. 18 People are exposed to optical radiation from a range of sources including different LEDs in any 19 given 24-hour period. For many people, exposure to natural optical radiation will predominate, 20 i.e. exposure to optical radiation from LEDs is likely to be insignificant compared with the 21 exposure to natural light outdoors. 22 ## Potential Health Effects Of Leds In The General Population 23 Published studies show that the blue light-weighted (for eyes) radiance from screens is less 24 than 10% of the blue light photochemical retinal hazard limit, assuming viewing greater than 25 about 3 hours (acute exposure), see Annex IV Dosimetry. 26 The search of the literature for the long-term impact of LED emissions on human health did 27 not identify any studies since the technology has been recently distributed on the market for 28 the general population. Because the technology is still evolving, it is important to continue 29 monitoring the scientific literature. 30 The SCHEER concludes that the available scientific research does not provide evidence for 31 health hazards to the eye or skin associated with LEDs when the total exposure is below the 32 international agreed eposure limits (ICNIRP). However, issues in terms of flicker, dazzle, 33 distraction and glare may occur. 34 It is expected that the risk of direct adverse effects will increase if these limits are exceeded. 35 However, there is insufficient information in the scientific literature on the dose-response 36 relationship for adverse health effects for optical radiation exposure of the healthy general 37 public. 38 In addition, no evidence was found for increased risk of photosensitivity from LED lamps when 39 compared with other lighting technologies. Indeed, the absence of ultraviolet radiation from 40 general LED lamps may reduce the risk of photosensitivity for a number of these conditions. 41 Short-wavelength light (peak around 480 nm) influences the circadian system, but the full- 42 action spectrum for the influence of light on the circadian system is not completely clear yet as 43 other wavelengths have an influence as well. It has been shown that normal use of LEDs or 44 screens illuminated by LEDs during the evening can perturb the circadian system, as do other 45 types of artificial lights. LEDs with a higher component of short-wavelength light have 46 increased impact on the circadian system, perhaps influencing sleep quality. At the moment, it 47 is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian system leads to adverse health effects. 48 Although there is some evidence that use of screens technology into the evening may impact 49 sleep quality, it is not clear whether this is due to the optical radiation or the activity being 50 carried out. 51 In addition, LEDs do have issues in terms of flicker, dazzle, distraction and glare. 1 Due to the point-source nature of some LED lighting, studies have shown that the light emitted 2 leads to discomfort and glare. 3 Some lamps for illumination available on the market incorporate "point" LED sources without 4 diffusers, which can cause glare if viewed. This was also reported to be a concern with some 5 LED street lights. 6 Flicker from some LED lamps can result in stroboscopic effects. There are claims by small 7 number people of adverse health effects such as migraine or headaches. There appear to be 8 no technical reasons why LED lamps need to flicker since many models do not. 9 Potential health effects of particular LED sources (toys, car lights) 10 11 A European standard for electronic toys limits the emission of optical radiation from toys. 12 Some LED emission spectra may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern 13 especially for children below about three years of age. 14 LEDs are used in virtual reality headsets where the screen is very close to eyes. However, the 15 luminance of the source is very low and the exposure limits are not likely to be exceeded. The 16 reported disorientation and nausea after extended use of these headsets is likely to be due to 17 motion sickness rather than the optical radiation emitted by the screen. 18 The SCHEER is concerned about the high-luminance exterior sources used on some vehicles. 19 Current examples appear to be blue-rich, which increases glare and scattering, particularly for 20 older observers. The internal car lighting with LEDs that has replaced standard incandescent 21 bulbs has emission levels that will result in exposures significantly below internationally agreed 22 exposure limits. However, some exhibit pulsed emission modes that can result in phantom 23 arrays when the head or eye is moved quickly. Such effects can be distracting. Distraction, 24 dazzle and glare effects do not result in direct harm to the eye, but there could be 25 consequences if the person exposed is carrying out a safety-critical task, such as driving. 26 Susceptible groups 27 28 As the eye ages scattering may increase. This is a particular problem for blue light. Therefore, 29 older people may experience discomfort problems with exposure to LED systems, not clearly 30 seeing the blue LED displays (such as destination displays on the front of buses). 31 People with degenerative and vascular disease of the retina may be more susceptible to harm 32 from LEDs than the general population, but the risk is considered similar to that from other 33 lighting sources with similar emission characteristics. 34 Although emissions from e.g. toys may not be harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for 35 young children. 36 Additional aspects to consider 37 38 The worst-case viewing condition is generally on axis viewing of an LED source, for example 39 staring at a screen or an LED lamp. If a source is safe for viewing on axis it will be safe under 40 all other viewing conditions at the same distance. 41 Flashing LED sources in the peripheral vision are more likely to cause distraction than those on 42 axis. 43 LED lamps used for area illumination are usually more energy efficient than other sources, e.g. 44 incandescent lamps. For the same colour temperature, the blue light component of the optical 45 emission is similar to an incandescent lamp. However, the infrared (and possible ultraviolet 46 emission) will be greatly reduced or absent, which might influence the normal bioprocesses in 47 humans. This aspect is still under investigation. 48 49 ## 2. Mandate From The Eu Commission Services 1 2.1 Background 2 3 The Light-Emitting Diode (LED) is a semiconductor light source that releases energy in the 4 form of light when a suitable voltage is applied to it. LEDs are used in home lighting, laptop 5 and phone screens, TV sets, traffic signals and increasingly becoming used as a light source in 6 the automotive industry to mention a few applications. 7 The LEDs are energy efficient and last much longer than the conventional light sources, which 8 make them widely used by the general population. Hence it is important to know the 9 implications of LED radiation on the human health. 10 11 Recently, researchers have analysed potential risks of white LEDs [1], issuing 12 recommendations to avoid the hazards. Another group of researcher has speculated about the 13 effects of LED radiation on retinal epithelium cells (RPE) [2], 14 15 The human visual system is exposed to high levels of natural and artificial lights of different 16 spectra and intensities along lifetime. These lights give rise to the formation of reactive oxygen 17 species and induce mutagenic mechanisms which lead to apoptosis and consequently to 18 degenerative eye diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD). 19 20 There are several variables to be taken into account when referring to LEDs effects on human 21 health: 1) spectrum of a LED light source, 2) intensity of the lighting, especially in the blue 22 band, 3) duration of exposure, 4) health of the eye, 5) direct staring without deviation versus 23 active eye movement. 24 25 According to the SCENIHR Opinion on the artificial light1: "blue radiation directly from bright 26 cold white light sources in proximity of the workers eyes (e.g. task lights) or strong projectors 27 (floodlights, accentuation and scenic lighting, etc.), or reflected may represent a risk for retinal 28 damage; the blue light component from cold white reading lights may perturb circadian 29 rhythm of the user; a child's crystalline lens is more transparent to short wavelengths than 30 that of an adult, making children more sensitive to blue light effects on the retina." 31 32 Legal background 33 34 At international level, recommendations for exposure limit values (ELVs) to protect against 35 adverse effects of optical radiation are established by the International Commission on Non- 36 Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and apply both to the occupational population and the 37 general public. 38 39 At EU level, the following legal framework exists that aims at minimising the risks posed by 40 the LEDs. 41 42 Regarding the protection of the occupational population, the ELVs of Directive 2006/25/EC2, 43 which set the minimum safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks arising 44 from artificial optical radiation, are based on the ICNIRP recommendations applicable at the 1 time of publication3. 2 3 Furthermore, the safety of LEDs (unless they are less than 50 V AC or 75 V DC) falls under the 4 scope of the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 2014/35/EU4. LEDs must comply with the safety 5 objectives of Annex I of the Directive that include all type of risks, guaranteeing a high level of 6 protection of health and safety of persons. 7 8 If LEDs are less than 50 V AC or 75 V DC, their safety is covered by the General Product 9 Safety Directive 2001/95/EC5. 10 11 All European standards (EN) related to LVD are voluntary, but if harmonised and published in 12 the Official Journal of the European Union, they would provide presumption of conformity with 13 the safety objectives of the LVD. 14 15 EN 62471 on the "Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems" sets a risk group 16 structure and methods to assess the photo-biological risks of lamps including LEDs. 17 The specific safety requirements regarding photobiological hazards are contained within the 18 LED modules and luminaire safety standards (EN 62031 and EN 60598-series) and in other 19 lamp safety standards: EN 62560 and EN 62776. 20 ## 2.2 Terms Of Reference (Tor) 21 22 The Scientific Committee is asked to assess the safety risks associated with the use of LEDs 23 and to provide an answer to the following questions: 24 25 1. What are the potential health hazards associated with LEDs emission in the general 26 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 27 28 2. If possible, identify dose response relationship associated with LEDs emission in the general 29 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 30 31 3. What are the potential health risks associated with LED displays (e.g., TV sets, laptops, 32 phones, toys and car lighting) in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible 33 populations (e.g., children and elderly people)? 34 35 4. What are the potential health risks associated with LED lamps (e.g., toys and car lighting) in 36 the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible populations (e.g., children and elderly 37 people)? 38 39 3 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): "Guidelines on limits of exposure to broad-band incoherent optical radiation (0.38 to 3 μm)", Health Physics 73 (3), 539-554 (1997) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPbroadband.pdf International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): "Guidelines on limits of exposure to ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths be-tween 180 nm and 400 nm (incoherent optical radiation)", Health Physics 87 (2), 171-186 (2004) http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPUV2004.pdf 4Directive 2014/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits, OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357–374 5 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4–17 ## 3. Opinion 1 The SCHEER replies to the questions in the terms of reference. 2 Q1. What are the potential health hazards associated with LEDs emission in the general 3 population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position? 4 5 LEDs are optical radiation emitters. Optical radiation does not penetrate the body; the eye and 6 skin are the organs that are most susceptible to damage. 7 8 The risks following exposure to optical radiation hazards are a complex function of wavelength 9 and exposure conditions. International organizations, such as the International Commission on 10 Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), have produced weighting functions for different 11 hazards associated with optical radiation. ICNIRP guidelines for optical radiation in general do 12 not differentiate between exposure to professionals and exposure to the general public. 13 The type of effect, injury thresholds, and damage mechanisms vary significantly with 14 wavelength. The effects may overlap and have to be evaluated independently. Action spectra 15 at selected wavelengths, intensity, duration, exist for specific chemical reactions in skin and 16 eye. 17 The SCHEER takes these action spectra for the following parameters: wavelength, intensity, 18 duration and viewing position to assess the potential hazard. 19 20 Wavelength 21 Most current white-light LED lighting devices (blue LED and yellow phosphor) emit blue light 22 combined with green/yellow light without significant red or any near infrared wavelengths. It is 23 under investigation whether the absence of near infrared wavelengths has any health 24 implications. Many people perceive white colour 4000 K LED lighting as harsh because almost 25 thirty percent of the spectrum is emitted as blue light, but direct adverse health effects are 26 unlikely. 27 28 The blue light photochemical retinal hazard to the eye from domestic LED lighting is between 29 10-20% of the relevant ICNIRP exposure limit, assuming viewing longer than about 3 hours. 30 For a comparison, 14% of that limit corresponds to a mid-range incandescent lamp. The 31 ICNIRP guidelines are based on observed eye or skin injury after experimental exposure of 32 animals and on information from human accidents. Reduction factors are used in setting the 33 exposure limits for humans when animal studies are used. 34 35 Intensity 36 Radiant intensity (W/sr) is a parameter characterising the emission of the source, while 37 luminous intensity (lm/sr) is important in terms of visual perception including distraction, glare 38 and after-images. 39 40 The optical radiation incident on a target tissue is expressed in terms of irradiance (W/m²) or 41 illuminance (lm/m² or lux). 42 43 For photochemical processes, the effect is a function of not only the irradiance (or radiance) 44 but also of the exposure duration. The product of these two factors gives the dose (the radiant 45 exposure (J/m²) or radiance dose (J/m²sr)). The irradiance (or radiance) used in this 46 calculation of effects is weighted by the appropriate action spectrum. A person will receive 47 exposure to optical radiation from a range of sources including different LEDs in any given 24- 48 hour period. In order to assess the potential health hazards associated with LEDs, it is 49 necessary to take into account all of these exposures. For many people exposure to natural 50 optical radiation will predominate, i.e. exposure to optical radiation from LEDs is likely to be 51 insignificant compared with the exposure to natural light outdoors. The SCHEER concludes that 52 the available scientific research does not provide evidence for health hazards associated with 1 LEDs when the total exposure is below the ICNIRP exposure limits. However, issues in terms 2 of flicker, dazzle, distraction and glare may occur. 3 4 Animal experiments and in vitro studies suggest that cumulative blue light exposure below the 5 levels causing acute effects also can induce photochemical retinal damage. The search of the 6 literature for long-term impact of LED emission on human health did not identify studies 7 investigating the healthy general population. However, technology is still evolving and it is 8 important to continue to monitor the literature. 9 10 Due to the point-source nature of some LED lighting, studies have shown that these emitters 11 can cause discomfort and glare. 12 13 It has been shown that normal use of LEDs or screens illuminated by LEDs during the evening 14 can perturb the circadian system influencing sleep quality, because of the high component of 15 the short-wavelength light (peak around 480 nm). However, the full action spectrum for the 16 influence of light on the circadian system is not completely clear yet, as other wavelengths 17 have an influence as well. At the moment, it is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian 18 system leads to adverse health effects. Although there is some evidence that use of screens 19 technology into the evening may impact sleep quality, it is not clear whether this is due to the 20 optical radiation or the activity being carried out. 21 22 23 Viewing position 24 The worst-case viewing condition is generally on axis viewing of a LED source, for example 25 staring at a screen or a LED lamp. If a source is safe for viewing on axis it will be safe in all 26 other viewing conditions at the same distance. However, flashing LED sources in the peripheral 27 vision are more likely to cause distraction than those on axis. 28 29 Q2. If possible, identify dose response relationship associated with LEDs emission in the 30 general population with regard to wavelength, intensity, duration and viewing position 31 32 Reliable information on the dose-response relationship for adverse health effects for the case 33 of the healthy general public is not available in the scientific literature for all wavelengths 34 emitted by LED devices, although a general threshold is identified for optical radiation in 35 general based on experimental and injury data. 36 37 If the exposure is below ICNIRP exposure limits, the SCHEER is not aware of any risk of 38 damage to the eye and skin. The risk of damage to the eye or skin will increase if ICNIRP 39 exposure limits are exceeded. However, the profile of the dose-response relationship is not 40 well known. 41 42 Since LED emission characteristics like exposure patterns and spectra (wavelength-dependent 43 intensity) vary from one emitter to another, it is not possible to predict the profile of the dose- 44 response function for a general LED emitter. 45 46 Q3. What are the potential health risks associated with LED displays (e.g., TV sets, laptops, 1 phones, toys and car lighting) in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible 2 populations (e.g., children and elderly people)? 3 4 Evaluating the retinal blue light hazard effectively requires taking account of the irradiance of 5 the retinal image of the source viewed. For momentary viewing, the retinal image subtends 6 the same angle as does the source. With increasing exposure time, the retinal image is spread 7 over an increasingly large area of the retina due to eye movement (saccades) and task- 8 determined movement, resulting in a corresponding reduction in retinal irradiance. A time- 9 dependent function of the angular subtense of the retinal image for exposures from 0.25 sec 10 (aversion response time) to 10,000 sec is defined, ranging from 1.7 mrad (taken as the 11 smallest image formed on the retina) to 100 mrad. 12 13 Published studies show that the blue light weighted radiance from screens is less than 10% of 14 the blue light hazard limit that is defined to protect the retina regarding photochemically 15 induced injury. 16 17 Light from screens, independent of the wavelength, has been shown to influence the circadian 18 system. There is some evidence that use of screen technology into the evening may impact 19 sleep quality. However, it is not clear whether this is due to the optical radiation or the activity 20 being carried out. 21 22 There is an European standard for electronic toys that limits the emission of optical radiation 23 from toys. However, children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although emissions 24 may not be harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for young children. Some LED emission 25 spectra may induce photochemical retinopathy, which is a concern especially for children 26 below about three years of age. 27 28 Internal car lighting with LEDs has replaced standard incandescent bulbs. However, emission 29 levels are significantly below ICNIRP exposure limits for blue light to eyes. Since many such 30 LED sources are operated in pulsed emission modes this can result in phantom arrays when 31 the head or eye is moved quickly. Such effects can be distracting. 32 33 As the eye ages scattering may increase. This is a particular problem for blue light. Therefore, 34 older people may experience discomfort with exposure to LED systems, including blue LED 35 displays (for example destination displays on the front of buses will be blurred). 36 37 People with degenerative and vascular disease of the retina may be more susceptible to harm 38 from LEDs than the general population, but the risk is considered similar to that from other 39 lighting sources with similar spectral characteristics. 40 41 LEDs are used in virtual reality headsets where the screen is very close to eyes. However, the 42 luminance of the source is very low and the exposure limits are not likely to be exceeded. 43 Manufacturers give guidance on maximum duration of use for such headsets. Some people 44 report disorientation and nausea after extended use of these headsets. This is likely to be due 45 to the motion sickness rather than the optical radiation emitted by the screen. 46 47 Q4. What are the potential health risks associated with LED lamps (e.g., toys and car lighting) 48 in the general population and in vulnerable and susceptible populations (e.g., children and 49 elderly people)? 50 51 LED lamps used for area illumination are usually more energy efficient than other sources and 52 therefore consumers have been encouraged to use them instead of, for example, incandescent 53 lamps. Most domestic applications are likely to use retrofit lamps. For the same colour 54 temperature, the blue light component of the optical emission is similar to an incandescent 55 lamp. However, the infrared emission will be greatly reduced or absent, which might influence 56 the normal bioprocesses in humans and is still under investigation. 57 1 It is good practice in lighting design to ensure that lamps for illumination are either positioned 2 outside of the usual field of view or are of such low luminance that the source does not 3 produce significant glare. Some sources available on the market incorporate "point" LED 4 sources without diffusers, which can cause glare if viewed. This was also reported to be a 5 concern with some LED street lights. 6 7 Flicker has been measured at 100 Hz from some LED lamps. It is not possible for consumers to 8 identify which LED lamps flicker and which do not at the point of purchase. Since some LED 9 lamps flicker with almost 100% modulation, this can result in stroboscopic effects (for example 10 a waved hand appears as a series of stationary images). There are claims by a small number 11 of people for adverse health effects such as migraine or headaches. Although not a direct 12 adverse health effect, it is foreseeable that any moving machinery (including food mixers) may 13 appear stationary at particular speeds under flickering LED lamps. There appear to be no 14 technical reasons why LED lamps need to flicker since many models do not. However, the use 15 of a dimmer switch may introduce flicker in LED lamps that do not flicker on full power. 16 17 The SCHEER is concerned about the high luminance sources used on some vehicles, 18 particularly daylight running LED lights that remain on without dimming at night. Current 19 examples appear to be blue-rich, which increases glare and scattering, particularly for older 20 observers. There are claims that these running lights are a greater glare source in fog than 21 more traditional vehicle lighting. However, the SCHEER is not aware of any risk of direct harm 22 to the eyes from the blue light component of external vehicle LED lighting at normal viewing 23 distances, although if a driver's vision is impaired this could result in accidents. 24 25 Apart from the concern over flicker, no evidence was found for increased photosensitivity risk 26 from LED lamps when compared with other lighting technologies. Indeed, the absence of 27 ultraviolet radiation from general LED lamps may reduce the risk of photosensitivity for a 28 number of these conditions. 29 30 There is a European standard for electronic toys that limits the emission of optical radiation 31 from toys. However, children have a higher sensitivity to blue light and although emissions 32 may not be directly harmful, blue LEDs may be very dazzling for young children. 33 34 Additional information 35 Many LEDs contain toxic substances and in order to assess their potential health impact/effect 36 there is a need for further research on waste management. In normal use, there is no 37 evidence of harm from these toxic substances since substances do not leach from LED 38 modules. 39 40 41 ## 4. Minority Opinions 42 No minority Opinion. 43 44 ## 5. Data And Methodology 1 The general approach by the Scientific Committee to health risk assessment is to evaluate all 2 available evidence from human and mechanistic studies regarding effects to exposure to the 3 agent of concern and then to weigh this evidence together across the relevant areas to 4 generate a combined assessment. 5 Throughout the Opinion, consistency and adherence to the International System of Units (SI) 6 regarding the use of terms and units has been used. For definitions and abbreviations please 7 refer to the Glossary of terms and to Abbreviations. 8 ## 5.1 Data/Evidence 9 Data 10 The primary source of scientific data for this Opinion was papers and reports published in 11 international peer reviewed scientific journals in the English language available on PubMed, 12 Scopus and Web of Science. Information has also been taken from technical reports from 13 different agencies and bodies. The literature review carried out is outlined in Annex VII, 14 including the search key words used. 15 The overall quality of the studies is taken into account in a tiered approach (Figure 1), as well 16 as the relevance of the studies for the issue in question. 17 18 ## Fig. 1: Tiered Approach In Selection Of Publications Based On Their Relevance And 19 Quality 20 21 ## Evidence 22 The health risk assessment evaluates the evidence within each of the identified areas and then 23 weighs the evidence together across the areas to generate a combined assessment. This 24 combined assessment addresses the question of whether or not a hazard exists, i.e. if there is 25 a causal relationship between exposure and some adverse health effect. 26 27 In the present Opinion, the potential risks to human health of LEDs have been assessed by 28 reviewing the literature on epidemiological studies, experimental studies in humans, 29 experimental studies in animals and mechanistic in vitro studies. 1 ## 5.2 Methodology 2 The potential health risks to human health of LEDs have been studied via different approaches 3 as controlled studies, case reports, and experimental studies in animals. Also keeping the 4 benefits from the LED lighting in mind, the risk from the LED optical radiation hazard may be 5 managed by exposure optimisation. This is shown in figure 2, below. 6 7 8 reaches low levels. 9 The shape of the curve in figure 2 depends on a number of factors, such as the part of the 10 optical spectrum under consideration, time of exposure, prior exposure, possibly age and 11 individual differences (such as photosensitivity, eye pathologies, etc.). 12 13 The risk assessment approach used in this Opinion is based on that promoted by the European 14 Commission for workplaces (EC 1996) and for products used by consumers (EC 2015). 15 16 This Opinion is primarily concerned with the risk arising following exposure of the eyes or skin 17 to optical radiation from LEDs. Therefore, this will be considered the hazard. It may be 18 necessary to quantify the hazard using an appropriate metric, but usually quantification is only 19 relevant if the optical radiation geometry and distance substantiate the risk of exposure of 20 people. If exposure is possible then the exposure scenario needs to be considered. For 21 example, if the source of exposure is an indicator LED, or if it forms part of a display screen, 22 then it is very likely that people will view the source. However, for many illumination sources, 23 the LED should be shielded from direct viewing and such direct viewing will be likely only 24 under accidental or improper use conditions. Once an exposure scenario has been identified, 25 the optical radiation exposure conditions, for example of the eye or skin, will need to be 26 quantified and compared with relevant limits. These limits may be instantaneous limits or 27 time-averaged limits. In the latter case, exposure from a number of different sources 28 throughout a day will need to be considered. If the exposure is less than the relevant limit, 29 then the risk of adverse health effects is considered low. This assessment needs to be carried 30 out under normal use of the LED and under reasonably foreseeable conditions of misuse. 31 32 In addition to consideration of direct harm, the risk assessment also needed to consider issues 33 that may arise from direct viewing of some LED sources where the risk arises due to the 34 adverse impact of the optical radiation on vision, such as distraction, glare and after-images. 1 These effects depend not only on the optical radiation incident on the eye, but also the 2 ambient light level and the task being carried out at the time of exposure. 3 4 A third category of risk is potentially due to the temporal characteristics of the optical radiation 5 emitted by the LED. The potential effects may be due to the actual emission of the source as 6 directly viewed, or due to head or eye movement, or to the impact on moving equipment. 7 8 A fourth category is where exposure to optical radiation from an LED may impact on circadian 9 rhythm or other aspects of wellbeing. 10 These issues are addressed in this Opinion. 11 12 ## 6. Assessment 2 ## 6.1. Photometry And Radiometry 3 LED characteristics including physical size, flux levels, spectrum and spatial distribution, 4 separate them from typical element sources, which are generally employed and measured for 5 photometric and radiometric quantities. For every radiometric quantity there is a photometric 6 analogue. 7 Photometry is the science of the measurement of light, in terms of its perceived brightness to 8 the human eye. It is distinct from radiometry, which is the science of measurement of radiant 9 energy (including light) in terms of absolute power. Concepts such as radiance, irradiance, 10 radiant power and radiant intensity used in radiometry can easily be defined via simple 11 geometric relationships. While sharing these identical relationships, photometry also 12 introduces detector response modelled after human visual characteristics. 13 Radiometry deals with the measurement of electromagnetic radiation across the total 14 spectrum (infrared, visible, ultraviolet and beyond). Photometry is concerned only with the 15 visible portion of the spectrum, from about 380 nm to 780 nm and measures luminous flux, 16 luminous intensity, illuminance, and luminance. 17 All radiometric and photometric quantities are defined in detail in the glossary. 18 Table 1 indicates the symbols and the units of the quantities; the indices "e" = "energetic"; "v" 19 = "visual". 20 ## Table 1: Radiometric And Photometric Quantities 21 | | | Radiometric | Photometric | |------------|---------------|----------------|----------------| | Quantity | Symbol Units | Quantity | Symbol Units | | Radiant | | | | | Power | | | | | ) | | | | | e | | | | | | | | | | W | Luminous Flux | | | | ) | | | | | v | | | | | | | | | | lumen | | | | | (lm) | | | | | I | | | | | v | | | | | | lm/sr | Radiant | | | Intensity | | | | | I | | | | | e | | | | | | W/sr | Luminous | | | Intensity | | | | | Irradiance | E | | | | e | | | | | | W/m | | | | 2 | | | | | | Illuminance | E | | | v | | | | | | lm/m | | | | 2 | | | | | | or | | | | lux | | | | | Radiance | L | | | | e | | | | | | W/m | | | | 2 | | | | | sr | Luminance | L | | | v | | | | | | lm/m | | | | 2 | | | | | sr | | | | 22 The luminosity function or luminous efficiency function describes the average spectral 23 sensitivity of human visual perception of brightness. It is based on subjective judgements of 24 which of a pair of different-coloured lights is brighter, to describe relative sensitivity to light of 25 different wavelengths. As defined by the Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE) the 26 luminosity function V(λ) is a standard function, which may be used to convert radiant energy 27 into luminous (i.e., visible) energy (see Annex IV Photometry and Radiometry for details). 28 29 ## 6.2 Physical Characteristics Of Leds Sources 1 The basic technology of an LED is that of a conventional diode, i.e., the creation of a positive- 2 negative or p-n junction by doping (impregnating) semiconductor materials with impurities. In 3 a p-n junction, current can flow from the p-side of the material to the n-side, but not in 4 reverse. As electrons move and meet holes, they fall into a lower energy level by the emission 5 of photons. The wavelength (colour) of the light thus emitted depends on the band gap energy 6 of the semiconductors that form the p-n junction. It should be noted, however, that there are 7 situations (e.g., silicon or germanium diodes) where the recombination of electrons and holes 8 does not lead to an optical emission. 9 The spectral irradiance for a domestic retrofit LED lamp is shown in the figure 3, with the 10 spectrum from an incandescent lamp for comparison. However, the emission spectrum 11 depends on the type of LED. In particular, for white light LED lamps, the emission may be 12 produced by a blue LED accompanied by a broad emission phosphor (as shown in the figure 3) 13 or by multiple LEDs emitting different colours that can be mixed in various proportions to 14 produce "white" of different colour temperatures. 15 16 ## Fig. 3: Emission Spectra For An Incandescent Lamp And An Equivalent Led Lamp 17 It is important to put exposure to optical radiation from LEDs into context with natural optical 18 radiation sources. The data above is shown in the figure 4 on a log/linear scale for the spectral 19 irradiance for comparison with a blue sky (minus any direct contribution from the sun). It can 20 be seen that the spectral irradiance from the sky is about two orders of magnitude greater 21 than from the LED or incandescent lamp over a considerable part of the spectrum shown. 22 1 2 3 Infrared LEDs (IRLEDs) have been used for many years in, for example, remote control 4 systems. Although LED technology is still developing, ultraviolet (UV) LEDs have not yet 5 replaced traditional sources of UV radiation in many applications. 6 7 Further information on LED technology is contained in Annex I. 8 9 ## 6.3 Point Source Vs Diffuse Source 10 In this report it is necessary to differentiate not only between point source light (light emitted 11 from a LED chip) and diffused light LED sources, but also between diffused light that 12 illuminates the environment and diffused light emitted by (for example) a LED screen that is 13 directly viewed by users. In this sense, the exposure conditions (irradiance, distance from 14 source and exposure duration) are totally variable and should be considered independently. 15 For example, screens are mostly tactile and the distances of use are dependent on the length 16 of the arms of the user and the quality of their eyesight. However, at any given time, a person 17 is likely to be exposed to optical radiation from a range of different optical radiation sources, 18 including optical radiation from the sun. Any exposure to optical radiation from LEDs needs to 19 put into context. 20 21 To save energy, the European directives from the Eco-design of Energy Using Products 22 (2005/32/CE) have recommended the replacement of incandescent lamps by more economic 23 devices such as LEDs. However, the emission spectra from earlier types of white-light LEDs 24 were rich in blue radiation, known to be potentially dangerous to the retina for high radiant 25 exposures (Krigel *et al.*, 2016). Therefore, it is important to consider actual source 26 characteristics and exposure conditions. 27 28 There are several variables to be taken into account when referring to effects of optical 29 radiation from LEDs on human health: 1) spectrum of a LED light source, 2) intensity of the 30 lighting, especially in the blue part of the spectrum, 3) duration of exposure, 4) exposure level 31 at the eye or skin, 5) health of the eye or skin, 6) direct staring without deviation versus 32 active eye movement. 33 34 35 ## 6.4. The Fundamental Interaction Between Light And Matter 1 Light (or more generally optical radiation) reacts with matter in various ways. These 2 interactions are based on the absorption of the optical radiation by matter. When the energy of 3 a photon is taken up by matter, reflection (the electromagnetic radiation is returned either at 4 the boundary between two media or at the interior of a medium), refraction (change in 5 direction of wave propagation due to a change in its transmission medium), scattering (the 6 process of deflecting a unidirectional beam into one or many directions), or transmission (the 7 passage of electromagnetic radiation through a medium) (Das, 1991; Elliott, 1995; 8 Hillenkamp, 1989). 9 10 There are four basic interactions that can occur following absorption of optical radiation: 11 photothermal, photochemical, photomechanical and photoelectric interactions (see Annex II 12 for details). However, only the first two are relevant to the optical radiation from current LEDs. 13 ## 6.5. Eye Optics Fundamentals 14 A diagram of the human eye, showing the significant anatomical details, is shown below. 15 ## 16 Fig. 5: A diagram of the human eye (source: © National Eye Institute, National 17 Institutes of Health) 18 19 The visual sensitivity of the eye to optical radiation varies with wavelength between about 380 20 and 780 nm. The wavelength range varies between individuals and the absolute response also 21 has a distribution. However, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE from the 22 French, Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage) have published response curves for so-called 1 standard observers, based on experimental studies, taking account of whether the light levels 2 are high (day time), low (night time) or in between. These are termed photopic, scotopic and 3 mesopic curves, respectively. The photopic and scotopic curves are shown in figure 6. 4 5 6 7 ## 6.5.1 Thermal And Photochemical Aspects 8 The risk of thermal effects is related to burns to the retina, generally resulting from short-term 9 exposure to very intense visible and IR-A radiation. Lesions occur on the outer retina 10 (photoreceptors and cells of the pigment epithelium) and appear after some time has passed 11 (usually about 24 hours). With photochemical interactions, first, reactive oxygen species may 12 be generated, second, the presence and action of these represent oxidative stress, and unless 13 repair mechanisms and detoxification processes alleviate the impact, cell death (any type) 14 may occur. Photoreactive pigments (lipofuscin) in the epithelium accumulate with age, 15 increasing the risk of oxidative stress. The photopigment fragments thus created act as free 16 radicals, which may lead to the death of the photoreceptor cells (Kuse *et al,* 2014; Chamorro 17 et al., 2013). The radiation absorbed, which depends on the radiance of the light source and 18 the duration of exposure, causes photochemical decomposition of the pigments present in the 19 photoreceptor cells. 20 21 The retina is exposed to all of the visible wavelength range, the most severe retinal damage is 22 likely to result from the effects of the shorter wavelengths (400-600 nm); this is commonly 23 known as the "blue-light-hazard" (see action spectrum below, ICNIRP 2013). However, the 24 retina contains a number of endogenous photosensitisers (such as vitamin A derivatives, 25 lipofuscin, melanin, flavins, porphyrins and rhodopsin) which can be excited by visible/infrared 26 radiation reaching the retina (Rozanowska *et al.,* 1995). The retina contains many 27 chromophores that can lead to photochemical damage when excited at each wavelength of 28 light. Optical radiation emitted by LEDs may induce cell damage depending on the wavelength 29 and therefore some wavelengths may produce more severe retinal photoreceptor cell damage 30 than other wavelengths. (Chamorro, *et al.,* 2013). Short wavelength light can penetrate 1 through tissues to the cells and their organelles, inducing the generation of reactive oxygen 2 species (ROS) in RPE mitochondria and even apoptosis (Roehlecke, *et al.,* 2009). Also, optical 3 radiation emitted by LEDs can cause a phototoxic effect, especially from the most energetic 4 radiations: the violet and blue (400 - 500 nm) (Godley *et al.*, 2005). The higher toxicity of the 5 blue part of the spectrum is recognised in the ICNIRP action spectrum for the blue light hazard 6 shown in figure 7. Also shown in figure 7 is the aphakic action spectrum, intended for people 7 without a lens, but which can also be applied for very young children. 8 9 10 ## 11 6.5.2. The Effects On The Healthy Eyes 12 6.5.2.1. Computer Vision Syndrome 13 Computer vision syndrome (CVS) is the combination of eye and vision problems associated 14 with the use of computers and was a concern before the introduction of LED screens. In 15 modern society the use of computers for both vocational and avocational activities is almost 16 universal. However, CVS may have a significant impact not only on visual comfort but also 17 occupational productivity since between 64% and 90% of computer users experience visual 18 symptoms which may include eyestrain, headaches, ocular discomfort, dry eye, diplopia and 19 blurred vision either at near or far distance after prolonged computer use. Rosenfield (2011) 20 reviewed the principal ocular causes for this condition, namely oculomotor anomalies and dry 21 eye. Accommodation and vergence responses to electronic screens appear to be similar to 22 those found when viewing printed materials, whereas the prevalence of dry eye symptoms is 23 greater during computer operation. The latter is probably due to a decrease in blink rate 24 and blink amplitude, as well as increased corneal exposure resulting from the monitor 25 frequently being positioned in primary gaze. 26 27 The aim of another study (Argiles *et al.*, 2015) was to evaluate spontaneous eye blink rate 28 (SEBR) and percentage of incomplete blinks in different hard-copy and visual display terminal 29 (VDT) reading conditions, compared with baseline conditions. Its conclusions are that the high 30 cognitive demands associated with a reading task led to a reduction in SEBR, irrespective of 31 type of reading platform. However, only electronic reading resulted in an increase in the 32 percentage of incomplete blinks, which may account for the symptoms experienced by VDT 33 users. 34 ## 6.5.2.2 Anterior Segment Of The Eye 1 To date there is no evidence that commercially available LED light sources have a deleterious 2 effect on the anterior segment (conjunctiva, cornea and lens) of the human eye. 3 It has been reported that the severity of damage induced by light depends on radiation 4 intensity, radiation wavelength and time of exposure (Lee *et al.*, 2016). To date there are 5 scientific reports showing that blue LED light at high doses (i.e. in excess of exposure limits) is 6 toxic for the ocular surface. The excess of blue light LED radiation stimulates the production of 7 pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1, IL-6, and IL-8, through the c-jun amino-terminal 8 kinase [JNK] pathway, p38 pathway, and nuclear factor– kB [NF-kB] pathway) and enzymes 9 (e.g. MMP-1) that mediate prostaglandin and leukotriene biosynthesis, as well as antioxidant 10 enzymes in corneal epithelial cells (Lee *et al.*, 2016). 11 The overexposure to emitting blue radiation (410 nm) at 50 J/cm2 can induce oxidative 12 damage and apoptosis to the cornea, which may manifest as increased ocular surface 13 inflammation and resultant dry eye compared to LED light emitting red and green irradiation 14 (Lee *et al.*, 2016). 15 Regarding the lens, cataract is the major cause for legal blindness in the world (Ide *et al.*, 16 2015). Oxidative stress on the lens epithelial cells is the most important factor 17 in cataract formation. Cumulative light-exposure from widely used LEDs may pose a potential 18 oxidative threat to the lens epithelium. However, blue light exposure from the sky dominates 19 and exposure to blue light from current LEDs is a small additional contribution to the natural 20 exposure. 21 Previous authors (Xie *et al.*, 2014) analysed the photobiological effect on human lens epithelial 22 cells (hLECs) of white LED light exposure with multichromatic correlated colour temperatures 23 (CCTs) of 2954, 5624, and 7378 K. In vitro experiments showed that compared with 2954 and 24 5624 K LED light, LED light having a CCT of 7378 K caused overproduction of intracellular 25 reactive oxygen species (ROS) and severe DNA damage, which triggered cell cycle arrest and 26 apoptosis. These results indicate that white LEDs with a high CCT could cause significant 27 photobiological damage to hLECs. 28 Caution should be exercised regarding the effect of LED light on human lens as this study was 29 conducted using human lens epithelial cells in cultures. Responses against blue light irradiation 30 might be variable in clinical situations involving human subjects. Humans are not ordinarily 31 exposed to blue light with high radiant exposure, as they were in experimental studies. It is 32 possible that under specific occupational circumstances, humans may be exposed to high 33 radiant exposure blue light. However, existing European legislation for the exposure of workers 34 to artificial optical radiation would apply. 35 Some concern should be raised for medical professionals working under intensive shadowless 36 lamps in the operating room. The incandescent or halogen light sources for surgical lamps are 37 being replaced by more energy-efficient light emitting diodes (LEDs). However, occupational 38 exposure legislation will apply. 39 ## 6.5.2.3 Posterior Segment Of The Eye 40 The present review did not identify any peer-reviewed literature demonstrating damage of the 41 posterior segment of the human eye following exposure to optical radiation from commercially 42 available white LED lamps in everyday life. Data are available only concerning the effect of 43 LED light exposure or overexposure for in vitro or in vivo animal model studies. 44 Some concerns regarding possible hazard of LED light exposure comes from the fact that white 45 light from LEDs appears normal to human vision, however a strong peak of blue light ranging 46 from 460 to 500 nm is also emitted within the white light spectrum; this blue light corresponds 47 to a potential retinal hazard, but only at levels significantly in excess of the exposure limits 48 recommended by ICNIRP (Behar-Cohen *et al.*, 2011). See also figure 3 for a comparison with 49 the exposure to optical radiation from a blue sky. 50 The composition of the white-light spectrum differs among LED products and their light 51 qualities may change over time. Although it is robust in the beginning, a white light LED may 52 progressively release more short-wavelengths (blue light) when LED lumen depreciation 1 occurs because of phosphor degradation. The quality of the light deteriorates after the lights 2 pass below the 70% lumen maintenance level (U.S. Department of Energy 2009). These 3 characteristics suggest that a white LED might cause more blue light exposure than other 4 domestic lighting sources at the end of their life. Cumulative exposure to blue light has been 5 argued to accelerate aging of the retina and possibly play an etiological role in age-related 6 macular degeneration (Behar-Cohen *et al.*, 2011). 7 Irradiating human RPE cells in vitro with three different LED light sources - blue (468 nm), 8 green light (525 nm), red-light (616 nm) or white light at an irradiance of 5 mW/cm2 induce a 9 significant reduction of the viability of the cells for all four LEDs light (Chamorro *et al.*, 2013). 10 However, ROS levels increased only after the exposure with blue, green or red light but not 11 after the exposure to white light compared to non-irradiated cells, although there was an 12 increased degradation of nucleic acids in all irradiated cells in comparison with control cells. 13 Notwithstanding, apoptosis cell death also increases significantly following white light exposure 14 (blue 86%, green 84%, red 66%, white 89%) compared to only 3,7% of apoptosis of the non- 15 irradiated RPE cells. Summing up, three light–darkness cycles (12 h/12 h) exposure to LED 16 lighting, including white LED, affect the growth of RPE cells and produce cellular stress, 17 increasing ROS levels as well as increasing DNA damage and the number of apoptotic cells. 18 LED light at domestic lighting levels induced retinal injury in a Sprague-Dawley (albino) rat 19 model after chronic exposure (Shang *et al.*, 2014; Shang *et al*., 2017). Retinal cell function 20 loss was demonstrated *in vivo* by electrofunctional test showing a significant decrease of 21 b-wave amplitude after 9 and 28 days of blue or white LED, or compact fluorescent lamp 22 (CFL), light exposure. The findings were confirmed *ex vivo* by a significant thinning of the 23 outer nuclear layer where the nuclei of photoreceptor cells are located and more apoptosis 24 after blue and white LED light exposure, compared with the exposure to the light from the 25 CFL. The retina has one of the highest oxygen consumption levels of tissues in the body and it 26 is sensitive to oxidative stress (Yu and Cringle, 2005). Oxidative stress is the crucial risk factor 27 for photoreceptor degeneration, which is caused by the generation of toxic ROS within retinal 28 tissue. The retina contains enzymes involved in detoxification or synthesis, particularly in the 29 outer segment or retinal pigment epithelium (Shang *et al.*, 2014; Shang *et al.*, 2017). The 30 spectrum emitted by white LED lights contain photons with energies that exceed the threshold 31 of the enzymes serving as a stress-induced protection mechanism (Behar-Cohen *et al.*, 2011); 32 thus, exposure to optical radiation from white LEDs may result in severe damage to the outer 33 retina at high levels of exposure. Spectral power distribution (SPD), as well as irradiance, are 34 risk factors that contribute to the photochemical retinal injury. To prevent or decrease this 35 potential retinal damage, some companies are increasing the market segments of lower colour 36 temperature (i.e. lower blue component) LEDs for domestic lighting (U.S. Department of 37 Energy 2012). 38 Recently the potential for retinal damage from optical radiation emitted by 10 commercially 39 available LED light sources and a LED lantern used for home was evaluated (James *et al*., 40 2017). Each lamp was tested by measuring the spectral irradiance and spectral radiance. The 41 authors concluded that all light sources tested are in the exempt group according to the 42 ANSI/IESNA Recommended Practice RP-27 series of documents (ANSI/IESNA 2005, 2007) 43 which is the equivalent of the European Standard EN 62471 and therefore do not pose an 44 ocular hazard. 45 ## 6.5.3 Potential Effects On The Non-Healthy Eyes 46 Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disease and a leading cause of 47 blindness in the patients aged about 65 years or older in industrialised countries (Chu *et al.*, 48 2013; Wu *et al.*, 2014). 49 The typical pathology of advanced AMD is described as having two main forms: geographic 50 atrophy (GA) and neovascular (exudative) AMD. Although pharmacologic treatment has 51 changed the visual prognosis of exudative AMD, there is still a limited curative treatment for 52 AMD, and therefore the best option is to prevent its onset by trying to point out possible risk 53 factors which might contribute to further acceleration of the pathologic senescence process of 1 the choroid, RPE and neuroepithelium. A growing number of studies indicate that the effect 2 of oxidative stress contributes to AMD-related pathological changes (Beatty *et al.*, 2000; Lau 3 et al., 2011; Narimatsu *et al.* 2013). Besides aging and smoking, the main source of oxidative 4 stress can be cumulative light exposure, which may induce abnormal accumulation of reactive 5 oxygen species in the macula. 6 A systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that individuals with high levels of sunlight 7 exposure (UVR exposure, visible light exposure and blue light exposure regarded as sunlight 8 exposure) are at a significantly increased risk of AMD (Sui *et al.*, 2013). Furthermore, the risk 9 for cataract extraction, as well as early AMD, is increased in subjects exposed to sunlight 10 (Delcourt *et al.*, 2014). The cornea and natural crystalline lens absorb the most UVR (100 nm- 11 400 nm), and only a small fraction of UV-A (315 nm-400 nm) reaches the retina (Sliney, 12 2001). Although by 20 years of age only 0.1% UVR reaches the retina, due to the metabolites 13 of tryptophan which absorbing UVR (Sliney, 2002), another important component of sunlight, 14 blue light has a better ocular penetration than UVR and by the age of 60–70 years old, there is 15 still 40% of blue light (460 nm) reaching the retina (Behar-Cohen *et al.*, 2011). 16 The urban population tends to have longer duration of exposure to artificial lighting indoors 17 rather than sunlight outdoor. However, for even a short period of time outdoors, the optical 18 radiation exposure from sunlight tends to dominate. 19 ## 6.5.4. Vulnerable And Susceptible Populations 20 6.5.4.1. Children 21 The transmission of UV-A and blue light to the retina is higher in young children than in older 22 children (above about three years) and adults. The ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 2013) suggest 23 that the action spectrum for aphakes may be appropriate for young children, generally 24 considered to be those below about three years of age. This formed the basis of a 25 recommendation on the emission limits for LEDs incorporated into toys (Higlett *et al.*, 2012). 26 ## 6.5.4.2. Adolescent 27 The studies of Kim *et al.* (2016) show that smartphone use has dramatically increased in 28 recent years. According to the authors, smartphones may have adverse health effects, 29 particularly on the eyes, because users stare at the screen for a much longer time than with 30 previous generations of mobile phones. The objective of this study was to elucidate the 31 relationship between smartphone use and ocular symptoms among adolescents (n=715). The 32 conclusion was that the increasing use of smartphones can have a negative impact on ocular 33 health in adolescents, although there was no implication that the optical radiation had any 34 direct adverse health effect. 35 ## 6.5.4.3. Elderly Population 36 No peer-reviewed studies were identified that suggested there was a specific risk to the older 37 population from exposure to the optical radiation from LEDs. However, the aging eye transmits 38 less blue light to the retina and is more susceptible to scatter light at these wavelengths. 39 There have been claims that blue-rich sources of light produce more glare for the older 40 population. This is likely to be evident for LED displays (for example destination indicators on 41 the front of buses) using blue light and vehicle LED lighting. 42 43 ## Conclusion 44 Although there are no reliable data to be used for risk assessment of eye-safety of life-time 45 usage of LED light sources, there might be some concern on the potential negative 46 consequences of LED emissions particularly in a susceptible population which already present 47 early signs of pathologic senescence of the macula. However, it should be emphasised that 48 those concerns derive from results obtained in experimental animal models or cell culture 49 models using exposure levels greater than those likely to be achieved with LED lighting 50 systems in practice. 51 Exposure to optical radiation from white LEDs may result in severe damage to the outer retina 1 at high levels of exposure. Spectral power distribution (SPD) and irradiance are risk factors 2 that contribute to the photochemical retinal injury. To prevent or decrease this potential retinal 3 damage lower blue component LEDs for domestic lighting should be used. 4 5 ## 6.6. Skin Optics Fundamentals 6 6.6.1 Structure Of The Skin 7 Human skin is constituted by three main layers: epidermis, dermis and sub-cutaneous tissue, 8 made from different cellular types that fulfil different functions (see Annex II for a short 9 description for the various parts). 10 Fitzpatrick (1975) originally developed a scale of skin types for use in phototherapy treatment 11 planning. The scale has been more widely adopted (Fitzpatrick 1988) to indicate the sensitivity 12 of the skin to ultraviolet radiation - see Annex III. 13 ## 6.6.2 Optical Properties Of Skin 14 Optical properties of the skin are complex, and result from reflectance; absorption and 15 scattering of the different wavelengths of incident light (see for review Anderson and Parrish, 16 1981, Lister *et al.*, 2012, Liu, 2012). The optical pathways in the skin are shown in figure 8. 17 18 ## Fig. 8: Optical Pathways In The Skin (Source: E. Bruzell) 19 Due to the change in refractive index between air (nD = 1.0) and epidermal surface (nD = 1.55 20 for the stratum corneum), a small fraction of incident optical radiation is reflected. This regular 21 reflectance from normal skin is always between 4% and 7% over the entire spectrum from 22 250-3000 nm, for both white and black skin. Similar air-tissue optical interfaces also cause 23 internal reflections of diffuse and back-scattered radiation, within the epidermis and dermis, 24 and also contribute to *remittance* of the skin. 25 Absorption is a reduction in light energy. Absorption results from the presence of 26 chromophores in the skin: urocanic acid, melanin, haemoglobin (oxy-/deoxy), bilirubin, 27 porphyrins. Although abundant in all tissues, water is not a significant absorber of light in the 28 visible region, but absorbs infrared radiation. Two molecules are the major light absorbing 29 substances in skin: melanin and haemoglobin. Melanins, both eumelanin (brown) and 30 phaeomelanin (red) almost exclusively located in the epidermis in humans, have an absorption 1 spectrum that gradually decreases from the ultraviolet (UV-B, 280 nm) to the near infrared 2 (750 nm) regions. Haemoglobin is the dominant absorber of light in the dermis. The 3 absorption spectrum of oxy-haemoglobin shows three peaks: a dominant peak in the blue 4 region (420 nm) and two further peaks in the green-yellow region (500-600 nm), at 5 respectively 540 and 580 nm [the combination of the blue and green-yellow bands cause 6 haemoglobin to appear red]. 7 Scattering is a change in the direction, polarization or phase of light and results from either a 8 surface effect (such as reflection or refraction) or from an interaction with molecules/particules 9 whose optical properties differ from their surroundings (particulate scatter). The major sources 10 of particulate scatter in the skin are the filamentous proteins: keratins within the epidermis, 11 and collagens in the dermis. In addition, other structures/substances such as melanosomes in 12 the epidermis contribute to light scattering in the skin. Scattering is influenced by the size of 13 the filaments; it increases with increasing fibre diameter, and with wavelength (it increases 14 with decreasing wavelength). 15 Epidermis - the epidermis has an important function in absorbing most of the short-range UV- 16 B (280-315 nm) and a significant proportion of UV-A (315-400 nm) radiation. This results both 17 from absorption of UV radiation by melanin and urocanic acid, and from scattering by keratins. 18 An efficient protection against UV is afforded by the thickening of the stratum corneum that 19 results from the epidermal hyperplasia triggered by UV exposures. 20 Dermis - the dermis is mainly constituted from collagens and elastin and is highly 21 vascularized. Light is absorbed by haemoglobin and scattered by the large collagen fibres 22 (about 10 times larger than keratin fibres of the epidermis). 23 Sub-cutaneous tissue - the sub-cutaneous tissue is rich in fat and is vascularized. Fat is a 24 highly diffusing optical medium, and haemoglobin absorbs light in blood vessels. But 25 penetration of visible light (400-700 nm) in the skin is limited to a depth of about 3 mm, and 26 only a small proportion of visible light penetrates sub-cutaneous tissue. 27 ## 6.6.3 Penetration Of Light In The Skin 28 The penetration depth of light in the skin is a function of wavelength and absorption/scattering 29 by skin composition (melanin, keratin, collagen, haemoglobin, fat). 30 UV - Most UV-B incident on the skin is blocked by the epidermis. It is usually considered that 31 only 10% of UV-B reaches the basal layer of the epithelium as opposed to 50% of UV-A. UV-A 32 reaches the dermis. 33 Visible light - Penetration of visible light in the skin increases with increasing wavelength. 34 However, penetration of visible light is limited to 0.8 - 3 mm. 35 Infrared - infrared radiation can reach subcutaneous tissue. 36 When optical radiation reaches a tissue, part of this radiation is scattered in the environment 37 (5-7% for perpendicular radiation, and almost constant for all wavelengths) (Sandell *et al.*, 38 2011), some is absorbed in different layers, and part is transmitted internally by successive 39 layers of tissue until the incident energy is dissipated. 40 41 The first optical interaction with skin occurs on the stratum corneum layer at the surface, 42 where a certain fraction of the incident radiation is scattered in the environment because the 43 corneal refractive index (np = 1.55) is much greater than air. This component represents 5-7% 44 for radiation perpendicular, and is almost constant for all wavelengths. 45 The remission (diffusion reflectance) is the fraction of incident radiation that returns from the 46 skin. 47 48 The transmission is the fraction of incident radiation that penetrates through the skin. 49 50 Regular reflectance is the radiation that penetrates the skin and is scattered back later 1 (Sandell *et al.*, 2011). The absorption spectra of any tissue, including skin, is determined by 2 the presence of all biologically important molecules involved in double bonds (chromophores of 3 skin) and containing water in biological tissues. The overall optical properties of the skin 4 depend on photon absorption and scattering by a wide range of biomolecules, with specific 5 chromophores, of endogen or exogen origin: bilirubin, beta-carotene, aromatic amino acids 6 (tryptophan, tyrosine), urocanic acid, nucleic acids and melanin. The major contribution to 7 blood optical absorption is due to haemoglobin, both in its oxygenated and deoxygenated 8 forms. Oxyhaemoglobin has an absorption band near 405 nm (Soret band) and the 9 characteristic double peak absorption in the area of 545–575 nm; deoxyhaemoglobin strongly 10 absorbs near 430 nm and a weak band at 550nm (Anderson *et al.*, 1982; Parrish and Jaenicke 11 1982; Cheong *et al.*, 1990) 12 13 The aminoacids have absorption maxima around 275 nm, the nucleic acids with maximum 14 absorption in the 260 nm due to chromophores observed in the epidermis and cornea (see 15 figure 9). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Melanin is the chromophore of the human skin epidermal layer and is one of the major light 23 absorbers in some biological tissue. There are two types of melanin: eumelanin which is black- 24 brown and pheomelanin which is red-yellow. Their absorption spectra are wide, without 25 specific peaks and they effectively absorb in all spectral regions from 300 to 1200 nm. In the 26 near-ultraviolet radiation and visible regions of the spectrum, except the melanin, the basic 27 skin chromophores are bilirubin, vitamins, flavins, flavin ferments, carotenoids, phycobilins 28 and phytochrome, among others, as well as elastin and collagen fibers (Utz *et al.*,1993). 29 The skin consists of three main visible layers from the surface: stratum corneum (~20μm 30 thick), epidermis (100μm thick, the blood free layer), dermis (1–4 mm thick, vascularized 31 layer). The average scattering properties of the skin are defined by the scattering properties of 32 the reticular dermis because of the relatively large thickness of the layer (up to 4 mm) and of 33 the comparable scattering coefficients of the epidermis and the reticular dermis (Genina and 34 Tuchin, 2011). 35 36 The subcutaneous adipose tissue (1-6 mm thick depending from the body site) has absorption 37 defined by absorption of haemoglobin, lipids, and water (about 11%) (Jacques, 2013). 38 39 At wavelengths from 600 to 1500 nm, scattering prevails over absorption and penetration 40 depth is increased to 8–10 mm. 41 According to Johnson and Guy (1972), for a sample consisting of the epidermis and dermis, 1 the depth of penetration is 0.15−0.2mm (wavelength 632.8 nm) and 0.21−0.4 nm 2 (wavelength 675 nm). 3 ## 6.7 Optical Radiation Effects On Skin 4 The topic is reviewed in the SCENIHR Opinion "Health Effects of Artificial Light" (SCENIHR, 5 2012). A brief version containing some new information published since 2012 can be found in 6 Annex III. 7 8 The SCHEER is unaware of UV-LED sources intended for the general population with the 9 exception of a few devices for certain cosmetic purposes (see Annex III). UV nail lamps and/or 10 LEDs do not appear to significantly increase the lifetime risk of non-melanoma skin cancer. 11 However, data are lacking regarding the possibility of premature skin ageing, and the risk to 12 the eyes of the professional operators should be considered. Assessment of LED sources in 13 medical devices and for occupational use is beyond the scope of this Opinion. 14 15 Vitamin D production in human skin following exposure to UV irradiation from LEDs has been 16 studied in vitro via High Performance Liquid Chromatography indicating possibility for 17 synthesis of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 if the UV LED source is powerful enough. However, 18 UV-B is carcinogenic to humans and public health organizations, including SCHEER (SCHEER, 19 2016) do not recommend use of artificial UV radiation to enhance vitamin D levels 20 ## 6.7.2 Effects Of Led Reported In The Literature (Photodermatoses) 1 2 6.7.2.1Controlled studies: A controlled study (Fenton *et al.*, 2013) investigated 3 photosensitivity after exposure to either a single-envelope compact fluorescent lamp 4 (CFL) (15 W GE BIAXTM Electronic 220–240 V; 50/60 Hz; 120 mA; FLE TBX/XM827 183 5 JA/S; 900 lumen), a double-envelope CFL (15 W OSRAM DULUXSTAR Mini Ball 827 6 Lumilux Warm White 220–240 V; E27; 50/60 Hz; 850 lumen) or an LED lamp (10 W 7 0026172 Hi-Spot RefLED PAR30; E27; 15 000 h; 100–250 V; 50–60 Hz; 20 lm Warm 8 White 830/3000 K; 400 lumen). The emission spectra of the lamps between 250-400 nm 9 at the distance of patient testing were recorded and presented. Two hundred patients 10 (103 actively photosensitive) were exposed to the single-envelope CFL and of these, 11 11 patients were exposed to the double-envelope CFL. One hundred and one patients (45 12 actively photosensitive) were exposed to the LED and, in addition, there were 20 healthy 13 controls. The patients were exposed on untanned skin on the inner forearm while the 14 healthy controls were exposed on untanned skin on the back. All subjects were at a 15 distance of 5 cm from the lamp. One of the exposure sites was covered with UVR- 16 protective film. In the CFL-group 32 patients presented with responses (delayed papules, 17 erythema and immediate urticarial responses), while in the LED-group one patient 18 showed a response. Two of the healthy volunteers showed a positive erythemal response 19 24 h post-irradiation. The patient showing a positive response in the LED-group was 20 diagnosed with solar urticaria and had visible light sensitivity. The SCHEER notes that 21 the LED irradiance in the full emission range was unknown. The LED's UV emission was 22 negligible compared to those of the CFLs. 23 24 A pilot study (Fenton *et al.*, 2014) investigated the exposure of a compact fluorescent 25 lamp (CFL) (GE BiaxTM Electronic, part number FLE15TBX/XM/827, 220–240 V, 50–60 26 Hz, 15 W, 120 mA, 900 lumen (GE Lighting, Northampton, U.K.), an energy-efficient 27 halogen lamp (EEH) (Osram Halogen ES Classic Spot R63, part number 64546 R63 ES, 28 240 V, 42 W, 630 lumen (Osram, Munich, Germany) and an LED (Hi-Spot RefLED PAR30, 29 part number 0026172, 100–250 V, 50–60 Hz, 10 W, 400 lumen (Sylvania, Raunheim, 30 Germany). The emission spectra of the lamps between 250-400 nm at the distance of 31 patient testing were recorded and presented. Fifteen patients with lupus erythematosus 32 (LE) and five healthy volunteers were included and tested for cutaneous responses to 33 repeated exposures from the lamps. The patients were exposed on untanned skin on the 34 back at a distance of 5 cm from the lamp. One of the exposure sites was covered with 35 UVR-protective film. The authors reported that: "No cutaneous LE lesions were induced 36 by any of the light sources. Delayed skin erythema was induced at the site of CFL 37 irradiation in six of the 15 patients with LE and two of the five healthy subjects. 38 Erythema was increased in severity and was more persistent in patients with LE. One 39 patient with LE produced a positive delayed erythema to the EEH. A single patient with 40 LE produced immediate abnormal erythemal responses to the CFL, LED and EEH. Further 41 investigation revealed that this patient also had solar urticaria. All other subjects had 42 negative responses to LED exposure". The SCHEER notes that the LED irradiance, for 43 which UV-emission was negligible compared to those of the CFL and EEH, in the full 44 emission range was unknown. 45 46 ## 6.7.2.2 Case Reports 47 48 A case of solar urticaria triggered by LED-therapy was reported by Montaudié *et al.* 49 (2014). A 55-year-old woman with no history of urticarial rash following previous sun 50 exposures was treated with 415 nm LED for mild rosacea (a photo-aggravated 51 dermatosis). Phototesting confirmed the diagnosis of solar urticaria. The SCHEER notes 52 that the irradiance, treatment distance and LED-spectrum were not noted. 53 54 A case was reported of a patient with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) who 1 presented with a rash after dental treatment (Tiao *et al.*, 2015). The patient was 2 allegedly being exposed to "surgical light" emitting UV-B, a wavelength range without 3 purpose for this type of light. The SCHEER notes the spectral characteristics of the 4 source were not given. It is unknown whether her reaction alternatively could have been 5 due to an (photo-)allergy to dental materials, heat effects from the emission of blue light 6 from LED dental curing lights (irradiance typically in the order of thousands mW/cm2) or 7 a drug-mediated photosensitivity reaction (the patient took several medications for her 8 disorder). 9 10 ## 6.7.3 Conclusions 11 Emission from commercial LED lighting can induce a positive skin response in some 12 patients with solar urticaria when exposed in short distances in controlled environments. 13 The dose that elicits such a response is not known. 14 The SCHEER concludes that thermal effects from visible and IR-emitting lighting sources 15 are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in healthy skin from LEDs intended for 16 lighting purposes and displays. However, there may be effects due to excessively intense 17 sources close to the source, such as from high irradiance (near-) IR sources. If saunas 18 and warming cabinets are equipped with IR-LEDs, these devices may cause erythema 19 below the pain limit. 20 The SCHEER is not aware of UV-LEDs in tanning equipment, but such devices would have 21 the same carcinogenic potential as conventional sources provided the same level of 22 irradiance is received as from the radiation sources that the UV-LEDs have replaced. 23 Cancer is not likely to develop from nail-curing LED-devices if the risk is not already 24 increased in susceptible individuals. 25 26 ## 6.8 Circadian Rhythms 27 Apart from influencing vision, light received by our eyes has several non-image forming 28 functions, such as the pupillary light reflex and providing input to our biological clock. 29 The presence of a light (day) and dark (night) phase due to the earth's rotation has 30 resulted in the evolution of an internal clock in almost all organisms, including humans. 31 The rhythm imposed by this 'biological' clock has a periodicity of approximately 24 hours 32 and is, therefore, often referred to as the circadian rhythm (circa = approximately, and 33 diem = day). This biological timekeeping system imposes day-night rhythms on many 34 processes in our body, including behaviour (sleep/wake cycle), endocrine regulation, 35 immune response and energy metabolism. Disturbances of our circadian rhythms have 36 been linked with negative effects on health and increased accident risks. The biological 37 clock is highly influenced by external light clues, including artificial light. These results 38 were previously reviewed in the SCENIHR Opinion 'Health effects of artificial light' in 39 2012. In the current Opinion, the SCHEER focusses on the effects of LED sources. For a 40 summary of the mechanism of generation of circadian rhythms and their normal 41 functions, see Annex V. 42 ## 6.8.1. Synchronisation And Regulation Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 43 The central clock in our brain needs to be synchronised with the outer world, which 44 occurs via light cues. In the absence of any light cues, the central clock will maintain its 45 'own' rhythm, which is usually a bit shorter or longer than 24 hours. After a few days, 46 the circadian rhythm of a person would be 'out of sync' with the outside world (Dijk and 47 Archer 2009; Dibner, Schibler *et al.* 2010). The peripheral clocks are synchronised by 48 multiple cues, including neuronal and hormonal signals from the central clock, but also 49 feeding time is an important cue for several peripheral tissues (Patton and Mistlberger 50 2013). 51 52 Multiple photosensitive receptors in the retina translate the light signal into a neuronal 1 signal (see next section for more details). The influence of light on the circadian system 2 is dependent on 1) timing, 2) intensity, 3) duration, 4) spectrum of the light stimulus, 3 and 5) of previous light exposure. For intensity and duration, experiments have shown 4 that there is a dose-dependent relationship with response of the circadian system (Duffy 5 and Czeisler 2009). Importantly, relatively low intensity levels (<100 lux) and short 6 durations (seconds to minutes) have been reported to affect the circadian system 7 (Glickman, Levin *et al.* 2002, for review see Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Lucas, Peirson et 8 al. 2014). With regard to timing and previous light exposure, light stimuli have a greater 9 impact on the circadian system when they are present during the dark phase. Light 10 present during the late night/morning will advance the phase of the circadian rhythm, 11 whereas light present during the evening will delay the phase of the circadian rhythm. 12 This is an important concept considering disturbances of the circadian rhythm since 13 chronic light exposure during the evening, causing a phase delay, can result in social 14 jetlag (see 6.9.4: 'Consequences of disturbance of the circadian rhythm by light'). 15 Furthermore, the effect of light is dependent on previous light exposure, since 16 adaptation to light also occurs with regard to the circadian system (Duffy and Czeisler 17 2009, Kozaki *et al.* 2016). Finally, the photoreceptors are not equally sensitive to all 18 wavelengths of light; therefore, the spectrum of the light is critical. 19 ## 6.8.2 Role Of Light Spectrum On Regulation Of The Circadian Rhythms 20 Different wavelengths of light appear to have different effects on the biological clock. 21 This is caused by the spectral sensitivity of the photoreceptors in the retina providing the 22 input to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) via the intrinsically photosensitive retinal 23 ganglion cells (ipRGCs). The photoreceptors of the retina include the rods and cones for 24 image-forming vision. However, in the absence of rods and cones, several non-image 25 forming functions remain (circadian entrainment, pupillary light reflex), indicating the 26 presence of an additional photoreceptor. Melanopsin was discovered about 15 years ago 27 as the protein in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells of the retina (ipRGCs) 28 that is responsible for providing input to the circadian system and providing other non- 29 image forming functions (Hattar, Liao *et al.* 2002, Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Hatori and 30 Panda 2010, Tosini, Ferguson *et al.* 2016). *In vitro* experiments have shown that 31 melanopsin has a peak spectral sensitivity of around 480 nm (Panda, Provencio *et al.* 32 2003, Panda, Nayak *et al.* 2005, Qiu, Kumbalasiri *et al.* 2005, Torii, Kojima *et al.* 2007, 33 Bailes and Lucas 2013). However, *in vivo*, the signals received in ipRGCs from the other 34 photoreceptors also have a role in determining ipRGCs output and the subsequent input 35 to the circadian system. Their relative contribution is still under investigation, which is 36 compounded by the finding that this appears to be context dependent (Lucas, Peirson et 37 al. 2014). Additionally, the spectral composition of the light that is received by the 38 photoreceptor is influenced by the spectral transmission properties of the ocular media, 39 which is, for example, dependent on age (Lucas, Peirson *et al.* 2014, Gimenez, Beersma 40 et al. 2016). In summary, spectral sensitivity of the circadian system is a complex 41 interplay of external and internal factors, and not yet completely understood. However, 42 experiments have shown that, overall, circadian rhythms are more affected by short 43 wavelength light (460-490 nm) (Duffy and Czeisler 2009, Benke and Benke 2013), with 44 the exact peak probably dependent on the individual and context involved. 45 ## 6.8.3 Influence By Optical Radiation Including Leds 46 For details on how human circadian rhythms are investigated in most of the described 47 studies (such as assessing melatonin rhythms) please see Annex V. As described above, 48 the circadian system is regulated by light input. The circadian system is not only 49 influenced by daylight, but also by optical radiation from artificial light sources. Some 50 artificial lighting sources influence aspects of the circadian system and compete with 51 natural light as a zeitgeber. For example, studies using exposure to artificial light 52 sources reported effects on melatonin rhythms and subsequent sleep (for example, 53 Wright, Lack *et al.* 2001, Wright, Lack *et al.* 2004, Cajochen, Frey *et al.* 2011, Wood, 54 Rea *et al.* 2013, Chang, Aeschbach *et al.* 2014, Gronli, Byrkjedal *et al.* 2016, Rangtell, 1 Ekstrand *et al.* 2016). This might have health consequences when artificial light is 2 present during evening and night time, when naturally no light is present. Exposure to 3 light during the evening and night may delay the phase of the circadian clock. This delay 4 might cause a disturbance of the circadian rhythm: see section 'Consequences of 5 disturbance of the circadian rhythm by light' in Annex V for more details. These effects 6 can occur with all types of artificial light, however, recent studies indicate that this effect 7 is amplified for certain types of LEDs which have relatively high amount of short- 8 wavelength emission. As described above, the circadian system is more sensitive to 9 light of a short wavelength. 10 ## 6.8.3.1 Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Leds Sources 11 The widespread use of LEDs is relatively recent. Therefore, only a small number of 12 studies investigated the effects of LEDs vs. traditional light sources on circadian 13 rhythms. It is important to note that LEDs, as traditional light sources, are not one 14 homogenous class; their influence on the circadian system depends on the specific 15 properties of that particular light source. Some studies have investigated the effect of 16 (blue) LEDs on circadian rhythms without a comparison to traditional light sources (for 17 example, Wright, Lack *et al.* 2004, Kayaba, Iwayama *et al.* 2014), which indicated that 18 LEDs that emit short-wavelength light influence circadian rhythms, as do other light 19 sources with short-wavelength light. 20 21 Most of the few studies available investigated screens illuminated by LEDs. For example, 22 a study from Cajochen *et al.* investigated the effect of exposure to white light from a 23 commercially-available screen illuminated with LEDs or a cold cathode fluorescent lamp 24 (CCFL) illuminated screen (Cajochen, Frey *et al.* 2011). Spectral measurements were 25 performed showing that the radiance between 400 nm and 480 nm of the LED screen 26 was higher (0.241 W/(sr m2) compared to 0.099 W/(sr m2)). Participants were asked to 27 watch this screen in a controlled laboratory setting for 5 hours during the evening. 28 Relative to the non-LED screen, the LED screen delayed the dim light melatonin onset 29 (DLMO) and enhanced the suppression of evening melatonin levels for approximately 2 30 hours. In addition, exposure to the LED screen reduced subjective and objective 31 measures of sleepiness and increased performance on cognitive tasks, relative to the 32 non-LED screen. These results indicate that exposure to screens illuminated with these 33 types of LEDs have a larger immediate influence on the circadian system than the CCFL- 34 illuminated screen. 35 36 A study from Wright *et al.* similarly showed that LEDs can phase delay the circadian 37 rhythm in melatonin levels (Wright, Lack *et al.* 2001). However, in this study the phase 38 delay caused by this type of white LED was not different to the phase delay caused by a 39 traditional white fluorescent light source. In this study, a blue/green LED was also 40 included, which did affect the circadian rhythm in melatonin to a greater extent 41 compared to the white LED or white fluorescent light source. The authors report that the 42 white LED has a narrow peak wavelength at 460 nm and a secondary broader peak 43 wavelength at 560 nm. The blue/green LED has a peak wavelength at 497 nm and a 44 half-peak bandwidth of 485-510. Exposure to the light sources was performed for 2 45 hours during night time (from 24.00- 02.00 h). Hence, exposure started when melatonin 46 levels were already high. This is in contrast to the study by Cajochen *et al.*, where 47 exposure was during the evening when melatonin levels start to rise and for a longer 48 period (5 hours). All light sources suppressed the melatonin levels between 24.00 and 49 02.00 hours. In all experimental groups with an additional light source, a phase delay of 50 the melatonin rhythm was observed the subsequent day. Exposure to light from 51 blue/green LEDs caused the largest delay of 42 minutes. The delay observed after 52 exposure to the fluorescent light box and white LEDs was similar (both 22 minutes). In 53 summary, this study shows that all of the used light sources influenced the circadian 54 rhythm of melatonin with the blue/green LEDs having a greater effect. 55 1 Similar findings were observed in a second study in which exposure to light from blue 2 LEDs was compared to white fluorescent light (West, Jablonski *et al.* 2011). A white LED 3 source was not included. Results show that there is increased melatonin suppression 4 with increased radiance from blue LED light. Additionally, blue LEDs affect melatonin 5 levels at lower radiances compared to white fluorescent light. 6 7 Combined, these studies indicate that any additional influence on the circadian system 8 by LEDs is dependent on the characteristics of the emitted optical radiation and of the 9 use of the LEDs (i.e. timing and duration) in a similar fashion as other light sources 10 influence the circadian system. It is important to note that they might also have a more 11 beneficial emission spectrum compared to traditional light sources (Aube, Roby *et al.* 12 2013, Lu, Chou *et al.* 2016) depending on the time (of the day) of exposure and on the 13 characteristics of the LEDs. 14 15 Additionally, there are a few studies that investigated the effect of 'real life' devices in 16 which LEDs are incorporated, such as tablets (Wood, Rea *et al.* 2013, Chang, Aeschbach 17 et al. 2014, Gronli, Byrkjedal *et al.* 2016, Heo, Kim *et al.* 2016, Rangtell, Ekstrand *et al.* 18 2016). In these studies, no controls with non-LED devices were made. However, these 19 studies provide some insight to the effects that occur in real life, where the use of 20 screens illuminated by LEDs has increased tremendously over the recent years 21 (Gradisar, Wolfson *et al.* 2013). Most of these studies observed effects on melatonin 22 onset, levels, sleepiness and/or sleep quality. In one of the studies, no effects were 23 observed (Rangtell, Ekstrand *et al.* 2016). The authors suggest that this might be due to 24 bright light exposure during the day for 6.5 hours, however, no control group was 25 included (Rangtell, Ekstrand *et al.* 2016). 26 27 The study by Chang *et al.* (2014) was the first to investigate repeated exposure to a LED 28 illuminated screen on circadian rhythms. In this study, participants were asked to read a 29 book using an iPad® or an ordinary book for 4 hours before going to sleep, for 5 30 consecutive days. The 'reading an ordinary book' is an important control group, since it 31 controls for the level of (cognitive) activity performed regardless of light. Effects were 32 observed on melatonin levels, time to fall asleep, subjective and objective sleep 33 measures and sleepiness levels on the morning after. After 5 days of using the iPad® an 34 average delay of the melatonin rhythm of 1.5 h compared to reading an ordinary book 35 was observed on day 6. This observation is an important factor for the development of 36 possible advice on health consequences. 37 38 In summary, the available studies indicate that white-light LEDs can have larger 39 influence on the circadian rhythm compared to traditional light sources, due to their 40 different spectral emission pattern. Light sources that emit more short-wavelength light, 41 as do most white LEDs, will have a larger effect on the circadian system at equal 42 intensity, duration and timing and after equal previous light exposure. However, 43 recently new LEDs have become available that emit lower levels of short-wavelength 44 light, which might decrease effects in the future, when use of these LEDs is more 45 widespread. In addition, it is unclear if the effects on the biological clock remain with 46 repeated exposure as occurs in real life. Furthermore, it is important to note that 47 exposure to artificial light with high levels of short-wavelength during the day might 48 enhance entrainment of the circadian clock. 49 ## 6.8.4 Consequences Of Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 50 The studies described above showed that influence of artificial light sources on the 51 circadian rhythm is dependent on the characteristics of the emitted optical spectral 52 radiance. Several of the LEDs investigated in these studies have a larger effect on 53 circadian rhythms compared to traditional light sources, due to their different spectral 54 emission patterns. Currently, there are no studies that investigated the health 55 consequences of use of LEDs during the evening and night. For negative consequences 1 reported for other artificial light sources, please see Annex V. 2 ## 6.8.5 Vulnerable And Susceptible Populations 3 It is known that elderly persons have less robust circadian rhythms (Cornelissen and 4 Otsuka 2016) and might, therefore, be more susceptible to circadian disturbance caused 5 by artificial light in general. In addition, adolescents are known to more often have a late 6 chronotype (Roenneberg, Kuehnle *et al.* 2007). Combination of a late chronotype with 7 artificial light exposure during the evening might result in enhanced effects on sleep. 8 9 ## 6.8.6 Conclusions 10 The currently available studies indicate that artificial light can influence the circadian 11 system, depending on the light characteristics. Light sources that emit more short- 12 wavelength light, as do some types of LEDs, will have a larger effect on the circadian 13 rhythms at equal optical radiance, duration and timing of exposure. Exposure during the 14 evening might result in poorer sleep and negative health risks, although evidence is 15 limited. Several studies suggest a link between desynchronisation of the biological clock 16 and increased metabolic risk factors. However, it is unclear if chronic artificial evening 17 light can cause these effects. 18 19 However, the current conclusion is based on a limited amount of studies, which were 20 mostly performed in a laboratory setting. An important question that remains is whether 21 light from LEDs, and artificial light in general, present in indoor lighting and screens will 22 have an effect on the circadian system in *real life* compared to natural light sources. 23 Moreover, it is currently unknown if the effects on the circadian system remain, enhance 24 or reduce, after repeated and ultimately after chronic exposure, such as currently occurs 25 in real life. 26 27 ## 6.9 Temporal Light Modulation (Flicker) And Potential Health Effects 28 Most light sources operating from the electrical mains tend to have a degree of temporal 29 modulation. However, sources such as incandescent lamps have thermal inertia, which 30 means that the degree of modulation is limited to about 10%. LEDs operated from DC 31 sources will not flicker unless modulation is introduced, for example to increase 32 perceived brightness. LEDs operating from mains supplies (50 Hz in Europe) may have a 33 degree of modulation ranging from less than 10% to 100%. Such modulation may also 34 be introduced by dimming systems. 35 36 Flicker is usually used to represent modulation of the light source that can be perceived. 37 Some people are susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy, which may be triggered by light 38 modulation or rapidly changing images. The susceptibility is a function of flicker 39 frequency and possibly the proportion of the field of view occupied by the actual or 40 virtual source (which may include reflections from surfaces). Photosensitive epilepsy has 41 an overall incidence of 1.5/100,000 per year, which increases between the ages of 7 and 42 19 years, to seven per 100,000 per year (Quirk et al., 1995). Concerns over exposure to 43 flashing images on screens have existed since before the use of LEDs in screen 44 technology (Wilkins et al., 2004). No published studies were identified to suggest 45 increased reporting of symptoms as a result of LED technology. The usual trigger of 46 concern for sufferers of photosensitive epilepsy is strobe-like lighting, as used in 47 entertainment, or as experienced when driving through an avenue of trees with the sun 48 to the side. However, there was one recent case study (Brna and Gordon, 2017) of an 49 adolescent who had symptoms triggered by the multiple flash (to reduce "red eye") from 50 a smart phone. 51 52 Under a flicker/strobe rate of about 5 Hz and above about 60 Hz, the proportion of 1 patients with photosensitive epilepsy who are sensitive to an episode is less than 5%, 2 with the peak sensitivity at about 20 Hz (Binnie et al., 2002). 3 4 Area lighting operating from the mains may flicker at 100 Hz (in Europe), which is above 5 the frequency of concern for photosensitive epilepsy. However, depending on the degree 6 of modulation, some people may perceive the flicker, especially in the peripheral field of 7 view. Although no published case-studies were identified, there are claims that a small 8 number of people are very sensitive to flickering light at about 100 Hz, triggering 9 symptoms such as headaches, migraine and general malaise. The figure shows the LED 10 lighting assessed in the home of a patient suffering from migraine and face burning 11 when in the vicinity of their kitchen LED down-lighters (PHE, 2017). Figure 10 shows the 12 lighting operating at full brightness (100%) and when set to 50% on a dimmer switch. 13 14 15 16 17 The spectra for the different LED lighting in the kitchen/dining room area is shown in 18 figure 11. 19 20 21 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in the US published the IEEE 1 Recommended Practices for Modulating Current in High-Brightness LEDs for Mitigating 2 Health Risks to Viewers in 2015 (IEEE, 2015). This document provides a plot of the risk 3 of adverse health effects as a function of frequency and percentage modulation. 4 5 As the flicker frequency increases, another effect is likely, called the phantom array. This 6 is often experienced when travelling behind a car at night. If the car has LED brake or 7 normal rear lights, a sudden eye movement can result in a series of images of the 8 source. The effect can also be produced when driving past a static flickering light source, 9 such as LED road studs (cat's eyes). Roberts and Wilkins (2013) showed that phantom 10 arrays can be perceived at flicker rates up to about 2 kHz, and possibly higher under 11 some circumstances for some viewers. It is possible that some of the susceptibility to 12 high frequency (100 Hz and above) flicker may be due to the phantom array, even if the 13 array is not perceived. 14 15 A major concern following the introduction of fluorescent lamps in industry was the 16 stroboscopic effect, sometimes referred to the "wagon-wheel" effect, where a rotating 17 object appears static. This was addressed in industry by ensuring that fluorescent lamps 18 were on different phases and/or incandescent task lighting was used. LED lighting can 19 produce the same effect, depending on the degree of modulation. However, of greater 20 concern is the use of modulated LED lighting in domestic and other non-industrial 21 environments where awareness is likely to be low. It is reasonably foreseeable that a 22 food mixer blade could appear stationary when the only illumination source is a 23 modulated LED, or a group of LEDs operating at the same frequency. 24 25 The International Commission on Illumination organised a workshop in February 2017 to 26 consider the implications of temporal light modulation, and how to quantify both the 27 hazard and the risk (CIE, 2017). 28 29 It is possible to operate LEDs from essentially DC power supplies. However, even when 30 the temporal light modulation is assessed for a given LED luminaire, there appears to be 31 no guarantee that similar luminaires, even with the same part number, will be identical 32 (CIBSE, 2016). 33 ## 6.9.1 Conclusion 34 LED lighting can produce a stroboscopic effect, depending on the degree of modulation. 35 The use of modulated LED lighting in domestic and other non-industrial environments 36 where awareness is likely to be low is of a concern. Although no published case-studies 37 were identified, there are claims that a small number of people are very sensitive to 38 flickering light at about 100 Hz, triggering symptoms such as headaches, migraine and 39 general malaise. 40 ## 6.10 Exposure And Health Risk Scenarios 41 x Exposure situations in various indoor LED lighting settings 42 43 Many people spend significant proportions of the day and evening (and possibly night) 44 staring at screens, which may be LED illuminated. Television screens tend to be viewed 45 at distances of 1 metre or more, computer screens at about 50 cm and tablets or phones 46 viewed at closer distances. There are also applications where a dedicated screen or a 47 smartphone may be viewed within a few centimetres, for example in virtual reality 48 headsets. O'Hagan *et al.* (2016) assessed the emissions from various screens and 49 concluded that exposure levels were less than 10% of the ICNIRP blue light exposure 50 limit, even for extended use durations. Since the assessment was carried out in terms of 51 source radiance, the assessment conclusion was made independent of viewing distance. 52 53 The blue light photochemical retinal hazard to the eye from domestic LED lighting is 1 between 10-20% (compared with 14% for a mid-range incandescent lamp) of the 2 relevant ICNIRP exposure limit, assuming viewing longer than about 3 hours) (O'Hagan 3 et al., 2016). 4 5 x Exposure situations in various outdoor LED lighting settings (streets) 6 7 Many street lights and other street fixtures are being converted to, or replaced with, LED 8 lighting. The main driver for this is energy saving. However, if this factor alone is 9 considered, LED lighting may be installed that is poor quality in terms of the optical 10 spectrum, light pattern and glare. 11 Correlated colour temperature (CCT) is a measure of the blueness of an optical radiation 12 source: the higher the CCT, the more blue-rich the source is. CCT is the temperature of 13 a Planckian radiator that is the closest match to the emission of the source (CIE, 2011). 14 The CCT of LED street lighting varies from about 7000 K down to about 2700 K. When 15 compared with the sodium lamps that many LED street lights are replacing, the high CCT 16 installations can appear harsh and almost equivalent to daylight. Moonlight has a CCT of 17 about 4000 K, so it could be argued that artificial street lighting should not exceed this 18 value. However, it is important that the lighting installation is appropriate for the use of 19 the road (e.g., motorways may justify higher CCT lighting than residential roads). 20 Glare can occur from two main scenarios: the luminance may be too high or the 21 luminance ratios are too high (IES, 2011). Good lighting practice is to ensure that unless 22 it is the purpose of the source, the source should be diffused or shielded from direct 23 viewing to avoid glare. Some LED street lights have exposed LED elements that can be 24 seen by road users within their normal field of view, such as looking ahead. Such sources 25 may contribute to discomfort glare (IES, 2011). Where the LED elements were recessed 26 or diffused in order to reduce the luminance, such concerns were not reported. 27 Vehicle LED lights, and particularly daylight running lights and headlights, can be a 28 source of either discomfort glare or disability glare. The latter is due to scattering of the 29 light in the eye and is more prevalent for sources emitting high levels of blue light and 30 for older observers. The sources may also produce a higher level of glare during fog. No 31 references were identified with quantified assessments of these issues. 32 ## 6.11 Overall Conclusion: 33 The Committee concludes that there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from 34 LEDs in normal use (lightening and displays) by the general healthy population. 35 Either discomfort glare or disability glare can be temporarily caused by vehicle LED 36 lights, and particularly daylight running lights and headlights. 37 Light sources that emit more short-wavelength light, as do some types of LEDs, will have 38 a larger effect on the circadian rhythms at equal optical radiance, duration and timing of 39 exposure. At the moment, it is not yet clear if this disturbance of the circadian system 40 leads to adverse health effects. 41 42 43 ## 7. Recommendations For Future Work 1 The review of the published research conducted by the SCHEER has led to valuable 2 conclusions and identified certain gaps in knowledge on potential risks to human health 3 from LEDs. These gaps could be partially filled if further research would be carried out to 4 elucidate unresolved problems as follows. 5 ## 6 Effect On The Eyes 7 There is insufficient knowledge about the actual exposure of people to optical radiation 8 from LED sources and the total exposure from all optical radiation sources - information 9 about the exposure of the general healthy population is needed for assessing the 10 potential health effects. It is suggested that the exposure assessments should consider 11 different age groups, i.e. babies, young children, adolescents and adults into old age. 12 It was recognised that early-to-market LED lamps had a significant blue emission. 13 Further research is going into improving LED lamps to make them similar to traditional 14 types of lighting, such as incandescent lamps. The current EN 62471 standard does not 15 take account of population groups particularly sensitive to blue light, hence there are no 16 specific recommendations for population groups whose natural mechanisms for filtering 17 blue light are diminished (children, aphakics and pseudophakics). However, it is 18 recognised that the exposure of the general population to optical radiation from LEDs is 19 likely to be insignificant compared with the exposure to natural light outdoors, but any 20 additional health burden needs to be considered. 21 High luminance, flicker, phantom array and stroboscopic effect are other factors relevant 22 to risk assessment that need to be addressed in further studies. In particular, are some 23 population groups particularly susceptible to modulated emissions from LED lamps, 24 either due to the design of the LED drive circuit or through the use of dimming circuits? 25 The use of high luminance vehicle lighting should be investigated to determine if there 26 are potential adverse consequences for increased accident rates. 27 Cumulative exposure over a twenty-four hour time period should be considered, and 28 further research should be done into the reported effects of long-term, low-level 29 exposure on age-related macular degeneration. 30 31 ## Effects On Healthy Skin 32 Depth of skin penetration is primarily dependent upon the wavelength of the optical 33 radiation. Research should be carried out on heat effects on the skin and the relation to 34 skin cancer, if the use of infrared saunas/warming cabinets incorporating infrared LED 35 sources are established. In addition, exposure and dose levels for the induction of effects 36 for patients with certain photodermatoses should be investigated. 37 38 ## Circadian System 39 An important question is whether optical radiation from LEDs, and artificial light in 40 general, which is present in indoor lighting and screens will have an effect on the 41 circadian system in *real life* compared to natural light sources. Research will need to 42 consider the wavelengths of emission, time of day and duration of exposure, any 43 confounding factors, such as the activity being carried out, prior light history and the age 44 of subjects. Secondly, it is currently unknown if the effects on the circadian system 45 remain, enhance or reduce after repeated and ultimately after chronic exposure, such as 46 currently occurs in real life. Moreover, it remains to be investigated if the potential 47 disturbance of the circadian system, caused by LEDs and/or artificial light, is related to 48 negative health effects, as appear to occur due to other circadian disturbances such as 49 shift work. 50 ## 8. References 1 Anderson RR, Parrish JA, Jaenicke KF (1982). Optical properties of human skin, in The 2 Science Photomedicine, ed by J.D. Rogan, J.A. Parrish (Plenum Press, New York, 1982) 3 pp. 147–194. 4 Anderson RE, Rapp LM, Wiegand RD (1984). Lipid peroxidation and retinal degeneration, 5 Curr. Eye Res. 3 pp. 223–227. 6 Anderson RR and Parrish JA (1981). The optics of human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 77:13- 7 19. 8 Anderson RR and Parrish JA. Optical properties of human skin, in The Science 9 Photomedicine, ed by J.D. Regan (Plenum Press, New York, 1982) pp. 147–194. 10 ANSES (2016). Assessment of the health risks associated with night work. 11 https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/AP2011SA0088EN.pdf. 12 Argiles M, Cardona G, Perez-Cabre E, Rodriguez M (2015). Blink Rate and Incomplete 13 Blinks in Six Different Controlled Hard-Copy and Electronic Reading Conditions. 14 Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 56(11):6679-85. 15 Aube M, Roby J, and Kocifaj M (2013). Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various 16 artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS One 17 8(7): e67798. 18 Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC (2000). Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine. 3rd ed. 19 Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20 Bailes HJ, and Lucas RJ (2013). Human melanopsin forms a pigment maximally sensitive 21 to blue light) supporting activation of and signalling cascades. Proceedings of the Royal 22 Society B: Biological Sciences. 280 (1759). 23 Balasubramanian D (2000). Ultraviolet radiation and cataract, J. Ocul. Pharmacol.Ther. 24 16 (3) pp. 285–297 25 Balwani M, Bloomer J, Desnick R. Porphyrias Consortium of the NIH-Sponsored Rare 26 Diseases Clinical Research Network. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Wallace SE, 27 Amemiya A, Bean LJH, Bird TD, Ledbetter N, Mefford HC, Smith RJH, Stephens K, eds. 28 GeneReviews® [Internet]. Initial Posting: September 27, 2012. 29 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100826/ (accessed 20 June 2017) 30 Barnkob LL, Argyraki A, Petersen PM, and Jakobsen J (2016). Investigation of the effect 31 of UV-LED exposure conditions on the production of vitamin D in pig skin. Food 32 Chemistry. 212, 386–391. 33 Beatty S, Koh H, Phil M, Henson D, Boulton M (2000). The role of oxidative stress in the 34 pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration. Surv. Ophthalmol. 45, 115e134. 35 Behar-Cohen F, Martinsons C, Viénot F, Zissis G, Barlier-Salsi A, Cesarini JP, Enouf O, 36 Garcia M, Picaud S, Attia D (2011). Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: 37 Any risks for the eye?. Prog Ret Eye Res. 30:239-257 38 Benke KK, and Benke KE (2013). Uncertainty in Health Risks from Artificial Lighting due 39 to Disruption of Circadian Rhythm and Melatonin Secretion: A Review. Human and 40 Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 19(4): 916-929. 41 Bikle DD (2012). Vitamin D and the skin: Physiology and pathophysiology. Rev Endocr 42 Metab Disord. 13:3–19. 43 Binnie CD, Emmett J, Gardiner P, Harding GFA, Harrison D, and Wilkins AJ (2002). 44 Characterising the flashing television images that precipitate seizures. SMPTE Journal, 45 323-329. 46 Bornehag CG, Nanberg E. Phthalate exposure and asthma in children. Int J Androl. 47 2010;33:333-45. 48 Boulton M, Dontsov A, Jarvis-Evans J, Ostrovsky M, Svistunenko D (1993). Lipofuscin is 1 a photoinducible free-radical generator. J PhotochemPhotobiol B-Biol. 19:201-202 2 British Standard. Classification of non-electrical sources of incoherent optical radiation. 3 BS EN 16237:2013 Annex B. 4 Brun A,Sandberg S. (1991). Mechanisms of photosensitivity in porphyric patients with 5 special emphasis on erythropoietic protoporphyria. J Photochem Photobiol B. 10:285- 6 302. 7 Burke TM, Scheer FA, Ronda JM, Czeisler CA, and Wright KP Jr. (2015). Sleep inertia, 8 sleep homeostatic and circadian influences on higher-order cognitive functions. J Sleep 9 Res. 24(4): 364-371. 10 Buscemi N, Vandermeer B, Hooton N, Pandya R, Tjosvold L, Hartling L, Vohra S, Klassen 11 TP and Baker G (2006). Efficacy and safety of exogenous melatonin for secondary sleep 12 disorders and sleep disorders accompanying sleep restriction: meta-analysis. BMJ. 13 332(7538): 385-393. 14 Cajochen C, Frey S, Anders D, Spati J, Bues M, Pross A, Mager R, Wirz-Justice A, and 15 Stefani O (2011). Evening exposure to a light-emitting diodes (LED)-backlit computer 16 screen affects circadian physiology and cognitive performance. J Appl Physiol 110(5): 17 1432-1438 DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00165.2011 18 Cancer Registry of Norway. https://www.kreftregisteret.no/globalassets/cancer-in- 19 norway/2015/cin-2015.pdf (accessed 20 June 2017) 20 Cedernaes J, Schioth HB, and Benedict C (2015). Determinants of shortened, disrupted, 21 and mistimed sleep and associated metabolic health consequences in healthy humans. 22 Diabetes. 64(4): 1073-1080. 23 Chamorro E, Bonnin-Arias C, Pérez-Carrasco MJ, de Luna JM, Vázquez D, and Sánchez- 24 Ramos C (2013). Effects of Light-emitting Diode Radiations on Human Retinal Pigment 25 Epithelial Cells In Vitro. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 89: 468–473 26 Chang AM, Aeschbach D, Duffy JF, and Czeisler CA (2014). Evening use of light-emitting 27 eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. 28 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 29 Cheong WF, Prahl SA, Welch AJ (1990). A review of the optical properties of biological 30 tissue. IEEE J. Quant. Electr. 26(12), 2166–2185. 31 Chou CF, Cotch MF, Vitale S, Zhang X, Klein R, Friedman DS, Klein BE, Saaddine JB 32 (2013). Age-related eye diseases and visual impairment among U.S. adults. Am. J. Prev. 33 Med. 45, 29e35. 34 Christiansen AL, Aagaard L, Krag A, Rasmussen LM, Bygum A (2016). Cutaneous 35 Porphyrias: Causes, Symptoms, Treatments and the Danish Incidence 1989-2013. 36 ActaDermVenereol. 96:868-872. 37 Christoffersson G, Vagesjo E, Pettersson US, Massena S, Nilsson EK, Broman JE, Schioth 38 HB, Benedict C, and Phillipson M (2014). Acute sleep deprivation in healthy young men: 39 impact on population diversity and function of circulating neutrophils. Brain Behav 40 Immun. 41: 162-172. 41 CIBSE. Human responses to lighting based on LED lighting solutions. Commissioned by 42 the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and the Society of Light and 43 Lighting. CRCE RDD 01-2016. http://www.cibse.org/knowledge/knowledge- 44 items/detail?id=a0q20000008I6z6 (accessed 24 April 2017). 45 Cicchi R, Rossi F, Alfieri D, Bacci S, Tatini F, De Siena G, Paroli G, Pini R, and Pavone FS 46 (2016) Observation of an improved healing process in superficial skin wounds after 47 irradiation with a blue-LED haemostatic device, J. Biophotonics. DOI: 48 10.1002/jbio.201500191 49 CIE Stakeholder Workshop for Temporal Light Modulation Standards for Lighting 1 Systems. CIE TN XXX, Vienna, 2017. 2 CIE, Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (2011). CIE S 017/E: 2011, ILV: 3 International Lighting Vocabulary. CIE, Vienna. 4 Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (1998) Erythema Reference Action Spectrum 5 and Standard Erythema Dose. Joint ISO/CIE Standard. ISO 17166:1999(E)/CIE S 007- 6 1998, Geneva, Switzerland 7 Cornelissen G, and Otsuka K (2016). Chronobiology of Aging: A Mini-Review. 8 Gerontology. 9 Curtis J, Tanner P, Judd C, Childs B, Hull C, Leachman S (2013). Acrylic nail curing UV 10 lamps: High-intensity exposure warrants further research of skin cancer risk. J Am Acad 11 Dermatol. 69:1069-1070. 12 Dahl MV, McEwen GN Jr, Katz HI. Urocanic acid suppresses induction of immunity in 13 human skin. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2010;26:303-10. 14 Das P (1991). Laser and Optical Engineering USA. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp: 41-42. 15 Davies MJ, Truscott RJ (2001). Photo-oxidation of proteins and its role in 16 cataractogenesis, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B, 63 pp. 114–125 17 Delcourt C, Cougnard-Gregoire A, Boniol M, Carriere I, Dore JF, Delyfer MN, Rougier MB, 18 Le Goff M, Dartigues JF, Barberger-Gateau P, Korobelnik JF (2014). Lifetime exposure to 19 ambient ultraviolet radiation and the risk for cataract extraction and age-related macular 20 degeneration: the Alienor Study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 7619e7627. 21 Dermatology Information System (DermIS, University of Heidelberg and University of 22 Erlangen, Germany). http://skincancer.dermis.net. Accessed 18.01.2017 23 Dibner C, Schibler U and Albrecht U (2010). The mammalian circadian timing system: 24 organization and coordination of central and peripheral clocks. Annu Rev Physiol. 72: 25 517-549. 26 Diffey BL (2012). The risk of squamous cell carcinoma in women from exposure to UVA 27 lamps used in cosmetic nail treatment. Br J Dermatol. 2012 Nov;167(5):1175-8. doi: 28 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11107.x. Epub 2012 Oct 5. 29 Dijk, D. J. and S. N. Archer (2009). "Light, sleep, and circadian rhythms: together 30 again." PLoS Biol 7(6): e1000145. 31 Dillon J, Atherton SJ (1990). Time resolved spectroscopic studies on the intact human 32 lens, Photochem. Photobiol., 51 (4), pp. 465–468 33 Dontsov AE, Glickman RD, Ostrovsky MA (1999). Retinal pigment epithelium pigment 34 granules stimulate the photo-oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids. Free RadicBiol Med. 35 26:1436-1446. 36 Dowdy JC, Sayre RM (2013). Photobiological safety evaluation of UV nail lamps. 37 Photochem Photobiol. 89: 961–967. 38 Duffy JF and Czeisler CA (2009). Effect of Light on Human Circadian Physiology. Sleep 39 Med Clin. 4(2): 165-177. 40 EC 1996. Guidance on Risk Assessment at Work. Luxembourg. ISBN 92-827-4278-4 41 EC 2015. EU general risk assessment methodology. Document 2015-IMP-MSG-15. 42 Elder G, Harper P, Badminton M, Sandberg S and Deybach JC (2013). The incidence of 43 inherited porphyrias in Europe. J Inherit Metab Dis. 36:849-57. 44 Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/social/ 45 Engle-Friedman M (2014). The effects of sleep loss on capacity and effort. Sleep Sci 1 7(4): 213-224. 2 Farinola GM, Ragni R (2011). Electroluminescent materials for white organic light 3 emitting diodes. Chem Soc Rev. 40:3467-82. 4 Fenton L, Dawe R, Ibbotson S, Ferguson J, Silburn S, Moseley H (2014). Impact 5 assessment of energy-efficient lighting in patients with lupus erythematosus: a pilot 6 study. Br J Dermatol. 170(3):694-8. 7 Fenton L, Ferguson J, Ibbotson S, Moseley H (2013). Energy-saving lamps and their 8 impact on photosensitive and normal individuals. Br J Dermatol. 169(4):910-5. 9 Fitzpatrick TB (1975). Soleil et peau [Sun and skin]. Journal de Médecine Esthétique (in 10 French) (2): 33–34. 11 Fitzpatrick TB (1988). The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through 12 VI, Archives of Dermatology. 124 (6): 869–871. 13 Flohil SC, van der Leest RJ, Dowlatshahi EA, Hofman A, de Vries E and Nijsten T (2013). 14 Prevalence of actinic keratosis and its risk factors in the general population: the 15 Rotterdam Study. J Invest Dermatol. 133:1971-8. 16 Foote CS (1976) Singlet oxygen. In: Pryor WA (ed), Free Radicals in Biology. New York: 17 Academic Press. 18 Genina EA, and Tuchin VV (2011). Optical properties of skin, subcutaneous, and muscle 19 tissues: a Review J. Innovative Opt. Health Sci. 49–38 20 Ghiasvand R (2016). Sunscreen use, indoor tanning and risk of melanoma among 21 Norwegian women. PhD Dissertation. Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway. ISBN 978-82- 22 8333-305-3 23 Gimenez MC, Beersma DG, Bollen P, van der Linden ML and Gordijn MC (2014). Effects 24 of a chronic reduction of short-wavelength light input on melatonin and sleep patterns in 25 humans: evidence for adaptation. Chronobiol Int. 31(5): 690-697. 26 Gimenez M, Beersma D, Daan S, Pol B, Kanis M, van Norren D and Gordijn M (2016). 27 Melatonin and Sleep-Wake Rhythms before and after Ocular Lens Replacement in Elderly 28 Humans. Biology (Basel) 5(1). 29 Glickman G, Levin R, and Brainard GC (2002). Ocular input for human melatonin 30 regulation: relevance to breast cancer. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 23 Suppl 2: 17-22. 31 Godley BF, Shamsi FA, Liang FQ, Jarrett SG, Davies S, and Boulton M (2005). Blue light 32 induces mitochondrial DNA damage and free radical production in epithelial cells. J. Biol. 33 Chem. 280, 21061–21066 34 Gradisar M, Wolfson AR, Harvey AG, Hale L, Rosenberg R, and Czeisler CA (2013). The 35 sleep and technology use of Americans: findings from the National Sleep Foundation's 36 2011 Sleep in America poll. J Clin Sleep Med. 9(12): 1291-1299. 37 Gronli J, Byrkjedal IK, Bjorvatn B, Nodtvedt O, Hamre B, and Pallesen S (2016). Reading 38 from an iPad or from a book in bed: the impact on human sleep. A randomized 39 controlled crossover trial. Sleep Med. 21: 86-92. 40 Gruber-Wackernagel A, Byrne SN and Wolf P (2014). Polymorphous light eruption: clinic 41 aspects and pathogenesis. Dermatol Clin.;32:315-34. 42 de Gruijl FR, Van der Leun JC (1994). Estimate of the wavelength dependency of 43 ultraviolet carcinogenesis in humans and its relevance to the risk assessment of a 44 stratospheric ozone depletion. Health Phys. 67:319–25 45 Halliday GM, Damian DL, Rana S, Byrne SN. The suppressive effects of ultraviolet 46 radiation on immunity in the skin and internal organs: implications for autoimmunity. J 47 Dermatol Sci 2012; 6:176-182. 48 Harris DM, Werkhaven JA (1989). Biophysics and applications of medical lasers. Adv 1 Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 3: 91-123 2 Hatori M, and Panda S (2010). The emerging roles of melanopsin in behavioral 3 adaptation to light. Trends Mol Med. 16(10): 435-446. 4 Hattar S, Liao HW, Takao M, Berson DM and Yau KW (2002). Melanopsin-containing 5 retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science. 6 295(5557): 1065-1070. 7 Heo JY, Kim K, Fava M, Mischoulon D, Papakostas GI, Kim MJ, Kim DJ, Chang KJ, Oh Y, 8 Yu BH and Jeon HJ (2016). Effects of smartphone use with and without blue light at 9 night in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled 10 comparison. J Psychiatr Res. 87: 61-70. 11 Higlett MP, O'Hagan JB and Khazova M (2012). Safety of light emitting diodes in toys. 12 Journal of Radiological Protection, 32, 51-72. 13 Hillenkamp F (1989). Laser radiation tissue interaction. Health Phys. 56: 613-616 14 Holme SA, Anstey AV, Finlay AY, Elder GH and Badminton MN (2006). Erythropoietic 15 protoporphyria in the U.K.: clinical features and effect on quality of life. Br J Dermatol. 16 155:574-81. 17 Holme SA, Malinovszky K and Roberts DL (2000). Changing trends in non-melanoma 18 skin cancer in South Wales, 1988-98. Br J Dermatol. 143:1224-9. 19 IARC (2010). Monograph Volume 98: painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. IARC 20 Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 21 Ide T, Kinugawa Y, Nobae Y, Suzuki T, Tanaka Y, Toda I, Tsubota K (2015). LED Light 22 Characteristics for Surgical Shadowless Lamps and Surgical Loupes. Plast Reconstr Surg 23 Glob Open. 9;3(11): e562. 24 IEEE Recommended Practices for Modulating Current in High-Brightness LEDs for 25 Mitigating Health Risks to Viewers, Std 1789-2015, Piscataway. 26 IEC/TR 62778:2014 Application of IEC 62471 for the assessment of blue light hazard to 27 light sources and luminaires https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/7427 28 IES. Illuminating Engineering Society. The Lighting Handbook, Tenth Edition, ISBN 978- 29 087995-241-9. New York, 2011. 30 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Guidelines on limits of 31 exposure to incoherent visible and infrared radiation. Health Phys. 105 (2013) 74-96. 32 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPVisible_Infrared2013.pdf, 2013 33 Jacques SL (2013). Optical properties of biological tissues: a review, Phys. Med. Biol. 58 34 R37–R61 35 James RH, Landry RJ, Walker BN and Ilev IK (2017). Evaluation of the potential optical 36 radiation hazards with led lamps intended for home use. Health Phys. 112(1):11–17; 37 2017. 38 Johnson K, Guy A (1972). Impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on biological 39 systems and the environment. Proc. IEEE. 60(6), 49–79 40 Joo EY, Abbott SM, Reid KJ, Wu D, Kang J, Wilson J, and Zee PC (2017). Timing of light 41 exposure and activity in adults with delayed sleep-wake phase disorder. Sleep Med. 42 32:259-265 43 Karu TI (1987). Photobiological fundamentals of low-power laser therapy. IEEE J 44 Quantum Electron. 23:1703–1717 45 Karu TI. Low-power laser therapy. IN Biomedical photonics handbook. Editor Vo-Dinh T, 46 Florida: CRC Press; 2003. 47 Kayaba M, Iwayama K, Ogata H, Seya Y, Kiyono K, Satoh M, and Tokuyama K (2014). 1 The effect of nocturnal blue light exposure from light-emitting diodes on wakefulness and 2 energy metabolism the following morning. Environ Health Prev Med. 19(5): 354-361. 3 Kim J, Hwang Y, Kang S, Kim M, Kim TS, Kim J, Seo J, Ahn H, Yoon S, Yun JP, Lee YL, 4 Ham H, Yu HG, Park SK. (2016). Association between Exposure to Smartphones and 5 Ocular Health in Adolescents. Ophthalmic epidemiology. 23(4):269-76. 6 Kleinman MH, Smith MD, Kurali E, Kleinpeter S, Jiang K, Zhang Y, Kennedy-Gabb SA, 7 Lynch AM and Geddes CD (2010). An evaluation of chemical photoreactivity and the 8 relationship to phototoxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 58:224-32. 9 Kozaki T, Kubokawa A, Taketomi R, and Hatae K (2016). Light-induced melatonin 10 suppression at night after exposure to different wavelength composition of morning light. 11 Neuroscience Letters 616: 1-4. 12 Krigel A, Berdugo M, Picard E, Levy-Boukris R, Jaadane I, Jonet L, Dernigoghossian M, 13 Andrieu-Soler C, Torriglia A, Behar-Cohen F (2016). Light-induced retinal damage using 14 different light sources, protocols and rat strains reveals LED phototoxicity. Neuroscience. 15 339:296-307 16 Kumar Khanna V (2014). Fundamentals of solid-state lighting - LEDs, OLEDs, and their 17 applications in illumination and displays. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca Raton 18 (FL). 19 Kuse Y, Ogawa K, Tsuruma K, Shimazawa M, and Hara H (2014). Damage of 20 photoreceptor-derived cells in culture induced by light emitting diode-derived blue light, 21 Sci Rep. 4: 5223. 22 Kvam E and Tyrrell RM (1997). Induction of oxidative DNA base damage in human skin 23 cells by UV and near visible radiation. Carcinogenesis. 18(12):2379-84. 24 Lau LI, Chiou SH, Liu CJ, Yen MY, Wei YH (2011). The effect of photo-oxidative stress 25 and inflammatory cytokine on complement factor H expression in retinal pigment 26 epithelial cells. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52, 6832e6841. 27 Leccese F, Vandelanotte V, Salvadori G and Rocca M (2015). Sustainability, 7, 13454- 28 13468; doi:10.3390/su71013454 29 Lee HS, Cui L, Li Y, Choi JS, Choi J-H, Li Z, Kim GE, Choi W, Yoon KC (2016) Influence of 30 Light Emitting Diode-Derived Blue Light Overexposure on Mouse Ocular Surface. PLoS 31 ONE 11(8): e0161041. doi:10.1371/journal. 32 Lehmann AR (1995). The molecular biology of nucleotide excision repair and double- 33 strand break repair in eukaryotes. Genet. Eng. (N Y) 17:1–19 34 Lim SR, Kang D, Ogunseitan OA, Schoenung JM (2011). Potential environmental impacts 35 of light-emitting diodes (LEDs): metallic resources, toxicity, and hazardous waste 36 classification. Environ Sci Technol. 45(1):320-7 37 Lister P, Wright TA, Chappell PH (2012). Optical properties of human skin. J Biomed 38 Optics. 17: 090901-1-15. 39 Litvack F, Grundfest WS, Papaioannou T, Mohr FW, Jakubowski AT and Forrester JS 40 (1988). Role of laser and thermal ablation devices in the treatment of vascular diseases. 41 Am. J. Cardiol. 61: 81-86. 42 Liu H (2012). Caractérisation de tissus cutanés cicatriciels hypertrophiques par 43 spectroscopie multi-modalités in vivo : instrumentation, extraction et classification de 44 données multi-dimensionnelles. PhD Thesis. Université de Lorraine (in French). 45 Liu PT, Stenger S, Li H, Wenzel L, Tan BH, Krutzik SR, Ochoa MT, Schauber J, Wu K, 46 Meinken C, Kamen DL, Wagner M, Bals R, Steinmeyer A, Zügel U, Gallo RL, Eisenberg D, 47 Hewison M, Hollis BW, Adams JS, Bloom BR and Modlin RL (2006). Toll-like receptor 48 triggering of a vitamin D mediated human antimicrobial response. Science. 311:1770-3. 49 Lu CC, Chou C, Yasukouchi A, Kozaki T and Liu CY (2016). Effects of nighttime lights by 1 LED and fluorescent lighting on human melatonin. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and 2 Humanized Computing 7(6): 837-844. 3 Lucas RJ, Peirson SN, Berson DM, Brown TM, Cooper HM, Czeisler CA, Figueiro M, Gamlin 4 PD, Lockley SW, O'Hagan JB, Price LL, Provencio I, Skene DJ and Brainard GC (2014). 5 Measuring and using light in the melanopsin age. Trends Neurosci. 37(1): 1-9. 6 MacFarlane DF, Alonso CA (2009). Occurrence of nonmelanoma skin cancers on the 7 hands after UV nail light exposure. Arch Dermatol. 145:447-449. 8 Magee M, Marbas EM, Wright KP Jr, Rajaratnam SM, and Broussard JL (2016). Diagnosis, 9 Cause, and Treatment Approaches for Delayed Sleep-Wake Phase Disorder. Sleep Med 10 Clin 11(3): 389-401. 11 Markova A, Weinstock MA (2013). Risk of Skin Cancer Associated with the Use of UV Nail 12 Lamp. J Invest Dermatol. 133 :1097–1099. 13 Martásek P (1998). Hereditary coproporphyria. Semin Liver Dis. 18:25-32. 14 Mattis J and Sehgal A (2016). Circadian Rhythms, Sleep, and Disorders of Aging. Trends 15 in Endocrinology & Metabolism 27(4): 192-203. 16 Miyauchi M and Nakajima H (2016). Determining an Effective UV Radiation Exposure 17 Time for Vitamin D Synthesis in the Skin Without Risk to Health: Simplified Estimations 18 from UV Observations. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 92: 863–869. 19 Monajembashi S, Cremer C, Cremer T, Wolfrum J and Greulich KO (1986). 20 Microdissection of human chromosomes by a laser microbeam. Exp. Cell. Res. 167: 262- 21 265. 22 Montaudié H, Lacour JP, Rostain G, Duteil L, Passeron T (2014). Solar urticaria to visible 23 light triggered by light-emitting diode therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 71(3):e74-5. 24 Morita D, Nishida Y, Higuchi Y, Seki T, Ikuta K, Asano H, and Ishiguro N (2016). Short- 25 range ultraviolet irradiation with LED device effectively increases serum levels of 26 25(OH)D. Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology, B: Biology. 164, 256–263. 27 Mykletun M, Aarsand AK, Støle E, Villanger JH, Tollånes MC, Baravelli C, Sandberg S 28 (2014). Porphyrias in Norway. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 134:831-6. [Article in English, 29 Norwegian] 30 Narimatsu T, Ozawa Y, Miyake S, Kubota S, Hirasawa M, Nagai N, Shimmura S, Tsubota, 31 K (2013). Disruption of cell-cell junctions and induction of pathological cytokines in the 32 retinal pigment epithelium of light-exposed mice. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54, 33 4555e4562 34 Nouri K (2011). Lasers in dermatology and medicine, Springer Ed., London, Dordrecht, 35 Heidelberg, New York 36 O'Hagan JB, Khazova M and Price LLA (2016). Low energy light bulbs, computers, tablets 37 and the blue light hazard. Eye, 30, 230-233. 38 Orphanet. The portal for rare diseases and orphan drugs 39 http://www.orpha.net/(accessed 20 June, 2017) 40 Orphanet Report Series - Prevalence of rare diseases: Bibliographic data - November 41 2016 - Number 1. 42 http://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/GB/Prevalence_of_rare_diseases_by_alph 43 abetical_list.pdf (accessed 20 June, 2017) 44 Panda S, Nayak SK, Campo B, Walker JR, Hogenesch JB and Jegla T (2005). Illumination 45 of the Melanopsin Signaling Pathway. Science 307(5709): 600-604. 46 Parsons MJ, Moffitt TE, Gregory AM, Goldman-Mellor S, Nolan PM, Poulton R, and Caspi A 1 (2015). Social jetlag, obesity and metabolic disorder: investigation in a cohort study. Int 2 J Obes (Lond) 39(5): 842-848. 3 Pattison DI, Rahmanto AS, Davies MJ (2012). Photo-oxidation of proteins, 4 Photochem.Photobiol. Sci. 11 pp. 38–53 5 Patton DF and Mistlberger RE (2013). Circadian adaptations to meal timing: 6 neuroendocrine mechanisms. Front Neurosci. 7: 185. 7 PHE. Public Health England, Personal Communication 2017. 8 Quirk JA, Fish DR, Smith SJM, Sanders JWAS, Shorvon SD, and Allen, PJ (1995). First 9 seizures associated with playing electronic screen games: A community-based study in 10 Great Britain. Annals of Neurology. 37, 6, 733-737.F 11 Rambhatla PV, Brescoll J, Hwang F, Juzych M and Lim HW (2015). Photosensitive 12 disorders of the skin with ocular involvement. Clin Dermatol. 33:238-46. 13 Rangtell FH, Ekstrand E, Rapp L, Lagermalm A, Liethof L, Bucaro MO, Lingfors D, Broman 14 JE, Schioth HB and Benedict C (2016). Two hours of evening reading on a self-luminous 15 tablet vs. reading a physical book does not alter sleep after daytime bright light 16 exposure. Sleep Med 23: 111-118. 17 Rhodes LE, Bock M, Janssens AS, Ling TC, Anastasopoulou L, Antoniou C, Aubin F, 18 Bruckner T, Faivre B, Gibbs NK, Jansen C, Pavel S, Stratigos AJ, de Gruijl FR and 19 Diepgen TL (2010). Polymorphic light eruption occurs in 18% of Europeans and does not 20 show higher prevalence with increasing latitude: multicenter survey of 6,895 individuals 21 residing from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia. J Invest Dermatol.130:626-8. 22 Rimington C (1985). A review of the enzymic errors in the various porphyrias.Scand J 23 Clin Lab Invest. 45:291-301. 24 Roberts JE and Wilkins AJ (2013). Flicker can be perceived during saccades at 25 frequencies in excess of 1 kHz. Lighting Research and Technology, 45, 124-132. 26 Roberts JE, Finley EL, Patat SA, Schey KL (2001). Photooxidation of lens proteins with 27 xanthurenic acid: a putative chromophore for cataractogenesis, Photochem. Photobiol. 28 74 (5) pp. 740–744 29 Rochette PJ, Therrien J-P, Drouin R, Perdiz D, Bastien N, Drobetsk EA, Sage E (2003). 30 UVA-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers form predominantly at thymine–thymine 31 dipyrimidines and correlate with the mutation spectrum in rodent cells. Nucleic Acids 32 Res. 31(11): 2786–2794. 33 Roehlecke C, Schumann U, Ader M, Knels L, Funk RHW (2011). Influence of blue light on 34 photoreceptors in a live retinal explant system. Mol Vis.17: 876–84 35 Roehlecke C, Schaller A, Knels L, and Funk RH (2009) The influence of sublethal blue 36 light exposure on human RPE cells. Mol.Vis. 15, 1929–1938 37 Roenneberg T, Kuehnle T, Juda M, Kantermann T, Allebrandt K, Gordijn M and Merrow M 38 (2007). Epidemiology of the human circadian clock. Sleep Med Rev. 11(6): 429-438. 39 Rossmann-Ringdahl I, Olsson R (2005). Porphyria cutanea tarda in a Swedish 40 population: risk factors and complications. Acta Derm Venereol. 85:337-41. 41 Rosenfield M (2011). Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential 42 treatments. Ophthalmic & physiological optics: the journal of the British College of 43 Ophthalmic Opticians. 31(5):502-15. 44 Rozanowska M, Jarvis-Evans J, Korytowski W, Boulton ME, Burke JM, Sarna T (1995). 45 Blue light-induced reactivity of retinal age pigment - in vitro generation of oxygen- 46 reactive species. J BiolChem 270:18825-18830. 47 Sandell JL and Zhu TC (2011). A review of in-vivo optical properties of human tissues 1 and its impact on PDT J. Biophotonics. 4 773–87 Bashkatov A N. 2 Sassa S (2006). Modern diagnosis and management of the porphyrias. Br J Haematol. 3 135:281-92. 4 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), Health 5 effects of artificial light, March 19, 2012 6 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), 7 Scientific Opinion on The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration 8 materials for patients and users. 29 April 2015. 9 SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks), Opinion 10 on Biological effects of ultraviolet radiation relevant to health with particular reference to 11 sunbeds for cosmetic purposes, 17 November 2016. 12 Schomerus C and Korf HW (2005). Mechanisms regulating melatonin synthesis in the 13 mammalian pineal organ. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1057: 372-383. 14 Shang YM, Wang GS, Sliney D, Yang CH, Lee LL (2014). White light–emitting diodes 15 (LEDs) at domestic lighting levels and retinal injury in a rat model. Environ Health 16 Perspect. 122;269–276 17 Shang YM, Wang GS, Sliney D, Yang CH, Lee LL (2017). Light-emitting-diode induced 18 retinal damage and its wavelength dependency in vivo. Int J Ophthalmol. 10(2): 191– 19 202. 20 Shipp LR, Warner CA, Rueggeberg FA, Davis LS (2014). Further investigation into the 21 risk of skin cancer associated with the use of UV nail lamps. JAMA Dermatology 150:775- 22 776. 23 Sliney DH (2001). Photoprotection of the eye - UV radiation and sunglasses. J. 17 - 24 Photochem. Photobiol. B 64, 166e175. 25 Sliney DH (2002). How light reaches the eye and its components. Int. J. Toxicol. 21, 26 501e509. 27 Sliney DH (2006). Risks of occupational exposure to optical radiation. Med Lav. 97: 215– 28 20 29 Schwartz T. 25 years of UV-induced immunosuppression mediated by T-cells - from 30 disregarded T suppressor cells to highly respected regulatory T cells. Photochem 31 Photobiol 2008; 84:10-18. 32 Sui GY, Liu GC, Liu GY, Gao YY, Deng Y, Wang WY, Tong SH, Wang L (2013). Is sunlight 33 exposure a risk factor for age-related macular degeneration? A systematic review and 34 meta-analysis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 97, 389e394. 35 Takahashi JS (2017). Transcriptional architecture of the mammalian circadian clock. Nat 36 Rev Genet. 2017 Mar;18(3):164-179 37 Tiao J and Werth VP (2015). Cutaneous lupus erythematosus flare following exposure to 38 surgical light during a dental procedure. BMJ Case Rep Published online: 9 December 39 2015 doi:10.1136/bcr-2015-212864 (accessed 20 June 2017). 40 Torii M, Kojima D, Okano T, Nakamura A, Terakita A, Shichida Y, Wada A and Fukada Y 41 (2007). Two isoforms of chicken melanopsins show blue light sensitivity. FEBS Lett. 42 Tosini G, Ferguson I and Tsubota K (2016). Effects of blue light on the circadian system 43 and eye physiology. Mol Vis. 22: 61-72. 44 Utz SR, Barth J, Knuschke P, Sinichkin YuP (1993). Fluorescence spectroscopy of human 45 skin.Proc. SPIE. 2081, 48–57. 46 Valbuena MC, Muvdi S and Lim HW (2014). Actinic prurigo. Dermatol Clin. 32:335-44. 47 Versteeg RI, Stenvers DJ, Kalsbeek A, Bisschop PH, Serlie MJ and la Fleur SE (2016). 1 Nutrition in the spotlight: metabolic effects of environmental light. Proc Nutr Soc. 75(4): 2 451-463. 3 Wang XS, Armstrong ME, Cairns BJ, Key TJ and Travis RC (2011). Shift work and chronic 4 disease: the epidemiological evidence. Occup Med (Lond) 61(2): 78-89. 5 West KE, Jablonski MR, Warfield B, Cecil KS, James M, Ayers MA, Maida J, Bowen C, 6 Sliney DH, Rollag MD, Hanifin JP and Brainard GC (2011). Blue light from light-emitting 7 diodes elicits a dose-dependent suppression of melatonin in humans. Journal of applied 8 physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985) 110(3): 619-626. 9 Wilkins AJ, Bonanni P, Porciatti P, and Guerrini R. Physiology of Human Photosensitivity. 10 Epilepsia, 45(Suppl. 1):7–13, 2004. 11 Wittmann M, Dinich J, Merrow M, and Roenneberg T (2006). Social jetlag: misalignment 12 of biological and social time. Chronobiol Int. 23(1-2): 497-509. 13 Wong PM, Hasler BP, Kamarck TW, Muldoon MF and Manuck SB (2015). Social Jetlag, 14 Chronotype, and Cardiometabolic Risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 100(12): 4612-4620. 15 Wood B, Rea MS, Plitnick B, and Figueiro MG (2013). Light level and duration of 16 exposure determine the impact of self-luminous tablets on melatonin suppression. Appl 17 Ergon. 44(2): 237-240. 18 Wright HR, Lack LC and Kennaway DJ (2004). Differential effects of light wavelength in 19 phase advancing the melatonin rhythm. J Pineal Res. 36(2): 140-144. 20 Wright HR, Lack LC and Partridge KJ (2001). Light emitting diodes can be used to phase 21 delay the melatonin rhythm. 31: 350-355. 22 Wu J, Uchino M, Sastry SM, Schaumberg DA (2014). Age-related macular degeneration 23 and the incidence of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 24 PLoS One 9, e89600. 25 Xie C, Li X, Tong J, Gu Y Shen Y (2014) Effects of white light-emitting diode (LED) light 26 exposure with different correlated color temperatures (CCTs) on human lens epithelial 27 cells in culture. Photochem Photobiol. 90(4):853-9. PDF NOT IN MY FILE) 28 Yu DY, Cringle SJ (2005). Retinal degeneration and local oxygen metabolism. Exp Eye 29 Res. 80(6):745-51. 30 Zastrow L, Groth N, Klein F, Kockott D, Lademann J, Renneberg R, Ferrero L (2009). The 31 Missing Link - Light-Induced (280–1,600 nm) Free Radical Formation in Human Skin. 32 Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 22:31-44 33 34 35 ## 9. Glossary Of Terms 1 2 Some basic performance characteristics, which can be used for comparing LEDs of the 3 same or different technologies, are listed below: 4 5 | Action spectrum | the rate of a physiological activity plotted against | |----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | wavelength of light. It shows which wavelength of | | | optical radiation is most effectively used in a specific | | | chemical reaction. Action spectra are a necessary | | | basis for finding the pigment(s) responsible or a | | | specific photoresponse | | | Beam angle | | | | | | the angle at which the brightness decreases to 50% of | | | the maximum value. LEDs are directional light sources | | | with an emission pattern, which is usually conical. (No | | | light is emitted from the back of the LED.) | | | Blue light hazard | the potential for a photochemical-induced retinal | | injury | resulting | | exposure at wavelengths primarily between 400 and | | | 500 nm. The BLH mechanism overrules the thermal | | | damage for long exposure times (more than 10 sec). | | | Blue light hazard irradiance | irradiance, spectrally weighted with the blue hazard | | (W/m | | | 2 | | | ) | | | Candela | The luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a | | source | that | | frequency 540×1012 hertz and that has a radiant | | | intensity in that direction of 1⁄683 watt per steradian. | | | The definition describes how to produce a light source | | | that (by definition) emits one candela. | | | Correlated Colour | | | Temperature | | | a specification of the colour appearance of the light | | | emitted by a lamp, relating its colour to the colour of | | | light from a reference source when heated to a | | | particular temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin | | | (K) | | | Degree of erythema | | | as the threshold UV dose for a minimal redening of | | | the skin occuring a few hours after exposure, is | | | typically | | | 200-250 | J/m | | 2 | | | | for | | weighting with the CIE action spectrum for erythema. | | | A standard erythemal dose (SED) is defined as 100 | | | J/m | | | 2 | | | CIE erythemally-weighted UV. | | | Dose-response relationship | The | | response relationship, describes the change in effect | | | on an organism caused by differing levels of exposure | | | (or doses) to a stressor after a certain exposure time | | | Electroluminescence | | | | | | Optical phenomenon and electrical phenomenon in | | | which a material emits light when an electric current | | | pass through it | | | Electromers | one of two or more substances that differ only in the | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------| | distribution of electrons | | | | | | Exposure limits | | | It is important to note that to define the exposure | | | limits, experiments were carried out on rabbits and | | | some monkeys, exposed acutely to optical radiation | | | (with different wavelength). Fundus examination was | | | performed and the toxicity limit was reached when a | | | white lesion was observed on the retina. Then, when | | | this limit was determined, a reduction factor (between | | | 2 and 10) was added. The blue-light hazard exposure | | | limit is to protect against photo-maculopathy and is | | | not based upon chronic light exposure. [Behar-Cohen | | | et al. | | | , 2011] | | | External quantum efficiency | is the quotient of the number of photons emitted out | | of the LED over the number of electrons passed in the | | | device. | | | Feeding efficiency | is the quotient of the average ratio of photons emitted | | to the total energy acquired by an electron-hole pair | | | from the power supply when the LED is operating. | | | Fluorescence | | | | | | Emission of optical radiation, usually visible light, | | | caused by excitation of atoms in a material, which | | | then reemit almost immediately (in aprox. 10 | | | −8 | | | | | | seconds) | | | Forward currents | | | | | | The current which flows across the LED's leads, from | | | anode to cathode, in order for the LED to receive | | | sufficient current to power on | | | Forward voltage | | | | | | The forward voltage is the voltage drop across the | | | diode if the voltage at the anode is more positive than | | | the voltage at the cathode | | | Forward voltage drop | Is the voltage drop across a conducting, forward- | | biased, LED. It depends on the energy bandgap of the | | | semiconductor material from which the diode is made | | | as well as the series resistance of the material. LEDs | | | are made to produce a variety of colours, using | | | different materials and energy bandgaps. As an | | | example, the forward voltage drop of red LEDs is | | | around 2.2 V and the forward voltage drop for | | | white/blue LEDs is in the range of 3.1 to 3.8 V [Kumar | | | Khanna, 2014]. | | | Glare | difficulty seeing in the presence of bright light such as | | direct or reflected sunlight or artificial light such as | | | car headlamps at night. | | | High-brightness LED | Any of a new generation of LEDs bright enough for | | | illumination applications such as automotive interior, | |------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------| | exterior, and display | | | Illuminance | irradiance, spectrally weighted with the photopic eye | | sensitivity curve. The SI unit is lux. | | | Irradiance (exposure rate) | radiant energy per surface area per unit time in | | (J/m | | | 2 | | | s = W/m | | | 2 | | | ). | | | Lumen | The standard unit for the luminous flux of a light | | source. It is an SI derived unit based on the candela. | | | It can be defined as the luminous flux emitted into | | | unit solid angle (1 sr) by an isotropic point source | | | having a luminous intensity of 1 candela. | | | Luminance | A photometric measure of the luminous intensity per | | unit area of light travelling in a given direction. It | | | describes the amount of light that passes through, is | | | emitted or reflected from a particular area, and falls | | | within a given solid angle. The SI unit for luminance is | | | candela per square metre (cd/m | | | 2 | | | ) | | | Luminous efficacy | Is the quotient of the luminous flux emitted by the | | power consumed by the LED; it is measured in | | | lumens/watt. | | | Luminous flux | The quantity of the energy of the light emitted per | | second in all directions. The unit of luminous flux is | | | lumen (lm). | | | Luminous intensity | A measure of the wavelength-weighted power emitted | | by a light source in a particular direction per unit solid | | | angle, | based | | standardized model of the sensitivity of the human | | | eye. The SI unit of luminous intensity is the candela | | | (cd) | | | Phosphorescence | | | | | | The emission of light from a substance exposed to | | | radiation which persists after the exciting radiation | | | has been removed | | | Radiance | radiant intensity per area emitted from a source; in | | (W/m | | | 2 | | | sr) | | | Radiant efficiency | the product of external quantum efficiency and | | feeding efficiency. | | | Radiant exposure | radiant energy per surface area in J/m | | 2 | | | | | | Radiant intensity | The radiant flux emitted, reflected, transmitted or | | received, per unit solid angle, and spectral intensity is | | | the | radiant | | wavelength, depending on whether the spectrum is | | | taken as a function of frequency or of wavelength. | | | Radiant power | Radiant power or | | radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or | | received, per unit time, and spectral flux or spectral power is the radiant flux per unit frequency or wavelength, depending on whether the spectrum is taken as a function of frequency or of wavelength. | Regular reflectance | The radiation that penetrates the skin and is scattered | |----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------| | back later | | | Remission (diffusion | | | reflectance) | | | The fraction of incident radiation that returns from the | | | skin or from a particular sample | | | Singlet oxygen | The most energic state of oxygen generated by light | | excitation of the ground state of oxygen | | | | | | Steradian | the unit for a solid angle, which is the 3 dimensional | | analogue of an ordinary angle. Any area on a sphere, | | | which is equal in area to the square of its radius, | | | when observed from its centre, subtends precisely | | | one steradian (sr) | | | Transmission | The passage of electromagnetic radiation through a | | medium | | 1 ## 10. List Of Abbreviations | AC | Alternating current | |-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | AD | Atopic dermatitis | | | | | AK | Actinic keratosis | | AMD | Age-related macular degeneration | | | | | ARM | Age-related maculopathy | | | | | BCC | Basal cell carcinoma | | | | | CAD | Chronic actinic dermatitis | | | | | CCFL | Cold-cathode fluorescent lamp | | | | | CFL | Compact fluorescent lamp | | | | | CI | Confidence interval | | | | | Commission International de l'Eclairage | CIE | | | | | Cutaneous malignant melanoma | CMM | | | | | CRI | Colour rendering index | | | | | DC | Direct curent | | | | | DNA | Deoxyribonucleic acid | | | | | ECDC | European Centre for Disease prevention | | and control | | | | | | ECHA | European Chemicals Agency | | | | | Energy-efficient halogen lamp | EEH | | | | | EFSA | European Food Safety Authority | | | | | ELC | European Lamp Companies Federation | | | | | ELV | | | EM | Electromagnetic (radiation) | | | | | EN | | | | | | EU | European Union | | | | | FED | Field emission device | | | | | FL | Fluorescent lamps | | | | | GaAs | | | | | | GLS | General Lighting System | HID High-intensity discharge lamp ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ipRGCs Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells IR IR-A Infrared (radiation) The wavelength range of 780-1400 nm LE Lupus erythematosus LED Light emitting diode LET Lupus erythematosus tumidus LPS Sodium low-pressure lamp LVD Low Voltage Directive LWS Long wavelength cone opsin, Long wavelength sensitive cones (red) MED Minimal erythemal dose MHL Metal halide lamp MWS Medium wavelength cone opsin, medium wavelength sensitive cones (green) NIR LED Near Infra Red LED of wavelengths between 780 nm and 1400 nm Organic light emitting diodes OLED OR Odds Ratio PDT Photodynamic therapy PLE Polymorphic light eruption PMLE Polymorphous light eruption POLA Pathologies Oculaires Liées à l'Age (study) PWM Power wave modulation ROS Reactive oxygen species RPE Retinal pigment epithelial cells RR Relative risk | SAD | Seasonal affective disorder | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | | | SCC | Squamous cell carcinoma | | | | | SCCS | Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety | | | | | SCENIHR | Scientific Committee on Emerging and | | Newly Identified Health Risks | | | | | | SCHER | Scientific Committee on Health and | | Environmental Risks | | | | | | SCN | Suprachiasmatic nucleus | | | | | SED | Standard erythemal dose | | | | | SHP | Sodium high-pressure discharge lamp | | | | | SI | Système International d'unités | | (International System of Units) | | | | | | SLE | Systemic lupus erythematosus | | | | | SSL | Solid state lighting | | | | | SWS | Short wavelength cone opsin, short wave | | length sensitive cones (blue) | | | | | | TL | Tube luminescent (French for luminescent | | tube) | | | | | | UV | Ultraviolet (radiation) | | | | | UV-A | The wavelength range of 315-400 nm | | | | | UV-B | The wavelength range of 280-315 nm | | | | | UV-C | The wavelength range of 100-280 nm | | | | | VUV | Vacuum ultraviolet radiation | | | | | XP | Xeroderma pigmentosum | 1 2 3 ## Annex I Led Technolgies 1 Inorganic Leds 2 The first LEDs in the 1960s were based on gallium arsenide (GaAs) crystals and emitted 3 infrared radiation but no visible radiation, therefore, their applicability was limited. The 4 introduction of phosphorus (P) in GaAs resulted in a red-light LED. Some of the most 5 common semiconductor materials used for LEDs are listed in Table 2. 6 ## Table 2. Semiconductor Materials Used In Leds And Their Resulting Radiation 7 (Gilbert, 2009) 8 | Material | Radiation emission | |-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) | Red and infrared | | Aluminium gallium phosphide (AlGaP) | Green | | Bright orange red, orange, yellow | Aluminium gallium indium phosphide | | (AlGaInP) | | | Aluminium gallium nitrate (AlGaN) | Near to far ultraviolet | | Diamond (C) | Ultraviolet | | Gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP) | Red, orange and red, orange, | | yellow | | | Gallium phosphide (GaP) | Red, yellow, green | | Gallium nitrate (GaN) | Green, emerald green | | Indium gallium nitrate (InGaN) | Bluish green, blue, near ultraviolet | | Sapphire (Al | | | 2 | | | O | | | 3 | | | ) as substrate | Blue | | Silicon carbide (SiC) | Blue | 9 There are many variations of the basic technology that can enhance the efficiency of 10 LEDs. The technology described above is based on a metallurgical interface formed 11 between p- and n-doped semiconductors of the same material (homojunction). This can 12 be replaced by materials of different energy bandgaps and/or polarity (heterojunction), 13 so that the vast majority of photons produced are not reabsorbed in the LED materials 14 and diffusion of electrons through the (shallow) p-region does not lead to non-radiative 15 recombination at the interface. 16 ## Organic Leds 17 Organic LEDs (OLEDs) constitute the evolution of inorganic LEDs. Their name originates 18 from the use of organic semiconductors to achieve light emission. Organic 19 semiconductors are organic compounds containing sequences of carbon (C) and 20 hydrogen (H) atoms, with occasionally nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), sulphur (S), or other 21 atoms fastened to this sequence. In a saturated organic material there is an electron 22 pair responsible for holding the carbon atoms together. Therefore, all electrons are 23 bound to atoms and the material is an electrical insulator. However, in an unsaturated 24 organic material, excess electrons can exist in the carbon atom bonds, which are loosely 25 bound to the carbon atoms. These electrons are called π-electrons and give the material 26 the properties of a semiconductor by hopping, tunnelling and other charge mobility 27 mechanisms. Organic semiconductors are considered an environmentally friendly 28 technology and are biodegradable (Kumar Khanna, 2014). 29 Two types of electroluminescent materials are used for creating white OLEDs, namely, 30 fluorescent and phosphorescent materials. Fluorescence is the emission of optical 31 radiation (light) when a substance is exposed to any type of electromagnetic radiation, 32 where the emitted radiation generally appears within 10 ns after the excitation. This 33 effect is due to an allowed transition generally from an excited singlet state to a ground 1 singlet state. Phosphorescence is any delayed emission of optical radiation which 2 appears 10 ns or longer after the excitation. This term should be used only for the 3 delayed emission due to a forbidden transition from an excited triplet state to a ground 4 singlet state. 5 The first OLEDs were fabricated by the deposition of small organic molecules on 6 substrates. However, this technology poses a number of difficulties including the fact 7 that it has to be implemented in vacuum. As a result, polymeric LEDs were developed 8 and proposed as an alternative, even though they have a less efficient performance and 9 a shorter lifespan compared to small-molecule OLEDs. 10 Some basic performance characteristics which can be used for comparing LEDs of the 11 same or different technologies are listed below: 12 ## Comparison Of Different Leds 13 Table 3 contains a comparison between inorganic and organic LEDs. 14 ## Table 3. Comparison Between Inorganic And Organic Leds (Kumar Khanna, 15 2014) 16 17 | Characteristic | Inorganic LEDs | Organic LEDs | |-----------------------------|-------------------|-----------------| | Operating voltage | Low | High | | External quantum efficiency | High | Low | | Maximum luminance | 10 | | | 6 | | | | -10 | | | | 7 | | | | cd/m | | | | 2 | | | | | 10 | | | 2 | | | | -10 | | | | 4 | | | | cd/m | | | | 2 | | | | | | | | Glare effects | Possible | No | | (diffused light) | | | | Lifetime | Long | Shorter | | (depends on environmental | | | | conditions) | | | | Fabrication process | Complex | Simple | 18 ## White Light 19 White light is composed of several colours as seen in the rainbow. It is also possible to 20 create white light by additive colour mixing. This method is based on the physiological 21 response of the human eye, which usually is expressed by saying that human vision is 22 trichromatic. The three additive colours (also called primary) that are used for creating 23 other visible colours by mixing them in appropriate proportions are red, green, and blue 24 (RGB). In this way, it is possible to create white light by using three LEDs emitting in the 25 three primary additive wavelengths (colours). Nevertheless, there is a way to create a 26 white perception by the eye using only two colours, known as a complementary pair. 27 One colour of a complementary pair incorporates the wavelengths of a part of the visible 28 spectrum, while the other encompasses the remaining range of wavelengths. Examples 29 of complementary pairs are blue and yellow, green and magenta, and red and cyan. 30 The idea of complimentary pairs can help generate white light with a single LED, by the 31 technique of wavelength conversion. The LED emits in a relatively narrow wavelength 32 band compared to incandescent lamps. Some of the light emitted is absorbed by a 33 phosphorescent material and re-emitted in a wavelength band in the residual spectrum. 34 (The wavelength of the emitted photon by the phosphorescent substance is of longer 35 wavelength than the absorbed one, an effect known as the *Stokes shift*.) As a result the 36 initial light from the LED and the converted (in terms of wavelength) light from the 37 phosphorescent material can be combined to produce white light. 38 39 ## White Inorganic Leds 1 There are no inorganic LEDs emitting white light, i.e., radiation of such a broadband 2 spectrum. The two techniques described above are used for manufacturing "white LEDs". 3 In the case of multichip LEDs, three or more LEDs, each emitting light in a narrow band 4 (e.g., in red, green, blue) are used. If a single LED is used, then wavelength conversion 5 has to take place. Some of the techniques employed to achieve this include: (i) Blue LED 6 + yellow phosphor (= phosphorescent material); (ii) Blue LED + several phosphors; (iii) 7 Blue LED + quantum dots (= nanocrystals 2-10 nm size containing cadmium or selenium 8 atoms); (iv) UV LED + RGB phosphors. 9 Multichip LEDs have a higher efficiency compared with the single chip LEDs, since 10 wavelength conversion is accompanied by energy loss in the phosphorescent material. 11 However, since every LED requires its own power source to electronically adjust the light 12 it emits, RGB multichip LEDs become expensive, as well as challenging in the design of 13 the electronic circuits needed to drive them. Therefore, due to the lower cost and 14 easiness of fabrication the most frequently method implemented to create white light is 15 a near-UV or blue LED (InGaN-GaN) combined with a yellow phosphor (YAG:Ce). 16 ## White Oleds (Woleds) 17 White organic LEDs use the same principles for synthesizing white light, like the ones 18 described above. However, it is easier to fabricate a single LED with white 19 electroluminescence with organic materials. The main approaches to obtain white light 20 from organic/organometallic emitters are summarized in Fig. 12 (Farinola and Ragni, 21 2011). There are two general categories of methods as mentioned above: (a) 22 combination of two or more individual emitters of different colours, (b) a single material 23 that simultaneously emits different wavelengths covering a broad part of the visible 24 spectrum. If the first approach is used, the emitters can be confined either in a single 25 layer or stacked in a multilayer fashion. In the second approach a single compound can 26 be employed that emits light at different wavelengths from molecules and their excited 27 states (e.g., excimers or electromers). It is also possible to produce white light from one 28 single polymer that contains different emitting moieties connected in the same molecular 29 entity. The latter method offers the potential for low cost and large area light emitting 30 devices but it poses the challenge of careful molecular design and arrangement, as well 31 as precise control of the moiety ratios. 32 ## Thermal Management Of Leds 1 The physical processes that convert electrical energy to light result in the production of 2 heat, which must be removed from the devices, because overheating reduces their 3 lifetime. Moreover, changes in temperature affect the forward voltage of a LED and the 4 wavelength of light emitted. For white light generation with additive colour mixing (RGB 5 technique) such a change in wavelength can be detrimental, since stability is necessary 6 to get the desired result. The efficient thermal management of light emitting diodes 7 allows for higher forward currents and, thus, more light emitted by it. 8 Thermal management is performed with the use of materials with high thermal 9 conductivity that permit heat to diffuse away from the LED to a heat sink. The latter is 10 usually a plate or other structure of large surface made of copper, from which heat is 11 removed by natural or forced convection. The design of the heat sink depends on the 12 power supplied to the LED, the number of LEDs put together, as well as environmental 13 conditions, like temperature and site of operation (e.g., open space or enclosure). 14 ## High-Brightness Leds 15 A high-brightness LED is one which gives a luminance flux of more than 50 lm (Kumar 16 Khanna, 2014). A LED that consumes high power is not necessarily of high-brightness. 17 The efficacy of a high-brightness LED is about 100 lm/W and the driving current is 350 - 18 1400 mA. Effective heat removal is crucial for high-brightness LEDs and this is usually 19 achieved by a heat sink immediately next to the LED junction. 20 High-brightness LEDs are used for backlighting (e.g., phone LCDs), flashlights, general 21 illumination, automotive daylight running/headlamps, signal lamps and medical devices. 22 ## Driving Circuits Of Leds 23 One of the concerns, raised about LED lighting, has been flicker. LEDs can usually be 24 operated from a DC source. However, for various reasons, products are manufactured 25 that produce optical emissions with a degree of temporal modulation. The various 26 options for drive circuits are described below. 27 ## Dc Circuits 28 There are two methods for driving an LED with a DC source, namely a constant voltage 29 source or a constant current source. The first method is more problematic to implement: 30 forward voltage may differ among LED batches within a manufacturing tolerance. As a 31 result, the current flowing in each LED, when they are aggregated in luminaires, 32 becomes uneven. However, LEDs are non-linear devices, which mean that forward 33 current changes drastically with small changes in forward voltage. This implies that 34 uneven forward currents lead to dissimilar optical outputs from the LEDs with 35 detrimental impact on the desired operation of the luminaire. Therefore, it is preferable 36 to drive LEDs at a constant current. 37 38 There are mainly two techniques to achieve a constant current supply to LEDs, namely 39 by using a resistor to limit the current flowing in the LED and by using a constant current 40 source, like a DC-DC converter. Although current limiting resistors are an inexpensive 41 solution to constant current sources, they suffer from important drawbacks. Resistors 42 dissipate electric energy and generate heat, which is wasted power that needs to be 43 removed. Moreover, using a voltage source and a resistor will not prevent the LED from 44 experiencing voltage supply variations as current changes and, consequently, light 45 output variations. Nor will it protect an LED from getting damaged by high voltage. 46 Constant current supply suggests LED connection "in series" in a luminaire, a 47 configuration where failure of one LED leads to a failure of the whole series of LEDs. 48 Connection of LEDs "in parallel", which is inevitable in several cases either for single 49 LEDs or for chains of them, still poses the problem, as discussed above, of equalising the 50 current flowing in them. 51 AC circuits 1 DC driving of LEDs is an optimal approach for battery powered devices, like mobile 2 phones. However, when it comes to luminaires that stretch several metres (e.g., around 3 a building) DC drive can result in significant losses, like in the case of power distribution, 4 requiring high voltages and additional current regulators. However, to run an LED 5 directly from the AC supply will require the use of a transformer to reduce voltage and a 6 rectifier to make it as constant with time as possible. The output of a full-wave rectifier 7 converts the sinusoidal AC voltage of 50/60 Hz to a DC voltage pulsating at double the 8 frequency. Due to the fast response of LEDs the small changes in the DC voltage are 9 translated into flickering light. To solve this problem, a capacitor in parallel to the LED 10 may be used. 11 12 One way for LEDs to operate connected directly to an AC supply is the "Christmas tree 13 lights" approach, where the driving voltage equals the sum of all voltage drops across 14 each LED, when several of them are connected in series. Using this approach, two 15 strings of LEDs can be connected to the source, each one in reverse polarization. In this 16 way, during the positive half-cycle of the AC voltage, current can flow through the LEDs 17 of one string only, while during the negative half-cycle, current can flow through the 18 LEDs of the other string. It is important to note that in this approach the (reverse) 19 voltage applied to each LED of the non-emitting string should be low enough not to 20 damage it. 21 22 Dimmers 23 LED dimming can be achieved either in an analogue or in a digital fashion. In the former 24 case the forward current through the LED is varied, and so is the optical output. 25 However, in this method heat is generated constantly, which may result in an undesired 26 temperature change. Digital dimming is implemented with PWM (pulse width 27 modulation), in which the forward current flows through the LED in a periodic pulsating 28 manner for a fraction (duty cycle) of the total time cycle duration (comprising both on- 29 and off-time intervals). As a consequence, the average current, which is related to the 30 optical output, is different from the peak current. The pulsation of the forward current 31 has to be performed at a rate (frequency) large enough, so that it is not perceived by 32 the human eye either as a direct flicker or through a stroboscopic effect. 33 34 ## Annex Ii The Fundamental Interaction Between Light And Matter 1 2 There are four basic interactions that can occur following absorption of optical radiation: 3 (a) **Photothermal:** partial conversion of light energy into heat motion via transitional, 4 rotational and vibrational modes of movements of the target molecules. The effects are 5 produced by the photoexcitation of tissue by the production of thermal energy (heat), 6 accompanied by an increase of the temperature for the exposed tissue (Cicchi *et al.*, 7 2016). The most important and significant alterations are dependent on the temperature 8 of the tissue after absorption of the optical radiation, as follows: at 37°C, no measurable 9 effects are observed; for the next 5°C above this, the tissue is thermally affected due to 10 conformational changes of molecules. Some bond destruction and membrane alterations 11 occur at approximately 42-50°C, and at 60°C denaturation of proteins and collagen 12 occurs leading to coagulation of tissue and necrosis of cells. At higher temperatures 13 (>80°C), the cell membrane permeability is drastically increased. 14 (b) **Thermal relaxation**: is influenced by the thermal coefficient of the tissue, the 15 properties of the surrounding tissue or fluids and the temperature differential between 16 the irradiated and non irradiated tissue (Litvack *et al*., 1988). An example is the 17 exposure to intense flashes of light shorter than ~20 μs (not likely from current LEDs); 18 when the rise in temperature is at least 10°C above the physiological temperature, the 19 thermal damage occurs, which leads to thermal denaturation of many proteins. Factors 20 that influence thermal relaxation are summarized as follows: absorption characteristics 21 of the target tissue; emission mode: continuous wave or pulsed emission; incident 22 power; power density; beam movement relative to tissue site (for example, with a laser 23 beam, rapid beam movement will reduce heat build-up and aid thermal relaxation); 24 endogenous coolant: water content and vascularity of the tissue. 25 (c) **Photochemical interactions:** when the radiant energy causes atomic or/and 26 molecular excitation. In the photochemical reactions, the molecule must absorb optical 27 radiation and the radiation energy must match energy difference between the ground 28 and excited state. Photochemical effects occur as a result of direct excitation of 29 electronic bonds by the optical radiation (Litvack *et al.*, 1988). At shorter wavelengths, 30 tissue components become electronically excited, thus this (photo excitation) leads to 31 rupture of molecular bonds and formation of molecular fragments. Photochemical 32 reactions generally do not result in a significant rise in temperature, but they are 33 involved either a change in the course of biochemical reaction due to the presence of an 34 electromagnetic field or photodecomposition due to high energy photons that rupture 35 molecular bonds (Das, 1991; Monajembashi *et al.*, 1986; Niemz, 2004). 36 (d) **Photomechanical and photoelectrical interactions:** non-thermal interactions 37 produced by high energy, short pulsed laser light, including: photodisruption, 38 photodisassociation, photoplasmolysis and photoacoustic interaction. Absorption of 39 pulses of energy result in rapid expansion or generation of shock waves responsible for 40 photo-disruption or photodissociation. The laser beam's energy is transformed into 41 vibration or kinetic energy (Harris *et al.*, 1989). Such interactions are not likely from 42 current LEDs. 43 In conclusion, the light absorption can result in the formation of an (electronically) 44 excited state, which has different chemical properties to the ground state. The intensity 45 and shape of absorption spectra are a result of the nature of excitation between ground 46 and excited states. Various processes result in the deactivation of the excited state. The 47 energy could be lost through fluorescence or phosphorescence (emission of radiation of 48 longer wavelengths) or dissipated as heat. 49 50 Photobiology 51 52 Photobiology is the study of the interaction of optical radiation with living organisms. 53 54 ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP, 2013) state that exposures to optical radiation can produce 1 acute onset of observable biological responses. In general there is a lack of knowledge 2 regarding the injury threshold for effects from long term chronic exposure. But, in 3 contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines for electromagnetic fields with wavelengths greater 4 than 1 mm, the guidelines for optical radiation in general do not differentiate between 5 workers and the general public (ICNIRP, 2004; ICNIRP, 2013). 6 7 The time elapsed between the absorption and the biological effect is called the primary 8 radiation effect period. Since optical radiation is absorbed in tissue, with penetration 9 depths of a few microns for UV to millimeters for IR, it follows that it is the skin and eyes 10 of the human body that are the most affected direct target tissues. The photochemical 11 effects (i.e., chemical changes in target cells) dominate in the UVR and shorter 12 wavelength visible spectral regions, while the thermal effects are dominant in the IRR 13 and visible spectral regions (ICNIRP, 2004; ICNIRP, 2013). 14 15 Photobiological reactions can be classified in two types: **Primary reactions**, which 16 derive from the interaction between photons and the chromophores/photoreceptors, 17 observed in the first seconds or minutes after the irradiation of light and secondary 18 reactions, as response to primary reactions, in hours or even days after the irradiation 19 occurs (Karu *et al.*, 2003). The light absorption depending on the wavelength and causes 20 primary reactions on the mitochondria. These are followed by a cascade of secondary 21 reactions (photosignal transduction and amplification) in the cytoplasm, membrane and 22 nucleus (Karu *et al.*, 1987). 23 24 Light of a specific wavelength excites electrons in cellular molecules, leading to the 25 breaking or reorganization of chemical bonds therein. In this way specific biochemical 26 reactions as well as whole cellular metabolism can be altered. The generation of singlet 27 oxygen (1O2), and other highly-reactive free radicals (hydroxyl (HO•), anion superoxide 28 (O2 -•), peroxide (ROO•) and hydroperoxyide (ROOH), enables the attack of the 29 surrounding cellular molecules: proteins or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). They can 30 interact with DNA causing some structural reorganization, and with other cellular targets 31 such as retinal photoreceptors to cause deterioration of cellular function and cell death. 32 Photochemical processes are in general dose dependent, meaning that low-level, long- 33 term exposure gives rise to the same effect as short, lower radiance exposures (Pattison 34 et al., 2012). Depending on wavelength, different damage to DNA may occur, some of 35 which may induce a disruption in the DNA strand, a structural reorganization, and/or 36 deterioration of cellular function and possibly cell death (Zastrow *et al*., 2009). 37 38 The chromophores, after light absorption in a specific wavelengths range, induce 39 oxidative damage to various cell compartments and functions. As most biologically 40 relevant molecules are in a singlet state (figure 13) in their ground state (S0), their 41 photoactivation leads to an electronically excited singlet state (1S*). The photoexcitation 42 may be followed by an intersystem crossing (ISC) and formation of an excited triplet 43 state (3S*), which is able to transfer an electron (or hydrogen) to/from another molecule 44 leading to a formation of a radical pair (**Type I of photosensitized damage**). The 45 energy can be transferred to another molecule, which could become chemically reactive 46 (e.g. radicals and reactive oxygen species) (Foote, 1976). 47 Interaction of an excited triplet state with molecular oxygen (which is in a triplet state in 48 its ground state) may lead to an energy transfer (Type II of photosensitized 49 damage). As a result, the photoexcited molecule returns to its ground state, while 50 oxygen is activated to an excited singlet state, called singlet oxygen (1O2). 51 Chromophores which upon photoexcitation undergo intersystem crossing and produce 52 free radicals and singlet oxygen are known as photosensitizers (PS) (Nouri, 2011). 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ## Annex Iii Structure Of The Skin, Fitzpatrick Skin Type And Optical Radiation 1 Effects On Skin 2 3 ## Structure Of The Skin 4 The epidermis (figure 14) is the most superficial layer of the skin. Its thickness varies 5 from 50 μm (eye lids) to 1.5 mm (sole of the foot). The epidermis is almost exclusively 6 constituted from a single cell type, the keratinocytes, organized in four cell layers. The 7 basal layer is made from a single layer of actively dividing keratinocytes, adherent to a 8 basal membrane, and containing small keratin filaments. Interspersed within basal 9 keratinocytes are melanocytes (1 to 5%, depending on anatomical location) that produce 10 pigments (melanin) in specific organelles (melanosomes) and emit dendrites through the 11 upper keratinocytes layers. Basal keratinocytes progressively differentiate and migrate 12 to form the upper epidermis layers. Stratum spinosum are made from 5 to 15 layers of 13 large polygonal keratinocytes, and contain some Langerhans cells (dendritic cells, 14 involved in antigen processing). Stratum granulosum is made from 1 to 4 layers of 15 keratinocytes; these cells become flattened, their nuclei begin to degenerate, and they 16 contain granules of keratin precursor (keratohyalin). The most external layer of the 17 epidermis, stratum corneum, is made from 10 to 30 layers of dead keratinocytes 18 (corneocytes) entirely filled with keratin fibrils. 19 The dermis is a conjunctive tissue, of approximately 1 mm thickness. The upper part of 20 the dermis, papillary dermis, is in contact with the epidermis basal membrane, and 21 forms papillae that increase contact surfaces with the epidermis (rete ridges). It is highly 22 vascularised and contains neurofibrils and sensory receptors (Pacini corpuscles). The 23 most important part of the dermis, reticular dermis, is made from intercrossed protein 24 networks (collagen and elastin) produced by fibroblast cells, and is vascularised in its 25 upper part. Dermis also contains skin annexes: sweat glands, simple tubulous glands of 26 which the extremities form glomeruli deep into the dermis or even in the sub-cutaneous 27 tissue (their mean density is 200 glands/cm2, but may reach up to 600 glands/cm2 in the 28 forehead or in the palms), and hair follicles (actually an invagination of the epidermis) 29 and their erector muscle and their associated oil gland (sebaceous gland). 30 Sub-cutaneous tissue is essentially made from fat and is vascularised. 31 32 33 (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anatomy_The_Skin_- 34 _NCI_Visuals_Online.jpg) 35 ## Fitzpatrick Skin Type Classification 1 Skin type classification has been developed to characterize skin susceptibility to solar 2 ultraviolet radiation. 3 Skin phototypes have been defined by Fitzpatrick according to the answers of white- 4 skinned volunteers exposed to 3 MEDs (approximately equivalent to 45-60 minutes of 5 noon exposure in the northern (20° to 45°) latitudes in the early summer) to two simple 6 questions: "How painful is your sunburn (i.e. intensity of erythema, oedema and 7 discomfort) after 24 hours?", and "How much tan will you develop in a week?". 8 Originally, the Fitzpatrick classification comprised four skin phototypes. Skin Phototype I: 9 those who burn easily and do not tan at all; Skin Phototype II: those who burn easily 10 and tan with difficulty (freckled and often red-haired individuals); Skin Phototype III: 11 those who burn moderately, show immediate pigment darkening reactions and tan 12 moderately; and Skin Phototype IV: those who do not burn and develop a good tan. 13 Later, in addition to white-skinned persons, brown-skinned (Skin Phototype V: who 14 seldom burn and always tan) and black-skinned (Skin Phototype VI: who never burn) 15 persons were included in the classification (Fitzpatrick, 1988) - see Table 4. 16 Skin phototypes are independent of hair and eye colour, e.g., although persons with skin 17 phototype I or II, with a very pale or pale complexion, usually have blond or red hairs 18 and clear eyes, but they may have dark hair or eyes. 19 20 ## Table 4. Skin Phototypes (Fitzpatrick, 1988) 21 | Phototype | Skin reaction to sun | Skin colour | Hair colour | Eye colour | |----------------|-------------------------|----------------|----------------------|---------------------| | exposure | | | | | | Pale, Fair | Blond | Clear | I | Always burns, never | | tans | | | | | | Fair, Freckles | Blond, Red | Clear | II | Usually burns, | | sometimes tans | | | | | | III | May burn, usually tans | Light Brown | Dark Blond, | Hazel, Brown | | Light Brown | | | | | | Dark | Olive brown | Light Brown, | | | | Brown, Black | | | | | | IV | Rarely burns, always | | | | | tans | | | | | | Brown | Dark | V | Seldom burns, always | | | tans | | | | | | Dark Brown, | | | | | | Black | | | | | | Moderate | | | | | | constitutional | | | | | | pigmentation | | | | | | VI | Never burns | Black | Black | Dark | | Marked | | | | | | constitutional | | | | | | pigmentation | | | | | 22 23 ## Optical Radiation Effects On Skin 1 There are no sharp lines in wavelength-dependent biological effects in the skin. Thus, 2 effects commonly known to be induced by e.g. UV-A radiation such as the DNA base 3 damage, 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine can be induced also by wavelengths of the visible 4 spectrum (Kvam, 1997). Another example is the induction of bulky DNA adducts such as 5 cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers by UV-B irradiation (Lehmann, 1995), which have been 6 shown also to be induced by UV-A in rodent cells (Rochette, 2003). 7 8 ## Benign Effects Of Optical Radiation On Healthy Skin 9 Mild heating and erythema may occur below certain temperatures and irradiances below 10 about 100 mW/cm2 (British Standard, 2013). Sub-acute UV damage may cause loss of 11 collagen in the dermis, termed photoaging. The action spectrum for photoaging is not 12 well defined, but the wavelength range from UV to IR-A is suggested. There is no known 13 threshold dose. Beneficial effects of low doses of UV exposure are pigment development 14 through melanin production and skin hardening, both of which contribute to UV 15 protection upon further UV exposure, as well as synthesis of vitamin D (UV-B-induced). 16 ## Vitamin D 17 Vitamin D (a steroid hormone) is essential for human health. It is essential for bone 18 growth and for maintaining bone strength. In addition, vitamin D plays a role in cell 19 growth: the function of many genes is modulated by vitamin D metabolites, and many 20 cells have vitamin D receptors. 21 Synthesis of pre-vitamin D3 occurs in the skin from the conversion of 7- 22 dehydrocholesterol from the keratinocytes cell membranes by UV radiation in the UV-B 23 range (the action spectrum of vitamin D induction by UV exposure peaks at 297 nm). A 24 thermochemical reaction leads to the formation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Vitamin 25 D3 is transported to the liver and converted into its stored form, 25-hydroxyvitamin D 26 [25(OH)D] (calcidiol), and further converted into its active form, 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin 27 D [1,25(OH)2D] (calcitriol) in the kidneys. [It should be noted that keratinocytes are 28 unique in being able to synthetize 1,25(OH)2D, expressing the vitamin D receptor, and 29 responding to the 1,25(OH)2D generated (Bikle, 2012)]. Exposure of 600 cm2 of the skin 30 (i.e. the surface of face and back of hands) only needs 1/3 MED (300 J/m2 for skin type 31 III) to synthetize 400 IU (10 μg) vitamin D (Miyauchi and Nakajima, 2016). 32 Narrow-band (full width, half maximum 10-30 nm) UV irradiation with LEDs can increase 33 the endogenous production of vitamin D. UV-B and UV-C irradiation with an LED device 34 effectively increases serum levels of 25(OH)D in Vitamin D-starved mice irradiated twice 35 a week for 4 weeks at 1 kJ/m2 - suberythemal - at wavelengths between 268 and 316 36 nm (Morita *et al*., 2016). Barnkob *et al*. (2016) used UV LEDs in the wavelength range 37 280–340 nm to investigate optimal vitamin D bio-fortification in isolated pig skin 38 fragments. A wavelength of 296 nm was found to be optimal for vitamin D3 production. 39 The maximum dose of 20 kJ/m2 produced 3.5–4 μg vitamin D3/cm2 pig skin. 40 ## Malignant Effects Of Optical Radiation On Healthy Skin 41 Photothermal 42 Thermal pain is induced by skin temperatures greater than about 45°C (ICNIRP, 2013) 43 (corresponding to about 100 mW/cm2 (British Standard, 2013)). At this temperature and 44 irradiance levels reversible or irreversible damage to skin structures can occur. The 45 damage is accompanied by an inflammatory reaction in the skin. Normally, the aversion 46 response limits exposure durations. However, in anaesthetised persons the aversion 47 response may be compromised. This situation is unlikely to be relevant for exposure 48 from non-medical devices. On the other hand, during occupational exposure workers 49 may be prone to exceed the thermal limits. A skin condition caused by regular localised 50 heating of the skin resulting in a reddish-brown colour, called erythema ab igne, may 51 indicate thermal damage of the skin. The presence of such erythemal damage may 1 increase the risk of skin cancer development in the presence of carcinogenic chemicals or 2 UV radiation exposure. The threshold doses to induce erythema ab igne may be below 3 the thresholds of thermal pain (ICNIRP, 2013). If saunas and warming cabinets are 4 equipped with IR-LEDs, these devices may cause erythema below the pain limit. 5 ## 6 Photochemical 7 Sunburn, Erythema And Cancers 8 UV-B and UV-A exposure can induce delayed and immediate sunburn reactions 9 (erythema), respectively, accompanied by inflammatory reactions. The erythemal action 10 spectrum is defined in a standard by the Commission International de l'Eclairage (CIE 11 1998; ISO ⁄ CIE 1999). 12 Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common types of cancer in the 13 Caucasian population. The very common actinic keratosis (AK) (pre-cancer) can be 14 induced by cumulative solar and artificial UV radiation, as well as by exposure to 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Precise prevalence and incidence figures are often 16 unavailable as the lesions are not commonly reported to cancer registries. AK occurs 17 mostly in skin types I-II (see Table 5). In a Dutch study at least one AK lesion was found 18 in 38% of all subjects investigated above 50 years of age (Flohil *et al*., 2013). AK is the 19 most common precursor of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in Caucasians (DermIS). 20 Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is induced by UV radiation, chemical carcinogens (e.g. 21 arsenic), immunosuppression and genetic disorders, such as some of the 22 photodermatoses (see Annex III, Photodermatoses). BCC is the most common skin 23 tumour in humans and it seldom metastasises. Seventy-five percent of carcinomas occur 24 in patients over 40 years of age. Cancer registries often exclude non-melanoma skin 25 cancers. In South Wales, United Kingdom, the age-standardised incidence rates per 100 26 000 population in 1998 were 127.9 for men and 104.8 for women (Holme *et al*., 2000 in 27 DermIS). Corresponding Danish numbers (per 100,000 person-years) for men and 28 women in 2007 were 91.2 and 96.6, respectively (SCENIHR, 2012). The association 29 between severe sunburns and basal cell carcinomas is likely (SCENIHR 2012), but the 30 pathogenetic pathways of UV-B and UV-A radiation for basal cell carcinomas 31 development need to be clarified (Calzavara-Pinton, 2015). Pathogenetic factors for 32 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tumours (metastasising) are UV radiation, chronic 33 inflammatory skin changes, chemical carcinogens, immunosuppression, as well as viral 34 infections. In South Wales, United Kingdom, the age-standardised incidence rates per 35 100,000 population in 1998 were 25.2 for men and 8.6 for women (Holme *et al*., 2000). 36 Corresponding Danish numbers (per 100,000 person-years) from 2007 were 19.1 and 37 12.0, respectively (SCENIHR 2012). Intermittent sun exposure and a history of 38 sunburns, a predictor of intermittent exposure, increase the risk of cutaneous malignant 39 melanoma (CMM) (SCENIHR 2012, Ghiasvand, 2016 ). The pathologic factors for this 40 skin tumour are sun exposure (intermittent burning), artificial UV exposure, as well as 41 phenotypic (fair skin) and genetic nature (in patients with e.g. xeroderma 42 pigmentosum). CMM occurrence is increasing with ambient annual erythemal dose. It is 43 the most frequent cause of death due to a skin disease. In Norway, where the age- 44 standardised incidence rates are similar to those of Australia, the 2015-figures (per 100 45 000) were 41.2 for men and 36.5 for women (Cancer Registry of Norway, 2015). CMM 46 incidence has increased faster than any other cancer in white populations during the past 47 decades (Ghiasvand, 2016). 48 ## Immunosuppression 49 UV irradiation of the skin has an immunosuppressive effect. Both overexposure and sub- 50 acute doses (<1 MED) can suppress adaptive cellular immunity (i.e. acquired immunity 51 against a pathogenic agent or substance and effected by direct cell-to-cell contact). The 52 immunosuppressive effects of UV radiation, in particular wavelengths shorter than about 53 320 nm, have been shown in several studies (reviewed by Schwartz, 2008). In animal 1 studies such UV-induced suppression contributed to skin cancer formation and 2 aggravation of bacterial/viral infections (Norval 2006b in SCENIHR, 2012). In humans, 3 UV overexposure may cause flare-ups of herpes simplex viruses (Norval 2006a, Sayre et 4 al., 2007, both in SCENIHR 2012). In humans, the suppressive effects of UV on skin 5 immune status occur in the UV-B (around 300 nm) as well as in the UV-A (around 370 6 nm) range (Halliday *et al*., 2012). 7 One of the mechanisms is via the immunologically important lymphocytic cells: UV 8 irradiation activates the regulatory T and B cells (Halliday *et al*., 2012). Urocanic acid, 9 found predominantly in the stratum corneum of the epidermis, acts as an endogenous 10 sunscreen by absorbing UV-B radiation. When exposed to UV-B irradiation, trans- 11 urocanic acid is converted to the cis isomer which activates regulatory T cells and 12 suppresses induction of immunity in human skin (Dahl *et al*, 2010). 13 UV exposure also has the ability to enhance the innate immune response (inborn defence 14 against infectious agents). UV exposure increases levels of anti-bacterial proteins in the 15 skin (Gläser *et al*., 2009 in SCENIHR, 2012) which may explain why solar exposure does 16 not favour bacterial infections in general (Liu *et al*., 2006, SCENIHR, 2015). 17 ## Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers And Exposure To Uv Nail Light 18 Nail curers uses UV-A radiation to dry (polymerize) nail polish and/or set acrylic nails. 19 UV-A radiation is provided by small devices, rather inexpensive (from ca. 30 to 100 €), 20 that can be used either in professional nail care salons or at home. For decades these 21 devices have been fitted with compact fluorescent lamps emitting broad band UV-A (320 22 to 400 nm) and of a typical power of 36 W. More recently, UV LEDs have been 23 introduced, that emit a narrower UV spectrum (375 to 420 nm), and of a typical power 24 of 14 W. 25 Concern about the safety of this procedure was triggered by MacFarlane and Alonso 26 (2009), who reported the occurrence of non-melanoma skin cancers on the hands after 27 UV nail light exposure in two women. The first patient was a 55-year-old white woman 28 with no specific risk factors (little recreational UV exposure, no solar damage, and no 29 preceding human papillomavirus infection) who developed a squamous cell carcinoma in 30 situ on the dorsal aspect of her right index finger and had a 15-year history of twice- 31 monthly UV nail light exposure. The other patient was a 48-year-old white woman who 32 developed a squamous cell carcinoma on the dorsum of her right hand. This patient, with 33 moderate recreational UV exposure and no personal or family history of skin cancer, had 34 a Fitzpatrick skin type III, with several actinic keratoses on her face and arms. There 35 was no preceding human papillomavirus infection at this site or elsewhere. Questioning 36 revealed previous exposure to UV nail lights approximately 8 times in 1 year, several 37 years before her first skin cancer. 38 To evaluate the actual risk of skin cancer associated with exposure to UV-A lamps used 39 in cosmetic nail treatment, Diffey (2012) constructed a mathematical model that 40 combined age and UV exposure to compare the risk of developing SCC due to typical sun 41 exposure with the risk of inducing these cancers from exposure to UV-A nail lamps. 42 Calculations were based upon actual measurements of UV irradiance of a typical 18 43 watts device, giving an erythemally weighted output of 1.58 SED h-1 [Standard Erythema 44 Dose, a measure of erythemal UV radiation exposure dose], and upon the assumption of 45 a session every 3 weeks, i.e. an annual exposure dose of 3.8 SED [this dose can be 46 compared to an estimation of a median baseline sun exposure level of 166 SED year + 47 85.5 SED per year holiday (SCHEER, 2016)]. Results were expressed as number needed 48 to harm (NNH) and indicate that the risk of inducing an SCC from exposure to UV-A nail 49 lamps is very low for a typical usage, since tens or hundreds of thousands of women 50 would need to use a UV-A nail lamp regularly for one to go on to develop SCC on the 51 dorsum of the hands as a direct consequence. Moreover, this risk can even be reduced 52 to virtually zero by wearing fingerless gloves when the hands are being exposed. 53 Risk calculations by Diffey were based on measured irradiance of a single device fitted 1 with fluorescent lamps of relatively small power. Markova and Weinstock (2013) 2 measured the spectral irradiance of three common UV Nail Lamp devices: two fitted with 3 broadband UV-A fluorescent bulbs (respectively 36 W with a peak emission at 368 nm, 4 and 9 W with a peak emission at 370 nm), and one fitted with UV LEDs (405 nm, 6 W). 5 They then used the action spectrum for human photocarcinogenesis (de Gruijl and Van 6 der Leun, 1994) to determine the carcinogenic-effective irradiance of a 10 min UV nail 7 lamp session and compare it with that of a single narrowband UV-B phototherapy 8 course, a commonly used dermatological treatment, viewed as low risk for the 9 development of nonmelanoma skin cancer. They calculated that over 13,000 fluorescent 10 lamp and more than 40,000 UV-A LED sessions would be required to equal at the nail 11 plane the UV dose received during one narrowband UV-B course, which represents over 12 250 years of weekly UV nail sessions to experience the same risk exposure. 13 Following a request from the Nail Manufacturers Council on Safety (an organization 14 formed by the nonprofit trade association the Professional Beauty Association), Dowdy 15 and Sayre (2013) conducted a photobiological safety evaluation of six nail curing lamps. 16 Radiant hazards were assessed as defined in ANSI/IESNA RP-27 Recommended Practice 17 for Photobiological Safety. Three of the devices evaluated were fluorescent UV nail lamps 18 systems incorporating 2, 3 or 4 small 9 W lamps. The other three devices were LED- 19 based incorporating arrays of 6 or 32 LEDs or 1 LED (single finger unit). Lamps were 20 evaluated at three positions, 1 cm above the inner surface (approximating exposure to 21 the hand) and the 20 cm RP-27 non-general light source distance, oriented 0° and 45° 22 to the opening. At 1 cm distance, weighted Actinic UV ranged 1.2–1.7 μW cm-2, 23 classifying these devices into RP-27 Risk Group 1 (Low - for the finger unit) or 2 24 (Moderate); which corresponds to 29.8–276.25 min permissible daily exposure [the RP- 25 27 risk group classification is based on an occupational exposure assumption]. At 20 cm 26 on centre and 45°, actinic UV ranged 0.001–0.078 μW cm-2 and unweighted near UV 27 (320–400 nm) ranged 0.001–0.483 mW cm-2, and UV risk to skin and eyes were all 28 within the Exempt classification. Likewise the retinal photochemical blue light hazard and 29 retinal thermal and cornea/lens IR were also Exempt. According to this evaluation, the 30 total exposure incurred during a typical nail lamp session represents a small fraction of 31 the RP-27 permissible daily occupational exposure. 32 Shipp *et al.* (2014) measured the unweighted UV-A irradiance of 17 nail polish drying 33 devices (in 16 salons), and evaluated the potential risk to the user by comparison with 34 an energy density of UV-A shown to induce DNA damage (60 J cm-2). The median UV-A 35 exposure for a single visit was low (5.1 J cm-2). These data suggest that the risk for 36 carcinogenesis remain small. [It should be noted that the devices measured by Shippp et 37 al. appear to have been fitted with fluorescent lamps]. 38 In a research letter, Curtis *et al.*(2013) evaluated two nail curing lamps - not LEDs - and 39 found that total MED (Minimum Erythema Dose) per session was 0.1 MED or less, 40 representing annual doses of 1.1 to 1.5 MED, and raised the possibility that long-term 41 exposure to UV nail lamps may have the potential to increase both cancer risk and 42 photoaging. 43 Thus, regardless the metrics chosen, UV nail lamps and/or LEDs do not appear to 44 significantly increase the lifetime risk of non melanoma skin cancer. However, data are 45 lacking regarding the possibility of premature skin ageing, and the risk to the eyes of the 46 professional operators should be considered. 47 48 ## Optical Radiation Effects In Pathological Conditions 1 Photodermatoses 2 It is reasonable to believe that patients diagnosed with a known photosensitivity disorder 3 will avoid the radiation responsible for their symptoms. However, UV exposure may both 4 relieve and aggravate symptoms in patients with conditions such as acne, psoriasis and 5 atopic dermatitis. Also some viral infections, such as herpes simplex virus, can 6 sometimes be exacerbated by UV. Individuals who experience intermittent or infrequent 7 outbreaks of their condition may not avoid UV exposure at all times. Many lupus 8 erythematosus patients may not be aware of their photosensitivity (SCENIHR, 2012) and 9 therefore, will not always avoid UV exposure. Indoor lighting-triggered disease activity 10 has been reported previously (SCENIHR, 2012). 11 The SCENIHR opinion on artificial light (2012) provides a comprehensive, yet not 12 exhaustive list of various photodermatoses. Below, only a few of the most commonly 13 occurring diseases/conditions are mentioned. A majority of both optical radiation- 14 induced and -aggravated photodermatoses listed in the previous Opinion (SCENIHR, 15 2012) manifest with possible or established ocular involvement (Rambhatla *et al*., 2015) 16 17 ## A. Diseases Induced By Optical Radiation 18 The wavelength dependency of some optical radiation-induced photodermatoses is 19 presented in Table 6. The prevalence figures presented below for the various diseases 20 were found at http://www.orpha.net/ if not specified otherwise. 21 ## 22 1. Idiopathic Or Immune-Based 23 Actinic prurigo can have childhood onset or onset before 20 years of age. The prevalence 24 varies from 0.003% in Scotland to 8% in Chimila Indians of Colombia (Valbuena *et al*., 25 2014). Chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) is an uncommon dermatitis thought to be a 26 delayed-type hypersensitivity response against photo-induced cutaneous antigens, 27 similar to allergic contact dermatitis (Rambhatla *et al*., 2015). CAD has adult onset. 28 Prevalence is estimated to 1-5 in 10 000. Hydroa vacciniforme is a rare photodermatosis 29 with childhood onset (Rambhatla *et al*., 2015). Indicated prevalence is 1-9 in 1 000 000. 30 Lupus erythematosus can have various sub-types (see SCENIHR, 2012). They can have 31 childhood onset and affect all age groups. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has 32 prevalence in Europe of 12.5-39 per 100 000 (SCENIHR, 2012) while autosomal 33 recessive SLE has a prevalence of <1 in 1 000 000. Polymorphic light eruption (PLE) can 34 have childhood onset, but mean onset is in the second or third decade of life. PLE is the 35 most common photodermatosis. In European countries the prevalence is up to 20% 36 (Gruber-Wackernagel *et al*., 2014). PLE affects mostly women, and a prevalence of 37 33.4% in females of skin type I was reported by Rhodes *et al*. (2010) in Europe. Solar 38 urticaria is an uncommon condition that affects all ages, but with a peak during the 39 fourth and fifth decades of life (Rambhatla *et al*., 2015). Prevalence numbers are stated 40 as 36 per 100 000 (orpah.net, 2016). 41 ## 42 2. Genophotodermatoses 43 The diverse group of inherited photosensitive diseases is rare, and the diseases present 44 with various wavelength susceptibility (SCENIHR, 2012). Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) 45 is characterised by defective DNA repair mechanism for UV damage associated with 46 chromosome instability. XP has a prevalence of 1 in 1 000 000 in the USA and Europe, 47 with higher figures in other countries and continents particularly in communities with a 48 high degree of consanguinity (orpha.net, 2011). Birth prevalence is 0.23 per 100 000 in 49 Europe (Orphanet Report Series, 2016). 50 ## 3. Porphyrias 1 Porphyrias constitute a group of disorders related to enzymatic defects in the haem 2 synthesis (Rimington, 1985). These result in increased synthesis of porphyrins and for 3 some of the diseases, with possible cutaneous photosensitisation. The porphyrin 4 absorption range is about 320-600 nm with the largest absorption maximum about 400 5 nm and smaller maxima between about 500-700 nm. Hepatocytes and bone marrow 6 erythroblasts are the major cell types involved in haem synthesis and thus, enzymatic 7 defects will be manifested in these cells (Rimington, 1985; Sassa, 2006). Six of the nine 8 porphyrias described are associated with photosensitivity. Two of these are among the 9 second and third most often occurring types. They can be of either erythropoietic or 10 hepatic type or both (Sassa, 2006). The skin localisation of porphyrins of hepatic or 11 erythrocyte origin is dependent on the water solubility of the porphyrins (Brun *et al*., 12 1991) and not necessarily the depth at which they accumulate. Thus, knowing the type 13 of porphyria in a patient cannot indicate "safe" wavelengths within the porphyria 14 absorption spectrum by choosing "appropriate" penetration depths. Porphyrias are, in 15 general, rare diseases and prevalence and incidence vary between type of porphyria and 16 countries (Table 6). As an example, erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP), an autosomal 17 recessive disease, has been described worldwide. The prevalence of EPP may vary based 18 on the population allele frequency of the low-expression IVS3-48T>C allele, which 19 ranges from approximately 1% in African Americans to approximately 43% in Japanese 20 (Balwani *et al*., 2012). 21 22 1 2 Total incidence of all porphyrias in Denmark is 0.52 in 100000 per year 1989-2013 (Christiansen *et al.*, 2016) a) Most 3 common porphyria in children, third most common of all porphyrias. b)Holme *et al.*, 2006 4 5 6 | Porphyria | Prevalence | |----------------|----------------| | location | | | Reference | Prevalence, | | per | million | | inhabitants | | | Ref : | | | orpha.net | | | (year) | | | per million | | | inhabitants | | | (95% | CI) | | if | not | | otherwise | | | stated | | | Variegate | | | porphyria | | | 3.2 (2.4- | | | 4.0) | | | Elder | et | | al. | | | , 2013 | | | 1-9 (2009) | 0.08 | | (0.06- | | | 0.10) | | | 11 | | | European | | | countries | | | Low: 0.4 | | | High: 10.4 | | | Poland | | | Switzerland | | | 1-9 | Erythropoietic | | protoporphyria | | | a) | | | 9.2 | (7.7- | | 11.6 | | | 11 | | | European | | | countries | | | | | | Low: 1.5 | Poland | | Elder | et | | al. | , 2013 | | (between | | | 1/75000 in the | | | Netherlands | | | and | | | 1/200000 | in | | Wales | | | b) | | | (2013)) | | | | | | High: 27.7 | | | Norway | | | Reference | Geographic | |-------------------|---------------| | location | | | Incidence | | | per million | | | inhabitants | | | (95% | CI) | | if | not | | otherwise | | | stated | | | 11 | European | | countries | | | Elder | et al. | | 2013 | | | PolandSwitzerland | | | (2007- | | | 2009) | | | Low: 0.01 | | | High: 0.26 | | | Denmark | Christiansen | | et al. | , 2016 | | 9 (1989- | | | 2013) | | | 1) 2-5 | | | al. | | | , 2014 | | | 2) 0.12 | | | (0.10- | | | 0.15) | | | 2) Elder | et | | al. | | | , 2013 | | | Low: 0.03 | Poland/ | | (2007- | | | 2009) | | | | | | Spain | | | | | | High: 0.36 | | | Norway | | | 1 per | Porphyria | |----------------|--------------| | cutanea tarda | | | Sweden, | | | Norway | | | 10 000 | | | 1/25000 | | | Western | | | Europe (2009) | | | Rossmann- | | | Ringdahl | | | et al. | | | , | | | 2005; | | | Mykletun | | | et al. | | | , | | | 2014 | | | 1 per | Hereditary | | coproporhyria | | | Czech | | | Republic | | | 100 000 | | | Martásek, | | | 1998 | | | 1/1 mill | | | (2009) | | | | | | erythropoietic | | | porphyria | | ## | Denmark | Christiansen | |------------|-----------------| | et al. | , 2016 | | 73 (13 per | | | million) | | | (1989- | | | 2013) | | | 650 | | | Denmark | Christiansen | | et al. | , 2016 | | (1 per | | | 10 000) | | | (1989- | | | 2013) | | | 4 | Denmark | | et al. | , 2016 | | (1989- | | | 2013) | | | Denmark | Christiansen | | et al. | , 2016 | | (1989- | | | 2013) | | ## 4. Photosensitivity With Exogenous Origin 1 Photosensitivity can be induced by skin exposure to plant and vegetable compounds 2 (phytophotodermatitis), drugs, chemicals and cosmetics, all in combination with optical 3 radiation. The most common mechanism for photosensitivity induced by drugs is 4 phototoxicity, while a less frequent mechanism is photoallergy. Photoallergic contact 5 dermatitis is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction in susceptible individuals. Most of 6 these drugs or chemicals cause reactions after UV-A exposure although some can cause 7 sensitisation with UV-B radiation or visible light (SCENIHR, 2012). A list of drugs 8 associated with photosensitivity is provided by Valbuena *et al*. (2014) and a list of drugs 9 and other compounds absorbing in the 290-700 nm wavelength range exhibiting 10 phototoxicity can be found in Kleinman *et al*. (2010). 11 Photosensitisers used in photodynamic therapy of various cancers can elicit reversible 12 skin phototoxic responses upon subsequent exposure to visible radiation (SCENIHR, 13 2012), such as from artificial light sources including LEDs. 14 15 ## A. Photo-Aggravated Dermatoses 16 This is a large and diverse group of diseases which are not primarily caused by optical 17 radiation, but which can be exacerbated by such radiation. Examples of diseases and 18 conditions are listed in e.g. SCENIHR 2012 and Rambhatla *et al*. (2015). Mechanisms of 19 disease and wavelength dependence are not always known. 20 21 ## B. Susceptible Groups 22 Children in general and persons affected by photodermatoses are susceptible to 23 excessive optical radiation exposure of their skin. Childhood onset can occur for e.g. 24 actinic prurigo, hydroa vacciniforme, lupus erythematosus, polymorphic light eruption, 25 solar urticaria and xeroderma pigmentosum. Photosensitivity occurs in children for (at 26 least) the following porphyrias: erythropoietic protoporphyria, congenital erythropoietic 27 porphyria and hepatoerythropoietic porphyria. 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 | Classification | | Wavelengths (nm) | |-------------------|------------------|---------------------| | Visible blue | | | | (400-500) | | | | UV-A | | | | (315- | | | | 400) | | | | Visible | | | | green-red | | | | (500-780) | | | | Photodermatosis | UV-B | | | (280- | | | | 315) | | | | Actinic prurigo* | | | | | | (seldom) | | "Light"- | | | | induced, | | | | endogenous | | | | Chronic | actinic | | | dermatitis* | | | | | | | | vacciniforme* | | | | | (UV-A?) | | | erythematosus* | | | | (may | also | be | | photoaggravated) | | | | | | | | eruption | | | | Porphyria | | | | | Solar urticaria* | | | light?) | | | | | | | | pigmentosum* | | | | | | (few) | | induced* | | | | "Light"- | | | | induced, | | | | exogenous | | | | | | | | contact | | | | dermatitis | | | | | 6 | | ## Conclusions On Photodermatoses 7 Porphyrias are rare diseases. Prevalence and incidence figures vary substantially 8 between type of porphyria and countries. The absorption spectrum of the porphyrins 9 present in patients with photosensitive porphyrias overlaps the emission spectra of LED 10 lighting sources. The SCHEER could not find evidence for increases in the incidence of 11 porphyrias and photodermatoses since the publication of the Opinion on artificial light 12 (SCENIR, 2012). Theoretically, the incidence of the chemical/drug-induced types of 13 porphyrias and induction and aggravation of any of the photodermatoses may increase 14 with increased light exposure in general. Although it seems possible to elicit certain 15 visible light-induced photosensitivity disorders with LED lighting sources, it must be kept 16 in mind that these diseases are rare. 17 ## Annex Iv Photometry, Radiometry And Dosimetry 1 Photometry And Radiometry 2 Photometry is the science of the measurement of light, in terms of its perceived 3 brightness to the human eye. It is distinct from radiometry, which is the science of 4 measurement of radiant energy (including light) in terms of absolute power. Concepts 5 such as radiance, irradiance, radiant power and radiant intensity used in radiometry can 6 easily be defined via simple geometric relationships. While sharing these identical 7 relationships, photometry also introduces detector response modelled after human visual 8 characteristics. 9 Power (watts) is converted to luminous flux in lumens via the integral equation: 10 $$\begin{array}{r l}{11}&{{}\Leftrightarrow\exists\not\exists\not\exists\not\exists\not\exists z}\end{array}$$ V(O) where is the photopic response function of the human eye in day light, 12 Φv = flux (lumens), Pe = Power, K = constant (683 lm/W for photopic). The unit of 13 luminous flux is the lumen. 14 15 ## Dosimetry 16 The emissions from an LED source can be quantified in terms of radiant power (watts). 17 This should not be confused with the electrical input power used historically to specify 18 incandescent lamps. The radiant power is usually the total emission of the source and is 19 most appropriate for sources that emit equally in all directions. If the source is 20 directional then it is more appropriate to specify the radiant intensity (watts per 21 steradian) and if the source is not a point source, radiance (watts per square metre [of 22 emitter] per steradian). These quantities are radiometric quantities and are appropriate 23 across the optical spectrum (for ultraviolet, visible and infrared emissions). 24 It may also be appropriate to specify a spectral quantity to show how the contributions 25 to the above quantities vary with wavelength - the emission spectrum. 26 With the spectral information, it is possible to weight the emission for a range of factors 27 to take into account human (or other) responses. The response of the eye to optical 28 radiation at different wavelengths has been experimentally determined and weighting 29 with the response function, particularly for high light levels, gives the photometric 30 quantities. Luminous flux (lumen) is equivalent to radiant power, weighted at each 31 wavelength with the luminous efficacy function and summed across all wavelengths. The 32 equivalent quantities for radiant intensity and radiance are luminous intensity (lumen per 33 steradian or candela) and luminance (lumen per metre squared per steradian or candela 34 per metre squared), respectively. 35 All of these quantities are parameters associated with the actual source or a virtual 36 source (due to the use of a diffuser or reflectors). 37 The optical radiation incident on a surface, which could be the eye or the skin, is 38 quantified in terms of irradiance (watts per square metre). The equivalent photometric 39 quantity is illuminance (lumen per square metre or lux). Since radiance is generally 40 conserved in an optical system, the radiance on the retina will generally be the same as 41 the radiance of the source. 42 Spectral data for the optical radiation incident on a surface, for example in watts per 43 square metre per nanometre, can be used to weight for a range of hazard or beneficial 44 effects. In this Opinion, reference is made to a number of studies, which suggest that 45 the blue emission from LEDs may be of concern. The International Commission on Non- 46 Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2013) has published guidelines on limits for 47 exposure to blue light, which take into account the effectiveness of optical radiation to 1 cause adverse effects at different wavelengths. 2 The spectral irradiance from an LED source is weighted at each wavelength and the 3 resulting weighted spectrum is summed for comparison with the ICNIRP exposure limit. 4 Since the weighting function peaks at about 440 nm, decreasing by a factor of ten for 5 wavelengths less than 400 nm and greater than 500 nm, any incident blue radiation is 6 more significant. This is shown in Fig. 15. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fig. 15 shows the weighted (for blue light hazard, Fig.7) spectral radiance of the 13 incandescent lamp and LED lamp shown in Fig. 3. When the values were summed, the 14 weighted radiance was 14 W m-2 sr-1 for the LED lamp and 10 W m-2 sr-1 for the 15 incandescent lamp. The ICNIRP exposure limit for long-term exposure (> 10000 s or 16 about 3 hours) is 100 W m-2 sr-1. 17 18 Most lighting sources are not directly visible to observers in order to avoid a glare 19 source. Sources may be shielded or fitted with diffusers. The exceptions are indicator 20 devices and, for example, vehicle lighting, which is in the direct field of view, and 21 illuminated screens. Therefore, the general exposure condition is to indirect optical 22 radiation. ICNIRP provides a general rule for white light sources, which is that if the 23 luminance is less than 104 cd m-2, it is unlikely to be a hazard. Screens are usually up to 24 about 4% of this luminance (O'Hagan *et al.* 2016). 25 26 27 ## Annex V Circadian Rhythm 1 Generation Of The Circadian Rhythm 2 The biological clocks consists of multiple 'clocks': 1) the central clock in the brain (the 3 suprachiasmatic nucleus or SCN) and 2) peripheral clocks in almost all organs including 4 heart, liver and kidneys. The peripheral clocks are regulated by the central clock (Dibner, 5 Schibler *et al.* 2010). A self-sustaining molecular oscillator generates the circadian 6 rhythms at a cellular level. This oscillator comprises genes and proteins that are 7 organized in positive and negative transcription translation feedback loops (Takahashi, 8 2017). In short, the heterodimer transcription factor CLOCK/BMAL1 drives the 9 transcription of the *Period* and *Cryptochrome* genes. The proteins translated from these 10 transcripts gradually accumulate in the nucleus and shut down the expression of their 11 own genes by repressing the transcription of the CLOCK/BMAL1 heterodimer. This 12 process is influenced by post-translational modifications that affect the stability of the 13 clock proteins and, thereby, influence the periodicity of circadian rhythms. In turn, this 14 determines, for example, a person's chronotype (i.e. a morning or evening person) 15 (Takahashi, 2017). 16 ## Function Of Circadian Rhythms 17 Circadian rhythms most likely evolved to adapt and respond optimally to daily 18 environmental cycles. It enables anticipation to expected events and ensures that bodily 19 processes occur in a temporal and synchronized fashion at the most optimal timing 20 related to the environment. A simplified example: eating when food is present and 21 subsequently optimize metabolism processes after eating. The bodily processes 22 regulated in a circadian fashion are widespread and linked. Ranging from behaviour 23 (sleep/wake cycles), cognition (attention, concentration), the immune system and repair 24 mechanisms, to numerous physiological processes including endocrine functioning, 25 metabolism, cardiovascular functioning etc. It has been shown that circadian rhythms 26 occur in 2-10% of a tissue's gene expression and, in addition, several post- 27 transcriptional mechanisms result in circadian rhythms in protein expression (Takahashi 28 2017). 29 ## Measuring Circadian Rhythms In Humans 30 To determine if circadian rhythms are influenced by external stimuli, several biomarkers 31 for circadian rhythms are usually investigated. These include body temperature, 32 melatonin and cortisol, of which melatonin is the most widespread used marker. 33 Melatonin is one of the hormones with a robust circadian rhythm and its levels are easily 34 assessed using saliva, serum or urine. The timing of melatonin production from the 35 pineal gland is directly regulated by the central clock in the brain, the SCN. During night 36 time, norepinephrine is released from sympathetic nerve endings to the pineal gland 37 which regulates the key enzyme in melatonin production, arylalkylamine N- 38 acetyltransferase (AANAT) (Schomerus and Korf 2005). Melatonin levels rise during the 39 dark period and decrease at the end of the dark period. However, regulation of 40 melatonin is not only via light/dark, since melatonin levels decrease towards the end of 41 the night when no light is present and darkness during the day will not result in 42 melatonin production. As such, melatonin levels are often used as a marker for a 43 person's circadian phase, although this relation involves other aspects as well. Exposure 44 to light at night reduces the production of melatonin, since norepinephrine levels drop 45 (Schomerus and Korf 2005), but changes in circadian phase depend on other aspects as 46 well (light during the day and other zeitgebers, such as food). Melatonin also rises at 47 night in nocturnal animals, and, as such, it is better described as a hormone of the night, 48 rather than a sleep hormone. 49 50 51 ## Consequences Of Disturbance Of The Circadian Rhythm By Light 1 As described in section 6.9.1 negative health effects of optical radiation from LEDs, 2 specifically, have not been investigated. It is expected that these effects are not LED- 3 specific; they apply to exposure to light during the evening that influences the circadian 4 system in general. The effects may, however, be enhanced for LEDs compared to 5 traditional light sources at similar illumination levels, due to the particular spectral 6 emission pattern of certain types of LEDs. In addition, it is important to note that direct 7 causal relations of the use of LEDs or other artificial light sources during the evening on 8 health have not been investigated. Indications are obtained from association studies, 9 circumstantial evidence and hypothesized effects based on studies investigating other 10 types of circadian disturbance. 11 12 Disturbance of the circadian system has been associated with several negative health 13 effects. This is mainly the case for relatively severe disturbances of the circadian system 14 that, for example, occur due to shift work or jetlag. For example, circadian disturbance 15 as might occur due to shift work has been associated with cancer, metabolic health 16 effects, and cognitive functioning (IARC 2010, Wang, Armstrong *et al.* 2011, ANSES 17 2016, Mattis and Sehgal 2016). Although the circadian disturbance observed due to 18 evening light exposure is less severe, some underlying mechanisms and consequences 19 might be similar. 20 21 An important consequence of the circadian disturbance due to light during the evening is 22 its effect on sleep. As described in more detail above, the studies by Cajochen *et al.* and 23 Chang *et al.* indicate that use of certain types of LEDs, similar to other artificial light 24 sources, can result in reduced sleepiness (Cajochen, Frey *et al.* 2011, Chang, Aeschbach 25 et al. 2014) and increased latency to sleep (Chang, Aeschbach *et al.* 2014), possibly 26 causing shorter sleep duration and poorer sleep quality. It is important to note that, 27 regardless of the cause (i.e. being artificial light or other factors), reduced sleep duration 28 and quality is associated with poorer cognitive performance, fatigue, altered mood and 29 increased health and safety risks (Christoffersson, Vagesjo *et al.* 2014, Engle-Friedman 30 2014, Burke, Scheer *et al.* 2015, Cedernaes, Schioth *et al.* 2015). 31 32 Furthermore, additional light during the evening has been hypothesized to phase delay 33 circadian rhythms. Delay in the circadian rhythm can result in 'social jetlag'. This refers 34 to the phenomenon that the circadian rhythm is delayed but the social environment 35 requires behavioural patterns to remain at the earlier phase (Wittmann, Dinich *et al.* 36 2006). In other words, a person still has to get up early in the morning to go to 37 work/school. This can cause several important bodily processes to occur 'out of sync' 38 with the biological clock, such as food consumption. This desynchronization of external 39 and internal stimuli might be underlying some of the health effects related to 40 disturbances of the circadian system. Social jetlag has mainly been associated with risk 41 factors for cardio-metabolic diseases (Parsons, Moffitt *et al.* 2015, Wong, Hasler *et al.* 42 2015). Furthermore, evening light exposure might enhance delayed sleep-wake phase 43 disorder (DSWPD) in sensitive persons. This disorder is characterized by late sleep and 44 wake times and poorer sleep quality (Joo, Abbott *et al.* 2017, Magee, Marbas *et al.* 45 2016). 46 47 In addition to observed effects of evening light on sleep in experimental settings, it has 48 been suggested that evening exposure to light might have an direct effect on food 49 consumption and metabolism (Versteeg, Stenvers *et al.* 2016). It has been hypothesized 50 that evening light causes increased food consumption at unfavourable moments (i.e. 51 when metabolism processes are in their rest phase). In addition, an association has been 52 observed between melatonin levels and metabolic disorders. Melatonin might have a 53 direct effect on food intake and melatonin receptors are also present on pancreatic cells. 54 Polymorphisms in the melatonin receptor have been associated with increased risk of 55 type 2 diabetes (Versteeg, Stenvers *et al.* 2016). 56 1 In summary, disturbances of the circadian rhythm can result in negative consequences 2 on sleep, cognitive performance and, in the long term, on metabolic risk factors. Since 3 no experimental studies have been performed with chronic exposure (multiple years) to 4 artificial light during the evening, it is currently unknown if the disturbance of the 5 circadian rhythm remains, increases or reduces after chronic exposure to light during the 6 evening. 7 8 9 10 ## Annex Vi Hazardous Waste Due To The Materials Used For Producing Light- 1 Emitting Diodes (Leds) 2 3 A South Korean/U.S. investigation on the toxic potential of LEDs, CFLs and incandescent 4 lamps, found that in comparing the bulbs on an equivalent quantity basis with respect to 5 the expected lifetimes of the bulbs, the CFLs and LEDs have 3-26 and 2-3 times higher 6 toxicity potential impacts than the incandescent bulb, respectively (Lim *et al.,* 2011). 7 Arsenic is present as gallium arsenide is found in light emitting diodes (LEDs). The 8 element is a human carcinogen and exposure to arsenic can result in various skin 9 diseases and can decrease nerve conduction velocity6. Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and 10 short-term exposure to high concentrations of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhoea, 11 convulsions and damage to the kidney and reproductive system. It can also cause 12 anaemia, increased blood pressure, and induce miscarriage for pregnant women. 13 Children are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exposure to lead, for it can 14 damage nervous connections and cause brain disorders7. 15 16 Except for these heavy metals, TBBA (tetrabromobisphenol-A), PBB (polybrominated 17 biphenyls) and PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) could be encountered as fire 18 retardants for plastics (thermoplastic components, cable insulation). TBBA is presently 19 the most widely used flame retardant in printed wiring boards and covers for 20 components - brominated flame retardants (BFRs). The combustion of these halogenated 21 compounds releases toxic emissions including dioxins which can cause reproductive and 22 developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also 23 cause cancer8. 24 25 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is mainly found in the plastic components of electrical and 26 electronic equipment. When burned, PVC releases dioxins, furans and phthalates, some 27 of which are known reproductive toxicants and carcinogens (Hazardous substances in e- 28 wastes., 2009).9 29 30 Phthalates used as softeners to PVC can easily leach into the environment. 31 Epidemiological data has suggested an association between indoor exposure to phtalates 32 and asthmatic and allergic reactions in children (Bornehag *et al*., 2010) 33 ## Annex Vii: Literature Review 1 2 Comprehensive literature searching involved capturing the scientific literature about the 3 LED effects on skin, eye, retina, macula, cornea, lens tear film, circadian rhythm, 4 circadian disruption, melatonin suppression. 5 6 ## Search Strategy And Selection Of Publications 7 Example Topic: Circadian Effects (Search Ec Library And E-Resources Centre) 8 Selection on Title of the following topics: 19 references 9 Circadian rhythm: 8 out of 12 10 Blue light AND circadian AND human: 1 out of 9 11 Blue light AND circadian disruption: 4 out of 15 12 LED AND circadian rhythm: 2 out of 2 13 Melatonin suppression: 4 out of 16 14 Circadian light: 0 out of 3 15 Based on abstracts, 9 papers were excluded, since they were not relevant; 3 papers 16 were excluded because either the full text was not available or they were not available in 17 English; 7 publications were included in the present opinion. 18 19 References from RIVM report 2014: 13 references were selected from this report. The 20 search strategy used in this report was also repeated to get an update on the literature 21 since 2014. This resulted in 179 publications. Based on title, 7 publications were 22 selected. Based on abstract 4 publications were excluded since they were not relevant. 3 23 publications were used in the Opinion. One of them had also been identified in the search 24 of the EC library and e-resources centre. 25 26

en

0123-pdf

bakewell@bakewell-and-partners.co.uk www.bakewell-and-partners.co.uk ## Side Extension And Alterations To The Old Police House, 2 Buxton Road, Ashford In The Water, Derbyshire Design & Access And Heritage Statements Introduction 1. This statement accompanies a householder planning application and application for conservation area consent for the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new side extension together with other alterations to the old Police House, 2 Buxton Road, Ashford in the Water. The application is accompanied by drawings 7984-01 (site location plan), 7984-02 (survey as existing), 7984-03 (proposed scheme design) and 7984-04 (block plan). ## Site Description And Context 2. The application site is a semi-detached house set on the southern side of Buxton Road in Ashford in the Water, on the northern edge of the village conservation area. 3. The building is an unlisted two storey cottage, believed to have been built by the Chatsworth Estate as a police house early in the 20th century. It is constructed from local random rubble limestone with squared sandstone quoins, and a natural stone slate roof with projecting eaves. The eaves are low, with the first floor set partly in the roof space lit by hipped dormer windows. 4. To the side of the property is a detached single storey building in "Davey" blocks and reconstituted stone slate roof, dating from the later 20th century. The building comprises a small single garage at the front, and a home office at the rear. ## Proposed Development 5. The proposed development consists of the demolition of the single storey outbuilding, and its replacement with a single storey side extension comprising two guest bedrooms and bathroom; a new front porch; blocking up the first floor gable windows and construction of a new replacement dormer window at the rear; and relocation of a soil and vent pipe from the centre of the front elevation to the property boundary at the party wall line. 6. The proposals drawing also shows a single storey rear extension across the full width of the existing house, and alterations to the ground floor living room window. These components of the proposed development are "permitted development" under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended in 2008), and are capable of being implemented independently of this planning application. They are likely to be commenced before this application is determined, without prejudice to the components of the proposals which are subject to planning control. ## Amount Of Development 7. The parts of the proposal requiring planning permission do not materially affect the amount of development on the site, as the proposed side extension replaces the existing single storey building to be demolished. ## Layout And Access 8. The principle of the layout of the site is not materially affected by the proposals. The building remains a cottage with principal elevation facing the highway behind a large front garden. The front elevation of the new extension is set behind the principal elevation of the cottage, whereas the existing garage comes forwards of it and is thus a somewhat intrusive element in the street scene. 9. The driveway remains as existing to provide off-street parking in front of the house. The existing garage is too narrow to accommodate the applicants' car, so the demolition of the garage does not result in the loss of a usable parking space. ## Scale, Landscaping And Appearance 10. The size and shape of the new side extension is dictated by the requirement for two guest bedrooms for use by the applicants' grown-up family, and by the shape of the rear extension about to be commenced as permitted development. The rear extension is a lean-to construction whose roof pitch is limited by the height between the ground floor eaves and the sill level of the first floor windows. A lowered floor level within the new extension has been introduced in order to maximise the roof pitch, but it remains less than ideal. Nevertheless, the pitch has been continued across the rear roof pitch of the side extension, to avoid awkward and unsightly roof junctions. The front roof pitch of the side extension matches the pitch of the main roof, so that the principal view of the house, from the Buxton Road, is of a cottage with entirely traditional materials and detailing. This results in unequal pitches to the side, gable elevation, which is not ideal and which would probably not be acceptable for a freestanding building seen in the round. However, in this situation the side elevation will be read as part of the continuous stone wall to the adjacent footpath, which varies in height. The narrow width of the footpath restricts views of the gable elevation, which will always be from a narrow angle, preventing the unequal pitches from being appreciated. 11. We are conscious that Mr Maxwell advised that the rear wall of the side extension should be in line with the rear wall of the original house rather than the rear wall of the new rear extension. However, limiting the floor space of the side extension to the area suggested by Mr Maxwell would not provide the two guest bedrooms required by the applicants to meet their family circumstances; and would represent a reduction in built footprint compared to the existing detached garage and office. We submit that the benefit to the appearance of the Conservation Area resulting from setting back the front elevation, as requested by Mr Maxwell, outweighs any disbenefit arising from maintaining the approximate depth of the existing building. 12. The proposed porch is three square metres in area, and would therefore be permitted development if its height were less than three metres. However, we consider that it is preferable for the roof pitch to match that of the existing hipped dormers, and therefore seek planning permission for a matching roof form. 13. The proposed new dormer window on the rear elevation will match the existing dormers in size, materials and detailing. 14. Proposed internal alterations, not requiring planning permission in themselves, provide an opportunity to relocate the existing soil and vent pipe to a less prominent position. Although still on the front elevation, the relocation is an improvement to the appearance of the building within the Conservation Area. 15. Landscaping is to remain unaffected by the proposal. ## Heritage Statement 16. This heritage statement is made in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 17. The building's significance within the conservation area is governed from it's quality of materials, its appropriate vernacular proportions, its positive contribution to the street scene and the nature of its location within the built framework of the village. 18. The use of local stonework with complementary gritstone dressings, timber casement windows and stone slate roofing complement and contribute positively to the mix of external facing materials in the immediate area. The proportions of the building, both in terms of its overall scale and the window sizes, harmonise with the character of the village Conservation Area. 19. The proposed side extension, porch and new dormer window are all in materials to match the existing building, and the proportions of the front elevation maintain the character of the Conservation Area. ## Conclusion 20. The proposed alterations requiring planning permission are necessary to provide accommodation meeting the applicants' requirements and circumstances, and maintain the character both of the Conservation Area and of the host building. The application therefore meets the requirements of the National Park Authority's Core Strategy, saved policies of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

en

2799-pdf

## Four-Country Working Guidance On Devolved Responsibilities And Collaborative Working Across The Uk Four-country working is the Food Standard Agency's collaborative, UK-wide approach to policy making. It involves civil servants from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales working together to achieve desired outcomes across the UK. We work this way because: the Food Standards Agency's remit covers three countries - we operate in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales and we have different policy responsibilities within these countries Food Standards Scotland (FSS), an independent public body, has responsibility for food policy in Scotland devolution has resulted in different policy requirements, accountabilities and priorities across the four countries A commitment to four-country working ensures that we can effectively protect public health and consumer interests across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Practically speaking, a fourcountry approach involves collaborative working practices at all levels of our organisation. ## Devolved Policy Responsibilities Responsibilities in the following policy areas have been devolved: food and feed safety and hygiene nutrition and health claims, standards and labelling food compositional standards and labelling This means powers to develop policy for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales have been transferred from the UK government to these countries. Devolution also means that the Food Standards Agency is accountable to each country's administration for our activities within these countries. This devolution of power has led to differing governance, accountability and delivery models for the FSA across England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, and for the FSS in Scotland. These differences include: the creation of independent food advisory committees for food safety and standards issues in Northern Ireland and Wales alternate delivery bodies for official controls in Northern Ireland alignment with different policy requirements, such as those set out in the Welsh Language Act Policy responsibilities within each country also differ. The Food Standards Agency is responsible for different policy areas across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. ## Summary Of The Policy Area And The Responsible Department By Country Here is how certain food policy areas are split in England: food and feed safety and hygiene - Food Standards Agency (FSA) nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - Department of Health and Social Care food compositional standards and labelling - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Here is how certain food policy areas are split in Northern Ireland: food and feed safety and hygiene - FSA nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - FSA food compositional standards and labelling - FSA Here is how certain food policy areas are split in Wales: food and feed safety and hygiene - FSA nutrition health claims and nutrition labelling - Welsh Government food compositional standards and labelling - FSA ## Food Standards Scotland Food Standards Scotland is an independent public body working for consumers in Scotland. On 1 April 2015, it took on the functions that the Food Standards Agency (Scotland) previously carried out. The Food (Scotland) Act 2015 established Food Standards Scotland as a non-ministerial office. It is part of the Scottish Administration and sits alongside, but independent from the Scottish Government. It is primarily funded by the Scottish Government, but charges fees to recover costs for regulatory functions. Food Standard Scotland's role is comparable with the Food Standards Agency's. It develops policies, provides consumer and business guidance, advises stakeholders, and enforces food regulations. The FSA works closely alongside the FSS to achieve shared results. The FSA and FSS have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place. The FSA-FSS MoU was originally written and signed in 2015, when responsibility for FSA policy areas in Scotland were transferred to Food Standards Scotland. It has been jointly reviewed and updated by experts in both organisations to ensure it is fit for purpose in the post EU transition regulatory regime. The FSA-FSS MoU sets out the principles that will underpin the relationship between the two organisations the two organisations. It provides a high-level summary of the commitments made by the FSA and FSS on how we will work together, and defines our working relationship in detail across key areas of work. The updated MoU was signed by FSA and FSS CEOs in December 2020. View Memorandum of understanding between the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland as Word (153.34 KB)

en

4643-pdf

20 March 2015 ## Important Changes To The Public Library Subsidy Scheme Dear Colleague, This letter is to inform you of important changes to the scope of the Public Library Subsidy, which is administered by The National Archives. The Public Library Subsidy (PLS), which was introduced in 1924, was intended to provide a subsidy to public libraries in order to assist them in the purchase of government and other official publications. This was at a time when official information was only available in print. The PLS is currently claimed by a number of intermediaries which sell copies of qualifying publications to public libraries and then claim the subsidy back from The National Archives. A high proportion of these publications are accessible free of charge on government and other public sector websites in accordance with the government's digital by default strategy. For many publications, including Command and House of Commons Papers, the only way to access them is online. Online publication has meant that users of government and parliamentary information have had the option of accessing the information at home, work, place of education, in addition to their local library. As well as being free at the point of access, a significant proportion of government and parliamentary information can also be re-used freely under the terms of the Open Government Licence and Open Parliament Licence. The National Archives has a responsibility to ensure that public money is spent responsibly, including money that is spent on the public library subsidy. In this context we have reviewed the scope of the PLS and concluded that there is no longer a justification for providing a subsidy for documents and publications that are freely available on-line to public libraries and the general public. It is difficult to justify a subsidy for print publishing at a time when the main thrust of government policy is to publish online. Consequently, the scope of the subsidy will be amended to exclude publications that are available free of charge on official websites. Therefore, from 20th **September 2015** publications which are freely available online will no longer be eligible for the PLS. An illustrative list of the publications which fall into this category include:  Government Command and House of Commons Papers  Parliamentary House of Commons and House of Lords Papers  House of Commons and House of Lords Bills  Statistical publications  Gazettes  Other organisational publications which are only published online The changes to the scope of the PLS do not preclude any organisation from continuing to produce and sell printed copies of official information to new or existing customers. Publications which are not freely available online will still be eligible for the subsidy, this includes; driver education material, citizenship guides, maps and bound volumes of legislation (individual pieces of primary and secondary legislation were removed from the scope of the PLS in 2004). It should be noted that the PLS will remain under review and may be subject to further change in future. A copy of this letter has been sent to each of the main intermediaries and a copy will be published on The National Archives website. If you have any queries regarding the change to the scope of the PLS or the publications within it then please contact official.publishing@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Yours sincerely, Malcolm Todd Head of Information Policy

en

1343-pdf

BIOSCIENCE AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR STATISTICS 2019 August 2020 otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ## Contents Terminology ............................................................................................................... 7 1. Industry overview ................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Core sectors ................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Service & Supply sectors ........................................................................... 10 2. Sector overviews - Key facts ............................................................................. 11 2.1 Biopharma sector ....................................................................................... 11 2.2 Biopharma - Core businesses ................................................................... 11 2.3 Biopharma - Service & Supply chain ......................................................... 12 2.4 Med Tech sector (including digital health) .................................................. 12 2.5 Med Tech - Core businesses .................................................................... 12 2.6 Med Tech - Service & Supply chain .......................................................... 13 3 Geographical analysis ....................................................................................... 14 3.1 Core Biopharma and Biopharma Service & Supply sectors regionally ....... 16 3.2 Core Med Tech and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors regionally ......... 17 4 Digital health and Genomics .............................................................................. 19 4.1 Digital health .............................................................................................. 19 4.2 Genomics ................................................................................................... 20 5 Industry and sector trends 2010-2019 ............................................................... 21 5.1 Life sciences industry trends ...................................................................... 22 5.2 Core Biopharma and Med Tech sector trends ........................................... 24 5.3 Service & Supply sector trends .................................................................. 25 5.4 Geographical trends ................................................................................... 26 Annex 1– Full data partners acknowledgement statement ....................................... 28 Annex 2 - Methodology ............................................................................................ 29 Annex 3 - Company ownership ............................................................................... 35 Annex 4 - Segmentation codes ............................................................................... 36 Annex 5 - Data quality principles .............................................................................. 37 ## Key Messages The UK life sciences industry employs 256,100 people in 6,3001 businesses and generates a turnover of £80.7bn. The Core Biopharma and Core Med Tech sectors contain businesses involved in the discovery, development and marketing of therapeutics, and medical devices respectively. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest by employment (102,800 or 40% of the industry) and Core Biopharma is the largest by turnover (£36.7bn or 45% of the industry). The Core sectors are supported by two Service & Supply sectors that supply materials, equipment and specialist services. These two sectors employ 89,400 in 2,710 businesses with a turnover of £23.6bn. The largest segment within the industry is small molecules, consisting of businesses with the majority of their activity developing and marketing therapeutics based on this technology. The segment employs 49,200 (19% of the industry) and generates a turnover of £31.7bn (39% of the industry total). Along with small molecules, the Top 3 Core segments in the industry by employment include digital health (the largest segment by employment in Core Med Tech with 12,900 employees) and in vitro diagnostics (9,700 employees). The Top 3 Core segments in the industry by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, and single use technology. In total these segments account for 44% of industry turnover. Within the two Service & Supply sectors, the two largest segments contain businesses that supply contract manufacturing and research services, and that supply reagents and equipment. In Biopharma, these two segments employ 31,300 with a turnover of £12.0bn; in Med Tech, these segments employ 12,000 with a turnover of £2.3bn. 82% of the businesses in the industry are SMEs; these employ 24% of the industry total and generate 10% of the turnover. The Core Biopharma sector has a higher percentage of non- SME businesses at 31% compared to 18-19% for all other sectors. The Top 25 Global Pharmaceutical companies with activity in the UK (and are non-SMEs) employ 55% of the Core Biopharma sector. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 or 24%. The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment. Employment in the Core Biopharma sector is concentrated in the South East and East of England, and London with 67% of all sector employees, compared to 40% for Core Med Tech employment. ## Trend Data Between 2010 and 2019, the industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% at a compound annual growth rate of 0.9%. Over the period, all sectors except for Core Biopharma increased employment. This is compared to employment growth in all industries2 of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%. The employment decreases in Core Biopharma (5,400 in total over the period) were concentrated between 2011-2013, when a number of the large pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring. Total industry turnover decreased in real terms3 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). Between 2010 and 2019, the single-use technology and assistive technologies segments replaced orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment in the industry's top 5 core segments by employment. By turnover, digital health replaced vaccines in the top 5 segments over the same period. Between 2010 and 2019, most regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200. ## Introduction This report contains analysis of trends in the UK life sciences industry, covering the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors4. The three main measures of economic contribution and industry structure are: - employment - the number of people employed by life science businesses - turnover - the amount of money taken by businesses within scope of life science sector activities - number of businesses - the number of life science businesses and their sites registered in the UK It contains analysis of the industry looking at the economic activity of businesses that market therapeutic products and medical devices as well as the specialist Service & Supply chains that are key parts of the ecosystem. A segmentation approach is applied that enables a detailed analysis of the product and service categories that make up the industry5. The analysis is based on the 2019 database of sites and businesses updated between October and December 2019 using the methodology summarised in Annex 2. Since data is based on activity in 2019, any impacts from covid-19 will not be reflected in any trends seen in the statistics. The UK officially exited the UK in January 2020 and has entered into a transition period. The data in this report focusses on data up until 2019, so data is currently unavailable to determine any long term impacts on trends. This will continue to be reviewed going forward as more data becomes available. Similarly, this data is set prior to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and so any potential impacts on the industry will not be reflected in this publication. The year referred to in this report is the year of the update rather than the year of the turnover and employment figures; turnover and employment are for the latest 12 months available. For the majority of sites, these figures will have been derived from latest accounts submitted by businesses to Companies House; the figures may be submitted up to 9 months after the end of the accounting period (which itself may vary between businesses). The data, charts, figures, and maps used in this document, plus separate infographics can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bioscience-and-health-technology-databaseannual-reports ## Terminology Industry: used to collectively describe all Sectors covered in the analysis Sector: used to describe Core Biopharma, Core Med Tech, Biopharma Service & Supply or Med Tech Service & Supply Segment: used to describe the individual product or service groups within a Sector (see Annex 3 for a detailed list of segments) Core Biopharma: includes all businesses involved in developing and/or producing their own pharmaceutical products - from small, research and development (R&D) focused biotechs to multinational Big Pharma Biopharma Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer goods and services to Core Biopharma businesses including, for example, Contract Research and Manufacturing Organisations (CRMOs), and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities Core Med Tech: includes all businesses whose primary business involves developing and producing Med Tech products, ranging from single-use consumables to complex hospital equipment, including digital health products Med Tech Service & Supply: comprises businesses that offer services to Core Med Tech businesses including, for example, CRMOs, and suppliers of consumables and reagents for R&D facilities Digital health: includes businesses involved in making products for both hospitals and consumers including products such as hospital information systems and mobile medical devices and apps. It is a segment wholly within the Core Med Tech Sector. Genomics: an interdisciplinary field focusing on the study of the human genome and the application of resulting knowledge to human health. It is a cross-cutting categorisation across all four sectors. Business: used to describe an entity that is the legal owner of a group of trading addresses or sites and legal entities. A business may consist of more than one site or registered company. The term business is used in this document when discussing the whole life sciences industry and the four sectors. There are 80 businesses that are active in more than one sector which means there is a small difference in the count of businesses at the industry level (6,150) compared to the sector level (6,230) and the sub-sector level (6,300). This document reports business counts at the sub-sector level. There is no difference in the sums of employment or turnover at the different levels of analysis. See Annex 2, Fig 10 for more detail. Sites: used when referring to the data at the segment or geographical level. All data in the spreadsheets that accompany this document are analysed at the site level. This is the level at which all data entries (7,000 records) are held and analysed in the database. A single site is segmented and has employment and turnover assigned to it. As a business can have multiple sites and can operate in more than one segment, the total counts of sites at segment level is greater than the count of businesses referred to at sector level. SME status: based on the European definition of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and refers to businesses with fewer than 250 employees and which either have annual turnover up to and including €50m and/or have an annual balance sheet total up to and including €43m. ## 1. Industry Overview The life sciences industry employed approximately 256,100 people in the UK in 20196. Approximately 131,800 (51% of the industry total) were employed in the Med Tech sector comprising the Core Med Tech and the Service & Supply segments. The Core Med Tech sector is the largest in the industry by employment and number of businesses with a total employment of 102,800 (40% of the industry) and 2,850 businesses (45% of the industry). The digital health segment is included in the Core Med Tech sector and is the largest segment in this sector with 12,900 employees (5.0% of the industry) and the second largest in the Core sectors by employment. The Core Biopharma sector contributes the largest turnover to the industry at £36.7bn (45% of the industry). This turnover is generated from 740 business (12% of the industry). Within the Core Biopharma sector, the Top 25 global pharmaceutical7 companies by revenue make up 58% of this turnover (£21.3bn) and employ 55% (34,900) of the Core Biopharma employees. The Service & Supply companies that support the Core Biopharma and Med Tech sectors have a combined employment of 89,400 compared to 166,700 for the two Core sectors. Turnover for the combined Service & Supply company sectors is £23.6bn compared to £57.1bn for the combined Core company sectors. ## 1.1 Core Sectors The two Core segments of the industry contain an estimated 3,590 businesses, with the majority in the Med Tech sector (79%). The businesses in these two sectors focus on the discovery, development and marketing of new therapies and medical devices. - On average, a Core Biopharma sector business has a turnover seven times that of a Core Med Tech business and employs twice as many people. - 32% of Core Biopharma sites have a turnover greater than £5m compared to 19% for Core Med Tech. - 8% of Core Biopharma sites have 250 or more employees compared to 2% for Core Med Tech. The global Top 30 Core Med Tech businesses by revenue8 employ 17% of the total Core Med Tech sector and their revenue accounts for 27% of the sector total. The global Top 25 Core Biopharma businesses by revenue9 employ 55% of the total Core Biopharma sector and their revenue accounts for 58% of the sector total. The largest segment in the Core Biopharma sector by employment is small molecules, employing 77% of the Core Biopharma sector. Digital Health, in contrast, is the largest segment within Core Med Tech and employs 13% of the sector total. The top 14 of 20 segments employ 90% of the Core Med Tech sector. The five largest employment segments in the two Core sectors combined employ 89,800 or 54% of the total in the Core sectors. Of the five largest segments, all but small molecules are segments within Core Med Tech. The top five segments in the two Core sectors by turnover are small molecules, in vitro diagnostics, single use technology, digital health and orthopaedic devices. Together they have a combined turnover of £38.7bn or 68% of the total Core sectors; £31.7bn of which is from the small molecules segment. Of the businesses in Core Biopharma 69% are SMEs compared to 81% in the Core Med Tech sector. ## 1.2 Service & Supply Sectors Both the Core Biopharma and Med Tech businesses are supported by large specialist UK based Service & Supply sectors. The Biopharma Service & Supply sector employs 60,400 people in 1,500 businesses and generates a turnover of £18.4bn. The largest segments by employment in this sector are contract manufacturing and research, reagent & equipment suppliers, and clinical research organisation that together employ 41,100 people and account for 81% (£14.9bn) of the sector turnover. The Med Tech Service & Supply chain sector employs 29,000 people in 1,210 businesses, with a turnover of £5.2bn. The largest segments in this sector by employment are reagent & equipment suppliers, contract manufacturing and research, and specialist consultants (excluding regulatory) that together employ 15,500 people and account for 54% (£2.8bn) of the sector turnover. ## 2. Sector Overviews - Key Facts 2.1 Biopharma Sector - In total, the sector employs 124,300 people: 63,900 in Core Biopharma businesses and 60,400 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £55.1bn. - Regionally, employment in the sector is concentrated in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England, and in Scotland. - Large non-SME businesses are the major employers in Core Biopharma (91% of all employment in the sector). In the Service & Supply sector, the majority (81%) of the businesses are SMEs and employ 23% of the sector. ## 2.2 Biopharma - Core Businesses Overall, the Core Biopharma sector contains 740 businesses employing 63,900 people and a turnover of £36.7bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows that businesses whose main economic activity involves small molecule therapeutics form the largest segment, accounting for 64% (470) of sites, 77% of employees (49,200) and 86% (£31.7bn) of turnover. Antibodies, therapeutic proteins and vaccines are the next largest segments, together making up 18% (11,300) and 11% (£4.1bn) of employment and turnover respectively. Geographical analysis of employment shows Core Biopharma businesses in all areas of the UK with the greatest concentration in the South East, East of England, London, and the North West of England which together account for 79% (50,400) of Core Biopharma employment. Analysing the size of the businesses shows 31% (230) of Core Biopharma businesses are non-SMEs. These large businesses employ 58,200 people (91% of Core Biopharma employment) and account for £35.6bn of turnover (97% of Core Biopharma turnover). They represent 44% of total life sciences industry turnover and 23% of employment. ## 2.3 Biopharma - Service & Supply Chain Overall, the Biopharma Service & Supply chain consists of 1,500 businesses employing 60,400 people with a turnover of £18.4bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest employing segment is contract manufacturing and research organisations that consist of 320 sites employing 19,000 people. The largest segment in terms of turnover is reagent & equipment suppliers, which represents 45% (£8.3bn) of the total. Clinical research organisations complete the Top 3 Biopharma Service & Supply segments: in total the Top 3 account for 68% (41,100) of the employment. Geographical analysis of employment shows the South East and East of England combined have the most Service & Supply businesses (580) and employees (40%), followed by Scotland (10%), London (10%) and the North West of England (9%). Analysing the size of businesses shows that the Biopharma Service & Supply sector is predominately composed of SMEs (1,220) that make up 81% of businesses in the sector, yet they represent only 23% of employment (13,800 people) and 8% of turnover (£1.5bn) for the sector. ## 2.4 Med Tech Sector (Including Digital Health) - In total, the sector employs 131,800 people: 102,800 in Core Med Tech businesses and 29,000 in Service & Supply businesses. The combined turnover of the sector is £25.6bn. - Core Med Tech employment is spread across the UK. While the South East, London, and the East of England account for 40% of the employment in the Service & Supply sector, 60% is outside of South Eastern England10, which is often considered to be the hub for such services. - SMEs in both Core Med Tech and Service & Supply account for a similar proportion of businesses (81% and 82% respectively) and employment (31% and 33% respectively). ## 2.5 Med Tech - Core Businesses Overall, the Core Med Tech sector contains 2,850 businesses, employing 102,800 people with a turnover of £20.4bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest segment by turnover is in vitro diagnostics followed by single use technology, digital health, orthopaedic devices, and assistive technology. These top five segments account for 42% (£8.5bn) of the Core Med Tech turnover. Digital health technology is the largest segment by employment followed by in vitro diagnostics, assistive technology, single use technology, and orthopaedic devices. These top five account for 47% (48,600) of sector employment. Geographical analysis of employment shows there are sites spread across the UK and employment is less concentrated in the South East, East of England, and London. Compared to the Core Biopharma sector where 33% of employment is outside these regions, the majority (60%; 61,300) of Core Med Tech employment is outside of South Eastern England. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that of the 2,850 businesses in Core Med Tech, 81% (2,320) are SMEs. They represent 31% (32,000) of Core Med Tech employment and 19% (£3.8bn) of Core Med Tech turnover. Core Med Tech SMEs account for 46% of the total number of life sciences SMEs. ## 2.6 Med Tech - Service & Supply Chain Overall, the sector contains 1,210 businesses that employ 29,000 and generates a turnover of £5.2bn in 2019. The sector breakdown shows the largest segment of the sector is reagent, equipment and consumables suppliers, which has the highest number of sites (300) and employs 26% (7,400) of the sector's total and 31% (£1.6bn) of its turnover. The next largest segments by employment are contract manufacturing and research followed by specialist consultants. Geographical analysis shows, in contrast to Core Med Tech, the top 3 areas are the South East and North West of England, and the East Midlands. These three areas account for 48% (14,000) of the employment and 50% (£2.6bn) of the sector turnover. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 82% (1,000) of businesses are SMEs, employing 9,600 people (33% of Med Tech Service & Supply) and accounting for £1.3bn (25%) of turnover. ## 3 Geographical Analysis - The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with a total employment across all four sectors of 61,700 (24%). The East and North West of England together with the South East are the Top 3 regions by employment. - The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England, particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading, and areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester. - Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, as well as London and Reading. - The Service & Supply sectors' employment is distributed in a similar pattern to the sector they serve but less concentrated around the major conurbations. The distribution of employment by sector is shown in Figure 2. The South East of England contains the largest population of life sciences industry jobs with 61,700 (24% of the industry) employed across all four sectors. The Top 3 regions by employment include the South East followed by East of England, and the North West. Together these regions contain 50% (126,900) of all life sciences industry employees. The relative contribution of the four sectors to the overall life sciences employment in the regions is shown in Figure 3. In the South East, East of England, the North West, and London the Core Biopharma sector accounts for 33% of life sciences employment in those regions; Biopharma Service & Supply accounts for 38% of life sciences employment in Scotland, the North East of England, and Northern Ireland; Core Med Tech accounts for more than half of life sciences employment in East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and The Humber, Wales, and the South West of England; no region has Med Tech Service & Supply employment greater than 25%. Maps of the distribution of life sciences employment across the UK (Fig 4 & Fig 5) give details on the location concentrations of employment. ## 3.1 Core Biopharma And Biopharma Service & Supply Sectors Regionally The Core Biopharma sector is concentrated within the South East and East of England particularly in an area stretching from Cambridge to Reading including areas around Stevenage and in London. In the North West, Core Biopharma businesses are located along the corridor running from Liverpool to Manchester. The Biopharma Service & Supply sector is more widely distributed than Core Biopharma, with the Top 4 regions employing 59% of the sector (compared to 79% for Core Biopharma). In particular, Scotland contains the third largest concentration of Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment representing 10% of the sector total. ## 3.2 Core Med Tech And Med Tech Service & Supply Sectors Regionally The Core Med Tech and Service & Supply sectors employment has concentrations of employment in areas around London and in the North West of England. In contrast to the Biopharma sectors, Core Med Tech has concentrations of employment around the major cities in the Midlands and Yorkshire including Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham. ## 4 Digital Health And Genomics - The digital health segment employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn. - Between 2010 to 2019, the segment has increased employment by 3,300 and turnover by £490m. - Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in the last 10 years. - The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. - Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn. - The largest activity in the Genomics segment is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover ## 4.1 Digital Health The digital health segment is composed of 640 businesses (670 sites), the highest number of businesses for a Core segment in the life sciences industry. Digital health employs 12,900 people and has a total turnover of £1.7bn. The estimated turnover and employment include only businesses where a significant proportion (over 20%) of their economic activity is in digital health. This approach does not include all the economic activity associated with, for example, large diversified businesses where digital health is not their main activity. Geographically, 28% of the sites are located in London along with 26% of the employment in the segment. The Top 3 regions for employment in the segment are London, Yorkshire and Humber, and the South East. These regions together employ 57% of the segment. Analysis of the sector breakdown shows that, within digital health, hospital information systems accounts for 35% (£616m) of turnover and 30% (3,900) of employment. The e-health analytics and medical monitoring & diagnostics are the next largest sub-segments by employment and together the Top 3 sub-segments employ 8,000 people, or 62% of the segment. Analysis of the size of businesses shows that 80% (510) of digital health businesses are SMEs and employ 33% of digital health jobs (4,300), contributing £330m in turnover (19%) of the digital health segment turnover. ## 4.2 Genomics Genomics is an interdisciplinary field of science and technology focused on the study of genomes. In this analysis the focus is on the study of the human genome and the application of the resulting knowledge to human health. Since the instigation of the Human Genome Project in 2001, the field and its applications have grown. The global market for equipment, reagents, and services based on genomics was estimated at over £8bn in 2015 and is forecast to grow rapidly.11 Overall genomics related activity in the UK is located in 50 sites with 2,700 employees and a total turnover estimated at £2.3bn12. Between 2017 and 2019 the activity has increased employment by 1,100 and turnover by £0.6bn. The largest activity in the segment is in sequencing services, consumables and instruments businesses that employ 1,800 and generated £2.2bn in turnover. Within this segment, sale of instruments is the largest activity by turnover, employing 500 (19% of the genomics total) and generating a turnover of £1.9bn (83% of the genomics total). ## 5 Industry And Sector Trends 2010-2019 In this section, the changes in employment and turnover between 2010 to 2019 are analysed using the same methodology as that from the supplemental report13, published in 2018, using a subset of the database records. These cover 98% of all 2019 records; unincorporated businesses have been omitted from the time series as historic information is not available for these undertakings. All turnover figures given in this section are given in real terms and have been deflated to bring them in line with 2019 equivalent values. - Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500 an increase of 9%, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.9%. - Total industry turnover decreased in real terms14 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019. This movement was driven by a decrease in the Core Biopharma sector (£9.3bn), which was offset by increases in the Core Med Tech sector and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). - Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900, while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400. - This decrease in the Core Biopharma sector was concentrated in the small molecule sector and over the period 2012 - 2013, during which time a number of the Top 25 pharmaceutical companies underwent re-structuring. - The Core Med Tech employment grew by 9,800 between 2010 to 2019, an 11% increase. - Together, employment in the Service & Supply sectors grew from 2010 to 2019 by 16,100, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900). - Over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in the United Kingdom have seen a net increase in employment in the life sciences industry. The West Midlands and Scotland were the exception to this, seeing a decrease in employment. ## 5.1 Life Sciences Industry Trends Over the period 2010 to 2019, the life sciences industry increased employment by 20,500, an increase of 9% compared to 2010, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)15 of 0.9%. This is compared to employment growth in all industries16 of 12% since 2010 at a CAGR of 1.3%. Over the period, Core Med Tech and the two Service & Supply sectors showed overall increases in employment totalling 25,900 while the Core Biopharma sector reduced employment by 5,400. Several of the Top 25 companies, who are the majority employers in the industry, completed site closures and reorganisations during this period. The Core Med Tech sector and the Biopharma Service sector have shown employment growth in the last year (3,700). The Core Biopharma sector has remained static (+200), whilst the Med Tech Service sector has fallen (-1,700). ## Total industry turnover decreased in real terms17 by £1.6bn between 2010 and 2019, which was the result of the decrease in Core Biopharma (£9.3bn), which was partially offset by increases in Med Tech and the Service & Supply sectors (£7.7bn). From 2010 to 2011, total industry turnover grew but a decline followed until 2013 after which growth resumed. This decrease was primarily driven by decreased revenue of £7.6bn in the Core Biopharma sector between 2011 and 2013 after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019. These decreases were offset by a steady increase of £6.2bn from 2013 in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 234,200 237,100 231,600 234,400 237,100 245,400 252,600 251,400 252,500 254,700 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 82.4 82.9 79.8 74.7 75.5 75.4 76.4 78.8 80.6 80.7 Sites 6,180 6,350 6,490 6,670 6,660 6,790 6,740 6,640 6,980 6,850 ## Top 5 Segments Comparing the Top 5 segments of 2019 to those of 2010: - The Top 3 segments by employment have remained the same but fourth and fifth have changed with single use technology and assistive technology replacing orthopaedic devices and re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment. - The Top 5 by turnover changed rank, with vaccines being replaced by digital health in the list. ## 5.2 Core Biopharma And Med Tech Sector Trends Core Biopharma The Core Biopharma sector employment fell by 5,400 (-8%) between 2010 and 2019, at a CAGR of -0.9%. Most of this decrease happened between 2012 and 2013 when employment in the small molecules segment fell by 7,200. Since 2014, sector employment has grown moderately. The segments associated with biological or advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) therapeutics all showed employment increase totalling 2,200. Over the 10 years, this sector's turnover fell by £9.3bn. Turnover decreased between 2011 and 2013, after which turnover remained broadly steady until a drop of £2.0bn in 2019 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 69,200 69,500 62,900 61,500 62,200 64,900 66,200 63,800 63,600 63,800 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 46.0 46.0 43.1 38.4 39.1 37.9 38.0 37.8 38.7 36.7 Sites 750 770 790 820 820 840 860 870 900 890 ## Core Med Tech The Core Med Tech sector employment grew by 9,800 over the period 2010 to 2019, an increase of 11% on 2010, a CAGR of 1.1%. Twelve out of twenty segments in Core Med Tech had an increase in employment totalling 13,700, and seven segments accounted for 92% of this increase, led by digital health. Over the whole period, turnover grew in real terms by £0.5bn. In the Digital Health segment, employment increased by 3,300 and turnover by £490m, which represents 34% and 40% growth respectively. The number of sites has doubled from 330 in 2010 to 670 in 2019. Of the businesses where the formation date is known, 63% (400) of digital health businesses were formed in 2010 or later. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 92,300 94,000 95,000 95,600 96,600 98,000 100,200 101,900 100,500 102,100 20.0 20.2 20.1 19.9 19.6 19.3 19.3 19.7 19.7 20.5 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) Sites 3,030 3,070 3,100 3,180 3,120 3,170 3,130 3,070 3,200 3,120 ## 5.3 Service & Supply Sector Trends Both Service & Supply sectors increased employment and turnover between 2010 and 2019, by 16,100 and £7.2bn respectively, with the largest increase in employment in the Biopharma Service & Supply sector (12,900). The largest increases in these sectors were in the Biopharma contract manufacturing and research segment (5,100), and Med Tech reagent, equipment and consumable suppliers' segment (1,400). ## Biopharma Service & Supply Between 2010 and 2019, the Biopharma Service & Supply sector employment and turnover increased by 27% (12,900) and by 48% (£5.9bn) respectively. The sector exhibited steady growth in employment in all years and the CAGR over the period was 2.7%. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 47,100 47,500 47,900 49,500 50,300 53,200 55,400 55,800 57,900 60,000 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 12.4 12.6 12.3 12.1 12.2 13.3 14.0 15.9 16.8 18.3 Sites 1,320 1,400 1,460 1,510 1,540 1,570 1,570 1,560 1,630 1,620 ## Med Tech Service & Supply Between 2010 and 2019, the Med Tech Service & Supply sector employment increased by 3,200 and turnover by £1.3bn over the period. The sector had a downturn between 2018 and 2019 of 1700 employees and £0.3bn. The sector employment had a CAGR of 1.3% between 2010 and 2019. Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Employment 25,600 26,100 25,800 27,800 28,000 29,300 30,800 29,900 30,500 28,800 Turnover £bn (2019 prices) 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.2 Sites 1,090 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,190 1,200 1,180 1,150 1,250 1,230 ## 5.4 Geographical Trends When comparing geographical employment data over the 10-year period, the majority of regions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have seen a net18 increase in employment in the life sciences industry. One region in England, the West Midlands, saw employment fall by 1,700, while employment in Scotland fell by 1,200. The geographical net changes in employment vary by life sciences sector. These major changes are: 1. Core Biopharma - Large decrease in employment in the South East of England and an increase in the East of England. The main cause of the fall in employment in the South East was the restructuring of three Top 25 Pharma businesses that resulted in closures of a number of sites in the region. 2. Core Med Tech - Increases in all regions of England except for decreases in the West Midlands (1,700) and East of England (900). Increases in Northern Ireland (700) and Wales (600) but a large decrease in Scotland (1,800). The fall in employment in the West Midlands is due to a mixture of causes. These include movement of businesses to other UK regions and acquisition of businesses by overseas owners leading to restructuring. The main cause of the fall in Scotland was the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by one of the Top 30 Medical Device businesses. 3. Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply - Increases in the majority of regions of England and in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Large increase in the South East of England in the Biopharma and Med Tech Service & Supply sectors. Biopharma Service & Supply sector increases are also notable in London, North West, Yorkshire and The Humber and Northern Ireland. The West Midlands is the only region to see decreases in both Service & Supply sectors. ## Annex 1– Full Data Partners Acknowledgement Statement The Office for Life Sciences gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following regional and national organisations in the compilation of the life sciences database over the past eleven years. The content of the database has been derived from a variety of proprietary data sources which have been provided under license. The Office for Life Sciences would like to acknowledge the assistance given by the owners of these data sources. Business Information was accessed under license by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Limited and the FAME database from Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. More details on how this data is used can be found in Annex 2 below. The database construction, data integration, data analysis and commentary preparation were completed by a consortium led by Cels Business Services (CBSL) Ltd. The consortium included Kepier & Company Ltd and Lindum Research. ## Data Partners - Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI) - Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) - AXREM - BioIndustry Association (BIA) - BioNow - Biopartner - Biosciences Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) - British Healthcare Trade Association (BHTA) - British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA) - HealthTech and Medicines Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) - Innovate UK - Invest Northern Ireland - MedCity - Medicines Discovery Catapult - Medilink East Midlands - Medilink North of England - Medilink South West - Medilink West Midlands - MediWales - MHRA - OBN - One Nucleus - Scottish Enterprise - South East Health Technologies Alliance (SEHTA) - TechUK - Welsh Government - West of England LEP ## Annex 2 - Methodology Summary The annual update of the database is carried out in four main phases: compiling information on new businesses and existing businesses; classification or segmentation of new businesses; matching of business details with economic data from external databases; and validation of the data set. Information on new businesses is sourced from the data partners and also by searches of publicly available and subscription databases. The data partners provide lists of businesses from their internal databases, which contain both potentially new businesses (those businesses that have been formed in the period after the last annual update) and existing businesses (those businesses that are already in the database). For existing businesses, this includes information the data partners have obtained on address changes, any information on employees at a location, or suggested segmentation changes. The information from data partners and other information sources is cleansed to remove duplicates and records already in the database and is then segmented. Segmentation assigns each new business and site to a sector and segment. In some cases, allocation can be to more than one sector or segment, for example some large multi-national businesses produce both pharmaceutical and medical devices. If, based on the information available, a business cannot be assigned to a sector and segment, it is deemed to be not-in-scope (NIS). Such NIS business information is retained but is not included in the data set used to analysis the industry. In order for a business to be classified as in-scope and their data to be included, they are assessed against the following criteria: have a legal entity in the UK; is a private limited company (this excludes universities, publicly owned institutions, NHS activities, and charities); and have 20% of their total UK turnover derived from one or more of the segments shown in Annex 319. Businesses proposed for inclusion or identified through a search of new incorporations, are checked for "proof of life" i.e. signs of economic activity such as employees, turnover, award of funding, or an active website with contact details. Businesses which fail this test but appear to be in scope are reviewed again in the next project cycle. Once the cleansed data set is prepared, it is used to source data on turnover and employment from either D&B or FAME, and from examination of published company reports or data. The turnover figures will include turnover on the sale of products wholly or partially manufactured outside the UK. The data returns from D&B and FAME are carefully checked to ensure a correct match with the business location. Further detailed validation of the data is then carried out examining significant changes in the employment and turnover data. These changes are investigated to detect any anomalies through verification against other sources. For example, large changes in employment at a business site are scrutinised to see if information is available from press releases or other information in the public domain to verify the change. In 2018, Gender Pay Gap reporting was used both to detect potential anomalies by using the compulsory employment band data, and to verify or update using more detailed information provided by businesses within their own reports. The data for individual sites under one business is examined to ensure that there is no double-counting of employment or turnover data. Once the validation analysis is completed, the data set is "locked" for the annual update cycle, ready for analysis for this publication. Postcodes attached to records in the database allow geographical analysis of employment and turnover at site level. Where available, we have validated employment data for the large businesses by using information such as annual reports or websites to identify the number and types of employment. The primary allocation of turnover to location is based on the legal entity information sourced from third party databases, validated for large businesses from annual accounts. This method of turnover reporting is used throughout the document. To bring the definition used for SME status in previous datasets in line with that used in the database from 2017 onwards, we sourced information from D&B. We used GDP deflators20 to take account of inflation across the years. We also adjusted for population demographics to represent the changing size of the potential workforce21. ## Trends Analysis In order to create trends over the period 2010 to 2019 historical information for all businesses which have matched company registration number (CRN) was sourced. This backfilling approach creates a like-for-like snapshot for each year from 2010 from which we can observe trends. Because the dataset used for the trend analysis excludes companies and records where no CRN match was possible the 2019 employment and turnover figures in the trend analysis do not match those in the single year 2019 analysis22 To gather additional economic information (employment and turnover), third-party sources including Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), FAME, and published company-filed accounts or reports are used. These are the same sources as those used to construct the main annual dataset. Where economic data could not be sourced from company-filed accounts, an algorithm was used to populate the dataset based on growth profile averages for individual segments. To source additional segmentation information, company reports and information available via Internet searches were used. This was necessary to align definitions, e.g. the merging of the 'Pharmaceutical' and 'Medical Biotechnology' sectors into 'Biopharmaceuticals' in the 2014 report. ## Segmentation The life sciences database contains information on businesses in the UK structured at the level of trading address corresponding to the 7,000 records in the database for 2019. Using this as the lowest level of information the data is aggregated to site and company level to give the estimate of total number of life sciences businesses in the UK (6,300 at sub-sector, L0 level). Each trading address or site is examined to allocate the activity carried out to one of the segments in a sector. As a small proportion of businesses in the database have more than one trading address or site and can operate in more than one sector (for example can have activity in medical technology and pharmaceuticals), the sum of number of businesses at the sector, segment, and geographical level will be greater than the total number of businesses in the UK. Each business and their individual sites are segmented depending on the main type of final medicinal product or device produced. Businesses that produce products that are directly used in healthcare are designated "Core" businesses to distinguish them from businesses that are active only in the Service & Supply chain. It should be noted that in the Biopharma sector suppliers of over the counter (OTC) medicines are included along with generic suppliers and manufacturers. Within the database, codes are used to allocate businesses and sites to one or more segments. Where a company has products that fall in more than one category. these are all coded, however only the code that represents the majority of the business activity is used in the analysis. Figure 10 breaks down the count of records in the database from the total number of businesses in life sciences down to the allocation of sites to business activity. Segmentation was reviewed for all businesses and sites in the 2014 update. During the 2015 update a number of the businesses that have large contributions to employment and turnover were reviewed for segmentation and their turnover in scope (TOS). The Pharmaceutical and Medical Biotechnology sectors were also combined into a new sector: Biopharma. Additional segmentation codes are used to further classify company activities by both product type and business activity. For example, in vitro diagnostics is further segmented into in vitro diagnostic products that involve clinical chemistry, immunochemistry etc. The business activity codes are used to code businesses and sites dependent on whether they undertake R&D, manufacturing, Service & Supply (of their products), and sales/distribution (of their products). The codes for each sector containing Core businesses are shown in Annex 3. The Service & Supply chain sectors that serve the Biopharma and Med Tech sectors are coded with the prefix BP and MT respectively followed by the appropriate number to define the type of service or supply. ## Alignment With Standard Industry Classification (Sic) Codes Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes are used to classify businesses by industry in administrative statistics. This was last updated in 200823. This classification system has categories for businesses whose primary activity is the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, manufacture of types of medical equipment, and those whose primary activity is biotechnology R&D. The SIC system, however, does not allow identification of the full range of life sciences businesses. A bespoke industry segmentation based on this wider range, specifically to be used in the database, was defined with the assistance of the data partners and is summarised in Annex 3. This is the classification system used in this report. We have analysed the SIC codes of the businesses within the database and only 25% of businesses in the life sciences database fall into the standard SIC codes used to identify the life sciences industry. The remaining businesses fall into another 250 SIC codes, demonstrating the on-going need for this report and for the life sciences database to describe and analyse the full breadth of this industry. For comparison, Table 6 shows the total employment and turnover for businesses in the database with SIC codes typically used to define the life sciences industry. | SIC code description | SIC | Number of | Employment | | Turnover | |----------------------------------|--------|--------------|--------------|------|-------------| | Code | Sites | | £bn | | | | Manufacture of Basic | | | | | | | Pharmaceuticals | | | | | | | 21100 | 280 | 42,900 | 22.7 | | | | Manufacture of pharmaceutical | | | | | | | preparations | | | | | | | 21200 | 120 | 10,200 | 3.5 | | | | 26600 | 40 | 1,500 | 0.4 | | | | Manufacture of Irradiation, | | | | | | | Electromedical and | | | | | | | Electrotherapeutic Equipment | | | | | | | Manufacture of Medical and | | | | | | | Dental Equipment and Supplies | | | | | | | 32500 | 530 | 28,000 | 5.7 | | | | Research and Experimental | | | | | | | Development on Biotechnology | | | | | | | 72110 | 820 | 14,000 | 5.0 | | | | Total life sciences based on SIC | 1,790 | | 96,600 | 37.3 | | | Total life sciences in database | 7,000 | 256,100 | 80.7 | | | ## The additional benefit of the segmentation approach used in the life sciences database is the ability to make a more granular assessment of the sector, including growth rates and trends. For example, this is the only source of definitive information that shows employment and growth rates in digital health or allows us to understand the growth of advanced therapy medicinal products. ## Timeline Of Events The trends described in this report should be considered in context. A short timeline of political and life sciences-specific events is detailed below. This does not attempt to explain causality or justify the trends detailed above and should be viewed as contextual information only. | Date | Event | |-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | May 2010 | UK General Election | | Autumn 2010 | Formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England | | December 2011 | Strategy for UK Life Sciences published | | Duration of 2012 | City Deals wave 1 (8 cities) | | Duration of 2013 | City Deals wave 2 (18 cities) | | March 2014 | Formation of the Office for Life Sciences | | Late 2014 to early 2015 | Devolution Deals (3 city regions) | | May 2015 | UK General Election | | Duration of 2015 | Growth Deals (39 LEPs) | | June 2016 | Referendum on UK leaving the European Union | | June 2017 | UK General Election | | August 2017 | Life Sciences Industrial Strategy published | | December 2017 | Life Sciences Sector Deal launched | | December 2018 | Life Science Sector Deal 2 launched | Annex 3 - Company ownership The data sources contain information on the ultimate global owner of the businesses in the database. This information is available for 69% of the records in the database. However, the businesses where the owner origin is not known have a low economic impact as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12. ## Annex 4 - Segmentation Codes Biopharma Core (BP) Code Description BPA Antibodies BPB Therapeutic Proteins BPC Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) BPD Vaccines BPE Small Molecules BPF Blood & Tissue Products Service & Supply Chain (MX/BX) Code Description X01 Clinical Research Organisation X02 Contract Manufacturing Organisation X03 Contract Formulation Manufacturing X04 Assay developer X05 Analytical Services X06 Formulation/Drug delivery specialist X07 Reagent, Equipment & consumables supplier X08 Regulatory Expertise X09 Patent and Legal specialist X10 Logistics & Packaging X11 Information systems specialists X12 Tissue and Biomass X13 Market Analysis/Specialist consultants X14 Contract design X15 Training X16 Recruitment X17 Investment Companies X18 Healthcare service provider24 Business Activity Code Description BAA Research & Development, including Design BAB Manufacture BAC Sales / Distribution BAD Service & Supply Chain Genomics Code Main Value Chain GenA Sampling GenB Sequencing GenC Analysis GenD Interpretation GenE Application GenX N.E.C 24 Healthcare service providers have been designated as "out of scope" for this study. No new records have been added to the dataset in 2019. Existing records will be removed in 2020 and adjustments made accordingly. Medical Tech Core (MT) Code Description MTA Wound Care & Management MTB In vitro diagnostic technology MTC Radiotherapy equipment MTD Medical Imaging/Ultrasound Equipment MTE Anaesthetic and respiratory technology MTF Orthopaedic Devices MTG Cardiovascular & vascular devices MTH Neurology MTI Ophthalmic Devices/Equipment MTJ Dental and maxillofacial technology MTK Drug Delivery MTL Infection Control MTM Surgical Instruments (reusable) n.e.c. MTN Single use technology n.e.c. MTO Re-usable diagnostic or analytic equipment n.e.c. MTP Implantable devices n.e.c. MTQ Assistive Technology MTR Mobility Access MTS Hospital hardware including ambulatory MTT Digital health Digital Health Code Description MTT01 Hospital information systems MTT02 GP information systems MTT03 Social Alarms/Communications devices MTT04 Personal medical records MTT05 Telemed (medical monitoring) and telediag MTT06 E-health - data analytics MTT07 Digital Medical Electronics MTT08 Professional Mobile health devices MTT09 Professional Mobile health services/apps MTT10 Consumer Mobile health devices MTT11 Consumer Mobile health services/apps MTT12 Training simulators and robotics ## Annex 5 - Data Quality Principles As an Official Statistics publication, we aim to collect data and present this report in line with principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics25 to engender trust in our data and encourage the use of this report as a reliable source of life sciences data. This data quality statement covers the fourteen principles under the three pillars of the Code: trustworthiness, quality and value. ## Trustworthiness: T1: Honesty and integrity - Data is collected, processed and quality assured by an independent contractor. The initial technical specification is set by professional analysts within the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) who also engage regularly with the contractor, review methodological aspects, and undertake further quality assurance checks before publication. T2: Independent decision making and leadership - OLS analysts abide by the Code of Practice, keeping pre-publication access to the data strictly to those involved in the report's creation and ensuring the statistical integrity of content. The Department's Head of Profession for Statistics is engaged when necessary. T3: Orderly release - Pre-publication access to the report is restricted to those involved in the report's creation and publication. The report meets Government Statistical Service (GSS) standards of statistical impartiality, separating statistical commentary from any political, press or ministerial statements. Subsequent statements by the government using data from this report quote this source and non-governmental users are encouraged to do the same. Unscheduled corrections are released as soon as is practicable, alongside an explanatory note on both the cause and impact of the error, in line with the Code of Practice. T4: Transparent processes and management - Substantial financial and administrative resources are employed to enable this data collection and effective quality assurance, including a proportion for further development of the report each year in light of new user requirements or new methodology / collection possibilities. We are transparent about our methodology and approach to quality, as evidenced in Annex 2. T5: Professional capability - Data is collected, processed and quality assured by a consortia contractor. Each individual has appropriate analytic capabilities, data protection awareness and industry-specific expertise, and has been involved in the production of the report for several years. The report 'owners' within OLS are professional badged government analysts. T6: Data governance - All professionals involved in the creation, publication and storage of this dataset are well-versed in data protection and operate in compliance with data protection legislation. We publish the maximum amount of data available without contravening third-party licence agreements, utilising GSS best practice for statistical disclosure control (e.g. banding commercially sensitive variables). ## Quality: Q1: Suitable data sources - Full methodology including a description of third-party administrative data sources and their suitability can be found in Annex 2. The annex also contains a comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source. Different segmentation levels and how these are aggregated into final figures are explained in Annex 2, with the glossary defining key terms to ensure users are clear at what level figures are presented (e.g. businesses vs. sites). Q2: Sound methods - Full methodology can be found in Annex 2, alongside assumptions made. Terminology is consistent through the report and accompanying files, with clear descriptions in the glossary. Year-on-year trends are for real growth only based on like-for-like data against the previous year. The method used for the real growth calculations is explained in the Annex 2.To ensure long-term trends are calculated using the most robust methodology and greatest level of data available, we will be undertaking extra trend analysis which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. Q3: Assured quality - Rigorous quality assurance has been undertaken by the contractor, OLS statisticians and an external business analyst within the wider Department. Quality assurance is a significant part of the technical specification and contract tendering process and is reviewed each year. When an unscheduled revision was necessary following the postpublication identification of an error in a previous report, we immediately alerted users, engaged with the Department's Head of Profession for Statistics, and published an explanation of the cause and impact of the error alongside the revised report, all in accordance with the Code of Practice. ## Value: V1: Relevance to users - We review content each year based on user needs, allowing a proportion of resource for that year's topic of interest. In previous years this has led to the inclusion of digital health and genomics as chapters in their own right, with a new cross-cutting classification designed to identify businesses operating it genomics. This year the topic of interest is a portrayal of long-term trends using an alternative methodology which will be published in a supplemental report later in the year. In response to user feedback, this year we have further extended the fields in the publicly available underlying businesses dataset to include all fields for which we are not restricted by commercial licences. In particular, we now include a unique reference number for each site. V2: Accessibility - Data is free and equally available to all, published on gov.uk with no restrictions to access. Underlying data is published up to the extent our commercial licenses allow, with banded variables where we cannot provide exact figures. Commentary is objective and a range of graphical visualisations are used to aid comprehension. V3: Clarity and insight - Commentary on the current size and shape of the life sciences sector is objective, focussing on impartial statistical messages. Charts and maps are used to illustrate these. Key statistical messages are highlighted up front. A comparison between the health life sciences database and ONS SIC codes, the main alternative source, is presented in Annex 2. The database itself is created through collaboration with a range of industry experts, including region-specific and sector-specific representation through trade bodies and other network organisations. V4: Innovation and improvement - We review content, presentation and methodology each year based on user needs. Past development has primarily been around scope and how to identify new and emerging segments of the life sciences sector, e.g. digital health and genomics. Each new approach to scope is explored and tested with our data partners, and the statistical impact is fully considered before implementation. Other developments have included extending the scope of publicly available data fields. V5: Efficiency and proportionality - Where possible, the database draws on existing information using third party sources, such as the D&B and FAME datasets and company accounts. All data partners are voluntary contributors. The need for this health life sciences database and report arises from the difficulty in identifying the life sciences sector from already-existing ONS sources since they use SIC codes, which do not encapsulate the full extent of the life sciences. In particular, as SIC codes were last refreshed in 2008, they do not allow easy identification of new and emerging segments within the medical technology sector, such as digital health. The database and report provide a valuable and robust evidence base on the size and shape of the UK life science sector.

en

0189-pdf

## B Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Final report Councillors Brathwaite (Chair), Bigham, Kingsbury, Ogden and C. Whelan OBE March 2013 ## Contents | Contents | 2 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Executive Summary 3 | | | List of Recommendations | 4 | | Chair's Foreword and Introduction | 6 | | Legislative position and responsibilities | 7 | | What we know about metal theft 10 | | | The national picture | 10 | | London 12 | | | Lambeth 13 | | | What we know about the crime and the criminals 16 | | | Past, current and future activity 17 | | | The council | 17 | | The Police 25 | | | Heritage assets 27 | | | Infrastructure 29 | | | Scrap Metal Dealers | 30 | | Other local authorities 31 | | | Conclusions 35 | | | Recommendations 37 | | | Notes and thanks 40 | | | Terms of reference and core questions 40 | | | Methodology | 40 | | Thanks 41 | | | References | 42 | | | | | Appendix A - Letter to Public Bill Committee 44 | | | Appendix B - List of Scrap Metal Dealers registered with LB Lambeth 45 | | | Appendix C - Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan 46 | | | Appendix D - LB Bexley Metal Theft awareness publicity materials 52 | | | | | ## Executive Summary The Report Considers The Scale And Impact Of Metal Theft In The London Borough Of Lambeth. It examines the roles and responsibilities of the various council departments and identifies that the council does not currently have a clear understanding of the local scrap metal trade and is not making full use of its powers in relation to the trade. The commission identifies some good practice within the authority, particularly its commitment to the Alliance to Reduce Crime Against Heritage (ARCH) memorandum of understanding, and identifies a number of areas where the council and its partners could work better together to reduce metal theft. ## The commission's work was undertaken as the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 was being considered by Parliament. The Act is the first major reform to the scrap metal trade in 48 years. The commission welcomes the strengthened powers provided in the new legislation but does not consider it to be a panacea. Instead, the commission recommends that in the period prior to the new Act's commencement, and beyond, the council and its partners implement a partnership action plan to tackle the issue in a holistic manner. ## The report concludes that, whilst there is significant work that could be done within Lambeth, it is unlikely to have a significant impact unless similar work is replicated by the borough's neighbours. The commission therefore recommends that the Cabinet Member works closely with the council's partners and neighbours to develop and enforce a voluntary code of conduct for the scrap metal trade with a view to this being adopted pan-London once its sub-regional success can be demonstrated. ## List Of Recommendations (A) That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (ii) That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach (B) That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report (C) That following development of a draft code of conduct the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, supported by the Chair of the Commission, lead on negotiations with Lambeth's neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, lay the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of our area (D) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership, and relevant constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) and implement actions accordingly (i) That progress against the plan's key milestones be reported back to Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (E) That reassurance be sought from the Borough Commander that Lambeth Police are fully committed to tackling metal theft ,resourcing it accordingly and that specific consideration be given to the following (i) That confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank (ii) That consideration be given to equipping all officers with portable ultraviolet lights to enable them to immediately identify property marking such as SmartWater (F) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership make clear to residents what number they should call if they witness suspicious activity (G) That partnership working with the full range of those operating in the policy area be improved specifically: (i) Links between the council and the British Transport Police 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on specific scrap metal dealers, is shared (ii) Links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore undertaking joint action (iii) Links with British Telecom's public relations team to identify opportunities for a shared communications campaign (iv) Opportunities for joint training between the Police, council officers and partners so that each are aware of each others issues and powers (v) Opportunities for the Police and council officers to undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and the Metal Theft Days of Action (H) That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) (I) That the council report back to Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub- Committee on how it disposes of its own scrap metal to ensure that the value is returned to the council (J) That all outstanding recommendations relating to council-owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers be implemented immediately ## Chair'S Foreword And Introduction My curiosity into metal theft arose following a spate of metal theft in Lambeth. Lambeth citizens have experienced disruptions to rail services, interruptions to telecommunications, theft of lead and copper from the roofs of churches, schools, private and council buildings, the theft of street signs, gully and manhole covers, and, most reprehensible, theft from war and grave memorials. We felt that criminals were endangering our heritage and councillors were not about to sit back and let that happen. During the course of the commission members sought advice from the police, local scrap metal-dealers, local churches, British Telecom, Network Rail, community groups and individual residents. Whilst it was clear that agencies worked very hard to tackle metal theft in their own industries or areas, the commission was struck by the lack of a coordinated approach to metal theft. We have sought to address this recommending a more strategic approach to the prevention, investigation, enforcement and prosecution of metal theft. We want to ensure that the council, our neighbours and partners share expertise and resources and work smarter together. In addition the commission strongly believed that the community could play a pivotal role in the prevention and detection of metal theft. They are in effect the eyes and ears of the council and should be positively encouraged to look out for and report suspicious behaviour that might be related to metal theft. While the commission welcomed the introduction of a licensing regime for scrap metal dealers in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 we felt that reliance on the Act alone was not enough to deter metal theft in the borough. Robust policy changes and initiatives at a local level are needed to continue the recent decline in metal theft. I would like to give my thanks to the members of the commission for their time and genuine commitment to the task of tackling metal theft in the borough. We are grateful to all those who gave their time to our work but are especially indebted to Nicole Terrieux and Kristian Aspinall in the Community Safety Team and PC Rob Harrison for their support in the development of the partnership action plan that will be the driving force for change. I would also like to thank Tom Barrett, Scrutiny Manager, for his invaluable input and for coordinating our approach to what we discovered was a very complex issue. ## Legislative Position And Responsibilities 1. The commission began its work by identifying the wide range of legislative powers that can already be applied to the issue of metal theft. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is the main existing piece of legislation that regulates scrap metal dealers. It requires the council to issue licences to scrap metal dealers and, to maintain a register of persons operating in the borough as scrap metal dealers. Once registered with a local authority dealers must maintain records giving the following information: - a description of the scrap metal and its weight; - the date and time it was received; - the full name and address of the person from whom it was received; - the price payable for it or its value; - if the scrap metal was delivered by vehicle, the registration number of that vehicle; - the date the scrap metal was processed or dispatched; - the full name and address of the person to whom the scrap metal was sold or exchanged and the price; - if the scrap metal is disposed of otherwise than by sale or exchange, its value immediately before its disposal or processing1 2. In Lambeth dealers apply to register through completing a form, there is no fee payable and the council is unable to refuse registration nor can it impose any operating conditions. 3. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 was amended in early 2012 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012. LASPO increased the maximum level of fines available for offences under the 1964 Act, made trading in cash illegal for non-itinerant dealers and introduced new powers for the police to enter premises. The provisions relating to cashless trading were enacted in December 2012. 4. As demonstrated in Table 1 there are a range of regulatory provisions that are applicable to the scrap metal trade including those related to waste transfer, transporting waste, burning cable insulation and requiring planning permission for scrap metal yards. The Environment Agency has national responsibility for regulation and enforcement of the 'waste' element including responsibility for permitting sites, licensing waste transportation and other hazardous waste systems. In addition to the regulatory framework there is also the criminal framework relating to handling stolen goods and motor salvage regulations. With regard to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 the general consensus was that the Act was well past its sell by date. - Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 (registration with local authority and requirements on SMDs re keeping records) - Theft Act 1968 (handling stolen goods) - Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (makes it a criminal offence to transport waste without being a registered Waste Carrier with the Environment Agency) - Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Scrap Metal Dealers required to have a permit to operate from Environment. Agency) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (requires Scrap Metal yards to have planning permission) - Clean Air Act 1993 (makes it a criminal offence to burn insulation from cables with a view to recovering metal- often an indication of an illegal scrap yard) - Vehicle Crimes Act 2001 (Motor Salvage Operators Regs 2002 requires motor salvage operators to register with the local authority and keep appropriate records) - Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (increase fines in SMD'64; ban on cashless trading (not itinerants); police powers of entry to Scrap Metal Dealers) 5. As the commission began its work the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, a Private Members Bill taken up by Richard Ottaway MP (Croydon South), began its journey through Parliament. As the commission finished its report the Bill completed its journey through parliament successfully and was awaiting enactment. The new legislation repeals and replaces the 1964 Act with one that will 'empower local authorities with a more robust and enforceable licence regime for all those who deal and collect scrap metal'2 . Key elements of the new legislation are as follows:  No person can carry on business as a scrap metal dealer without a scrap metal licence  The scrap metal licence is to be issued by the local authority  The local authority must not issue or renew a license if it is not satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to operate a scrap metal business  A local authority will have the power to close down scrap metal yards operating without a license  Where an applicant, licensee or manager has a criminal record relevant to metal dealing the local authority may impose conditions upon or vary the license so as to restrict trade  It will be an offence to receive metal from a person without first verifying that person's identity  Dealers will be required to keep records for each sale and disposal for a period of three years  The extension of cashless trading to itinerant dealers3 : it will be an offence for a scrap metal dealer to pay for metal received other than by cheque or an electronic transfer  The introduction of a national public register of all Scrap Metal Dealers kept by the Environment Agency  The local authority has the power to revoke licences in certain circumstances  Local authorities and the police will have new powers to enter and inspect premises carrying on scrap metal business  The Act specifically widens the definition of Scrap Metal Dealers to include Motor Salvage Operators 6. As part of its work the commission submitted its views on the (then) draft legislation to the Public Bill Committee (House of Commons). This submission is set out in Appendix A to this report. Whilst the commission welcomes the main provisions of the soon-to-be Act councillors felt that the inability to impose local conditions on a licence was a significant omission. However, the commission's lobbying on this point proved unsuccessful, save for the provision that the Act would be reviewed within five years to ensure that it had met its objectives. The commission felt that despite the numerous current and proposed legislations relating to with metal trade and theft, the council, as an enforcement agency, needed to be in a position to apply current and new legislative powers and responsibilities if Lambeth is to effectively tackle metal theft in the borough. The commission recognises that there is the issue of manpower and resources that needs to be addressed. 7. In the course of its work the commission was repeatedly reminded that successfully tackling metal theft required a response from beyond just those with legislative or regulatory powers. As such the commission considered evidence and information from British Telecom, English Heritage, the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, local churches, the Friends of West Norwood Cemetery, and a local scrap metal dealer. The commission also attended a conference organised by the Local Government Association that included speakers from the Energy Networks Association, the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, the Environment Agency, the British Metals Recycling Association (the trade association for scrap metal dealers) and a number of local authorities exhibiting best-practice in the area. Examples of work that each are undertaking are included in the Past, Current and Future Activity section of this report. ## What We Know About Metal Theft The National Picture 8. Estimates of the total social and economic cost of metal theft to the UK vary. The most recent studies estimate it at £220m per year (Home Office, 2011), between £220m-260m per year (Deloitte, 2011) and £777m per year (Association of Chief Police Officers, 2010)4. The LGA's *Metal Theft Toolkit* records that in 2011, '15,000 tonnes of metal were stolen, of which 7,500 tonnes came from railways, statues and church roofs. The cost of the thefts to the railways alone amounted to £13 million, with many more millions lost as a result of delays to passengers'5 . Nationally metal theft frequency is decreasing with both the Met and the British Transport Police (BTP) recording year-on-year decreases. Despite this 2011 was the worst year on record for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group who recorded over 2,500 metal theft related claims during the period. 9. The commission was provided with evidence from both the Police and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group that metal theft was closely linked to commodity prices (see Figure 1). Those prices were closely linked to global industrial growth, particularly by the two largest consumers of copper; China and the US 6. The slow-down in the global economy resulted in falls in the price of copper during 20127 and it was suggested to the commission that this may be one of the reasons for the decrease in metal theft during the last couple of years. Although the worldwide prices of scrap metal have recently fallen in recent years, it is generally believed that prices will stay at elevated levels for some time. So the problem of metal theft is not going away. 10. In terms of impact National Rail estimated that in 2010/11 3.8m passenger journeys were delayed or cancelled as a result of cable theft, causing 360,000 delay minutes and resulting in £16.5m compensation payments to train operators 9. Simon Davies, General Manager for Cable and Payphone Crime, British Telecom (BT) explained to the commission that metal theft was costing BT millions of pounds and taking up thousands of man hours every year. Single cuts to BT cable could result in thousands of people being without telephone or broadband services and in the most extreme cases result in complete community isolation (as had happened on the Isle of Skye). The commission noted that whilst being regular victims of metal theft Network Rail were also the largest contributor to the legitimate UK scrap metal industry. Local authorities were the third largest contributor10 11. In March 2012 the Environment Agency had permitted 831 scrap metal sites nationally, were aware of 317 active illegal sites and had stopped 190 illegal sites from operating. However, the commission learned that estimates by BT of the number of sites far exceeded those of both the Environment Agency and records kept by local authorities. ## London 12. The Metropolitan Police's pan London Operational Co-ordinator for Metal Theft Acting Inspector James Coomber, informed the commission that the national correlation between the number of crimes and commodity prices was repeated at a regional level. Looking at the London region as a whole it is the outer North East and South East boroughs that have the highest volume of metal theft crime. Croydon was known to have over 50 itinerant dealers registered and had experienced the highest number of incidents of metal theft in both 2011 and 2012. Acting Inspector Coomber informed the commission that there was also a clear correlation between the number of scrap metal dealers and the number of metal theft crimes in an area11 . 13. In London the Metropolitan Police was reporting a 30% decline in metal theft incidents in 2012 and British Transport Police (BTP) had also recorded yearon-year declines (see Table 2 below). However both BTP and the Met cautioned that this was a result of both increased police activity and a reduction in commodity prices. The British Metals Recycling Association had predicted that the price of copper would increase from its slump in 2012 and in their evidence to the commission English Heritage warned that, despite a drop in metal theft last year, they were concerned that an increase in commodities prices or a decrease in police focus on the issue would spark a resurgence in metal theft. | | | | | | Live | Non-live | |--------------|---------|---------|------------|---------|---------|-------------| | | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012 - Oct | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012 - Oct | | London North | 102 | 142 | | 184 | 172 | | | London South | 114 | 64 | 33 | 203 | 165 | 60 | | London | | | | | | | | Underground | 22 | 42 | | 99 | 64 | | | Total | 238 | 248 | | 486 | 401 | | ## Lambeth 14. The commission received detailed information from the Metropolitan Police relating to the prevalence and value of metal theft in Lambeth (see Table 3). In 2011 there were 168 incidents with metal worth £206k stolen and by September 2012 there had been 85 incidents with metal worth £122k stolen. Figures did not exist prior to 2011 as the Met had only recently begun tracking metal theft as a specific crime (previously it had been recorded under 'theft'). 15. In comparison to Croydon, Southwark and Lewisham, Lambeth suffers less from metal theft. However, as was highlighted by Cllr Jack Hopkins, Lambeth's Cabinet Member for Public Protection in his session with the commission, despite being low volume and generally small scale crimes the impact of metal theft was high (see case studies). The volume and type of thefts from authorities neighbouring Lambeth was also cause for concern to the commission. Southwark particularly had suffered a number of high profile thefts of public art (notably the Barbara Hepworth sculpture from Dulwich Park 15 and a statue dedicated to Alfred Salter MP ) whilst the spate of thefts in Richard Ottaway's Croydon South constituency, including church roofs and war memorials, led to his introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill. Members of Case study: St Peter's Church - Leigham Court Road, Streatham , St Leonards ward St Peter's Church is a Grade II* listed building. It was built in two main stages in 1870 and the mid-1880s. New vestries (with flat roofs) were added in the early 1900s. Lead thefts from the church started in the summer of 2008. There have been 6 lead thefts since then, the last was in January 2012. All of the lead thefts have been done to areas which can be accessed by climbing up drain pipes or lightening conductor tape. None of the thefts have involved ladders. On one occasion there was evidence that they used the church's tools and the church's wheel barrow to assist the theft. Since 2008 the Church introduced a range of additional security measures including the use of SmartWater, anti-climb-paint and new railings (for which it had taken 6-months to get the necessary planning permission from the council despite the urgency of the matter). In March 2012 St Peter's were able to access seed-funding from the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group to pay for the fitting of an alarm-system. Since then the Church had not experienced any thefts. In the course of discussion with the commission the Clerk of Works at St Peter's indicated that some success had also been experienced through contacting the Church's neighbours to increase there awareness that thefts had taken place. Since doing so the Police had been called on a number of occasions when suspicious activity had been spotted. The Clerk of Works also indicated that the Church had been disappointed at the lack of advice on protecting themselves provided by the Police, though that provided by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group had been excellent. the commission were also pleased to learn that colleagues in Wandsworth were taking the issue seriously. 16. The commission was also conscious of the borough's geography, that it was long and thin, and the major roads that ran through it, particularly the A23. This meant that it was easy for Lambeth itinerant dealers to travel outside of the borough and for non-Lambeth itinerant dealers to travel into, across and through the borough. This placed a greater emphasis on the importance of joint number plate recognition activities with the Police (see reference to Operation Cubo later in this report). Furthermore it made the commission aware that if metal is collected locally it is unlikely, due to our geography, to be processed locally thus making a joint approach with neighbouring authorities more important. 17. Given the link between crime volume and number of scrap metal dealers it is perhaps not surprising that Lambeth only has 12 scrap metal dealers registered in the borough. Of these four are physical scrap metal yards and the remaining . This compares to fifty-plus itinerant traders in eight are itinerant traders16 Croydon. Please review Appendix B for a list of the Scrap Metal Dealers operating in Lambeth. 18. However, the commission had cause to question the accuracy of the council's register. The commission were provided with a restricted profile of scrap metal merchants and metal theft in the borough prepared by Lambeth Police in August 2011. That document included a list of 8 scrap metal dealers in or on the borders of Lambeth. None of those appearing on the Police's list were registered on the Council's list and vice versa. Furthermore, in his evidence to the commission, the Council's Licensing Manager indicated that he had become aware of four un-registered scrap metal dealers as a result of health and safety audits undertaken by other parts of the Environmental Health Team. As a result, letters have been sent to each of the four unregistered dealers insisting that they register. However, the discrepancies between the information held suggests that there can be little certainty that either the Police or local authority have an authoritative record of Scrap Metal Dealers operating in Lambeth. It also suggests a lack of information sharing between the council and the Police. 19. The commission was also conscious of the relevance of motor salvage operators (MSOs) in relation to the scrap metal trade. The council is required to register MSOs and the powers available to it are stronger than those for registering scrap metal dealers (for example registration can be refused). However, there is only one registered operator in the borough. Given the apparent inaccuracies in the register of scrap metal dealers the commission thought it very likely that the register for MSOs was out of date and did not reflect the number of MSOs actually working in the borough. 20. The commission was provided with detailed information relating to the location of council-owned buildings that had been the subject of metal theft. Prior to 2007 there had been no insurance claims relating to metal theft but since then there had been 56, more than half of which related to either Libraries (16) or Schools (13). The total value of claims was close to £207,00017 . The commission noted that the council's buildings, as is common practice for local authorities, are insured for catastrophe cover only with an excess of £500,000. As such the £207,000 figure was, or is to be, met entirely from council funds via a reserve set-aside for insurance claims. In addition to council-owned buildings the commission also received the following information from the Council's Public Realm Division: No of instances Total Cost (£) 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 Total; Description Time Plates (Parking/Disabled Bays) 7,680 48 0 10 0 58 Metal Bollards / Cast Iron Bollards 17,434 22 21 3 6 52 Signs (Parking and Direction) 6,930 9 2 25 1 37 Posts (street name plates/Signs) 9,499 16 7 7 1 31 Frames (Gully/Manhole cover) 25,230 19 38 15 2 74 Street Name Plates 29,912 43 60 5 16 123 Guard Rails 676 4 0 0 0 4 Total 97,361 161 128 65 26 379 21. Whilst this too shows a declining trend the prevalence, total value and level of risk presented to the public from the loss of, for example, 80 gully or manhole covers was a shock to the commission. Members were pleased to note that a number of steps are being taken to reduce exposure to metal theft including fitting plastic parking signs, fixing road name plates out of reach and not replacing bollards as part of street de-cluttering. These steps may go some way in explaining the decline in theft of non-insured assets in the borough. ## What We Know About The Crime And The Criminals 22. Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther (British Transport Police and Association of Chief Police Officers lead on metal theft) characterised metal theft as similar to the illegal drugs market in reverse: small packages are stolen which are then bundled and exported. DCC Crowther highlighted that the riskreward ratio was in favour of criminals; the average fine in 2010 was £369. The relatively small fines also acted as a disincentive to pursue prosecution18 . However, DCC Crowther felt that the removal of limits on fines for the most serious offences and introduction of cashless trading in the LASPO Act would go some way to addressing these problems. The commission agreed that the removal of an upper limit in financial penalties for the most serious offences represented a significant increase in the powers of the Magistrate court. We nevertheless felt that in practice, given the past level of fines, the removal of the upper limit on fines may not translate into magistrates imposing higher fines unless Lambeth together with the prosecuting authority, took a more robust approach to all cases of metal theft. For example, to persuade the magistrate to look beyond the value of the material stolen when deciding the level of fines, impact statements19 by Lambeth officers should be submitted to highlight other consequences of metal theft in addition to the financial impact. 20 23. The majority of metal theft in Lambeth was opportunistic with only a small percentage of crimes being large scale. This reflected two different types of criminality: the opportunist and the organised criminal. Of the 88 offences in Lambeth recorded in the six months prior to August 2011 39 related to copper theft and 32 to lead. The remaining types of metal were only in single figures (e.g. cabling, brass and steel). ## Past, Current And Future Activity 24. In February 2012 the LGA surveyed English and Welsh councils to ascertain if they had been affected by metal theft since April 2009. 70% of the authorities that responded had been affected with 18% reporting that they had suffered major consequences as a result. 39% of those surveyed had prosecuted thieves and/or scrap metal dealers. Mark Norris, Senior Adviser on policing, community safety and re-offending policy for the LGA, informed the commission that the broad conclusion of the survey was that many authorities were affected, but fewer had been doing anything about it at the time of the survey. The commission was therefore interested in what Lambeth had done, was doing and planned to do to address the issue. ## The Council 25. The two parts of the council with the greatest responsibility for tackling metal theft were the Public Realm Division, part of the Housing, Regeneration and Environment Department and the Community Safety Team, part of the Culture and Communities Division of the Adult and Community Services Department. The commission interviewed officers from both areas. 26. The Public Realm Division is responsible for a wide range of services relating to the maintenance and development of the public environment including: consumer protection (licensing and trading standards) street care and management. The Division is responsible for registering scrap metal dealers in accordance with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. In its sessions with the commission it was revealed that no enforcement activity (such as checking to ensure that the requirements of registration were being met (e.g. keeping records)) had been undertaken by the Division beyond fulfilling the legislative requirement to register dealers. Officers explained that this was because there was no funding for registration and therefore no capacity to undertake such work. In addition officers felt that there was insufficient call for a proactive approach and inadequate legislative powers should they do so. As a result the department did not have an established relationship with those Scrap Metal Dealers they had registered. 27. Public Realm officers were aware of the changes brought in by the LASPO Act and the proposals in the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill (soon-to-be Act) but did not propose to take any action until those pieces of legislation were in place. The impression given to the commission was that, once funding was attached to a licensing regime (as per the new Scrap Metal Dealers legislation), the department would be able to engage more proactively with local scrap metal dealers. Officers estimated that £4-500 was the likely indicative cost per licence issued and would be sufficient to fund a single enforcement visit per year. The frequency of enforcement visits was likely to be in line with the perceived risk of each dealer. 28. Officers indicated that there was occasional communication with the police relating to whether or not businesses were registered. However, the department did not share information (for example on itinerant traders) with neighbouring authorities and there appeared to be a lack of communication between the relevant council departments. For example there was no mechanism by which trading standards would be notified when the roof from West Norwood Library was stolen so that, for example, an alert could be sent to local dealers21 . Members of the commission were also concerned at the apparent incompleteness of the council's register and that it appeared that it was only by chance that the Licensing Manager had become aware of the additional four dealers that had undertaken health and safety audits within the same Division. 29. Overall the commission was disappointed that the Division were not taking a more proactive approach to the issue. In particular they felt that there had been a failure to create downward pressure on the local scrap metal industry through proper enforcement of the range of legislation available to them (particularly the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and environmental protection powers) and a lack of coordination with the likes of the Police or Environment Agency. This perception was also reflected in the Division's approach to the new Scrap Metal Dealers legislation. The commission felt that officers were treating the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill as a panacea when in fact tackling the problem was a far wider issue requiring a range of approaches. Given the link between levels of theft and the number of dealers it was quite clear to the commission that one of the most important first steps the Division needed to take was getting a clear idea of the number of scrap metal dealers in the borough and establishing an ongoing relationship with them. 30. Some of the concerns that the commission had regarding closer working between council departments were addressed in discussion with Adrian Smith, Divisional Director, Culture and Communities and the officer with overall responsibility for the council's Community Safety Team. Mr Smith indicated that the council was moving away from separate functions towards a more integrated model of enforcement under the banner of 'community safeguarding'. The commission were informed that the model would go some way to getting the multiple enforcement specialisms (community safety, environmental crime, licensing, noise, trading standards, foods, health and safety) sharing resources and intelligence and working better together. 31. The Community Safety Team informed the commission that metal theft had not been identified as a priority issue in the Safer Lambeth Partnership's22 annual strategic assessment. Despite this, in partnership with Lambeth Police and in discussion with the commission the Team drafted a multi-agency action plan on metal theft. The commission was grateful to the Community Safety Team for pausing the development of the action plan whilst the commission completed its work. This enabled the commission to take ownership of the action plan, ensure its findings are fully reflected within it and is an excellent example of collaborative working between officers and a Scrutiny Commission. The plan is appended at Appendix C. ## Recommendation: That The Safer Lambeth Partnership, And Relevant Constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft ## Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) And Implement Actions Accordingly (P1/T3) 32. The plan focuses on four areas: Intelligence; Protection and prevention; Enforcement action; Communications and addresses the operational concerns that arose in the course of the commission's work. These include identifying and protecting at-risk assets (council, partner and community); creating a master list of scrap metal dealers and establishing a relationship with dealers; establishing an ongoing enforcement regime and steps to build awareness of metal theft. The commission was impressed at the commitment shown to tackling the issue by the officers (Police and Lambeth) that engaged the commission on the plan's development. 33. However, some concerns remained. It appeared that commitment to the issue was driven by the efforts of a few, relatively junior police and council officers. Whilst this was to be welcomed the commission felt that this left maintaining focus on the issue vulnerable to key staff leaving. Indeed, during the commission's work both of the lead Police officers, one a PC and the other a Sergeant were moved to other duties. Furthermore question marks remained regarding levels of commitment to full implementation of the action plan by the relevant parts of the partnership and therefore delivery of the outcomes identified. The commission was keen to see the momentum that had been established by the development of the action plan maintained within the partnership. Key to this appeared to be establishing single points of contact within both Lambeth Police and the council with a commitment to the issue, the seniority to direct officers and ability take a strategic approach to the issue. Recommendation: That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach Recommendation: Confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank 34. In its session with the Community Safety Team and Cabinet Member for Public Protection the commission learned of a number of welcome steps that were being taken in relation to protecting Lambeth's 2500 heritage assets (e.g. churches, public art, war memorials). As the commission's work progressed Lambeth became the first London Borough (shortly followed by our neighbours in Wandsworth) to join English Heritage's Alliance to Reduce Crime Against ## Alliance To Reduce Crime Against Heritage - Memorandum Of Understanding As a signatory to the ARCH memorandum of understanding (MoU) Lambeth has committed to the following responsibilities: - An annual strategic assessment for heritage crime which informs an action plan for the parties (the council, English Heritage, ACPO and the CPS) to the MoU to follow. - Development plans take account of the historic environment. - Exercise functions as a local planning authority in relation to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. - Strategies to tackle crime and disorder including anti-social behaviour to include the historic environment and associated heritage assets. - Assist MoU partners where practicable and wherever resources and powers allow, in the prevention, investigation, enforcement and prosecution of heritage crime. - work closely to develop and adopt good practice in the sharing of personal and non personal information with other signatories. - recognise that the sharing of knowledge and working practices is beneficial in tackling heritage crime. - Assist and advise in any campaigns of prevention and, where expertise is needed and resources allow, in the investigation and prosecution of any crimes. Heritage (ARCH). ARCH is a voluntary national network of stakeholders with an interest in preventing crime that causes damage to or interferes with the enjoyment of heritage assets in England. In addition to ARCH membership Lambeth also became the first London Borough to sign the ARCH memorandum of understanding for enforcement agencies (see box). The commission welcomed Lambeth's membership of ARCH, particularly the commitment that this gave to prioritising heritage crime, including metal theft, and was eager for the council to demonstrate how it was exercising its responsibilities as a member. This was especially the case in relation to war memorials, the commission was conscious that the 100year anniversary of the beginning of the Great War was approaching in 2014, and West Norwood Cemetery which had been subjected to a number of thefts and provided evidence to the commission. The commission felt that identifying a Heritage Champion from members of the Council would help give the issue sufficient weight and also that ARCH membership appeared to represent an excellent opportunity to work together with the council's neighbours and fellow-signatory in Wandsworth. Recommendation: That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (P1/T3) (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (P1/T3) 35. Alongside ARCH membership the Cabinet Member for Public Protection informed the commission that he was establishing an Urban Heritage Watch (UHW). The purpose of UHW was to provide a mechanism by which members of the community could help protect the borough's heritage assets by taking an active role in monitoring sites, reporting suspicious activity and sharing intelligence. As well as 'friends groups' the scheme would also be targeted at those who run businesses overlooking heritage sites, for example shopkeepers. Such an approach was welcomed by the Commission, not least because it reflected some of the good practice that had been identified at St Peter's Church (see case study) and by both the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group and English Heritage who emphasised the importance of intelligence about and subsequent risk-rating of assets. 36. It was inconceivable to the commission that many of the metal thefts that took place in the borough had not been witnessed by members of the public. However, as councillors learned, it was not uncommon for thieves to disguise themselves as legitimate workers (for example dressed in BT overalls/using BT vans). The commission therefore questioned whether the council and/or Police should engage in a broader awareness-raising campaign, similar to that which had been undertaken in Bexley (see Appendix D). Given the existing level of communications 'noise' arising from other borough-wide campaigns the Cabinet Member and Community Safety Officers felt that such a campaign risked being expensive, ineffective and not in proportion to the scale of the issue. Rather they preferred taking a targeted approach as proposed in the Urban Heritage Watch scheme and working with the likes of BT and Safer Neighbourhood Teams to raise awareness of legitimate works that were taking place. Despite this, members of the commission felt that some improvement needed to be made to make clear to the public what they should do if they witness some suspicious activity as it was clear that many considered calling 999 an over-reaction. ## Recommendation: That The Safer Lambeth Partnership Make Clear To Residents What Number They Should Call If They Witness Suspicious Activity 37. Although Public Realm and Community Safety Team are the parts of the council with the greatest role in relation to metal theft the commission also discussed the topic with the Risk and Insurance Team (Finance & Resources Department) and received a brief paper from the Valuations and Asset Management Services Division (Housing, Regeneration and Environment Department). The latter note identified reactive work being undertaken to a number of heritage sites in the borough after they had suffered from metal theft or vandalism: West Norwood Library, Nettlefold Hall and West Norwood Crematorium Chapel, Brockwell Hall and Streatham Library. 38. Information provided by the Risk and Insurance Team highlighted that metal theft accounted for just 1.3% of total claims made by the council between 2007- 12. For this reason management activity to date had been focussed on other ## Case Study: West Norwood Library And The Nettlefold Halls Thefts of metal from West Norwood Library and the Nettlefold Halls appear to date back to at least 2008. In September 2010 the council's insurers, Zurich Municipal, conducted a risk management report of the site. This highlighted the vulnerability of the building's copper roof and recommended that further protection was put in place to restrict access as a priority and within three months. No such measures were put in place. Between 12 March and 14 June 2011 further thefts of the copper roof at West Norwood Library and the Nettlefold Halls were recorded on 8 separate occasions and on 6 June 2011 the Library and Halls were closed due to extensive flooding and water damage. The council's Risk and Insurance Team highlighted that these thefts exacerbated existing problems of water ingress into a building which was already in need of repairs and maintenance works. As such the costs incurred as a result of the water ingress have only been partially met through the insurance claims. The Library and Halls were not re-opened and at the time of writing redevelopment plans were being put in place for the site. In the meantime the Library relocated temporarily to the Lambeth Resource Centre, before subsequently moving to the Old Library site due to low usage of the LRC. No full appraisal of the financial cost to the council of the closure and relocation of the library has been undertaken. However, the commission was able to identify the following direct costs: | Cost | Value (£) | |--------------------------|--------------| | 2008-11 Insurance claims | -29,000 | | 2011 Making safe | -10,000 | | Temporary Roof | -187,000 | | Loss of income (p/a) | -40,000 | | Total | -266,000 | Whilst it is clear that the cost to the council of these incidences of metal theft are well in excess of £¼m the commission was also aware of the significant impact that closure of the Library and Halls had on the community. In addition to the various events hosted by the library in 2010-11 the Nettlefold hosted 682 events and activities open to the public and 60 private events. Groups affected by the continued loss of this community resource include older people's groups, dance schools, fitness classes (including GP referral classes), student shows, homework classes, music shows, mental health groups and the local MP's advice sessions. The commission was informed that many of the groups that used the auditorium/theatre space in particular have moved out of the local area. claim areas where the cost to the council is significantly higher23. However, there was evidence that where management activity had been undertaken the reports and recommendations of the Risk and Insurance Team were not necessarily adhered to. This was most notably the case with West Norwood Library and Nettlefold Hall where thefts of its copper roof has compounded a previous lack of investment in repairs and maintenance resulting in the continued closure of the site (see case study). The immeasurable cost to the community of loss of the resource and the (unmeasured) total financial costs incurred by the council as a result of these thefts far outstrip both the scrap value of the copper stolen and the costs of the preventative action that was recommended. Further investigation of the council's property risk management surveys revealed that there were 24 outstanding priority 1 recommendations (requiring action within between 1-3 months) from the council's insurers, some of which dated back to June 2009. It was not acceptable to the commission that the reports and recommendations of the council's insurers are not implemented as failure to do so exposes the council to unnecessary risk, potential cost and in the worst-case scenario loss of services to communities. ## Recommendation: That All Outstanding Recommendations Relating To Councilowned Or Leased Buildings From The Council'S Insurers Be Implemented Immediately. The Police 39. Across the UK the commission learned of considerable work being undertaken by the Police. Particularly notable was the success of Operation Tornado, a voluntary scheme developed in the North East by a partnership of the British Metals Recycling Association (BMRA), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), British Transport Police (BTP), the Home Office, and Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland Police. The scheme requires anyone selling scrap metal to participating dealers to provide photographic proof of identity and abstention from cash payments as two of a number of measures used to restrict the sale and movement of stolen metal. In the pilot areas Durham reported a 55% reduction in offences, Cleveland 55%, Northumbria around 40%, and BTP a 60% reduction24 . The commission was informed that Operation Tornado was due to be rolled out across the Met area but at the time of writing this had not taken place. The majority of the steps taken voluntarily under Tornado will become law once the Scrap Metal Dealer Bill 2013 is enacted but it was of particular note that Tornado's success took place without legislation. This demonstrated to the commission that it was not necessary to wait until new legislation was in place to take effective steps to restrict the trade in illegal scrap metal. Accordingly the commission puts its full weight behind proposals to roll Tornado, or a similar voluntary code out across London as soon as possible. At the very least the commission felt that such a move would enable the Police and local authority to identify higher-risk dealers. ## Recommendation: That The Cabinet Member For Public Protection, In Partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report 40. The commission was informed in October 2012 that in the previous twelve months there had been only two thefts on the railways in Lambeth, one in Tulse Hill and the other in Waterloo. In both cases members were pleased to hear that there had been arrests. In the same session members were informed that BTP, English Heritage, HM Revenue and Custom , BT and National Rail analysts worked together on 'fusion' units. They used red, amber, green (RAG) ratings to identify problematic scrap metal dealers and then worked to convert those rated as red to amber or green. However, where a red-risk dealer was identified the relevant local authority would not necessarily be notified. This felt to the commission like a further area where closer information-sharing could result in more effective partnership work, reduce duplication and create further downward pressure on the illegal trade. 41. The commission was surprised to learn that until mid-2012 the Crime Record Information System (CRIS) had not included specific classifications for metal theft; previously it had just been classified as theft. This had now changed with the introduction of two classifications; 'metal theft infrastructure' and 'metal theft non-infrastructure'. This increase in the profile of metal theft within the Police was also reflected in the Met's decision to take a more coordinated approach to the issue in early 2012 through the introduction of Operation Ferrous, led by Acting Inspector James Coomber. Acting Inspector Coomber had previously worked in Bexley where he had led a number of Police and partnership teams that had been acknowledged as best practice in tackling metal theft. He outlined a number of steps that the Met was taking. These included working with heritage partners such as the Church and English Heritage, deploying officers in London-wide 'days of action' every quarter (surprise visits to scrap metal dealers and motor salvage yards) and compiling a web-based database (MARS) of scrap metal dealers. 42. As well as the 'days of action' A/I Coomber informed the commission of other Met-wide operations that the police undertook which closed the net on metal thieves. This included Operation Cubo, which utilises automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) technology to identify vehicles used by criminals or uninsured drivers. The commission felt that both Cubo and Tornado represented a considerable opportunity for council officers (particularly those with relevant regulatory responsibilities) to undertake joint work with the local Police to bring the full weight of each organisation's regulatory and legal powers down on the illegal metal trade as well as an opportunity to establish a relationship with local scrap metal dealers. The commission noted that such joint operations were common in other local authority areas, including across the border in Wandsworth. ## Heritage Assets 43. The commission held information-gathering sessions with English Heritage, the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group (EIG), the Diocese of Southwark and those responsible for specific heritage assets in the borough (Friends of West Norwood Cemetery and St Peter's Church (see case study)). An experience repeated by a number of those responsible for heritage assets to the commission was that the response by the police had been slow and that they had not appeared particularly interested in the crime. Whilst there were positive reports of efforts by the local Crime Prevention Design Advisor, PC Rob Harrison, there appeared to be a disconnect between his understanding of the issues with those in the rest of the force. 44. In contrast, St Peter's Church indicated that the advice and support received from EIG had been excellent. EIG, in their session with the commission, indicated that the theft of metal from churches had been a significant problem since 2007 resulting in the group imposing restrictions on their cover where churches were not taking a proactive approach to protecting themselves. It did not escape the commission's attention that St Luke's Church, the location for one of the commission's information-gathering sessions, had been the victim of metal theft when scaffolding had been erected. The Group's consultants and surveyors provide advice to churches and specific guidance is available on their website. Since 2008 the Group has been distributing free SmartWater kits to their policy-holders and they were confident that, when used with the relevant warning signs, SmartWater acted as a considerable deterrent. By November 2012 over 18,000 churches nationwide had registered with SmartWater and EIG had reported a 60% drop in lead thefts during the previous 12 months25 . 45. However, EIG were aware that SmartWater whilst a deterrent would not prevent all metal theft. However the 'deterrent factor' could be enhanced by wider usage of ultra violet lights (under which SmartWater shows up) by both the Police and scrap-metal dealers. 46. EIG had also recently launched a hands-off our church roofs campaign which provided further advice to churches and encouraged them to consider installing a suitable roof alarm. This was alongside a targeted approach to funding RDAS alarm systems for certain churches. The £3-6,000 cost of rolling out such systems to the 14,000 churches in England was prohibitive to EIG however, as can be seen in the St Peter's case study, one Lambeth Church had received seed funding for an alarm from EIG and this had brought theft at the site to a halt. EIG informed the commission that funding for alarm systems was provided on a targeted basis taking into account claims history, local knowledge and consultation with relevant personnel within each diocese. The free alarm-surveys were being provided as part of the 'hands off' campaign. The commission was also pleased that EIG's advice to churches included guidance on establishing churchwatch-type arrangements as had been so successful at St Peter's and was proposed by the council's Urban Heritage Watch scheme. 47. The commission also welcomed the considerable work that had been undertaken by English Heritage in relation to metal theft under the banner of its ARCH scheme. When metal theft had first become a problem it was felt that English Heritage's insistence that metal, where stolen from a heritage building, be replaced with like-for-like, was exacerbating the problem26. However, it became clear that the organisation was now taking a more pragmatic and proactive approach to the problem exemplified in a series of publications27 providing guidance on heritage crime prevention, interventions (including prosecution), preventing and dealing with theft of metal from churches and the production of heritage crime impact statements. The focus on these topics was particularly welcomed as the commission learnt from the Diocese that in the past the Police and magistrates had taken a long time to respond and . Guidance on the production of impact statements appeared uninterested28 was felt to be particularly helpful in assisting those who had been the victim of metal theft to articulate the impact of the crime to the relevant enforcement agencies. 48. In its session with Mark Harrison, National Policing and Crime Advisor at English Heritage, the commission also welcomed suggestions for the development of community-based responsibility for and awareness of heritage assets, particularly amongst young people. This was again felt to be an area where the council could act as a platform, facilitating the involvement of, for example, local youth groups, Girl Guide or Scout Troops and acknowledging the role that this would play in the development of a 'sense of place' 29. This was similar to the suggestion made by Richard Moore, Chair of Thurlow Park Safer Neighbourhood Panel, who suggested to the commission that a Lambeth Heritage photo competition may encourage people to take more responsibility for heritage assets30 . The commission felt that such approaches would prove a welcome, and inexpensive, addition to the council's Urban Heritage Watch proposals. ## Infrastructure 49. Unsurprisingly, given their access to the necessary funds, the commission found the use of alarms to be widespread by Network Rail and British Telecom. Simon Davies, General Manager for Cable and Payphone Crime (BT) highlighted the RABIT (Rapid Assessment BT Incident Tracker) alarm system which enabled BT to identify immediately where unauthorised cuts were made to its cable and send information to police control centres immediately. Similarly Network Rail had successfully used tremor alarms to prevent theft. However, despite the success of alarms and other preventative measures (such as smartwater and physically locking down infrastructure) protecting the network represented only one part of British Telecom's threepronged approach. The remaining steps were: choking the market, through visiting scrap metal dealers and ensuring that there is no easy route for the disposal of BT cable through non-authorised dealers; and engagement with government, the trade, the police (sharing intelligence) and communities (for example working with crimestoppers and undertaking mailshots of areas where there has been metal theft). 50. Mr Davies informed the commission that one of the difficulties that they had experienced nationally was a lack of local enforcement activity. The commission welcomed Mr Davies' offer to work more closely with the council and felt that in terms of communications, intelligence-sharing and joint operations (such as joint visits to scrap metal dealers) there was considerable scope for such work. 51. Network Rail provided the commission with information on their four-fold strategy to tackle metal theft which had seen delay minutes reduce by 51% since 2011. This focussed on: - Engineering - the use of CCTV, alarms and making access more difficult - Education - increasing awareness including lobbying activity on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill - Enforcement - working closely with British Transport Police, visiting dealers and sharing intelligence via the fusion intelligence unit - Enablement - the operational response to incidents and use of security patrols in key areas ## Recommendation: That Partnership Working With The Full Range Of Those Operating In The Policy Area Be Improved Scrap Metal Dealers 52. Whilst the commission was unable to meet formally with representatives of the British Metal Recycling Association (BMRA) members acknowledged that legitimate scrap metal dealers were often the victims of crime. This view was reinforced when the commission undertook a visit to, and met with the owner of, Glynn's Metal Recycling in Loughborough Junction, Lambeth. Security at the site was considerable and included ANPR technology. Paul Glynn, who owns and manages the site came to the commission's attention when he purchased, in order to return, a memorial plaque that had gone missing from a . Mr Glynn informed the church in Camberwell some 30 years previously31 commission that there was little benefit in trading in stolen materials as the risks outweighed the limited profit available. It became clear to the commission that the borough's registered scrap metal dealers operated at the front-line of metal theft with thieves regularly attending the premises to try to dispose of stolen metal and being abusive and making threats if such attempts were refused. This insight was particularly meaningful for the commission as it emphasised the opportunity which existed to establish close working relationships between local scrap metal dealers and the relevant authorities to tackle the trade in stolen metal. Whilst Mr Glynn indicated that he had regular visits from, and a strong relationship with, the local police he had never had any contact with the local authority or other regulatory authorities. 53. In his presentation at the LGA conference, Ian Hetherington, Chief Executive of the BMRA indicated that the majority of SMDs in the UK were registered with the BMRA but there was a 'long tail' of small dealers who were not. Whilst membership of the BMRA is not necessarily an indication of legitimacy this point was used to emphasise that the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2013 would not work unless it was effectively enforced by all the relevant powers. Mr Glynn made a similar point when he emphasised to the commission that the presence of unscrupulous dealers, and their ability to continue operating, made business harder for registered dealers as those who were not registered were able to pay more than the going rate for metals because they did not have the same overheads. ## Other Local Authorities 54. The commission found the Local Government Association's Metal Theft Toolkit a helpful document setting out some of the approaches to metal theft that had been undertaken at other local authorities32 . This included voluntary codes of practice for scrap metal dealers developed by Birmingham City Council (see appendix 1), Kirklees, Forest of Dean and the British Metals Recycling ## Case Study: Bexley In December 2011 a multi-agency Metal Theft Task Force was formed and comprised; police, two BT Metal Theft Investigators and an Environmental Crime Officer from London Borough of Bexley. This core team was assisted by Bexley Trading Standards and Neighbourhood Services Team, Registered Social Landlords, Smartwater, Environment Agency, DWP Benefit Fraud Team, HMRC Criminal Taxes Unit and BTP Metal Theft and Cable Crime Team. In the three months the team made 24 arrests, 12 proactive operations were carried out, 25 search warrants were executed, 22 scrap metal dealers visited, 11 vehicles seized and 17 people reported for other offences. During the period 1st October 2010 and 30th September 2011 Bexley borough suffered 634 recorded metal theft crimes, which included a series of thefts of dry riser valves from 18 tower blocks. At one stage 85 valves were stolen and 16 of the 18 blocks had no valves left at all. The loss of one valve rendered the whole system inoperable and no water could be directed to any level of the block in the event of a fire. The cost for repairs and replacements was around £75,000. In addition drain cover thefts totalled 180 during 2010 and 2011, costing over £52,000 to replace. Local people were outraged by the theft of memorial plaques from the Bexleyheath and Sidcup war memorials. The repair bill for copper water tanks, piping and intercom wiring systems that were stolen from newly refurbished flats in Thamesmead was over £250,000. British Telecom also suffered frequently, with one estate in Erith having underground cable stolen three times. On each occasion over 200 telephone lines were knocked out for a period of three days. The team carried out a series of operations on roads leading to scrap metal yards to disrupt the activities of thieves and those involved in the illegal transport of waste. Joint inspections of scrap metal yards were conducted to search for stolen property and to check they were complying with legislation. Owners were encouraged to adopt a code of practice and keep records of all transactions and the team ensured the yards displayed signage to demonstrate partnership working and to deter thieves. Other tactics included property marking, seizure of uninsured and unlicensed vehicles, 'theft alerts' to yard owners and crime prevention advice. Social landlords were advised when stolen property was recovered and offenders were placed under threat of eviction. Tax evasion and benefit fraud were referred to the Department of Work and Pensions fraud team and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criminal taxes unit. All this work was supported by a media campaign that highlighted the safety risks and also the immoral act of stealing bronze plaques from war memorials. Association. In most cases these codes went further than either Operation Tornado or the soon-to-be enacted Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. However, the commission welcomed the local emphasis that such a code provided and the initiative that they demonstrated these authorities were taking. 55. In London, Bexley (see case study and publicity materials at Appendix D) was identified as demonstrating best practice. The commission was particularly alarmed at the theft of dry-riser valves and wished top seek assurance that a similar pattern of theft had not taken place in Lambeth. Enfield and Hillingdon were cited as having taken proactive steps in relation to registering itinerant dealers. In Enfield all individuals wishing to register as itinerant dealers are required to attend the council's offices by appointment to demonstrate how they will maintain the required records and demonstrate possession of the relevant waste carriers licence. Furthermore representatives of the Police and Department for Work and Pensions attend to ensure that the applicant is not otherwise of interest to them or claiming relevant benefits. In Hillingdon all applications for registration are passed to the local Police who then pay a visit to the applicant in person. Both approaches were reported as having been effective. The commission also noted that anti-social behaviour powers had been used in Hillingdon to curb the activities of one particular individual known to the Police33 . Recommendation: That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report Recommendation: That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) 56. The commission also welcomed the engagement of Lambeth's neighbours in tackling metal theft. Colleagues in Wandsworth had undertaken successful joint work with the Police and UK Border Agency as part of Operation Ferrous34 and were also known to be engaged with English Heritage's ARCH programme. In Southwark considerable attention had been paid to the issue following the high profile thefts of public art and Richard Ottaway MP's support for the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill 2013 demonstrated commitment to the issue south of the borough. ## Conclusions 57. In drawing together its findings the commission was conscious that reported figures for metal theft were declining both nationally and in London and that metal theft was not a policing and crime priority for the borough. However, members did not consider this a reason for not taking any action. The close link between metal theft and commodity prices emphasised the fragility of the declining trend and the number of scrap metal dealers in and around Lambeth, coupled with the correlation between dealer numbers and crime volume leads, remains high. This, along with the personal and financial impact of the crime leads the commission to conclude that there remains a need for action to be taken. 58. In terms of the council's approach the commission found a tale of two divisions. In particular the commission concluded that there was considerable scope for the council to take a more proactive approach towards its relationship with the local scrap metal trade both through rigorous enforcement of the existing range of legislation and the promotion of a voluntary code of practice. Pinning the council's activity solely on implementation of the Scrap Metal Dealer Act 2013 was not, in the commission's view, the right approach to be taking. The partnership action plan was a welcome step towards this more proactive approach but it was not clear to the commission how rigorously the plan would be implemented nor how the move towards a 'community safeguarding' model would ensure this implementation. 59. In line with the action plan the commission welcomed the steps that the council had begun to take in working with the Police and English Heritage. However, it was clear from the information received that the opportunities for closer partnership working were wider than these two organisations. The commission received offers for closer working from British Telecom (communications, intelligence, joint visits) and the Diocese of Southwark and indications that they would welcome closer working from those responsible for local church and heritage assets. This bodes particularly well for the Urban Heritage Watch proposal (which the commission fully supports) and presents opportunities for the cost-burden on the local authority to be reduced. 60. The commission was clear that over-and-above the implementation of the action plan there were no legal barriers to the council putting into place a voluntary code of conduct straight away, whether by itself or in partnership with the Police or others. 61. However, what also became clear was that, due to the geography of London, any action taken within Lambeth would have limited impact if it was not replicated by our neighbours. A coordinated approach is required whereby downward pressure on the trade is exerted across the sub-region and best practice and resources shared to drive the illegal scrap metal trade out of London. This is no small task, but a Met-wide approach and pockets of bestpractice already exist. It is the commission's view that these pockets just need to be joined up and that Lambeth and its neighbours are well-placed, and have been victims long-enough, to begin this work and demonstrate its value to the rest of London. ## Recommendations (A) That Lambeth exercises its responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough in recognising heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough (P1/T3) (i) That as a signatory to the ARCH Memorandum of Understanding the council appoint a councillor to act as a Heritage Champion (P1/T3) (ii) That the council identify a single point of contact for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach (B) That the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, in partnership with the council, Lambeth Police and Operation Ferrous, lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for scrap metal dealers and motor salvage operators in the borough based on the best practice identified in this report (P1/T3) (C) That following development of a draft code of conduct the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, supported by the Chair of the Commission, lead on negotiations with Lambeth's neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, lay the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of our area (P1/T6) (D) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership, and relevant constituent partners, adopt with immediate effect the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan (Appendix C) and implement actions accordingly (P1/T1) (i) That progress against the plan's key milestones be reported back to Environment & Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (E) That reassurance be sought from the Borough Commander that Lambeth Police are fully committed to tackling metal theft ,resourcing it accordingly and that specific consideration be given to the following (i) That confirmation be provided of who the single point of contact for metal theft is in Lambeth Police and assurance given that they are of senior rank (P1/T3) (ii) That consideration be given to equipping all officers with portable ultraviolet lights to enable them to immediately identify property marking such as SmartWater (P2/T6) (F) That the Safer Lambeth Partnership make clear to residents what number they should call if they witness suspicious activity (P2/T6) (G) That partnership working with the full range of those operating in the policy area be improved specifically (P1/T6): (i) Links between the council and the British Transport Police 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on specific scrap metal dealers, is shared (ii) Links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore undertaking joint action (iii) Links with British Telecom's public relations team to identify opportunities for a shared communications campaign (iv) Opportunities for joint training between the Police, council officers and partners so that each are aware of each others issues and powers (P1/T9) (v) Opportunities for the Police and council officers to undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and the Metal Theft Days of Action (H) That Lambeth's housing client team ensure an urgent audit is undertaken of the presence of dry-riser valves at the borough's communal housing blocks and consider introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations (see timescales in action plan (Appendix C)) (I) That the council report back to Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub- Committee on how it disposes of its own scrap metal to ensure that the value is returned to the council (P3/T6) (J) That all outstanding recommendations relating to council-owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers be implemented immediately (P1/T3) ## Note: The commission has prioritised its recommendations as either priority 1 (high), 2 (medium) or 3 (low) and provided a time-limit (T) by which the commission expects each to be completed should they be adopted. For example P1/T3 will represent a high priority recommendation with an expected time-limit of 3 months. In responding to the commission's recommendations responsible authorities will be expected to identify specific milestones and target dates, resource implications and lead officers. ## Notes And Thanks Terms Of Reference And Core Questions The commission was established by the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee in May 2012 with the following terms of reference: - To investigate the current scale of metal-theft in Lambeth and the existing response to the issue across the relevant agencies - To identify the impact of metal-theft on the borough's residents, community groups, council and businesses - To feed into, influence the development of, and support the development of Lambeth's response to Richard Ottaway MP's Private Members Bill - To identify national and international best-practice in relation to the reduction of metal-theft - To make evidence-based recommendations to the relevant decision-makers that will result in reductions in metal theft and other improvement to this policy area The following core questions were identified by the commission at the start of its work: - What trends regarding metal theft are emerging in the borough? - What can the council do (together with its partners and the Metropolitan Police Service) to protect the buildings and monuments at risk? - What can the council do to counteract the rise of metal theft? - Having considered the government briefing on metal theft, what additional action can Lambeth as a borough and in partnership with neighbouring boroughs do to prevent and detect metal theft? ## Methodology The commission conducted three public information-gathering sessions as follows: | Date | Location | |-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Cllr Jack Hopkins | Cabinet Member for Public Protection, LB | | Lambeth | | | | | | 30 July | | | 2012 | | | Lambeth | | | Town Hall | | | Adrian Smith | Divisional Director, Culture & | | Communities, LB Lambeth | | | Nicole Terrieux | Community Safety Service, LB Lambeth | | Kristian Aspinall | Community Safety Service, LB Lambeth | | PC Rob Harrison | Lambeth Police | | Dave Bright | Head of Consumer Protection & | | Sustainability, HRE, Public Realm | | | Date | Location | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Robert Gardner | Trading Standards Manager, HRE, Public | | Realm | | | John Smith | Licensing Manager, HRE Public Realm | | Mark Nicolson | Risk & Insurance Team, LB Lambeth | | Andrew Lane | Secretary, Southwark Diocesan Advisory | | Committee | | | 6 Sept | | | 2012 | | | St Luke's | | | Church, W | | | Norwood | | | Mark Norris, | | | | | | | | | Senior Adviser on policing, community | | | safety and re-offending, Local Government | | | Association | | | | | | John Smith | Licensing Manager, LB Lambeth | | Colin Fenn | Friends of West Norwood Cemetery | | David Chapman | St Peter's Church, Streatham | | Richard Moore | Thurlow Park Safer Neighbourhood Panel | | Chair | | | Paul Playford | | | Ecclesiastical Insurance Group | | | Leigh Ide | | | Ecclesiastical Insurance Group | | | 2 Oct | | | 2012 | | | Lambeth | | | Town Hall | | | Simon Davies | General Manager for Cable and | | Payphone Crime, British Telecom | | | | | | DI Ash Cooper | British Transport Police | | Metropolitan Police | Acting Inspector | | James Coomber | | The commission members attended the Local Government Association's conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft on 15 June 2012 at which representatives from British Transport Police, the Energy Networks Association, The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, British Telecom, The British Metals Recycling Association, the Environment Agency, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and best practice exemplars all spoke In addition the Chair met with Mark Harrison, National Policing and Crime Advisor, Heritage Crime Programme & Alliance to Reduce Crime against Heritage (ARCH), English Heritage and attended the ARCH Conference at City Hall in October 2012. Councillors Braithwaite and Ogden undertook a site-visit of Glynn's Metal Recycling, Loughborough Junction and met with the owner Paul Glynn and his staff. At its inception the commission issued a press release. A survey was distributed to all faith groups known by the authority (100+) but only two responses were received. A considerable amount of desk-based research was also undertaken by the Scrutiny Team and fed back to the commission. ## Thanks The Commission Would Like To Extend Its Thanks To All Those Named Above For Their contributions to this piece of work ## References Bloomberg (2013) 'Copper Climbs on Stimulus Signal, China Equities Jump' Bloomberg [online], ://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/copper-climbs-onstimulus-signal-china-equities-jump.html (last updated 14 January 2013; accessed January 2013) Bradley et al. (January 2011) Assessing the Importance and value of historic buildings to young people: *final report to English Heritage*, Centre for Urban & Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University British Metals Recycling Association (15 June 2012) 'Metal Theft: the recycling industry perspective' [presentation to LGA conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft] British Transport Police (2012a) 'Freedom of Information request 978-12' British Transport Police [online] ://www.btp.police.uk/pdf/FOI%20Response%20978- 12%20Metal%20Theft%20totals.pdf (accessed January 2013) British Transport Police (2012b) 'Operation Tornado' *British Transport Police* [online] ://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/how_we_tackle_crime/operation_torna do.aspx (accessed January 2013) Crowther P. Deputy Chief Constable (15 June 2012) 'Keynote address' British Transport Police [presentation to LGA conference Licensing scrap metal dealers: councils' role in fighting metal theft] Coomber J. Acting Inspector (October 2012) *Lambeth Metal Crime Overview*, Metropolitan Police Giles G, Lloyd S and Playford P (17 September 2012) 'Theft of Metal' Ecclesiastical Insurance Group [presentation in Taunton] Financial Times (2013) 'ft.com/marketsdata: commodities' *Financial Times* [online] ://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Commodities (accessed January 2013) Glander and Coomber (2012) Crime prevention and reduction - London Borough Case Studies: Metal Theft Reduction LB Bexley Harrison, R. PC (8 November 2011) Emerging Metal Theft Issues - letter to the Chair of the Commission LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (July 2012) *Note of meeting* LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (October 2012) Note of meeting (handwritten) LB Lambeth Metal Theft Commission (September 2012) *Note of meeting* LB Lambeth Community Safety and Police (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission briefing note LB Lambeth Public Realm Division (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission briefing note ## Lb Lambeth Risk And Insurance Team (30 July 2012) Metal Theft Insurance Claims Briefing Note LB Southwark (12 April 2012) 'Art will not be bowed by metal thieves' Southwark Council [online] ://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/731/art_will_not_be_bowed_by_metal_thieves (accessed January 2013) ## Home Office (22 February 2012) Impact Assessment: Tackling Metal Theft - Prohibit Cash Payments And Higher Fines House of Commons Library (10 July 2012) Scrap Metal Dealers Bill - research paper 12/39 House of Commons Transport Committee (Session 2010-12) 'Cable theft on the railway - written evidence from the British Transport Police (CTR 11)' *Parliament* [online] ://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/1609/ctr11.h tm (accessed January 2013) House of Commons Transport Committee (24 January 2012) Cable theft on the railway, London, The Stationery Office Limited Local Government Association (October 2012) Metal Theft Toolkit: Let's prove our mettle, London, Local Government Association Metropolitan Police (31 January 2012) 'Metal Theft Operation' *Metropolitan Police* [online] ://content.met.police.uk/News/Metal-Theft- Operation/1400006525080/1257246745756 (accessed January 2013) Metropolitan Police (18 January 2013) 'Safeguarding residents of Hillingdon and surrounding areas' *Metropolitan Police* [online] ://content.met.police.uk/News/Safeguarding-residents-of-Hillingdon-and-surroundingareas/1400014458782/1257246745756 (accessed January 2013) Sidebottom, A. (2012) 'Metal Theft' *UCL Jill Dando Institute* [online] ://www.ucl.ac.uk/jdibrief/crime/metal-theft (accessed January 2013) South London Press (24 May 2012) 'I bought stolen plaque so I could give it back' South London Press [online] ://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=18772 (accessed January 2013) ## Appendix A - Letter To Public Bill Committee 7 September 2012 ## Public Bill Committee - Scrap Metal Dealers Bill Amendments Dear Here in Lambeth we have established a metal theft scrutiny commission to investigate what steps the council and others can take to reduce metal theft in and around the borough. This follows a spate of high-profile metal thefts here and in neighbouring authorities. Our work continues and we will be drawing our report and recommendations together in October. The commission has a keen interest in the passage of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill and we understand that you are on the Bill committee. We welcome proposals for local authority licensing of scrap metal dealers and consider the Bill a welcome addition to the tools that we and our partners can use to tackle the problem of metal theft. However, from the work we have undertaken it is clear that the ability to impose local conditions on a licence would enable us and our neighbours to better target the particular issues that we face in Lambeth and across South London. This flexibility in the Licensing Act 2003 has already proved successful in enabling the authority to address the local circumstances we face, such as responding to street-drinking. We also believe that such conditions should be allowed irrespective of whether a licensee has been convicted of a relevant offence. As such we urge you to support the amendments by Mr David Winnick to Page 3, Clause 3 that would enable the authority to employ other such conditions that are consistent with preventing crime. Yours sincerely Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite Chair, and on behalf of, LB Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Email: @lambeth.gov.uk ## Appendix B - List Of Scrap Metal Dealers Registered With Lb Lambeth Individual Date Registration Name or Reason for registration Premises address (if applicable) Itinerant collector? registered expires company Paul Barnaby Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Arch 439 Gordon Grove, London, SE5 9DW No 14/09/2010 13/09/2013 Jose Carlos Rodriques Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 08/03/2011 07/03/2014 Mr Tipper Company Occupies premises as scrap metal store 1 Wellfit Street, London, SE24 0HJ Yes 05/08/2011 04/08/2014 Daniel Menino Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 07/09/2011 06/09/2014 Glynn's Metal Recycling Company Occupies premises as scrap metal store 3-11 Wellfit Street London SE24 0JA Yes 20/10/2011 19/10/2014 Carlos Alberto Abreu Ribeiro Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Garage No 17, Stradle Road, London, SW4 6TE Yes 21/10/2011 20/10/2014 Jose Manuel Mendes Soares Individual Occupies premises as scrap metal store Garage No 17, Stradle Road, London, SW4 6TE Yes 21/10/2011 20/10/2014 Adel Testouri Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 01/02/2012 31/01/2015 John Virgo Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None Yes 15/02/2012 14/02/2015 Mr Matthew Henderson Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 20/03/2012 19/03/2015 Daniel Hewett Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 08/05/2012 07/05/2015 JonJon Thompson & Variel Muir Individual Does not occupy premises, lives in Lambeth None No 08/06/2012 07/06/2015 ## Appendix C - Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission Partnership Action Plan - February 2013 Summary/Overview This action plan is the result of in-depth scrutiny of the issue in the borough by the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission. In addition, Lambeth became the first Action to Reduce Heritage Crime (ARCH) borough in London in February 2012. By signing up to ARCH Lambeth has demonstrated its commitment to prioritising metal theft and has adopted a number of responsibilities in agreement with English Heritage which are set out within the Scrutiny Commission's report. The Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission has prioritised its recommendations as either priority 1 (high), 2 (medium) or 3 (low) and provided a time-limit (T) by which the commission expects each to be completed should they be adopted. For example P1/T3 will represent a high priority recommendation with an expected time-limit of 3 months. Progress against actions by accountable officers will be monitored and reviewed by the Commission. Ref OBJECTIVES ACTIONS Lead agency Lead officer 1. Develop intelligence: Increase intelligence of the scale and impact of metal theft in Lambeth to drive targeted, co-ordinated activity that secures the greatest impact for the least investment of resources 1.1 Exercise responsibilities as London's first ARCH borough - Recognise heritage crime, including metal theft, as a priority for the borough through adoption of heritage crime as a priority for the council and the Safer Lambeth Partnership through inclusion in the annual Strategic Assessment and resulting Partnership Plan - Appoint a Councillor to act as Heritage Champion for the borough - Identify a single point of contact (SPOC) for the council for metal theft of sufficient seniority to direct officers and take a strategic approach - Confirm SPOC for metal theft in Lambeth Police (to be of senior rank) - Heads of Service from each responsible area to provide written report against compliance with ARCH criteria to next Scrutiny meeting - Report back on progress against the plan's key milestones | Notes | PRIORITY RANKING/ | |---------------------------------|----------------------| | 1 = high | | | 2 = medium | | | TIME LIMIT (in months) | | | | | | P1/ T3 | | | Agency: Safer Lambeth | | | partners | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Officer(s): Lambeth Council | | | (LBL) Chief Executive/ | | | Lambeth Police Borough | | | Commander | | | P1/ T3 | | | Cllr Lib Peck, Leader of | | | Lambeth Council | | | | | | | | | LBL | | | P1/ T3 | | | | | | Cllr Jack Hopkins/ Adrian | | | Smith | | | | | | | | | | | | MPS | | | P1/ T3 | | | Borough Commander | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL/ MPS | | | P1/ T = next Scrutiny meeting | | | | | | Heads of service for | | | designated areas | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL/MPS | | | P1/ T = Scrutiny meetings going | | | forwards | | | Lead officers as set out in | | | action plan | | | | | | Ref OBJECTIVES | ACTIONS | Lead agency | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Lead officer | | | | 1.2 | | | | Scope scale and risk | | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | Carry out audit of existing assets, estimated value and risk, to | | | | baseline and scope scale and cost of metal theft in Lambeth | | | | - | | | | | | | | Establish priority list from assets audit, devise approach to | | | | target hardening and implement according to priority ranking | | | | and resources available | | | | - | | | | | | | | Establish risk re council buildings | | | | 1.3 | | | | Build problem profile and co-ordinate | | | | intelligence | | | | - | | | | | | | | Devise and introduce alert log to monitor overview of metal | | | | theft | | | | - | | | | | | | | Circulate key contacts with monthly info request/ update | | | | - | | | | | | | | Include a separate classification within CRIS to record metal | | | | theft | | | | - | | | | | | | | Promote use of metal theft tags on CRIS | | | | - | | | | | | | | Cross-refer reports of burglary (domestic/ non-domestic) | | | | - | | | | | | | | Compile initial intelligence profile based on existing database | | | | information | | | | - | | | | | | | | Bid to Treasury for funding for analysis and support | | | | LBL/ Nicole Terrieux (NT) | P2/ T6 | | | | | | | 1.4 | | | | Improve partnership working with the full | | | | range of relevant partners | | | | - | | | | | Build links between the council and the British Transport Police | | | 'fusion units' to ensure information, particularly red-flags on | | | | specific scrap metal dealers, is shared | | | | - | | | | | Build links with the Environment Agency, British Telecom and | | | neighbouring authorities to ensure an accurate picture of the | | | | number of dealers in and around the borough and to explore | | | | undertaking joint action | | | | | | | | 1.5 | | | | Support legitimate Scrap Metal Dealers | | | | - | | | | | Supply checklist reminder and key contacts to report | | | intelligence re suspicious activity or people | | | | 1.6 | | | | Implement legislation as set out in the | | | | Scrap Metal Dealers' Act | | | | - | | | | | Scope out process and determine fee levels based on cost | | | recovery and within legislative limits | | | | - | | | | | Report back to Environment and Community Safety Sub- | | | Committee on how the council disposes of its own scrap metal | | | | to ensure that the value is returned to the council | | | | 1.7 | | | | Ensure value for money in disposal of | | | | council assets, refurbishment of Housing | | | | schemes and properties, and in | | | | regeneration programmes | | | | 2. | | | | Prevention: Deter, delay and disrupt offending through co-ordinated activity | | | | 2.1 | | | | Protect most vulnerable assets | | | | - | | | | | | | | Devise approach to target hardening and implement according | | | | to priority ranking and resources available | | | | - | | | | | | | | Carry out predictive patrolling in vulnerable locations with | | | | support from Trading Standards | | | | Notes | PRIORITY RANKING/ | | | 1 = high | | | | 2 = medium | | 3 = low | | TIME LIMIT (in months) | | | | LBL | P1/ T6 | | | Initial evaluation of loss carried out. | | | | | | | | Mark Nicolson, Insurance | | | | and Risk (MN) | | | | LBL | P3/ T9 | | | Community Safety Analyst | | | | Alert log to be submitted to Partnership Tasking | | | | and Co-ordination (PTAC) Group. | | | | Key contacts to be identified within council | | | | departments, MPS and partner organisations | | | | (e.g. BT) | | | | Resource to be identified. | | | | MPS/ Nominated officer | P1/ T3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Two metal theft flags now available on MPS | | | | crime logging system ('infrastructure'/ 'non- | | | | infrastructure') | | | | Scope for further awareness-raising re | | | | recording of metal theft. | | | | Initial metal theft profile completed in 2011. | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | John Smith, Licensing | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | John Smith, Licensing | | | | | | | | LBL | P1/ T3 | | | See 3.1. | | | | | | | | John Smith, Licensing | | | | LBL | P2/ T6 | | | Report on process, fee levels and anticipated | | | | income to next Scrutiny meeting. | | | | John Smith, Licensing | | | | LBL | P3/ T6 | | | | | | | Sue Foster, Housing | | | | Regeneration and | | | | Environment | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T12 | | | Following evaluation and prioritisation of assets | | | | (see 1.1 above). | | | | NT/ MPS nominated officer | | | | MPS/ LBL Trading Standards | P2/ T12 | | | | | | | Ref OBJECTIVES | ACTIONS | Lead agency | |------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------| | Lead officer | | | | - | | | | | | | | Implement all outstanding recommendations relating to council- | | | | owned or leased buildings from the council's insurers with | | | | immediate effect | | | | - | | | | | | | | Compile briefing on metal theft and key contacts for | | | | dissemination to CCTV Manager/ monitoring staff | | | | - | | | | | | | | Provide list of heritage and memorial assets to CCTV Manager | | | | - | | | | | | | | Replace all metal equipment in council owned public toilets | | | | with plastic where possible | | | | 2.2 | | | | Reduce opportunities for metal theft | | | | - | | | | | | | | Build metal theft vulnerability considerations into requirements | | | | for new developments in the borough through Secured By | | | | Design (SBD) approach | | | | - | | | | | | | | Compile war memorials database | | | | - | | | | | | | | Rank according to 'Protect most vulnerable assets' above | | | | 2.3 | | | | Protect Community assets: Heritage | | | | buildings/ Churches/ Public art/ War | | | | memorials | | | | - | | | | | | | | Protect most vulnerable war memorials with Smartwater | | | | - | | | | | | | | Apply for membership to the 'Alliance to reduce Crime Against | | | | Heritage' through English Heritage | | | | - | | | | | | | | Establish SPOCs for each denomination for churches/ religious | | | | buildings in Lambeth at risk from metal theft | | | | - | | | | | | | | Launch Lambeth as Urban Heritage Watch borough in | | | | association with English Heritage | | | | 2.4 | | | | Protect highways infrastructure and | | | | street furniture (Council) | | | | - | | | | | | | | Share intelligence re scheduled streetworks through inclusion | | | | of MPS SPOC in distribution of weekly circulation list | | | | - | | | | | | | | Agree and establish approach re unscheduled emergency | | | | streetworks | | | | - | | | | | | | | Establish approach and published protocol re verification of on- | | | | site contractors by MPS | | | | - | | | | | | | | Agree council 24/7 contact for MPS to check sites, contractors | | | | and activity | | | | - | | | | | | | | Mirroring approach in 2.4 above, establish approach with TfL | | | | LBL/ MPS | | | | 2.5 | | | | Protect highways infrastructure and | | | | street furniture(TfL) | | | | Notes | PRIORITY RANKING/ | | | 1 = high | | | | 2 = medium | | 3 = low | | TIME LIMIT (in months) | | | | LBL | P1/ T3 | | | | | | | Uzochukwu Nwanze, | | | | Valuation and Asset | | | | Management Services | | | | Marc Nicolson | | | | MPS/LBL | Briefing: P2/ T3 | | | List of known war memorials can be extracted | | | | from In Memoriam 2014. | | | | Nominated officer/ NT | Assets: P2/ T3 | | | LBL/ MPS | | | | MPS nominated officer/ NT/ | | | | LBL Facilities Mgt/ Parks | | | | P3/ T12 (see right) | | | | Dependant on compilation of initial inventory of | | | | assets | | | | To be costed | | | | Dependant on costings | | | | MPS/ LBL | P1/ T3 | | | | | | | MPS: PC Rob Harrison/ PC | | | | Anne Burroughs | | | | LBL: Planning nominated | | | | officer | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T6 | | | All known war memorials in the borough are | | | | logged on the In Memoriam 2014 database. | | | | LBL NT | | | | Lambeth is the first ARCH borough in London. | | | | | | | | MPS contact tbc by MPS | | | | Lambeth Borough | | | | Commander | | | | | | | | MPS/LBL | P3/ T12 | | | Will need to establish what assistance we can | | | | offer and our approach before making contact | | | | Nominated officer/ NT | | | | LBL | P2/ T6 | | | | | | | NT | | | | LBL | | | | Doug Perry | | | | P1/ T3 | | | | Underway as at July 2012, however needs to be | | | | refreshed for MPS SPOC (to be nominated by | | | | Borough Commander) | | | | LBL/ MPS | | | | Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC | | | | P1/ T3 | | | | Unscheduled works are alerted on ad hoc basis | | | | to specific named individuals. Email list can be | | | | updated once SPOC alerted. | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T6 | | | | | | | Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T6 | | | Agree council SPOC or publicise rota. | | | | Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC | | | | P2/ T9 | | | | Establish TfL contact | | | | NT/ MPS SPOC | | | | Ref OBJECTIVES | ACTIONS | |------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Lead officer | | | 2.6 | | | Protect partner assets | | | BT; UK Power networks; Thames Water | | | - | | | | | | Share intelligence re scheduled utility works through inclusion | | | of MPS SPOC and Council CCTV Manager in distribution of | | | weekly circulation list for each agency | | | - | | | | | | Agree and establish approach re unscheduled emergency | | | utility works | | | Schools and colleges | | | - | | | | | | Circulate schools (LA and independents) and colleges in the | | | borough on benefits of Smartwater and offering training | | | 2.7 | | | Reduce impact on emergency services | | | - | | | | | | Compile inventory of dry riser inlets in housing blocks - | | | location and state condition | | | - | | | | | | Undertake an urgent audit of the presence of dry-riser valves at | | | the borough's communal housing blocks and consider | | | introducing warning signs and security at dry-riser locations | | | | | | 2.8 | | | Reduce the likelihood of terrorist attack | | | and its impact | | | - | | | | | | Assess vulnerability to communications links for command and | | | control centre (Police stations/ Main Command Centre - | | | Lambeth) | | | - | | | | | | Assess vulnerability to communications links for CCTV control | | | room | | | - | | | | | | Ensure communications system back up plan in place | | ## 3. Enforcement - Compile and maintain master list of registered SMDs - Carry out joint visits 4 x per year 3.1 Establish ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of registered scrap metal dealers (SMDs). Ensure that registered dealers are adhering to legislation re cashless payments. 3.2 Lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for SMDs - Lead on the development and implementation of a voluntary code of conduct for SMDs in the borough based on best practice identified in the Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission report - Following the development of the draft code of conduct lead on negotiations with neighbouring boroughs to secure commitment to implementing the code across the sub-region, laying the foundations for future partnership work against metal theft and demonstrate to the rest of London that by working together metal theft can be driven out of the area - Compile and maintain master list of registered MSOs LBL 3.3 Establish ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of registered Motor Salvage Operators (MSOs) also known as 'car breakers'. - Carry out joint visits 4 x per year (MPS/ Trading Standards/ Licensing) to check compliance in most cases with MPS support. Notes PRIORITY RANKING/ 1 = high 2 = medium 3 = low TIME LIMIT (in months) LBL/ MPS P2/ T6 Doug Perry/ MPS SPOC LBL/ MPS P2/ T9 Smartwater kits to be purchased by schools and colleges themselves NT/ MPS SPOC This action especially important re fire safety Phase 1 P1/ T6 - inventory LBL to compile in partnership with housing providers Phase 1 P1/ T12 - secure Phase 1: Lambeth Living Phase 2 P2/ T12 - inventory Phase 2 P2/ T18 - secure Phase 2: other social housing providers operating in the borough P1/ T6 Communications back-up plan in place for MPS buildings LBL Stephen Tippell/ MPS Counter-terrorism/ LBL Paul Randall/ CCTV Manager LBL P1/ T6 Licensing/ Trading Standards Ongoing re visits When designing an ongoing regime of engagement and monitoring of SMDs the regime is required to utilise the full range of powers currently available to the council and ensure compliance with the terms of existing registrations. P1/ T3 Liaise with Lambeth MPS and Operation Ferrous LBL Cabinet Member Cllr Jack Hopkins/ LBL Licensing P2/T6 LBL Cabinet Member Cllr Jack Hopkins/ Chair of Lambeth Metal Theft Scrutiny Commission/ LBL Licensing P1/ T6 Licensing/ Trading Standards Ongoing re visits P1/ T6 One listed SMD in borough. Theft of motor vehicles has risen in other boroughs. Rate appears to have remained stable in Lambeth. Theft of motor vehicle | Ref OBJECTIVES | ACTIONS | Lead agency | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Lead officer | | | | - | | | | | | | | Develop compulsory guidance material for MSOs to adhere to | | | | continue lawfully trading | | | | - | | | | | Contact itinerant dealers and Scrap Metal Dealers (where | | | possible) to ensure full compliance with current legislation and | | | | regulatory requirements | | | | - | | | | | | | | Create application forms for new and existing businesses | | | | following guidance from Central Government. Design form will | | | | follow legislative requirements | | | | - | | | | | | | | Compile and maintain master intel list on unregistered SMD | | | | premises and operators for legal sanction | | | | 3.4 | | | | Target metal thieves, illegal scrap metal | | | | dealers and Motor Salvage Operators. | | | | | | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | Undertake joint operations such as Operation Cubo and Metal | | | | Theft Days of Action | | | | - | | | | | Consider equipping all officers on street duties with portable | | | infrared lights to enable them to immediately identify property | | | | marking such as Smartwater | | | | 3.5 | | | | Share intelligence and good practice | | | | - | | | | | | | | Share intel re current picture with Croydon and neighbouring | | | | boroughs | | | | - | | | | | | | | Establish initial MPS/ Council borough network with Croydon, | | | | Bexley, Southwark to share intel and good practice | | | | 3.6 | | | | Target metal theft repeat offenders | | | | - | | | | | | | | Flag details of known/ previous offenders via ANPR operations | | | | MPS/ LBL | | | | 4. | | | | Awareness and reassurance: Increase awareness of metal theft, incidents and risk; the community role in reducing metal theft, methods of reporting; and Partnership activity | | | | - | | | | | | | | Regular item at P-TAC | | | | 4.1 | | | | Increase awareness of metal theft, | | | | incidents and risk | | | | - | | | | | | | | Raise awareness of metal theft in Lambeth to residents to | | | | encourage detection and reporting of theft. Include SNTs, | | | | Neighbourhood Watch; TRAs and Lambeth Living; Friends of | | | | Parks. Church wardens or Vicars. | | | | - | | | | | | | | Make clear to residents what number they should call if they | | | | witness suspicious activity | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | | | | | Identify opportunities for joint training between the police, | | | council officers and partners so that each are aware of each | | | | other's issues and powers | | | | | | | | Notes | PRIORITY RANKING/ | | | 1 = high | | | | 2 = medium | | 3 = low | | TIME LIMIT (in months) | | | | sensors appears to be increasing. | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | | | | | | | | | MPS/ LBL | P1/ T6 | | | | | | | Intel list to be led by | | | | Licensing/ Trading Standards | | | | with MPS | | | | | | | | P1/ T6 | | | | ANPR ops - joint with | | | | Licensing (e.g. Op Cubo) | | | | Operations: Ongoing | | | | MPS | | | | P2/ T6 | | | | Borough Commander | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T6 | | | | | | | NT/ nominated MPS SPOC | | | | | | | | P2/ T6 | | | | | | | | LBL/ MPS | | | | P2/ T6 | | | | LBL NT | | | | (PTAC: Ongoing - every two weeks) | | | | Approach to include definition, what to do and | | | | who to contact | | | | | | | | | | | | MPS contact tbc by Borough | | | | Commander | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL | | | | | | | | P2/ T6 | | | | Community Safety/ Lambeth | | | | Police 'crib sheet' | | | | | | | | | | | | Communications - wider | | | | awareness | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL/ MPS | | | | P1/ T9 | | | | Licensing/ MPS SPOC | | | | | | | | Ref OBJECTIVES | ACTIONS | |------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | Lead officer | | | 4.2 | | | Build awareness among frontline officers | | | - | | | | | | Develop and distribute factsheet and key contacts for MPS | | | SNTs and all council staff to focus on frontline staff | | | - | | | | | | Provide press releases to publicise related activity and promote | | | successes in combating metal theft. | | | | | | 4.3 | | | Develop public awareness through a | | | communications forward plan which | | | reflects the themes set out within 4 | | | above | | | | | | - | | | | Link with British Telecom's public relations team to identify | | opportunities for a shared communications campaign | | | Notes | PRIORITY RANKING/ | |----------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 1 = high | | | 2 = medium | | | TIME LIMIT (in months) | | | | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T6 | | LBL NT | | | MPS contact tbc by Borough | | | Commander | | | LBL/ MPS | P2/ T3 | | Planned activity to coincide with national days of | | | action (at least 4 releases per year). | | | | | | | | | LBL and MPS officers | | | responsible for actions as set | | | out in this plan/ Claire Melia | | | | | | | | | | | | LBL | | | P1/ T6 | | | | | | Communications/ Community | | | Safety | | | P1/ T6 | | # Appendix D - Lb Bexley Metal Theft Awareness Publicity Materials

en

0771-pdf

From: Drury Chris Sent: 24 September 2018 14:01 To: 'Nigel Morton' Cc: Minerals Team Subject: RE: Birchover Quarry Nigel Proposed Road Closure Order under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended): To Prohibit the Use of Main Street, Birchover by Traffic to Facilitate Water Main Renewal Works by Severn Trent Water Limited Thank you for your email on 20 September 2018 (with temporary street works road closure notice) advising us about the above proposed road closure to enable pipe maintenance at Main Street, Birchover. We note that the full width of the carriageway will be closed (inter-alia to HGV traffic to and from Birchover Quarry) for ten working days during the period 1st 10th October 2018. As you know, condition 41 (Signage and Routeing of Heavy Vehicles) of the planning permission NP/DD/0715/0722 was imposed to minimise the impact on the local public highways and communities by heavy goods and other vehicles serving the site in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and environmental amenity. I think that the route notification measures approved and implemented under condition 41 have worked well, and provided they remain in place before and after the temporary road closure then there is no issue arising in relation to compliance with the condition. The fact that your customers will not be able to comply with the routeing instructions during the period of the road closure is clearly is a matter which is beyond the control of your company. We had discussed the possibility of alternate use of the Blockstone haul road linking Birchover Road to Lees Road (north) to avoid Stanton in Peak village. However, as confirmed, my colleague Nicola has spoken to Blockstone who have stated that they are not back on the New Pilhough Quarry site until December 2018; and the planning permission for New Pilhough requires the haul road to be gated and locked while not in use. In any case you have expressed concern that other difficulties may arise in relation to this potential option (e.g. insurance cover). In the circumstances thank you for confirming in your email of 21 September 2018 (below) the alternative arrangements we discussed. Please also thank Steve Helliwell for his assistance on this matter which I am sure will help to minimise the impact of any additional traffic through Stanton in Peak village during this ten day period. Kind regards Chris Chris Drury Senior Minerals Planner Planning Service Peak District National Park Authority Telephone: 01629 816292 (direct line) Mobile: 07890 274643 E-mail: chris.drury@peakdistrict.gov.uk From: Nigel Morton <Nigel.Morton@suon.net> Sent: 21 September 2018 16:17 To: Drury Chris <chris.drury@peakdistrict.gov.uk> Subject: Birchover Quarry Chris, I can confirm our discussions regarding the closure of Main Street and the diversion route through Stanton in Peak between the 1st and 10th October. Steve Helliwell has been in contact with Birchover Stone Ltd. s principal customers and advised them of the road closure. He will attempt to supply their advanced needs during the week commencing 24th September. If this is not possible it has been explained that articulated vehicles should not be sent during the period of the diversion and he has endeavoured to restrict collections to two days per week. I will contact Stanton in Peak Parish Council to convey this information. Regards Nigel This email has been sent from Suon Limited or from one of its related companies. The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Suon Limited is registered in England No 1512619. The registered office address of Suon Limited and its related companies is Capstone House, Prospect Park, Dunston Way, Dunston Road, Chesterfield S41 9RD. This email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium.

en

4454-pdf

# Operational Selection Policy Osp 51 Records Of Royal Mail And Its Predecessors 1969-2006 ## | Section | Title | Page | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------| | | Contents | 1 | | 1. | Authority | 5 | | 2. | Scope | 5 | | 6 | 3. | Responsibilities of Royal Mail and its predecessors, 1969- | | 2006 | | | | 4. | Records appraisal in Royal Mail | 7 | | 8 | 5. | | | Relevant collection themes in The National Archives' | | | | Acquisition and Disposition Strategy | | | | 9 | 6. | | | Royal Mail and its predecessors' functions and activities, | | | | 1969-2006 | | | | 6.1 | | | | Boards and committees | | | | 9 | | | | 6.1.1 | Relevant TNA theme | 9 | | 6.1.2 | | | | Governing boards, committees and executive teams | | | | 9 | | | | 6.1.2.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 10 | | 10 | 6.1.3 | | | Non governing committees, project and programme | | | | boards | | | | 6.1.3.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 11 | | 6.2 | | | | Collection and delivery | | | | 11 | | | | 6.2.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 11 | | 6.2.2 | | | | Letters and packets | | | | 11 | | | | 6.2.2.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 12 | | 6.2.3 | | | | Parcels | | | | 13 | | | | 6.2.3.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 14 | | 6.2.4 | | | | Technology | | | | 14 | | | | 6.2.4.1 | | | | Letter mechanisation and automation | | | | 14 | | | | 6.2.4.1.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 15 | | | 6.2.4.2 | | | | Parcel mechanisation and automation | | | | 15 | | | | 6.2.4.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 16 | | | 6.2.4.3 | | | | Postcodes | | | | 16 | | | | 6.2.4.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 17 | | | 6.3 | | | | Employer/employee relations | | | | 17 | | | | 6.3.1 | TNA themes | 17 | | 6.3.2 | | | | Industrial relations | | | | 17 | | | | 6.3.2.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 18 | 6.3.3 Recruitment, grading, pay and conditions 18 6.3.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 19 6.3.4 Internal communications, training and development 20 6.3.4.1 Internal communications 20 6.3.4.1.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 20 6.3.4.2 Training and development 20 6.3.4.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 21 6.3.5 Pensions 21 6.3.5.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 22 6.3.6 Staff records 22 6.3.6.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 22 6.4 Environment 23 6.4.1 TNA themes 23 6.4.2 Background 23 6.4.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 23 6.5 Equipment, fixtures and fittings 23 6.5.1 TNA themes 23 6.5.2 Equipment 23 6.5.2.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 24 6.5.2.2 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 24 6.5.3 Fixtures and fittings 24 6.5.3.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 25 6.5.4 Uniforms 25 6.5.4.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 26 6.6 Financial management 26 6.6.1 TNA themes 26 6.6.2 Background 26 6.6.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 26 6.7 Information technology 27 6.7.1 TNA themes 27 6.7.2 Background 27 6.7.3 Letters and parcels 28 6.7.3.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 28 6.7.4 Counters 28 6.7.4.1 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 29 6.8 Marketing 29 6.8.1 Relevant TNA themes 29 6.8.2 Advertising 29 6.8.2.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 29 6.8.3 Corporate identity 30 6.8.3.1 Royal Cypher 30 6.8.3.1.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 30 6.8.3.2 Branding 30 6.8.3.2.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 30 6.8.4 Market research 31 6.8.4.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 31 6.8.5 Public relations 31 6.8.5.1 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 31 6.9 Papers of senior directors 31 6.9.1 Relevant TNA themes 31 31 6.9.2 Background and records that will be selected for permanent preservation 6.10 Philately 32 6.10.1 Relevant TNA themes 32 6.10.2 Background 32 6.10.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 33 6.11 Planning 33 6.11.1 Relevant TNA themes 33 6.11.2 Background 33 6.11.3 Records that will be selected for permanent preservation 34 6.12 Post Office counters operations and services 34 6.12.1 Relevant TNA themes 34 6.12.2 Background 34 6.12.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 37 6.13 Postal services and post offices abroad 38 6.13.1 Relevant TNA themes 38 6.13.2 Background 38 6.13.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 39 6.14 Property management 39 6.14.1 Relevant TNA themes 39 6.14.2 Background 39 6.14.3 Records that will be considered for permanent preservation 39 6.15 Regulation 40 6.15.1 Relevant TNA themes 40 | 6.15.2 | Background | 40 | |------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | 6.15.3 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 41 | | 6.16 | | | | Reorganisation | | | | 41 | | | | 6.16.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 41 | | 6.16.2 | Background | 41 | | 6.16.3 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 43 | | 6.17 | | | | Security | | | | 43 | | | | 6.17.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 43 | | 6.17.2 | Background | 44 | | 6.17.3 | Records that will be considered for permanent preservation | 44 | | 6.18 | | | | Transport | | | | 44 | | | | 6.18.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 44 | | 6.18.2 | Introduction | 45 | | 6.18.3 | | | | Air | | | | 45 | | | | 6.18.3.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 45 | | 6.18.4 | | | | Rail | | | | 45 | | | | 6.18.4.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 46 | | 6.18.5 | | | | Road | | | | 47 | | | | 6.18.5.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 47 | | 6.19 | | | | War and civil emergencies | | | | 48 | | | | 6.19.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 48 | | 6.19.2 | | | | War | | | | 48 | | | | 6.19.2.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 48 | | 6.19.3 | | | | Civil emergencies | | | | 49 | | | | 6.19.3.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 49 | | 6.20 | | | | Associations and societies | | | | 49 | | | | 6.20.1 | Relevant TNA themes | 49 | | 49 | 6.20.2 | | | Post Office Recreation Council and Royal Mail Sports | | | | Foundation | | | | 6.20.2.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 50 | | 6.20.3 | | | | Clubs | | | | 50 | | | | 6.20.3.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 50 | | 6.20.4 | | | | Charitable societies | | | | 51 | | | | 6.20.4.1 | Records that will be selected for permanent preservation | 51 | | Annex 1 | Public records and the Post Office Act 1969 | 52 | ## 1. Authority 1.1 The National Archives (TNA) announced in its Acquisition and Disposition Policy Statement (February 2000) its intention of developing Operational Selection Policies (OSPs) across the government. These apply the collection themes described in the Policy to the records of individual departments and agencies subject to the Public Records Acts. 1.2 The records of the Post Office and of Royal Mail are Public Records by virtue of the Post Office Act 1969 Sections 16 (2)(b) and 75 (1) (see Annex 1). 1.3 OSPs are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may, therefore, be reviewed and revised in the light of comments received from the users of the records, archives professionals, TNA, Royal Mail, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review but we would welcome comments at any time. The extent of any review and revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. 1.4 In addition to TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy (March 2007), The Royal Mail Archive also takes its guidance from the British Postal Museum & Archive's (BPMA) Acquisition and Disposition Policy. This is available at: http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/aboutus/organisation/policies/ 1.5 If you have any comments about this policy, please contact Vicky Parkinson, Head of Archives and Records Management at: The British Postal Museum & Archive Freeling House Phoenix Place London WC1X 0DL vicky.parkinson@postalheritage.org.uk ## 2. Scope 2.1 This OSP provides guidance for the selection of records for permanent retention, which were created or received by Royal Mail and its predecessors, from 1969, when the Post Office was nationalised, to 2006 when the United Kingdom (UK) letters market was opened up to full competition. All records identified by this OSP as being of historical importance will be kept in The Royal Mail Archive, a designated place of deposit. 2.2 Until 1969, Royal Mail's predecessor, the Post Office, was a government department, and its expenditure was controlled by the Treasury. Therefore it was subject to the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. Subsequent Acts of Parliament relating to the Post Office and its successors have ensured that the records created by the body are still public records. 2.3 Central government records relating to Royal Mail and its predecessors will not be covered by this OSP, although this OSP may aid departments when developing their own OSPs. 2.4 The Post Office was responsible for telecommunications in the UK until that side of the business became a separate public corporation in 1981, trading as British Telecom. In 1984, British Telecom was privatised and, since 1991, has traded as BT. Records relating solely to telecommunication matters are not covered by this OSP: these records were largely transferred to BT between 1991 and 1998. However, where records exist that relate to both postal and telecommunication matters, this OSP will apply. This is because these records were not transferred to BT but remained in the custody of The Royal Mail Archive. 2.5 Girobank was sold to the Alliance & Leicester Building Society in 1990: this OSP does not cover records created or received by Girobank. 2.6 This OSP is not an exhaustive statement of all records that will be selected for permanent preservation but it is intended to provide clear direction to those who are making review decisions. 2.7 This OSP is intended to cover all formats of record from paper and electronic records through to photographic and audio-visual e.g. files, publications, sound recordings, audio and video cassettes, DVDs, maps, plans, posters, e-mails, databases. ## 3. Responsibilities Of Royal Mail And Its Predecessors, 1969-2006 Between 1969 and 2006, the organisation now known as Royal Mail, experienced sweeping changes to its functions, structure and nomenclature. In 1969, following the Post Office Act of that year, the General Post Office (as it was then known) ceased to be a branch of government and became a nationalised industry, established as a public corporation. The 'General' was dropped and it was known simply as the 'Post Office'. It was overseen by the newly created Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications whose Minister reported to Parliament. The Act also resulted in the creation of an ombudsman, the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC). At this time, it was responsible for inland and overseas letter and post services, telecommunications, Girobank and post office counter services. It also enjoyed a monopoly on the UK letters market. By 2006, it all looked very different. In 2001, in the light of the Postal Services Act the year before, the Post Office became a public limited company wholly owned by the government. It also changed its name to Consignia. In 2002, the name was changed to Royal Mail. The businesses remained unaffected by this change in name. The Postal Services Act also established a new regulatory regime with the creation of the Postal Services Commission (PostComm), an independent postal regulator and a new user representative body, Postwatch replacing POUNC. In 2006, Royal Mail's main businesses consisted of Post Office Ltd, Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide. The telecommunications side of the business had become a separate public corporation in 1981, while Girobank was sold in 1990. 2006 marked the end, after 350 years, of Royal Mail's monopoly of the UK letters market with the introduction, on 1 January, of full competition into that market. Licensed operators were now able to collect and deliver any type of mail, from single letters to bulk mailings. The market had gradually been opened up since 2003 when other postal operators were allowed to compete for bulk mailings of 4,000 items or more. Despite the introduction of competition, Royal Mail was and still is required to provide a universal postal service for First and Second Class mail with one collection and one delivery guaranteed each working day at a uniform price throughout the UK. The post office network, despite its vital role in providing access to government services and maintaining rural communities, faced and still faces an uncertain future as it lost revenue through, primarily, the withdrawal of government business and developments in technology. Many post offices ran at a loss, forcing them to close. Although the post office network tried to replace lost revenue with the introduction of new services, the network, increasingly, had to rely on government subsidies to sustain it. ## 4. Records Appraisal In Royal Mail 4.1 Many of the records of Royal Mail and its predecessors were, until 1987, registered into file series using alpha-numeric codes e.g. MKD/L/0022. These codes referred (if only loosely) to departments. In 1988, the referencing was changed to a running numeric code that had no association with a department e.g. 000099. At present, The Royal Mail Archive follows the 'Grigg system' to appraise these registered files. This system is used by TNA in partnership with most government departments although it is now under review. Files are reviewed five years after they were closed (a process known as 'First Review') to see if they have any continuing administrative value to Royal Mail or might be of historic value in the future. Assuming that the files have survived First Review, they are reviewed once more (a process known as 'Second Review') 25 years after they were created to see if they should be selected for permanent preservation. 4.2 With the advent of electronic records, Royal Mail is gradually moving away from the paper based file registry system described above. Staff at The British Postal Museum & Archive, Royal Mail's corporate heritage function, will work with Royal Mail to ensure that electronic records deemed to be of historic importance are selected for permanent retention. 4.3 Some records, such as those relating to certain boards and committees, posters and a number of publications, have been identified for permanent preservation and are transferred to The Royal Mail Archive at the earliest opportunity. 4.4 The Royal Mail Archive also receives some records on an ad-hoc basis e.g. because staff are moving offices and have discovered records that should be selected for permanent preservation. ## 5. Relevant Collection Themes In The National Archives' Acquisition And Disposition Strategy The Acquisition and Disposition Strategy (March 2007) outlines those themes which will assist staff to appraise and select records for permanent retention in The Royal Mail Archive. Of these themes, the following are of potential relevance to the work of Royal Mail and its predecessors: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution; 3.1.2 External relations and defence; 3.1.3 Administration of justice and the maintenance of internal security including immigration and citizenship; 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.1.6 Reform of the state's organisational structure, including constitutional arrangements and changes in the machinery of central and local government; 3.2 Interaction of the state with its citizens and its impact on and documentation of the physical environment; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries; 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government. ## 6. Royal Mail And Its Predecessors' Functions And Activities, 1969- 2006 The functions and activities listed below led to the creation of records that will be considered for permanent retention in The Royal Mail Archive: ## 6.1 Boards And Committees 6.1.1 Relevant Tna Theme The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution. ## 6.1.2 Governing Boards, Committees And Executive Teams Between 1969 and 2006, a number of boards, committees and executive teams participated in the governance of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, the most senior of these being what is now known as the Royal Mail Holdings Board. This Board was set up in 1934 and was originally known as the Post Office Board. It was responsible for setting policy and strategy and monitoring performance. It was briefly renamed the Consignia Board in 2001 before becoming the Royal Mail Holdings Board in 2002. Other important boards, committees and executive teams involved in the governance of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, include the Post Office Management Board, which was created in 1969 to oversee the day to day running of the Post Office and disbanded in 1980, and the Group Executive Team (GET). The GET is responsible for developing and monitoring strategy, annual operating plans and budgets for the Royal Mail Holdings Board's approval. It also reviews operational activities and agrees policy if it has not been set aside for the Royal Mail Holdings Board to consider. The GET was originally established in 1980 as the Chairman's Executive Committee before becoming the Post Office Executive Committee (POEC) in 1992. It was renamed the Executive Board and then the Management Board prior to becoming the Group Executive Team in 2006. GET reports to the Royal Mail Holdings Board, while the Post Office Management Board reported to the Post Office Board, the predecessor to the Royal Mail Holdings Board. Other examples of Royal Mail Holdings Board committees include the following: Audit Committee; Investment Board (formerly known as the Major Project Expenditure Committee or MaPEC); Investment Committee; Mergers and Acquisitions Board; Pensions Committee. The official records of boards, committees and executive teams usually adhere to a particular format and consist of the agenda and minutes of meetings, papers circulated prior to or during the meetings, and reports, perhaps documenting the outcomes of an investigation that a committee had been tasked to carry out. Due to the role they play in setting the policy and strategy of Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office, the records of the Royal Mail Holdings Board, its boards, committees and executive teams and all their predecessor bodies will be selected for permanent preservation. This also applies to the records of the boards, committees and executive teams of Royal Mail Letters, Post Office Ltd and Parcelforce Worldwide. ## 6.1.3 Non Governing Committees, Project And Programme Boards Non governing committees, project and programme boards can be found throughout Royal Mail and its predecessors, Consignia and the Post Office. They oversee specific matters, investigate short term issues or manage projects and programmes. Whether the records of non governing committees or project and programme board should be selected is a decision that should be made on a case by case basis. Non governing committees or project and programme boards are usually set up to research a particular subject or to oversee the running of a particular project, programme or product. Factors to take into account when considering whether or not to keep the records of a project or programme board include the risk, impact and innovative nature of the project or programme being undertaken together with the amount of money being spent on it and how it is being financed. The deliberations of committees set up to investigate local or short term issues will be reflected in records of more senior levels and are unlikely to be appropriate for permanent preservation. For the records of the Stamp Advisory Committee see Section 6.10. Routine administrative, financial and other housekeeping records will not be selected for permanent preservation, and should be destroyed in accordance with the relevant retention schedule. ## 6.2 Collection And Delivery 6.2.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity of government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.2.2 Letters And Packets Royal Mail Letters collects, sorts and delivers letters and packets within the United Kingdom (UK) and overseas. It was established as a separate business within the Post Office in 1986 as part of a major reorganisation. For most of the period covered by this OSP, the Post Office maintained its monopoly on the collection and delivery of letters. In 1969, around 30 million letters per day were being posted. After a fall in the amount of mail being posted in the 1970s, the 1980s saw an increase so that, by 1986, 42 million letters were being posted daily to 23 million addresses. By 2006, this had almost doubled with around 84 million letters a day being posted to 27 million addresses. During this period, the collection and delivery of mail underwent a number of major changes. One of the most important of these happened just before 1969, with the launch of the two tier letter service, also known as first class and second class, on 16 September 1968. Other changes include the withdrawal of Bank Holiday collections in 1975, the withdrawal of Sunday collections in 1976 and their reinstatement in 1989, and increases, from time to time, in postal rates. However, almost all of the significant changes to the collection and delivery of mail happened after 2001 when the Post Office Corporation became a public limited company. These were: promising that first delivery would arrive by 9 30am (something that was later dropped due to the strain it placed on operations), the introduction of single daily delivery in 2004 and the opening up of the UK letters market in 2006, thereby ending a monopoly that had existed since 1636. 2006 also saw the introduction of 'Pricing in Proportion', whereby the cost of posting an item was calculated according to its physical size, thickness and weight (prior to the introduction of 'Pricing in Proportion', postage rates were based on the weight of an item so the heavier it was the more it cost to post). The change from government department to that of public corporation in 1969 marked the beginning of the launch of a range of services aimed primarily at business users, who posted the majority of mail. Examples include Datapost, launched in 1970 as an overnight, door to door service aimed initially at moving computer data and other urgent packages, Intelpost in 1980, the world's first public international facsimile transmission service, which was initially introduced between Toronto and London, and Edipost in the early 1990s, the world's first national commercial service for converting electronic messages to paper for delivery by first class post. Records relating to significant changes to the collection and delivery of mail, as outlined above will be selected, due to the impact they have had on the way in which Royal Mail Letters operated and the impact that they have had on the general public. Records relating to the launch of new services, such as Datapost and Intelpost will also be selected. ## 6.2.3 Parcels Parcelforce Worldwide provides a collection and delivery service for urgent parcels and packages within the United Kingdom and throughout the world. Unlike Royal Mail Letters, it has never had a monopoly and operates in direct competition with other parcel carriers. From the establishment of the service in 1883, the process of collecting, sorting and delivering parcels changed very little until the launch, in the late 1960s, of the Parcel Post Plan (PPP) aimed at mechanising the sorting process. By the mid 1980s, parcel sorting had been concentrated on 34 large centres from the previous system of 1200 small local sorting offices. See Section 6.2.4.2 for more details about the PPP and parcels mechanisation. The early 1970s saw a fall in the number of parcels being carried, so much so that the Post Office considered withdrawing the service. However, cost cuts, a more realistic pricing structure, collaboration with the unions and better marketing saw the service make a profit and increase its share of the market. In 1983, it was decided to increase the maximum weight of parcels it would deliver from under 10kg (22lbs) to 22.5kgs (50lbs). In 1986, as a result of a major restructure within the Post Office, the parcel service became a separate business known as Royal Mail Parcels. The mid 1980s also saw the launch of a number of new services, such as Tynerider, which offered overnight delivery in the North East of England and to the Cumbrian coast, Trakback, a proof of delivery service that utilised barcodes to enable to customers to confirm that their parcel had been delivered, and SuperService, which guaranteed delivery in 48 hours. The 1990s heralded a number of restructures and further attempts by the business to renovate its collection and delivery system so that it could compete more effectively with other parcel carrier businesses. In 1990, Royal Mail Parcels was renamed Parcelforce. In 1997, Parcelforce was re-branded as Parcelforce Worldwide. The government also considered privatising Parcelforce but this idea was eventually dropped. This period also saw efforts by Parcelforce to become more competitive culminating in Project Apollo, which saw the business move away from loss making services, close many of its delivery centres and all its distribution centres apart from Coventry, which had opened in 2001. Records that document the problems the service faced in the 1970s and its recovery will be selected as will records relating to the launch of new services. Records will also be kept that document the restructuring programmes it went through and Parcelforce's reaction to its proposed privatisation. Records will also be kept that document Parcelforce's efforts to become more competitive by renovating its collection and delivery system. ## 6.2.4 Technology The collection, sorting, cancellation and delivery of mail have traditionally been very labour intensive. While this is still the case with regard to the collection and delivery of mail, the widespread mechanisation and automation of letter and parcel handling equipment, which began in earnest in the 1970s, transformed the sorting and cancelling elements of this process. In the late 1960s the Post Office introduced a programme aimed at restructuring the postal service. The programme was set out in the 'Letter Post Plan' and the 'Parcel Post Plan' and aimed at maximising benefits that mechanisation could offer in terms of efficiency, cost savings and benefits to the customer. Both plans were underway by the early 1970s and included the completion of national postcoding and the concentration and extensive mechanisation of mail handling. ## 6.2.4.1 Letter Mechanisation And Automation The Letter Post Plan (LPP) proposed that traffic should be concentrated at a large number of prospective, interlinked Mechanised Letter Offices (MLOs) to be built and finished by the early 1980s. This was because it was more economic to concentrate sorting in a smaller number of offices. The role of other processing offices was to be reduced. However, implementation of the LPP was delayed during the 1970s due to the withdrawal of union co-operation in some areas, the search for suitable sites, construction delays, the high cost of machinery, operational problems and some alteration in the location of MLO sites. By 1974, letter code-sort equipment had only been installed in 15 offices. During that year the target of building 120 MLOs was reduced to 80. By the end of 1981, 47 MLOs were operational. The LPP was virtually complete by the end of 1985. By then considerable developments had taken place in the design and production of mechanised letter handling equipment. Most MLOs equipped from the early 1980s were provided with second generation code-sort installations and modifications were produced to improve the performance of first generation equipment. From the mid 1980s, the Post Office concentrated on developing more advanced sorting systems, particularly the application of Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The early 1990s saw the introduction of the MTT system (Machine de Tri à Tasseurs or Mail Transport System), which sorts mail, and the Culler Facer Canceller, which culls, faces and cancels the mail, while the mid 1990s heralded the arrival of the Integrated Mail Processor (IMP), which does everything from segregate and face the mail to read addresses, cancel and pre-sort the mail. Other important developments include: the introduction of the Flats Sorting Machines (which are capable of sorting oversize envelopes), sequence sorting machines (which sort mail into postmen's and women's delivery walks) and Address Interpretation (whereby difficult to read addresses are sent to Mail Data Entry Centres (MDECs) to be deciphered. Prior to this, such addresses were deciphered in an Automated Processing Centre (APC)). Records relating to the research, development, field trials and implementation of letter handling equipment will be selected as will records relating to the building of MLOs. Records relating to the LPP and that document the withdrawal and reinstatement of union support for mechanisation will be selected. Records that document the changes in working conditions of staff that would have come about as a result of mechanisation will also be selected. ## 6.2.4.2 Parcel Mechanisation And Automation Circulation of parcel traffic was reorganised under the Parcel Post Plan (PPP), the biggest restructuring programme since the service was introduced in the 1880s. It projected the concentration of all outward parcel sorting work at about 30 major mechanised centres, called Parcel Concentration Offices (PCOs), linked by direct transport routes. Parcels would be conveyed within each concentration area by road and between centres by rail, including freightliner. A major element in the Plan was to replace manually handled mail bags and wicker baskets with containers of various sizes for use within and between PCOs. Standard wheeled containers were designed for use in road, rail and freightliner transportation. An extensive building programme was initiated to replace many of the existing parcel offices which were over 60 years old and unsuitable for the installation of machinery. By 1974, 12 PCOs were already in operation, although not all were fully functional. The remainder were scheduled to be opened by 1978-1979. Progress and extension of existing PCOs continued during the 1980s. In the very early days of postal mechanisation belt conveyors and chutes were the only mechanical aids to parcel handling. During the post-war period, and particularly after the introduction of the Post Office's Parcel Post Plan in 1967, a variety of band and chain conveyors, rising conveyors, glacis fixtures, parcel containers, container transporters, tilt band and tilt tray parcel sorting machines and other mechanical devices were installed in parcel sorting offices. Mechanical equipment and the construction of a number of Parcel Concentration Offices during the 1970s was designed to increase cost effectiveness, end the use of mail bags and wicker baskets, limit manual handling of heavy loads, reduce the rate of parcel damage and improve safety and the working environment for staff. Records relating to the research, development, field trials and implementation of parcel handling equipment will be selected as will records relating to the building of PCOs. Records relating to the PPP will be selected as will records that document the changes in the working conditions of staff that would have come about as a result of mechanisation. ## 6.2.4.3 Postcodes Major advances in postcoding took place between 1959 and 1974 when the Post Office developed a system of postcodes to facilitate the mechanical sorting of letters. Initial experiments involving address coding by the public and the use of code-sort machinery took place in Norwich from 1959. After limited success, a revised alphanumeric system of postcodes was introduced in October 1966. By the end of 1974 the whole of the United Kingdom had been allocated postcodes and Norwich was recoded. Implementation of the postcode system was fundamental to the Post Office's Letter Post Plan and Mechanised Letter Office scheme. Automatic coding and sorting machinery was not normally brought into use in an office until a year or two after postal codes had been introduced in that area. The new code-sort machines, introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, employed single operators who typed the postcode on the letter onto a keyboard; this was then translated into machine readable form and printed on the envelope as a series of phosphor dots. Subsequent outward and inward sorting operations involved machine reading of this code. Records that show how postcodes were allocated will be selected as will records that document how the Post Office set about persuading businesses and the general public to use postcodes. Records will also be selected that document growing public awareness of postcodes and the social impact that they had. ## 6.3 Employer/Employee Relations In 1971, the Post Office employed 414, 824 people (excluding subpostmasters) or about one in fifty of the UK's working population. At the time, it was the biggest single assembly of labour in Europe. Even though this figure had more than halved by 2006, it was and still is one of the biggest and most labour intensive industries in the UK. This has made good relations between the business and its staff essential to its success, an issue that it has been grappling with throughout the period covered by this OSP. ## 6.3.1 Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.3.2 Industrial Relations As such a large employer the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, has always had to be concerned with issues of Industrial Relations, and it has dealt with representative bodies of staff, such as Trade Unions, since the nineteenth century. When the Post Office Corporation was established in 1969 this was against the backdrop of national controversy in the field of industrial relations, in particular following Employment Secretary Barbara Castle's abortive attempt at reform, 'In Place of Strife'. The Conservative government's Industrial Relations Act in 1971 substantially changed the background again, but this was overturned later in the 1970s and, in the Post Office, an experiment with 'industrial democracy' took place. By the 1980s Conservative reforms to industrial relations laws had been introduced and the incidence of strike action, official and unofficial, fell back from earlier highs in the 1970s. Events of particular significance since 1969 include the large scale, long lasting national strike in the Post Office in 1971 - which was in fact about several issues but not least the Post Office's mechanisation plans - and other official and unofficial strike action, such as the 1996 official national strikes and the 1976 unofficial action in support of workers at the Grunwick processing laboratory. Sympathy strike action could also cause crippling damage to postal services, particularly when in support of railwaymen who were involved in moving the mail in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1978-79 experiment in Industrial Democracy was a key moment, as were later attempts to progress industrial relations between the trade unions and the Post Office (principally with the Union of Communication Workers, the name for the Union of Post Office Workers from 1980. It was renamed the Communication Workers Union in 1993). Major causes of industrial relations difficulties for the Post Office in this period have been listed as: discipline; pay; overtime; staffing levels; working environment; withdrawal of concessions; attendance at union meetings; economy measures; casual labour; bonus schemes. Records relating to the impact of strike action on services, negotiations with trade unions at a local and national level, and Post Office policy and operations in relation to its Trade Union discussions and agreements will be selected, with particular emphasis on records relating to the major events described above ## 6.3.3 Recruitment, Grading, Pay And Conditions It is not appropriate in this Operational Selection Policy (OSP) to cover all the issues relating to recruitment, grading, pay and conditions that the Post Office and its successors have experienced between 1969 and 2006. However, apart from the fight by staff for more pay, a shorter working week and better working conditions, the most important/recurring themes in this period include: Changes to the grading of jobs - in 1969, the Post Office Corporation inherited a Civil Service job structure. 385,000 staff were spread across 230 different grades. The early 1970s were spent rationalising this. For example, four thousand senior managers throughout the Post Office were reorganised into a new senior salary structure with 100 separate grades being replaced by ten bands. Other examples of important grading changes include: the replacement of Telegram Boys with Postal Cadets in 1980 and the abolition of Postman Higher Grade (PHG) at the turn of the 21st century. Although PHGs kept their grade, new entrants were known as Operational Postal Grades (OPGs). Recruitment problems - during the 1970s, the Post Office experienced problems recruiting staff due, in part, to low pay and unsociable hours, which led to a decline in the quality of service and low morale amongst existing staff. Although recruitment problems eased in the early 1980s, they returned in the mid 1980s. When the Post Office introduced a pay supplement in difficult to recruit areas to try to combat the problem, it led to a national strike in 1988. Moves by the Post Office and its successors to reward the productivity of staff with bonuses - from 1980, bonuses in return for rises in productivity began to come in. One major example of this trend in recent years would be the Share in Success payout to staff following the success of the Renewal Plan in 2004. Staff were promised a payout of £800 if Royal Mail hit its profit target of £400 million. In fact, the target was exceeded leading to a payout of £1,034. Equal opportunities - equal opportunities in the Post Office came to the fore during the 1980s and this has continued into the present day. Examples include: moves to employ more people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, women and part timers, the introduction of career breaks, job sharing, school term time working, the launch of a Disability Advice Centre in 1993, and the implementation of programmes to tackle issues like bullying and harassment. The following records will be selected for permanent retention:  Those that document major changes to the grading of jobs;  Those that document problems in recruiting staff and solutions to the problem;  Those that document the introduction and success or failure of productivity schemes;  Those that relate to initiatives by the Post Office and its successors to implement equal opportunities;  Those that document pay negotiations, pay scales and changes to working hours;  Personnel manuals;  Personnel policies. ## 6.3.4 Internal Communications, Training And Development 6.3.4.1 Internal Communications Initiatives to improve communications between managers and their staff took off in the 1980s. Although there had always been staff magazines, like *Courier*, to keep staff informed about what was going on, the 1980s saw the launch of initiatives, such as staff briefings and staff surveys, aimed at improving internal communications further. In 1987, Royal Mail Letters launched a programme of monthly team briefings aimed at informing staff about local and national topics. These briefings were also launched in Royal Mail Parcels. Staff briefings were a forerunner to the 'work time learning' sessions, which were launched in the Post Office at the beginning of the 21st century, and consist of weekly half hour sessions where managers and staff get together to discuss important issues. Around the same time as staff briefings began, Royal Mail Letters and Royal Mail Parcels began to hold regular staff surveys which asked staff for their opinions on various subjects. The following will be selected for permanent preservation:  Reports into the state of internal communications within the Post Office and its successors;  Those that document the results of staff surveys and how the individual businesses responded to them;  Those that document the introduction of major initiatives such as staff briefings, staff surveys and 'work time learning';  Staff magazines like *Courier* and the *Post Office Gazette*;  Internal communications policies. ## 6.3.4.2 Training And Development The period between 1969 and 2006 saw an increased emphasis on the training and development of staff. This began in the 1970s with initiatives such as the opening of a postal management college at Rugby and the introduction of new training techniques. The early 1980s saw the Post Office launch the Postal Cadet scheme for 16 and 17 year olds and participate in the government's Youth Training Scheme (YTS). By the late 1980s, Royal Mail Letters was formalising its training with the introduction of training managers in its postal districts. The early 1990s saw staff across the Post Office being encouraged to study for relevant qualifications. For example, Counters introduced national vocational qualifications, while Parcelforce made a joint City and Guilds qualification a requirement for new delivery drivers. ## 6.3.4.2.1 Records That Will Be Considered For Permanent Retention The following records will be considered for permanent retention:  Those that document significant initiatives or shifts in policy in training and development e.g. decision to encourage staff to study for relevant qualifications, setting up of the YTS and the Postal Cadet scheme;  Training relating to important events e.g. decimalisation;  Training videos;  Training policies. ## 6.3.5 Pensions One of the key employment questions that Royal Mail and its predecessor, the Post Office, has had to face over the period from 1969 until 2006 has been that of pension provision for its staff. Throughout this time the Post Office has offered an occupational pension for staff of all grades, of varying kinds. The Post Office Staff Superannuation Scheme was the name taken from 1969 when a separate scheme to the main civil service pension, which had been nominally used up to that point, was established; other names and incarnations have followed. Since then, principal considerations have been:  The deficits that have existed at various times in the funding of the scheme (and in particular the inherent deficit in 1969 when the transfers from the civil service scheme took place, and negotiations with central government over the pensions deficit since 2001), and how they were to be dealt with;  How the Pension Scheme was to be split when the Posts and Telecomms sides of the organisation split in 1981;  Changes to the benefits that the scheme has offered and staff concern (even as far as taking strike action) over changes to benefits;  Regular reviews of the performance of the scheme by Coopers and Lybrand (in the 1970s) and others;  Changes to trustee board membership and the involvement of the trade unions;  The effect of the introduction of what became the State Earning Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS) in 1978. Records related to the principal considerations of the pensions scheme, listed above, will be selected for permanent preservation. ## 6.3.6 Staff Records Royal Mail is a major employer in the UK. Staff are one of the most critical assets of any company. Employment records reflect the individual experiences of members of staff. Taken as a whole they can also be a key resource for tracking social and economic trends i.e. the impact of mechanisation on the number of staff employed and the impact of economic fluctuations (recession or booming economy) on pay rates and numbers employed. Records that relate to the following will be selected:  Key points in the employment of individuals (i.e. appointment or retirement);  Overall employment trends, such as the number of staff employed and rates of pay will also be selected;  Policy decisions about terms and conditions of employment;  Those that set out the staff structure in Royal Mail and its predecessors. ## 6.4 Environment 6.4.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government. As one of the largest employers in the country with a considerable property portfolio and a very large fleet of vehicles, the Post Office's impact on the environment was always going to be a sizeable one. Beginning in the late 1980s, it began to develop initiatives to minimise the harmful effects its activities had on the environment. Initiatives ranged from launching vehicles with environmentally friendly features, experimenting with bio-fuels and switching to lead-free petrol to minimising the impact of new buildings and cutting energy use in existing buildings. Records relating to the Post Office's and its successors' efforts to minimise the impact their operations had on the environment will be selected. ## 6.5 Equipment, Fixtures And Fittings 6.5.1 Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity; 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts. ## 6.5.2 Equipment A variety of equipment was and is used to process, handle and deliver the mail. Manual equipment, for example, ranges from sorting frames, mail processing tables and drop bags to mail bags, Yorks and delivery pouches. However, the most iconic and instantly recognisable of all the equipment used to process, handle and deliver the mail is the letter box. Since 1969, a number of new letter boxes have been added to the existing range. These include the 'K' type box, designed in 1980 for use in modern housing estates or similar developments, the business box, designed in 1994 for franked mail and located in business parks, industrial estates or some high streets, and the indoor box, also designed in 1994 for use in secure locations. The following records will be selected for permanent preservation:  Those that document the design of, experiments in, and trials and roll out of new letter boxes, including models that did not make it into production;  Those that document changes in letter box policy;  Guidelines for the livery, design and technical aspects of letter boxes. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that show the different types of mail processing, handling or delivery equipment used e.g. photographs, equipment catalogues;  Those that document the design, trials and introduction of mail processing, handling or delivery equipment specifically designed for Royal Mail Letters and its predecessors;  Those that document the introduction of equipment that was not specifically designed for Royal Mail Letters and its predecessors but that still played an important part in the mail processing, handling and delivery process e.g. introduction of MATES (Mail All Purpose Trailer Equipment) and YORKS (caged trollies used to transport sacks or trays of mail), introduction of circular sorting frames. ## 6.5.3 Fixtures And Fittings Between 1969 and 2006, the interiors of post offices underwent a number of changes to take account of developments in fixtures and fittings, innovations such as the introduction of the single queue and the security screen, and rebranding exercises. A variety of fixtures and fittings were required to fit out and furnish post offices. These ranged from counters, desks and chairs through to signage, security screens and queue barriers. With the exception of fixtures, such as signage and security screens, most of the fixtures and fittings that could be found in post offices were not custom made for them but were bought 'off the shelf'. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that show the different types of fixtures and fittings used in post offices e.g. photographs, furniture catalogues;  Those that document the design, trials and installation of fixtures and fittings specifically made for post offices e.g. security screens, signage. ## 6.5.4 Uniforms Between 1969 and 2006, a number of changes were made to the uniforms issued to employees. These changes ranged from completely new uniforms being issued to staff to improvements or alterations being made to existing uniforms or the introduction of new pieces of kit. In 1969, the Post Office broke with tradition and, instead of the usual dark blue, issued postmen with grey uniforms. The uniform also no longer carried the traditional red piping that had, until then, maintained a link with the first scarlet uniform issued in 1793. Postwomen received their new grey uniforms the following year. This break with tradition did not last long as, in 1986, postmen and postwomen were issued with dark blue uniforms. The 1980s saw the Post Office trying to issue uniforms that could cater for every kind of condition that the weather could throw at its postmen and postwomen. In 1980, the Post Office introduced lightweight uniforms for use in warm weather. However, it was not until 1986 that the Post Office issued postmen and women with its first all weather, all purpose year round uniform. Items included thermal coats, waterproof suits and pullovers. This was all part of a trend that was emerging to try and make uniforms that could cater for the needs of all Post Office employees. For example, the new uniform issued to counter employees in 1992 included a sari and a maternity dress. Uniforms also became more practical and informal. For example, women were given culottes in 1991 while, in 1992, postmen were given permission to wear their own shorts when the temperature reached 26C. The new uniform issued to postmen and postwomen between 1999 and 2001 included winter and summer caps. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the reasons behind the redesign of uniforms or the introduction of new pieces of kit;  Those that document the design, trials and rollout of new uniforms and pieces of kit;  Those that document staff attitudes towards uniforms;  Those that document consultation with the unions over the introduction of new uniforms and dress codes. ## 6.6 Financial Management 6.6.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.1 Management of government revenues and expenditure. From 1969 the Public Corporation of the Post Office was split into two businesses, Posts and Telecomms, and accounting for these businesses was done separately. In 1981 the Telecomms business became a separate Public Corporation, eventually to be privatised. Right up until the Postal Services Act 2000 came into force, there were clear links between the government and the Post Office in financial terms since the Corporation arrangements by and large persisted; when the Act was implemented in 2001 the company became a PLC with a single shareholder (the UK government) and more conventional company financial arrangements applied. The Post Office's accounting functions have always carried out the conventional activities associated with a finance function. These have included financial accounting, management accounting, forecasting and control. For the period since 1969 the majority of these functions have been based outside of London, and in particular a centre in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, was purpose-built for housing accounting work. ## 6.6.3 Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Retention The area of financial management is a complex one and a lot of records are created to document activity. The majority of these can be confidentially destroyed after statutory and business retention periods have elapsed. However, the financing and performance of the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, have been issues of significant public import since 1969, and the policy decisions made relating to finance should be properly documented and appropriate records selected. Budgets and budget planning, accounting, procurement and statistics are among potential areas of significance. Records associated with the framework and structure of accounting and finance, major financial planning, major exceptions and issues, and the changes made to systems (in particular with the change to the organisation brought about by the Postal Services Act 2000) will be selected. Records documenting the high-level outturn of accounting, and high level budgeting, forecasting and planning, will be selected. Financial management records for major projects will be selected. Published annual accounts are available in printed form in The Royal Mail Archive. ## 6.7 Information Technology 6.7.1 Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sports, education and the arts. From the launch of ERNIE (the machine used to pick winning Premium Bond numbers) in 1957 to the roll out of Horizon (a counter automation programme) in 2001 and Royal Mail's decision in 2002 to outsource its IT department to the PRISM alliance (a consortium consisting of BT, the Computer Science Corporation of America and Xansa) in a deal that involved millions of pounds, it is difficult to think of an area of postal operations that has not been transformed by the advent of computers. Although the Post Office and its successor, Royal Mail, embraced IT, it has also proved problematic. Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide face stiff competition from telephones, e-mails and faxes, while Post Office Ltd has found itself vulnerable to technologies such as automatic banking transactions, plastic cards and cash dispensing machines, as evidenced by the government's decision to pay welfare benefits directly into bank accounts from 2003. ## 6.7.3 Letters And Parcels Both Royal Mail Letters, Parcelforce Worldwide and their predecessors have used automation alongside mechanisation to make the process of sorting letters and parcels quicker and more efficient. For example, the 1970s saw the introduction of first and second generation code sorting desks. Code sort desk operators would key in postcodes, which computers would convert into phosphor dots for sorting machines to read and then sort into the appropriate boxes. The 1980s heralded the arrival of Optical Character Recognition machines, which could automatically read typed and printed postcodes and add the right phosphor dots for the sorting machines to read. By the mid 1990s, advances in technology meant that hand-written postcodes could also be read. For a more detailed examination of the role technology has played in the sorting process, see Section 6.2.4. Computers also assisted in the collection and delivery processes. Innovations included using computers to assist in the planning of new postmen's walks where new buildings or other developments had had an impact on delivery patterns, and bar-coding post boxes and business collections so that staff could make a computerised record of each collection and so improve service reliability. The Post Office also took advantage of computers to launch a host of new services aimed primarily at its business users. Examples include Intelpost, the world's first public international facsimile service, which was launched in 1980 between London and Toronto, Electronic post in the early 1980s, whereby mailings were transmitted electronically, printed out and then enveloped and introduced into the system for delivery, and Parcelforce's SuperService in the late 1980s, which used a £30 million computer controlled network to guarantee a 48 hour delivery service. Records that document the development and installation or launch of collection and delivery related IT systems or services designed for or by the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.7.4 Counters The automation of the Counters business was a gradual one that began in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s. Developments included the introduction of electronic cash registers, a computerised cash management system, EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale) and the roll out of Horizon. Records that document the development and installation or launch of Counter IT systems or services designed for or by the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.8 Marketing 6.8.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. ## 6.8.2 Advertising Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors ran a huge number of advertising campaigns. These were chiefly aimed at:  Encouraging customers to do something more efficiently e.g. use postcodes or address mail properly;  Encouraging customers to buy products e.g. travel insurance or holiday money;  Encouraging customers, particularly business ones, to use its services e.g. Datapost, direct mail;  Encouraging customers to send more mail e.g. greetings cards;  Informing customers about products and services e.g. latest recommended posting times for mail. It has utilised various means to do this from television, radio and the national press to posters, leaflets and competitions. The following will be considered for permanent preservation:  Records that document the planning of campaigns, their implementation and success or failure;  Material arising from major campaigns e.g. leaflets, posters, television and radio commercials. ## 6.8.3 Corporate Identity 6.8.3.1 Royal Cypher A Royal Cypher consists of the initials of a sovereign's name and title. Permission to use the Royal Cypher and the accompanying St Edward's Crown is granted by the Lord Chamberlain's office as a mark of special esteem to Royal Mail and its predecessors. The Royal Cypher and St Edward's crown can only be applied to post boxes and vehicles (except in Scotland where, since 1953, a Scottish crown has been used). Each successive reign has brought a new Royal Cypher. Since Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne in 1952, there have been few changes to her cypher, 'EIIR'. Records that document any changes or new uses to the Royal Cypher will be considered for permanent preservation. ## 6.8.3.2 Branding Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors used a variety of logos to identify the organisation as a whole, its business units and the services it offered. Examples of these include the corporate logo adopted in the early 1970s to symbolise the newly nationalised Post Office, which consisted of 'The Post Office' spelt out in yellow double line lettering, and Royal Mail's cruciform logo, introduced in 1990, which consists of a cross shaped device comprising St Edward's Crown with the words, 'Royal Mail' in yellow double line lettering below it. The cruciform logo also comes in Welsh and Scottish versions. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the reasons behind the introduction of new logos;  Designs for new logos, both successful and unsuccessful;  Those that document the rollout of new logos;  Those that document significant changes to existing logos;  Guidelines for the use of logos. ## 6.8.4 Market Research Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors commissioned market research to find out what people thought of it as an organisation, how they used its products and services and what they thought of those products and services. Such research can give researchers an excellent insight into how the Post Office and its successors were perceived and how attitudes towards the organisation have changed over the years. The following records will be considered for permanent selection:  Those that document attitudes towards the Post Office and its successors;  Those that throw light on British society as a whole;  Those that document how products and services were used. ## 6.8.5 Public Relations Some form of public relations, that is promoting good relations between the organisation and the general public, has been practised since the 1920s with a Public Relations Department being formally established in 1934. Activities carried out by public relations include producing press releases, compiling publications such as the *Post Office Guide* and organising external events. By the 1990s, the department had become known as Communication Services. Press releases and publications such as the *Post Office Guide* will be considered for permanent preservation. ## 6.9 Papers Of Senior Directors 6.9.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution. ## 6.9.2 Background And Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Preservation The Royal Mail Archive is keen to acquire the records of senior directors. Such records can provide evidence of high level decision making which cannot be found amongst more official records. For example, the minutes of meetings will document that a decision has been made but, generally speaking, do not document the processes that led up to that decision. The Royal Mail Archive aims to ensure that records which document why major decisions were made and how those decisions were implemented are kept permanently. The Royal Mail Archive is interested in those records created by a senior director in the discharge of their function as a Royal Mail, Consignia or Post Office employee. The Archive is not interested in the records that a senior director may have created in a personal capacity e.g. as a member of a sports club or residents' association. The records of senior directors will be taken at the end of a senior director's working life cycle. An element of self selection is involved in this in that The Royal Mail Archive will be taking records that the director concerned considers to be important. As is standard practice with all records held in The Royal Mail Archive, the records will be kept under a thirty year closure period or for longer if necessary e.g. if the material contains personal data or for security reasons. ## 6.10 Philately 6.10.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts. There has been an interest in the study of stamps since they were first created and the areas of stamp design, the efficacy of particular stamps, the link between politics and stamp issues and security/fraud prevention have been among paramount special interests. The Post Office and its successors have been responsible for the manufacture of Postage Stamps since 1914 and in 1962 a formal Stamp Advisory Committee was set up to play a role in advising on the design and issue of in particular new special stamps. The decision was taken to increase the number of special stamps (often called 'commemoratives') issued and from 1964 numbers rose. Roughly eight sets of special stamps were planned and issued each year up until the Millennium sets of 1999-2001, when numbers increased. The definitive stamp was revamped in 1967 as the 'Machin Head' was established as *the* iconic image for the 'everyday' stamp. Efforts to produce a new design for definitive stamps in the early 1980s were unsuccessful and it was decided to continue with the use of the 'Machin Head' as *the* iconic image for the 'everyday' stamp. Services for philatelists have developed with Tallents House in Edinburgh acting as a centre from which products are marketed and dispatched by the Post Office. Stamp production has also developed, with the introduction of phosphor coated stamps in 1976, the introduction of the first Miniature Sheet (a special product) in 1978, and the introduction of Greetings Stamps in 1989 along with the first stamps with Non-Value Indicators (those showing '1st Class' or '2nd class' rather than a money amount). More recently there has been the introduction of computer-printed labels at Post Office counters and the ability to produce postage labels over the internet. Records related to the discussions and deliberations of the Stamp Advisory Committee, the design and manufacture of stamps and external relations regarding this, the security of stamps, and the issue of stamps will be selected. Particular care will be taken to select records related to trials and innovation in stamps and philately, whether successful or unsuccessful. This is in addition to all stamp artwork (both adopted and unadopted) which will be retained along with appropriate proofs, trials and related correspondence and papers. Records related to Royal Mail and its predecessors' relations with the philatelic world may also be selected. ## 6.11 Planning 6.11.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1 Policy and administrative processes of the state: the formulation of policy and its execution For the Post Office, the concept of long term planning came to the fore when it ceased to be a government department and became a nationalised industry in 1969. It had to act like a business and also justify its actions to the government. This can be seen with the creation of a Corporate Planning Unit in the years prior to the Post Office becoming a public corporation. With the creation of that unit, the Post Office always had a department in one form or another specifically devoted to long term planning. In the 1970s, despite the Post Office trying to plan five or ten years ahead, it tended to concentrate on the short term problems it faced, such as price and wage restraints. During this period, each of the businesses also tended to produce plans independently of each other rather than considering what would benefit the Post Office as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s saw a shift with the Board using the corporate plan to set out its long term strategy for the Post Office and the businesses taking their direction from the Board. The Post Office produced a variety of documents, such as capital plans, business plans and environmental reviews, all of which were geared towards planning the future direction of the Post Office. The most important of these was the corporate plan, which set out the Board's plans for the following five years and formed the basis for the government to approve and monitor what the Post Office did. It made the Post Office accountable to the government as the latter had to approve the plan. Both sides used it as a basis to negotiate future targets and access to future capital. In fact, the strategic plan that Royal Mail produces still has to be approved by the government and, until recently, its funding package was reliant upon it. Records relating to the proposed future direction of Royal Mail and its predecessors, such as corporate plans and business plans, will be selected. ## 6.12 Post Office Counters Operations And Services 6.12.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. Traditionally, post offices, which can be found on high streets and in a variety of urban and rural locations throughout the United Kingdom, have, primarily, provided products and services to the public on behalf of the government. They were the conduit through which the government distributed pensions, social security benefits, emergency payments such as butter tokens and discounts on electricity bills, and official documentation such as the British Visitors' Passports. Post offices still form the largest retail network in the United Kingdom. They did and do play an extremely important role in the social and economic life of the United Kingdom. This is particularly the case with regard to rural sub post offices, which are often the only means of keeping the sole shop in a village from closing. The main problem facing post offices between 1969 and 2006, the period covered by this OSP, was that the maintenance of the network was dependent upon the government continuing to use it to pay out social security benefits and pensions. Post offices were also under threat from developments in technology, which meant that pensions, for example, could be paid directly into bank accounts instead of through post offices. In 1980, the government announced that it was changing arrangements for the payment of social security benefits. This led to a reduction in the volume of business being transacted through post offices and heralded the beginning of the withdrawal of government business from post offices. During the 1980s and early 1990s, post offices tried to make up for this lost revenue in a number of ways. Following the British Telecommunications Act in 1981, the post office network was allowed to provide services for a wider range of public bodies. An early example of this was the agreement made with British Rail, which enabled application forms for railcards for the disabled to be obtained from and certified at most post office counters. It expanded its retail activities by, for example, opening postshops within main post offices. Each shop sold a range of writing paper, greetings cards, packaging materials and philatelic items. The first four, at Ashford, Kent, Stevenage, Epsom and Bedford, opened in March 1984. Smaller post offices were provided with browser units with which to display merchandise. It also increased the range of products and services it could offer to the public. Examples of products and services introduced during this period vary from the installation of photocopiers and photo booths in the early 1980s to the launch of BonusPrint in 1984 (customers could pay at the counter for film developing and printing and see their prints arrive by post a few days later) and the sale of theatre tokens for London's West End theatres in the late 1980s. In 1983, a major review of the network, the first since the 1940s, found that there were too many post offices in urban areas. It was decided that some of these post offices, subject to consultation, would close over the following three years. A guarantee was given that 95% of the existing network would be maintained until April 1987. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of Crown offices were converted to agency (i.e. sub-post office) status to save money and some post offices were franchised (post offices operating within existing businesses). The first franchised post office opened in 1990 in Sainsbury's Savacentre, Colliers Wood, London. Although rural post offices were unaffected by the closures brought about by the review of the network in 1983, it was not unusual for them to close through lack of business. By the late 1980s, 100 a year were closing because of this. The solution was to re-open some of them on a part-time basis. 1, 144 post offices were operating on a part-time basis at this time. Despite all its efforts, by the early 1990s, the post office network was still facing significant problems one of most pressing being that it was still heavily reliant on government business. Although the network dealt with up to 160 different transactions, just ten of those transactions accounted for 75% of their business. It was also vulnerable to technology, with the advent of such developments as automatic banking transactions, plastic cards and cash dispensing machines encroaching on its business. More than 40% of new pensions were now paid through banks and building societies through automated credit transfers. It was also susceptible to changes in policy as a company or government department, for example, could always decide to take the services they had contracted out to post offices away. During the 1990s and into the 21st century, the post office network grappled with ways of replacing the revenue it had lost through the withdrawal of government business and developments in technology. It took full advantage of the wider powers it had been given by the government in 1987 and 1994 to develop new products and services. Examples of such products and services included the launch, in 1994, of its Bureau de Change business, home insurance in 2002 and the Post Office HomePhone in 2005. It was also repositioning itself from a benefits based business to one that would focus on banking and information services, with post offices becoming 'community banking hubs'. In March 1999, a deal was signed with Lloyd's TSB to allow those customers with personal cheque accounts to deposit and withdraw money from post offices in England and Wales. This was one of a number of agreements reached with banks to handle some of their banking transactions. Agreement was also reached with several banks and building societies, including Barclays, Lloyd's TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland and Nationwide, to make their basic bank accounts available through post offices. This was fully launched in 2003 along with the Post Office Card Account, which allowed customers to continue having their benefits paid over the counter in cash. Further developments included the launch of a 'two in one' credit card in 2005 and a new instant saver account in 2006. From 2003, the government decided to pay benefits directly into bank accounts. This had a significant impact on the network with benefits payments accounting for over 40% of some post offices' income. There were too many post offices chasing too little business. The decision was made to close up to 3,000 post offices in urban areas. This decision formed part of the Network Reinvention Programme, whose aim was to make the urban post office network more viable by reducing overprovision and creating more modern branches. After consultation, 2,500 post offices were closed. The rural post office network had been making a substantial loss since the late 1980s. At that time it was losing between £20 and £30 million a year. The majority of rural post offices did and do cost more to run than the income they generate leading to questions about their long term viability. In May 2003, the government received approval from the European Commission to release £450 million from Royal Mail's reserves of historic profits to support some rural post offices, which would otherwise have had to close because they were not commercially viable. Between 2005 and 2006, the post office network lost £111 million as it struggled to replace the income it had lost through the withdrawal of benefits payments. The post office network faced and still faces an uncertain future as Royal Mail and the government consider how to make it a financially viable business. The following records will be considered for selection:  Those that relate to government policy towards the post office network and Royal Mail and its predecessors' strategies for replacing the revenue generated by government business  Those that relate to the closure of post offices e.g. Network Reinvention Programme;  Those that relate to the introduction of new products and services or the withdrawal of existing ones;  Reviews of the post office network e.g. review of the post office network, 1983; Monopolies and Commission's report, June 1988, government review of the post office network, Jun 2000. ## 6.13 Postal Services And Post Offices Abroad 6.13.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.2 External relations and defence Royal Mail provides a range of services for the overseas market both for individuals and businesses, in mail (air and surface), express mail and logistics. Overseas is generally defined as any country outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland except the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic. Between 1969 and 2006, the period covered by this OSP, Royal Mail and its predecessors adapted to a changing and increasingly competitive international mail market through introducing new services and acquiring or partnering overseas postal companies. From the 1990s onwards Royal Mail and its predecessors expanded their overseas involvement through acquisition, alliance and partnership. It established Royal Mail Inc. in the United States in mid- 1990s. General Logistics Systems (GLS), founded in 1999, is its European parcels business based in the Netherlands and operating in over 30 countries. Spring, a joint venture with TNT and Singapore Post to handle cross-border mail, was started in the early 2000s. Meanwhile the British Postal Consultancy Service, set up in 1965 to advise overseas administrations on mechanised sorting offices, expanded both its remit and client base. In 1998, 200 consultants were working on 60 projects in 40 countries compared to a handful of projects in 1969. Key developments in services and technology included: an international Datapost service (transatlantic via Concord in 1977-78); Intelpost (the world's first international facsimile transmission service) between London and North America in 1980; Swiftair (a fast, assured mail service to specific destinations) in 1980 (this was replaced by Airsure). In 1983-84 the Post Office had a total income of £2776m of which £289m or approximately 10% was for overseas services. Outward overseas letter traffic had declined from peak levels in the mid-1970s to about 476m in 1983-84. That said, partly through Royal Mail's expanding logistics business, the five years following 1999 saw the share of its revenue earned abroad increase from 4.1% to 9.5%. The following records will be considered for selection:  Those concerning overseas investments, acquisitions and partnership agreements;  Those relating to the development of the new services described above;  Those concerning dealings with the Universal Postal Union, the international body which coordinates postal policies between member nations. ## 6.14 Property Management 6.14.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.2.2 The impact of the state on the physical environment and the documentation of the physical environment by government In 2006, Royal Mail's property portfolio consisted of around 2,700 properties. These included post offices, sorting offices, research centres, headquarters buildings and distribution hubs. In recent years efforts have been made to streamline Royal Mail's estate through the consolidation of services and the closure and selling off of buildings that are no longer required. Between 1969 and 2006, numerous building projects took place e.g. the building of Mechanised Letter Offices (MLOs) and Parcel Concentration Offices (PCOs) under the Letter Post and Parcel Plans throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s, the building and opening of mail centres and distribution hubs, such as Parcelforce's centre at Coventry (2001) and Royal Mail Letters' Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre (2001), and the selective closure of Crown post offices. ## 6.14.3 Records That Will Be Considered For Selection Records that will be considered for selection include:  Those that document the building of MLOs, PCOs, mail centres, distribution hubs and other significant buildings;  Those that document Royal Mail's policy towards its property portfolio;  Lists of properties. ## 6.15 Regulation 6.15.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. There was a substantial change in the regulatory framework for the Post Office business after it became a PLC with the implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000. At the same time as this changed the organisation forever, it created a regulator, the Postal Services Commission (PostComm). PostComm regulates and enforces the Universal Service, acts as a check on Royal Mail and licenses other postal operators. In 1969 it was decided to establish a Users Council. This was called the Post Office Users National Council (POUNC). Its aim was to represent at national level the interests of the users of Post Office services, to ensure the existence of adequate consultative arrangements at local level, to receive proposals from the Postmaster General, and to make recommendations to him about the services. These powers were established under the 1969 Post Office Act. POUNC was an independent statutory body, funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. From its establishment the Post Office provided a secretary and premises. The work of the council arose from matters put before it by the Post Office, public, and local advisory committees. In 2001, POUNC was replaced by Postwatch. Postwatch, which was initially called the Consumer Council for Postal Services, was established to promote the interests of users of postal services within the framework of the Postal Services Act 2000. Postwatch was responsible for monitoring postal service standards and acted as a focus for consumer issues and complaints. It was consulted on key decisions including changes to postal licences. It also, in conjunction with Postcomm, monitored and advised on the network of Post Office branches. In October 2008, Postwatch merged with energywatch and the Welsh, Scottish and National Consumer Councils to create Consumer Focus, an organisation establish to support the rights of consumers in England, Scotland, Wales and, for post, Northern Ireland. The following records will be selected:  Those concerning Royal Mail relations with PostComm and Postwatch, in particular those taking place at a high level or involving contentious issues;  Those relating to formal documents submitted to PostComm and the processes within the business that lay behind these;  Those relating to formal information requests from PostComm and standards and regulation inspection. Equivalent records of standards assessment and formal and informal government regulation from before the implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000 will also be selected. ## 6.16 Reorganisation 6.16.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.6 Reform of the state's organisational structure, including constitutional arrangements and changes in the machinery of central and local government. Between 1969 and 2006, the Post Office and its successors underwent an enormous number of organisational changes, so much so that those working for the Post Office in 1969 would have had difficulty recognising the organisation in 2006. The following comprises an overview of these events although it is by no means exhaustive such were the number and variety of upheavals that the Post Office and its successors experienced during this period: In 1969, under the Post Office Act passed in the same year, the General Post Office ceased to be a government department and became a nationalised industry, established as a public corporation. It was renamed the Post Office and split into two divisions, Posts and Telecommunications, which became distinct businesses. By 1976, Postal Headquarters, which had undergone a major reorganisation in 1971, comprised six departments: Postal Marketing; Postal Mechanisation and Building; Postal Operations; Postal Finance and Management Services; Postal Pay and Grading; Postal Personnel. Central Headquarters, created in 1969, also consisted of six departments: The Chairman's Office; The Secretary's Office; The Solicitor's Office; Public Relations Department; Finance and Corporate Planning; Personnel and Industrial Relations. The United Kingdom was arranged into ten regional areas with each regional headquarters responsible for managing postal and counter operations in its area. It did this in accordance with instructions laid down by Postal Headquarters. In 1981, the telecommunications side of the business became a separate public corporation, trading as British Telecom. In 1984, British Telecom was privatised and, since 1991, has traded as BT. Following this split, the Post Office was reorganised into two businesses, Royal Mail and Counters, referred to jointly as Posts. Central Headquarters was disbanded with some of its work disappearing while the rest was shared out between Postal Headquarters, Telecomms Headquarters and National Girobank. In 1985, National Girobank became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office, Girobank plc. It had originally opened in 1968 with the aim of offering a current account banking service to anyone over the age of 16 and resident in the UK, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Prior to 1985, it had operated as a separate business within the Post Office. It continued to trade under the name, 'National Girobank' until 1987 when it became known as 'Girobank'. In June 1988, the government announced that it wanted to privatise Girobank. In 1989, the Alliance & Leicester Building Society entered into closed negotiations as the preferred bidder to buy Girobank. In July 1990, Girobank became part of the Alliance & Leicester. In 1986, postal operations were restructured into three separate businesses: Royal Mail Letters, Royal Mail Parcels and Post Office Counters. Although these three businesses had their own Managing Directors and headquarters functions, what was now the Post Office group of businesses retained a headquarters function for group policy. Additionally this 'Group' function continued to provide the rest of the businesses with services and support. The 142 head post offices that existed in the ten regions were replaced by separate district offices for each of the businesses. Royal Mail Letters had 64 district offices while Post Office Counters had 32 and Royal Mail Parcels had 12. Scotland and Wales were provided with postal boards in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively to ensure that their interests were properly represented. The postal business in Northern Ireland was also restructured although the Northern Ireland Postal Board continued to have a Chairman to deal with the political situation there. In October 1987, Post Office Counters began trading as a limited company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office and was known as Post Office Counters Ltd. In 1993, a new structure was introduced with the district offices being replaced by seven regions. In October 2001, Post Office Ltd was created. In 1990, Royal Mail Parcels was renamed Parcelforce and underwent a restructuring programme not long afterwards. In 1997, Parcelforce was re-branded as Parcelforce Worldwide. In 1992, Royal Mail Letters was reorganised with its district offices being replaced by nine geographical divisions. A small headquarters was to be dedicated to strategy while a central services department would provide common or specialist services to Royal Mail Letters. In March 2001, under the Postal Services Act passed in 2000, the Post Office Corporation became a public limited company wholly owned by the government. At the same time, it changed its name to Consignia as part of an attempt to position the company globally. Post Office Ltd, Royal Mail Letters and Parcelforce Worldwide remained unaffected by this change of name. In November 2002, Consignia Holdings plc changed its name to Royal Mail Holdings plc and Consignia plc became Royal Mail Group plc. Records that document major organisational change within the Post Office and its successors will be selected. ## 6.17 Security 6.17.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.3 Administration of justice and the maintenance of internal security including immigration and citizenship. Group Security (and its predecessor, the Post Office Investigation Department) is responsible for understanding, measuring and reducing the security risks faced by the organisation. Its role is central in protecting revenue, maintaining public confidence in the mail and post office networks and defending the organisation and its staff against crime and terrorism. Its responsibilities include: giving advice on how people, buildings, vehicles, mail, parcels and cash can be protected, conducting checks to improve compliance with security standards and carrying out investigations into criminal activity against the organisation. Between 1969 and 2006, key security related themes that have affected Royal Mail and its predecessors include:  Terrorism e.g. letter bombs;  Troubles in Northern Ireland and the effect they had on the Post Office and its staff;  Robberies and burglaries in post offices, which were particularly prevalent during the 1970s. The following records will be considered for permanent preservation:  Those that document the effect that terrorism has had on Royal Mail and its predecessors;  Those that document the effect that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had on the Post Office and its staff;  Those relating to robberies and burglaries, the organisation's responses to this threat and the impact on staff;  Those that document criminal investigations involving new or significant crimes. ## 6.18 Transport 6.18.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.4 Regulation and support of economic activity by government, including industry, services, agriculture, transport, energy, trade, and employment and productivity. ## 6.18.2 Introduction Responsibility for the collection, transportation and delivery of letters, packets and parcels lies with Royal Mail's vast and complex transport network. Between 1969 and 2006, various different modes of transport were utilised to move mail from bicycles, mopeds and vans to aeroplanes, mail rail and travelling post offices (TPOs). This period was characterised by the drive to find ever quicker, reliable and more cost efficient ways of transporting mail around the country. This period also saw a decline in the use of rail to move mail around the country in preference for road and air transport. ## 6.18.3 Air Between 1969 and 2006, more use was made of aeroplanes to ferry mail around the country. The Post Office had begun to use increasing numbers of scheduled inland flights to transport mail after World War II. In 1961, a direct air mail service was introduced from London to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast. 1979 saw the establishment of a new inland network centred on Speke airport (now known as Liverpool John Lennon airport), Liverpool, which became the hub of nightly flights to and from what were, initially, five provincial centres although this number later grew. These centres were known as the 'Spokes of Speke'. In 1982, following the success of Speke airport, a second air hub was established at East Midlands airport, Derby, with the aim of linking air, rail and road transport. In 1992, these hubs, which had become both complex and congested, were replaced by more direct routes between airports. These more direct routes were collectively known as 'Skynet'. By the late 1990s, Skynet involved 25 airports handling three million items daily. Records relating to the establishment of Skynet and of hubs at Speke and East Midlands airports will be kept as will the setting up or closing down of other inland air routes. ## 6.18.4 Rail The period between 1969 and 2006 saw a decline in the use of trains to move mail in favour of road and air transport. For example, during the mid 1980s, Royal Mail Parcels transferred the majority of parcels to road transport (more than 80% now went by road). In the early 1990s, Royal Mail Letters, under a scheme named Roadrunner, transferred all Saturday movement of letters and packets from rail to road. In the late 1990s, this trend of moving the transportation of mail from rail to road slowed with the construction, by Royal Mail Letters, of a £150 million purpose built road-rail interchange centred on Willesden, North London. It linked a series of provincial hubs with a fleet of 16 new mail trains. However, this reversal was short lived. In 2003, as part of a transport review, the rail element of Royal Mail Letters' transport network was removed due to economic considerations. This decision hit Mail Rail. Mail Rail opened in 1927 to transport mail underground between railway stations and sorting offices in London. It was originally known as the Post Office Underground Railway but its name was changed in 1987 to mark its 60th anniversary. The service was suspended with the last train running on 30 May 2003. It had simply become too expensive to run. By 2002, it was five times more expensive to move mail by Mail Rail than by road. The decision also hit the travelling post offices (TPOs), in which mail was sorted while trains were on the move. The last TPO ran on 9 January 2004, ending a way of sorting mail that had been in existence since 1838. ## 6.18.4.1 Records That Will Be Selected For Permanent Retention General Records that document the changing relationship between the Post Office and its successors and the railway companies will be selected e.g. negotiation of contracts, construction of Railnet and reasons behind the removal of the rail element from Royal Mail Letters' transport network. ## Mail Rail Records that should be selected include those that document:  The design and production of 34 new trains in 1981 replacing trains that had been use since 1930, the rebuilding of three trains in 1987 and any other significant alterations to the train stock;  The introduction of a new centralised computer controlled system in 1993, which replaced the electro-mechanical system installed in 1927, and any other significant alterations to the train control equipment, such as the modification, in 1987, that meant that trains could be diverted in the event of another train breaking down;  The suspension of the service and alternative plans for its use. ## Tpos Records that should be selected include those that document:  The decision, in 1968, to sort first class mail only in TPOs;  The alterations to services in 1988, the first major changes to the TPO service since World War II;  The design, field trials and production of new TPOs and any significant alterations to the design of TPOs;  The reasons behind the decision to cease use of TPOs. ## 6.18.5 Road Royal Mail's reliance on road transport to move mail is reflected in the size of its fleet - it has one of the biggest in Europe. During the early 1990s, Royal Mail Letters had 28,000 vehicles in operation while Parcelforce had 7,000. In 2006, at 36,000, Royal Mail Letters had the largest fleet of bicycles in the UK. This period has seen the introduction of new types of vehicles as well as changes to the design of vehicles already in existence. For example, postbuses, which combine the collection and delivery of mail and the transportation of passengers and are a vital link to isolated communities, were introduced in 1967. The number of routes grew swiftly in the 1970s and, by 2005, there were 166 postbus routes. There have also been experiments with innovative technology, such as electric vehicles. Records that should be selected include those that document:  The design, field trials and production of new vehicles. The Royal Mail Archive is also interested in selecting records relating to the design and field trials of unsuccessful vehicles, particularly if it relates to the use of new technology;  The reasons behind the introduction or withdrawal of postbus routes;  The increasing reliance on road transport to move mail and any major changes to the network e.g. spilt of the road fleet between Royal Mail Letters and Royal Mail Parcels in the mid 1980s, Transport Review of 2003. ## 6.19 War And Civil Emergencies 6.19.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relate to the following themes outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.2 External relations and defence; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.19.2 War Members of the armed forces serving abroad can send and receive mail using the service provided by Royal Mail and its predecessors, through its HM Forces Mail Service, and the British Forces Post Office (BFPO), which is a separate organisation. Royal Mail gives the BFPO mail to deliver to troops stationed abroad, while the BFPO gives the Post Office mail to deliver from the troops to addresses in the United Kingdom. Mail sent overseas was and still is vulnerable to disruption from war, coup d'états, the imposition of sanctions and volatile political situations. The Falklands War, the Gulf War and the sanctions against South Africa are all good examples of this. The Post Office had contingency plans in place should the United Kingdom ever be invaded or subject to a nuclear attack. The following records will be selected:  Those that document issues relating to the collection and delivery of mail to and from members of the armed forces, such as the demand to send letters and packages to troops abroad free of charge and the establishment of new BFPO addresses;  Those relating to the disruption of mail due to the events outlined above will be selected;  Contingency plans, as set out in the Post Office War Plan, will be selected. ## 6.19.3 Civil Emergencies From Royal Mail and its predecessors' point of view, a civil emergency can be defined as an event that disrupts normal postal services to such an extent that it becomes noticeable to customers. Such events are caused by factors outside of the organisation's control or through industrial action by its staff. They are different from the usual run of operational difficulties, such as technical faults, planned road works or shortages of staff, which are faced on a daily basis. Such events range from adverse weather conditions, like the gales in October 1987, and natural disasters, such as flooding, to the situation in Northern Ireland, the fuel crisis in the 1970s and industrial action by railway or power workers. Given the size and complexity of its operations, it is not surprising that Royal Mail and its predecessors are and were so vulnerable to such events. As they have a significant impact not only on it but on those using its services records will be selected that illustrate how services were affected and how Royal Mail and its predecessors reacted. Contingency plans that show how such situations were to be dealt with will also be selected. ## 6.20 Associations And Societies For associations and societies set up by staff to obtain better pay and working conditions, see Section 6.3.2 on industrial relations. ## 6.20.1 Relevant Tna Themes The activities below relates to the following theme outlined in TNA's Acquisition and Disposition Strategy: 3.1.5 Formulation and delivery of social and cultural policies, including the benefit system, health, sport, education and the arts; 3.2.1 The economic, social and demographic condition of the UK, as documented by the state's dealings with individuals, communities and organisations outside its own formal boundaries. ## 6.20.2 Post Office Recreation Council And Royal Mail Sports Foundation The Post Office had a strong and long tradition of supporting the sporting, social and cultural activities that went on amongst its staff. This was partly because postmen needed to be fit in order to carry out their duties and partly because the Post Office thought that such activities added to the quality of life of its staff. However, prior to 1969, there was no body to co-ordinate all these activities. Therefore, in April 1971, the Post Office Recreation Council (PORC) was set up to promote, encourage and co-ordinate all forms of recreational activity. It sponsored national events, participated in international events and provided financial assistance to clubs. Clubs qualified for financial help by affiliating to one of fourteen regional or departmental associations who in turn were affiliated to PORC. Following the split between the Post Office and British Telecommunications in 1981, the PORC was renamed The British Telecommunications and Post Office Recreation Council (BTPORC). It acted as the focal point for recreational activities in both businesses. In 1987, this arrangement ended and the Council changed its name back to the Post Office Recreation Council. It continued to co-ordinate activities until April 2002 when it became the Royal Mail Sports Foundation. The Foundation provides grants for the provision of equipment, trophies and training. The Royal Mail Archive is keen to select records relating to the Royal Mail Sports Foundation and its predecessor body, the PORC, which show why they were set up and how each body supported (or in the case of the former, continues to support) the recreational activities of staff. ## 6.20.3 Clubs In 1971, there were 551 clubs with a membership of 131,281 within the Post Office. By the end of 1978, this number had risen to 673 with a membership of 203,353. This was despite the number of employees falling from 430,196 to 420,156 in the same period. Sports played ranged from bowls, billiards and badminton through to snooker, squash and swimming. Staff not interested in sports could pursue interests such as art (through the Post Office Art Club of Great Britain), drama or photography. Sorting and delivery offices often had sports and social clubs - Mount Pleasant Sports and Social Club is a good example of this. Many of these clubs would have been run on a voluntary basis and obviously formed an important part of life in the Post Office. Such clubs still exist today in Royal Mail. Records created or received by the Post Office Art Club of Great Britain will be kept. The Royal Mail Archive is also keen to preserve the records of other sports and social clubs in order to document the role they played in the Post Office and in the lives of its employees, and if this role has changed or remained the same in Royal Mail. ## 6.20.4 Charitable Societies A number of charitable societies were set up to offer financial assistance to Post Office employees and their families: The Post Office Orphans Benevolent Institution is the oldest charity in the Post Office. It was founded in 1870 to offer financial assistance to Post Office employees and their families who were experiencing hardship because of the illness or a death of a relative. The Post Office Relief Fund and the Second Post Office Relief Fund were set up during the First and Second World Wars to relieve suffering amongst Post Office employees and their families because of conditions resulting from the wars or occasioned by hostile action by or against the enemy. The Rowland Hill Fund was set up to provide financial assistance and support to who were working or who had worked for the Post Office. The Royal Mail Archive is keen to select records from these societies in order to show how staff supported themselves in the face of hardship. Records, such as those that demonstrate how staff benefitted from the work of these societies and those that set out their constitutions, will be selected. ## Annex 1 - Public Records And The Post Office Act 1969 The definition of Public Records is given in the Public Records Act 1958, First Schedule. The Post Office Act 1969, and subsequent legislation and privatisations, had effects on the application of the statutory definition of Public Records to the records of functions discharged by the Postmaster General's department. These effects and some of the wider legislative context are set out in the table below: | | Post Office Act 1969 | Part I | Abolition of the office | |------------------------|-------------------------|------------|----------------------------| | of Postmaster | | | | | General | | | | | | | Part II | Provision for the | | appointment, powers, | | | | | and duties of Minister | | | | | of Posts and | | | | | Telecommunications | | | | | | | Part III | Re-constitution of | | Post Office as a non- | | | | | Crown public | | | | | authority | | | | | | Part III s | | | | 16 (2)(b) | | | | | Effect is: to preserve | | | | | Crown ownership, and | | | | | Public Records status, | | | | | of records created up | | | | | to 1969 | | | | | Exclusion of the (pre- | | | | | vesting day) records | | | | | from | | | | | General | | | | | Provisions | | | | | | | | | | as to | | | | | Transfer to the Post | | | | | Office of Property, | | | | | Rights and Liabilities | | | | | of the Postmaster | | | | | General | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Part III s | | | | 75 (1) | | | | | Effect is: to make | | | | | records created by the | | | | | new Post Office | | | | | authority Public | | | | | Records | | | | | Public Records Act | | | | | 1958 to have effect | | | | | as if the Post Office | | | | | were included in | | | | | Public Records Act | | | | | 1958 Schedule I para | | | | | 3 Table Part II | | | | | | | Part III s | | | 75 (2) | | | | | Secretary of State | | | | | may by order vest in | | | | | the Post Office the | | | | | property in records of | | | | | the Postmaster | | | | General specified in the order; and within the order provide for continuing Crown access to the records Effect is: records of this function continue to be Public Records Part IV Transfer of radio and television broadcasting licensing function to Minister of Posts and Telecommunications Part V Constitution of Department for National Savings as a new government department Effect is: pre-1969 Act savings functions records and post-1969 Act Department for National Savings records are Public Records Schedule I para 1. Post Office to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal British Telecommunications Act 1981 Part I Constitution, Powers and Duties of new public corporation, separate from the Post Office, to be called British Telecommunications Part I s 56 (1) Effect is: to make records created by British Telecommunications (public corporation) Public Records Public Records Act 1958 to have effect as if the Corporation were included in Schedule I para 3 Table Part II to that Act Part I s 56 (2) Secretary of State may by order vest in the Corporation the property in records of the Postmaster General specified in the order; and within the order provide for continuing Crown access to the records Telecommunications Act 1984 Part I Constitution of Office of Director General of Telecommunications (OFTEL) Transfer of radio and television broadcasting licensing function to Director General of Telecommunications Part V Provisions for constitution of successor company (British Telecommunications plc); and for transfer of property, rights and liabilities of British Telecommunications (public corporation), on day appointed by Secretary of State by order (the 'transfer date') Schedule 5 para 44 Nothing to affect operation of s 56 of the 1981 Act in relation to any records of British Telecommunications (public corporation) and predecessors which become records of the successor company (British Telecommunications Effect is: records of this function continue to be Public Records Effect is: records created by the successor company (British Telecommunications plc)after it ceases to be owned by the Crown do not have Public Records status Effect is: to preserve the Public Record status of any records transferred from British Telecommunications (public corporation) and predecessors to the successor company (British Telecommunications plc) plc) on the transfer date November 1984 Initial public offering (IPO) for sale of shares in British Telecommunications plc 1990 Girobank sold to Alliance & Leicester Building Society on July 2 Effect is: records created after IPO date are not Public Records (transfer to British Telecommunications plc of the business of British Telecom, the statutory corporation, on 6 August 1984) Effect is: records created after sale date are not Public Records

en

1408-pdf

## Office Of Rail Regulation # Minutes Of The 93Rd Board Meeting On 30 April 2013 (09:00 - 17:00) In Room 1, Orr Offices, One Kemble Street, London Board present: Non-executive directors: Anna Walker (Chair), Tracey Barlow, Peter Bucks, Mark Fairbairn Mike Lloyd, Stephen Nelson, Ray O'Toole, and Steve Walker. Executive directors: Richard Price (Chief Executive), Michael Beswick (Director, Rail Policy), Ian Prosser (Director, Railway Safety), Alan Price (Director, Railway Planning and Performance), and Cathryn Ross (Director of Railway Markets and Economics) In attendance, all items: Dan Brown (Director, Strategy), Richard Emmott (Interim Director, External Affairs), Juliet Lazarus (Director, Legal Services), Tess Sanford (Board Secretary), and Gary Taylor (Assistant. Board Secretary). In attendance, specific items: John Larkinson (PR13 programme Director) items 4 and 5, Sue Johnston (Deputy Director, Railway Safety), Graham Richards (Deputy Director, RPP), Nigel Fisher (Head of performance, information and analysis), Andrew Wallace (Head of Planning and Operations), Chris Fieldsend (Industry Planning manager), Carl Hetherington (Deputy Director, RME), Jonathan Hulme (Financial analyst) Richard Fitter (Financial Analyst), ## Item 1: Welcome And Apologies For Absence 1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. ## Item 2: Declarations Of Interest 2. Mike Lloyd confirmed that due to other commitments he will be standing down as an ORR Non-Executive Director at the end of October. On behalf of the Board the Chair thanked Mike for his considerable contribution to the work of the Board during his term and particularly for agreeing to see the PR13 process through. ## Item 3: Monthly Safety Report / Issues To Advise The Board 3. Ian Prosser raised the following safety points: - Following the update in March, Ian reported that track quality and broken rails in the Sussex area remained a concern. Ian confirmed that ORR's inspectors continued to monitor this issue closely. - Despite the continuation in improvements to workforce safety Ian reported that improvement notices had recently been issued in relation to incidents involving road rail vehicle operation and adjacent line working. Network Rail has confirmed that initiatives are ongoing to make the necessary improvements. - Statistics have shown that level crossing fatalities have risen over the last 12 months; however this was the first time none of these fatalities had been attributed to industry failings. - Work had been completed in carrying out the RM3 assessment of Network Rail. - The proposed extensions to Manchester Metro Link had recently been approved by ORR. 4. Following discussion it was agreed that it was crucial to capture the key safety issues in our annual performance letter to Network Rail. Safety performance had continued to improve but the overall level of safety risk remained high with a number of areas requiring improvement. We agreed that this links to the overall package of decisions for PR13 and that the messages included in the annual performance letter should set the scene for our Draft Determination (DD) and prefigure our position on the shaping of expenditure for areas such as maintenance, enhancement and renewals. 5. We agreed that the Chief Executive and Ian Prosser, with input from Steve Walker, would look at ensuring that the annual performance letter was balanced but raised the concerns we have, particularly in the areas of asset management, asset knowledge, renewals and maintenance. Board 30.04.13 Action i: Tell safety story clearly in annual assessment, including the areas where there has been a real improvement. The Chief Executive would work with Ian Prosser, with input from Steve Walker. ## Items 4 And 5: Pr13 Policy Decisions 6. John Larkinson presented this item which set out a suite of recommendations for Board decision as part of the overall package of PR13 policy decisions - to be included as part of the published DD document. 7. We considered the importance of remembering our legal framework and our relevant section 4 duties when looking at the overall package of decisions. For each topic John would provide the Board with a summary of the relevant section 4 duties for consideration. Paragraphs 8-49 and related action points have been redacted from the published minute as they relate to policy development. 50. We agreed that that further analysis was required in two key areas. - We asked for work to be carried out to assess where we are on achieving the published McNulty savings. As part of this we agreed that it would be important to make clear responsibilities for each area for achieving these savings. - It was agreed that it would be useful to understand where there was scope for NR outperformance and those areas which were considered to be particularly challenging. 51. John agreed to produce these additional areas of clarification for Board understanding. It was agreed that these would be circulated to the Board though correspondence. 52. We agreed that the determination offers an appropriate balanced package for Network Rail. 53. In conclusion we thanked John and the PR13 team for the comprehensive and informative discussion. ## Item 6: Draft Determination Handling Strategy 54. Richard Emmott prepared a draft handling strategy for the publication of the Draft Determination. 55. Following the discussions around the overall package for the DD, Richard agreed to revise the handling strategy to pick up many of the points raised on the key messages we need to tell. Following these revisions, Richard would circulate to all Board members for comments. Board 30.04.13 Action vii: Richard Emmott to circulate revised Handling strategy to Board members for comment ## Item 7: Update On Freight 56. We noted the presentation which set out the issues on freight, passenger franchises and open access and the associated charges. Cathryn confirmed that the presentation covered two key areas - firstly to provide background briefing on the latest issues. Secondly the slides provide a skeleton of the May Periodic Review Committee paper which will be discussed on 9 May 2013. Briefing points 57. We noted that discussions around freight and charges were still taking place. Cathryn assured the Board that the team were handling these issues and will provide a comprehensive update at the PRC meeting. 58. We noted that the Rail Freight Operators Association (RFOA) had provided analysis of the charges and had placed significant emphasis around the capacity charge. We discussed the calculation of charges. Cathryn confirmed that NR has responsibility for calculating charges. We noted that RFOA had raised a concern that they had not had enough time to prepare a response to NR's consultation but that staff did not feel this was justified as they had been involved in many of the discussions and meetings. 59. We asked whether the capacity charge should be included as CDI charges (Costs Directly Incurred) Cathryn confirmed that this issue would be picked up at the May PRC meeting. Some text has been redacted as it may relate to legal professional privilege [ ] PRC slides - skeleton for 9 May meeting 60. Cathryn confirmed that it would be important to consider the legal framework as well as to discuss our position on our statutory duties and guidance. We also agreed that it would be important to consider the overall PR13 package and overall impact on freight. Ensuring consistency of approach between freight, passenger and open access traffic would be important to meet the legal obligation to avoid discrimination. 61. We agreed with the suggested outline of the slide pack. As part of the analysis, we agreed that it would be important to pick up the following additional pieces of information: - analysis on the impact of proposed changes on the Scottish coal industry and the overall freight sector. - the impact on the profitability of freight operators and shift to road haulage to assess any modal shifts. 62. Handling will be an important area for consideration. Cathryn confirmed that this will be included in discussions around handling for the recommendations and the other options available for decision. 63. We agreed that a draft of the slide pack would be shared with the Chair as soon as possible and in advance of circulation to PRC members. Board 30.04.13 Action viii: Impact analysis on Scottish Coal industry to be provided as part of May PRC paper Board 30.04.13 Action ix: Draft paper to be provided to Chair for comments as soon as possible. ## Item 8: Network Rail Performance 64. [discussed at dinner on 29 April and included in the note of that meeting] Board 30.04.13 Action x: Final letter to be circulated to Board members ## Item 9: Ce'S Assurance And Accountability Report - Quarter 4 65. Due to time constraints we agreed to defer this item to the May Board meeting. Board 30.04.13 Action xi: CE's accountability report to be included on May Board agenda. ## Item 10: Scs Pay Policy 66. At this point, the SCS members present asked whether it was appropriate to remain in the meeting for this discussion. The Chair and non-executives agreed that they could stay. 67. We noted the proposed SCS pay policy which had been discussed and agreed by the Remuneration Committee on 22 April 2013. Following consideration we agreed with the suggested approach. ## Item 11: Chair'S Report 68. The Chair highlighted the following: 69. Following a recent meeting, Transport Scotland explained that after the independence vote, Scotland hopes to repatriate network regulation to Scotland and combine all regulators in a single organisation. They are keen for ORR to help them in thinking through the issues with factual information. We agreed with the recommendation provided that discussions are factual. 70. David Currie (new Chair Competition and Market Authority) had been present at the recent Regulatory Chairs meeting. Following discussion we agreed that we should schedule a discussion on ORR's competition powers at our July meeting. 71. Following a number of high level European meetings, we agreed that we should schedule a discussion at the July Board meeting to discuss progress and challenges to our European objectives. 72. We noted the Board objectives for 2013-14. We agreed that the objectives should be sharper and focus on key success measures. The Board Secretary agreed to revise and circulate to Board members. ## Board 30.04.13 Action Xii: Strategic Discussion On Europe To Be Included On Board Forward Programme Board 30.04.13 Action Xiii: Discussion On Orr'S Use Of Competition Powers To Be Included On Board Forward Programme Board 30.04.13 Action Xiv: Board Objectives To Be Redrafted And Circulated For Comments. Item 12: Ce'S Overview Report 73. The Chief Executive highlighted the following: 74. Positive meeting had recently taken place with Paul Deighton (Commercial Secretary, HM Treasury) and a programme of engagement with HM Treasury is currently being developed. 75. The final budget figures for 2012-13 showed an overall underspend of 3%. The consultancy budget had been used effectively during the period. ## Item 13: Board Forward Programme 76. The Board forward programme was noted. No comments were received. ## Item 14: Approval Of Minutes Of Board Meeting Held On 19 March 2013 77. The draft minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013 were noted and agreed subject to one further redaction. Board 30.04.13 Action xv: finalise redaction. ## Item 15: Matters Arising Not Taken Elsewhere On The Agenda 78. The updates on the outstanding Board actions were noted. ## Item 16: Any Other Business 79. No items were raised. Item 17: Meeting review 80. We agreed that the discussion on the package of PR13 decisions had been productive with a significant number of decisions. We congratulated the team for the careful preparation work and very creditable performances when handling scrutiny and testing questions which had enabled us to take decisions with a high degree of confidence in the options before us. ## Anna Walker Chair Minutes approved by the Board on 21 May 2013

en

2430-pdf

## How Were We Taught What Was School Like 100 Years Ago? This Resource Was Produced Using Documents From The Collections Of The National Archives. It Can Be Freely Modified And Reproduced For Use In The Classroom Only. Introduction Life at school in the Edwardian era was very different to how it is now. These photographs can tell us a lot about how children were taught at the beginning of this century. These children were in fact quite lucky, as they were at school and not working. A generation earlier, in the 1860s, one third of children in England and Wales did not attend school at all and right up until 1881 children were not required to go. Only in the 20th century were young children no longer regularly expected to work alongside adults. By 1918 school attendance was not only compulsory but the school leaving age was raised from 12 to 14 years old. Edwardian schools were similar in a lot of ways to modern ones. Classes were taken in the 'three R's' (reading, writing and arithmetic) and there were also physical education lessons ('drill'). Girls were generally taught sewing and needlework. In addition to their normal lessons, young people also usually attended Sunday School for religious education. Tasks Look at Source 1 1. This is a photograph taken at Boys Home Industrial School in 1910. Can you find: a) the master's desk b) a framed photograph c) any evidence of heating and lighting Look at Source 2 2. This is a photograph of boys from the Boys Home Industrial School studying and playing dominoes. Can you explain: a) what the classroom might have been like in the winter. b) how what is on the wall is different from your classroom. c) why the windows are so large Look at Source 3 3. This is a photograph of a physical exercise display. It was taken on Founders Day at the Boys Home Industrial School in about 1910. Can you describe: a) the uniform the boys are wearing b) the equipment they are using 4. How different is this school to the school you are at today? Make a list of the things that are different and the things that are the same: Do you think that school teachers in Edwardian times would normally sit with the children? Or do you think these teachers posed for the photographs? Background The Boys Home Industrial School, which is featured in these photographs, was based in Regents Park Road, Primrose Hill, London. The school was founded to provide 'for the maintenance and training of destitute boys not convicted of crime'. Boys who attended the school were trained in a number of disciplines, including baking, printing and shoemaking, and some boys went on to work for the William Morris Company once they had left the school. Industrial Schools were different in a number of ways from local board or church schools. Children were likely to board at the school because the intention was for them to be separated from bad influences at home. You can see in Sources 1 and 2 that the children wore uniforms, unusual in British schools of the period. One thing that the school would have shared with others of the period would have been the use of corporal punishment, usually the cane (although Scottish schools used a thick leather strap called a 'tawse'). Corporal punishment in state schools was outlawed in 1987. The early 20th century saw the true start of mass of education in Britain in the way we would recognise it today. In 1902, the Conservative government of Arthur Balfour passed an Education Act which brought state primary schools and local secondary schools under the control of local councils for the first time. The Act was needed because the provision of some schools for older children had actually been challenged in court. However Balfour also considered an educated workforce vital to maintaining Britain's position at the forefront of world trade and technical achievement. In 1906 the election of the new Liberal government led to considerable social reform. With the growth of the new Labour Party, Liberals were keen to show that they were the real party of working people. The Education (Provision of Meals) Act of 1906 introduced 'school dinners' and was followed by a further Act in 1907 which gave local authorities powers to authorise medical examinations in schools. It was hoped these would help diagnose childhood diseases early. . Teachers Notes This lesson provides material for examining photographs as evidence. It can also be used as stimulus material for looking at the history of education. For extension work, pupils could investigate the history of their own school, particularly if it is Victorian. Alternatively pupils could interview their parents/guardians or an older generation to find out if schooling has changed from when they were younger. Sources Illustration : Boys Home Industrial School - Boxing Class 1910 MH 1201/2692 f79 Source 1 : Boys Home Industrial School Classroom 1910 MH102/2691 Source 2 : Boys Home Industrial School - Boys at work and play MH102/2691 f12 Source 3 : Physical exercise display on Founders Day at the Boys Home Industrial School c1910 MH 201/2692 f26 Schemes of Work What was it like for children living in Victorian Britain Key Stage 1 & 2 Unit 11 How did life change in our locality in Victorian times? Key Stage 1 & 2 Unit 12 # Source 1 : Boys Home Industrial School Classroom 1910 (Mh102/2691 F.11) Source 2 : Boys Home Industrial School - Boys At Work And Play (Mh102/2691 F12) Source 3 : Physical Exercise Display On Founders Day At The Boys Home Industrial School C1910 (Mh 201/2692 F26)

en

0852-pdf

## Planning Decision Notice Tel: 01629 816200 Fax: 01629 816310 E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk Web: www.peakdistrict.org Minicom: 01629 816319 Aldern House . Baslow Road . Bakewell . Derbyshire . DE45 1AE P.4239 | To: | Mr & Mrs Butler | |-------------|-------------------| | C/o | Ward Design | | 93 Moorhall | | | Bakewell | | | Derbyshire | | | DE451FP | | THIS NOTICE RELATES TO PLANNING CONTROL ONLY, ANY OTHER STATUTORY CONSENT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ## Town & Country Planning Acts & General Development Order In pursuance of the powers vested in the Peak District National Park Authority under the above Acts and Order, and with reference to your application for Full Planning Permission, details of which are as follows: | Office Code No. | NP/DDD/0111/0050 | |-------------------|-------------------------------------| | Date received: | 25 January 2011 | | Proposal: | Single storey extension to dwelling | | Location: | Newholme | | Longreave Lane | | | Rowland | | Parish: Rowland ## The Decision NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT in the manner described on the application and shown on the accompanying plans and drawings is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. ## Reasons For Conditions: 1 To comply with Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which requires the National Park Authority to reconsider the proposal afresh after a period of years) as amended by Section 51 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Attention is called to the notes at the end of this Decision Notice 2 - 3 To ensure that the extension matches the character and appearance of the existing building. ## Footnotes This application has been successful as the proposed extension is in accordance with the polices of the development plan. It will not harm the character or appearance of the original dwelling, or its setting including the National Park and it will not harm the amenities of the site, neighbouring properties or the area. Note: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 38(3) of the Act also provides that the development plan consists of saved local plan policies and the development plan documents. Relevant Structure Plan policies include: 1, 2, 8, 26, 31. Relevant Local Plan policies include: LC2, LC3, LC4, LH4. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ## Statement Of Applicant'S Rights Arising From The Refusal Of Planning Permission Or From The Grant Of Permission Subject To Conditions Please Note, Only The Applicant Possesses The Right Of Appeal. You Must Use A Planning Appeal Form/Householder Appeal Form - If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. - As this is a decision to approve planning permission subject to conditions for a householder application, if you want to appeal against your local planning authority's decision then you must do so within 12 weeks of the date of this notice. - Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Secretary of State at Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN or online at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs. - The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. - The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order - In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based its decision on a direction given by him. ## Purchase Notices - If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted. - In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council or Common Council of the City of London) or, where the land is situated in a National Park, the National Park Authority for that Park in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council or Authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. To The Applicant Dear Sir or Madam Please find attached a copy of the approval notice for the development outlined below. If the approval is subject to conditions and/or footnotes please ensure that these are fully complied with. It is particularly important that you comply with any conditions which require details to be submitted and agreed, or some other action to be taken, before work commences. Failure to do so could result in any work carried out being unlawful. If you are employing a builder or other contractor to carry out the work you should ensure that he has a copy of the approval notice and approved plans before starting work. If you wish to amend the approved plans in any way, you must first agree this with us. Failure to comply with the conditions and/or the approved plans could result in abortive work and possible enforcement action. Please return the first tear-off section at the bottom of this letter before work commences and the second tear-off section once the work has been completed. Two pre-paid labels are enclosed for your use. Yours faithfully Robert Bryan Head of The Planning Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/0111/0050 P.4239 Development: Single storey extension to dwelling The above development was **completed** on ______________________________________ Signed: __________________________________ Date____________________________ Name (in block capitals): _____________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Peak District National Park Authority, Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1AE APPLICATION No: NP/DDD/0111/0050 P.4239 Development: Single storey extension to dwelling The above development is to **commence** on ______________________________________ Signed: __________________________________ Date____________________________ Name (in block capitals): _____________________________________________________

en

1740-pdf

## Cg Relief Available Except Against Acquisition Of Cias; No Against Acquisition Of Cias; No Relief Under New Rules Relief Under New Rules Cg Relief Available Only Against Acquisitions Prior To 1/4/02 Cird20280 - Reinvestment Relief: Computation: Interaction With Cg Roll-Over Relief: Flowchart Cg Relief Available Only Against Acquisitions Prior To 1/4/02 Relief Available Under New Rules Against Acquisition Of Interaction With Cg Roll-Over Relief: Flowchart Rollover Relief On Disposal Of An Asset Which Is Not Rollover Relief On Disposal Of An Asset Which Is Not Within New Rules; I.E. Asset Is Not A 'Chargeable Within New Rules; I.E. Asset Is Not A 'Chargeable Intangible Asset' (' Intangible Asset' ('Cia**Cia')** ') Relief Available Under New Rules Against Acquisition Of Cias (On Disposal Of Other Intangibles As Well As Those Cias (On Disposal Of Other Intangibles As Well As Those Qualifying For Cg Roll-Over Relief)

en

2683-pdf

# Pedal Power: The Cycle Hire Scheme And Cycle Superhighways November 2010 Copyright Greater London Authority November 2010 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN: 978-1-84781-410-4 This publication is printed on recycled paper ## Transport Committee Members | | | |--------------------------------|------------------| | Valerie Shawcross, Chair | Labour | | Caroline Pidgeon, Deputy Chair | Liberal Democrat | | Victoria Borwick | Conservative | | James Cleverly | Conservative | | Jenny Jones | Green | | Joanne McCartney | Labour | | Steve O'Connell | Conservative | | Murad Qureshi | Labour | | Richard Tracey | Conservative | At its meeting on 9 September 2010, the Committee agreed to undertake a review into the initial impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways with the following terms of reference: - To examine the initial impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways including any issues arising from their early implementation and consider the solutions proposed; and - To assess the potential for, and issues to address, in any further roll out or expansion of the schemes. The Committee welcomes feedback on its report. For further information, contact Laura Warren in the Scrutiny Team by: letter c/o of City Hall, More London, SE1 2AA; email: laura.warren@london.gov.uk; or telephone: 020 7983 6545. For press enquiries, contact Dana Gavin by telephone: 020 7983 4603 or email: dana.gavin@london.gov.uk ## Contents | Chair's foreword | 6 | |-----------------------------------------------------|-----| | | | | Executive summary | 7 | | | | | Introduction | 10 | | | | | An overview of the schemes: their targets and costs | 11 | | | | | Initial issues for the cycle hire scheme | 18 | | | | | Initial issues for the cycle superhighways | 27 | | | | | Conclusion | 35 | | | | | Appendix 1 - details of this review | 36 | | | | | Appendix 2 - orders and translations | 41 | | | | | Appendix 3 - principles of scrutiny | 42 | | | | | | | | | | ## Chair'S Foreword The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways are major additions to London's transport network. The Transport Committee supports their development. It wants to see them result in more cycling in London. It is early days for these schemes but our review into their initial impact has revealed some issues. This report sets out, in detail, the matters which users of the schemes and organisations have raised so they may inform the future development of these schemes. It also sets out overall targets and costs for each scheme to provide a basis on which to judge their success in the longer-term. We have found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme but there remain questions about how it is being funded. It is not clear exactly how much sponsorship Barclays has provided for a scheme which has now been running for four months. The Mayor has plans to expand the scheme eastwards and potentially beyond. Many want to see its expansion across the whole of London, particularly to areas where public transport is limited. The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) will need to make clear how any plans for expansion will be funded and the rationale for the areas that will be covered. The cycle superhighways do not appear as popular with new cyclists as the cycle hire scheme. Users of the pilot cycle superhighways have told us that they do not feel safer using these routes and they are not always respected by other road users. There are clearly lessons to be learned from the design and development of the pilot cycle superhighways. These should be applied before the roll out of the future cycle superhighways to ensure these are safer and attract many more new cyclists. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this review. We look forward to receiving a response from the Mayor and TfL to the matters we raise in this report. Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair, Transport Committee ## Executive Summary The Mayor's flagship schemes to encourage cycling in London are highly visible to everybody travelling around the capital. The distinctive hire bikes and docking stations represent a new piece of transport infrastructure in central London. The forthcoming roll-out of the cycle hire scheme for casual users is keenly awaited. Similarly, swathes of cyclists on the bright blue lanes on key arterial routes into the centre are becoming a common sight. The Committee supports these initiatives. Both schemes are new and perhaps inevitably there have been teething problems and criticisms of some aspects. Our aim in this report is to highlight what is working well and, where we see the potential for improvement, to respond to these criticisms and make constructive suggestions to Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor. In doing so, we have drawn on the first large-scale survey of users and the views of a number of organisations. We found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme. Over 20 per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling as a result of the scheme and over 80 per cent thought it good value for money. One comment received, representative of the views of many, described it as "a very significant enhancement to life in London". While clearly value for money for users, there remain questions over how the scheme is being funded and the return on TfL's initial investment. The amount of sponsorship that Barclays has provided to date is unclear. It may have provided less than anticipated since its agreement with TfL is conditional on certain performance indicators being met but the scheme has not rolled out as planned. Furthermore, delays in the implementation of the scheme and the rollout to casual users have affected operating costs and revenue from charges. These delays have costs. TfL reports that the annual operating cost of the scheme will be £18 million which it expects to be met from charges and sponsorship. To date in 2010/11, TfL has received only £1.9 million of income from charges largely because the roll out to casual users was delayed by six months and has missed the summer months. TfL now expects the scheme to be self-financing in two to three years and for the income to start contributing to its £79 million set up costs by 2017/18. The roll-out to casual users of the cycle hire scheme planned for 3 December will also determine the extent to which the scheme will meet its original objectives. Current users are making on average 15,000 trips per day compared with the eventual aim of 40,000. Our survey found less than one per cent of journeys are replacing those previously made by car; TfL's planning assumptions were for a five per cent shift from car to bike. TfL and Serco, the private contractor running the cycle hire scheme, have made some welcome changes in response to initial teething problems. Our report seeks further action depending, in some cases, on the extent to which the roll-out to casual users provides its own solutions. Specifically, we ask TfL and the Mayor to address: - The lack of bikes and available docking points in certain areas, particularly at peak periods. - Problems with registration, charges and poor customer service from Serco's customer service centre. Half of the respondents to our survey had had to contact the call centre to report problems and one third rated the experience poor or very poor. The rationale for decisions about expanding the cycle hire scheme geographically is unclear. Inevitably, people in many parts of London want the scheme to be made available in their areas. The existing scheme is limited in its geographical reach, largely benefiting inner London. Yet many have highlighted that the greatest potential for growth in cycling is in outer London. TfL has highlighted some logistical issues to expanding the scheme. It suggests "bolt on" areas in large employment centres are more feasible than the London-wide expansion of the cycle hire scheme along the lines of the Paris model to which the Mayor has aspired. We have found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. The cycle superhighways will have to deliver a significant increase in cycling if they are to justify the £166 million investment. The Mayor's ambition is for the planned 12 cycle superhighways to generate 120,000 *additional* cycle trips per day. The two pilot cycle superhighways are attracting 5,000 cyclists per day and only one per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling specifically as a result.1 There is a need to learn lessons from the pilot cycle superhighways and apply these before the roll-out of the future cycle superhighways. It is hoped that the cycle superhighways will help create the potential for a critical mass which will eventually encourage others to get on their bikes and help realise the Mayor's ambition for a cycling revolution in the capital. Our work suggests there are some issues which need to be addressed to ensure this happens: - 60 per cent of respondents did not feel safer using the cycle superhighways and two-thirds did not feel they were respected by other road users. Greater consistency in the measures along the route would help this situation, such as a uniform width, improvements to junctions and 20 mph speed limits on busy sections. - Development of future cycle superhighways should include detailed consultation with cycling organisations and London Boroughs and build on evaluations of the pilots to date. The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways have already had a large impact on the capital. We recognise it is very early days. Our report aims to contribute to the planning on how they develop further. Their success will determine the extent to which the Mayor's ambitions for cycling in London are realised. ## Introduction In summer 2010, the Mayor launched two major schemes to increase cycling in London. On 19 July, two of the 12 cycle superhighways were unveiled. These blue cycle lanes are intended to provide safer routes for commuters to cycle from inner and outer London to the city. On 29 July, the cycle hire scheme began. A self-service public bicycle sharing scheme operating in zone one, it is intended to provide an alternative mode of transport for short journeys. The Transport Committee welcomes these schemes and the recent announcement that the cycle hire scheme will be available to casual users from 3 December. It recognises the huge potential to increase cycling in London and the important role these schemes have to play in making this happen. The Committee wants them to be successful. With such large-scale projects, there are inevitably some issues. These schemes are still very much in their infancy. The Committee remains supportive as they are developed. The Transport Committee undertook a short review to assess the initial impact of the schemes. It explored issues which had emerged and the possible solutions, with a view to informing the future development of the schemes. Recently, the Mayor and TfL announced that the cycle hire scheme will be expanded to east London by 2012 and all 12 cycle superhighways will be installed, as planned, by 2015. This review provided the first opportunity for users of both schemes to share their views publicly. Around 1,300 people responded to the Committee's online survey. This was completed on a self-selecting basis and as such is not representative of all users but it did provide a way of gathering lots of users' views. Other people, along with organisations, provided written submissions. This review also included a public meeting on 12 October 2010 where the Committee discussed the schemes in detail. Further information about the stages in the review can be found at Appendix 1 of this report. The remainder of the report summarises the information and views gathered by the Committee. Where appropriate, it highlights issues that the Committee would like the Mayor and TfL to respond to or address to help improve the operation of these schemes. The first section provides an overview of the schemes' initial progress against the Mayor's targets and their costs. The subsequent sections set out the specific issues which have arisen in relation to each scheme and some possible solutions. ## An Overview Of The Schemes: Their Targets And Costs The cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways are central to the Mayor's plan for a "cycling revolution" in London. The Transport Strategy sets out a target to increase cycling trips by 400 per cent by 20262; the equivalent of 1.5 million cycling trips per day. When launching the cycle hire scheme, the Mayor was more ambitious. He said: "In 1904, 20 per cent of journeys were made by bicycle in London. I want to see a figure like that again."3 Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these schemes, it is possible to make some initial observations. These should be placed alongside the schemes' overall targets and costs. This can help to inform their future development and provide a basis against which to judge their success in future years. Is the cycle hire scheme meeting its targets? The Mayor wants the cycle hire scheme to generate 40,000 additional cycle trips per day by offering an alternative to the car and public transport.4 To date, the scheme has attracted over 100,000 registered members who are making, on average, 15,000 trips per day.5 The average number of trips for weekdays is higher at 21,000-24,000.6 Although this is just over half the target of 40,000 daily trips, the scheme has not yet rolled out to casual users. TfL reports that by March 2011 it expects an average of 27,000 trips per day and to reach the target of 40,000 trips per day in future years. 7 The Committee's survey revealed great enthusiasm for this scheme. Around one-fifth of respondents had started cycling as a result of the cycle hire scheme. Over 80 per cent thought it represented good value for money. The following comment is typical. "Overall, I love the scheme and it has improved my quality of life tremendously. I feel fitter and happier and "empowered" by having another way to make journeys…The scheme is a very significant enhancement to life in London." The survey respondents reported some change in their travel behaviour. Over half used the hire bikes instead of different modes. Around one-fifth reported using the hire bikes instead of just the Tube, eight per cent instead of just the bus and seven per cent instead of just walking. Less than one per cent reported using the bikes instead of the car. TfL originally anticipated a modal shift of five per cent from cars. It also predicted the largest shift would be from walking (34 per cent) with some shift from buses (32 per cent) and the Tube (20 per cent).8 The cost of the cycle hire scheme There remain questions about the cost and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme. The Committee has obtained further information from TfL which is set out at Appendix 1 of this report. This shows the cycle hire scheme's capital and operational costs: the total capital cost for phase one of the scheme is expected to be £79 million and the annual operating cost is anticipated to be £18 million.9 Charges and sponsorship income from the scheme goes to TfL. This income is planned to cover operational costs.10 The timing of the break-even point has been affected by the scheme not being rolled out as planned. Phase one of the scheme was originally scheduled for May 2010.11 This was to have enabled members and casual users to use 6,000 bikes at 400 docking stations with over 10,000 docking points. It was anticipated that they would make 30,000 trips per day in year one rising to 40,000 trips per day each year thereafter. The scheme will be available to casual users from early December rather than May as planned. While this delay has enabled TfL and Serco to iron out some of the teething problems it has reduced the revenue because of the smaller than anticipated number of journeys. Registered users are making, on average, 15,000 trips per day. TfL expects the number of trips to rise to an average 27,000 trips per day by March 2011 once the scheme is rolled out to casual users. TfL and Serco are still working towards installing the target infrastructure for phase one of the scheme. TfL told us that there are 5,000 available bikes at 344 docking stations with around 8,180 docking points. These figures are between 14 per cent and 18 per cent less than had been planned for phase one of the scheme. The absence of casual users has reduced income from charges and the absence of all the planned infrastructure has resulted in higher operational costs. For example, Serco has had to supply additional staff and vehicles to help with the redistribution of bikes in popular locations. It has also supplied more call centre staff. It is not clear whether these additional costs have been met by Serco or whether TfL is providing financial support. When the Committee asked for this information, TfL reported that operating costs for the cycle hire scheme, including for the call centre and redistribution, were commercially confidential.12 In October, David Brown, the Managing Director of Surface Transport at TfL, told the Committee that, in theory, the limited roll-out to date had affected revenue. He said TfL assumed casual users would hire the bikes for longer than 30 minutes at a time so they would be a bigger revenue generator. However, TfL now expects to break even on operating costs within two to three years. Moreover, "by the end of the business plan, income from charges and the sponsorship deal with Barclays would contribute to the capital cost."13 Since then, TfL has reported that, in the first four months of the scheme, it has achieved £1.9 million of income from charges. This is just 10 per cent of the amount it expects to generate from charges by March 2011 (£18.7 million).14 It is, therefore, expecting to generate the majority of the income this year in the next four months following the roll-out to casual users. However, this coincides with the winter period when demand is expected to fall and therefore these income expectations seem optimistic.15 TfL has not revealed how much income from sponsorship it has received to date. It is possible that it has received less than anticipated because the scheme has not rolled out as planned. The agreement with Barclays provides for £25 million of funding over a five year period (equating to £5 million per year) providing TfL meets key performance indicators such as the number of trips generated through the scheme.16 The Mayor has also reported that there are other measures of success in the agreement with Barclays including the number of docking stations installed and the number of bikes in circulation.17 In the past, the Mayor has reported that Barclays would provide up to £23.8 million of sponsorship by 2014/15. Of this, £10.8 million would be used for phase one of the cycle hire scheme and the rest would be spent on future intensification /expansion of the scheme.18 TfL has also indicated that the deal with Barclays will cover the cycle superhighways.19 However, the information provided to the Committee does not indicate what amount of sponsorship funding been allocated to the cycle superhighwa has ys. TfL has reported that the cost of the proposed expansion of the scheme eastwards is £45 million over a six year period. This includes £30 million of funding for implementation and £15 million for operational costs.20 This proposed expansion will provide for 2,000 more bikes and 4,200 more docking points. TfL told the Committee that in developing the scheme, it would need to be "more imaginative" about funding. For example, if businesses wanted docking stations located outside their buildings, they could pay for them.21 It remains to be seen if other sources of funding, apart from Barclays, have been secured to offset the cost. It is also unclear what number of additional cycle trips the expansion is expected to generate. This information should be published so it is possible to assess the full costs and benefits of expanding the scheme. The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL's finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor's commitment to transparency about public expenditure. The Mayor and TfL should publish the amount of sponsorship obtained to date from Barclays and the conditions to be met for future sponsorship. The Mayor and TfL should also set out clearly how the expansion of the scheme eastwards will be paid for and the number of additional cycle trips it is expected to generate. Are the cycle superhighways meeting their targets? The Mayor wants the 12 cycle superhighways to generate up to 120,000 additional trips per day by providing commuters with a quicker, safer way to get to work from inner and outer London.22 In the first few months, TfL has reported a 25 per cent increase in cycle trips on the two pilot cycle superhighways (Merton to the City - CS7 and Barking to Tower Gateway - CS3). These are being used by 5,000 cyclists per day.23 TfL believes that it is reasonable to conclude, at this stage, that this increase is not due to cyclists diverting from parallel routes.24 The Committee's survey revealed far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways compared to the hire scheme. Only one per cent of respondents had started cycling specifically because of the cycle superhighways. Around one-third used the two pilot routes occasionally and one-third used them several times a week. TfL has reported that its initial research shows some behaviour change as a result of the cycle superhighways. Of its survey of 257 people who cycled on the routes recently, 16-24 per cent had shifted from another mode. There was a 26 per cent increase in the number of people cycling three times a week.25 TfL told the Committee that its business case for the cycle superhighways is not only about encouraging modal shift and increasing the number of cyclists. It is also about improving journey times and the smoothness of journeys for existing cyclists.26 ## The Costs Of The Cycle Superhighways The 12 cycle superhighways are expected to cost £166 million.27 This includes around £23 million for the two pilot cycle superhighways. Most of the money for the pilot routes (£12.47 million) has been spent on the highways improvements e.g. painting blue cycle lanes, installing advance stop lines and modifying junctions. This budget also covered the additional "soft" measures which are part of the scheme. It included: £1.41million for cycle parking; £1.46million for cycle training, maintenance and safety; and £1.44 million for route promotion.28 The majority of the cost of the cycle superhighways is being met by TfL. As highlighted in the previous section on the cycle hire scheme, TfL has reported that some Barclays sponsorship would be used for the cycle superhighways. The Committee has sought clarification from TfL on the amount to be covered by sponsorship but it has not given details. The information TfL has provided on the costs of the cycle superhighways is set out at Appendix 1. Greater clarity on costs and performance of these schemes In future, the Mayor and TfL should provide more detailed information about the cost and performance of these schemes so Londoners know what they are getting for their money. TfL has already released data about the cycle hire scheme to assist in the creation of 'apps' for mobile phones which give more information to users of the scheme.29 This is welcome. TfL could now build on this openness by releasing further information about the costs and performance of the schemes. There are various pieces of information which TfL could publish immediately. This includes: the 'raw data' from its Ipsos Mori survey of users of the cycle hire scheme 30 and its survey of users of the cycle superhighways; its contract with Serco for the operation of the cycle hire scheme31; and its agreement with Barclays for sponsoring both schemes. The publication of such information would be in line with the Government's commitment to publish details of all contracts over £25,000. The publication of more information about the costs and performance of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways chimes with the Government's desire for greater disclosure on public sector spending. It will enable Londoners to understand what is being spent on these schemes and what is being delivered for this money. Initial issues for the cycle hire scheme The cycle hire scheme is very popular. Inevitably with a new scheme there have been some problems. Users highlighted a number of issues in their survey responses. This section provides more details. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters by March 2011. A lack of bikes and available docking points in some areas There has been a lack of bikes and available docking points in certain areas, particularly at peak periods. The Committee's survey revealed this was a particular problem in Covent Garden, Holborn, Kennington, Westminster and Waterloo. One respondent commented: "There is a shocking lack of available docking points in Vauxhall and Kennington. Twice I had to cycle further than I had to travel from where I picked the bike up. Once I was told to take the bike home. Not fun to carry up 4 flights of stairs. I was charged £50…and told to wait 5 days for a refund." In response, TfL has worked with Serco to establish an improved bike redistribution programme. Staff have been deployed at busy docking stations to help users return or obtain bikes.32 New redistribution processes have been introduced.33 Serco has doubled its total number of redistribution staff and vehicles. In turn, this has led to questions about the environmental impact of the scheme. It was originally expected that only electric vehicles would be used for redistribution. Serco is now using 14 electrically powered vehicles, 10 Focus/Mondeo vehicles and, on a temporary basis, three 7.5 ton lorries and four Sprinter vans. It also uses 10 Nissan vans for on-street maintenance.34 It has told the Committee that it is undertaking a fleet review in light of the different redistribution requirements.35 TfL has reiterated that, as originally planned, it is not seeking to meet all the potential demand at rail stations. Although it has recently worked with Network Rail to increase the number of docking points at Waterloo station, it does not plan any further increases thereafter. TfL has suggested that it could never meet the demand at rail stations. It estimated this would require the space of 24 football pitches to park all the hire bikes required.36 Serco has suggested that alternative options could be explored. For example, the introduction of a cheap all day bike rental scheme at stations similar to the CyclePoint scheme at Leeds station.37 The introduction of the planned 400 docking stations should improve availability. Serco has stated that it believes the completion of these further docking stations will help address redistribution.38 The London Cycling Campaign reported to the Committee that the functionality of the scheme depends on the full complement of 400 docking stations being completed.39 However, the full scheme may not be in place until March 2011. In October, Serco reported that 70-80 docking stations were still subject to planning permission, under construction or constrained by other factors. It anticipated "progressively adding" docking stations so 10,000 docking points and 6,000 bikes would be available by March.40 TfL will need to work closely with London Boroughs to progress the installation of all the planned docking stations. The London Borough of Islington reported on problems with the installation of docking stations in its area. It said it had a "long list of snagging issues" to be resolved before it would sign off the docking stations. It had now agreed with TfL that it could do the majority of work on any future docking stations.41 The current number of docking stations per London Borough and in the Royal Parks is shown in the table below.42 | London Borough/Royal Parks | Number of docking stations | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Camden | 37 | | City of London | 28 | | Hackney | 13 | | Islington | 29 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 46 | | Lambeth | 21 | | Royal Parks | 11 | | Southwark | 31 | |---------------|-------| | Tower Hamlets | 13 | | Westminster | 119 | | | | TfL has said it is learning lessons about the installation of docking stations. For the future expansion it is seeking different ways of working with London Boroughs to secure sites for docking stations.43 The future expansion will require an additional 4,200 docking points, including 1,500 within the current area. The roll-out to casual users may also help with the redistribution of bikes. Amongst others, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea44 has stressed the importance of extending the scheme to casual users for this purpose. The London Cycling Campaign has reported that for better efficiency this 'natural' re-distribution is preferable to reliance on Serco staff. In Paris, the Velib scheme gives additional free hire time to users so they take the bikes to destinations where they are in short supply. The London Cycling Campaign suggests a similar incentive scheme should be considered for London.45 ## The Committee Welcomes The Efforts Being Made By Tfl, Serco And London Boroughs To Deliver The Planned 400 Docking Stations, 10,000 Docking Points And 6,000 Bikes. This Is Crucial To The Success Of The Current Scheme. If This Installation, Combined With The Roll-Out To Casual Users, Does Not Address The Problems Of A Lack Of Bikes And Available Docking Points In Certain Areas, The Mayor And Tfl Will Need To Take Other Action. This Could Include Providing An Incentive Of Additional Free Hire Time So Users Assist With The Redistribution Of Bikes. Problems with registration, charging and poor customer service In the first few months of the scheme, some users experienced problems with the registration process. Some users were also overcharged. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "The registration process was awful. Being of Irish heritage I have an apostrophe in my name. The system could not cope with this. It took three weeks to be able to register." 43 Transcript of Transport Committee meeting on 12 October 2010, p 11 44 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's written submission, October 2010 45 London Cycling Campaign's written submission, October 2010 Serco has reported that systems errors have now been addressed and its staff retrained. There were two billing glitches in August but there have not been any since.46 In October, David Brown of TfL reported that, in light of the initial teething issues, TfL wanted to get the experience right for those customers registering as members. It therefore delayed the roll-out to casual users but was now "getting everything ready so we will be ready for casual users and the experience will be good."47 Although improvements have been made, there remains an outstanding issue for members wanting multiple membership keys. The current arrangement means members are charged for all keys held when only one key is used. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "I have two keys and get charged the £1 daily access fee for both keys even if I only use one key to unlock a bike for myself. This is unfair, and a sneaky way of generating revenue!" Another stated: "My partner registered me for a key on her account. Nowhere was it made clear that this meant that both keys would be charged every time she used hers. This is clearly a nonsense… This stupidity had turned me from a supporter of the scheme to a vocal detractor." Serco has acknowledged that this is an issue. It reported that it had made refunds where appropriate. It also now advises customers that if they want multiple keys to have separate memberships in separate names. It accepted this arrangement was not ideal. It told the Committee steps are being taken to change this part of the system.48 A more pressing issue for the roll-out to casual users is to ensure a better service from Serco's customer call centre. The Committee's survey revealed many people had received a poor service. Half the respondents reported having to contact the call centre to report a problem. Of these, more than one-third rated the experience poor or very poor. The following comments are typical. "Fortunately I've only ever been overcharged very small amounts but it has been a titanic battle to get anybody to respond substantively to me and one of my overcharges has never been resolved…." "Switching from weekly to annual access was extremely difficult. It took several attempts over two weeks." "I seem to have problems undocking the bikes. I'm not sure if this is a problem with my account or an issue with the docking station. There have been long waits when I have then contacted the call centre." Serco told the Committee that there had been problems with the call centre. In the first few months it was overwhelmed by demand. In August, there was on average 2,300 calls per day and the average call waiting time was 79 seconds49 Subsequently, though, the centre had been reviewed and the number of staff increased.50 By October, the average number of calls per day had reduced to 1,000 and the average call waiting time was 13 seconds. 51 TfL recently reported the call centre's service levels had improved; all its key performance indicators had been met since 19 September 2010.52 Whilst some improvements have been made, people contacting the call centre whilst using the bikes may still experience delays. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented "on phoning the help desk there is a good minute of pre-amble and then options. If I'm out on a bike and have a problem I simply want to speak to someone. They could do with two numbers - one for people out on bikes and one for general enquiries." Serco reported to the Committee that it would look at how to improve the responses provided to people who call when using the bikes. TfL also reported that this "was a very valid point which we need to find a way round."53 TfL and Serco have taken steps to address problems with registration, charging and a poor response from the customer call centre. More could be done to build on these improvements. They could: change the charges for members so they can have multiple keys but only get charged for each key used; and develop a process whereby users reporting problems whilst using the bikes obtain a quicker response from the call centre. Concerns about the safety of users of the scheme TfL and Serco have told the Committee that there have been around nine minor road incidents involving users of the cycle hire scheme.54 This is very few in the context of more than one million journeys on the cycle hire bikes. Some people have expressed concern that the number of road incidents could increase with the roll-out to casual users. These may include visitors to London who are unfamiliar with its streets. In September, the Mayor himself raised safety as an issue. He reported seeing terrifying things being done on the bikes. He said that "only last night I saw a girl completely dead to the world wobbling into traffic…anything could have happened."55 Organisations such as the road safety campaign group Brake56 and the head injuries charity Headway have argued for the provision of cycle helmets.57 There is considerable debate over the merits of cyclists using cycle helmets to increase their safety. In April 2010, TfL decided not to introduce cycle helmets as part of the scheme. Instead it seeks to promote safety through the provision of cycle training in the nine boroughs where the scheme operates and through the scheme's code of conduct. It has also placed stickers on the handlebars of each bike warning users not to ride to the left of large vehicles. TfL reported that this was an important message to convey. The majority of cyclists who died on London's roads last year had done whilst undertaking or riding inside a left-turning vehicle.58 ## The Committee Welcomes The Steps Which The Mayor And Tfl Has Taken To Improve The Safety Of Users Of The Cycle Hire Scheme. It Asks The Mayor And Tfl To Keep These Measures Under Review. They Should Consider What Further Action Could Be Taken If The Roll-Out To Casual Users Results In An Increase In The Number Of Road Incidents Involving Users Of The Scheme. Expansion of the cycle hire scheme There is clearly huge potential to expand the scheme. Many organisations have expressed support for intensification of the scheme within its existing area. Some organisations have argued for a wider extension of the scheme to other parts of outer London. They draw a parallel with Paris' Velib scheme which has around 24,000 bikes at 1,750 sites.59 The Mayor has also mentioned the Velib scheme. He said he wanted to overtake it, and that a London hire bike was a Rolls Royce compared to the Parisian "deux chevaux" [Citroen 2CV].60 The Mayor has already announced that the scheme will be expanded eastward by 2012 but the rationale for this expansion is not clear. The proposal provides for an additional 2,000 bikes and 4,200 docking points, of which 1,500 will be in the existing area.61 It is not apparent how lessons are being learned from the current scheme and applied, including in relation to the location of more docking points in the existing area. It is important that the development of this scheme is placed within the context of encouraging cycling across the whole of London. The Mayor and TfL should be ensuring there is a balanced development of cycling. They need to consider all the parts of the capital, including areas of outer London, which could benefit from this scheme. They should also consult on any plans for expansion. The Mayor has said that any expansion would be informed by lessons learned from the current scheme's operation.62 He has also indicated that he would consult Londoners and local communities.63 The Mayor has reported that one of the basic premises of the scheme is that a dense network of docking stations needs to be in place throughout the cycle hire zone, as users rely on the expectation that there will be a docking station close to their desired origin/destination. Therefore, areas with no Tube stations could not be incorporated in isolation to the rest of the network but rather the entire area would need to be covered by cycle hire.64 Whilst there might be potential for separate hire schemes in parts of outer London such as Croydon, Serco has highlighted that it could be confusing for users if any such schemes were not linked to the current scheme.65 TfL has also advised of some constraints to expansion. It stated that the only real way to expand the scheme was to have bolt-on areas, particularly large employment centres. In extending the scheme it was necessary to intensify the current scheme; for every extra docking point put outside the central area, there should be a corresponding one inside. TfL said that, at this stage, cost was the main inhibitor to greater expansion.66 ## There Should Be Lessons Learned From The Current Cycle Hire Scheme And Applied Before Any Expansion To Other Parts Of London. In Developing The Scheme, The Mayor And Tfl Should Give Further Consideration To The Parts Of London That Could Benefit From This Scheme. Further improvements to the scheme Many organisations have made suggestions for other improvements to the cycle hire scheme. A frequent suggestion is linking the scheme to Oystercard.67 This seems unlikely to happen. TfL has said that it would be expensive. It would also be out of step with its move to introduce contactless payment systems.68 Some people have suggestions for how to encourage greater use of the scheme. The London Borough of Southwark69 and the London Cycling Campaign70 suggest introducing multi-use corporate membership accounts for businesses. This would accord with the Mayor and TfL's existing smarter travel initiatives which seek to encourage more people to cycle and walk to work. Wheels for Wellbeing suggests expanding the scheme to include trikes for hire by disabled people and others who may not be very confident on two wheels. It reports that the Mayor has said he would consider including trikes. If introduced, this could make this scheme a "world leader".71 Serco has reported that the introduction of trikes could be difficult as it reduces the space for the other bikes in docking stations.72 There may be scope to realise improvements through some more simple actions. The London Cycling Campaign wants TfL to provide more information about the hire scheme on its online journey planner. It could show the nearest docking stations to the traveller's stated destination.73 This might encourage greater use of the scheme by people who might not otherwise consider using it. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to consider the scope for further improvements to the cycle hire scheme to maximise its benefits. These may include: introducing corporate membership; providing trikes for people with reduced mobility; and providing more details on TfL's Journey Planner. ## Next Steps The Committee welcomes the introduction of the cycle hire scheme. This is a popular initiative which has generated much enthusiasm for cycling. The Committee has identified a number of issues which it would like to see addressed to ensure it operates successfully. It would like the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters. ## Recommendation 1 By March 2011 the Mayor and TfL should report back to the Committee on all the issues raised in this report in relation to the cycle hire scheme. Their report to the Committee should include: a) An update on the impact of roll-out to casual users and increased numbers of docking stations and docking points in resolving problems with a lack of bikes and available docking points at popular locations; b) The performance of Serco's customer call centre since September 2010 and any measures taken to improve the customer service provided to users of the scheme; c) The number of incidents involving road users of the scheme and any actions taken to enhance their safety; d) The lessons learned from the current scheme which are being applied to the expansion to east London by 2012 and other proposals for expansion of the scheme to other parts of London; and e) Any other changes made to improve the impact of the cycle hire scheme. ## Initial Issues For The Cycle Superhighways The cycle superhighways have received a mixed reception. Many cyclists have highlighted concerns about their safety when using the pilot routes. Some have reported that many other road users such as car drivers ignore the blue cycle lanes. This section provides more details of the issues which have been raised. The Committee asks the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on all these matters by March 2011. The safety of cycle superhighways Although the cycle superhighways are designed to provide safer cycling routes, it is not clear the pilot routes are achieving this. More than half of respondents to the Committee's survey did not feel any safer using the cycle superhighways to alternative routes. Two-thirds of respondents to the Committee's survey felt that the cycle superhighways were not respected by other road users. The Committee's review shows users of the cycle superhighways are experiencing various problems. In some places the blue cycle lanes are too narrow, occupied by other vehicles, disappear at busy junctions or are covered by parked vehicles. The following comments are typical. "The superhighways are not wide enough, stop abruptly at junctions and are extremely badly positioned on roads." "I found the experience rather scary being sent from one side of the road to the other. I will not be doing it again." "Just when you need them [cycle superhighways] - at major junctions, roundabouts and so on - they vanish. A novice cyclist, persuaded to venture out by the superhighways, is left high and dry just when they need most help." The London Cycling Campaign has highlighted the inconsistency of measures along the cycle superhighway routes. Whilst in some places there are full advance stop lines of 5 metres depth and mandatory cycle lanes of 2 metres width, elsewhere there are just narrow 'ghost' lanes (sections of blue paint without any legal status). However, it is most concerned that there are virtually no measures to reduce motor traffic volumes or speeds. Without such measures, it believes the cycle superhighways are bound to fall short of their potential; increased usage may only be drawn from existing cyclists. It suggests all one-way sections on the cycle superhighways be made two-way for cyclists and the bulk of the funding be spent on improving junctions and gyratories.74 Other organisations have made similar points about the need to improve the measures on cycle superhighways.75 The London Boroughs Cycling Officers' Group has highlighted the importance of prioritising cyclists at junctions and getting rid of car parking over the cycle superhighways. Gina Harkell, the Vice-Chair of the Group, suggested it would be really nice if one of the cycle superhighways was "a truly dedicated route for cyclists such as those found in Holland, Germany and Denmark."76 Many people want more measures on the cycle superhighways which reduce motor traffic, traffic speeds and/or provide better segregation amongst road users. Respondents to the Committee survey have commented on other vehicles frequently driving on the cycle superhighways. One said "[the cycle superhighways] need to be physically segregated from other traffic. There are too many lorries drifting into the cycle lanes despite the blue paint." Sustrans has highlighted that the greatest barrier to Londoners cycling, or cycling more, is fear of traffic yet the cycle superhighways generally follow busy arterial roads and provide no or minimal segregation from traffic. It therefore concludes that in their current form the cycle superhighways have limited scope to facilitate an uptake in cycling, particularly by new cyclists.77 One option is more 20mph speed limits. The Mayor has said that TfL will consider installing 20mph speed limits on specific parts of the cycle superhighways such as Southwark Bridge Road.78 The Committee has previously explored the potential for 20mph speed limits in London Boroughs as set out in its report Braking Point: 20mph speed limits in London (March 2009). Some London Boroughs including Hackney have expressed support for the introduction of 20mph speed limits where the cycle superhighways pass along busy streets.79 TfL has acknowledged that the cycle superhighways should be about addressing major barriers for cyclists such as dangerous junctions.80 David Brown of TfL said "we must not shy away from [these barriers] and, if we do, then we have missed an opportunity."81 He also reported that consistency was important. He said "we are trying to make it consistent so you hit that cycling superhighway and you have a clear idea as to…what you're doing and what to expect."82 TfL has reported on lessons learned from the pilot cycle superhighways. These are largely about ensuring the features of the cycle superhighways are put in place more quickly.83 They include allowing more time to implement traffic orders to ensure more mandatory cycle lanes and considering suspension of parking and loading during peak hours on some parts of the routes. TfL also reported that road user behaviour studies were now underway on the pilot routes. The results of these studies would inform the measures on other cycle superhighways.84 TfL is also taking steps to improve other road users' response to the cycle superhighways. It has trialed 34 "Trixi mirrors" (convex road safety mirrors) to improve the visibility of cyclists at traffic lights.85 Over the summer the Metropolitan Police Service's Cycle Task Force ran a six week operation targeted at improving the behaviour of car drivers and cyclists on the pilot cycle superhighways.86 TfL has worked with the freight industry to help reduce deliveries at peak times along the cycle superhighways where possible. It is also workin with bus operators to provide cycle awareness training and information to bus driv g ers.87 The Committee would like to see a greater consistency in the features on future cycle superhighway routes so they are safer for cyclists. The Mayor and TfL could establish a minimum level of features which should be introduced. This could include: - all the blue cycle lanes will be 2 metres wide and mandatory; - all the advance stop lines will be 5 metres deep; - all parts of the routes which are one-way will be made twoway for cyclists; - all junctions on each route will be improved; - 20 mph speed limits will be introduced for all busy sections; and ## - There Will Be An Mps Cycle Task Force Enforcement Campaign For Each Cycle Superhighway When Launched. Building on the experience of the pilot cycle superhighways fully The first two cycle superhighways are only pilots but TfL has already started work on the next two cycle superhighways (Bow to Aldgate - CS2 and Wandsworth to Westminster - CS8).88 The London Borough of Southwark and Lewisham Cyclists89 have expressed concern that work is proceeding on these routes without the pilots being evaluated. 90 Some organisations argue that there are issues on the pilot routes which need to be resolved. The London Cycling Campaign has reported on highly problematic sections such as the contraflow cycle lane on the wrong side of Horseferry Road, E14 and Cable Street91 on CS3. It believes there should be a further round of improvements to the pilot routes.92 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has also expressed concerns about the routing of CS3, having received complaints about cyclists' behaviour on narrow back streets.93 Respondents to the Committee's survey reported their concerns about specific sections of the pilot cycle superhighways. Many mentioned Cable Street and the section around Elephant & Castle. One commented: "CS3 is very badly designed on narrow streets. Cars don't give right of way at advanced stop lines and stop where they usually would when turning a road. I've had a few near misses and seen a few near misses and one bad accident because of this. For this reason I don't use it." TfL told the Committee that it was sometimes "between a rock and a hard place" in terms of the highway options for the pilot routes. If it proved that it had chosen any measures incorrectly or that the traffic was not doing what was anticipated, it could revisit these routes. David Brown of TfL said "if there is something that we have got to look at again we will look at it again. I do not have any problems about that."94 88 TfL press release 304, 30 September 2010 Some of the problems with the pilot routes might have been avoided if TfL had consulted more thoroughly. Many organisations have criticised its approach to developing the cycle superhighways. The London Cycling Campaign described it as rushed and frequently unresponsive. It wants more time for the development of future cycle superhighways and suggests a more comprehensive four-stage consultation and design process.95 TfL needs to engage fully with London Boroughs about the routes of cycle superhighways. Gina Harkell of the London Boroughs Cycling Officers' Group commented that London Boroughs felt local knowledge was not being used as well as it could be in determining the routing of the cycle superhighways. She said: "what we are seeing is wider and bluer London Cycle Network plus routes and some of the opportunities are not being taken to make them really, really safe."96 The London Boroughs of Southwark97 and Merton98 have commented on a lack of engagement from TfL. They wanted more time provided to develop better routes. London Councils has highlighted TfL's commitment in the City Charter to work with London Boroughs to learn lessons from the pilot routes before implementing future cycle superhighways.99 TfL has provided details of its multi-stage approach to developing the cycle superhighways. It has also told the Committee that it had learned lessons about consulting London Boroughs on the routes. It reported that at the same time as considering local opinion it also needed to consider its own analysis of where there was most demand for cycling.100 TfL had to be pragmatic and practical. It needed to deliver the cycle superhighways in good time, at reasonable cost, whilst balancing the needs of all road users. It would never satisfy everybody.101 The Committee welcomes TfL's steps to improve its consultation with relevant organisations, especially London Boroughs, on the routes of the cycle superhighways. Local opinion is only one of a range of factors that TfL needs to take into account when developing the routes. Yet greater involvement of people who know the areas through which the cycle superhighways run could help to deliver safer routes which are used by more cyclists. There should also be scope to revisit the pilot cycle superhighway routes and make changes where there are major problems for cyclists. More additional "soft" measures such as cycle parking Many organisations have been positive about the additional "soft" measures which are part of the cycle superhighways scheme. The London Borough of Southwark reported that a lasting legacy from the cycle superhighways will be the funding for cycle parking on housing estates along CS7 and for promotional events.102 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets commented that the additional marketing and awareness-raising activities seem to have increased use of CS3.103 The London Borough of Merton suggested there should be more training and led-cycle rides to encourage new cyclists.104 The provision of more cycle parking is important. One-third of respondents to the Committee's survey rated the availability of cycle parking spaces as bad or very bad. This reinforces the findings of the Committee's report, *Stand and Deliver: cycle parking in London* (June 2009). It highlighted the need for more cycle parking on-street and in new developments. One respondent to the Committee's survey commented: "I cycle to work along the Barclays cycle superhighway to work in the Barclays building in Canary Wharf where there is not enough cycle parking! Oh, the irony." TfL is seeking to deliver 66,000 new cycle parking spaces by 2012.105 This is welcome but it may not be enough. The advent of the cycle superhighways and other initiatives to promote cycling may see the demand for cycle parking grow. It will be important to ensure any new cycle parking is located in the right places. London Councils has expressed concern that once all the cycle superhighways are completed there could be very significant numbers of cyclists arriving in the same parts of London at the same time. It wants TfL to ensure there is more cycle parking where cycle superhighways terminate.106 The additional "soft" measures which are part of the cycle superhighways scheme, particularly the provision of cycle parking, are important. There is insufficient cycle parking in London. The Committee urges the Mayor and TfL to do more to increase the amount of cycle parking delivered through the scheme. This needs to be located in areas of greatest demand including where cycle superhighways terminate. Developing the cycle superhighways The Committee has received suggestions for developing the cycle superhighways. These include extending their length, integrating them with other roads and cycle routes and building new cycle superhighways. Many would like to see the cycle superhighways integrated in central London. The City of Westminster has commented that they should "join up across the centre and not merely leave cyclists on the periphery."107 Gina Harkell of the London Borough Cycling Officers' Group described the routes not meeting up in central London as a big failure.108 The London Cycling Campaign has suggested this matter could be addressed by introducing a 'Bike Grid'. This would involve some minor highway intervention measures on 6-8 central London roads to improve journeys made by bikes.109 TfL has reported that it has not linked the cycle superhighways in the centre because of the huge dispersal from the routes. It could, though, look at the London Cycling Campaign's proposal for a 'Bike Grid.110 The Committee would like to hear from the Mayor and TfL on any further steps that could be taken to develop the cycle superhighways. They should explore the scope to develop a 'Bike Grid' which could join together the cycle superhighways in central London by providing improved conditions for cyclists on some central London roads. Next steps The Committee wants the cycle superhighways to deliver an increase in cycling. They should be used by more Londoners who have never cycled before. The Committee has identified a number of issues which it would like to see addressed to ensure this happens. It would like the Mayor and TfL to provide a response on these matters. ## Recommendation 2 By March 2011 the Mayor and TfL should report back to the Committee on all the issues it has raised in this report in relation to the cycle superhighways. Their report should include: a) The action taken to ensure a greater level of consistency in the highway features introduced on the cycle superhighways which benefit cyclists; b) Their plans to increase all road users' understanding and awareness of the cycle superhighways; c) The changes which have been, or may be, made to improve problematic sections on the existing pilot cycle superhighway routes; d) How London Boroughs and other relevant organisations including the London Cycling Campaign have been involved in the development of the routes of the future cycle superhighways; e) The potential to increase the amount of cycle parking delivered through the scheme; and f) Any proposals to develop the cycle superhighways further including by joining them up in central London through the creation of a 'Bike Grid'. ## Conclusion The Committee welcomes the introduction of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways. These schemes have an important role to play in increasing cycling in London. They are central to the Mayor's aspiration for a "cycling revolution." The Committee's review has highlighted great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme. This initiative has captured people's imagination and generated great interest in cycling. The Committee has found some issues in relation to the early implementation of the scheme which, if addressed, could help improve its operation and build on its initial popularity. By contrast, the Committee has found far less enthusiasm from new cyclists for the cycle superhighways. Many are concerned about safety and a lack of respect from other road users when using the cycle superhighways. There is clearly a need to learn lessons from the pilot routes before the roll-out of more cycle superhighways. There is a need to modify the approach to developing the future routes and to improve their features to ensure they are much safer and more attractive for new cyclists. This report has set out a number of issues in relation to the cycle superhighways which the Committee would like to see addressed. The Committee looks forward to receiving a response from the Mayor and TfL to the matters raised in this report by 1 March 2011. It will continue to monitor the impact of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways. It will also undertake more detailed scrutiny of the Mayor's cycling policies and programmes in due course. The Committee welcomes receiving any responses and feedback to this report by 1 March 2011. ## Appendix 1 - Details Of This Review The Committee provided an opportunity for users of the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways to complete an online survey between September and October 2010. This was completed by 1,297 people. Three-quarters of respondents were male (76 per cent) and almost half (42 per cent) were 30-39 years old. The majority had their own bike (84 per cent). Around two-thirds (762) had registered for the cycle hire scheme; just over half (701) had used the superhighways. The 'raw' data from the survey is being published alongside this report as well as a summary of the main survey findings. The Committee has received over 100 written submissions from members of the public and various organisations. The organisations included: TfL, Serco, London Cycling Campaign, London Borough Officers' Cycling Group, London Councils, London Boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Hounslow, Islington, Wandsworth, Havering and Hackney, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, City of Westminster, Sustrans and Wheels for Wellbeing. The Committee held a meeting on 12 October 2010 when it heard from, and questioned, representatives of TfL, Serco, the London Cycling Campaign and the London Borough Cycling Officers Group. Following this meeting, the Committee wrote to TfL seeking further information, including on costs and funding for the schemes. TfL's response is set out overleaf. ## The Committee Undertook A Site Visit To Serco'S Operations Centre For The Cycle Hire Scheme On 22 November 2010. TfL's response on costs and funding of the schemes, 23 November 2010 Dear Val Transport Committee meeting on 12 October Thank you for your letter, which I received on 25 October. You requested some additional information which I have provided below: The amount of funding provided to Boroughs for cycle training relating to the Cycle Hire scheme and the number of people who have so far participated in this training. Funding for cycle training in support of the Cycle Hire and Cycle Superhighways schemes is provided either direct to the relevant Boroughs, or to businesses via the workplace measures programme. The funding available to Boroughs totals £802,940 and to businesses £581,000. The funding is intended to provide 17,500 hours of training, of which 1,362 hours have been completed to date. Many more are scheduled for completion over the next few months. What contribution the cycle hire scheme and superhighways are expected to make to the Mayor's target for 5 per cent of all journeys to be undertaken by bike by 2025 and what else is expected to contribute. To achieve the Mayor's target TfL is taking a targeted approach to unlock the cycling potential in London and to focus investment in the areas where it will have most effect. The Superhighways are one element designed to realise this potential, along with Cycle Hire (design to cater for short trips in central London) and Biking Boroughs (to encourage trips of less than 8km contained within inner and outer London to be made by bike rather than car). TfL plans for the Cycle Hire scheme to deliver 40,000 trips per day (once the scheme has been fully rolled out to casual users) and the Superhighways 120,000 trips per day once all routes have been introduced by 2015. The TfL Cycling Programme includes a number of additional projects and initiatives to encourage more people to cycle. These include:  Cycle Parking, Cycle Security Plan & Cycle Task Force - which we expect will lead to reduced bicycle theft, increased confidence in bike security measures and improved perception of bike security.  Implementation of the Cycle Safety Action Plan, Cycle Safety Campaign, Cycle/HGV Safety Campaign, London Freight Driver Training– we expect these will yield improved safety considerations for cyclists, increased awareness of safety by cyclists, reduced casualty rate among cyclists, improved perception of safety.  Cycle Training, Cycle Wayfinding initiatives - both contributing to improving cycling confidence.  Infrastructure projects (Cycle paths on the Transport for London Road Network, the Greenways111 programme, Olympic Cycle Routes) - which contribute to improved perception of the convenience of cycling and improved perception of the predictability and reliability of journey times).  Cycling promotion and marketing (e.g. Catch-up with a bicycle112) - which are key to improving the image of cycling and raising its profile within London, as well as increasing the number of new cyclists. Details of any action TfL has taken or will take to improve the telephone helpline so users of the cycle hire scheme who call whilst using the cycles get quicker responses. In the first 26 days after opening, Serco's Cycle Hire contact centre had received over 58,000 calls, averaging around 2,200 calls per day. This far exceeded the volume anticipated. We worked closely with Serco to ensure additional staff were recruited, to drive down call waiting times. Whilst TfL will continue to monitor Serco's performance in this regard, we are assured of their progress: average call answering times in October were around 16 seconds, as compared to 79 seconds in August. A list of boroughs which TfL has been in contact with about possible expansion of the cycle hire scheme. TfL engaged with the following boroughs about the future of the scheme, both in terms of intensifying the existing zone and expanding the scheme.  City of London  City of Westminster  London Borough of Camden  London Borough of Hackney  London Borough of Islington  Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea  London Borough of Lambeth  London Borough of Southwark  London Borough of Tower Hamlets  The Royal Parks TfL announced on 10 November that the Cycle Hire scheme would be extended from Olympia in the west to Bow in the east. Residents living in Bethnal Green, Bow, Canary Wharf, Mile End and Poplar will have access to docking stations. You included a number of questions in the appendix to your letter, including the total capital cost for Cycle Hire and the annual operational cost for Phase 1 of the scheme. The total implementation cost for Phase 1 of the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme is expected to be £79 million. Annual operating costs are currently around £18m per annum. These costs are offset by sponsorship funding from Barclays of £25m over five years, and by revenue from membership fees and hire charges, which are expected to amount to around £18.7m in 2011/12, once the scheme has been fully rolled out to casual users. It is on this basis that TfL believes the scheme will break even 'within three years'. As requested we have also updated the tables included in your appendix, and these are attached. Finally you requested a breakdown of expenditure on the expansion of the Cycle Hire scheme, which you suggested was more than £100m. This is incorrect; the scheme is expected to require £45m of funding, over a six year period. The scheme is required to require around £30m of funding to implement with operational costs over a six year period amounting to around £15m. I look forward to the Committee's report, David Brown Managing Director - Surface Transport Original estimates Cycle Hire Scheme - phase 1 TfL's expenditure on the scheme £73m - £54.1m total project cost plus £23m for internal costs of which £10m for staff. Income from fares £119.4m over 7 years - £13m in one year; £18m p.a. thereafter. Income from sponsorship £8.1m over 7 years - - - Demand 30,000 journeys/day in year one; 40,000 journeys p/day p.a. thereafter. 400 344 400 400 Docking Stations Bicycles 6,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 10,200 8,182 10,000 10,000 Docking points Schemes in operation Member & Casual Cycle Superhighways Estimated Actual to date £23m £14.72m £20.89m* £20.89m Expenditure on Pilots £145m £2.33m £15.48m** £145m Expenditure on the Remaining Routes Funding from Barclay' sponsorship * Contracts have not yet been closed ** Subject to programming TfL's sponsorship agreement with Barclays provides £25m of funding over a five year period (equating to £5m each year), providing TfL meets Key Performance Indicators, such as the number of trips generated through the cycle hire scheme. Actual to date Expected at end of March 2011 Assumptions for each remaining year of the contract with Serco phase 1 £46.3m £79m (phase 1 only) Operating costs are expected to amount to £18m for the remainder of the contract £1.9m £18.7m £18.7m 15,178 journeys/day 27,000 journeys/day 40,000 journeys p/day p.a. Member & Casual Member Member & Casual (by end of 2010) Expected at end of March 2011 Expected upon completion of all 12 Superhighways in 2015 - - - - ## Appendix 2 - Orders And Translations How to order For further information on this report or to order a copy, please contact Laura Warren, Scrutiny Manager, on 020 7983 6545 or email: laura.warren@london.gov.uk See it for free on our website You can also view a copy of the report on the GLA website: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports Large print, braille or translations If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of this report in large print or braille, or a copy of the summary and main findings in another language, then please call us on: 020 7983 4100 or email: assembly.translations@london.gov.uk. Hindi Chinese Bengali Vietnamese Greek Urdu Arabic Turkish Gujarati Punjabi ## Appendix 3 - Principles Of Scrutiny An aim for action An Assembly scrutiny is not an end in itself. It aims for action to achieve improvement. Independence An Assembly scrutiny is conducted with objectivity; nothing should be done that could impair the independence of the process. Holding the Mayor to account The Assembly rigorously examines all aspects of the Mayor's strategies. Inclusiveness An Assembly scrutiny consults widely, having regard to issues of timeliness and cost. Constructiveness The Assembly conducts its reviews and investigations in a positive manner, recognising the need to work with stakeholders and the Mayor to achieve improvement. Value for money When conducting a scrutiny the Assembly is conscious of the need to spend public money effectively. ## Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458

en

4499-pdf

| Department Family | Entity | Date Paid | Expense Type | Expense Area | Supplier | Transaction Reference | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 TRUST MEDICAL PHYSICS | LAB EQUIP MAINT / REPAIRS | ABBOTT LABORATORIES LTD | 692960 | 40793.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 PACS (IT) | COMPUTER MAINTENANCE | ACCENTURE | 689624 | 69365.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE (DISTRIBUTION) LTD | 689208 | 45763.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 HISTOPATHOLOGY & CYTOLOGY TW | LABORATORY EQUIPMENT | A MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS | 686272 | 41782 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 689149 | 85528.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 689149 | 14742.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 690818 | 78480.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 690818 | 13042.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 690818 | 414.32 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 692366 | 87719.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 692366 | 13910.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 692368 | 2244.43 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP AGENCY CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 692368 | 34343.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 692368 | 2188.72 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 693984 | 80978.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 693984 | 12203.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 NHSP HOLDING ACCOUNT | NHSP BANK CONTROL | NHS PROFESSIONALS | 693984 | 174.94 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | BIO PRODUCTS LABORATORY | 28020 | 29762.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 KINGSDALE UNIT WAKEFIELD | COMMERCIAL SECTOR | BUPA CARE HOMES | 688257 | 81840 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 688306 | 2628.77 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 PFI ACCOUNTING | UNITARY PAYMENT | CONSORT HEALTHCARE (MID YORKSHIRE) LTD | 700337 | 3.47472e+06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY | COMPUTER SOFTWARE/LICENSE | DATA SEEKER LTD | 689665 | 49750 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 SITE ESTATES MANAGEMENT | MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE | DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE | 689259 | 278988 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 PGI UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 694825 | 38918.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 DDH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 694827 | 67195.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 694829 | 36.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 694829 | 87410.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 695414 | 74.71 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | ELECTRICITY | EDF ENERGY LTD | 695414 | 86364.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 EDMS PROJECT | EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS | EDM GROUP LTD | 687773 | 54636.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 EDMS PROJECT | EXTERNAL DATA CONTRACTS | EDM GROUP LTD | 695023 | 22158.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ELI LILLY & CO LTD | 693656 | 34560 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 CORPORATE CENTRAL COSTS | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | ERNST & YOUNG LLP | 690321 | 630000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 MYHT FINANCE TEAM | AUDIT FEES: EXT NON-STAT | GRANT THORNTON | 698875 | 31428.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | APPL CONTRACT | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 686249 | 6166.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 686249 | 78922.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 687938 | 6166.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 687938 | 78922.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 693324 | -78922.7 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 ORTHOTIC DEPARTMENT - PONTE. | PATIENTS APPLIANCES : PURCHASE | HUGH STEEPER LTD | 693324 | -6166.91 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 MRI SERVICE | INDEPENDENT SECTOR | INHEALTH LTD | 694939 | 57475 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONRES BLDG ADDS PURCHASED | JACKSON COULSON | 690177 | 29628.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 MYHT SUPPLIES TEAM | EXTERNAL CONSULTANCY FEES | LEEDS AND YORK PARTNERSHIP NHS FT | 26807 | 62500 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 NUCLEAR MEDICINE RECHARGES | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27710 | 27227.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 03/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27724 | 37587.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 CLINICAL HAEMATOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27938 | 552 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 ONCOLOGY TRUSTWIDE | CONSULTANT | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27938 | 36022.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 CARDIO RESP INVESTIGATIONS | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27985 | 5700 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 NUCLEAR MEDICINE RECHARGES | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27985 | 23297.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 27989 | 45978.2 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 GENERAL SURGERY - TRUSTWIDE | SENIOR LECTURER | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28000 | 55000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 PATHOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRUSTWIDE | LABORATORY EXTERNAL TESTS | LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 28080 | 43567.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 GENERAL OFFICE PGH | POSTAGE & CARRIAGE | NEOPOST LTD RCB CREDIFON A/C | 694503 | 25000 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 28003 | 37842.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 BLOOD SERVICE TRUSTWIDE | BLOOD PRODUCTS | NHS BLOOD AND TRANSPLANT | 28006 | 108091 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | CNST CONTRIBUTIONS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 28333 | 1.04318e+06 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | INSURANCE COSTS | NHS LITIGATION AUTHORITY | 28334 | 35396 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES | CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT | NHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD | 28336 | 175008 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES | CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT | NHS PROPERTY SERVICES LTD | 28337 | 175008 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 27906 | 151675 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 27915 | 50363.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28016 | 61599.8 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 13/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28017 | 158786 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28119 | 67696.59 | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------|------------| | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28120 | 166140 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28175 | 56493.4 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | NONNHS TRADE CR < 1 YR | NHS SUPPLY CHAIN | 28176 | 99098.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 ULTRASOUND | AGENCY PROF & TECH | NORTHERN MEDICAL ULTRASOUND | 694820 | 37686 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS UK LTD | 692495 | 80228.5 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 11/09/2013 SLEEP SERVICE | GENERAL MATERIALS | PHILIPS RESPIRONICS | 687885 | 58044.1 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 A&E PGH & PGI | GENERAL PRACTITIONERS | PRIMECARE | 694293 | 37200 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 18/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | STOCKS FINISHED GOODS | ROCHE PRODUCTS LTD | 693649 | 244464 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 ESTATES - HEALTH CENTRES | CONTR ESTATE MANAGEMENT | SOUTH WEST YORKSHIRE PARTNERSHIP NHS FT | 28325 | 49844 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 MYHT LOSSES AND COMPS | PERSONAL INJURY | SUSAN SNOW | 29658 | 55285 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 30/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | UNISON | 29645 | 71364.9 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 05/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | RATES | WAKEFIELD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCIL | 686578 | 229377 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 696825 | 30573.6 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 25/09/2013 PGH UTILITIES & RATES | WATER | YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LTD | 696825 | 450 | | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | THE MID YORKSHIRE HOSPITALS NHS TRUST | 23/09/2013 BALANCE SHEET | PAYROLL DED'NS N/S <1YR | EDENRED | 26303 | 47476.9 |

en

4764-pdf

## Procedures For Closure On Transfer First published: May 2016 Reviewed: March 2019 ## © Crown Copyright 2019 You may re-use this publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at governmentaudience@nationalarchives.gov.uk ## Contents Sensitivity review ........................................................................................................................... 3 Opening of records ........................................................................................................................ 5 Closed descriptions........................................................................................................................ 5 Statute bars ................................................................................................................................... 6 ## Sensitivity Review Departments should consider sensitivity review as an integral part of the transfer process, along with the appropriate policies and procedures for identifying exempt information and consulting with other bodies. Before records are transferred to The National Archives or an approved place of deposit, the transferring department must determine their access status (the sensitivity review). The purpose of the sensitivity review is to:  consider whether any information should be retained in the department instead of transferred to an archives service  consider whether any information should be closed on transfer because one or more Freedom of Information (FOI) exemptions apply  consider whether any exempt information should be released in the public interest regardless  confirm remaining information can also be released as no FOI exemptions apply If the sensitivity review identifies information which should not to be released to the public because one or more FOI exemptions apply, the department should prepare an application schedule identifying this information precisely, citing the relevant exemption(s), explaining why the information should not be released and identifying a date at which either release would be appropriate or the case for release should be reconsidered. Departments should consider whether parts of records might be released if the sensitive information were redacted. The process includes the following steps:  consulting internally to determine whether the record is likely to contain sensitive information  making an interim decision  consulting externally, as appropriate, including with The National Archives if closure is proposed  confirming or amending the closure decision and adding to the closure application When dealing with environmental information, the application should cite the appropriate exception in the Environmental Information Regulations. If section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is cited the relevant statute bar that prohibits disclosure should be cited. When making access decisions it is important to:  consider what security levels or classifications are on the record and whether these have short or long term implications  consider what personal information is contained within the record and whether it still should be closed given the passage of time  discuss closure with staff who are familiar with the records and any related sensitivity issues or legislative requirements  consider the access status of similar records in archives services The National Archives' closure application form is available online in both Word and Excel format and contains guidance notes and examples on completing the form. The closure application must be submitted to The National Archives for review and advice early in the process, as closure must be approved before records are transferred. The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (known as the Advisory Council) will consider the case for withholding the records for a longer period. The Advisory Council will respond as follows:  by accepting that the information may be withheld and earmarking the records for release or re-review at the date identified by the department  by accepting that the information may be withheld but asking the department to reconsider the date designated for release or re-review  by questioning the basis on which it is deemed the information may be withheld and asking the department to reconsider the case Where records are being transferred to The National Archives or a place of deposit ahead of the statutory deadline, and the intention is that they remain closed until they become historical records, or they are not public records, a similar application should be submitted prior to transfer explaining which exemption(s) apply and why. However, there is no formal review of these by the Advisory Council as it is not involved in the process. Agreement of one of the Directors at The National Archives is needed. ## Opening Of Records When an exemption has ceased to apply under section 63 of the FOIA, the records will automatically become available to members of the public on the day specified in the finalised schedule (this is the schedule reviewed by the Advisory Council and closure has been agreed). In other cases, if the department concerned wishes to extend the period during which the information is to be withheld in accordance with the FOIA, it should submit a further application explaining the continued sensitivity of the information. This should be done before the expiry of the period stated in the earlier schedule. The Advisory Council will then review the application in accordance with the process described above. Access restrictions can be withdrawn at any time if it becomes clear that the restriction is no longer appropriate. The relevant department should inform The National Archives if this is the case, but be aware that other bodies involved in the sensitivity review process for transferred records should also be consulted. ## Closed Descriptions It is recognised that on rare occasions a catalogue description may be considered exempt under FOI and should be withheld from the public until the record becomes open (for example, the names of victims of sexual assault). In such cases, the records involved should be catalogued in the ordinary way and departments should then indicate clearly on the transfer form the numbers of the records which are to have their descriptions withheld. The scope/content will not be added to the catalogue at The National Archives (although the archival reference will). The records will be held in secure conditions until the record(s) become open, at which point the full description will be added to the catalogue. It is preferable in the interim if some form of alternative to the full description can be displayed rather than leaving it completely blank, for example 'Mental Health hospital patient case paper, not full description, name withheld'. However, the record will still be displayed as a closed record with closed description until the full description is released. ## Statute Bars The release of certain information is prohibited by provisions contained in legislation (such as acts, rules, regulations, orders) known as statute bars. Usually such prohibitions apply to the collectors of information and cease to apply when they transfer the custody of the records to The National Archives, although the records may still be closed under other FOI exemptions. Some bars have time limits (sunset clauses) so that they do not apply to information over a specified age e.g. for the lifetimes of individuals concerned. When FOI was implemented the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) conducted a review of statute bars to see which statue bars were no longer required or whether their terms should be varied. Section 75 of the FOIA contains a power to repeal or amend statutory bars to access that existed before November 2000 by Order. Specifically, section 75 allows the Secretary of State to relax or remove aspects of laws that have a section 44 prohibition via a Statutory Instrument (SI). There has been one such SI to-date (SI 2004/3363).There remain some pieces of legislation that currently contain a permanent statute bar on the disclosure of information, even following a transfer of custody of the records to The National Archives. The existence of such prohibitions does not exempt those organisations responsible for public records from statutory obligations under the Public Records Act 1958 (PRA). Under the PRA arrangements must still be made for the selection of those records which should be permanently preserved, and for the safe-keeping of records until they are disposed of through a transfer of custody or destruction. The National Archives does not collect public records to which there is no defined timeframe for public access. Those records deemed worthy of permanent preservation should be retained by the responsible organisation with the agreement of the Secretary of State if required until such time as a transfer can occur. This would be facilitated by the addition of a sunset clause by the legislative owners. It is the responsibility of those retaining such records to initiate this contact with the support of The National Archives.

en